HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - Congress.gov

5500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1957

The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,

D. D., offered the following prayer: Eternal God, our Father, inspire us

during this day with a faith that is vivid and victorious.

Grant that our faith, in its simplest motive and manifestation, may never be merely a formal creed and a ceremonial but a life of sanctity and service.

Fill us with an earnest desire to help mankind enjoy a free and fruitful life.

Deliver us from all cold and cynical tempers of mind and may we not be indifferent to the needs of others.

May we have Thy forgiveness for being so lacking in the spirit of charity and considerateness.

Bless us with the grace of sympathy and understanding, of friendship and kindness.

Hear us in Christ's name. Amen.

•

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT A message in writing from the Presi

dent of the United States was communicated to the House by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

ARMY SHAKES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE Mr. MAHON. 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 Texas!'

There was no objection. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to

read from this morning's front page of the Washington Post and Times Herald the following: "Army Offers Congressmen Free Trip to Louisville on Weekend of Derby-No Race Tickets, Brucker 'Regrets.'"

The proposed trip is a minor thing, and I readily agree that all Members of Congress should be as well advised as possible in regard to defense operations. But the implications of the invitation are vastly different from that. I complain as a matter of principle.

During the hearings on the defense bill this year I have repeatedly warned our military and civilian leaders that every effort should be made to eliminate waste and run the defense program in a sound and economical way-in a way that would inspire the confidence of the Congress and the country.

I warned that the American people were getting more and more restive over high Government spending and that the defense budget might be slashed too deep for safety if there should be a recurrence of the revulsion against wasteful military management which swept the country after World War II and was largely responsible for bringing the defense program to the unsafe levels which existed just prioi· to the Korean war.

Apparently, my modest advice-my approach through friendly persuasionhas not caught on with the Army. This seductive Army bobble could possibly cost the Army $100 million in reduced appropriation; and a frequent repetition of this sort of bad taste, with aggravated incidents here and there, could cost the Defense Department billions and imperil over the long pull the security of the United States.

No doubt the Army considers this good public relations with Congress, but it is not. And it ought to be obvious to the most naive that it is mighty bad public relations with about 170 million plain Americans, most of whom are clamoring for economy and good management in the Government.

No, the Army has not committed ~ great sin. No doubt, the Army thought that this latest move was quite clever in courting Congressional support. I am afraid some of the non elected officials of the Government have failed to gage the present mood and temper of about 170 million Americans, most of whom are on the warpath against waste and ine:fficiency in Government.

If the leaders of the Armed Forces are going to expect Members of Congress to handle effectively the arduous bur- . dens incident to defense appropriations, they had better keep their houses in order. They should shun the very appearance of evil. They should have, and they should merit the confidence of the Congress and the country, and they should avoid doing those things which tend to inflame the Congress and the country at a time when we are in the serious business of trying to maintain an adequate defense program and reduce Government spending in every proper way.

I have the highest respect for our civilian and military leaders, and I make these comments in a spirit of helpfulness and good will.

PERMISSION TO SIT DURING SESSION OF HOUSE

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Mack Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce may sit during general debate in the House this afternoon.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

YOUTH OF THE YEAR Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

I am happy to announce to the House the selection of John Williams, Jr., a young constituent of mine and a senior in the Hyde Park High School in the district that I have the honor to represent, as "Youth of the Year" by the B'nai B'rith of Chicago. He rated top honor

among 1,300 students entered from schools, park districts and churches. He was awarded a $500 scholarship and will enroll at the University of Illinois.

Mr. Williams is of the NegTo race. He was entered in this important city-wide contest by vote of the entire student body of a great high school attended in about equal numbers by young men and women of both races. Hyde Park is proud of John Williams, Jr. I can assure Mr. Williams and the faculty and student body of Hyde Park that their Congressman is happy and proud to represent a district where the sole measure of people is that of worth and character.

STATE DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL

Mr. GROSS. 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 Iowa?

There was no objection. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday

the majority leader announced that the State Department appropriation bill would be called up on Tuesday of next week. It is my understanding that no bill has been reported out of the committee, that the committee will meet on Friday for that purpose. In other words, Saturday will probably be the first opportunity the Members of the House will have to obtain a copy of the committee bill to study and determine whether they want to offer amendments, prepare amendments, and so forth.

I urge that the leadership on both sides of the aisle put off consideration of the State Department appropriation bill until after the Easter recess. If it is called up next week, consideration will be had on Tuesday, Wednesday, and perhaps Thursday of next week, and that could result in a postponement of the plans of many Members to get out of Washington for the Easter recess. I urge the leadership on both sides of the aisle to postpone consideration of tha ~ bill until after the Easter recess.

REPORT OF SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR AVIATION FACILITIES PLANNING-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES <H. DOC. N0.150) 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:

Widespread attention has been drawn to the need for vigorous action to advance the safety and convenience of the public a.nd military agencies engaged in air travel and air operations. On March l, 1956, I appointed a Special Assistant for Aviation Facilities Planning, and directed him to develop comprehensive proposals for meeting the Nation's needs for air traffic control and air navigation facilities.

1957, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5501 I transmit herewith an interim re

port prepared by my Special Assistant for Aviation Facilities Planning. This report sets forth the gravity of our present and anticipated air traffic problems. It also proposes the establishment of an Airways Modernization Board and explains the manner in which it will func:. ti on.

The Director of the Bureau of the Budget is transmitting to the Congress draft legislation to establish the Airways Modernization Board. This· measure will greatly expedite the improvement of air traffic control and air navigation and I there! ore urge its early enactment.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, April 11, 1957.

INTERIM REPORT OF SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR AVIATION FACILITIES PLANNING, APRIL 1, 1957 Shortly after assuming the duties of Spe

cial Assistant for Aviation Facilities Planning last year, the facts on our air traffic in the United States began to pour into my office. The alarm which has been voiced in the past from many sources is, in fact, supported by evidence that our airways and terminals are subject to increasing congestion.

Over 65 ,000 aircraft hours are flown daily in the United States. We have counted, with the aid of radars, as many as 220 aircraft flying at one time in the vicinity of a major city. Many thousands of military jets mingle in the mixed traffic of our. airways and serve to accept the dangers of "see and be seen" rules. The pilot needs assistance if he is to cope with the great increase in aircraft speed and if the danger of collisions is to be minimized.

The present situation is perhaps no more startling than the extraordinary growth in air traffic which the public desires and the economy will support in . the future.

In 1946, only . 6 billion passenger miles were flown in the United States by the airlines. In 1956, this had mushroomed to 2·0 billion passenger miles. My studies show that this figure will be approximately 70 billion in 1975. In · addition, the present 61,000 private United States aircraft will exceed 100,000 in 1975.

Clearly, the safety and convenience of the public now and in the future require more sophisticated and energetic efforts to reduce the hazard and delay in the Nation's air traffic. The Federai Government must lead and support this effort. The present vigorous program of the Civil Aeronautics Administration to expand its existing facilities using known tecpi;iiques is highly commend·able and deserves our· full support. Its full energies will be needed to accomplish this. The specific proposal of ,legislation attached to this report in no way affects the operational measures which the Civil Aeronautics Administration intends to carry out.

I have searched thoroughly for the basic causes of our airways problems and one in particular has emerged sharply: The military and civil agencies in the Federal Government which control and. expedite air traffic are not provided systems accepti;i,ble to them with which to modernize their operations. Acceptability depends, in large part, on joint test and evaluation by civil and military pilots and ground controllers.

The Government ca.n take steps to solve this problem now, and I respectfully attach a draft bill which proposes legislation to do it. Therefore, I wish to explain this problem and its solution, ·which is urgently needed. This is the · purpose of the interim report.

A search was first made to determine why aggre_i:;sive efforts have not been made in the past decade to modernize the systems and methods used to assist our · air' traffic. I

found that there was no lack of scien title ideas. In fact, an overabundance of electronic systems have been developed in the laboratories to improve our terminal and en route operations. Most of these have been shelved and never used. The key to this dilemma may be found in the organizational arrangements in the executive branch which are intended to set the goals, to develop, and to select the systems and methods which will meet these goals.

The problem of modernizing the airways was clearly recognized in 1948 as one which required urgent action. The actions taken then have not been effective. The Government attempted to resolve the technical confiicts in air traffic control at that time by creating the Air Navigation Development Board. This Board was established by an interagency agreement between the Departments of Defense and Commerce. Many excellent men have bent their efforts toward making it work. However, the statutory authority of each of the two agencies and the clouding of the air traffic control problem by an understandable concentration on agency missions have made the Board far less effective than anticipated. There being just two voting members on it, all actions have requtred unanimous agreement. This Board of two members, without legal status and without control of its own funds, has been unable to bring sufficient authority, decision, or clear objectives to bear on air traffic problems.

In addition, there are several Government and industry committees which have deliberated constantly in the past 10 years on the goals and the techniques for air traffic control and air navigation. In spite of the usual difficulties of committee action, they have produced, in the past, some useful ad vice. However, there has been no one agency with · specific authority and capability for them to advise.

The determination of our goals, and the selection of systems and methods for controlling our air traffic, has been dangerously slow. It cannot be expedited by committee and interagency coordination. This was not recognized 10 years ago, and today we find our air ·traffic system antiquated and understrength.

The rapid, continuing growth of aviation foretells future conditions which demand a new element of decision making now, a more modern organizational structure to evaluate and select our air traffic system of the future.

This shortcoming has been recognized and separated from · many other organizational problems in aviation. The nature of its remedy and the urgency of need has prompted me to prepare a draft bill and clear it with the interested executive departments. This bill is intended for the use of Congress in creating an Airways Modernization Board. The Chairman would be appointed by the President, and would have no affiliations with existing Government agencies. The Departments of Commerce and Defense would each supply one member to the Board, in view of their basic interest in its activities.

The Airways Modernization Board, as an independent agency, would be responsible for developing and consolidating the requirements for future systems which are needed to provide the necessary communications, navigational aids, and control needed to accommodate the future air traffic in the United States. It would be responsible as well for the systems engineering, the · evaluatio_n, and the selection of such aids as will best serve the needs of aviation.

This bill recognizes that military and civil aviation share the same airspace. It recognizes that the selection of future systems and methods of control of air traffic is a public action in the bro'adest sense. The Board is authorized to assemble military as

well as civil personnel to assist in conducting its affairs. The Board is likewise expected to arrange for satisfactory and equitable advice from the users of aircraft and the engineering talents of industry. In other words, the Board will conduct a joint analysis, test, and selection activity which recognizes that the national system must accommodate the civil and military air traffic in peace or war.

The overall system is an essential part of our national defense against air attack. It likewise must respond to the growing demands of public need. These apparently different requirements have not been subject to resolution by the committee conference methods which have been used. Therefore, the Board is expected to engage in extensive tests and experimentation in the field, where the intricate problems of procedure and equipment can be tried, and the pilots and traffic controllers can experiment together, bringing the skills of science to bear, and to resolve their problems. This Board, with an impartial chairman, will then be able to arrive at decisions and specify the most advantageous systems from an economic, operational, and technical point of view.

It is intended that this Board will specify new systems which will best serve the needs of all air navigation and traffic control to the interested military and civil agencies. It is not intended that the Board will have the authority to develop or procure the final ground or airborne equipments to be used in operations.

The Airways Modernization Board is proposed as an interim organization to estab· lish a point of responsibility for system development and selection. At present, this kind of activity is scattered throughout the two principal agencies. This bill is proposed in order to consolidate this activity and to initiate the joint test and evaluation work which is so urgently needed if this country is to avoid an increase in delay and hazard to air traffic.

The functions which the Board will perform are entirely in consonance with the considerations being given to a broader change in Federal Government organization for aviation matters. In my final report, I intend to cover the broader plan. However, it is now clear that much more thorough examination needs to be undertaken in order to achieve a durable permanent organization. To recommend such in final form too quickly might result in improvisations which would complicate or delay the expected action necessary to accommodate the civil and military needs of aviation in the future.

Consequently, the Airways Modernization Boar9. is proposed as the _most expeditious and effective way to commence the longrange improvement of our air traffic systems. Its tenure of 3 years is proposed as sufficient to establish the permanent functions of joint test, evaluation, and selection of air-traffic systems. This period of time likewise will permit the executive branch to plan further organizatio:t~al adjustments into which the functions of this new Board will logically fit.

Respectfully submitted. Eow ARD p. CURTIS.

DECLARING THAT AN UNSIGNED PAPER IS NOT A PROPER INSTRUMENT WITH WHICH NOTICE COULD BE GIVEN TO CONTEST THE SEAT OF THE RETURNED MEMBER FROM THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Speaker, by di

rection of the Committee on House Administration I call up a resolution in

5502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11

connection with House Document No. 53 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read as follows: House Resolution 230

Resolved, That it would be unwise and dangerous for the House of Representatives to recognize an unsigned paper as being a valid and proper instrument with which notice may be given to contest the seat of a returned Member.

2. That the unsigned paper by which attempt was made to give notice to contest the election of the returned Member from the Sixth Congressional District of the State of Iowa to the 85th Congress is not the notice required by the Revised Statutes of the United States, title II, chapter 8, section 105.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

SYNOPSIS OF BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO VETERANS

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 199) and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: Re~lved, That there be printed 60,000 ad

ditional copies of the Synopsis of Benefits Available to Veterans and Their Dependents prepared by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs during the 85th Congress, of which 30,000 copies shall be for the use of that committee and 30,000 copies shall be prorated to the Members of the House of Representatives for a period of 6 months, after which time the unused balance shall revert to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

With the following committee amendment3:

Line 1, strike out after the word "printed." Line 2, strike out through the word "fifty"

and insert "sixty." Line 4, strike out "that committee" and

insert in lieu thereof "the Committee on Veterans' Affairs."

Line 5, after the word "Congress'', insert s~micolon and the following: "of which thirty thousand copies shall be for the use of that committee and thirty thousand copies ' shall be prorated to the Members of the House of Representatives for a period of 6 months, after which time the unused balance shall revert to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs."

The committee· amendments were agreed to.

The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY INVESTIGATION

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged resolution <S. Con. Res. 13) and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives- concurring), That there be printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 2,000 additional copies of the hearings held by the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly on June 21, 26, 27, 29, 30, July

3 and 5, 1956, on bills to amend section 2 of the Clayton Act.

The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was· laid on

the table.

ADDITIONAL MAILING CLERK Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, by di

rection of the Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged resolution <H. Res. 219) and ask for its immediate consideration.


Resolved, That, effective April 1, 1957, there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House, until otherwise provided by law, compensation for the employment of one additional mail clerk, Office of the Postmaster, at the basic salary of $2,100 per annum.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, will the ·gentleman yield so that I can ask a question of the gentleman from Maryland?

Mr. BURLESON. I yield. Mr. MARTIN. I understand this pro

vides an extra postal clerk because of the increased post office business in the House; is that correct?

Mr. FRIEDEL. Yes. Mr. MARTIN. The gentleman feels it

is necessary to put on an additional carrier. Now, does the gentleman not believe that perhaps, in a way, this could justify the Postmaster General in also expanding his service to the people of the country.

·· Mr. FRIEDEL. Well, this does not have anything to do with Saturdays. This is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or any other day.

Mr. MARTIN. Do you mean for Saturday?

Mr. FRIEDEL. Well, Friday, then. Mr. MARTIN. I am not going to ob

ject to this, because the House postmaster thinks it is necessary and it probably is, but I also think that the country at large is also forced into the situation where they need additional help and, of course, we must provide the cash if the services are to be maintained.

Mr. BOYLE. Well, I think it is a matter of timing. You probably feel it is about time.

Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to say to the gentleman, from .testimony before the committee, we were led to believe that the reason for this was all this mail coming in asking to cut the President's budget.

Mr. MARTIN. That shows the interest of the country in economy and also shows the need for more money for the postal service.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a little confusion as to which resolution is before the House. The remarks made are pertinent to the resolution which will be offered subsequent to the one we are considering now. I trust that it will be placed in proper order. Those remarks would be applicable to the next resolution. I am sure the minority leader had some question about that.

Mr. MARTIN. Have we agreed on the post office carrier matter?

Mr. SPEAKER . . That is· what is up now.

Mr. MARTIN. I do not want to speak any further on this bill.



table.

INVESTIGATIONS BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, by di

rection of the Committee on House Administration, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read ·as follows: House Resolution 191

Resolved, That House Resolution 152, 85th Congress, agreed to February 7, 1957, is hereby amended by striking "$100,000," and inserting "$350,000."

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LECOMPTE].

Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, this is a privileged resolution, of course; and as such the gentleman from Texas EMr. BURLESON] very properly has control of ·an the time and any amendment that would be offered would be at the direction or discretion of the gentleman from Texas.

I have had compiled some figures on the amount of money expended for investigations. The present resolution provides for an increase of $250,000 for the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. That committee on February 7 was given $100,000. It is now proposed to increase that to $350,-000. Here is something that surely is of interest to all Members of the House. The House of the 85th Congress has already authorized expenditures of more than $2 % million for investigations. This Congress is only a little over 3 months old. Undoubtedly there will be considerable additional money requested for investigations. Probably by far the greater part of the money that will be needed has already been authorized, but it would be strange, indeed, if we did not have to have some additional money for some of the committees that are conducting investigations. This sum of $2,-569,500 is somewhat more than all of the money that was expended for investigations in the 83d Congress. I do not have before me figures as to other previous Congresses, but prior to the 83d Congress I am certain that the amounts were substantially less.

In the 83d Congress there were special committees and special investigations on conditions in the Baltic States; investigation of tax-exempt foundations; investigation of campaign expenditures; and so forth. But the total amount then expended still is not as much as the amount that we have already authorized up to this time in the 85th Congress.

I submit to the membership of the House that it looks as though we are going pretty far in the matter of spending money for investigations.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5503 I feel that we could give the Commit

tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce an added amount of perhaps $100,000 and if we find good use has been made of it and more is needed for needed investigations, we could consider another authorization from the contingent fund of the House.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, in that regard I think it should be pointed out that appropriations made to most of the standing committees of the House cover the 2 years of the 85th Congress. Certainly, it is contemplated that in the second session it will not be necessary to appropriate money to many, if any, of these committees.

Mr. LECOMPTE. That statement is manifestly true, but it would be surprising, indeed, if we did not have to provide additional money for some of the committees.

Mr. BURLESON. It might be inflation; inflation is taking hold of everything. Everything is more expensive. It would seem that these studies and investigations are also more expensive.

Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, I understand that all members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce felt that this money was needed for investigations. I was in hopes that we might appropriate about half that much at this time, and, as they get along with their investigations, we could give them more money later on if it was needed. That was my feeling.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, as I recall, with 29 out of 31 members present, voted unanimously to request the Committee on House Administration to provide these funds.

I think the term the committee has used is a "study" of the various agencies of Government referred to on the floor rncently as created by actions of Congress. These include the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and others. I think the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS], has defined the scope of the study as clearly as it is possible to do at present. It is necessarily general at the time, but I am convinced that the sum they have requested, in view of the pattern of the operation they contemplate, is in reason and a modest sum for the undertaking, which necessarily must be done by experts in these various fields.

Mr. LECOMPTE. . It is a difficult matter, of course, for the gentleman's committee to refuse funds when the House has voted for investigation and study. I only thought the funds were just a little more than necessary to begin with, inasmuch as the committee has already had $100,000.

Mr. BURLESON. I may say to the gentleman in that respect that it is always easy to stand up here and say that it is the duty of the Committee on House Administration to determine how much money is needed for these inquiries and investigations, since such studies have already been authorized by

the House and gone through the Rules Committee. In this instance it is an amendment to the original request for $100,000. Therefore, I feel that we have an obligation to justify this operation as well as to show justification for funds to carry out its purpose.

Mr. LECOMPTE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURLESON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Does the Committee on Government Operations not have these various departments, agencies, bureaus, and so on, under scrutiny?

Mr. BURLESON. That question was discussed thoroughly in the committee. There was a difference of opinion about it. The Committee on Government Operations, as the gentleman knows, assumes very broad jurisdiction. I shall not attempt to define or identify its authority but generally the Committee on Government Operations concerns itself with the physical operation of the various agencies of Government as to the expenditure of funds, how they are used, and for whf!.t, but, as I understand the intent of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, they expect to inquire into the policy and the operation of these various commissions to determine whether or not as of today they are following the intent of the Congress. This woulc necessitate the committee's going back to the original laws to determine if these commissions, which are the creatures of the Congress, are by fiat superseding their authority, or creating law by their own orders and regulations.

Mr. GROSS. Can the gentleman tell me how much the Committee on Government Operations has been allowed so far this year?

Mr. BURLESON. As I recall, a little over half a million dollars; $575,000, I believe.

Mr. GROSS. Five hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars?

Mr. BURLESON. I believe that is correct.

Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman not think there will be duplication of effort as between these two committees?

Mr. BURLESON. It is entirely possible there will be some duplication. At the same time, I certainly feel that we can trust our colleagues not to duplicate efforts in this or any other undertaking of this nature. It should simply be a matter of committee chairmen conferring and agreeing on a mutual goal. I think that will be done in this instance.

Mr. GROSS. Is the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce going to investigate natural-gas rates and pipelines; is it going to have anything to do with that matter?

Mr. BURLESON. I think they intend to look into the operation of the Federal Power Commission. I have no knowledge of the specifics.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURLESON. I am glad to yield to our Speaker.

Mr. RAYBURN. I might say this with reference to the question of overlapping.

The Committee on Government Operations has done some wonderful work on some of these matters. But it does not feel that it is the proper function of that committee to go into it like the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce would. The chairman of that committee has agreed to turn over all the facts and information that have been developed by his committee to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. I might say, as I have said on the floor before, and I know Members have heard me say this-I served on the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce when it worked on and developed practically all the laws that are proposed to be investigated. It goes back a good way. I have been here at the bir~ of every commission and every board in this Government except the Interstate Commerce Commission-that was in 1887. It goes back to the Wilson, Harding, and Coolidge administrations, and so forth, down to this very time. As I said on the floor a while ago, I do believe it will be truly 'in the interest of public service and in the interest of the people of the United States if this very capable committee, and it is one of the most capable in the House of Representatives, has the opportunity to go into these matters and see whether or not the laws have been faithfully executed and whether or not administratively some of these laws or the intent of some of these laws are being disregarded. I have heard such complaints many times. The Interstate Commerce Commission Act came out of this Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The Federal Power Act came out of that committee, the Federal Trade Act came out of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the Federal Communications Act came out of that great committee. The Securities and Exchange Commission Act came out of that committee. The Securities Act of 1933 and the Stock Exchange and Regulation Act of 1934 came out of that committee. The Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 came out of that committee. They all came out of this great committee. If there is a committee in the Congress, a committee capable as a result of the work they have been doing, capable of making a thorough investigation of these laws and the execution of the laws administratively, certainly it is the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.


Mr. BURLESON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. The distinguished Speaker is a persuasive speaker, as he demonstrated yesterday. He has ji;.st about convinced me that perhaps this appropriation ought to go through, but the amount of money certainly ought to be reduced. r

Mr. RAYBURN. Mention has been made of the amount of money involved. Other committees of the House of Representatives have had equal or greater amounts. This is going to be a very technical matter. Under the leadership of such men as the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON] who sat in

5504 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11

on that committee during most of my to the inevitable. But I warn you it will At the present time there are many inservice on the committee and during all be a devastating blow to the economy stances when expensive specialists are the years of my chairmanship, and who drive. Economy for others but not when required in order that .the rights and was one of the most helpful men on the it concerns ourselves. privileges of citizens having business with committee to me in the enactment of Mr. BURLESON. Let me say that I these agencies are properly protected. It these laws. These two men and the com- hope this fund will prove to be a real is my hope that, under the proposed inmittee, in my opinion, will do a great job investment in economy. ·I hope ways will vestigations, the various procedures will and it will be worth every dollar that be found to straighten out some of the be simplified. this investigation is supposed to cost. I ramifications of administrative proce- I should also like to point out, Mr. hope the resolution will pass and that dures in these many bureaus, boards, Speaker, that these funds are being rethis committee may move forward in a and departments, reducing detail, com- quested as the result of unanimous vote field which I think ought to be looked manly known as redtape, resulting in by the Members of both the majority and into. saving, both to individual citizens who minority side~ of the Committee on In-

Mr. BURLESON. I thank our distin- use them, as well as expense to the Gov- terstate and Foreign Commerce in ap-guished Speaker. ernment itself. pearing before and in getting considera-

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, will the Mr. MARTIN. I suppose that could tion of their condition and situation gentleman yield? be said of any resolution that might be under these various public boards and

Mr. BURLESON. I am happy to yield proposed, that some good is hoped to bureaus activities under the general leg-to the disting•ished minority leader. come from it. islative jurisdiction of the Committee on

Mr. MARTIN. It is not my purpose to The question bothering the country at Interstate and Foreign Commerce. criticize the distinguished gentleman this time is, "Have we enough money to Mr. BURLESON. I appreciate the who heads the Committee on House Ad- do all the good things we want to do this gentleman's remarks. ministration. I know he is a good, sound year?" Mr. RAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-legislator, and is always striving to keep Are there ready requests for supple- · tleman yield? appropriations down. I would like to mental appropriations to be considered Mr. BURLESON. I yield to the gen-strengthen him in this purpose. Neither tomorrow? tleman from New York, member of the do I object to the committee that is des- Mr. BURLESON. None from my com- Committee on House Administration. ignated to consider this resolution be- mittee. Mr. RAY. I do not question the aucause I do believe we have a very able Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, if thority of the committee nor do I quesCommittee on Interstate and Foreign the gentleman will yield on the matter of tion the wisdom of the Committee on Commerce and a good chairman. But, I supplemental appropriations, I wonder if Interstate and Foreign Commerce makdo want to rise to sound a warning. there is a complete meeting of the minds, ing a study of this kind or the need for There is, as some of you know, an econ- for there is an urgency appropriation bill some study in this particular field. I omy drive in the country which, as the · coming up Monday. Was the gentleman do think the request for funds is extravagentleman from Ohio has said, is indi- referring to any matter pending in gant at a time when we need to be ecocated by the deluge of letters which re- that bill? nomical. I do not think that a well quires an extra employee in our congres- Mr. MARTIN. Are they of such nature thought out plan for conducting these sional post office here. as to require any House investigation studies has been presented to our com-

This increased mail indicates the peo- funds at this time? mittee. I am opposed to this resolution. ple are really interested in economy. I Mr. BURLESON. There are no re- Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the was therefore rather dismayed to see quests now pending before the Committee gentleman yield? that in the 84th Congress within 2 ·on House Administration for funds, if I Mr. BURLESON. I yield to the gen-months we had authorized $2,569,500 in tleman from Michigan. spending for legislative investigations, am clear on what the minority leader Mr. HOFFMAN. Is there any reason more than we spent during the whole of has in mind. why the expenses incurred for these in-the 83d Republican Congress in both Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, will the vestigations should not be given to the sessions. gentleman yield? public?

Further, as I glance over some of these Mr. BURLESON. I am glad to yield to Mr . . BURLESON. They are available committee requests I know that the gen- iny colleague on the committee. to the public. tleman is going to be asked for much Mr. SCHENCK. My record on econ- Mr. HOFFMAN. No; they are not. I additional moneys either this year or omy, I think, is very well known and have written the Committee on House at the next session. For instance the established. Since I have been a Member Administration several times. I have Committee on Government Operations of Congress I have consistently tried my asked the departments several times and during the last Congress got $975,000. best to make sure that all recommenda- they come back and say I cannot have it. This year they have only received tions for the appropriation of funds for Mr. BURLESON. The gentleman has $575,000. But I am sure they will be the operations of committees of the never been denied information from the back in the next session asking for more, House made by the Committee on House House Administration Committee on exif not during the latter part of this Administration were well justified and penses of other operating committees of session. within the framework of our policy of the House of Representatives. The gen-

The thought I want to express is that proper operations. tleman may have been unable to secure if we are going to have any economy in It is also my great privilege and high figures on some other matters relating this country we have got to practice a honor to be a member of the Committee to foreign travel or something of that little of it ourselves in our own depart- on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. I sort. ments. We are probably, from what I shall not be, as far as I know, a member Mr. HOFFMAN. That is what I have hear, the greatest offenders of all the of this subcommittee to conduct these in mind. departments in increased spending over investigations, but our Committee on In- Mr. BURLESON. That has nothing last year. We should correct this and · terstate and Foreign Commerce has never to do with the matter now in debate. The then be in a far better position to ask in any situation done anything other gentleman has never been denied inforother departments to cut down. than conduct objective type hearings, and mation from the Committee on House

The other day the Army removed a it is my full expectation that the work Administration with reference to funds small item of $200,000 for a commission done by this special subcommittee under · provided other. committees of this to report to the President their views this appropriation will be both entirely House. on an important subject which was of objective and very much worth while. It Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, will deep concern to the people. We appar- could mean the saving not only of a; con- the gentleman Yield? ently did not have $200,000 for that pur- siderable amount of money in the aper- Mr. BURLESON; I yield to the gen-pose, but here we find many, many thou- ating expenses of these various Federal tleman from Iowa. sands for our own spending on a project agencies but also by· coordinating and Mr. LECOMPTE. We have frequently worthy enough but one which could well clarifying the rules and regulations under put in the RECORD tables showing the be delayed. which these various boards, commissions, amount of money that has been ex-

I realize that this resolution will go · and agencies operate. This could result pended by each of the several committhrough. I oppose it but am reconciled in a great saving to the public in general. tees. I did that a time or two when I

1957 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5505

was chairman and I think the gentleman has, too.

Mr. BURLESON. I believe we have done that every year.

Mr. LECOMPTE. Here is a table that the gentleman from Michigan can have. It may be put in the RECORD if the gentleman cares to do it.

Mr. BURLESON. It will be in the RECORD after all committee appropriations for the session have been made.

Mr. LECOMPTE. The gentleman's statement about not getting the information that the Committee on House Administration has is not altogether correct, because that information is available.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I am familiar with the paper that the gentleman has here and similar papers given out at other times. The law requires that. What I am talking about now is the cost of transportation of congressional committees and the individual members thereof.

Mr. BURLESON. I cannot give the gentleman that because I do not have it.

Mr. HOFFMAN. The Defense Department and MATS and the Air Force says it is over in your committee.

Mr. BURLESON. That is not true. That is a hot potato I did not want so far as the other committees and individuals are concerned. I did not want the information and I was not going to have it on just one department, and relating to a few individual Members of Congress, without having complete information from all sources and on everyone.

Mr. HOFFMAN. No. I wrote your committee. The gentleman happened to be out of the city on official business. But I was unable to get an answer.

Mr. BURLESON. There was never any intent on my part to furnish the gentleman any fragmentary information in my possession on that subject. But I repeat, he has never been denied the record on appropriation and expenditures of the committees ·of this House.

Mr. HOFFMAN. There you are. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. EURLESON. I yield to the gen

tleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. In line with the econ

omy that some of us would like to have, I wonder if the gentleman W0'1-ld accept an amendment or would offer an amendment to cut this by $50,000?

Mr. BURLESON. No. Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will

permit me to continue, that would leave the committee with $300,000. If it needs more money and if it can make a case, I am sure that the Congress will be willing to give it additional funds.

Mr. BURLESON. Well, I appreciate the gentleman's idea. I had the same idea in the beginning, and a number of members of the committee felt that perhaps we should make a lesser appropriation for this current session and wait until the.second session and see what the needs might be. But then it was decided that to approach this thing in an overall plan, by securing a highly. technical staff of people, it would be necessary for long-range planning and that the amount requested would be modest

for the starting period. It may cost a great deal more. I do not know. I hope it does not. I know that the gentleman from Arkansas, the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, hopes it will cost no more. I have every confidence that he will make all efforts to see that costs are held to a minimum.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURLESON. I shall be glad to. Mr. MARTIN. The gentleman re

members that I said I had every confidence in the chairman, and I want to say that that confidence has been strengthened when he passed the "hot potato" back.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry, if it is in order.

The SPEAKER. If the gentleman will yield for that purpose.

Mr. BURLESON. I yield. Mr. GROSS. Is the parliamentary

situation such that an amendment can be offered only by the committee or the chairman of the committee?

The SPEAKER. Unless the previous question were voted down.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURLESON. I am glad to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. McCORMACK. As a matter of fact, this is an economy move, just the opposite to what some of my friends argue. This is a matter of great importance to countless millions of persons in the United States, looking into the policies of these various agencies. There are about 18 or 20 that will be surveyed, so that this is a very broad matter, not confined to one or two agencies but covers several large ones and a number of other agencies that are parts of departments. We have a l;>ill pending to change our app1·opriation theory from an obligation to_ an accrued expenditure basis. If that bill goes through-and I am passing no opinion on the bill one way or the other now-in order for the Congress to perform its duties under that bill, we would have to create a legislative bureau of the budget in order to assist the Committee on Appropriations and the other committees and to assist the Members in ascertaining the full facts. So, this is an .economy measure, and while it appropriates $250,000, the net result of it will be, in my opinion, a saving of countless millions of dollars to the taxpayers of our country.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include at this point a resolution passed by the Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce with reference to House Resolution 99.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection. The resolution reads as follows: Whereas section 136 of the Legislative

Reorganization Act of 1946, and the Rules of the House, provide that to assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws each standing committee shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution of the laws by the agencies of the Government within the jurisdiction of the committee; and

Whereas House Resolution ·99, 85th Congress, authorizes the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to investigate and study the administration and enforce

·ment by departments and agencies of the Government of provisions of law relating to subjects which are within the jurisdiction of the committee; and

Whereas in the consideration of House Resolution 99 by the House at the time of its passage, Speaker RAYBURN, former ·chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, expressed his desire that under the authority of the resolution the committee would create a subcommittee to go into the administration of the laws to see whether or not the laws as intended by the Congress were being carried out or whether they were being repealed or revamped by those who administer them; and

Whereas, among -others, the Speaker referred to the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, all of which administer laws within the legislative oversight of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; and

Whereas in furtherance of its duties under the Reorganization Act, the Rules of the House, and House Resolution 99, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on March 6, 1957, has created a subcommittee on Legislative Oversight to review, study, and examine the execution of the laws by the administrative and independent agencies of the Government within the jurisdiction of the committee; and

Whereas the proper discharge by the subcommittee of its responsibilities for achieving the objectives for which it has been created by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce necessitate the subcommittee having at its disposal funds adequate for the employment of staff suitable to assist in the review, study, and examination of the execution of the laws by the agencies of Government: Now be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce fully supports the request for additional funds in the amount of $250,000 contained in House Resolution 191 and authorizes and directs the chairman of the committee to initiate and pursue all appropriate steps to secure the authorization of such funds from the House.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker,

it is not pleasant to find myself in disagreement with the leadership on this side of the aisle. However, I opposed this resolution in the Committee on House Administration and feel that I should vote against it at this time. I am not opposed to investigation of the Federal commissions, board, and bureaus, which in most instances have shown an utter disregard for the intent of Congress and have written regulations and issued rulings which have had the effect of amending or repealing laws approved by Congress. I am ready to vote for any law which will stop that practice. I am also of the opinion that we already have evidence which would support the enactment of such laws, but first Congress must make up its mind that it is opposed to legislation by regulation written by some commission or board.

5506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11 I am voting against this resolution

not because I am opposed to an investigation of any bureau or commission, but solely because I believe the resolution authorizes more funds than are necessary to do the job. I am not impressed with the argument that it is necessary to hire 7 staff experts at an annual salary of $14,000 and 5 assistants at an annual salary of $8,000 each, .and with staffs that will be working for 18 months, at a total cost of $250,000, and without any assurance that this will get the job done.

I said in the committee and I repeat now, that we cannot correct these objectionable practices merely by appropriating and spending money for investigations. Rather, Congress could probably be more effective in correcting this situation by appropriating less money to those agencies guilty of the practices about which we complain.

With the staff that is proposed, the job suggested should be done in not more than 6 months if it can be done at all, and by the end of this year, the committee should have all the information necessary to draft legislation to rewrite the laws in a way that they can be understood, and not interpreted to suit the fancy of any group of appointed bureaucrats.

Another suggestion which I made in the committee and which I repeat here is that Congress might well consider the advisability of a prohibition against the practice for a period of years before any agency of any person who has served as a member of and been responsible for the adoption of rules or regulations affecting that agency.

We have too many former members of such commissions, boards, and bureaus, who are specializing in the practice of law before such agencies. It is true that ·in many cases the rules and regulations have grown to such proportions and become so complicated that the average lawyer is lost in this maze of confusion and more often than not is required to enlist the services of a former member of such agency to assist in the representation of his client. And I think no one would deny that the fees charged by such specialists are completely out of line with the services rendered.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are many things which can be done to correct the existing evil without the appropriation of another quarter of a million dollars, and that is why I cannot vote for this authorizing resolution.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the resolution. The question was taken, and the

Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, an·d the Clerk will call the roll.

The question was taken; and there were-:-yeas 225, nays 143, not voting 64, as follows:

Abbitt Abernethy Addonizio Albert Alexander Alger Andresen,

AugustH. Andrews Ashley Auchincloss Avery Bailey Baldwin Baring Barrett Bass, Tenn. Beamer Becker Beckworth Bennett, Fla. Bennett, Mich. Blitch Boggs Boland Bolling Bonner Bosch Boykin Breeding Brooks, La.. Brooks, Tex. Brown, Ga. Brown, Mo. Burdick Burleson Bush Byrd Byrne, Pa. Cannon Carnahan Carrigg Chel! Chenoweth Christopher Chu doff Clark Colmer Cooley Cooper Dague Davis, Tenn. Delaney Denton Derounian Dingell Dollinger Donohue Dorn, S. C. Durham Edmondson Elliott Engle Evins Fallon Farbstein Fascell Feighan Fenton Fisher Flood Flynt Forand Forrester Fountain Friedel

Adair Allen , Ill. Andersen,

H. Carl Arends Ashmore Ayres Baker Bass, N. H. Bates Baumhart Belcher Berry Betts Bolton Bow Boyle Bray Broomfield Brown, Ohio Brownson Broyhill

(Roll No. 60) YEAS-225

Fulton Gary Gathings Gordon Granahan Grant Hagen Hale Haley Halleck Hardy Harris Harrison, Va. Haskell Hays, Ark. Hays, Ohio Healey Hemphill Herlong Heselton Holifield Holland Holmes Holt Horan Huddleston Hull Ikard James Jarman Jennings Johnson Jones, Ala. Judd Karsten Kee Keliy,N. Y. Kilday Kilgore King Kirwan Kitchin Kluczynski Knutson Landrum Lane Lanham Lankford Latham Lennon Lesinski Long Loser Mccarthy McCormack McDonough McGovern Mcintire McMillan Machrowicz Mack, Ill. Madden Mahon Marshall Matthews Merrow Metcalf Miller, Cali!. Miller, N. Y. Mills l\Iorgan Morris Morrison Moss Multer Murray

NAYS-143 Budge Byrne, Ill. Byrnes, Wis. Canfield Cederberg Chamberlain Chiperfield Church Clevenger Cole Collier Corbett Cramer Cretella Cunningham,

Iowa Cunningham,

Nebr. Curtin Curtis, Mass. Curtis, Mo. Dawson, Ut ah

Natcher Neal O 'Hara, Ill. O'Hara, Minn. O 'Konski O'Neill Nonell O'Brien, Ill. Osmers Passman Patman Perkins Pfost Philbin Pilcher Poage Polk Porter Powell Price Rabaut Radwan Rains Reuss Rhodes, Pa. Riley Rivers Roberts Robeson, Va. Rodino Rogers, Colo. Rogers, Fla. Rogers, Tex. Rooney Roosevelt Rutherford Saund Schenck Scott, N. C. Selden Shuford Sikes Sisk Smith, Miss. Smith, Va. Spence Springer Staggers Steed Sullivan Teller Thoinas Thompson, N . J. Thompson. Tex. Thornberry Trimble Tuck Udall Ullman Vanik Watts Whitener Whitten Wier Williams, Miss. Willis Winstead Withrow Wright Yates Young Younger Zablocki Zelen~o

Dellay Dixon Dooley Dorn, N. Y. Dwyer Ford Frelinghuysen Gavin George Green, Oreg. Griffin Gross Gwinn Harden Harrison, Nebr. Harvey Henderson Hess Hiestand Hill Hillings Hoeven

Hoffman Hosme1· Hyde Jackson Jenkins Johansen Jonas Jones, Mo. Kean Kearns Keeney Kilburn Knox Laird Lecompte Lipscomb McCulloch McGregor Mc Vey Mack, Wash. Martin Mason May Michel Miller, Md. Miller, Nebr. Minshall

Moore Morano Mumma Nicholson Nimtz Norblad Ostertag Patterson Pelly Pillion Poff Prouty Ray Reed Rees, Kans. Rhodes, Ariz. Riehl man Robsion , Ky. Rogers, Mass. Sadlak St. George Saylor Scherer Schwengel Scrivner Scudder Seely-Brown

Sheehan Siler Simpson, Ill. Simpson, Pa. Smith, Calif. Smith, Kans. Smith, Wis. Stauffer Taber Talle Teague, Calif. Tewes Thomson, Wyo. Utt Van Pelt Van Zandt Vorys Vursell Wainwright Weaver Westland Wharton Widnall Wigglesworth Williams, N. Y. Wilson, Ind.

NOT VOTING-64 Allen, Cali!. Doyle Anderson, Eberharter

Mont. Fino Anfuso . Fogarty Aspinall Frazier Barden Garmatz Bentley Gray Bla tnik Green, Pa. Bowler Gregory Buckley Griffiths Cell er Gubser Coad Hebert Coffin Holtzman Coudert Jensen Davis, Ga. Keai·ney Dawson, Ill. Keating Dempsey Kelley, Pa. Dennison Keogh Devereux Kreuger Dies McConnell Diggs McFall Dowdy Mcintosh

Macdonald Magnuson Mailliard Meader Moulder O'Brien, N. Y. Preston Reece, Tenn. Santangelo Scott, Pa. Shelley Sheppard Sieminski Taylor Teague, Tex. Thompson, La. Tollefson Vinson Walter Wilson, Cali!. Wolverton

So the resolutio·n was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following

pairs: Mr. Hebert for, with Mr. Keating against. Mr. Vinson for, with Mr. Reece of Tennes-

see against. Mr. Preston for, with Mr. Taylor against. Mr. Aspinall for, with Mr. Meader against. Mr. Wolverton for, with Mr. Fino against. Mr. Holtzman for, with Mr. Coudert

against. Mr. Keogh for , with Mr. McConnell against. Mr. Anfuso for, with Mr. Kearney against. Mr. Santangelo for, with Mr. Allen of Cali-

fornia against. Mr. Buckley for, with Mr. Mcintosh against. Mr. Garmatz for, with Mr. Krueger against. Mr. Sheppard for, with Mr. Mailliard

against. · Mr. Frazier for, with Mr. Scott of Pennsyl

vania against. Mr. Celler for, with Mr. Wilson of Cali-

fornia against. Mr. Dies for, with Mr. Gubser against. Mr. Doyle for, with . Mr. Devereux against. Mr. Walter for, with Mr. Dennison against. Mr. Magnuson for, with Mr. Tollefson

against. Mr. Green of Pennsylvania for, with Mr.

Jensen against. Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania for, with Mr.

Bentley against.

Mr. HOLIFIELD changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

LECHSLATIVE PROGRAM FOR NEXT WEEK

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5507 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman · from Mas.:;achusetts?

There was no objection. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, may I in ...

quire of the gentleman from Massachusetts if there is a program for tomorrow or will there be a session tomorrow?

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, if we dispose of the four bills that are scheduled for consideration this afternoon, I will ask unanimous consent that the House adjourn until Monday. Otherwise we will meet tomorrow to dispose of the four bills.

Monday is Pan American Day. Then there is the Consent Calendar, and following that the second urgent deficiency appropriation bill for 1957.

Mr. -MARTIN. '.That will be taken up on Monday?

Mr. McCORMACK. Yes. On Tuesday we will have the call of the Private Calendar.

Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday there will be the State, Justice, and Judiciary appropriation bill for 1958. On account of the holy days of our Jewish brethren, any rollcalls on Monday or Tuesday will take place on Wednesday.

Any further program will be announced later and, of course, conference reports may be broug·ht up at any time.


Mr. MARTIN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Can the gentleman from :Massachusetts, the distinguished majority leader, tell us when a copy of the State Department appropriation bill will be available?

Mr. ROONEY. I shall be glad to answer that, if the distinguished gentleman will yield.

Mr. MARTIN. I yield. Mr. ROONEY. The printed hearings

have been available since last week. The bill and report will be released to the membership and the press, fallowing the action of the full committee tomorrow morning.

Mr. GROSS. So the bill and the report will not be available until Saturday; is that correct?

Mr. ROONEY. No. If we make our t>chedule tomorrow, you should have it before noon tomorrow, which is Friday.

Mr. McCORMACK. In other words, one can go to the Committee on Appropria~ions and get a copy.

Mr. GROSS. I want to say to the gentleman that this is a very short period of time in which to scrutinize a bill of the dimensions of the State Department and the USIA appropriations, and I want to again urge the majority leader to put this bill off until after the Easter recess.

Mr. McCORMACK. Of course, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who happens to be the majority leader, has no recollection of the gentleman urging that it be put off until after -· Easter. There was some little colloquy we had the other day. Now, for the benefit of my friend, so that tpere will be no misunderstanding, this bill is being reported out ·just the same as any other appropriation bill. So there is nothing strange about that. If the gentleman wants to

change the procedure, it should be done ag·ainst all appropriation bills. There is 3 days' notice. Under the procedure under which we are operating, the Members will have 3 days' notice in relation to the time when it is reported out of committee. The problem confronting the majority leader-and I think the same would apply to your side of the House even if my friend from Iowa were majority leader-is to give right-of-way to all appropriation bills because of the importance of them. And my policy has always been-and I am sure it was on your side when you were in control of the House-that when the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations stated to the majority leader that he would like to bring up an appropriation bill on suchand-such a date the majority leader always cooperated.

Mr. GROSS. Let me say to the gentleman that we disposed of an appropriation bill last week on which we spent 5 or 6 or 7 days.

Mr. McCORMACK. Eight days. Mr. GROSS. All right; 8 days. Now

an entirely different situation obtains in the consideration of this bill in that you are running right into the Easter recess. I have been here not too long, but I know what happens just prior to the Easter recess. The rush act is put on.

Mr. McCORMACK. No; there is no rush act put on at all. There will be plenty of time for deliberation. The mem'.Jership has always been cooperative. We have never had any difficulty in arriving at an understanding, and the membership o:~ both sides of the House has always been kind and generous to the leadership, and I want to publicly state that. And, when your party was in control, we cooperated in the same way.

Mr. GROSS. Let me say this to the gentleman, that I hope the pressure will not be put on next week, if the majority leader is going to insist upon bringing up this bill, becaus~ it is just possible that the Easter vacation plans would be ·slightly disturbed.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker,' I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GRossJ, who is very popular, will want to maintain that popularity.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, would the distinguished minority leader again yield?

Mr. MARTIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the distinguished minority leader if it is not the fact that under the rules of the House this appropriation bill, to which the distinguished gentleman from Iowa ref erred, could be brought up on Monday next.

Mr. MARTIN. The rules require 3 days . .

Mr. ROONEY. The 3-day rule which means 3 calendar days would have been complied with and the bill could be called up on Monday. So the gentleman from Iowa has an extra 24 hours to read the committee report. The bill and the report are comparatively brief documents. He has had the hearings, or was entitled to have the hearings, for the past week. It may very well be, I will say to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, that

when. he finds out what the action of the full House Committee on Appropriations is on tomorrow, he will agree with that action and there may not need to be very much debate on this bill.

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GAVIN. As I understand it, the majority leader has indicated that no record votes will be taken before Wednesday; there will be none on Monday or Tuesday, or, if any are requested, they will be carried over until Wednesday?

Mr. McCORMACK. That is the understanding.

Mr. GAVIN. There was an agreement this week that record votes would be carried over until Tuesday, but we had one on Monday.

Mr. McCORMACK. There was no agreement with regard to this week.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MARTIN J has expired.

FEDERAL PLANT PEST ACT Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, by direc

tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read, as fallows: 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. 3476) to facilitate the regulation, control, and eradication of plant pests. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranlcing minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, 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 aLd report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ALLEN], and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 223 provides for the consideration of H. R. 3476, the Federal Plant Pest Act. The resolution provides for an open rule and 1 hour of general debate on the bill.

At the present time existing laws relating to the subject of plant pest control do not provide the authority to regulate the movement of plant diseases as such, or disease-bearing organisms, or certain plant pests which can injure or cause disease or damage in plants or their products. Title I of this bill will provide such authority and will also confer authority to make necessary inspections to carry out the provisions of the bill.

There is one major committee amendment which provides that a quarantine inspector must have a duly issued search warrant to search private premises and the amendment authorizes the issuance of such warrants.


Title II amends the list of insects and plant pests with respect to which the Department of Agriculture is authorized to conduct eradication and control campaigns. This will have the effect of permitting the Department to undertake eradication or control campaigns against pests related to those named without requiring, in each case, an amendment to the act.

H. R. 3476 was unanimously reported with several minor and the one major amendment by the Committee on Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture favors the enactment of this measure. It is not believed that the proposed legislation will necessitate any additional appropriations.

The committee report complies with the Ramseyer rule and I urge prompt action on House Resolution 223 so we may proceed to the consideration of this bill.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time.



table.

MILITARY PUBLIC LAND WITHDRAWALS

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 217 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as · follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 5538) to provide that withdrawals, reservations, or restrictions of more than 5,000 acres of public lands of the United States for certain purposes shall not· become effective until approved by act of Congress, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairmfin and ranking minority.member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consid~ration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the Hou!;e with such amendments as may have ooen adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ALLEN] and yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 217, providing for the consideration of H. R. 5538, the so-called military public land withdrawals bill, provides for an open rule and 1 hour of general debate on the bill.

H. R. 5538, unanimously reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs is substantially the same as H. R. 12185 which passed the House in the last Congress, with the exception of a few language changes to clarify the scope and procedure to be followed. The Senate did not consider H. R. 12185, thus the bill died in the last Congress.

The main objectives of the bill are: First, to require an act of Congress

before defense land acquisitions exceeding 5,000 acres can take effect, including public lands of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the outer Continental Shelf lands and Federal lands and waters off the coast of Alaska and Hawaii.

Second, the bill would make applicable to all military reservations and facilities the. hunting, fishing, and trapping laws of the State or Territory in which such installation is located.

Third, the bill would amend in two particulars the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. One amendment would except from the real property-disposition provisions of the 1949 act, minerals in withdrawn or. reserved public domain lands which the Secretary of the Interior determines are suitable for disposition under the public land mining and mineral leasing laws. The other amendment provides that only those withdra¥ln or reserved public domain lands surplus to the needs of the Federal agencies found by the Secretary of the Interior-with the concurrence of the Administrator of General Services-not suitable for restoration to public land status due to substantial improvements, would hereafter be subject to the real property disposition provisions of the amended 1949 act.

Finally, the bill would remove any questions concerning the laws which govern the disposal of and exploration for any and all minerals, including oil and gas, in . public lands of the United States heretofore or hereafter withdrawn or reserved by the United States for the use of defense agencies.

The committee report complies with the Ramseyer rule and I urge the adoption of House Resolution 217 so the House may proceed to the consideration of H. R. 5538.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time.

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agTeed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

. Mr .. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 224 and ask for its immediate consideration.


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. 3377) to promote the national defense by authorizing the construction of aeronautical research facilities and the acquisition of land by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics necessary to the effective prosecution of aeronautical research. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, 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.

. Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I y1eld 30 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ALLEN], and I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 224 makes in order the consideration of H. R. 3377, the construction program for the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. The resolution provides for an open rule and 1 hour of general debate on the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to authorize construction, installation of equipment and the acquisition of land at three laboratories and the pilotless aircraft station of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

The work of this Committee falls into two principal categories. First, research to furnish new ideas and second the application of new ideas to curr~nt military designs in cooperation with industry.

The program of the Committee, which has the approval of the Bureau of the Budget, calls f OT a total authorization of $44,700,000. Twenty million, nine hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars of this _a~ount is for new facilities for hypersomc research; $5,655,000 for expansion of facilities for nuclear research· $10,936,000 for the modernization of re~ search facilities for the solution of new problems in the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speed ranges; $6,485,000 for modernization of supporting technical facilities and approximately $658,000 for ?ener3:1 plant and utility improvements, mcludmg land acquisition.

I urge the adoption of House Resolution 224 so the House may proceed to the consideration of this bill.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. .



table.

SHERMAN, TEX., WATER UTILIZATION

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill <H. R. 3996) to authorize the utilization of a limited amount of storage space in Lake Texoma for the purpose of water supply for the city of Sherman, Tex.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Chief of Engi

neers is hereby authorized to contract with the city of Sherman, Tex., upon such terms and for such period, not exceeding 50 years, as he may deem reasonable, for the use of not to exceed 41,000 acre-feet of storage space in Lake Texoma, for the purpose of providing

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5509 said city a regulated water supply in an amount not to exceed 25,000 acre-feet annually: Provided, That the project for Denison Dam authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, as modified by section 4 of the River and Harbor Act of October 17 1940'. is hereby further modified accordingly; Provided further, That all moneys received sh8:ll be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts: And provided further, That nothing in ' this act shall affect water rights under State law.

With the following committee amendment:

On page 1, line 3, strike out "Chief of Engineers" and insert in lieu thereof "Secretary of the Army."

The committee amendment was agreed to. · · ·

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word. Will the gentleman from Minnesota explain the bill?

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, the legislation is similar to legislation which was passed in the 84th Congress in the event of an emergency to authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter into a contract to allow municipalities to use a certain amount of water from established reservoirs. The Secretary does have the authority in cases where the reservoirs have what is determined to be a surplus of water to act in such cases. But there is not a surplus of water ih this instance. It is an emergency situation. The municipality of Sherman is in a serious water-shortage area. The Secretary of the Army approves this bill, and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection.: ·Reimbursement is to be made by the municipality of Sherman for any losses that may result for the full utilization of the original purpose of the project either for navigatfon or hydro power.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Did this bill come out of 'the Committee on Public Works?

Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Has the mat

ter been discussed with the ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works?

Mr. BLATNIK. The ranking minority member does approve of it, but he is not here this morning. There is another member of the minority present who can speak for them.

Mr. SCHERER. The bill was reported out of the committee unanimously the other day.

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.

AMENDING SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1956

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the ~ouse resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill CH. R. 2146) to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union f Qr the consideration of the bill, H. R. 2146, with Mr. HERLONG in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the

gentleman from California [Mr. EN~LE] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES] will be recognized for 30·minutes. . Mr. ENGLK Mr. Chai,rman, I yield

myself such time as I may require. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill

is to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. Notwithstanding its title, it does not authorize any appropriation nor does it cost any money. It is for the purpose of correcting some language in the act which the President of the United States thought, when he signed the bill, transgressed the constitutional provisions involving the separation of powers. The Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 provided for the participation by State and local agenci"es in the construction of small irrigation projects. When the bill got down to the White House, the information came up to us that certain sections of the bill were objected to because they transgressed what the White House regarded as the separation of powers. In the discussion of the matter with the people at the White House, I told them, as chairman of our committee that we would correct the language; and I am sure the Member from the other body as chairman of the corresponding committee in the other body, assured the President that we would undertake to make a correction of the language to have it accord with the usual procedures.

In order to get the matter before you I will read a portion of the President's message. It appears on page 3 of the committee report. The President said:

I have approved this bill only because the Congress is not in session to receive and act upon a veto message and because I have been assured that the committees which handled the b111 in the Congress will take action to correct its deficiencies early in the next session. Specifically, a provision found in section 4 (c) is seriously faulty. The section provides that--

" * * * no such contract shall be executed by the Secretary prior to 60 calendar days * * * from the date on which the project proposal has been submitted to both branches of the Congress for consideration by the appropriate committees thereof, and then only if neither such committee, by committee resolution and notification in writing to the Secretary, disapproves the project proposal within such period: Provided, That if both such committees, in the same manner and prior to the expiration of such period, approve the project proposal, then the Secretary may proceed to execute the contract: Provided further, That in the event either committee disapproves the project proposal, the Secretary shall not proceed further unless the Congress has approved the same."

The President then goes on to point out in his message, and I quote:

This language would thus require, before a project negotiated under the act is allowed finality, a further act by the legislature. The action required can be viewed as either a legislative act or an executive act. However construed, constitutional defects are inherent. Viewed as requiring a further legislative act, the section is open to the objection that it involves an unlawful -delegation by the Congress to its committees of a legisla-

tive function which the Constitution contemplates the Congress itself, as an entity, should exercise.

If .the ~urther act is considered as not legisla t1 ve m nature, then there is involved what appears to be an unconstitutional infringement of the separation of powers prescribed in articles I and II of the Constit utioi:i. I do not believe that the Congress can validly delegate to one of its committees the power to prevent Executive actions taken pursuant to law. To do so in this case would be to divide the responsibility for administering the ~rogram between the Secretary

. of the In tenor and the designated committees.

He goes on to say: I am .certain that there is little disagree

ment with this proposition and I have been '.lssured that the purpose of the Congress m approving section 4 (c) was to facilitate legislative oversight of a new program. Fortunately, that objective can be attained through well-tested procedures fully compatible with our system of government; for example, the Congress may require the Secret~ry of the Interior to submit such reports as it may find of value in carrying on its legislative functions.

Because of the general merit of this measure,. I am approving it.

And, of course, this bill is, therefore b\ought before you for the purpose of doing what I can do and what the committee can do in furtherance of the promise we made to the President at the time we said: "Go ahead and sign the bill, we will try to straighten out the language with regard to the separation of powers."

Without pursuing the point raised by the President as to whether the language in the act does or does not violate the separation of powers within the Government, the committee believes that proper legifllative oversight of the program can be accomplished by establishing certain procedures within the legislative branch. Such procedures relate to the appropriation of funds for Federal financial participation in these small projects rather than to the approval or disapproval of a project proposal of the Secretary. Precedent for requiring procedures similar to those herein proposed may be found in at least two existing acts: Public Law 519, 83d Congress, relating to the lease-purchase program, and Public Law 1018, 84th Congress, amending the Vvatershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.

So in changing the language of this legislation we have adopted language similar to that which has already been approved by the President in legislation which he signed, namely, in the small water-projects bill, and in the land leasepurchase program, which, of course, leads us to believe that he will in this instance approve this change in language and thereby eliminate the objection to it at the time when he sent the message up to us.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mi. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Does the language proposed here validate any contracts or authorize projects? Is this language necessary to carry forward projects that have already been authorized?

5510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11 Mr. ENGLE. None have been au

thorized. This program has not gone into effect as yet. There are applications pending under the public law to which this bill pertains, but this language does not approve anything. All it does is to get the question about this separation of powers, legislative and executive, straightened out.

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LANHAM. Does the law make it possible to begin these projects without an approp.riation? That is the thing that concerns me.

Mr. ENGLE. No. Mr. LANHAM. Do you not in effect

bypass the Appropriations Committee? Mr. ENGLE. No, we specifically do

not. That, of course, is the matter which concerned some members of the Appropriations Committee, of which I know the gentleman is a member. We sat down with the gentleman from New York [Mr~ TABER] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON] and we got their uncertainty about this legislation clarified. The ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER] has an amendment or two to offer which I think improves the legislation and for my own part I intend to accept the amendments.

Mr. LANHAM. If the gentleman from New York is satisfied, I am.

Mr. ENGLE. He is satisfied. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield? · Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman

from New York. Mr. TABER. I will be satisfied with

the bill if the amendments I shall offer are adopted. It will prevent the execution of a contract until after an appropriation is available. It would be rather difficult to let the Commissioner go ahead and approve projects and execute contracts when the money was not available to pay with. It is a bad situation.

Mr. ENGLE. I am fully in agreement with the gentleman from New York. The amendments he intends to offer will be helpful to the legislation and, at the same time, they will not do anything other than we intended to do in the first place. So they will be very helpful and constructive.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to join with the chairman of our committee in support of this legislation which I believe i.s very definitely needed to get this program underway. As the chairman has said, the checks which are present on these projects will, if anything, be even more complete than they would if we simply required an appropriation without consideration by the committee of these individual projects.

Mr. ENGLE. The gentleman is correct and I appreciate his contribution.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the full commit-

tee, the gentleman from California [Mr. ENGLE] has carefully explained the provisions of this proposed legislation. It is not new legislation. It does come from errors that occurred in the passage of the legislation last year. While the President signed it, he called our attention to some defects which should be corrected. The small projects legislation is not new. In the 83d Congress the House passed the bill, but that was in the closing days of that Congress. It had some difficulty in the other body and was not passed. I think it is a ~tep forward in the field of small projects where local communities can participate and handle some of the problems that arise in developing these small projects.

The bill does not call for any new appropriation and it does not call for any drastic changes. It is merely corrective legislation on a bill that was passed and signed by the President last year and it clarifies the legislative and Executive authority. It extends a clear line of demarcation with reference to that authority.

The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER] improves the legislative language as far as appropriations are concerned.

The bill has the support of the majority of the members on the minority side of the committee. There was some little question about it, and quite properly so, but I want to join with the gentleman from California [Mr. ENGLE] and my other colleagues ~n supporting this legislation.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from W'yoming [Mr. THOMSON]. .

Mr. THOMSON of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I urge that this committee and the Congress give its prompt approval to H. R. 2146, the bill now under consideration. On August 6, 1956, the President signed Public Law 984 of the 84th Congress. In my considered opinion, this was an eventful day, not only as far as the 17 Western States were concerned, but as concerns every State in the Union. If this legislation works as I think it will work, it will do much to stabilize and improve the economy of many areas. making them a stronger segment in the Nation's economy and dependable customers for other areas of the country. ·

Public Law 984 provides for a test operation. Before this test can be made the enactment of this legislation i~ necessary. As you know, the President, in his approval of the legislation last August 6, objected to the provision requiring congressional approval of the contract before it could be executed by the Secretary of the Interior. As a result, he indicated that he was signing the bill because of the general merit of the legislation and so that there need be no delay in starting the program but that no projects would be submitted until the objection was removed. For this action the President is to be commended. Unless this amendment is promptly approved. there will be delay. This amendment removes the technical objections raised in the message of approval, but it does not in any way take away the reservations of authority which the Con-

gress considered necessary in the adoption of the original legislation. No project can be initiated without funds.

Under the amendment, the hand of Congress is in a proper way in fact strengthened as far as overseeing this program is concerned. In the first place, under the amendment, the proposal must be submitted to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of both the House and the Senate. TheE"e committees must approve the proposal for the specific project. If they do not. no .appropriation can be made for the project. The Appropriations Committee will then have an opportunity to consider the proposed project, and in fact, the Congress itself will have the same opportunity when it considers the appropriation bill. This procedure removes the objections raised by the President, but at the same time gives to the Congress adequate controls over the program within the proper sphere of the action of the Congress~

I say that we must act quickly on this for the very simple reason that in light of the time requirement set up in the bill, time is ve1·y rapidly running out if the program is to be initiated in the coming year.

Congress has previously given its approval to the overall legislation and that question should not be before us at this time. Nevertheless, because of the unwarranted apprehensions of some, it might be well to rev-iew a few facts.

By far the greatest portion of the irrigation in the West has been accomplished by p1ivate means. In the State of Wyoming, which I represent, more than 80 percent of the reclamation and irrigation of Wyoming's land has been accomplished by the people of Wyoming, backed by the investment of private capital and provideq through their own efforts, without a cent of Federal as.sistance. The people of Wyoming themselves, financed by themselves, have constructed thousands of miles of canals and ditches and built dams and reservofrs to reclaim nearly 2,000 square miles, much of which had been previously only wasteland incapable of paying even local taxes. This has proved to be a sound investment for these individuals, and has paid off just as proposals under this legislation will pay out.

I do not mean to minimize the part the Federal Government has played through the Bureau of Reclamation in reclaiming the remaining one-fifth of Wyoming's

. irrigated lands. In .s-0me cases prosperous towns have risen from the sagebrush, nurtured almost wholly by these federally financed and federally constructed projects. Lying between what we in Wyoming can do for ourselves, and the- programs that can be justified as Federal reclamation projects, there is a gap existing today that can be most satisfactorily and effectively filled by projects µnder the small proj -ects legislation. These needed projects are too much for the individual or the state to undertake, but are not large enough to lend themselves to development on an economic basis by the Bureau of Reclamation.

In our :Present situation, the supplying of supplemental water should be

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5511 given first consideration. The only true solution to the drought problem which takes from our tax resources, both by way of appropriations and by lack of receipts, is an adequate supply of water. As you would expect, some of the private irrigation undertaken is not backed up by an adequate reserve of water. So far the projects considered in Wyoming for construction under this program are projects that would fUrnish to presently irrigated lands additional or supplementary water. The accomplishment of this would save to the Federal Government a great deal in the form of disaster relief. Of even greater importance is the fact that it would take the farmers and ranchers concerned and the business communities dependent upon them from the relief status and make them a healthy part of our economy.

The project given first priority in planning within our State is the Wheatland area project. This project was completely developed as a private project. It was commenced in May of 1883. Some 60,000 acres are under the project lying around the town of Wheatland, which has developed into one of the most important farming communities in the State. This project, though, is without an adequate water supply during drought periods. The land is excellent. In times of an adequate supply of water, the community has an economy among the stronger within the State. During periods of drought and inadequate water supply such as now, however, everything that has been built up during the good years is threatened. The economy is strained and costly, State and Federal assistance is required. With an adequate water supply, as is established by a history of almost 75 years, this area can maintain itself in a strong economic position, contributing regularly its taxes to the Federal Treasury and providing good customers for the products from all parts of the Nation. Unless this legislation amending the 1956 act is adopted, there will be no chance of getting an immediate program underway for these farmers and this community, and others similarly situated.

Naturally the Bureau of Reclamation should point itself to the large projects. In so pointing its efforts, it is only natural that its organization would be such as not to adapt itself readily to the construction of the smaller dams and reservoirs. The reclamation program is set up as self-supporting. If these smaller dams and reservoirs were to be undertaken by the Bureau, certain overhead stemming from Washington on down to the district level would necessarily have to be charged to the project. This tends to make the construction not feasible. Under this legislation, the most ecomonic construction can be obtained. This has already been demonstrated by projects which the State could undertake themselves and have undertaken. So we see that with the individuals and the States making all reasonable efforts to do for themselves and with the Federal Gov:. ernment doing that which it should properly do, there is an in-between area which can best be served under the provisions of the Small Projects Act.

This amendment should be promptly adopted. The prerogatives of Congress will be reserved by proper means. It is essential if the program is to get under .. way in the coming year.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing much left to be said about this that has not been said by the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking minority member of this committee. This is a bill to perfect legislation which passed the House overwhelmingly in the last session of the 84th Congress. The legislation, we feel, is necessary to allow this very worthwhile program to go into effect. I hope that the House will see fit to pass the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. ENGLE. I have no further requests for time, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Small Recla

mation Projects Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1044) is amended as follows:

(a) Amend subsection ( c) of section 4 to read:

" ( c) At such time as a project is found by the Secretary and the Governor of the State in which it is located (or an appropriate State agency designated by him) to be financially feasible, is determined by the Secretary to constitute a reasonable risk under the provisions of this act, and is approved by the Secretary, such findings and approval shall be transmitted to the Congress. No appropriation shall be made for financial participation in such project until it has been approved by resolutions of the House and Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committees. The Secretary, at the time of submitting the project proposal to Congress or at the time of his determination that the requested project constitutes a reasonable risk under the provisions of this act, may reserve from use or disposition inimical to the project any lands and interests in land owned by the United States which are within his administrative jurisdiction and subject to the disposition by him and which are required for use by the project. Any such reservation shall expire at the end of 2 years unless the contract provided for in section 5 of this act shall have been executed."

(b) Amend the introductory clause of section 5 to read:

"SEC. 5. Upon approval of any project proposal by the Secretary under the provisions of section 4 of this act, he may negotiate and execute a contract which shall set out, among other things-."

Mr. ENGLE (interrupting the reading of the bilD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the ·request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re

port the committee amendments. The Clerk read as follows: Page 2, line 4, after the period, strike out

down to and including the period on line 7.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows: Page 2, line 14, strike out "the." /


The Clerk read as follows: Page 2, line 18, insert: "(b) Add a new subsection (d) to section

4 (the present subsection (d) being relettered ( e) ) reading as follows :·

" ' ( d) Upon receipt of the Secretary's findings and approval with respect to any project not theretofore authorized for construction under the Federal reclamation laws, they shall be referred to the Committees on Appropriations and on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate. No appropriation shall be made for financial participation in any such project prior to 60 calendar days (which 60 days, however, shall not include days on which either the House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 calendar days to a day certain) from the date on which the Secretary's findings and approval are submitted to the Congress and then only if, within said 60 days, neither the House nor the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee disapproves the project proposal by committee resolution and so notifies both Appropriations Committees in writing: Provided, That if, prior to the expiration of said 60 days, both the House and Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committees approve the project proposal by resolution and so notify the Appropriations Committees in writing, appropriation of funds for the project may be made at any time. The provisions of this subsection (d) shall not be applicable to proposals made under section 6 of this act.' "

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ENGLE to the

committee amendment: On page 2, line 20, strike out the first sentence of section (d).

The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. TABER to the

committee amendment: On page 3, line 10, after the word "resolution" add a period and strike out the rest of the sentence including the proviso ending with the word "time" in line 16.

The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.

The committee amendment as amended was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 3, line 18,

strike out "(b)" and insert "(c) ."


Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. TABER: On page

3, line 22, after the word "negotiate" strike out the words "and execute."

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ENGLE: Page 2,

line 10, strike out "he" and insert "the."

The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Unde1· the rule, the

Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair,

5512 (:ONGRESSIONAL . RECORD - HOUSE April 11

Mr. HERLONG, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, repcrted that that Commit· tee having had under consideration the bill <H. R. 2146) to amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, pur• suant to House Resolution 193, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

The amendments weTe agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on

the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

The bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Speak

er, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill H. R. 2146.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

MILITARY PUBLIC LAND WITHDRAWALS

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill <H. R. 5538) to provide that withdrawals, reservations, or restrictions of more .than 5,000 acres of public lands of the United States for certain purposes shall not become effective until approved by act of Congress, and for other purposes.


into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 5538, with Mr. HERLONG in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. ' By unanimous consent, the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with . . Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield

.myself such time as I may require. Mr. Chairman, as the title to this bill

indicates, the purpose of the measure is to require that withdrnwals, reservations, or restrictions, of more than 5,000 acres of public lands of the United states for military purposes shall not · become effective until approved by act of Con-gress.

The background of this legislation is that in 1937 the military agencies of the United States controlled approximately 3 million acres of land. At the present time the Department of Defense controls over 30 million acres of land in the continental United States and Alaska. The land controlled, exclusive of lands held for civil functions of the Corps of Engineers ·by agencies of the

· Department of Defense today totals; in the 48 continental States alone. 27.6 mil

. lion acres, or 43,138 square miles. That amounts to a strip of land 143,4 miles in width from New York to San Francisco.

If the area controlled and held by the military agencies today for their purposes were laid out in a strip it would be over 14 miles wide from New York to San Francisco; and if they get all the land they are asking for in addition, that strip of land would be over 17 miles wide.

It is an area larger than the entire State or Ohio or Kentucky or Tennessee. It is an area 21 times the size of Delaware, 8 times the size of Connecticut, and 5 times the size of Massachusetts, and 683 times the size of the District of Columbia.

The defense requests for additional public lands total a little more than 6

. million acres in the six western States, California, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. As I said previously, if all of their requests are granted, then the strip of land would be more than 17 miles in width.

We were particularly concerned about the rate at which tl:ese acquisitions were going forward because, as I pointed out, in 1937 they owned some 3 million acres, in 1940 it was only slightly more than that, and in the interim it has increased 10 times. In the 18-month period preceding June 30, 1955, a period of 547 days, agencies of the Department of Defense acquired land at the rate of more than 5 acres per minute, every minute of the day and night. Had the applications totaling 8. 7 million acres pending been approved between that da~e and January 1, 1957, the rate of defense agency public land acquisition alone would have been at the rate of 11 acres per minute.

I am talking about public land areas, not the acquisition of privately owned lands, which of course are taken over by condemnation.

As a i:esult of that picture, our committee decided ,t:.at we should do something about the matter of military land acquisitions.

In order to illustrate to you what the situation is, I want to take a moment to give you the legal background. The public lands of the United States amount to some 450 million acres. Those public lands are, under the Constitution of the United States, article IV, section 3, clause 2, made the particular respon ... sibility of Congress.. That section of the Constitution states that:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all need!ul rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belongjng to the United States.

The Supreme Court has held that that language in the Constitution gives the Congress of the United States power over the public land in the manner of a proprietor; that is, that this Congress has the power to dispose of and to deal with the public-land areas of the United States in the same way that an owner or a proprietor would. But over the years Congress has not exercised that power, and there grew up in the executive branch of the Government the practice of setting ·aside portions of the public lands of the United States for particular

public uses. It was thought that if Uncle Sam owned the land, and a military installation needed some land, they should just simply parcel it out and make that land available, which, of course, when that power is used in moderation, is a sensible way to look at it. We certainly want the Defense Department to use public lands where they can rather than take land in the ownership of the people of the country.

As I say, the practice grew up, and as . it grew up these various de!ense agencies, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force,

·would simply make out a. slip of paper in the nature of an application to- the Interior Department asking for an area perhaps 100 miles long and 50 miles wide in the State of Nevada, and send it over to the Secretary of the Interior saying it was absolutely necessary to their op.eratiOns, and that area was set aside for those military operations and put into what could be regarded as a legal icebox. By that I mean all activities inside that area stopped: The grazing of cattle, the exploration for and the development and mining of minerals and metals. Water conservation programs of all sorts, of course, would be barred in that area, and all sporting, fishing, and conservation activities. It was our concern over .that problem that brought on this legislation.

The Supreme Court in looking over the situation with reference to some of these withdrawals made the statement that Congress by acquiesCing in the actions taken by the Executive branch had, in effect, agreed to these procedures. It said in the case, for instance, of the Midwest Oil Co. that the Executive was ·acting as an agent of Congress to parcel out these lands, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution very clearly makes that the responsibility and the obligation of Congress.

They went on to say: Its acquiescence all the more readily oper

ated as an implied grant of power. In view of the fact that its exercise was not only useful to the public but did not interfere with the vested rights of any citizen. The silence of Congress after consideration of a practice by the Executive may be equivalent to acquiescence and consent that the practice 'be continued until the power is revoked.

We have undertaken in this legislation ·to revoke the implied delegation of power to the Executive branch whenever any of its departments try to take over 5,000 acres of more. · Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield. Mr. BATES. What reference does this

'bill have to those lands which have been acquired, or on which restrictions presently exist?

Mr. ENGLE. It has no reference whatever to acquired lands. That is the field in which the gentleman's committee operates, and whenever the Defense Department desires to acquire land now under private ownership, the Defense Department coll!es to the gentleman's committee. If this bill goes through, if they want to acquire more than 5,000 acres of public domain lands, then they would come to a committee of the Congress; whether it be our committee or

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5513 some other committee, of course, I am not prepared to say-I do not know.

Mr. BATES. What is the situation with regard to the land which has heretofore been acquired from the public domain which they are presently using.?

Mr. ENGLE . . It does not affect that-with certain limitations which I want to talrn up in just a minute.

Mr. BATES. That is, with reference to the restrictions?

Mr. ENGLE. That is right. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. ENGLE. I y-ield. Mr. GROSS. I could not hear the

question of the gentleman from Massachusett..; [Mr. BATES]. I would like the gentleman to explain the language dealing with the outer Continental Shelf.

Mr. ENGLE. Yes, I will come to that. . Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield. Mr. NICHOLSON. I was wondering

what would happen if a State owned this place for national defense, would the Defense Department take it from the State or could they?

Mr. ENGLE. No; this bill does not affect any State-owned land. In fact, we have no authority or jurisdiction over State-owned land.

Mr. NICHOLSON. So that if the Def ense Department took this land or paid for this land, it would not have to go to the Committee on Armed Services?

Mr. ENGLE. If the Department of Defense takes such lands, I would not be able to say where they would have to go. But, if they have to pay for them and I would assume they would have to go to the armed services and get an authorization to pay for them. It would depend on what the State wanted. If the State wanted money, I assume they would have to go to the Committee on Armed SBrvices to get authorization.

What this bill does, in effect, is to repeal the implied grant of power under which the Department of Defense for a great many years has undertaken to slice out without any restraint or restriction whatever-and really on their own say-so because nobody in these other agencies ever argues or disputes a matter of military necessity~and restore that power to the Congress where it belongs and where it is vested by the Constitution of the United States.

The reason we limited this bill to 5,000 acres or more is because we do not want congressional committees or this House burdened with all of the small applications. For instance, in Alaska they want a small radar site. It may be 100, 200, 300, or 400 acres. But, it is when they get into the vast areas such as you can see marked on the map which is before you in the well of the House. There is another one in the Speaker's lobby which you can look at. They show these tre.mendous areas that are blocked off by 100 or 150 or 200 miles long. There is one in my district which when they are put together would be over 200 miles long. Not in every instance do they take the land area for particular ground or surface uses. What they are doing is shooting over these areas and running fast jets on aerial gunnery'. The rea-

Citt--347

son they have to block off the surface is because shells are coming down therenot only bullets, not only the bullets themselves but the shell casings.

Of course, if they drop on somebody's head they could be rather injurious, so

. they block out the whole area. It is not only because of firing ordnance and artillery into these areas, but the airspace itself is taken over, and when the airspace is taken over then the surface area has to be taken over also.

The bill does a little more than I have stated simply to be its purpose, that is, to restore to Congress the constitutional power, authority, and responsibility which we have; it does a little more than that as its subsidiary purposes.

It seeks to develop a system for the multiple use of these land areas where ·they must be taken over by the military. You wiU recognize the fact that we knew we have to have some areas in which the military can operate; national de-

_fense requires it. Certainly no committee of the House would fail to recognize that we have a responsibility in the defense of the Nation. We want to accomplish that, however, with the minimum deprivation of the multiple uses of those great areas, and for that purpose we have tried to develop a system here where, when consistent with military purposes, the land can be used for other purposes, that that be permitted.

We have provided in this legislation for a system of applications so that the military can accurately indicate what is to be done. For instance, in some areas

: it is entirely possible to graze cattle and sheep in these areas. There is a chance, of course, that one of them will get shot, or that a shell casing will drop on a cow, but it is not a serious matter and probably will not happen very often.

·So the livestock people are perfectly willing to take the chances and to go ahead and graze their livestock in those areas.

In some instances they do not always fire all the time, and we want to make it possible when they are not firing all the time for people to go into the area for other purposes. Mining exploration is very important in the West; and in northern Nevada, for instance, there is

· one of the most highly mineralized areas of the whole State of Nevada, and the 'lack of ability to prospect in these reserved areas is a great deprivation to the State in its resource development and should not occur. So we have provided that where consistent with military objectives these other multiple uses can go forward.

The second subsidiary purpose is the matter of fishing and hunting on military reservations. There has been a practice regarding some of these military reservations for some people to regard them as private military game preserves. We felt they should comply with State laws regulating fish and game.

· The fish and game really belong to the people of the State. No one has a title in it. The ducks :fly in, and the ducks :fly out. Wherever possible, local people ought to be able to shoot along with

~military people. These reservations should not be set aside exclusively for the use of the military high command as they_ have been in some instances.

This bill provides · that the military must comply with the State laws. This bill also provides that after a certain period, 30 days, licenses shall be issued to military personnel enabling them to hunt and fish in compliance with State · laws.

The bill further provides that consistent with military secmity which, again, of course, is a military decision, that State fish and game authorities shall be permitted to go into these vast reserved areas for the purpose of helping in the

.propagation and maintenance of fish and wildlife.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentle. woman from New York.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Do I understand that after the passage of this bill civilians will be able to use some of these reservations that are now reserved exclusively for the military?

Mr. ENGLE. That is correct. Mrs. ST. GEORGE. After this bill is

passed it will change the present setup? Mr. ENGLE. In some instances they

do it already. Mrs. ST. GEORGE. There are many

instances I happen to know of-that is why I am asking the question-where

·some of the land is reserved exclusively for the military. I just want to know if this bill will change that situation.

Mr. ENGLE. It will change that situation subject to this one limitation: In some instances military security will make it impossible to let civilians in. It is subject to that limitation.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Who will make that determination?

Mr. ENGLE. That will have to be a ·military decision, but if there is very much argument about it I suspect the committees will hear about it and that the local people w.ill make themselves heard.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ENGLE. There is a third subsidiary purpose. This bill makes it plain when these public lands taken over for military purposes are no longer needed for those military purposes they shall return to the status from which they were taken. Under the present law a good deal of this real property is peddled off

. through the General Services Administration as surplus. It becomes surplus, if you please. We admit where you have a great runway on a piece of land and all of its attendant facilities, the character of that land has been changed; therefore, that area should be dealt with differently, and the bill provides for the exception in that instance. Otherwise, where the general character of the land has not changed it goes back to the original status it had.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BATES. That would not preclude one military department from transferring it to another which might have use for it?

Mr. ENGLE. No; it would not. In fact, it would not become surplus under those circumstances.


I intended to deal with the hunting and fishing feature to some extent because that question has been raised. I dealt with it generally. If you will look at page 48 of the committee report you will see a particular item which illustrates how this can and will be changed.

Camp Hill, Va., is an Army installation aggregating in size nearly 77,000 acres rated as an outstanding hunting area for deer and small game and for fishing. A total of 182 personnel-10 officers, 87 enlisted men, and 85 Army civilian employees-are permanently assigned there. Training areas and quarters on the post are utilized for brief periods throughout the year by various groups from the area, including Regular and Reserve Army units, some Marine personnel, National Guard units, ROTC units, and Boy Scouts; all totaled, several thousands of individuals, on temporary assignment, use the area. In addition, for limited scheduled periods, the area is used by the Air Force for low-altitude bombing and strafing practice, and by Naval and Marine units for loft-bombing practice. During an approximately 9-week period, November 1956 to January 1957, a total of 6,250 persons hunted at Camp Hill during the deer season. The breakdown is as follows: Army, 2,417; Navy, 680; Air Force, 1,205; Marines, 203; and civilians, the portion coming from Army civilian employees as guests of military and from the pub)ic at large is not known, 1,745. In other words, during the deer season just ended at Camp Hill where only 97 Army personnel and 85 Army civilian personnel are permanently assigned, of a total of 6,250 persons permitted to hu:'lt, 4,505 were military personnel, the balance civilians.

That is the kind of situation we are trying to correct.

A question was asked about the Continental Shelf area. Displayed on the easel here is a quarter of the national map. It has been selected because it illustrates somewhat the situation with reference to the Continental Shelf.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. My concern is whether it makes any more land available to the off shore oil people for their use. Under the terms of this bill, is additional offshore oil area made available?

Mr. ENGLE. The answer is, It does not do that specifically but it may do it indirectly because it . would be necessary for the military to come to Congress to withdraw areas of 5,000 acres or more in the Continental Shelf area. They have a great deal there at the present time, as the gentleman will observe, either in use, applied for, or in warning areas of one type or another. So the Congress in balancing up the importance of the area from the standpoint of oil development, for instance, and for military operations, might say to the military, "Stay out of this area."

I will point out one here called area W-92. It is an area which would produce a quarter of a billion dollars in oil i·oyalties alone. We have been trying to get the Navy to get off of it, but instead of getting off of it, they want more area

there. Now, we think where you have a great natural resource that would produce a quarter of a billion dollars in royalties alone-and that is just the :first payment; that is a bonus; that does not count the regular royalties that come along-that these Congressional committees would want to consider the matter of trying to get the military some place else that would serve their needs and make it possible to collect that money.

By the way, that $250 million which would be paid in bonus payments on this one little piece of land down there in the Continental Shelf area is over half as much money as we have taken in under the Mineral Leasing Act through all the years it has been in operation since, I think, 1920.

Mr. GI\.OSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, if you are successful in getting the Navy off of it and it is withdrawn, it reverts back to the Government and must be thereafter disposed of by Congress; is that not correct?

Mr. ENGLE. Not by the Congress; no, sir.

Mr. GROSS. Well, with Congressional approval.

Mr. ENGLE. That is right. Now, under this bill, if they apply for more than 5,000 acres in this Continental Shelf area, they must come to the Congress and get approval. Now, if Congress turns it down, the land stays under the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Secretary of the Interior then can lease it for oil drilling, if he wants to, under the regular procedure.

Mr. GROSS. I still am not clear "trying to get the Navy off," and correct me if I am wrong, in trying to get the Navy off this land, which has such rich oil deposits; is that not correct? We are trying to get them out of there. Then what happens with that land if the Navy should be dislodged?

Mr. ENGLE. Then the Secretary of the Interior could lease it for oil development under contract to oil companies who would pay bonuses and, of course, added royalty.

Mr. GROSS. You do not mean, then, that the Navy would be dispossessed. The Secretary of the Navy would have control of the land; is that not correct?

Mr. ENGLE. Not necessarily. Mr. GROSS. How can he lease some

thing for which he did not have control? Mr. ENGLE. Not the Secretary of the

Navy. The Secretary of the Interior, under the Outer Continental Shelf Act, is given authority to conduct these leasing operations on the outer Continental Shelf, and this bill, in section 6, says that he shall have the authority to go ahead and do that.

Now, I want to deal a little with this Outer Continental Shelf area. Today there are 233 million acres off the gulf, Atlantic, and Pacific coasts overlaid by air warning areas created by Executive action. This long red part that you see out from the Gulf of Florida on the map displayed before you is the Patrick Air Force Base. That is that 5,000-mile range they use to shoot ballistic missiles. Well, of course, you cannot have anybody out there much of the

time; they might all get killed. And, that is true of a great many of these other firing areas. And, as I say, there are some 233 million acres of land now withdrawn in those areas and they are asking for 140 million more.

Mr. CHUDOFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ·ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CHUDOFF. As I understood the gentleman's explanation of section 6, you advised the House that under section 6 of the act control of the land would pass from the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior who would then be in a position to lease oil rights to private individuals.

Is there anything in section 6 of the act that provides for a procedure under which the Secretary of the Interior may act? Is it done by negotiation or under bids, or how does it operate?

Mr. ENGLE. As soon as the Secretary of the Interior has jurisdiction of the lands he may act. He has jurisdiction to do the leasing now under the Outer Continental Shelf Act which was passed, I believe, in 1953.

Mr. CHUDOFF. Does that act provide for a procedure for bids on leases, and so forth?

Mr. ENGLE. That is correct. It provides the procedure for leasing the outer Continental Shelf. The gentleman may recall that the outer Continental Shelf legislation was brought out of the Committee of the Judiciary of the House and asserted American jurisdiction to the minerals under the outer Continental Shelf running out to the 100-fathom line. Ordinarily we go out only 3 miles, and beyond that it is supposed to be international waters. But we, as a Congress and as a Nation, asserted ownership in all of that area in the outer Continental Shelf. For instance, in the Gulf of Mexico the waters go a long, long way beyond any 3 or even 21 miles and are very rich in these minerals, especially oil. We asserted the right of the American Government to explore and to take those. That is what is involved in the Outer Continental Shelf Act.

What we are trying to do is to prevent the military from stepping in and completely barring any other use of that area except for military purposes which, of course, would shut off everybody, including this tremendously valuable oil development. SUMMARY; PRESENT DEFENSE HOLDINGS, PEND

ING REQUESTS

Present Defense agency real property holdings, Defense agency requests pending for withdrawal of additional public domain lands, present Defense agency offshore overwater air warning areaspre-August ·7, 1953-and Defense agency pending requests for approval by the President of Defense-designated overwater restricted areas under terms of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Actpost-August 7, 1953-are summarized hereafter.

PRESENT DEFENSE HOLDINGS

Agencies of the Department of Defense controlled, as of June 30, 1956, a total of 27,564,867 acres of land within the 48 States, representing a cost <land and im-

1951 CONGRESSIONAL REC-ORP - HOUSE 5515 provements) to the United States of more than $18.2 billion.

All three military departments-Army, Navy, and Air Force-control some land in each of the 48 States, with total Defense acreages ranging from a high of 5.4 million acres in California to a low of 1,878 Defense-controlled acres in Vermont. Smallest acreage held by a single military department in any one State is the 1 acre controlled by the Navy in Connecticut, while the largest single installation is the Air Force's 3.7 million acre-of which the Atomic Energy Commission now controls some 700,000 acres-Nellis-Tonapah range in Nevada.

Of the total acreage held, 16.9 million acres are withdrawn or reserved public domain lands.

Not shown in the tables above are the approximately 3.1 .million acres of public domain lands controlled by Defense in Alaska, for which land and improvement cost figures were not tabulated, but which bring the 48 States-Alaska holdings of Defense to 30,664,887 acres. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF LANDS CONTROLLED

Land controlled-exclusive of lands held for civil functions of the Corps of Engineers-by agencies of the Department of Defense today, totaling in .the 48 continental States alone 27.6 million acres, or 43,138 square miles, amounts to a strip of land 14.34 miles in width from New York to San Francisco; an area larger than the entire State of Ohio-41,222 square miles-or Kentucky-40,-385 square miles-or Tennessee-42,244 square miles; or an area 21 times .the size of Delaware-2,057 square iniles-8 times the size of Connecticut-5,009 square miles-5 times the size of Massachusetts-8,257 square miles.:._or 683 times the size of the District of Columbia.

Put another way, Defense landholdings amount to in excess of six-tenths of an acre of real property for each of the estimated 47 million families in the United · States.

These :figures do not include the Connecticut-size Defense holdings in the Territory of Alaska, amounting to more than 3 million acres. · ·

PENDIN<;; REQUESTS

After reconciling and adjusting figures presented by Defense and Interior in the 31th Congreas, the committee determined that there were pending, as of June 30, 1956, Defense requests for additional public land withdrawals which total a little more than 6 million acres in 6 Western States-Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

In California alone, where defense agencies already control more than 5.4 million acres, 7 separate applications of the Navy would withdraw an additional 1,961,588 acres, while the Air Force is seeking an additional 7,546 acres. If these applications are approved, total Defense holdings in California would reach more than rr .3 million acres. . Alaska ·applications pending, which total 2,652,004 acres, bring the StatesAlaska pending request total up to nearly 8.7 million acres.

TOTAL OF HOLDINGS AND REQUESTS

If present applications are approved without reduction or adjustment, and as-

suming no control-acquisiti:on by other means, total Defense landholdings, States-Alaska, would amount to 39.3 million acres, of which 25.6 would be withdrawn or reserved public land.

RATE OF MILITARY LAND ACQUISITION

The basic reason for concern of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with respect to existing and proposed military land acquisitions can perhaps be best understood when reference is made to the rate of military land acquisition just prior to action being taken by the committee chairman.

During the 18-month period from January 1, 1954, to. June 30, 1955, according .to statistics compiled from Defense reports submitted to the committee during its hearings in the 84th Congress: the Army acquired control of 2,176,512 acres of land and the Air Force 3,775,725 acres, while the Navy reduced its total holdings by 1,781,616 acres. Thus, net acquisition figures for the 18-month period, for the 3 military departments, amounted to 4,170,621 acres.

Boiled down to 547 days, or 13,028 hours, or 781,680 minutes for that 18-month period this means that Defense agencies were adding to their landholdings at the rate of 7,622 acres per day, 317 acres per hour, or more than 5 acres per minute every minute of the night and day for 547 days.

Pending on June 30, 1955, were requests for 8. 7 million acres additional in the States and Alaska. Assuming approval of those applications during the 18-month period between June 30, 1955, and January 1, 1957, the rate of Defense agency public land acquisition alone would have been in excess of 11 acres per minute for the 18-month period.

As a result of a requested freeze on applications-as indicated in the following section-acquisitions during the past 18 months through withdrawal of public domain, for all 3 military departments, have amounted to approximately 40,000 acres. SUMMARY OF COMMITI'EE ACTION AND FINDINGS

On the record made by this committee in a total of 28 hearing days and legislation markup sessions spanning the last session of the 84 th Congress and the first 8 weeks of this Congress, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs believes that the findings hereinafter set out are established.

1. DEFENSE HOLDINGS, PENDING REQUESTS

Twenty years ago-in 1937-Defense agencies of the United States controlled a total of 3 million acres of real property, for all defense purposes.

Today, the total is more than 30 million acres in the United States and Alaska; · if all pending Defense applications for public lands had been approved, then Defense agencies would today control nearly 40 million acres of real property in the United States and Alaska, of which 25.6 million acres would represent withdrawn public lands.

2. RATE OF DEFENSE LAND ACQUISITION

In the 18-month period preceding June 30, 1955-a period of 547 daysagencies of the Department of Defense acquired land at the rate of more than 5 acres per minute every minute of the day

and night. Had the applications totaling 8. 7 million acres pending been approved between that date and January 1, 1957, the rate of Defense agency publicland acquisition alone would have been at a rate in excess of 11 acres per minute.

3. FREEZE ON EXECUTIVE WITHDRAWALS

In view of the sharp upturn in Defense Department land acquisitions, and in view of the fact that all such withdrawals were finalized within the executive departments by Executive action <Defense requests, Interior approved), the co:r;nmittee chairman, Representative Engle, on October 29, 1955, after consultation with ranking committee members on both sides, addressed a letter to the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Public Land Management requesting that further approvals be withheld until the committee could initiate an inquiry into policies and procedures governing Defense withdrawals.

Interior agreed to withhold approval of pending requests, and urged early committee study of the matter in the 84th Congress. Since October 29, 1955, less than 40,000 acres of public land have been withdrawn for defense purposes. 4. DEFENSE WITHDRAWAL CONTROL LEGISLATION

After extensive hearings during the 2d session of the 84th Congress, the committee developed legislation aimed at re .. turning to the Congress direct control of future Defense ag1mcy withdrawals of public lands, with both Defense and Interior agreeing that except in cases of most urgent necessity, none of the pending applications would be approved until the control legislation had been disposed of by the Congress.

H. R. 12185, the bill reported in the 84th Congress, passed the House on July 26, 1956, without a dissenting vote and after receiving unprecedented supportfrom official State agencies of 39 States, from all major national conservation groups, from numerous regional and local groups, organizations, and individuals-and in very large measure the support of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense.

House Report No. 2856-84th Congress, 2d session-which accompanied H. R. 12185 to the House set out in detail the findings and conclusions which formed the basis !Or the unanimous recommendation of the House Interior and Insular Mairs Committee for early and favorable House action, which came too late for Senate consideration of the measure.

The bill also unanimously reported by the committee herewith is in all essentials the bill approved by the House in the 84th Congress, with some language changes made for greater clarification as to scope and procedure.

In addition to requiring an act of Congress before Defense land acquisitions exceeding 5,000 acres take effectincluding public lands of the United States, Alaska and Hawaii, outer Continental Shelf lands and Federal lands and waters off the coasts of Alaska and Ha .. waii-the bill operates to make applicable to all military reservations and facilities the hunting, fishing, and trapping laws of the State or Territory in

5516 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--· HOUSE April 11 which such installation is located;· redefine the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to Defenseheld public lands found surplus to Defense needs; and to clarify the existing law with respect to disposition, management, and control of the mineral estate in Defense-held public lands.

The findings of the committee in the past 18 months underscore in the committee's view the urgent need for enactment of H. R. 5538.

5. DEFENSE AGENCY CONTROL PROCEDURES

The record made by the committee constitutes a severe indictment of central control procedures in the Military Establishment in nearly all phases of public-land acquisition, utilization, and management over a period spanning many years. It appears that the 800 percent jump-from 3 million to more than 25 million· acres-in total military land holdings from the War Department days of 1937 to the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947 was made by independent actions of the military de~ partments-the Army, Navy <for the Navy and Marine Corps) and Air Force--:without benefit of centralized control procedures. Further, that until August 27, 1955, the recoi·d shows Defense had cleared without question applications for withdrawal of millions of acres of additional lands solely on the basis of an asserted need by the requesting military department. In turn, the Department of the Interior-responsible for finalizing all public land withdrawal .orders..:.._had for years approved application after ap~ plication on the basis of Defense Depart.:. ment requests, since Interior was without authority or the technical data needed to challenge them.

The consequences of this procedure, until August 27, 1955, when Defense for the first time issued a departmentwide directive establishing a comprehensive periodic reports control procedure, · are best indicated in the following sections.

6. TEMPORARY WITHDRAWALS BECOME PERMANENT

During the 6-year period 1939-45, more than 13 million acres of public lands were withdrawn or reserved by Executive action for the use of the military. By the terms of the orders which set aside these lands for the military, they were to automatically revert 'to public-land status 6 months after the unlimited national emergency; the unlimited national emergency terminated April' 28, 1952, and the 6 months plus period expired October 28, 1952.

Yet, on February 20, 1956, a total of 49 of these temporary withdrawals made from 11 to 17 years earlier-embracing 11.9 million acres, and located in 10 States and · Alaska, were still in · effect. '1. DEFENSE AGENCY POSITION, JANUARY 1956

The testimony of the Departments of Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force with respect to the more than 30 million acres held in the United States and Alaska as of January 1, 1956, and with respect to the 8.7 million acres worth of appli.;. cations which had already been approved by them and by Defense was, in · effect, this: All of the land held as of that date is needed and is being used under

maximum multiple-purpose use, and all of the land under application is needed.

Defense Department witnesses did concede that the results of the August 1955 directive might modify these positions. The modification-in dollars, acres, resources, and deficiencies revealed-has been staggering. · 8. IMPROVED PROPERTY FOUND EXCESS, 1956-57

After the January 1956 testimony of Defense the first of 2,153 reports on that number of Army, Navy, and Air Force installations began to :flow into Defense under the 1955 utilization directive.

As of February 2, 1957, with approximately 66 percent of the reports in, hut with only about one-third of the total to be received evaluated, Defense found ' that 1,056,083 acres of land, together with improvements costing $345.2 million, were excess to the requirements of the military department having custody and control. It should be emphasized that 18,200 acres which cost about $230 million represents industrial property rec- · ommended for disposal, subject to a national security recapture clause.

It will be seen that if the reports evaluated to date are representative, the ultimate finding of surplus improved · property <industrial and nonindustrial) may reach 3 million acres with an initial co'st of more than $1 billion. From the standpoint of this committee's particular inte:r:est, the significant figures are more than 1 million acres with improvements, but representing nonindustrial property which cost originally $125 million.

9. MILITARY DEPARTMENT CONTROLS

The committee's tentative conclusion in its 1956 report that serious deficiencies were indicated in defense agency control procedures, in retrospect, appears to have been fully justified, if unduly cautious.

The committee has pointed out that of the three military departments, Army, Navy,. and Air Force, as of February 2, 1957, only the Department of the Air Force had submitted to Defense utilization reports on all of its properties-701 properties, 701 reports-while Navy had submitted about 30 percept-342 of 982-and Army about 90 percent-428 of 470. In turn, Defense had evaluated only about 30 percent of the total reports to be received.

It has also been noted that only the Department of the Air Force had, as of the close of the committee's hearing record, completed a detailed review of its range holdings, ·real-property policy, multiple-resource policy, and fishingand-hunting policy. It has also been noted that the Air Force Board, under the chairmanship of Maj. Gen. Leland s. Stranathan, found that as of October 9, 1956:

<a) Instructions governing Air Force ranges were incomplete, obsolete, and complex.

C-b) No valid criteria existed for deter~ mining range sizes.

(c) Regulations as to multiple use on Air Force ranges do not announce clear-cut policy with regard to the desirability of permitting or encouraging hunting, fishing, grazing, agricultural, and mining activities. ·

(d) Regulations governing hunting and fishing are divergent and complex.

(e) A total of 9 Air Force ranges in 8 States, and embracing 5.1 million acres of land had beeri without justification closed to general hunting and fishing.

<f) There is no policy guidance in regulations regarding the desirability or undesirability of leasing Air Force rangelands for grazing and agricultural purposes.

(g) A total of 12 Air Force ranges, embracing more than 6.7 million acres in 10 States, had been closed to grazing or agriculture without justification-as the committee noted, page 39, supra, applying nationwide Bureau of Land Management grazing averages, such an area would have a theoretical, potential carrying capacity. for more than 67,000 cattle and more than 420,000 sheep per year.

<h> Finally, and of greatest import, the Board found, on October 9, 1957, that about 40 percent of the 14.4 million acres . of land held by the Air Force and described 9 months earlier before the committee as fully utilized and needed for the foreseeable future-5.7 million. acres-were, in fact, excess to current and long-range Air Force requirements as bombing and gunnery ranges: thus, an area equal in size to a strip of land 2.8 miles wide from New York to San Francisco, held but excess.

The committee has no ·basis for any conclusion as to whether the findings of the Stranathan Board with respect to Air Force holdings are representative of the situation throughout the military de.; partments. It does here reiterate 'its unqualified conviction that no additional public land withdrawals should be finalized-except in cases of most urgent necessity, and then only subject to revocation thereafter if dictated by the results of studies not yet completed..;._until the Defense Department has reviewed the Stranathan Board findings, and un-· til Defense has in turn insisted on devel_. opment of similar internal reports on the part of the Departments of the Army and Navy to be followed by detailed scrutiny and evaluation of both at the Defense level.

10. "INCALCULABLE WASTEFULNESS,.

The commendation of the Air Force Board in the body of this report for the Board's. forthright and direct assault on Air Force internal control procedures; and the highly critical ·and constructive self-analysis resulting, will not, of course, obscure the clear message in the findings. The record of this one military ·department's analysis of its own operations is, in the committee's view, a recitation of incalculable wastefulness-of taxpayers' dollars, of resources within the reservations marked "closed" for so many years to public multiple use and enjoyment, and of unquestionable but immeasurable damaging effect to the local economies from which each unneeded or unused acre was carved.

·11. LOST: 303,000 UTAH ACRES

Reference to one other finding should serve as an exclamation · point to the committee's plea for early enactment of legislation which will provide a basis for review of military requests by ·the con-gress. · ·

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5517 For 15 years-from 1942 until at least

last month-the Air Force has controlled, but admittedly had never used, an area of approximately 303,000 acres of land in western Utah, held in conjunction with Wendover Bombing Range. When pressed for an explanation as to why this 500-square-mile area-more than 7 times the size of the entire District of Columbia-had not been used, Air Force witnesses said that it could not have been used because it was traversed on the surface by a major railroad, highway, and pipelines, and overhead by a commercial airway.

In turn, when asked why it had not been released 15 years ago if not used and admittedly not usable, the Air Force witness made it clear that the Air Force did not know it controlled the area, with this explanation:

I think there may be an explanation of that. I know when I first looked into it, it just did not occur to me that we would own land in a bombing and gunnery range under a commercial airway • • •. I think that is probably what beclouded the issue, that the airway was plotted across the map and one would not think of looking for land under it.

12. NAVY NEVADA LAND

The committee has, in the body of the report-pages 40-41, supra-brought up to date the developments on the request of the Navy for withdrawal of some 2.8 million acres of land in northern Nevada for use as a gunnery range, and the decision, after many months, that Navy would instead satisfy the bulk of its requirements by using the nearly 2 million acres in southern Nevada declared excess on March l, 1956, by the Air Force.

It appears that by reason of this decision, to the northern Nevada economy there will be saved within the proposed area all or most of the inheld 35 ranches--ranging in size from 200 to 19,000 acres-22,400 cattle and 14,000 sheep grazing in the area; 142 patented mining claims, 1,609 unpatented mining claims, and several millions of dollars worth of operating mines, and a priceless \vildlife habitat for antelope, mule deer, sage hens, and chukar partridges.

13. MILITARY HUNTING AND F'ISHING

The committee has.noted the very substantial progress made in the matter of military-local relationships on hunting and fishing during the past year, with a number of specific accomplishments listed in the body of the report-pages 42-46, supra. It is clear, however, that there remains some validity in the assertion that exclusive military hunting preserves still exist.

There has been set out in the body of the report, in some detail, the views of the committee in opposition to the present practice of the "guest of the military" approach, as well as its views on the privileged status of retired military personnel, visiting military personnel, temporary-duty military personnel, and various classes of dignitaries-including Members of Congress-all or some of whom are listed as entitled to hunting and fishing privileges on all or some of the Army's installations. The committee believes that this principal remaining questionable practice should, and

can be, reevaluated throughout the military departments where it prevails. 14. THE MILITARY AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

The report of the committee has dealt, at several points, with the effect of the military overwater or offshore range policy on petroleum resources. Reference has been made ·specifically to the committee's position on San Nicolas Island, Calif.-pages 50-51, supra-and on the Navy's insistence on retaining intact the existing W-92 warning area in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana-pages 51-55, supra. It is believed section 6 of H. R. 5538 effectively lays to rest the San Nicolas matter.

The combination of intractability of the Navy in the matter of the W-92 withdrawal area with the unwillingness or inability of the Department of the Interior to act, and the failure of those responsible in the Executive Office of the President to settle a months-old Defense/ Navy-Interior clash, is simply incomprehensible, for the reasons the committee noted in the body of the report on this subject.

This multiple inaction at the executive level does, however, afford an opportunity for early and decisive disposal by the Congress of the matter, in keeping with the basic objective of recapturing to the legislative branch its too long abandoned constitutional responsibility under the property clause.

The statistical effect of permitting Navy's use of 800,000 acres of the shelf lands overlayed· by the W-92 Navy warning areas is this: The taxpayers of the United States are being asked to pay outright-through revenues not received· from oil leasing-about $250 per surface acre of salt-water airspace over the Gulf of Mexico for asserted naval gunnery needs-when the same Navy controls more than 16,000 square miles-13.8 million acres-of other warning areas in the Gulf of Mexico and has had designated there an additional 10,000 square miles-8.8 million acres; further, that the Navy already controls, or has had designated, warning areas totaling 236,000 square miles-198.7 ·million acres-in surface area off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

The committee, failing action before House disposition of H. R. 5538, stands ready to propose an amendment aimed at resolving the W-92 matter.

15. "SUPER-RANGE" PLAN DISCARDED

From testimony of witnesses representing the Atomic Energy Commission, Air Force, and Navy in 1956, the committee had expressed concern at the proposal to carve out of public domain a new joint-use "super range" for ballistics-testing purposes in the vicinity of Albuquerque, N. Mex. From testimony last year it appeared this range might require as much as 10,000 square miles in one piece-an area 100 by 100 miles on its extreme axis-or, roughly, 6 million acres.

Decision of the Air Force to obtain use of the airspace and of nonfederally owned lands of lesser area within and over the Navaho Indian Reservation, and on terms satisfactory to the tribe, is applauded by the committee as an alternative to the original and tentative plan.

16. SUMMATION OF TODAY'S DEFENSE NEEDS; "CUBIC MILES"

The technological advances made in development of our modern utensils of war have outmoded traditional concepts of military land acquisition, management, and control, just as they have made obsolete, over the years, what were called at the height of World War II conventional-weapons concepts.

In an age of high-speed, high-altitude, and pilotless aircraft, of ground-toground, ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air atomic and hydrogen projectiles and missiles, it appears that the United States Defense Establishment had concentrated so much-and so effectively-on the operations aspects of its collective missions that it had at the same time largely ignored updating the procedures and policies governing acquisition, management, utilization, and control of real property deemed necessary to carry out these missions. Put another way, while policies for carrying out the basic defense mission advanced to a supereffective point, policies for assuring vital domestic land and related resources were permitted to remain outmoded, wasteful, stifling to resource development, decentralized, and ineffective.

We have said that if all pending Defense applications were approved today, then defense agencies would control nearly 4.0 million acres of land surface area in the States and Alaska, and at the same time they would control inland and off shore airspace overlaying a surface area aggregating an astronomical 602,000 square miles-388.9 million acres. The answer to the 1956 plea of this committee that "Defense agencies should get out over water with their ranges" is cleai·: they're already there.

It is clear to this committee, then, that military use requirements today must be thought of in terms of both horizontal and vertical needs. While the concern and jurisdiction of this committee is limited to the former, and then only where public lands are involved, the committee believes that it is absolutely vital that continuing reevaluations be made of Federal legislation and administrative controls .governing the assignment and use of airspace, which does involve the latter.

As reported above, the committee believes that very substantial progress has been recently made by defense agencies in the direction of vastly improved i·eal property procedures, which involves horizontal needs; it is possible that similar studies of Defense airspace, or vertical needs, would achieve similar results. This is so because the record made in the 84 th Congress and in this Congress makes it clear that, where we spoke of "military acres" pre-World War II, and "military square miles" by 1945, today those requirements can only be adequately described in terms of "cubic miles."

STRANATHAN BOARD REPORT

Mr. Chairman, so that the record might be complete and unmistakably clear, I desire to briefly enlarge upon the comments of my committee with regard to the wotk of the United States Air Force Weapons Range Board and its

·5518 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- . HOUSE April 11

very · substantial contribution toward achievement of a sound military land acquisition and maximum multiple-use policy consonant with what the committee believes should prevail throughout the Defense Establishment.

As was noted in House Report No. 215, accompanying the bill under consideration today, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on January 11, 1956, appointed .what was designated as the United States Air Force Weapons Range Boar.d for the purpose of "reviewing and determining the current and future United States Air Force bombing, gunnery, rocketry, and missile range · requirements for training, testing, proficiency, and development purposes."

On October 9, 1956, the Board submitted its report. The contents of that report and the conclusions reached are dealt with at some length in the committee report on the pending legislation, and in a manner which may tend, on balance, to detract from the true value and scope of the Board's work. I take this opportunity to set the record straight on that score.

COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD

Because I believe those who brought the report into being deserve the .highest commendation of this body, I take this opportunity to list those who brought it into being: Maj. Gen. Leland s. Stranathan, Chairman; Maj. Gen. Edward H. Underhill; Brig. Gens. Kurt M. Landon, William E. Rentz, Charles H. Mccorkle, William E. Blanchard, Avelin P. Tacon, Jr., and Arthur C. Agan, Jr.; Col. Joseph F. Brannock; and Lt. Col. David F. MacGhee.

I am convinced-as I believe Members will be in examining the record made by our committee in its 2-year study of military land matters-that the Stranathan Board report is a milestone of progress in the field of Defense real property acquisition and use. The report demonstrates that at least one of the .three 'great military departments can internally view its own workings, can do so objectively, and come up with blunt, candid-a11d highly constructive-selfcriticism.

The report of the Air Force Board, we have said, will result in several millions of dollars of direct savings at the outset, and the procedures establish.ed within the Air Force as a result of the study hold promise of tens of millions of dollars in savings in future operations. If the same hardheaded self-analysis were to be applied throughout the Department of Defense, we would make a considerable dent in the lump-sum automatic defense appropriations for real property acquisition and administration.

Further, I believe that the Air Force Board has set a standard in its approach which offers a real and continuing challenge to the other military departments. I want to suggest, here and now, that about 1 cubic foot of space be reserved in the Air Museum of the Smithsonian

· Institution in the section where we keep our prototype exhibits-and, when it is declassified, they can put the Stranathan report in there as the first of its kind in its field, alongside our other prototypes.

REAL PROPERTY .CONTROL

For nearly 15 years, I have been fighting in the Congress to· get the military agencies to take a long, ·hard look at existing real property policies and procedures. Have they? Let us look at the record. ·

It should be noted that the Department of the Air Force was the first of the military departments to establishin May of 1955, several months before the Department of Def€nse itself got around to the same action-basic internal real property reports control procedures.

The Department of Defense in August of 1955 issued a directive requiring a defensewide utilization study by each of the 3 military departments on the 2,153 separate installations or facilities controlled.

It should be noted that-as of the date our committee closed its hearing recordonly the Department of the Air Force had submitted reports on all 701 of its installations and facilities. I believe it is significant that the Air Force had demonstrated its good faith by responding to that directive before it pressed for withdrawal of additional acreages.

The record should also show, I believe, that only one of the three military departments-again, the Air Force-has as of this date completed a detailed, and sometimes painful, internal study of its real property policies and procedures. As we have noted, this study resulted in a finding that more than 5.5 million acres held for bombing and gunnery range purposes were excess to current Air Force needs for such purposes. By way of contrast, the Department of the Navywhich is seelcing more than 5 million acres of additional public lands in Nevada and California alone-has continued to press for those lands notwithstanding the fact Navy had submitted a scant 342 of her required 982 utilization ·reports the day we closed our hearing record.

MULTIPLE-USE CONCEPTS RECOGNIZED

The Stranathan Board report also stands, on the record, as proof that constructive and objective departmental self-analysis can result in conclusions reftecting the highest sense of responsibility for minimizing the impact on local economies dependent upon multiple public land and public land resources use.

We have noted that the Air ForceFish and Wildlife Service . joint agreement of December 17, 1956; for the development of fish and wildlife conservation programs throughout the Air Force stands as a landmark achievement in the field of military agency resources conservation. So, too, do the conclusions and recommendations of the Board with respect to compatibiiity of grazing, agricultural, and related uses by private citizens on millions of acres of Air Force lands.

During the hearings in the 84th Congress on the predecessor to the bill pending here today, and in its report of last Congress, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs issued a challenge to the Department of Defense, and to Army, Navy, and Air Force. That challenge, in effect, was this: "Prove your

· good-faith intentions to reexamine your policies and procedures for acquisition and utilizatien of public lands for defense purposes."

One military department has responded, in very large measure, to that challenge. -In so doing, it has supplied the Congress with proof that there are personnel in the Defense Establishment with know-how in public land and general real property matters. In the doing, also, Congress has been supplied with a yardstick to measure against present and future demands of other military departments. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H. R. 5538

First. Section 1 of the reported measure deals with the withdrawal and reservation for, restriction of, and utilization by, the Department of Defense for defense purposes of the public lands of the United States. ·

This section declares that, not withstanding any other provisions of lawexcept in time of war or national emergency hereafter declared by the President or the Congress-the provisions of the act will take effect upon enactment. Lands and waters included within the scope of the bill include: public lands of the United States; public lands of the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii; Federal lands and waters of the outer Continental Shelf, as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act <6'1Stat.462); and Federal lands and waters off the coast of the Territory of Alaska and the Territory of Hawaii.

The committee, in employing the term "public lands," intends it to apply in its technical or legal sense, as distinguished from "reserved pu"Qlic lands" or "withdrawn public lands," and "acquired public lands." It should be noted that section 1 makes clear the application of the provisions to all public lands-as defined therein, and in this report-but does not preclude application of some of the provisions of the bill to other real property owned or controlled by the United States.

The term "Federal lands and waters off the coast" is employed to make clear the intention of the committee that the act's provisions apply to lands and waters lying seaward of tQe territorial limits of the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii.

Subparagraph (2) reftects the intent of the committee that the act not be deemed to apply to withdrawal or reservation of public lands specifically as naval petroleum, naval oil shale, or naval coal reserves.

Subparagraph (3) was approved by the committee in light of the committee's position that the esta·blishment of existing-pre-August 7, 1953--over-water warning areas does not-in light of enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, 1953-operate to preclude mineral exploration and leas-· ing activities under the 1953 act. The committee, with this understanding and position, did conclude that until pending Defense designations under the 1953 act hav:e been processed and disposed of through the procedures established in the reported bill, the warning areas should be left undisturbed.

Subparagraph (4) of the first section .excepts from the Congressional review

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5519 sections of the bill, for the reasons set out in the body of the report, five longestablished military reservations subject to termination of the unlimited national emergency, and for which Interior on October 27, 1952, authorized continuing use, namely, Williams bomb range, Arizona; Camp Irwin, Calif.; Edwards Base, Calif.; Nellis rifle range, Nevada; and a portion of the Boardman bomb range, Oregon.

It will presently be seen that all or parts of section 4, section 5, and section

legislation having as its purpose effecting the withdrawal requested, and containing such provisions for continued operation of the public lands laws within the area proposed to be withdrawn as may be determined to be compatible with the intended military use.

To achieve these objectives, section 3 would require applications to specify, in addition to the name of the requesting agency, using agency, location and description of boundaries of the area, and gross acreage involved: the purpose or purposes-unless classified for national security reasons-for which the area is

6 apply not only to public lands, but to certain other Federal real property as well.

Second. Section 2 contains the basic provision of the bill, which establishes a requirement that withdrawals, reservations, or restrictions of more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate for defense purposes may hereafter be made only by act of Congress.

The section contains language which would preclude the making of a number of cumulative withdrawals, each for less than 5,000 acres, where all would be used for any one defense project or facility of the Department of Defense.

Testimony of witnesses for the Department of the Interior made it clear that the great majority of individual applications for any one project or facility in fact involve lands of less than 5,000 acres, and as may be noted below, the Department of Defense in its report does not object to this section of the act. In testimony given subsequent to the receipt of the Defense Department report, witnesses fox the Department of Defense ·directly negatived a question as to whether the 5 000-acre breaking point in the bill ~ould unduly hamper or interfere with carrying out the defense mission.

. proposed to be withdrawn; whether contamination will result, and if so, whether such contamination will be permament or temporary; the extent, if any, to which the proposed use will affect full operation of the pttIDic-land laws and Federal regulations relating to conservation, utilization, and development of mineral resources, timber, and other material resources, grazing resources, fish and wildlife resources, water resources, scenic, wilderness, recreational and other values; and, if the r..rea to be witt.drawn involves the use of water, the agency would be required to state whether, subject to existing rights under law, it has acquired or intends to acquire rights to the use of the water in conformity with State laws and procedures relating to the control, appropriation, use and distribution of water.

Third. Section 3 would lay a more adequate base for fully determining at the local level and for congressional consideration the resource impact of proposed withdrawals.

Defense agencies would continue to file applications for withdrawal, reservation, or restriction of public lands with the appropriate local land office of the Bureau of Land Management or with the Department of the Interior, just as is done under present procedure. Continuance of this procedure would accomplish the same dual effect achieved by existing practices: First, the recordation of the application in the appropriate office has the effect of segregating temporarily the . lands requested from all forms of entry under the lands laws, thus serves as a sound antispeculation measure; second, continuance of existing procedure would provide notice at the local and State level-through requisite Federal Register publication and/ or press releases issued by Bureau of Land Management State supervisors-that the application had been made.

Thereafter, if the aggregate acreage of public lands included within the proposed withdrawal, reservation, or restriction falls within the requirements of H. R. 5538 as evidenced by the public lands records maintained by the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Interior would then develop, for transmission to the Congress, proposed

Relating of the requirements in the proposed bill to the findings of the committee, as set out hereinbef ore, should make abundantly clear the reasons why they are ·included, and the results the committee believes will be achieved.

One observation needs to be made: the record made by the committee suggests that applicant defense agencies have tended to turn to the clause "if the purpose or purposes are classified for national security reasons" as a device to relieve them of the burden of making known the general purpose for which such areas are to be withdrawn. rt does not appear that such generalized terms as "gunnery range," "bombing range," "missile range,'' and the like would seriously threaten the national security, particularly when the areas involved may range from 1,500 to 3,000 square miles in area, an area of such size that it simply cannot be subtly and deftly removed from the operation of the public lands laws without generating substantial local interest, and interest of the State or Territory affected.

Fourth. Section 4 has as its objective substantially reducing the areas of present and continuing conflict between State and Territorial officials and the commanding officers of military installations and facilities involving the management, conservation, and harvesting of fish and game resources, and the enforcement of fish and game laws of the State or Territ-ory within military installations or facilities.

This section, as was noted in the comments on section 1, applies not only to i·eserved public land reservations, but to acquired lands as well; its broad purpose is to make State hunting, fishing, and trapping laws applicable as Federal laws on all military installations.

Section 4 (a) (1) would require that all hunting, trapping, and fishing on all military installations and facilities-including those falling presently within the exclusive Federal jurisdiction status-be in accordance with the fish and game laws of the State or Territory in which such lands are located. Section 4 (a) (2) would require that State or Territorial licenses be obtained for hunting, trapping, and fishing on any such areas if local law (i. e., State or Territorial law) authorizes license issuance to Armed Forces members on bona fide military duty for more than 30 days at such installation within the State or Territory involved, without regard to residence requirements, and open terms no less favorable .than those upon which a license is issued to residents.

This subsection-(a) (2)-anticipates affirmative action being taken by some States before hunting, trapping, or fishing within such reservations must be licensed by State law; it does not anticipate that for such activities outside such reservations the same preferred treatment must be afforded military personnel. Since subparagraph (1) of section 4 (a) requires that all hunting, trapping, and fishing at the installation or facility be in accordance with the fish and game laws of the State or Territory in which it is located, the clear intent is that such activities carrbe conducted if at all, only in accordance with State law relating to season and bag limits, methods of taking, and so forth, even though the military personnel are not required to comply with State licensing requirements within the reservation because of the State's failure to establish preferential treat,;, ment with respect to residence.

In other words, hunting within all such reservations-with or without State provisions establishing preferred military treatment-can only be conducted after the effective date of the act, if in compliance with State fish and game laws, excepting licensing. The · State may or may not provide for preferred treatment outside such reservations to be assured State licensing within such reservations, if the State has met the residence waiver requirements of this subparagraph.

Possible dual construction of the clause "for a period of more than 30 days" deserves clarifying comment: If an individual is actually assigned on bona fide military duty by orders providing for duty status at the installation involved, so that his orders require his presence at the installation for a minimum of 30 days, he would then be eligible for a license under the preferred status provisions when first physically present for duty on such orders.

Subsection 4 (a) (3) mandates the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the appropriate governor or his designee, and subject to safety and military secu-1·ity requirements, to develop procedures whereby State or Territorial fish and game or conservation officials may have full access thereto "to efiect measures for the management, conservation, and havesting of fish and game resources."

The quoted language anticipates not only that the obvious results will be achieved, but the possibility that-in

5520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Apri l 11

areas where insufficient military personnel are present to adequately enforce fish and game laws, such as the case at Camp McCoy, Wis., referred to above-State game officials may be deputized as Federal marshals to assure adequate enforcement.

Subsection 4 (b) requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of section 4, and reflects the committee's conclusion that only through such a provision will there be assurance that regulations are to be uniform at all Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force installations.

Subsection 4 (c) provides that violations of the State and Territorial fish and game laws made applicable to military installations and facilities are violations of ·Federal law, and subject to like punishment as though committed or omitted within the State or Territorial jurisdiction.

Lastly, subsection 4 (d) specifically recites that rights granted by treaty or otherwise to any Indian tribe or members thereof are not modified by the provisos dealing with fishing, trapping, and hunting.

Special reference should be made to the applicability of this section to the Territory of Alaska, and military installations located therein. There is set out hereafter a letter <see p . .._74) from the Alaska Game Commission, recommending amendments to make it clear that Alaska's present requirement that military personnel must actually be present in Alaska for a 12-month period before becoming entitled to a resident hunting license. The committee, for the reasons assigned by the Alaska Game Commission spokesman in his appearance before the committee, agrees that his licensing provision should not be changed at this time in Alaska; however, the committee has concluded that, without any amendment, the special 30-day provision would not be applicable in Alaska, since the law governing fishing and hunting in Alaska-incuding licensing provisions-is presently a Federal law, rather than the law of a State or Territory.

Fifth. Section 5 would amend in two particulars the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949-63d United States Statutes at Large, page 377-as amended.

It would except from the real property-disposition provisions of the 1949 act, minerals in withdrawn or reserved public domain lands which the Secretary of the Interior determines are suitable for disposition under the public land mining and mineral leasing laws.

Next, it amends the 1949 act to provide that only those withdrawn or reserved public domain lands surplus to the needs of Federal agencies found by the Secretary of the Interior-with the concurrence of the Administrator of General Services-not suitable for restoration to public land status by virtue of their having been substantially changed in character by improvements, or otherwise, would hereafter be subject to the real property disposition provisions of the amended 1949 act.

Both of these amendments would clarify the operation of existing law; one

would make it clear· that only when determined by the Secretary to be not suitable for mining or mineral leasing purposes would the mineral estate pass with the title to the surface estate being disposed of under surplus property provisions; the other ·would reverse the roles of the Secretary and the Administrator so as to provide that the Secretary would make an initial judgment of the nature with which his Department is most familiar-suitability of lands for public land uses, a traditional Interior function-and if the Adminstrator concurs in a finding of nonsuitability, the lands would. be disposed of as surplus.

Sixth. Section 6: Finally, the reported measure provides, in section 6, that all minerals in withdrawn or reserved public lands-except lands withdrawn or reserved specifically as naval petroleum, naval oil shale, or naval coal reserves_:_ are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, and that no disposition thereof shall be made except under "the applicable public land mining and mineral leasing laws."

Read together with the committee findings above respecting the Defense position on petroleum resources, the object and purpose of this section are clear. Until the presentation by Defense witnesses on petroleum reserves, and the effect of the prospective airspace withdrawal on pending applications for restriction of our Continental Shelf lands, committee members had believed there was universal agreement that responsibility for disposition of minerals in withdrawn or reserved public lands was exclusively vested in the Secretary of the Interior, but only if consistent with the defense use.

Enactment of this section into law actually constitutes a restatement of the law as it is today, in the view of the committee and the Department of the Interior. In short, as declared above, the provisions of section 6 of the repoi'ted bill will serve to remove whatever doubts may exist, if any, as to the laws which govern the disposal of or exploration for, any and all minerals, including oil and gas, in public lands of the United States heretofore or flereafter withdrawn or reserved by the United States for the use of defense agencies.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. ENGLE] has expired.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. MILLER.

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues on the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and here on the floor in strongly endorsing this long-overdue legislation. While my own State of Nebraska is not the site of extensive Federal land holdings, I have sat too long on the House Interior Committee to not appreciate the real military impact on local economies-the exclusion of multiple-re-· source utilization, needlessly, on millions of acres of lands, particularly in the 11 Western States.

With my colleagues, I beli~ve that whatever the Defense Establishment needs, it should have. I am sure this body will always do its part quickly and

conscientiously in seeing that they get whatever real property is needed, wherever it is needed. But the record made in the 84th Congress and in the 1st session of this Congress underscores three major reasons for ·enactment of H. R. 5538 now, in my view:

First, enactment of H. R. 5538 pulls back to the Congress in an area of greatest single-purpose land use-military public-land area for bombing, gunnery, missile, and related range purposes-the congressional responsibility under property clause of the Constitution for "making all needful rul.es and regulations respecting the property belonging to the United States." · Second, enactment of this military land withdrawal control legislation now will go a long way toward restoring balance and perspective to maximum multiple-resouree use policies in the matter of public lands and public-land resources-grazing, timber, and other materials, water, minerals, fish and wildlife values, and wilderness and scenic values.

Third, and perhaps most important, enactment of H. R. 5538 now-in a nonnational emergency period-will lay a base upon which the defense agencies will be required to develop procedures which will minimize public. land and local economy impact in the event another national emergency should develop in the future. In short, we will not witness again the 800-percent military land increase which took place between 194.0 and 1945, when military land holdings jumped from 3 million acres to more than 25 million acres.

I hope we can approve the measure unanimously, and for my own part, trust that before too many months have passed our committee can review in detail the past and present land-acquisition policies of our other major publicland users, such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers. and the Bureau of Reclamation. Those agencies too-and almost exclusively through executive action based in most instances on statutes, if any, placed on the books many, many years ago-have acquired millions of acres of lands which are, or are not, being held and used in conformity with sound maximum multipleresource use policies. Congress should recapture its property-clause responsibilities straight across th~ boards.

H. R. 5538 is a good start on what I hope will be a pattern for future legislation.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. DAWSON].

Mr. DAWSON of utah. Mr. Chairman, the greatest military machine the world has ever known now holds more than 43,000 square miles of American soil and is still enlarging its area of occupation.

Happily, that military machine is our own. I appreciate that upon its strength and upon the adequacy of its training rests our assurance that never will it be the armies of another nation which take over such a huge chunk of our country.

But I have long been concerned at the pace and capriciousness with which the

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5521 Department of Defense has been withdrawing vast area3 from our public domain.

H. R. 5538, in behalf of which I speak, having introduced a like bill, would not deprive our military of any lands, public or private essential to national defense. But it would require that further sizable withdrawals of our public lands be made only after the proposed withdrawal had been justified to the Congress.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, this legislation would be our assurance that the military acquisition of our jealously guarded public lands was based upon actual need, not upon whim from some farremoved swivel chair.

One example, even if it were an isolated case, shows the need for this protective legislation. I refer to the "lost" 303,000 acres in my own State of Utah. Here, in conjunction with the Wendover Bombing Range, the Air Force for 15 years has held an area of 500 square miles which it not only has never used but only belatedly learned that it controls.

Or consider the case of the NellisTonopah Air Force Range in southern Nevada, where the Air Force has released 1,800,000 acres of land-land so contaminated with unexploded ordnance that it now would require the expenditure of $10 an acre to make it safe for ordinary civilian use.

The Air Force's own weapons Range Board reported last year that 6.7 million acres of land in 10 states had been closed to grazing or agriculture without justification.

At the end of last fiscal year the Defense Department's total holdings included more than 26,500 square milesnearly 17 million acres-of the public domain. And at that time there were pending applications for another 6 million acres.

In a State like Utah, where nearly 3 acres out of every 4 lie within the public domain, we necessarily must be deeply concerned with the use to which these lands are put. They are, in large part, our stock ranges and the depositories of our natural resources.

Let me repeat that this bill would not deprive, nor would I want to deprive, the Department of Defense of a single acre of ground which it actually needs for national defense. We in Utah are proud of the military installations located within our State and the part they play in the defense of our country.

But when every acre taken away also takes something away from a sheepman, a cattleman, a prospector, or a miner, it is a matter of simple justice that they be protected against arbirtrary decisions.

.Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. KILDAY].

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I am not authorized to speak for the Committee on Armed Services. However, the staff of the Committee on Armed services has been over the bill very carefully and has worked with some of the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. We have come to some definite views and conclusions with reference to the bill. I would not be able to state that all of the military Depart-

ment or Defense are per! ectly happy about some of these provisions. However, with one exception which I will mention later, I hope this is a bill tha.t the military can live with. I realize they would rather not have any limitation upon the right to apply for the withdJ:awal of land from the public domain. But the regulation that Congress shall pass upon the withdrawal of anything in excess of 5,000 acres is reasonable. The same would apply, of course, with reference to the question of hunting and fishing and the preservation of wild life and so on. I believe the provisions of the bill in that regard are reasonable.

In section 6 of the bill, there is a provision which would apply to lands heretofore withdrawn and assigned to the military as well as to lands hereafter to be withdrawn by the military for military purposes. As to the lands heretofore withdrawn, I believe rather than having the Secretary of the Interior join in determining whether the use of it for leasing for mining and minerals would interfere with the military uses is not quite i·easonabler I believe the determination as to whether these activities would be inconsistent with the military purposes should be made by the Secretary of Defense after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. So, at the proper time I propose to off er. and

.I hope the Committee will see fit to accept, an amendment which would strike out the present proviso appearing on page 8 starting line 14:

Strike out that proviso and insert: "Pro_vided, That no disposition of, or exploration for, any minerals in such lands shall be made where the Secretary of Defense, after a consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, dP.termines that such disposition or exploration is inconsistent with the military use o! the lands so withdrawn or reserved."

I hope the committee will see fit to accept it. I believe. actually, it would improve the proviso which now appears in the bill by giving the authority to 1 member of the Cabinet rather than to have 2 members of the Cabinet being under the necessity of coming into agreement. At the proper time I propose to off er that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of our committee for his diligence in working on this bill and bringing it to the fioor of the House. This is a clean bill and is the result of hearings which extended over a long period during the last session of the Congress and for about 2 months during the present session of the Congress.

I would ·uke to give credit to some of the other Members of the House who have introduced similar bills. The gentlemen from Utah [Mr. DAWSON], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. JACKSON], the gentleman from Montana [Mr. METCALF]. the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. THOMSON], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL], the gentleman from Nevada CMr. BARING}, the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. PFOST], the gentleman from :Utah [Mr. DrxoNJ,

and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. BUDGE) and myself.

This bill will go a long way toward making the various communities get along a little better with the armed services. One of the biggest complaints that appeared in the testimony before our committee was that when the military moved into an area and took large sections of the public domain they would do it without seeking any advice, assistance, or consultation with the local people.

As a result of this bill it will be necessary for the military to come to Congress, and the Members of Congress will have an opportunity to take it up with the people in their local communities who will be affected by any withdrawals, and I feel it will be a step forward in public relations as far as all branches of the military are concerned.

I wish to call your attention to an amendment I intend to off er. Believe it or not, many of these military reservations are regarded by their commanding generals and admirals as private hunting preserves and only those are allowed on them who meet with the approval of the commanding officer. I would like to read one of the regulations that was put out. It states:

The Commanding General of the United States Army Armor Section shall issue to Members of Congress, high Government officials, city officials of communities adjacent to Knox and Breckenridge, and prominent citizens who have demonstrated active interest in military affairs invitations to hunt and fish at Knox and Breckenridge.

I propose to offer an amendment which would provide that Members of Congress as well as these other privileged groups shall be admitted only when they comply with State law; that is, if you were invited to hunt you may go and hunt but you must buy a license, and if you are an out-of-State resident you will be required to buy an out-of-State license, and you will be required to comply with the game laws just as any other citizen would be if he were hunting in any other place in the State. This, I think, is or.Jy fair to allow the State to insist that the people who hunt on military reservations comply in all respects with the laws of the State.

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. I yield. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I really be

lieve that is taken care of in the bill, page 5, lines 16 to 19:

(1) Require that all hunting, fishing, and trapping at that installation or facility be in accordance with the fish and game laws of the State or Territory in which it is located.

Mr. SAYLOR. True, that is there, but this amendment merely puts in a little more detail to make sure that the high members of the military who have charge of the post do not feel they have any prerogative to maintain their right to hunt without any regard to State game laws and bag limits. Cases were brought to our attention where people were invited to military reservations to kill game out of season. Such instances do not make for good public relations, and I feel it is incumbent upon Congress


to take the responsibility in seeing to it that when the military come to them for requests for withdrawals that they shall also say to the military that hunting shall comply with the laws of the States.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. TEAGUE].

Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to go on record as favoring this legislation and to a case in supp9rt of my position. In my own district we have 9 or 10 of these military installations, some active and some inactive. In this latter category is where the trouble arises. The citizens in my district do not object to giving up land which is necessary for a good military purpose and which is being used for such purpose, but they do object when there are thousands and thousands of acres which are not being utilized and which, of course, are off the tax rolls. I think it is highly important that the military be subject to this additional check proposed by this legislation to be sure that everything is being done to see that land which is already owned is used wherever possible.

In my own experience, two of the top men in the Defense Department have been very helpful in trying to check this over expansion. They are farmer Assistant Secretary Franklin Floete and his successor, Floyd S. Bryant.

We did, however, have a problem last summer which I believe, had this legislation been in effect, would not have arisen.

It was announced rather suddenly one morning that the Navy intended to acquire a strip of land 20 to 30 miles wide and 150 miles long going through a national forest in my district. Incidentally, it would also have taken about 25 percent of the agricultural land in one of my counties. Had this additional check been required as it will be when this bill is passed I think that would not have come about. Fortunately the Navy found it could go elsewhere and do the job just as well.

I would like again to commend the chairman of the committee and to express the hope that this legislation will be adopted.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TEAGUE of California. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I know the gentleman has made a careful study of this bill. I would like to ask him a little bit in reference to the meaning of the term "public lands." I have a particular case in mind in reference to this definition of "public lands." The definition is a little hazy in a good many respects. Just exactly what is public land? For instance, I have in mind a case where my home city, Shreveport, La., gave to the United States for military purposes 23,000 acres of land. It occurs to me this provision which my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. KILDAY] referred to being retroactive to lands heretofore conveyed might

in some way be construed for mineral purposes to cover lands of that sort.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. I am not a member of this committee. I should like to yield to the chairman of the committee to answer the question.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I will be very happy to hear f ram our distinguished friend the Chairman.

. Mr. ENGLE. I would refer the gentleman to page 5 of the committee report. At that point is set forth the definition of "public lands, or public-domain lands." In order that it may be perfectly clear what we are talking about, the definition set forth there is as follows:

Original public domain lands which have never left Federal ownership; also, lands in Federal ownership which were obtained by the Government in exchange for public lands or for timber on such lands; also, original public-domain lands which have reverted to Federal ownership through operation of the public-land laws. (Source: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glossary of Public-Lands Terms, 1949.)

That is the kind of land we are talking about. This bill does not affect acquired land.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Will the gentleman read the following paragraph? I read that particular paragraph, which is clear enough, but in the next paragraph of the report a clear situation may be beclouded by the language that fallows.

Mr. ENGLE. I do not believe so. The next paragraph says:

In its technical, legal, or statutory sense, however, the term "public lands" by itselfemployed interchangeably with the term "public-domain lands"-is today used to embrace vacant, unappropriated, unreserved Federal real property.

That is exactly what we are talking about. We are not talking about lands acquired by condemnation, gift, or otherwise. We are talking about the public land areas of the United States.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Let me ask further. After the portion which the gentleman read, the report says:

I. e., lands open to the public lands laws relating to settlement, entry, location, and sale, and authorizing entry for mining, mineral leasing, timber and other materials removal, local public purposes, recreation, homesteading, etc. Such lands are administered by the Bm·eau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

I want the gentleman to clear up the point, because with us it is a very serious point.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. RHODES].

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to yield to the chairman of the committee if he desires me to.

Mr. ENGLE. Since the gentleman has yielded to me, I will answer the gentleman with reference to his inquiry. It is our position that this bill applies only to the public-land areas and, as a consequence, it does not affect the other types of areas.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. In other words, if this particular . tract--Barksdale Air Force Base--which was given to the Government in about 1930, has oil and gas and minerals under that tract of land, this gives no authority to the Department of the Interior to authorize drilling in that particular tract other than the authority that they presently have, if any, before the passage of the bill?

Mr. ENGLE. This bill does not add to any authority that they already have in that respect. In other words, if they do not have the power now, this bill does not give it to them.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. It was purely a gift for military purposes. There has been some drilling under an Executive order of the President which permits offset drilling. Now, this does not add to that authority, as I understand it.

Mr. ENGLE. No. Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Nor does

it extend the terms of any Executive order or regulation in that respect?

Mr. ENGLE. No; it does not. But, in order that the record may be clear, I want it understood that I do not know whether the Department of the Interior has the authority to do the drilling now; but, if they do not have the authority to do the drilling now, this bill does not give them the authority.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. The gentleman has been generous in yielding time, and I thank him.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I would like to address a question to the chairman of the committee, if I may, in regard to subparagraph (a) (2) on page 5 and continuing on page 6. It appears from the wording of the bill that there might be some doubt as to the type of license which a State must give a member of the Armed Forces who has been stationed at an installation for 30 days. It was my understanding, as a member of the committee, that this license which must be given to a member within 30 days, would be such a license as to allow him to hunt only on the installation to which he is assigned and not allow him to hunt in all places within the State. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr. ENGLE. That is a correct state-ment. ,...

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my word of compliment to the chairman of this committee and to the members of the committee who have worked very hard and very long on this bill. It became apparent in the 84th Congress-and I think before that time--that some regulation was needed as to the withdrawal of public lands for military use. A good many times in this country-too often, I might say-the public lands have been regarded as an asset which will never be dissipated. However, it is fast becoming apparent to a lot of us that our land, one of our great remaining natural assets of the country, must be conserved, much more systematically than we have in the past. In fact, I might say that· in the future we will be very glad to have all of these lands, even

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ·- HOUSE 55"23 those regarded by some as worthless. It may be that the population of the United States will increase to such an extent that this land will be needed not only for the Sightseers who desire to enjoy its natural beauty but also for the subsistence and support of the population. I am sure_it is wise that this committee of this Congress has taken cognizance of this situation and has brought this bill out which will do so much to provide a means of safeguarding and conserving these public lands for the future. I hope this committee will be equally vigilant and equally zealous in providing even more means for further conservation of our public lands. I have in mind particularly the fact that we have much public land which is not even inventoried. In other words, the highest and best use of certain public lands has not been determined. There is also the fact that in many of our Western States there is more land in the public domain than there is on the tax rolls. That is a matter which some day must be considered by this Government. As a representative of the West I cannot urge too strongly that these various problems be considered and solved as soon as possible.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Speaker, I hope the land withdrawal bill before us today will draw the close attention of all who are interested in maintaining and preserving our shrinking wilderness areas for the use of future generations.

Much of the discussion of this bill cen -ters on its restriction upon the military agencies' appetite for the public domain. .I am wholeheartedly in favor of establishing the limits set forth in this bill and requiring congressional approval beyond that limit.

There is another aspect of the bill which appeals to all real sportsmen. It should not be objectionable to anybody else because it is reasonable and just. ~ refer to the provision which requires that sportsmen on military reservations be required to recognize and abide by the game laws and regulations of the State or Territory in which the reservation is located. I have heard some highpowered stories about military men using helicopters to sPot game or employing bazookas in the hunt. I cannot verify these. But I do know of some cases which happened on Camp McCoy, an Army reservation in Wisconsin bordering my home county, and these are just as disgusting in the eyes of honest outdoorsmen. . I had a firsthand opportunity to become acquainted with offenses of this nature while serving as district attorney in Jackson County where I was well acquainted with the area game wardens. Upon checking the observations of wardens around Camp McCoy I learned that hunters can and do use any method of hunting that suits their whim of the .moment. Deer are shot by shining, shot from cars and pickup trucks, and hunters .carry loaded guns in vehicles in utter disregard for State laws. Actions such as these are particularly irksome when the~ happen in islands of disregard surrounded by a State which prides itself on an alert, conscientious, honest force of conservation wardens dedicated to

their duty. Such a double standard must be especially difficult to understand for impressionable young people just beginning to know and love the outdoors.

I have reports that the doe and fawn kill was heavy during forked horn buck seasons. In 1955, for instance, 6 arrests were made when wardens detected illegal deer leaving the Camp McCoy area. Since the reservation has some 61,000 acres and the enforcement force is small it is understandable that this figure probably represents only a small part of the illegal kill that year.

Military officials gave us some excellent assistance in checking on the situation at Camp McCoy but all the conscientious people in the world will not be able to bring order out of this mess without legislation such as H. R. 5538. Members of the House saw fit to pass a very similar bill during the last session only to watch it die in a logjam of other legislation on the other side of the Capitol. H. R. 5538 is worthy of as much or even more support and I recommend it for your ap-proval. ·

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. THOMSON].

Mr. THOMSON of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, the working out of this bill was no mean task. It took a great deal of effort on the part of the chairman and other members of the committee, as well as the committee staff, as has been mentioned. I commend the chairman and everybody involved who have devoted themselves to this end.

As has also been mentioned, I introduced a similar bill and I certainly support this proposed legislation. We in Wyoming have enjoyed a very pleasant relationship with the military since territorial days. That is certainly true at the present time with the very fine military commander that we have at the Warren Air Force Base at Cheyenne, Wyo. I am sure that relationship will continue, and for my part I intend to do everything I can to see that it does.

All of us, I know, join in wanting to see the military services have all of the facilities they need, including land, for the adequate defense of this country. But the members of this committee can appreciate the importance of this bill to those of us in the western areas, when you stop to realize that in the State of Wyoming over 50 percent of the land is public land within the definition of the bill. In some other States it is a much larger percentage. So far we have had no large taking of land, such as has been experienced in some other States. But the threat is there, and for that reason this legislation is particularly impcrtant to us. One of the fundamentals of a free country is the private ownership and use of lands. I think that our private ownership of land has had a lot to do with the strength of this country.

I am sure all can see that the danger is very great that the Federal Government, which is the largest landowner in the world at the present time, except for Russia, may stretch out its land holdings. The authority to determine extensions of over 5,000 acres should be vested in Congress. For that reason I think this

bill is particularly important. It is particularly important to see that lands which are no longer needed for military purposes are returned to their most beneficial use, for recreation, forest purposes, grazing, mineral development, and other uses.

I sincerely hope that the committee will pass favorably upon this legislation. In addition to the reasons I have already mentioned, I think enactment of this legislation will fix the area of responsibility and authority as to control of fish and game activities so as to solve present problems in 'some areas and to prevent ·future problems and misunderstandings from developing. So far we have worked those things out well in our State, where we have very difficult problems due to the big game and fishing found in Wyoming. In the session of the legislature which adjourned last February special legislation for sale of resident licenses to military personnel assigned to duty within the State was enacted. Enactment of the legislation we are now considering will insure a continuing good relationship because it provides certainty and restricts the possible zone of disagreement.

I hope that this committee will approve the bill.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. DIXON).

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to associate myself with those who have supported this bill. I also desire to compliment the committee on its good work.

The following are a few of the reasons why I am in. favor of the bill. In the State of Utah there are 57,700,000 acres of land. The Federal Government owns 37,918,000 acres of this land, or 72 percent.-3 acres out of every 4 in our State. Two million of these acres are military preserves already. That is why we want the consent of Congress before any areas exceeding 5,000 acres can be taken again into military preserves.

It is also important that all fishing, trapping, and hunting be in accordance with the fish and game laws of the State in which the reservation is located. The hearings conducted by the committee abound in examples where military commanders in some of the installations have exercised bunting privileges as though they were on baronial estates. I think these regulations should apply to Congressmen as well as military people. The committee reports in too many instances that such areas have taken on all the aspects of exclusive military hunting pre~erves. While there have been no such objectionable activities reported in my State, we are particularly interested in this present situation being rectified,. as the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Atomic Energy Commission control 2 million acres of our land.

I do not think we should give our military people the idea that we are severe on them or unappreciative of their efforts. I think they might have some justification from foregoing statements for feeling that way. We appreciate these wonderful men. They are loyal. Many


of them are working at half what they could get in industry.' We want to do everything we can to make it pieasant for them on these military preserves. However, I am sure they will admit that abuses by a few of their number have reached an extent to which the public must call a halt.

The bill does go this far in their favor. n· gives them authority to buy fishing and hunting licenses at resident fees, so that they do not have to pay high nonresident fees. I think there is justice in that provision.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah has expired. All time has expired.

The Clerk will read the bill for amendment.

The Clerk read as fallows: Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding

any other provisions of law, except in time of war or national emergency hereafter declared by the President or the Congress, on and after the date of enactment of this act the provisions hereof shall apply to the withdrawal and reservation for, restriction of, and utilization by, the Department of Defense for defense purposes of the public lands of the United States, incl.uding public lands in the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii: Provided, That-

( 1) for the purposes of this act, the term "'public lands" shall be deemed to include, without limiting the meaning thereof, Federal lands and waters of the outer Continental Shelf, as defined in section 2 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (67 Stat. 462), and Federal lahds and waters off the coast of the Territories - of Alaska and Hawaii;

(2) nothing in this act shall be deemed to be applicable to the withdrawal or reservation of public lands specifically as naval petroleum, naval oil shale, or naval coal reserves;

(3) nothing in this act shall be deemed to be applicable to the warning areas in the Federal lands and waters of the outer Con:. tinental Shelf and Federal lands and waters off the coast of the Territory of Alaska set aside by the militarydep~rtments prior tothe enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (67 Stat. 462); and

( 4) nothing in this act shall be deemed to be ·applicable to those reservations or withdrawals which expired Clue to the ending of the unlimited national emergency and which subsequent to such expiration have been and are now used by the military departments with the concurrence of the Department of the Interior.

SEC. 2. No public land, water, or land and water area shall, except by' act of Congress, hereafter be (1) withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry for the use of the Department of Defense for defense purposes; ( 2) reserved for sU:ch use; or ( 3) restricted from operation of the mineral-leasing provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (67 Stat. 462), if such withdrawal, reservation, or restriction· would result in the withdrawal, reservation, or restriction of more than 5,000 acres in aggregate for any one defense project or facility of the Department of Defense since the date of enactment of this act or since the last previous act of Congress which withdrew, reserved, or restricted public land, water, or land and water area for that project or facility, whichever is later.

SEC. 3. Any application hereafter filed for a withdrawal, reservation, or restriction, the approval of which will, under section 2 of this act, require an act of Congress, shall specify-

( 1) the name of the requesting agency and intended using agency;

(2") location of the area involved, to include a detailed description of the exterior boundaries and excepted areas, if any, within such proposed withdrawal, reservation, or restriction;

(3) gross land and water acreage within the exterior boundaries of the requested withdrawal, reservation, or restriction, and net public land, water, or public land and water acreage covered by the application;

( 4) the purpose or purposes for which the area is proposed to be withdrawn, reserved, or restricted, or if the purpose or purposes are classified for national security reasons, a statement to that effect;

(5) whether the proposed use will result in contamination of any or all of the requested withdrawal, reservation, or restriction area, and if so, whether such contamination will be permanent or temporary;

(6) the period during which the proposed withdrawal, reservation, or restriction will continue in effect;

(7) whether, and if so to what extent, the proposed use will affect continuing full operation of the public land laws an.ct Federal regulations relating to conservation, utilization, and development of mineral resources, timber and other material resources, grazing resources, fish and wildlife resources, water resources, and scenic, wilderness, and recreation and other values; and

(8) if effecting the purpose for which the area is proposed to be withdrawn, reserved, or restricted, will involve the use of water in any State, whether, subject to existing rights under law, the intended using agency has acquired, or proposes to acquire, rights to the use thereof in conformity with State laws and procedures relating to the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of water.

SEc. 4. Chapter 159 of title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:

( 1) By adding the following new section at the end: "SEc. 2671. Military reservations and facil

ities: hunting, fishing, and trapping

" (a) The Secretary of Defense shall, with respect to each military installation or facility under the jurisdiction of any military department in a State or Territory-

" ( 1) require that all hunting, fishing, and trapping at that installation or facility be in accordance with the fish and game laws of the State or Territory in which it ls located;

"(2) require that an appropriate license for hunting, fishing, or trapping on that installation or facility be obtained, except that with respect to members of the Armed Forces, such a license may be required enly if · the State or Territory authorizes the issuance of a license to a member on active duty for a period of more than 30 days at an instanation or facility within that State or Territory, without regard to residence requirements, and upon terms otherwise not less favorable than the terms upon which such a license is issued to residents of that State or Territory; and

"(3) develop, subject to safety requirements and military security, and in cooperation with the governor (or his designee) of the State or Territory in which the installation or facility is located, procedures under which designated fish and game or conservation officials of that State or Territory may, at such time and under such conditions as may be agreed upon, have full access to that installation or facility to effect measures for the management, conservation, and harvesting of fish and game resources.

"(b) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

•• ( c) Whoever is guilty of an act or omission which violates a requirement prescribed under subsection (a) (1) or (2), which act or omission would be punishable if committed or omitted within the Jurisdiction of the

State or Territory in which the installation or facility is located, by the laws thereof in effect · at the time · of that act or omission, is guilty of a like offense and is subject to a like punishment.

"('d) This section does not modify any rights granted by treaty or otherwise to any Indian tribe or to the members thereof."

(2) By adding the following new item at the end of the analysis: "2671. Military reservations and facilities:

hunting, fishing, and trapping." SEC. 5. The Federal Property and Admin

istrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as amended, is hereby further amended by revising section 3 (d) to read as follows:

"(d) The term 'property• means any interest in property except ( 1) the public domain; lands reserved or dedicated for national forest or national park purposes; minerals in lands or portions of lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain which the Secretary of the Interior determines are suitable for disposition under the public-land mining and mineral leasing laws; and lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain except lands or portions of lands so withdrawn or reserved which the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Administrator, determines are not suitable for return to the public domain for disposition under the general public-land laws because such lands are substantially changed in character by improvements or otherwise; (2) naval vessels of the following categories: Battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines; and (3) records of the Federal Government."

SEC. 6. All withdrawals or reservations of public lands for the use of any agency of the Department of Defense, except lands withdrawn or reserved spectfically as naval petroleum, naval oil shale, or naval coal reserves, heretofore or hereafter made by the United States, shall be deemed to be· subject to the condition that all minerals, including oil and gas, in the lands so withdrawn or reserved are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and there shall be no disposition of, or exploration for, any minerals ·in such lands except under the applicable public-land mining and mineral

•leasing laws: · Provided, That no disposition of, or exploration for, any minerals in such lands shall be made where the Secretaries of Defense and Interior determine that such disposition or exploration is inconsistent with the military use of the lands so withdrawn or reserved.

Mr. ENGLE (interrupting the reading of the bill). · Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr.Chair

man, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to clear

up one point that is not exactly clear in my mind, and that is the interpretation of what is really meant by the term "public lands." The bill refers to withdrawals or reservations of "public lands." As my distinguished friend, the chairman of the committee, has said, on page 5 of the report we are referred to a definition taken from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of ·Land Management, Glossary of Public Land Terms, of 1949, as the definition of "public lands," but then following that there are given additional definitions of public lands. This is confusing.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5525 In my district of Louisiana the Air

Force has a military base called the Barksdale Military Base. It was created by the gift of the people of the city of Shreveport to the United States, a gift of 23,000 acres of land which the city itself acquired and then gave to the United States for military purposes. There was a State constitutional amendment that permitted the city to give this land to the United States for military purposes only. The United States accepted it for military purposes. Since then a good deal of mineral development has occurred in this area.

Some of that land, 2,000 acres, is now being drilled by the Department of the Interior in spite of the fact that the land was given to the United States for military purposes only and paid for by the city of Shreveport. What I want to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee is this: Is there anything in this bill which would give the Department of the Interior any authority to drill that particular tract of land? In section 6, there is something referring to lands "heretofore o .. : hereafter" made reservations or withdrawals of land from the United States public lands. I would be very happy if the gentleman would clear that up for me.

Mr. ENGLE. The answer to the gentleman's question is "No." This bill would not add to any authority that the Department of the Interior now has. Our committee has been a recognized committee of the House for 108 years. It has jurisdiction over the public lands of the United States. Public lands are the vacant, unappropriated, unreserved, federally owned real property. The military purposes which the gentleman refers to does not render the land vacant. It is not unappropriated. It is a reserved piece of Federal property.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. A portion of it may be considered vacant.

Mr. ENGLE. It is not vacant in the legal sense. It is being actively taken over and operated.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. May I ask the gentleman this question: There is nothing in the tei·ms of this bill, is there, to permit any further exploration for oil, gas, or minerals in that kind of case than now exists on the statute books?

Mr. ENGLE. That is correct. Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I thank

the gentleman very much for his help. Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment. · The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. KILDAY: On

page 8, strike out the proviso beginning on line 14 and insert in lieu thereof the following language: "Provided, That no disposition of, or exploration for, any minerals in such lands shall be made where the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines that such disposition or exploration is inconsistent with the military use of the lands so withdrawn or reserved."

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment I spoke of in general debate.

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KILDAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, the present language of the bill provides that the Secretaries of Defense and Interior shall make a determination. The trouble, of course, with that language is that we have a double-headed proposition. If one of them says "Yes" and the other says "No," they are at an impasse and presumably the case would have to move on up the line somewhere. Some members of our committee felt that the Secretary of Defense should be tied down a little harder. For my own part, it seems to me the question of whether or not these other activities, in this instance the drilling or mining for minerals and oil, can go forward is a military decision and it has to be that way. If the area is set aside for military purposes, it is simply necessary to exclude all uses that are wholly inconsistent with that purpose. Sometimes it is possible, as I explained earlier, to do both. But, in any case it seems to me it has to be a military decision. For that reason, I do not intend to oppose, and I am willing to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr, KILDAY. I yield. Mr. SAYLOR. I am perfectly willing

to accept the amendment olfered by the gentleman. I think it is in the interest of good legislation. I supported the amendment in the committee ..

· Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KILDAY. I yield. Mr. GROSS. Is this tied down strictly

to mineral development and grazing or one or the other or both?

Mr. KILDAY. This has to do with mineral development. It only changes the provision of the bill as it was brought in by the committee from the joint approval by two Secretaries to the approval by one Secretary, after consultation with the other.

Mr. GROSS. Now the determination will be vested in the Secretary of Defense?

Mr. KILDAY . .. After consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment for the reasons I have just

.mentioned, because this amendment will help in cases of the type I mentioned where land is given to the United States for military purposes and subsequently that land develops into land valuable for oil and gas purposes. The Secretary of Defense would be the only official who in that case would have authority to pass judgment upon the need of property for military purposes or to make a certification.

I am very much in favor of the amendment. I think. it helps very much in the ihstance I have in mind, and I hope it is adopted. · ·

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment,

and do so only to ask the chairman of the committee a question: What difficulties have you had in the past under the language contained in the present bill?

Mr. ENGLE. In just what way? Mr. GROSS. Where there is dual re

sponsibility vested in the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. ENGLE. Yes; we have had dif,.. ficulty. The Navy contends that it has authority to drill for oil and gas on any area set aside for naval purposes, whether or not that area has been set aside as a naval petroleum reserve.

Mr. GROSS. But the question I am asking is: What was the experience in the past when a controversy was presented to the Secretaries of Defense and Interior for a determination? Did they have difficulty?

Mr. ENGLE. The gentleman is confused, because it does not come to the Secretary of the Interior. What happened was that the Navy had a naval reserve, not a petroleum reserve, just an ordinary naval reserve such as it has on San Nicolas Island cff the co.ast of Cali:f ornia. If the gentleman will look at the report he will find there an extended discussion of that matter relating to San Nicolas ..

We want to make it plain that in these military reservations they do not give the right to control oil and gas. The area is set aside for the purpose of doing some bombing or gunnery. That in such cases oil and gas development should be carried forward in the instance of the Continental Shelf under the Outer Continental Shelf Act, and in the interior of the United States under the regular mining and mineral leasing laws.

On pages 50 to 55 of the co.mmittee report .we wanted to dispel the question about that proposition, and I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that we

. very carefully said that this bill has no

.effect with reference to established naval

.petroleum resexves. That is in .the very first sections of the-bill. Wherever they have been set up, and tl;ley are set up under Presidential order, then the Navy goes right on, does its drilling or whatever other exploration they haye in minq.

But, in general, we do not want the military people out in the west, for instance, where they have a piece of land, say, 25 miles wide and 150 miles long, to be able to do mining and oil development on it. -

Section 6 applies to mining as well as to the development for oil. When it occurs we claim it should occur under the established laws passed by Congress for that purpose on public-land areas.

So the purpose of the section is to decide clearly that the Navy is wrong in the interpretation they personally put on the law. The Navy itself, I think, had some doubt about it, but the intent and purpose of ·~his bill should be very clear and plain.

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GAVIN. Is the gentleman certain it will stop the Navy? Last year on that

5526 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORU-.HOUSE April 11

particular project .to which the gentle .. man referred, San Nicolas Island, a request came for more appropriations to .carry on explorations for drilling on San Nicolas Island. The appropriation was denied. Does the gentleman know whether or not the Navy is again seeking an appropriation in this year's budget to carry on such explorations on San Nicolas Island?

Mr. ENGLE. I would have to look that up. The gentleman asks whether we have got the Navy stopped. We have locked the front door, the back door, we have locked the windows, and then they came down the chimney, so now we have got the chimney blocked, I think.

Mr. GAVIN. I think the gentleman is going to have a pretty tough time on that. They seemed determined to carry on this project out there. They are also interested in the conversion of shale into oil in Colorado. They are trying desperately to get into that situation.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.

Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words.

Here is what I am interested in: D;:ies . the gentleman think this legislation is going to stop the Department of Defense carrying on any of these exploration projects anywhere they desire for minerals?

Mr. ENGLE. Yes; we think it does. We thinlt it takes care of the situation. I may say to the gentleman that the argument over the San Nicolas Island brought the position of the Navy right up against the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. In other words, their legal claim with reference to what they can do moved up the line finally to the Department of Defense. Their people appeared before our committee and testified. They said they did not want to express an opinion at this time but that this language would absolutely decide the issue. I can assure the gentleman they are very glad to have that issue decided.

Mr. GAVIN. I want to be certain this language will decide the issue because you will recall several years ago up at Barrows Point we expended about $45 . million for the exploration of oil up at that particular reserve in Alaska.

Mr. ENGLE. Here is what the General Counsel for the Department said on page 51 of the report:

It is our feeling that, with reference to the bill now pending before the committee, section 6 of the bill would preclude, by statutory language, exploration by the Navy for petroleum in areas reserved for naval purposes as distinguished from areas set aside !or naval petroleum reserves.

~ Then he goes on to say: The Defense Department's position on the

bill does not take issue with what this section would do with respect to exploration, namely, preclude it.

In ether words, they are not opposed to what we have here in section 6. They do say it effectively and completely answers the question.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GA VIN. I yield to the gentleman :from Louisiana.

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. I want to say to the gentleman _ that I personally have been interested in the amendment because I think the amendment does have the effect of st1·engthening the authority of the Secretary of Defense over lands already in use actively and being developed for .military purposes. Where you have a base like I have in mind, v1hich was given to the United States for military purposes, I think the Defense Department should have control of its use for military purposes and that

. the Interior Department should not be permitted contrary to the . views of the Secretary of Defense to go in and seek to develop that particular land given for military purposes to the United States. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time.

Mr. GAVIN. I want to compliment the committee. They have a very good bill here. It is legislation that has long been needed. I am pleased to have the.opportunity to support it and I trust it will pass overwhelmingly.

l\.1r. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word simply for the purpose of asking the chairman of the committee a question. Unfortunately, I have not been able to follow this presentation too closely. Will this legislation in any way affect the experimental work that is now going .on at Rifte, Colo., with respect to the recovery of shale oil?

Mr. ENGLE. No, it will not. In fact, the oil shale reserves as well as the Navy petroleum reserves are specifically exempt from the operatipn of this law.

Mr. DEVEREUX. I was not certain in my own mind whether this particular project was within the oil shale or petroieum reserve.

Mr. ENGLE. Yes, i.t is, and if the gentleman will look on page 2, line 10, he will find the specific subsection which exempts oil shale operation.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Well, if it is in the reserves, it would be covered.

Mr. ENGLE. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,

the amendment is agreed to. There. was no objection. Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer

. an amendment. • . The Clerk read as fallows: Amendment offered by Mr. ENGLE: On page

2, Hne 22, strike out the word "those" and insert in lieu thereof the words "the follow-ing'' and ·

On page 3, line 3, strike out the period, insert a colon, and add the following:

"Luke-Williams Air Force Range, Ariz.; Camp Irwin. Calif.; Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.; Nellis Rifle and Pistol Range Annex, Nev.; and Boardman Precision Bombing Range, Oreg."

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, the pur-·pose of this amendment is to make plain in the bill what the committee intended to do. The language is general, and we

·have added the names of the -particular Air Force bases, Army camps, such as

·Camp Irwin, and so forth, to make it plain exactly what we intended to exempt from the operation of this act.

There are certain of these installations such, for instance, as Luke-Williams, that have been in the· Air Force for years, and yet when we look around,

they have no.ta vestige of authorization; they have no land withdrawal; they are just sitting there without any authority

_under the law to be there .. Their importance to the Nation and to the defense effort make it obvious that it would be perfectly ridiculous to require them to come back in on separate legislation to ge~ authorization because all of them, I thmk, exceed the 5,000 acres.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Is it the position of the gentleman that the reservations which have been enumerated in the gentleman's amendment actually are legally within the pu'Qlic lands and are not withdrawn at this particular time and that in effect the military are trespassers on these particular lands?

Mr. ENGLE. What happened is they .got a temporary withdrawal under the act of 1910. The gentleman will recall that the Congress in trying to patch up this matter of the imp!ied delegation of authority which I referred to in my opening remarks passed an act in 1910 that gave the President· the right to make temporary withdrawals. The solicitor came along in his opinion and said it was merely a confirmation of the broader powers that the President already had and therefore, under the solicitor's opinion, nullified the act. But under that act they did make some temporary withdrawals during national emergencies. Then the national emergency expired and the withdrawals lapsed. But these fellows are still sitting on the land, which technically reverted to the public land area. The purpose of this amendment is to obviate the necessity of coming back with special legislation, which this bill would require, because they comprise over 5,000 acres.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, does the gentleman feel that by taking these particular reservations out from under all the provisions of this bill, they are left in a status of limbo insofar as. the effect of the provisions of the act as to hunting and fishing and other pro .. visions are concerned, not necessarily going with the ownership of the land? In other words, if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman saying that nothing in this act applies to these lands, then can the State of Arizona, for instance, have any legal brief for regulating the harvesting and conserving of fish and wildlife on, say, the Luke-Williams Air Force Base?

Mr. ENGLE. This does not affect the application of the balance of the bill, because the balance is applicable to military bases on all withdrawn public lands. So all we are doing here is making it unnecessary for your air bases out in Arizona-and they are important, LukeWilliams is an excellent example-to come In for special legislation. In other respects, this legislation would be applicable to them, because it is applicable to all bases on public land areas.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chair .. man, if the gentleman would · yield further, certainly it is my purpose and my desire to protect the Air Force in its

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5527 use of the Luke-Williams Gunnery Ranges, but I do want to make it absolutely crystal clear that taking those bases and those gunnery ranges from under the provisions of the act for this pu.rpose does not take them out from under the provisions of the act for any other purpose.

Mr. ENGLE. That is certainly our intention.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California LMr. ENGLE].

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. ENGLE. Mr. · Chairman, I offer

a further clarifying amendment. -The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ENGLE, of Cali

fornia: On page 2, line 15, strike ·out the word "in" and insert the word "over" and on page 2, line 17 and 18, strike the words "set aside by", and insert in lieu thereof the words "reserved for use of."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the clarifying amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. ENGLE].

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment. The Cle1'k read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SAYLOR, of Pennsylvania: On page 6, redesign-ate subsection (b) on line 7, subsection (c) 9n line 19, and on page 7, subsection (d) on line l, as subsections "(c) ""(d) ,"and "(e) ,"respectively, and insert the following new subsection (b): · "(b) No hunting, fishing, or trapping by any individual shall be permitted by the commanding officer of any military installation or facility in a State or Territory and under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense unless such individual is-

" ( 1) a member of the Armed Forces who has, for a period of more than 30 days, been assigned to the installation or facility at which such individual proposes to hunt, fish, or trap, and who has, in a State or Territory where the operation of this section requires that a State or Territorial license be obtained, secured such a license;

"(2) a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces qualifying under subparagraph ( 1) of this subsection, if such dependent has, in those States or Territories where the operation of this section requires that a State or Territorial license be obtained, secured such a license; or

"(3) any other individual, including other members of the Armed Forces and their dependents, qualifying and licensed to hunt, fish, or trap under the fish and game laws of the State or Territory in which such installation or facility is located only when the State or Territorial agency having licensing authority therein has entered into a cooperative agreement with the military department having jurisdicticn at the installation at which it is proposed to hunt, fish, or trap, which cooperative agreement shall set out the terms and conditions under which any and all individuals not qualifying under subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be permitted to engage in hunting, fishing, or trapping."

Mr. SAYLOR (during the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of this amendment be disposed of.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?


Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify just what the committee intends with regard to hunting and fishing on military reservations.

I will give you an example that was brought to the attention of the committee by the gentleman from Montana in regard to an instance which occurred in his State. Several members of one of the branches of the armed services got themselves a temporary order and flew to Montana. They went there only to hunt, even though their orders assigned them to a base. They were arrested for failure to have a license, and the military tried to defend them because they had orders assigning them to the base.

All this amendment does is to say that unless you are actually assigned, bona fide, to a base for at least 30 days you cannot go onto a military reservation and hunt and fish.

The second section provides that Members of Congress or others that are in the privileged class that has been referred to as VIP's must comply in all respects with the laws of a State when they hunt on military reservations.

This is just explaining in a little more detail what is in section (a).

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ENGLE. Does the amendment not require the inclusion of a cooperative agreement between the State or Territorial agency having the licensing authority and the particular base?

Mr. SAYLOR. Only with regard to the so-called VIP's who have been going onto these military reservations.

Mr. ENGLE. I have the language of the gentleman's amendment before me. It requires such a cooperative agreement before any other individual can qualify except members of the armed services or their dependents.

Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. The only ones we have found are those examples that have been pointed out, such as the regulation which I read stating that anybody the commanding general decided had expressed an interest in the affairs of the Department of Defense was specially privileged and allowed to go onto a reservation and hunt.

Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. WESTLAND. I have tried to follow the amendment the gentleman from Pennsylvania has offered, and I know he has the best intentions. I am sure the gentleman will recall that in committee we discussed this matter at considerable length, trying to come out with a just solution to this problem. I have tried to follow exactly what the gentleman has said in describing what this amendment would do, but I have this question: Would the gentleman's amendment pre .. vent a GI, let us say, who lives in Maryland from hunting on a Military Establishment in Virginia if he had a license to hunt in the State of Virginia. It sounded as though it would.

Mr. SAYLOR. No; it will not prevent him from hunting if he has a license

from the State of Virginia and has orders there.

Mr. WESTLAND. That is something else now. The gentleman is qualifying it again. In other words, this GI who lives in Maryland and may be assigned to a base in Maryland could not hunt on a military reservation in Virginia unless he was also assigned to that base, even though he ! ad a State license to hunt any place in the State of Virginia.

Mr. SAYLOR. No; because if he has a license to hunt in the State of Virginia then he has a nonresident license.

The reason this amendment is offered is that practically every State in the Union, I think every State in the Union, has taken precautions to see to it that the members of the armed services that are actually assigned to bases in a State are given the same rights and privileges as citizens of that State, and do not ha,ve to get an out-of-State license. Those are the people that would be protected by this amendment. If a man is assigned to a base in Maryland and goes down to Virginia and has a State license, he can hunt there.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, if I may have the at .. tention of the gentleman from Pennsylvania; as I understand this amendment, it might have this effect. Suppose an enlisted man was stationed at the Pentagon. As I understand the gentleman's amendment, if the enlisted man wanted to hunt, he would not be able to hunt anywhere in the State of Virginia except at the Pentagon; is that not more or less correct? And there are not many ducks flying over the Pentagon.

Mr. SAYLOR. If he has an out-of· State license, he can. He can hunt any .. where in the State of Virginia.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. That is the whole point. In other words, anybody who might be stationed here in Washington, D. C., in order to hunt would have to have an out-of-State license wherever he would go.

Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. Mr. RHODES of Arizona. So actual

ly does the gentleman not feel this unduly discriminates against military personnel stationed here? Or is it not punishment enough that he is stationed at the Pentagon and has to be here anyway.

Mr. SAYLOR. No, I would not go along with that. If the gentleman would talk to some of the military, he would be surprised at the number of members of the armed services who try to get assigned here to the Pentagon. I do not know why, but they do.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. But, not so they· can give up their hunting privileges.

Mr. SAYLOR. They do not come here for hunting with guns.

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I yield. Mr. KNOX. I should like to ask the

gentleman relative to an ,area that has been designated as a closed area as far as hunting and fishing are concerned as to whether or not the personnel that have been assigned to the base have fishing and hunting privileges within the closed

5528 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11 area but the general public would be denied the right to hunt and fish in that particular area.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania EMr. l::AYLOR].

Mr. SAYLOR. If it is a closed area in a military reservation, then the matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the commanding officer as to who may hunt.

Mr. KNOX. If it is a closed area, pro.:. hibited to the general public from entering the area for fishing and hunting, then it would be permissible for the commanding officer to permit the personnel on the base or the civilian employees on the base to fish and hunt in the area.

Mr. SAYLOR. Only if they comply with the State game laws as far as licensing, bag limit, and season are concerned,

Mr. KNOX. Does the gentleman think there is any justification for permitting the personnel on the base or other civilian employees on the base to have a special concession a warded to them because they are on the base, which is denied to the general public of the State whether they have a license or not?

Mr. SAYLOR. I might say we ran into many instances in our committee where that condition does exist. We are only trying to correct it to see to it that the people on the base comply with the laws of the State. Some of the complaints that our committee received came from the gentleman's State.· They said that the members of the game commission out there were not even allowed to protest or arrest members of the military because they had violated the game laws of the State of Michigan. This amendment will see to it that those who do hunt on military reservations will comply with the State game laws.

Mr. KNOX. My opposition to permitting the personnel on the base or the civilian employees on the base to hunt and fish on that property, if it is a closed area, is based on the fact that in many cases some of the very finest of our streams flow through the particular base so that this becomes somewhat of a reservation tor only those who live within the area, and the general public are prohibited from coming into the area even though they have a license.

Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. But, up until now, unless this amendment is adopted, they will continue to do that and they will not comply with the laws of the State. There is not anybody until today, until this committee took hold of it, who tried to prevent that.

· Mr. KNOX. Does the gentleman not think that a closed area should be a closed area-period.

Mr. SAYLOR. No. Mr. KNOX. You do not? Mr. SAYLOR. No, I do not. In other

words, because military reservations from their very nature are such that it is up to the commanding officer who is in charge of it to determine who shall hunt and· fish.

Mr. RHODES of Arizona. If I may have the gentleman's attention. On page 5, section 4, the first subparagraph says that:

The Secretary of Defense shall regulate all hunting and fishing and trapping at that in:;tallation or facility in accordance with the

fish and game laws of the State or Territory in which it is located.

I wonder if that does not cover the situation which the gentleman has in mind? In other words, in order to hunt and fish there, does not any individual, whether he is a member of the military personnel or not, have to comply with the law of the State?

Mr. SAYLOR. The answer under this section is "Yes," but I do not think this section goes far enough. My amendment spells it out a little more in detail. ·

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. . fy.1r. Chairman, I applaud the purpose of my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. SAYLOR, who is a great conservationist, but we should not get carried away and try to do too much in this legislation, and this amendment undertakes to do that in this particufar: The amendment states that there shall be three classes of people who can hunt-members of the armed services who have been on the base for more than 30 days; second, a dependent of a qualified member of the armed services. That would be a son, daughter, or member of the family; and then, third, any other . individual qualified and Ji,.. -censed to hunt, provided that a cooperative agreement with the military department having jurisdiction at the installation has been entered into by the State authorities having the authority to handle hunting and fishing.

There are at least 5,000 installations in the country. What this amendment will actually qo is to cut people out, because they will never get all the agreements executed, and if they do execute the agreements, in all probability they will make some provision, I assume, for visiting brass from Washington and other so-called notables; and therefore they will still be in the picture.

The thing about this amendment that alarms me is the requirement for the cooperative agreement, and until · such agreement is executed nobody could hunt down there in Virginia, or over here in Maryland, or any place else; and the military will then do all the hunting and fishing. Rather than open up the area to the public generally, they will be very .slow and gumfooted about getting these agreements enacted and executed.

This amendment, notwithstanding the good purpose of its author, goes precisely in the opposite direction from which we want to go. It may be that we can work out language some time somewhere that would limit these VIP's. We considered this amendment in committee. This amendment was offered in committee, and it was turned down for the very reasons that I am giving you now, and that is that it would in all probability limit the fishing and hunting on these military installations rather than facilitate getting equal treatment for civilians with the military personnel on the bases. Fo'r that reason I am against this amendment. I think it goes in the wrong direction. I think the language has not been worked out sufficiently carefully. Some time, perhaps, we can originate some kind of scheme and maybe we can get the thing ironed out equitably. But this amendment will not do it.

I hope the amendment will be defeated. Mr. ·DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. ENGLE. I yield. Mr. DEVEREUX. On page 6, line 2,

as the bill is now written there is a provision requiring that a person be stationed a.t one of these installations or facilities for 30 days o-r more before he would have the privilege of hunting or fishing. In my judgment that is not necessarily the proposition that we are trying to take care ·of, nor these VIP's or the VIPI's-very important people indeed. For instance, a man will be transferred to a new installation. Under the language of this bill he would not be able to hunt for 30 days. Is that right?

Mr. ENGLE. As I understand it, yes. Mr. DEVEREUX. It appears to me

that we should substitute some. othet language such as "extended active duty," "permanent change of station," or something like that. That would qualify him for hunting privileges. Would not the gentleman agree that is the general intent?

Mr. ENGLE. That is what we in~ tended to do. We could not think of any -way to work it out other than to put the 30-day requirement in there.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Would the gentle.man accept an amendment that would clarify it by saying "for extended duty"?

Mr. ENGLE. If it is extended duty would that not be 30 days?

Mr. DEVEREUX. It might be. My point is this: An officer could be transferred to a new installation and he would be restricted from hunting or fishing until he had been at the installation 30 days.

Mr. ENGLE. No, provided his orders were of a permanent nature, as I understand it. ·

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired,.

<By unanimous consent (at the request of Mi·:ENGLE) he was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.>

Mr. DEVEREUX. If his orders were of a permanent nature he would be permitted to hunt and fish the day after his assignment to this new installation?

Mr. ENGLE. I would have to give that a little study. It is my impression ·that if his orders are of a nature that puts him on the base for more than 30 days he is entitled to apply immediately for a license although the 30 days have not transpired. The purpose of this is to take care of people who are there permanently and to stop the business of people moving in to hunt for a weekend, then moving out.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. As I understand it, the State laws of practically all the States require for all individuals at least 30 days of residence before they can obtain a license within that State. So this is merely putting the armed services personnel on the same footing as all other people in tlfe State in obtaining a license.

Mr. DEVEREUX. I disagree with that provision, because an individual in the armed services is not the master of his

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5529 own destiny . . He has to go here, there, or anywhere else, wherever he is ordered, whereas the ordinary residents of a State are in an entirely different category.

Mr. EDMONDSON. "All I am :Pointing out is that this is not penalizing the individual under the law any more than the citizens of all the States are presently restricted to a law in obtaining a license.

Mr. ENGLE. Let me say to the gentleman that he has failed to read the section-I am referring. the the gentleman from Oklahoma-on page 6, line 3, as follows: "Without regard to residence requirements." In other words, what we are trying to do is to take care of the armed services personnel permanently assigned to an area and we· regard anything over 30 days for the. purposes of this act as sufficiently permanent to warrant their right to hunt and fish.

Mr. DEVEREUX. If he is ordered there for 30 days or more?

Mr. ENGLE. That is correct. Mr. DEVEREUX. Not necessarily

that he has to be in residence for that time?

Mr. ENGLE. That is correct. That . was our intention. Let me say to the gentleman that if on closer examination we have not written in language precisely what we intended, we will try to do it over in the other body. -

Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SISK. I just want to clarify a portion of the discussion with reference to this language. It is to eliminate the

·so-called weekend boys, these boys who go on temporary duty for 3 days over the weekend to do some hunting and fishing. If they have orders which call for more or less permanent service there, they would immediately qualify for a hunting license. The language at the top of page 6 in the report straightens that out. If the chairman would like to read it, it says:

Possible dual construction of the clause "for a period of more than 30 days" deserves clarifying comment: If an individual is actually assigned on bona fide military duty by orders providing for duty status at the installation involved, so that his orders require his presence at the installation for a minimum of 30 days, he would then be eligible for a license under the preferred status provisions when first physically present for duty on such orders.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLE. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this 30-day provision is a special concession that is granted to the servicemen by most of the States, anyway. Most States require 6 months or a year, and some even 2 years, residence before they can get a residential fishing or hunting license, and we have provided that unless the State law makes this special concession to the military personnel permanently assigned by permitting them to acquire residential licenses after 30 days, the license provision will not apply. So, already by the provisions of this law special concessions are granted

CIII--348

to personnel stationed and permanently In some cases it will not be possible assigned to the military reservation. for outside civilians to get on because of

Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, before· we the security requirements of the base; got off on this angle, I was directing my, but the civilian personnel on the base comments to the amendment presently who are qualified to be on the base, and pending by the gentleman from Pennsyl- the military personnel on the base nonevania [Mr. SAYLOR], in which he under- theless will be required to have a license takes to require these cooperative agree- in accordance with State law. ments, a great number of which will Mr. KNOX. There would be a concesnever be executed and which I contend sion made to the military personnel and will actually prevent civilians getting ac- the civilian personnel on the base? cess to these very lush hunting areas. Mr. ENGLE. That is right. In other

Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I words, there is no use shutting of! the move to strike out the last word. area completely to hunting if there are

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this people on the base who can hunt, but amendment. I have taken this time to they have to have a license. ask a question of the gentleman from Mr. KNOX. In other words, it is not Pennsylvania, who is the author of the restricted, as far as they are concerned,

-amendment. As I understand, this but it is restricted, as far as the civilian amendment only provides that if the population of the State is concerned. military reservation is going to be Mr. ENGLE. That is because of the

.opened for nonstationed personnel or nature of a military base. we simply their dependents, then it has to be cannot say that you have to let everyopened on all bases after a cooperative body on because the security consideraagreement with the State fish and game tions will not permit it. commission. Mr. KNOX. I agree that the security

Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. considerations should prevail, but I know Mr. METCALF. If a situation arises, of no reason why the civilian personnel

such as was suggested by the gent~e- working on that base should be granted woman from. New York,_ 'Y~ere security any concession that the ·civilian personre~~ons reqmred that civillans or non- nel working outside of the base are not milltary. personnel be barred from .the · granted.

. rese~·vation, then no one can ~sh except The CHAIRMAN. The time of the stationed personnel and their depend- gentleman from Michigan [Mr KNoxJ ents? . ·

Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. has expire~. . . Mr. METCALF. And it would be im- The Chair recogmzes the gentleman

possible for civilians who are not per- from Maryland [~r. DEVER~uxJ · . manently stationed to come in and hunt . Mr. D~".EREUX. Mr. Chairman, I nse or fish on a military reservation unless m oppos~t10n to the 8:mendment. I have all civilians were trea.ted on an equal been trymg to follow it very carefully. It basis? seems to me it has created some mis-

Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. understanding; at least a certain amount Mr. METCALF I support the gen- of vagueness as; to what the amendment

tleman's amend~ent. would accomplish. It appears that the Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask committee has . con~idered this ai;riend

unanimous consent that all debate on ment before this, did not accept it and this amendment and all amendments they are the ones who have studied this thereto close in 5 minutes. matter thoroughly.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection The CHAIRMAN. The question is on to the request of the gentleman from the amendment of!ered by the gentle-California? man from Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR].

There was no objection. The amendment was rejected. The CHAffiMAN. The Chair recog- Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, H.

nizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. R. 5538 proposes legislation which, in KNOX]. my opinion, is in the public. interest. It

Mr. KNOX. Mr. Chairman I take will, if enacted into law, subject to con .. this time to ask the chairma~ of the gressional scrutiny public domain withcommittee relative to the language on drawals in excess of 5,000 acres by the page 5, line 13, where it says: Department of Defense. There can be

no doubt that Congress will grant whatever areas are essential for defense purposes; at the same time, any disposition which may exist to make withdrawals excessively large will be checked.

"(a) The Secretary of Defense s:qan, with respect to each military installation or facility under the jurisdiction of any military department in a State or Territory-

" ( 1) require that all hunting, fishing, and trappir.g at that installation or facility be in accordance with the fish and game laws of the State or Territory in which it is located.

Now, that provides that anyone who is going to hunt or fish on this reservation shall have a license in connection with the State law,. but in case it is a closed area, as far as civilian population is concerned, I want to know what the status of that reservation is, as far as military personnel or civilian personnel that are employed on the reservation are concerned.

Mr. ENGLE. Well, the answer is that all people who hunt and fish and trap have to have a license.

For my part, I should be pleased if H. R. 5538 applied to every department of the Federal Government. Vast as Alaska is, much of it has already been reserved by the National Government. Of the total acreage of 365 million, already 92,310,000 have been reserved for one purpose or another. Military and Naval reserves as such amount to 2,420,-000 acres. Additionally in the Arctic there is Naval Petroleum Reserve :No. 4 which with adjacent lands reserved from entry during World War II amounts to 48,800,000 acres.

I desire to commend the distinguished Chairman of the Interior and Insulal1'


Affairs Committee, Mr. ENGLE, for the splendid job he has performed in bringing this bill to the House. He and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. SAYLOR, and those associated with them worked hard in perfecting H. R. 5538. It is a good bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. HERLONG, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consideration the bill <H. R. 5538) to provide that withdrawals, reservations, or restrictions of more than 5,000 acres of public lands of the United States for certain purposes shall not become effective until approved by act of Congress, and for other purposes pursuant to House Resolution 217, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the previous question is ordered.

Is a separa t~ vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on

engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on passage of the biil.


table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that I may extend my remarks on the bill just passed and to include extraneous matter, and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarl{S on the bill just passed.


Mr. KNOX. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend the i·emarks which I made previously.


WHAT PRICE CANADIAN GAS Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, the

March 26, 1957, issue of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD contains an editorial from the St. Paul Pioneer Press entitled "FPC Should Act." It is an appeal for the Federal Power Commission to approve applications for extending natural gas pipelines from the producing fields of the Dominion of Canada into midwestern markets of the United States. The editorial points out that both Senator THYE and Senator HUMPHREY are in favor of

immediate approval of this project by the FPC.

Here, Mr. Speaker, is a case of bipartisan benightedness that has come about because the full story of the pipeline project has'been withheld from the public by the international speculators and promoters behind it. Understandably, Senators THYE and HUMPHREY-and, in all probability, most elected representatives and public officials from Minnesota and adjoining States-are convinced that it would be advantageous to the general welfare if this new source of energy were to be admitted into the fuels markets of the Midwest. The pipeliners have presented an attractive proposition; they have withheld publication of those facts which might serve to jeopardize their case.

With the permission of the House, I propose at this time to reveal some of the principal objections to permitting Canadian gas to enter United States markets on a wholesale basis. I believe that it is particularly important for Members of Congress to become fully acquainted with this situation so that the Federal Power Commission will not be subjected to further undue criticism for taking .the time that is necessary to examine carefully all of the public interest con-siderations inherent in the Canadian gas proposals.

At the start I wish to explain that, as a Member of Congress from a coalproducing area, I have a very definite personal interest in this case. Families in both bituminous and anthracite coal regions stand to lose heavily if the pipeline promoters are ·granted their application. Furthermore, that personal interest extends into the Midwest itself, for any matter that threatens the national security is-or should be-close to all of us, regardless of where we may live.

The economic impact of any proposal to admit a foreign commodity at the expense of United States industry and labor poses a public issue that has been debated as long as our Nation has been in existence. The question: Should government-encouraged, or sponsored, projects or policies permit the jobs of American workingmen to be sacrificed on the altar of foreign trade? For my own part, I feel that the Congress and the executive branch have been entirely too considerate of foreign powers and too indifferent to the needs of our own. I have heard representatives of our Government answer complaints about damage from excessive imports with the comment that low tariff barriers are necessary to diploma tic progress. I contend that no reasonable nation would expect us to accept goods that create economic hardship. The record shows that no foreign nation is so shortsighted about its own welfare and interests. There will of course be diplomatic pressure on our representatives to gain whatever advantage is possible, yet no one could honestly object to our insisting that the job rights of our own people be protected.

Canadian gas imports would bring wholesale unemployment to various industries in this country. This displacement would begin at mines which ship coal into markets along the proposed pipelines. The railroader is the next

American worker whose job would become excess under the plan of the international gas exploiters. When coal traffic -is down, men who operate trains and maintain rolling stock and other equipment are of necessity laid off. Now, follow these railroad lines from the mines right into distribution centers and on down to where the coal is consumed; you will realize that any unfair foreign competition which affects the coal industry has its repercussions in every shipping center-in homes, churches, and business houses. ·

Nor would economic tragedy have its terminus in these areas. By admitting natural gas from Canada into the markets proposed in applications to the FPC, the Government would in effect abolish hundreds of jobs on the docks of Great

,Lakes ports. ·Add to this list the truckdrivers and fuelyard operators whose

-businesses would be dissolved and you get some idea of the economic threat contained in the pipeliners' proposal.

Even if he is willing to disregard the economic impact, every American should study the projected pipeline from a security standpoint · before advocating reliance upon a foreign source for fuel. The development of military items for the Department of Defense is being carried out on a nationwide basis. Weapons of offense and defense and/ or their components are being manufactured in almost every area of the United States. The Midwest is no exception. A dependable source of energy is thus a prerequisite to national security.

Have the prospective consumers who will rely on the pipeline project been advised as to what to expect in an emergency period? If we are to assume that a permit is to be granted for construction of an across-the-border line, and cities in Minnesota and adjoining States switch from coal and oil to foreign gas, a vital part of America's defense efforts will have been placed in the position of dependency on a foreign . power. The fact is that, if hostilities erupt between Russia .and the West, Canadian industries will require a step-up in power requirements and fuel supply. One answer to the problem would be to cut off exports to America, a decision that would leave ·united States consumers of Canadian gas without any fuel whatsoever, inasmuch as the ability to deliver coal or oil would have been seriously impaired or destroyed by their relegation to a standby status. Moreover, the possibility of a shortage of natural gas is not limited to the occurrence of emergency conditions. I can think of no more strategic method of attracting industries to the Dominion than by perpetrating-or by threatening-a shortage in the supply of the gas upon which American industry ·in the Midwest would have come to rely. If you say that such a possibility is out of the question, then please hear this explanation of the Canadian Government's longstanding policy of refusing to permit electricity exports to this country by C. D. Howe, Trade Minister:

If the Americans want our power, let 'em build their plants in Canada.

The editorial in the Pioneer Press presents another problem which potential

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5531 consumers should consider rather than be toe hasty about switching. to a foreign fuel. I quote the following paragraph from that -editorial:

This indecision on the part of the FPC :may result in higher prices for natural-gas consumers in Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and elsewhere. American distributing companies hold. tentative contracts with Trans-Canada Pipelines for purchase of Canadian gas at specified rates. But some of these contracts run out · later this year if not made permanent, through approval by the FPC. If new contracts have to be negotiated later on, the Canadian .wholesale price probably will go up. This would mean higher retail prices eventually.

If a moment's thought is given to this proposition, even the uninitiated reader will begin to have qualms about the whole business. Here is a reminder that the pricing of the product going into the pipeline would be in the hands of gas people on the other side of the border. Whether or not new contracts must be negotiated later on is of no serious consequence, for even after these negotiations have been consummated, the American consumer would be in eternal danger of higher and higher prices. Thus we find the price-threat technique already being used to influence action. If this strategy is being used before the line is authorized and installed, even more disastrous use of the price weapon could be made after dependence upon it becomes an established fact.

The gas producers, the pipeline company, the Canadian Government-all would have a hand in setting price rates

· for Amercan· consumers. Nor is "price," as such, the only avenue of leverage on American consum3rs. The Canadian Government might find it necessary to raise revenue by taxing the gas it sends to the United States. Does ~nyone think for one minute that the Canadian Government would overlook the lucrative possibilities of a heavy tax on exported natural · gas if the occasion required? What recourse would be available to the plant operator or homeowner in Minnesota and other consuming States?

This particular factor raises another question which leaves a good many gasimport supporters in a contradictory position. Witl:out going back to the vote on the Harris-Fulbright bill last year, I can tell you that some of the more articulate spokesmen for Canadian gas were the first to demand that Federal Power Commission authority over pricing at the wellhead be retained. Where is the consistency in a gro11p which, on the one hand cries for consumer protection through price· control in the producing fields of the United States, and on the other hand is willing to expose another segment of the consuming public to a situation over which the Government would be completely without authority in the matter of production, pricing, and early transmission of the fuel?

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Federal Power Commission will take these objectionable factors into consideration when the showdown comes. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that our friends on the other side of the Capitol who have been quoted as spokes.men for the import plan would have

been willing to associate themselves with this campaign had they been gi¥en an opportunity to study this side of the issue.

I -have not set out here today to document fully the case against Canadian gas imports. I have merely pointed out the danger signs that immediately present themselves. Some of these warning signals merit more detailed inspection. From time to time I shall take the floor of this House to elucidate on those particular points if I find efforts to stampede the Federal Power Commission into an unwise decision are continued. I trust that such a course of action will not be necessary, but in conclusion I should like to reiterate:

First. Canadian gas poses a serious threat to domestic fuel producers in this country, and to businesses which depend upon these industries for their own survival.

Second. It is unwise to place dependence upon a foreign source of power, par_ticularly at times of world unrest.

Third. Midwest consumers who have been approached by the international gas speculators should think seriously before agreeing to switch to this foreign fuel, for-once the change is made-these .consumers will be at the complete mercy of alien forces.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House resolve itself into the Com;:nittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill <H. R. 3377) to promote the national defense by authorizing the construction of aeronautical research facil.ities and the acquisition of land by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics necessary to the effective prosecution of aeronautical research.


into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 3377, with Mr. HERLONG in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. DURHAM.· Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself such time as I may need. The Committee on Armed Services has,

after · hearings and due consideration, unanimously reported H. R. 3377, the bill before us. It is an important bill in that it calls for the authorization of $44,700,-000 for the construction of new research facilities, and the modernization of existing equipment at laboratories of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

But aeronautical research is never finished. Every major discovery or breakthrough by N ACA merely opens a new frontier that must be explored and breeds a new family of problems that must be solved if we are to be second to none in aeronautics. I need not, I am sure, belabor the importance of our superiority in the air and today it is more

. -important than ever that NACA should

be authorized the tools necessary to simulate the fantastic environment encountered and the forces generated by ever · greater high-speed ftight. This sound investment in security will enable the American people to continue to look toward NACA with confidence on its continuing aggressive and skillful attack on the aeronautical problems of the future.

Our national security depends on an adequate number of airplanes and missiles of superior performance. Numbers alone are insufficient unless their performance is at least equal to those that our airmen may be called upon to oppose. Aeronautical laboratories provide the new ideas necessary to insure superior performance and at the same time prove in advance the soundness of the design as a whole. NACA's work is in two principal categories: First, research to furnish new ideas; and, second, the application of new ideas to current military design in cooperation with industry.

To advance the frontiers of speed, altitude, and range, special research facilities are required. H. R. 3377 reflects NACA's need for additional facilities for research in the hypersonic speed range and the continuing need for modernizing existing facilities for the solution of new problems in all speed ranges.

The sum of $44, 700,000 will be primarily used for additional research facilities in the hypersonic speed range and for the modernization of existing facilities, as follows: New facilities for hypersonic re

search---------------------- $20,965,000 Expansion for facilities for nu-

clear research--------------- 5, 655, 000 Expansion and modernization of

research facilities----------- 10, 936, 400 Expansion and modernization of

supporting facilities_________ 6, 485, 200 General plant and utility im-

provenients _________________ 657,900

In the report of the committee there ·is a full breakdown of .all these items, but I should like to summarize the new facilities for hypersonic research included in this program for a fuller understanding of this bill and why I consider it so vital in these days when our national security depends on airplar:es and missiles of superior performan.ce to those of any potential adversary.

Research at hypersonic speeds, that is, in excess of five times the speed of sound, is relatively new. The reproduction of the conditions of high speed and temperature experienced in hypersonic flight is necessary for the developme:'..t of ballistic missiles and satellite v.ehicles.

The construction of a 3.5 foot hypersonic tunnel at the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory is proposed to investigate the aerodynamics of aircraft capable of steady level flight at hypersonic speeds. This facility will be capable of duplicating the full scale conditions of flights up to 7,000 miles per hour at steady level flight and stagnation temperatures up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The tunnel will accommodate models large enough to permit the scaled duplication of aircraft structural components so that detailed studies can be made of aerody .. namic heating on the aerodynamic characteristics of hypersonic aircraft as they occur in flight .


Aerodynamic heating is one of the foremost problems encountered in fiight at hypersonic speeds. The success or failure of a hypersonic aircraft may well depend on how it reacts to the temperatures and heating rates encountered in flight. At present, the design of such vehicles would have to proceed without detailed knowledge of their aerodynamic characteristics since much of the needed design information is not available. This proposed tunnel is designed to provide detailed and integrated studies of all required aerodynamic characteristics under conditions comparable to those that would be encountered in flight.

The proposed tunnel will also be used to study the overall aspects of convective heating for a complete configuration. In this connection, an analysis has been made which demonstrates that a wind tunnel can simulate the heating histories of vehicles in level flight in essentially the same manner that the atmosphericentry simulator, which we authorized for NACA last year, reproduces the heating histories of ballistic-type v.ehicles.

In summary, the designer of hypersonic aircraft is confronted with the difficult problems in the fields of aerodynamic heating, stability, control, and performance which can be solved only with the aid of detailed and accurate data from tests which duplicate actual flight conditions. Much of the required data could be obtained in the proposed tunnel.

The second facility authorized in this bill for basic hypersonic research is a helium blowdown tunnel at a cost of $796,600. The need for this facility is that our experimental rocket-propelled vehicles are attaining &peeds in excess of those which can be studied in existing research facilities. There are no wind tunnels available for testing at speeds exceeding 10 times that of sound, and the likelihood of an air tunnel achieving those speeds is remote because of the extreme pressures and temperature required for air. Helium on the other hand has been shown to be highly suitable for hypersonic research at speeds for earth satellites and long-range missiles. The proposed hypersonic blowdown tunnel will use helium as a test medium and will be capable of operating at from 10 to 25 times the speed of sound.

The increasing application of rocket powerplants and the use of new propellants has brought new and pressing problems in controls, pumping, and the interferences caused by close coupling of multiple-engine systems. In long-range ballistic missiles, these problems are greatly accentuated. Making sure that the missile is directionally on its proper course-that is, points in the right direction-is only part of the problem; in addition, you have to make sure that the missile is traveling at precisely the right speed when the rocket motor burns out. Otherwise, of course, the target will be overshot or undershot. Single rocket engines, each with thrusts much greater than that of present turbojet engines, must be operated together. The rocket motor of the V-2 burned for about 70 seconds. Purely for illustration, and it is emphasized that this is not any missile engine, let's say the burning time of

one concept of an ICBM might be about 3 times that, some 200 seconds. During that time-3 % minutes-the fuel and oxidant might be pumped into the combustion chamber at the rate of about a ton a second.

Calculations indicate that if the missile is going to destroy a priority target the rocket motor must operate with a degree of precision which has not been used before in devices of this size or complexity. In 5 minutes a missile must reach an altitude of 500,000 to 1 million feet, traveling at a velocity of 18,000 miles per hour. If the velocity is 18,005 miles per hour, it misses the target by 5 miles. Likewise, if 1 percent of the propellant is not used, the miss may be measured in hundreds of miles.

So that the control on the consumption of f tiel and getting the whole thing burned in the exact amount of time is a tremendously difficult technical problem. If we are going after really high accuracy in ballistic missiles, we have to solve problems of a difficulty that has not been experienced so far.

Pumps for rocket propellants must operate under severe conditions, such as with surging inlet pressure due to boiling of the fluids being handled. Turbines and their gas generators for driving the pumps must be adapted to use the same propellants as the main rocket combustion chamber to avoid the need for separate tanks and flow systems. The proposed facility will then be equipped to handle inert fluids such as water and liquid nitrogen for research on flow fundamentals, as well as liquid rocket propellants.

The design of the bearings and seals used in the liquefied gas pumps require studies in a new field involving unfamiliar phenomena that have not been significant in usual bearing applications. Among these phenomena are extreme dangers from leaks in bearings and seals, handling fluids hostile to lubricants and lubrication, and lubrication at temperatures as low as that of boiling hydrogen, -424° F.

This will be accomplished by the Rocket Systems Research Facility project at the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory which proposes the construction of two new buildings and the alteration of an existing building at a cost of $5,700,000.

The difficult problem in materials research at high temperatures will be facilitated by the proposed hypersonic physics test area at the Langley Laboratory for which an authorization of $1,-987,000 is in this bill. Research on materials, structures, and aerodynamics at

.elevated temperatures requires the investigation of problems at all points along the Mach number and tempera

·ture scales up to 20 times the speed of sound or more. This proposed facility -is designed to facilitate progress in the general area of equipment and technique development in the higher temperature ranges while at the same time providing safe and integrated means for conducting research at these temperatures. The facilities proposed for this test area include chemical jets providing temperatures up to nearly 11,000° F., and hypervelocity guns to conduct research relat-

ing to problems of missile countermeasures and meteor impact problems.

Also included in this bill is an authorization of $750,000 for the construction of a high-speed leg to an existing Langley laboratory tunnel. This project covers construction of 2 fixed nozzles to cover the speed range of between 10 and 12 times the speed of sound.

H. R. 3377 also includes provision for the modification and extension of the component research facility for nuclear propulsion which we authorized 2 years ago and is under construction at present. This research facility, as you will recall, -is for research on components for use in nuclear-powered aircraft under realistic conditions of radiation, temperature, and pressure. The design studies of the reactor show that it will provide an excellent source for high-level radiations.

In concluding, let me emphasize my conviction that there is no better money spent on national defense and security than in the modest sums which for over 40 years we have appropriated for NACA and which have and will continue to put us in our strong position in the aeronautical field.

Mr. 1mss. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Chairman, J. am a member of the subcommittee which considered H. R. 3377. The bill was reported unanimously from the subcommittee and unanimously from the full committee.

I want to join the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina, and other Members who will speak on this bill in urging the wholehearted and nonpartisan support that a bill of this kind should receive. When there is a question of providing basic aeronautical research facilities for our aircraft program there is no di ff erence of opinion between the two sides of the aisle. We all have one thought and that is to provide this country with the best airpower in the world. The excellence of our airpower today is due to the service performed by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

Before this program came to us it had been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. Top scientific experts in their fields in the laboratories of NACA recommended the facilities we are considering today. They are the people doing the research and are ably qualified to know what additional research tools are needed to continue their effective work. Next, the program was reviewed and screened by top scientific experts at NACA headquarters including NACA's able director, Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, who has devoted himself to aeronautical research for our Government for some 38 years. After this review, the program was submitted to the NACA panel on research facilities which was chaired by Dr. James "Jimmy" Doolittle, a member of NACA for 8 % years. Also serving on this panel were Preston Bassett, former vice president, Sperry Rand Corp.; Arthur Raymond, vice president, engineering, Douglas Aircraft Co.; Vice Adm. Thomas S. Combs, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air; and Lt. Gen. Donald L. Putt, Air. Force Deputy Chief of Staff, development. After the panel's approval, the program was submitted to

1957, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - -HOUSE 5533 and approved by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.

At present the members of the com .. mittee are:

Dr. James H. Doolittle, vice president, Shell Oil Co., chairman, elected in Octob.er of last year.

Dr. Leonard Carmichael, secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Vice Chairman.

Dr. Allen V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards.

Mr. Preston R. Bassett, formerly vice president, Sperry Rand Corp., now retired.

Dr. Detlev W. Bronk, National Academy of Sciences, and president Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.

Dr. Frederick C. Crawford, chairman of the board, Thompson Products, Inc.

Vice Adm. William V. Davis, Jr., Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Air.

Dr. Jerome C. Hunsaker of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, formerly chairman for 15 years.

Mr. Charles J. McCarthy, chairman of the board, Chance Vought Aircraft, Inc.

Rear Adm. Carl J. Pfingstag, Assistant Chief for Field Activities, Navy Bureau of Aeronautics.

Lt. Gen. Donald L. Putt, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff, Development.

James T. Pyle, Administrator of Civil Aeronautics.

Dr. Francis W. Reichelderfer, .Chief, United States Weather Bureau.

Capt. E. V. 'Rickenbacker, ch~irman of the board, Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Louis S. Rothschild, Under Secretary> of Commerce for Transportation.

Gen. Nathan F. Twining, Air Force Chief of Staff, and recently named to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

These members all sei·ve without compensation, and are appointed solely on the basis of their knowledge of the needs of aeronautical science.

As is very evident, the request made by NACA was not conceived on impulse .. Much work and thought went into it.

H. R. 3377 reflects NACA's urgent need for additional facilities for r·esearch in the hypersonic speeq range and the continuing need for modernizing existing facilities for the solution of new problems in the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic speed· ranges. ·

The proposed research facilities have already been discussed. I would like to direct myself to the modernization phases of the program.

In the sum of appropriations, we have invested in NACA some $325 million. Reproduction cost is probably closer to $500 million. As many of you know, it is a very complex plant. It includes motors that produce up to 250,000 horsepower in a single tunnel, air-drying equipment, heating equipment, and all of the mechanical devices necessary to do research in this complex technological field. It takes a certain sum to keep . things current with the advances in the art. '

It is proposed to expand the existing propulsion systems facility at the .Lewis Laboratory by the installation of facilities to investigate the performances of eng'ines up to 4 Y2 times the speed of sound. These f aciliti~s will also permit the more extensive use of htgh-energy fuels· in large full-scale engine tests. ·

Through t.he years we haive g~ven NACA the funds to continually keep the capacity of the propulsion systems laboratory in step with developments in the size and speeds of engines. This project will keep the propulsion system laboratory capable of meeting the problems of the engines that are now being designed.

Another item is a bypass system for the Ames Laboratory unitary plan tunnel which will substantially improve the usefulness and value of the 9- by 7-foot supersonic circuit of this tunnel by eliminating surging of the flow through the compressor which drives air through the two supersonic circuits of the tunnel which is encountered under some conditions, and 'by reducing power losses in the diffllser, resulting in some increase in maximum Mach and Reynolds numbers.

What this means is that the process of starting up this 200,000-horsepower compressor has to be done very carefully to avoid getting into conditions which would cause the flow to surge through the compressor.

It is possible by a modification of the tunnel circuit to eliminate this condition, and to greatly reduce the time required to bring the tunnel up to speed and to shut it down again.

You do not turn a 200,000-horsepower motor on and off by flicking a switch like a light switch. It has to be brought up to speed slowly. It is somewhat comparable to bringing up to speed the propulsion system on a battleship.

Furthermore, it is proposed that auxiliary suction be applied to the slotted test section of the Ames Laboratory 14-f oot transonic tunnel for boundary layer removal. Since the design of the 14-foot transonic tunnel was completed, importJl.nt advances have been made in transonic-tunnel design. The application of auxiliary suction to the plenum chamber surrounding the test section has proven to be the most beneficial of recent improvements to transonic tunnels. This improvement should be applied to the 14-foot transonic tunnel without further delay. A plenum chamber by the way is an enlarged chamber in an airflow system where the air moves· at relatively low speed, similar to a settling basin in a waterflow system.

In his testimony before our committee, Dr. Dryden stated tr.lat for a long time it was not known how to make a wind tunnel that would operate at the speed of sound. As a result of an invention by one of NACA's scientists, for which he and his associates received the Collier trophy, the transoniC wind tunnel was invented. Over the course of several years NACA made this modification to several wind tunnels so that they could be run at the speed of sound. The transonic th:i;oat is a section of the tunnel that has holes or slots in its walls and which is surrounded by a closed tank. At the speed of sound, an ordinary dosed wind tunnel blocks, or chokes. With the transonic throat the air has an opportunity to go out through the holes of the wall into the external tanks and then flow in again and thus to adjust to the model making it possible to reach the speed of sound. Now, if you suck the

air out of the tanks, and put it into the tunnel farther downstream, it is possible to obtain a considerable improvement both in the quality of the flow and in the speed which can be attained. This project covers such a modification.

The addition of the boundary-layer removal system will permit the tunnel's effective model size to be doubled, will increase · the Mach number limit from 1.2 to 1.4, and will reduce the need for overload operation of the main drive motors over most of the tunnel's speed range.

It is proposed to improve the airflow in the 11-foot transonic tunnel circuit of the Ames unitary plan tunnel. The acquisition of new knowledge on the characteristics of transonic test sections indicates that significant improvements in · the quality of the airflow can be achieved by altering the method of venting the test section and by redesigning th~ bypassed air reentry region at the downstream end of the test section. The proposed modernization offers the possibility of a decrease in the Mach number variations.in the test section and an improvement in the airflow at the diffuser entrance of sufficient magnitude to result in a decrease in the required tunnel drive power.

It is proposed to modify the Langley Laboratory 26-inch transonic blowdown tunnel by installing an alternate 20-inch square test section to extend the maximum attainable Mach number of the facility from about 1.4 to about 4.0. This tunnel is used primarily for flutter investigations. The nature of the flutter problem at the higher Mach numbers is relatively unexplored and is urgently in need of investigation. ·

In addition to modernizing the research facilities jus.t discussed, it is also necessary to modernize three of NACA's supporting technical facilities.

The capabilities of the research vehicles used in the conduct of aeronautical research at the pilotless aircraft station at Wallops Island have exceeded the ability of the ground instrumentation to provide full coverage of a research flight. It is essential that modern instrumenta- . tion be provided to obtain urgently needed data in the hypersonic speed range. The project covers two tracking radars, telemeter, receiving equipment, an increased range Doppler system, and auxiliary equipment. A Doppler system is a type of radar for measuring the speed of a . body moving away or toward the radar. The effect achieved is similar to that heard at a locomotive grade crossing. The locomotive's whistle increases as the locomotive approaches and decreases as it moves away.

A data,. reduction center is required for the expansion and improvement of the automatic data-processing facilities at the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory. The complex problems involved in research at increased flight speeds and altitudes and on new aircraft configurations required for supersonic flight have greatly increased the amount of required data reduction and analysis. This new facility will centralize existing dataprocessing operations, improve efficiency, and provide on-line data-processing service for three major wind tunnels.

5534 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11 The increasing need for structures re

search at high temperature has made marginal an existing central compressor system at the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory which supplies air to several research facilities. An improved air supply for the internal flow laboratory will permit the installation of the necessary additional compressor capacity.

Mr. Chairman, we must maintain our air supremacy in order to survive. Probably no other singlt action can assure us of staying out in front than providing NACA with the tools it needs to make the airplane of tomorrow stay far ahead of any that any enemy can plan.

I join the other members in urging the approval of the bill before us.

Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PRICE].

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, these days the newspapers and technical press are full of accounts about how fast we are going to shoot our missiles; and how fast we hope to fly in the days ahead.

Around the first of this month NACA announced that it had shot skyward from its Wallops Island station the first five-stage rocket-propelled research model. All that can be said at present is that it attained a greater speed than NACA's four-stage rocket previously fired, which attained a maximum speed of nearly_ 7,000 miles per hour, and a height of nearly 200 miles. The fivestage rocket's speed mark was achieved by firing the last three stages in sequence after the vehicle went "over the top" into the downward course. The first stage was an Honest John missile motor; the second stage, a Nike motor was fired on the upward course; and the other three stages, Nike, Recruit, and a commercial T-55 were fired after reaching the top and in sequence after burn-out to simulate reentry into the earth's atmosphere. 'NACA uses rockets like this as a means of obtaining valuable information about aerodynamic heating and other problems of high speed flight.

The Bell X-2 research airplane has been flown faster and higher than man has ever ventured before. The press has widely reported-without confirmation or denial-that the X-2 surpassed 2,100 miles per hour and reached 126,000 feet altitude.

How fast we are progressing in the world of aeronautics is a fascinating subject. The achievements were not come by easily or cheaply. A host of problems first had to be solved. Another host of problems clogs the road ahead. I wish to comment briefly on the significance of high speed on problems affecting materials.

We are little past the beginning of the study of the awesome problems posed by the determination to project missiles at speeds of 15,000 miles per hour or faster along a ballistic . trajectory over intercontinental distances. We have only recently learned how to design the tools we need in order to investigate the bafiling problems of speeds above the low supersonic. Hypersonic flight which is flight faster than five times the speed of sound, or faster than 3,000 miles per hour, will generate enormously high temperatures

by friction of the air upon the body moving through it.

At such speeds, air temperatures reach thousands of degrees Fahrenheit, and the problems of dealing with this heat are both pressing and complex. If people are to fly at such speeds, we have not only the problem of cooling the aircraft, the weapons system, fuel and electronic gear, but of cooling for the man or men inside. You know what can happen to metals in these circumstances.

At a Mach number of only 3, or 2,000 miles per hour, this rise is about 660° F. At a Mach number of 20, or 13,000 miles per hour, the rise would exceed 20,000°. That is hotter than the sun's surface.

At these speeds, then, the problem is what to do about heat, how to get rid of it. What kind of materials we shall u~e in the structures of our missiles and airplanes is an important aspect of the total problem.

The proposed NACA facilities we are considering here today will aid in dealing with such problems.

The research results of NACA are the foundation for the military, civil, and industrial development of superior aircraft and missiles. '!'he rate at which NACA is able to attack and solve fundamental scientific problems limits the rate of progress in the development of aircraft and missiles in the United States. A strong NACA is essential to our national security.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the Committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. HERLONG, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consideration the bill H. R. 3377, to promote the national defense by authorizing the construction of aeronautical research facilities and the acquisition of land by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics necessary to the effective prosecution of aeronautical research, pursuant to House Resolution 224, he reported the same back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The EPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.


table.

CONTROL OF PLANT PESTS Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I

call up the bill <H. R. 3476) to facilitate the regulation, control, and eradication of plant pests, and ask unanimous consent that it may be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?

There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc.-TITLE I. FEDERAL PLANT PEST ACT

SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the "Federal Plant Pest Act."

SEC. 102. As used in this act, except where the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States or any other person to whom authority may be delegated to act in his stead.

(b) "Properly identified employee of the Department of Agriculture" means an employee of that Department authorized to enforce the provisions of the Plant Quarantine Act, and wearing a suitable badge for identification, or otherwise properly identified.

(c) "Plant pest" means any living stage of: Any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, or any organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances,. which can directly or indirectly injure or cause disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof, or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants.

(d) "Living stage" includes the egg, pupal, and larval stages as well as any other living stage. ·

(e) "United States" means any of the States, Territories, or Districts (including possessions and the District of Columbia) of the United States. ·

(f) "Interstate" means from one State, Territory, or District (including possessions and the District of Columbia) of the United States _into or through any other such State, Territory, or District.

(g) '.'Move" means ship, deposit for transmission in the mail, otherwise offer for shipment, offer for entry, import, receive for transportation, carry, or otherwise transport, or move, or allow to be moved, by mail or otherwise.

(h) "Plant Quarantine Act" means the act of August 20, 1912 (37 Stat. 315), as from time to time amended (7 U. S. C. 151 and the following).

(i) "Mexican Border Act" means the act of January 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 40), as from time to time amended (7 U. S. C. 149).

SEC. 103. (a) No person shall knowingly move any plant pest from a foreign country into or through the United States, or inter·state, or knowingly accept delivery of any plant pest moving from any foreign country into or through the United States, or interstate, unless such movement is authorized under general or specific permit from the Secretary and is made in accordance with such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe in the permit and in such regulations as he may promulgate under this section to prevent the dissemination · into the United States, or interstate, of plant pests.

(b) The Secretary may refuse to Issue a permit for the movement of any plant pest when, in his opinion, such movement would involved a danger of dissemination of such ·pests. The Secretary may permit the movement of host materials otherwise barred under the Plant Quarantine Act when they must necessarily accompany t:ie plant pest to be moved. . Sic. 104. (a) Any letter, parcel, box, or other package containing any plant pest, whether sealed 'Rs letter-rate postal matter or not, is hereby declared to be nonmail· able, and will not knowingly be conveyed in the mail or delivered from any post office or by any mail carrier, except when accompanied by a copy of a permit issued under this act.

(b) Nothing in this act shall authorize any person to open any letter or other sealed

1957, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5535 matter except in accordance with the postal laws and regulations. .

(c) The prohibitions of this act shall not apply to any employee of the United States in the performance of his duties in handling mail.

SEC. 105. (a) ·Except as provided in paragraph (c), the Secretary may, whenever he deems it necessary as an emergency measure in order to prevent the dissemination of any plant pest new to or not theretofore known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, in such manner as he deems appropriate, any product or article of any character whatsoever, or means of conveyance, which is moving into or through the United States, or interstate, and which he has reason to believe is infested or infected by or contains any such pl!}nt pest, or which has moved into the United States, or interstate, and which he has reason to believe was infested or infected by or contained any such plant pest at the time of such movement; and any plant pest, product, article, or means of conveyance which is moving into or through the United States, or interstate, or has moved into the United States, or interstate, in violation of this act or any regulation thereunder: Provided, That this paragraph shall not authorize such action with respect to any product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest subject, at the time of the proposed action, to disposal under the Plant Quarantine Act.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), the Secretary may order the owner of any product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest subject to disposal under paragraph (a), or his agent, to treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or make other disposal of such product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest, without cost to the Federal Government and in such manner as the Secretary deems appropriate. The Secretary may apply to the United States district court, or to the United States court of any Territory or possession, for the judicial district in which such person resides or transacts business or in which the product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest is found, for enforcement of such order by injunction, mandatory or otherwise. Process in any such case may be served in any judicial district wherein the defendant resides or transacts business or may be found, and subpena for witnesses who are required to attend a court in any judicial district in such a case may run in to any other judicial district.

(c) No product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest shall be destroyed, exported, or returned to shipping point of origin, or ordered to be destroyed, exported, or so returned under this section, unless in the opinion of the Secretary there is no less drastic action which would be adequate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests new to or not theretofore known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States.

(d) The owner of any product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest destroyed, or otherwise disposed of by the Secretary under this section, may bring an action against the TJnited States in the United States Court for the District of Columbia, within 1 year after such destruction or disposal, and recover just compensation for such destruction or disposal of such product, article, means of conveyance, or plant pest (not including compensation for loss due to delays incident to determining eligibility for movement into or through the United States or for interstate movement) if the owner establishes that neither this section nor the Plant Quarantine Act authorized such destruction or disposal. Any judgment rendered in favor of such owner shall be paid

out of the money in the Treasury appropriated for plant disease and pest control activities of the Department of Agriculture.

SEC. 106. The Secretary may promulgate such regulations requiring inspection of products and articles of any character whatsoever and means of conveyance, specified in the regulations, as a condition of their movement into or through the United States, or interstate, and imposing other conditions upon such movement, as he deems necessary to prevent the dissemination into the United States, or interstate, of plant pests, in any situation in which such regulations are not authorized under the Plant Q~arantine Act.

SEC. 107. Any properly identified employee of the Department of Agriculture shall have authority to stop and inspect, without a. warrant, any persons or means of conveyance moving into the United States, and any plant pests and any products and articles of any character whatsoever carried thereby, to de·termine whether such persons or means of conveyance are carrying any plant pest contrary to this act and whether any such means of conveyance, products, or articles are infested or infected by or contains any plant pest or are moving in violation of any regulation under this act; to stop and inspect, without a warrant, any person or means of conveyance moving interstate, and any plant pests and any products and articles of any character whatsoever carried thereby, upon probable cause to believe that such means of conveyance, products, or articles are infested or infected by or contains any plant pest or are moving subject to any regulation under this act, or that such persons or means of conveyance are carrying any plant pest subject to this act; and to enter, without a warrant, any premises, other than places subject to entry under section 15 of the Plant Quarantine Act, and other than dwelling houses, in the United States to make any inspections and seizures authorized under this act, upon probable ·cause to believe that there are on such premises any products, articles, means of conveyance, or plant pests regulated or subject to disposal under this act.

SEC. 108. Any person who violates section 103 of this act, or any regulation promulgated under this act, or who forges, counterfeits, or without authority from the Secretary uses, alters, or defaces any permit or other document provided for by this act or the regulations thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, or both.

SEC. 109. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 110. 'I'he act entitled "An act to proVide for regulating, inspecting, cleaning, and, when necessary, disinfecting railway cars, other vehicles, and other materials entering the United States from Mexico," approved January 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 40; 7 U.S. C. 149) is hereby amended by deleting the provision that "the cleaning and disinfection ·of vehicles or materials necessary to accomplish the purpose shall be carried out by and under the direction of authorized inspectors of the Department of Agriculture," afld by substituting therefor the following: "the cleaning and disinfection of vehicles or materials necessary to accomplish the purpose shall be carried out by or under the direction of authorized inspectors of the Department of Agriculture."

SEC. 111. The authority conferred by this act shall be in addition to authority conferred by other statutes not specifically repealed hereby. Nothing in this act shall amend or repeal any of the provisions of the Plant Quarantine Act. The act entitled

"An act to prohibit importation or inter· state transportation of insect pests, and the use of the United States mails for that purpose," approved March 3, 1905 (33 Stat. 1269; 7 U. S. C. 141-144), and the act entitled "An act to prevent the entry of certain mollusks into the United States," approved September 22, 1951 (65 Stat. 335; 7 U. S. C. 441), are hereby repealed. However, all acts amended or repealed hereby shall be deemed to continue in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any action or other proceeding with respect to any right that accrued, liability that was incurred, or violation that occurred prior to the effective date of this act. Nothing contained in this act shall affect the validity of any findings, regulations, or other orders, permits, or certificates, which were issued under any of the acts cited in this section prior to the effective date of this act and which are in effect on said date, but such findings, regulations, other orders, permits, and certificates shall remain in effect unless and until modified in accordance with this act.

TITLE II. ERADICATION AND CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS, PLANT DISEASES, AND NEMATODES

SEC. 201. Subsection (a) of section 102 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1994, as amended (7 U.S. C. 147a), is hereby further amended by adding after the phrase "or to prevent or retard the spread of" the words "insect pests, plant diseases, and nematodes, such as imported fire ant, soybean cyst nematode, witchweed."

The SPEAKER. The. Clerk will re .. port the committee amendments.

The Clerk read the committee amendments as follows:

Page 3, line 19, strike out "involved" and insert "involve."

Page 7, line 20, strike out "contains" and insert "contain."

Page 7, line 22, strike out "person'' and insert "persons."

Page 8, line 2, strike out "contains" and insert "contain."

Page 8, beginning on line 5, strike out all after the semicolon through the period on line 12 and insert "and to enter, with a warrant, any premises in the United States, other than places which- may be entered under section 15 of the Plant Quarantine Act, to make any inspections and seizures necessary under this act. Any judge of the United States or of a court of record of any State, Territory, or possession, or any United States commissioner, may, within his respective jurisdiction, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause to believe that there are on certain premises any products, articles, means of conveyance, or plant pests regu. lated or subject to disposal under this act, issue warrants for the entry of such premises to make any inspections or seizures under this act. Such warrants may be executed by any authorized employee of the Department of Agriculture."

Page 10, line 4, strike out "defective" and insert "effective."

Page 10, line 20, strike out the quotation marks and period and insert "spotted alfalfa aphid,"."

The committee amendments were agreed to.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H. R. 3476 is: First, to redefine plant pests to include any living stage of such things as mites, nematodes, parasitic plants, and viruses, many of which were not recognized or fully covered in the Insect Pest Act of 1905 or the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912; second, to clarify and strengthen existing authority for preventing the

5536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Apr-il 11 entry into the United States and ·the 1nterstate ·spread of plant pests; third, to provide authority not now available to the Department to take emergency action when necessary to safely dispose of such pests and the host plants or carriers that may be associated with them when intercepted at port of entry; and fourth, to authorize the Department to cooperate with States in preventing the spread of such pests across State lines.

The proposed legislation in no way changes the general intent of · existing legislation; however, there have been advances in scientific knowledge and a tremendous increase in the volume of importations since existing legislation was enacted, which has focused attention on the need for strengthening certain provisions of the authority under which inspectors of the Department can-y out their work. If the Department finds that some article moving in commerce or carried by passengers entering the United States is infested with a destructive pest not now widely distributed in this country, the authority in this bill would permit the Department to take such action as may be necessary to intercept such articles and to dispose of them in such a way as to give maximum protection to American agriculture.

In discharging these responsibilities the Department now relies on authority contained in the so-called Insect Pest Act which was passea in 1905; Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, as amended; Mollusk Act of 1951; and Mexican Border Act of 1942. In administering these laws the Department has been handicapped by certain statutory deficiencies, which have become increasingly apparent as the volume of imports has pyramided and airplanes arrive from

· remote parts of the world in a matter of hours. The bill under consideration provides the authority needed to meet these deficiencies.

Existing legislation does not provide authority to regulate the movement into or through the United States of insects or plant diseases that are not known to be notoriously injurious to cultivated crops. For example, mites, nematodes, parasitic plants, and viruses, which in recent years have been found to do extensive damage to plants or plant products, are not now covered. Likewise, existing legislation does not provide the authority that is needed to regulate the importation and interstate distribution of cultures of bacteria, fungi, and viruses that may be imported for research purposes. In recent years the international exchange of such materials has been steadily increasing. Research of this t vpe is conducted not only by Federal f.nd State experiment stations; colleges, 'lnd universities, but by industrial, pri·vate, and semiprivate firms that may be engaged in the production of antibiotics or chemical controls. The proposed legislation would require that such importations be made under permit, and only after the Department is satisfied that no risk to American agriculture is involved.

There is need for additional authority for the Department to take emergency action with respect to destructive pests that may reach our ports as stowaways in ships, airplanes, or by other means

when such pests are not associated with host plants or commodities now subject to quarantine.

,Many of the most destructive insects and plant diseases that the farmers of this country must combat each year in order to produce a crop have been introduced from a foreign land at some time in the past. The boll weevil, the corn borer, the gypsy moth, the golden nematode of potato, and the khapra beetle are examples of some that have cost the farmers of this country millions of dollars annually, even though the Congress has appropriated millions of dollars to investigate ways and means of dealing with them.

The purpose of title I of this legislation is to provide the additional authority that is needed to give maximum protection against plant pests of all kinds that are not now established or widely distributed in this country, in this way reducing to the minimum the likelihood of further introductions similar to those I have named.

A few examples will serve to illustrate the magnitude of the job confronting the inspectors of the Department in meeting their responsibility. During the past .year a shipment of India peanuts arriving at the port of New York was found to be infested with the khapra beetle, which is recognized the world over as one of the most destructive pests of stored grains and similar products. ·

Automobiles driven in Europe and then shipped back to this country have brought with them cysts of the golden -nematode in the mud or soil adhering to the whe'els and fenders. There is now no specific authority for preventing the entry of soil as such which the Department now knows may contain cysts of the nematode or seed of parasitic plants which, once established in this country, would be extremely destructive and costly to control. Without specific authority to take action the Department is now enlisting the voluntary cooperation of importers in preventing the entry or careless handling of cultures of viruses, bacteria, and fungi that cause destructive plant diseases, and similar organisms.

To summarize, this legislation is designed to strengthen the authority available to the Department to deal with problems about which there was little knowledge when existing legislation was enacted. It clarifies the intent of such legislation and corrects the inadequacies that experience has shown to exist.

Title II amends subsection (a) of section 102 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, as amended, to permit the Department to cooperate with the States in the eradication, suppression or control of the fire ant, the soybean cyst nelllij.tode, the witchweed, and similar pests not now named in the act. This added authority would authorize the Department to act promptly when a newly introduced insect or disease becomes established in a limited area and threatens to spread throughout the country. ·

Mr. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has the approval of the Department of Agriculture. It was reported unanimously by the Com-

mittee on · Agriculture after hearings. The bill will not cost any more money than that which is already authorized or will be provided in the future by the Appropriations Committee. I trust that this legislation will be passed today in the House of Representatives.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture lacks authority to regulate and control importation and movement of plant diseases and disease-bearing organisms.

It does not have authority under existing law to control mites, nematodes, protozoa bacteria, fungi, parasitic plants, or viruses which can injure plants.

It does not have authority to control imported fire ants, which are so destructive in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and beginning to invade North Carolina and Texas.

These ants are especially destructive to seed, young plants, and attacks unprotected young animals and young poultry. They are even danger.ous to babies and very small children. Their painful sting prives livestock out of the best pastures into the hills. Their mounds in many places are so numerous and so high that they seriously interrupt harvesting machif:\ery in its proper functioning.

Another extremely ~ destructive pest which USDA has no legal right to control is the spotted alfalfa aphis, which since ·1954 has made serious inroads in Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah. ·

Again the USDA has no authority over the woodborers found in green poles from ·Belgium, over a new type of South American termites, or over a leafhopper coming into Hawaii by plane from the Far East.

Present laws are too restrictive. No one can predict just which new pests, bacteria, viruses, and so forth, can slip into this country, and certainly we cannot wait to pass laws giving USDA authority to cope with each particular pest. H. R. 3476 liberalizes present law to meet such emergencies.

The committee amendment to the bill gives USDA authority to enter with a warrant any premises in the United States to make inspections. The Department may, under the provisions, make inspections and seizures in transportation vehicles as well.

The United States Departm.ent of Agriculture favors the enactment of H. R. 3476. Their letter is in the committee report, page 9.

COST

The committee report states: It is not believed that title I of this bill will

necessitate any additional appropriations.

This is a quotation from the Secretary's letter.

The report also states: There will not necessarily be any imme

diate need for additional appropriations in connection with e::iendments made under title II. A high degree of State and individual farmer participation is expected. In the case of fire ants it is believed the major cost of eradication on private lands should be the major responsibility of the owner of the property.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL _RECORD - HOUSE ~537 Federal responsibility should be large

ly that. Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to

strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, this is one bill coming

from the Committee on Agriculture which all Members of the House can support wholeheartedly. It is a bill requested by the Department of Agriculture. It calls for no additional appropriation and is in the interest of the public health. .

Mr. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the committee members on both sides of the aisle for bringing in this measure. As h as been well said, it cost no additional money but it is very vital.

I have received several appeals recently from the State authorities in Louisiana for assistance in reference to combatting the fire ant and other pests, but especially the fire ant which is very destructive in the southern part of the State and this part of the State is now under such great development in a mineral way and in other ways. I think it is most timely and I am very much in favor of the bill and commend the committee for its action in bringing the measure up for consideration at this time.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. S:Jeaker, in support of H. R. 3476 now before the House, I wish to confine my remarks to title II of the- bill. This is the section that authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out operations or measures to eradicate, suppress, control, or to prevent or retard the spread of four new specific plant pests which includes imported fire ants. This_section of H. R. 3476 is similar to a bill I introduced earlier, H. R. 5931.

The fire ant ~s now found in over 50 of Alabama's 67 counties, and it continues to spread rapidiy. Only last week fire ants were found for the first time in 2 counties of the Seventh Congressional District of Alabama, which district I have the honor to represent.

The presence of the fire ant on our farms has great economic significance. Already the pest has done an estimated $25 million in damages to Alabama f~rmers. It attacks germinating seed and young tender plants; it builds mounds that damage farm machinery; it interferes with harvesting of crops; and its sting causes extreme irritation and pain to human beings.

The Alabama Polytechnic Institute Agricultural Experiment Station, the State extension service, officials of the State department of agriculture, and individual farmers have enlisted in the fight to get fire ants out of our fields, pastures, yards, and off landowners' backs.

E:owever, Mr.' Speaker, the job is too big for them to do alone. In spite of all the efforts expended by these groups, the pest has continued to spread, and the assistance of the United States Department of Agriculture is urgently needed.

I support the legislation now before the House of Representatives, and I urge its enactment.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Speaker, in the Btate of Alabama and in other States

throughout the Southeast, the imported fire ant is spreading at an alarming rate. This insect was first observed in Alabama near the port of Mobile in 1918 and for many years apparently did very little damage. We ar e told by entomologists that a considerable length of time was necessary for this insect to adjust to our climate and environment before it began to multiply rapidly. It has now spread from eastern Texas to North Carolina, and approximately 23 million acres of land are badly infested.

These ants range in length from oneeighth inch to one-fourth inch, and their mounds vary in height from approximately 6 inches to nearly 2 feet. Their damage is fourfold:

First. They frequently attack germinating seed and young plants and newborn animals.

Second. They build unsightly mounds that can damage farm machinery.

Third. They interfere with the harvest of crops.

Fourth. Their sting causes extreme irritation and may result in death.

According to the Department of Agriculture, the imported fire ant is now reported to be in 48 counties in the State of Alabama. The infestation ranges from the southern part of the State to four counties in the northernmost part that have recently repor ted a few mounds. The total infested acreage in Alabama is over 13 million acres.

Almost one-third of the acreage infested by the fire ant in Alabama is located in the eight counties of the Sixth Congressional District which I have the privilege to represent. As of March 1957, the affected part of my district totals 3,450,928 acres. A county-bycounty breakdown on this infested acreage is included in the following statistical table:

S tatus of imported fi re ant, 6th Congressional D istrict of Alabania 1

County Approximate ini

tial date of disco very

Moderate damage first observed

Heavy damage first observed

Acreage as of

l\Iarch 19.37

Sumter----- -- ------ __ __ -- ----------- ___ _ December 1953 ___ _ August 1955 __ ____ .: 195:3_ -- --- -- - - - - - - -1949_ -- - -- -- -- - - - --1953. --- - - - _: __ _ ---1955_ ---------- ----1953_ --------------1954_ - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

Greene ____________ __ ____ _______________ _ 'l'uscaloosa .. __ . _. ___ - ______ -- --_ - _ --- ---Perry _________ ------ - ________ __ ------ ---Bibb __ __ -----_ ---- --- -- _ --- -- ----- ----- -Shelby ___ __ ----- __ ------- - __ --- ______ __ _ Chilton _______ ------ ------- - -- ----- -- __ _ H ale. _______________ ___ --- --- __ ------- __

1954_ ---- --- -- - - - - -(2) __ ___ - ---- - -- - - - -

1954_ ---- - -- -- ---- -195L _____________ _

1956_ --------------1956_ ---- -- -- ------1956_ - - - -------- -- -1956_ - -- - - - --- --- --

1955 ________ ______ -

(2) _ - --- - --- - - ------1957 _ -------- -- -- - -HJ57 ____________ __ _

1957 _ --------------Kot yet severe ___ _ 1957 ____________ __ -

1957. - ----------- --

5S4: OGO 407, i44 8!4,GOO 450, 080 301, 000 14, JOO

347, 024 412, 320

Total. ___ __________ __ ------ _____ _____ _____ _____ ----- -__ ------ _____ _ --- --- _ ------- -- ---- __ ___ _ _ 3, 450, 928

1 Info_rmation secured fro_m cow1ty agricultural agents of respective counties, Mar. 15. 1957. 2 ~gncultural agent of th1 county would not make an estimate of damage but said that in 1956 fire ants had become

a musance to a moderalc extent and by 1957 had become an extreme nuisance.

Classification of type of land affected in Con gression al D istrict 6, Alabama

Acres Cultivated____________ __________ 629, 350 Op en pasture___________________ 590, 290 VVooded pasture_______ __________ 426,868

VVoodland -- - ------------------- 1, 780,970 City home premises_____________ 11, 750 F arm home premises____________ 11, 700

Total--------------------- 3,450,928

(Road rights-of-way charged to type of land adjoining.)

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture E. L. Peterson pointed out in a letter to me dated February 20, 1957, that efforts of individual property owners to control the fire ant have not been successful. "The imported fire ant," he said, "has spread to new areas and is rapidly becoming a major pest of pasture, cultivated crops, poultry, and livestock."

Since it had become increasingly apparent that the United States Department of Agriculture must participate in any effective eradication program, I introduced on March 6, 1957, a measure <H. R. 5689) that would give to the Agriculture Department the authority necessary to eliminate or control pests such as the imported fire ant. The measure now under consideration <H. R. 3476) contains a similar provision, and I therefore urge its immediate adoption.

It should be pointed out at this time, however, that the passage of H. R. 3476 alone will not eliminate or control the imported fire ant. Additional legislation as well as the appropriation of funds will undoubtedly be necessary for the

control and final elimination of this dangerous pest.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. ABERNETHY] and the Committee on Agriculture for bringing to the House the bill now before us. I introduced a companion bill, H. R. 5948. The bill now before us simply fills the gap which has existed for a number of years in the authGrity of the Department of Agriculture to protect American agriculture against invasion by foreign plant pest and disease.

I shall not discuss the main portions of the bill and will direct my remarks to section 201 which adds the imported fire ant as an additional pest and provides authority to carry out certain measures by Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the States and farmers in controlling the imported fire ant.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this bill which is before the House; however, I must say that I do not believe this bill goes far enough or will be the answer for controlli:!lg the fire ant in the 11 Southern States where it is found today. The Fourth District of Alabama, as well as many other counties in the State of Alabama, is heavily infested with this pest which is now a major threat to agriculture in many of the States of the South. I think that it might be well to give the House some of the facts about the imported fire ant which emphasize the importance of taking every method possible to control this growing threat.


'The fire ant originated in the southern tip of Argentina and, according to the best information available, entered the port of Mobile between 1920 and 1925, possibly in a shipment of fruit coming into the port. This ant was not identified as an imported pest or as anything more than a nuisance until several years later when, in 1949, it had spread over 20 counties in 3 States, being the States of Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. The infestation is now found in over 100 counties in 10 States, and Alabama has the largest infestation with more than 13 million acres out of a total land area of 32 mUlion acres. The fire ant is of economic importance because: First, it attacks germinating seeds and young tender plants, including. cabbage, collards, broccoli, seed corn, and plant roots; second, it builds unsightly mounds which damage. and interfere with power mowers and C'ther machinery such as .combines, harvesters, and so forth; third, it interferes with harvest of crops; and fourth, its sting .causes extreme irritation and may result in death, and :fifth., cattle will not graze near the mounds and these ants attack calves, pigs, quail, and all ground nesting birds. Farm labor in many cases wjll refuse to harvest crops such as strawberries and potatoes because of the vicious bite and poisonous sting. The imported fire ant has spread from Florida to Tennessee and from Texas to Virginia and will, unless a concentrated effort is made, cause untold economic damage to the entire Nation. It was demonstrated in the hearings held before the Abernethy subcommittee that this pest may well live and travel to all parts of the United States. It was brought out that it comes from the southern tip of Argentina which has practically the same weather conditions and temperatures as are found in the United States. Because of its ability to dig holes, extending 4 or 5 feet in the ground, covered with a mound from 1 to 3 feet high, this pest is undoubtedly one of the worst which has ever been faced by the farmer and cattleman in many years.

Three types of poison have been found effective in the control of this insect; namely, chlordane, as a 10-percent dust or 2%-percent emulsion spray; dieldrin and heptachlor. By applying 4 pounds of actual chlordane or 2 pounds of dieldrin or heptachlor per acre, effective control can be obtained for from 2 to 3 years. It is generally agreed that on Alabama pasturelands a minimum of 5 acres is required for a brood cow and calf. The average cost per acre of these poisons, according to a study made by the A. P. I., at Auburn, Ala., runs from $3 to $7 per acre; thus, it is seen that the cost per calf will run from a minimum of $15 to $35 per acre. Certainly it can be seen that the cost to the individual cattleman or farmer will be prohibitive, and these costs will sooner or later be reflected in the price to the consumer. Certainly in areas of the West which require around 40 acres for grazing per calf, the cost to the rancher and cattleman could well be hard to estimate.

The seriousness of this problem has been recognized by the Alabama delegation in Congress, and an effort to find ways and means of combatting this prob-

lem were discussed at a fire-ant conference called by me on March 12, 1957. A

· rnport of this meeting is as follows: IMPORTED FIRE ANT CONFERENCE CALLED BY

CONGRESSMAN KENNETH A. ROBERTS OF ALABAMA, MARCH 12, 1957 Members of Congress or their staff repre

sentatives from a number of midsouth States in which the imported fl.re ant has become a very destructive pest of raw crops, pastures, woodlands, lawns, and in households met with representatives of the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture on the problem.

Information was developed that this is an introduced pest which slipped into the country and became established in the vicinity of Mobile, Ala. It was so well established by 1930 ~ to lead to the belief it had been in the area since at least 1925. The seriousness of the pest was recognized many years ago and the United States Department . of Agriculture and State experiment stations of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have _conducted considerable research to learn how to deal with this pest. For many years ad.equate chemicals were not available to use in an effective overall campaign. However, for a number of years the property owners were able to cope with the problem sufficiently to avoid extreme losses.

In re<:ent months there has been an increasing number of requests for assistance as the imported fl.re ant has increased in density in old areas of infestation and in addition it has spread rather rapidly in the past 3 years. Reports indicate spread occurs by the ants flying from established colonies to establish new ones nearby, by drifting downstream on logs, by traveling aboard trucks, railroad cars, and by being transported in soil or nursery stock. In September of 1949 the fl.re ant was known to infest 9 counties in Alabama; 26 counties by 1953 and 51 counties by March 1957. Comparable spread has occurred in Mississippi, Louisiana, and western Florida. It appears to be firmly established in southeast Texas.

Infestations have been reported in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. With only partial surveys it is estimated there are over 20 million acres currently infested with this pest. The greater portion of this acreage is located in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, but other States are evidently fast losing the battle to control this destructive imported fire ant. It is apparent the imported fire ant is capable of readily becoming established as far north as southern Kentuclty and Virginia. Due to the fact the species is relatively inactive during the winter months, spending much of that time in the mounds which in addition to being built from 6 inches to 2 feet above ground, also extend a couple of feet underground, it is possible it may be able to become acclimated in areas still farther north.

The imported fire ant has a painful sting by sinking its powerful jaws into the flesh, then driving in its stinger and injecting an irritating fluid into the wound. There are authentic reports of serious injury to new-born calves and pigs, newly hatched quail, and other wildlife. Serious damage is caused to okra, collards, cabbage, eggplant, Irish potatoes, germinating seed corn, and root crops.

A very destructive characteristic of the species is its habit of building the hard, crusted mounds above ground as well as cells below ground. The feeding in the vicinity of the mounds seriously damages pasture lands or young, tender raw crops and clogs or damages machinery used on cultivated crops or in mowing pastures.

After receiving this technical information on the habits of the imported fire ant the southern delegation was desirous of determining what could be done to alleviate this serious situation. It was developed that

currently the Department of Agriculture does not have adequate statutory authority ·to participate in any activity against this pest except to conduct research. Some of those present indicated they had introduced legislation to correct that phase of the matter. It was brought out that some 3 years ago the plant pest regulatory and control officials of the 11 Southern States had gone on record to the effect that the imported fire ant should be handled as the direct responsibility of the property owner wit h guidance from the Agricultural Extension Service. However, the recognized failure of that approach had. resulted in these officials meeting in Mobile, Ala., on March 11 and 12, 1957, to reconsider the problem in the light of developments. It was indicated that a proposed plan of meeting the situation would very likely be drawn up in Mobile. Representatives of the Department were present at Mobile for rendering whatever assistance possible as were State research authorities who have been working on the problem. The conference in Washington on March 12 brought to light the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture does not have any funds for use in meeting any of the costs of bringing this very serious pest under control.

I join with the Agriculture Committee in support of the Abernethy bill; however, I am confident that the passage of this bill is only one of the steps that must be taken in controlling this threat to agriculture and the cattle industry of Alabama and the Nation.

I urge the House to p·ass this legislation without further delay. The farmers and cattlemen need help and need it now. . The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to Teconsider was laid on the table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks in the RECORD on the bill just passed.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the reque:it of the gentleman from Mississipi?


CONTROL OF PLANT PESTS Mr. - ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill <S. 1442) to facilitate the regulation, control, and eradication of plant pests.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?

There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That' subsection (a) of section 102 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944, as amended (7 U. S. C. 147a), is hereby further amended by adding after the phrase "or to prevent or retard the spread of" the words "insect pests, plant diseases, and nematodes, such as imported fl.re ant, soybean cyst nematode, witchweed."

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and to substitute the

1957 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD _- .J:IOUSE language of the bill, H. R. 3476, as just passed by the House.

The Clerk read as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause

and insert the provisions of H. R. 3476 as agreed to.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third

time, was read the third time and passed. A similar House bill CH. R. 3476) was

laid on the table. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill CS. 1442) to facilitate the regulation, control, and eradication of plant pests, with a House amendment thereto, and ask for a conference with the Senate.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. COOLEY, POAGE, GRANT, AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, HILL, HOEVEN, and ABERNETHY.

PASSOVER Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous 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 Massachusetts?

There was no objection. Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit

of interfaith brotherhood, we honor the sacred season of Passover, which is one of the most important religious holidays in the lives of our Jewish friends.

This year, Passover extends from sundown of April 15 to sundown of April 23. By a timely coincidence, it covers the period during which the Christian world celebrates the joyous festival of Easter.

Passover is one of the oldest of religious observances, tracing its origin to the book of Exodus in the Old Testament.

It recalls the hardships suffered by the Jews during their bondage.

The faith that sustained them during this ancient adversity, and during the persecutions they have suffered since at the hands of the ignorant, developed the patience, wisdom, and humanitarian outlook that we admire in the Jewish people today.

It is that same faith that has provided a sanctuary for their oppressed brethren in the young Republic of Israel which is the most progressive nation in the Middle East.

In extending greetings to the Jewish people on this reverent occasion, we compliment them upon the reestablishment of their homeland.

As Passover is celebrated in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt, thousands of years ago, we are reminded that history sometimes repeats itself.

In 1957, the Republic of Israel, asking only for the peace in which it will have freedom to build ·a happy and prosperous community for its people, finds itself beset by harassment from one envious neighbor in particular.

On this Passover, our hearts go out to our Jewish friend&, praying with them

for the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt. . ~ .

The Republic of Israel is here to stay, and the sooner that Egypt realizes "this, the sooner she will improve the lot of her own people, and go forward· in common progress with her neighbor, Israel. -

LUDLOW MASSACRE OF 1914 Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Dakota?

There was no objection. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Sat

urday, April 20, will mark the 43d anniversary of a tragic episode in American labor struggles, the Ludlow massacre of 1914.

At a time when some persons are condemning the entire labor movement because of one unethical personality, it is fitting that we recall this episode which symbolizes the sacrifices of courageous men and women who fought for the dignity and freedom of labor that we enjoy today. · Several years ago as a graduate student at Northwestern University I completed a doctoral dissertation covering the great Colorado coal strike of 1913-14. This was the bitter struggle between the miners of southern Colorado and the coal-mine operators that culminated in what has been known from that day to the present as the Ludlow massacre. It was my careful examination of all the aspects of this heartrending chapter in our industrial development that- first convinced me of the vital relationship between a strong, healthy labor movement and effective political democracy. There is no doubt in my mind that the high degree of organization of management in our industrial society makes it imperative that working men and women be well organized if either economic or political freedom is to survive in this land. ·

As stated in 1916 by the United States Commission on Industrial Relations following its study of conditions leading up to the Colorado strike: "Political freedom can exist only where there is industrial freedom."

This is the costly lesson of Ludlow and it is a lesson that has its counterpart -in scores of similar industrial struggles.

The surface story of "The Ludlow Massacre" is that 11 children and 2 young mothers died in the burning .of the strikers' tent colony at Ludlow, Colo., when the tents were burned during an all day gun battle between the strikers and the State militia. But the real significance of Ludlow is far deeper than this cruel fact.

The coal strike which culminated in the affair at Ludlow was vastly more than the usual effort to win improved working conditions. It was an all-out attempt by some 10,000 miners and their families to break the despotic grip of a handfu~ of coal corporations over every phase of economic, political and social life in the .southern Colorado coal towns. The miners and then· leaders had come

to the firm conclusion that they could not achieve e~en elementary American freedoms except through recognition of their union by the coal operators. This was an objec~ive which the operators fought with every resource at their command inciudil)g an army of private armed guards, detectives, barbed wire barricades, armored cars, labor · spies, strikebreakers and pliable jurists, public officials, editors and publicists.

When the Governor sought to restore order between the striking miners and the armed guards of the operators, his efforts were frustrated as the militia came to be identified more and more with the operators. Over a period of months the militia ranks were gradually infiltrated with men spoiling for a showdown with the miners. . That showdown came on April 20, 1914, when a large tent encampment of miners and their families located near Ludlow came under attack by the militia. No one knows who was responsible for starting the battle, but it was a war to the death that resulted in tragic losses on both sides. Only the intervention of well disciplined Federal troops acting under instructions of President Woodrow Wilson ended the violence.

It was the shocking discovery of the bodies of 13 women and children in a pit under one of the striker's-tents following this episode that centered the attention of the entire country on the pathetic conditions confronting the miners of Colorado. They had crawled into the pit to escape the militia gunfire and were suffocated when the tents were fired.

It is not too much to say that the Ludlow affair was one of several turning points in the American labor story that awakened . the American people to the serious consequences of irresponsible industrial management. It demonstrated in graphic form the limits to which selfish industrialists would go rather than surrender a measure of their power over the men who daily risked their lives in the dangerous occupation of digging coal.

As we approach the anniversary of Ludlow, I would like to salute the brave men and women, and the innocent boys and girls who died there in a struggle that has contributed significantly to the standards of dignity and decency that now characterize American industrial relations. I think it is peculiarly appropriate that this labor anniversary comes in the meaningful period between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

ADJOURNMENT OVER Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas

.sachusetts? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I

-rise to object at this point and to inquire ·about the possibility of getting legislation on the deficiency appropriation for the Post Office Department and thus avoid the necessity of curtailing Post Office services this coming Saturday and to inquire . fro~ Member& of the other


side of the aisle as to the present status of this appropriation bill.

The SPEAKER. That bill has not been reported from the committee, I will say to the gentleman.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it may be reported from the committee; is that right?

The SPEAKER. Under the rule it has to lie over for 3 days, if anybody objects to taking it up immediately.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. We could take it up Ly unanimous consent, could we not?

The SPEAKER. We can do almost anything by unanimous consent, but sometimes it is very improbable that we would get unanimous consent.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to leave the door open so that we can act. I think everybody wants the Post Office Department to function.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, there are some statements the gentleman has made on some other occasions that I would gladly argue, but it would not do any good to do that in this case. I might say to the gentleman that he may object, if he wishes, and we can meet tomorrow, and if any Member wanted to make any speech, I would see that he is protected. But then I woulq have to move to adjourn. There· is no legislative business for tomorrow. The full Committee on Appropriations meets tomorrow, and the earliest we can get that bill up would be Monday.

There are some Members on· this side who are trying to cooperate in this matter, looking at it from the viewpoint of the general public. Some of us can discuss what the Postmaster General has done, whether he spent money too quickly or not; but that is not going to do any good now. Some other time it would be in order. The question that many- of us do have in mind is the service to the general public.

Let me say to the gentleman that he is not doing any good to object to thi~ request at this time. Of course, I am not going to ask him not to object, because I am not go~ng to put myself in a position of pleading with him. But the matter cannot be brought up before Monday; that is all there is to that. The gentleman may do anything he pleases.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK]?

Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, is it not possible to agree· unanimously here today that we shall meet tomorrow and that the first order of business shall be the considerat ion of the deficiency appropriation which the Postmaster-General. Mr. Summerfield, has requested? Would not that be in order?

The SPEAKER. The Chair could not entertain a request like that for the simple reason that the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee are not here. Very few mem- . hers of the Committee on Appropriations are present at this moment.

Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that that situation prevails. We had a discussion yesterday or the day before for an hour or so regarding this request of

the Postmaster General. It was thoroughly discussed at the time. I thought it was the understanding that we were to have a session tomorrow and that that would be the first order of business.

The SPEAKER. There has not been any such understanding with the leadership on this side, and I doubt that there has been with the leadership on t:Ge gentleman's side.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I address one other question to the gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. McCORMACK. I shall be happy to hear the gentleman's question.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. May I have the gentleman's assurance that there will be some objection under any circumstances tomorrow to taking up the Post Office appropriation deficiency?

Mr. McCORMACK. I can give the gentleman no assurance. The gentleman asks me to assure him that there would be an objection raised tomorrow. I could not guarantee that and I would not. I certainly could not permit any such unanimous request at this time when most of the Members have left the floor and when the legislative business of the day has been completed. If the gentleman objects and we meet tomorrow, and if anyone is recognized to submit that unanimous-consent request, then I do not know what will happen tomorrow. I want to be frank with the gentlema,n. .

Mr. SCHWENGEL. May I direct this question to the gentleman from Iowa,. a member of that committee. In the gentleman's opinion, would the committee act favorably upon this request?

Mr. JENSEN. I can answer that question only by saying I am sure a great majority of the members of the Appropriations Committee understood at least by reading the newspapers that this matter was going to be disposed of on Friday, and the general public understood that.

Mr. McCORMACK. There was no such impression.

Mr. JENSEN. Whether the leadership has so committed itself, I do not know.

Mr. McCORMACK. I stated yesterday that if we disposed of the legislative business today we would go over until Monday if unanimous consent for that was obtained. The gentleman is making a statement in good faith, but I can assure him it is upon entirely · erroneous premises. Mr~ JENSEN. I was not here when

the gentleman made the statement. I was in the committee hearing.

Mr. McCORMACK. I am not accusing my friend of making an incorrect statement. I say the gentleman made the statement in good faith but on incorrect premises, because there was never any statement made about Friday except that if we disposed of the legislative business on the agenda for today we would then go over until Monday.

Mr. JENSEN. The Post Office Department is in a quandary.

Mr. McCORMACK. I think if the Postmaster General gets enough money there will not be much difficulty. Do not disturb too much.

Mr. JENSEN. I do not want to disturb at all.

Mr. McCORMACK. I did not say the gentleman was disturbing, I said do not disturb too much.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield that I may make an effort to clarify the situation?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARTIN. I think if the gentleman from Iowa were informed that he would be unable to get that permission anyway, that at least one Member on the other side would object to the consideration of the legislation, his conscience would probably be met and he would not insist on it.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like to have some assurance there would be an objection.

The SPEAKER. The Chair can assure the gentleman there would be an objection tomorrow.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Then I withdraw my objection.

The .SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?

There was no objection. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on

the 4th of February the Members of the other body acted upon the confirmation of a great American, Arthur Summerfield, the man who has served his country with distinction, who has made more progress and exemplified a finer leadership than almost anyone w.ho has ever served in the office of Postmaster General of the United States.

The RECORD shows that he was unanimously approved by the Senate. Rarely has anyone who has served in this capacity or any Cabinet office received so many genuine plaudits and praise for a job well done as this distinguished American received from Americans who have reason to have great interest in the welfare of their Government.

Mr. Speaker, here are some statements from eminent citizens, Demo.:. crats and Republicans, taken at random from the press and publications of our country:

I have known General Summerfield only since he came to .Washington as a member of the Cabinet. He has been diligent in his work. He has been pleasant in his relationships. He has been fair in his dealings. It has been my observation that he .has lived up to his responsibilities as a public servant.

Another quote: In the past 4 years, ~he Post Qffi.ce Depart

ment has made for t~an 80 major improvements and simplications for the users of the mails, making it easier and more economical for them to use the Department's services.

Another: I predict that in the next 4 years our Post

Office Department under Arthur E. Summer-

1957. CONGRESSIONAt RECORD--· HOUSE 5541 field's dynamic leadership, will constantly imp1·ove the mail service to the· American people; will make vast strides in modernizing its old-fashioned physical plant to keep pace with this growing Nation; and will contribute its share to balancing the Federal budget so essential to the economic well-being and security of the American people.

Further quo-te from a great American: Today, when we must practice economy in

Government, because of the great demands made on our Government for reasons very well understood by the people of the Nation, the time has come when every possible economy must be exercised in the postal service. The Postmaster General has done that exceptionally well, and I think has even added to the efficiency of that important Department of our Government. It is a real pleasure to support the renomination of Arthur Summerfield as Postmaster General.

Another quote, Mr. Speaker, from a great American follows: ·

I think one of the important achievements during the past 4 years has been the installa tion of a modern pay structure, which became effective on December 3, 1956. This new compensation structure fully ascribed and allocated to their proper level 520,000 field positions. This represented probably the largest installation of a completely new compensation system ever successfully completed anywhere. · · ·

Many more quotes could be taken from the press, radio, and other means of communication and with a study of the entire area of communications you would find practically no opposition or criticism.

Mr. Speaker, this is the:same man who on 2 different occasions has returned a total of over $150 million to the Treasury-almost an unheard thing by the various departments of the Government these days. And this is the same man who now is asking for $47 million to carry on the important functions of the Post Office that past Congresses have established and approved as essential services for the public. Because of his past complete candor and honesty, I be..; lieve him when he says that unless we act immediately, Saturday service must be eliminated.· I believe him when he says there must be a reduction in business de.: liveries on Monday through Friday·. That the import~nt area of third-class mail must be cut to a minimum.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a district that has in it 11 daily newspapers. A large percentage of the customers of these newspapers are farmers who depend on these papers for market and weather reports and for many other services normally extended by the newspapers, and if rural route mail delivery is curtailed, thousands of people in my district will be adversely affected. If Saturday delivery is eliminated, the same people would not get their Friday and Saturday daily papers until Monday. This, Mr. Speaker, boarders on the restriction of the freed om of the press.

And so, -Mr. Speaker, I call upon and ernestly plea. that the chairman of the Appropriation Committee immediately call together the members of his committee to consider this problem and bring the question to the House so that the will of t:he people may be heard.

POSTPONEMENT OF ROLLCA!,.LS UNTIL WEDNESDAY NEXT

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in connection with the consideration of any legislation on Monday and Tuesday of next week, if there should be occasion for any rollcalls on such legislation, or any amendments thereto, further consideration of such legislation be postponed until the following Wednesday.



NEW APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF HIGH FEDERAL TAXES

Mr. SADLAK. 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 Connecticut?

There was no objection. Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Speaker, on March

28 I introduced H. R. 6452, calling for a basic new approach to the problem of continuing high Federal taxes resulting from ever-increasing Government spending. This new approach provides tax relief for all income-tax payers, personal and corporate, in a series of five annual reductions, but only if Federal spending is brought under control so that the scheduled reductions would not result in an unbalanced budget. Under the terms of this bill our citizens could look forward to regular tax reductions if they are wiUing to forego new programs calling for more Federal spending.

I am gratified at the public interest in my bill, as evidenced by the increased volume of mail, which is due, at least in part, to the fact that this is the time for filing final Federal tax returns, plus the growing concern on the part of our people with the $71.8 billion budget submitted this year.

The following are typical of the comments I have received in the mail from taxpayers in various parts of the country;

Believe your gradual tax-cutting bill, H. R. 6452, an excellent one. It is flexible enough for the Government to work under, yet clearly sets the pattern for reduction in spending.

In the minds of the voting public, H. R. 6452 should be the most popular b111 that has been put in the hopper in many years.

Nothing could be more constructive toward_ the sound development of our domestic economy than the measure you propose, and trust that you will find unanimous support in the House and that the Senate wl.11 carry on in support of this constructive legislation.

I am sure you are well aware of the growing concern over Government expenditures and I commend you for this businesslike program of'. bringing the income-tax structure down to reasonable levels.

We are certainly in agreement with your thoughts that there is something fundamentally wrong with a tax structure which penalizes hard work, risk taking and achievement.

I have read with much interest your release on the bill you have introduced in respect to gradual reduction of all taxes. I am very glad that someone has done this and I believe your timing is good. I was particularly impressed with your paragraph on calling upon the Ways and Means Committee to accept this responsibility and balancing it against just seeking new ways to raise revenue.

H. R. 6452 provides adequate safeguards against a return to budget deficits by means of postponement procedures which authorize the Executive and/or the Congress to postpone any of the scheduled reductions for not more than 1 year and not niore than once, if budget imbalance were threatened. Thus, the full reductions, resulting in an eventual top rate of 42 percent for both individuals and corporations, could be spread over a period of 9 rather than the scheduled 5 years if the postponements were fully applied.

My bill would permit a clear choice as to whether our citizens want tax reductions or more spending. I am convinced that as taxpayers become aware they can have such a choice and also become aware of how they would benefit, the gene1~al communications on taxes and spending now fiooding the Congress will be translated into solid endorsement of the principle of forward-scheduled tax cuts coupled with effective control of Federal spending.

INADEQUACY OF PRESENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Mr. MAILLIARD. 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. MAILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, we are

all aware of the tremendous strain that has been placed on our transportation systems throughout the United States. Probably without exception, every metropolitan area is alarmed over the inadequacy ·of present-day situations. When we think of the projected growth of our urban areas, we can, without using much imagination, anticipate chaotic conditions unless appropriate corrective action is started soon.

For some time now, I have been consulting with transportation experts and city planners on the problem. All of our conversations and correspondence have pointed to the probability of piecemeal attempts at solution when the real need· is for more militant and comprehensive action.

A Brookings Institution report of last year on a private survey of this situation states:

American cities have become increasingly difficult to live in and to work in largely because they are difficult to move around in. Inability to overcome congestion and to remove obstacles to mobility threaten to make a big city an economic liability rather than an asset.

The crisis in transportation is largely the result of the growing concentration of population and economic activity. More than 100 million people are now living in the

5542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11 cities and suburbs of the United States. Each year urban America is spreading at the rate of a million acres--an area. as large as the State of Rhode Island.

This concentration of people and resources in urban areas would have been impossible without the mobility and supply lines afforded by transportation. The capacity of the transport system and lo~ cost and dependability of transport services have enabled an increasing number of people to seek the economic, social, and cultural opportunities that urban living ideally provides. But paradoxically, m-etropolitan cities have now grown to the point where they threaten to strangle the transportation that made them possible.

With the technical ability to solve its transportation problems well in hand, the modern city is confronted by a transportation problem more complex than ever before. Despite all the methods of movement, the problem in cities is how to move. One reason for this dilemma is the fact that urban areas have been unable to adjust to the changing conditions brought about so rapidly by the technological revolution in transportation. The older urban centers, with physical characteristics that were fixed in less mobile times, have been staggered by the impacts of recent innovation. And the newer suburbs have compounded the transportation problem by dupllcating the errors of downtown and by creating problems of public administration and finance that traditional governmental organization was not designed to meet.

I am today introducing legislation which I believe to be a move in the right direction toward ameliorating the transportation difficulties experienced throughout our Nation.

My House resolution would create a select committee to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of the mass transportation problems in the large metropolitan areas. The committee would, in addition to any other appropriate action, undertake to:

First. Determine which metropolitan areas have or will have mass transportation problems.

Second. Determine what progress is presently being made by local authorities toward solving these problems and if progTess is not being made, what the impediments are to such progress.

Third. Determine whether Federal technical assistance and coordination of mass transportation studies would be of value, and if so, the form such Federal action should take.

Fourth. Determine what, if any, Federal financial aid is necessary to assist in solving these problems and the purposes for which, and the form in which, this aid shall be given.

I ask my colleagues to give this matter their earnest consideration.

VACCINATION ASSISTANCE ACT Mr.JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous· consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?

There was no objection. Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,

I have introduced in the House today a bill to extend the Poliomyelitis Vaccination Assistance Act of 1955. This act is due to expire on June 30, 1957. My bill will extend this act until June 30, 1958.

Under the Poliomyelitis Vaccination Assistance Act of 1955, $53.6 million has been made available to the States for the provision of Salk vaccine to persons under 20 years of age and to expectant mothers. As of March 15, 1957, all but $9 million had been expended, and it is expected that substantially all the remaining funds will be used by June 30.

The amount of money which has been authorized under this act was estimated to be sufficient to provide vaccine for only about 38 percent of the persons in eligible groups. The percentage varied from State to State since the formula used provided a higher percentage of funds for States with lower per capita incomes.

Many States had used all of the Federal funds available by March 15. At least two-thirds of the States had used 80 percent or more of the Federal funds available. In my own State of Alabama, for example, out of the total of $1,763,274 allotted under this act, $1,442,422, or 82 percent, had been used by March 15.

The Surgeon General has estimated that as of March 15 almost one-third of the 66 million perso1.s in the group under 20 years old and in the expectant-mother group had received no Salk vaccine shots and that only 11 million had received the full 3-shot series.

On March 21, the Public Health Service advised our Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations that it did not plan to ask for an extension of the present act beyond the present June 30, 1957, expiration date or to request additional funds for polio vaccine. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to let this most useful and protective program lapse before it has achieved its mission. Why should we permit this greatly needed program to fold up before we are reasonably immunized against that devastating and crippling disease-poliomyelitis?

By amending the Poliomyelitis Vaccination Assistance Act of 1955, my bill would authorize sufficient funds to provide vaccine to the States for all unvaccinated persons in the eligible groups. In addition, the bill would authorize allocation of an amount equal to 10 percent of the cost of the vaccine for administrative expenses and for the promotion of public agency vaccination programs.

Mr. Speaker, the intention of Congress in passing the Poliomyelitis Vaccination Assistance Ac.twas to assist the States in vaccinating persons in the eligible groups. The act specified that in polio vaccination programs carried out by public agencies there shourd be no means test or other discrimination based on financial ability of the individuals concerned. However, the funds made available were sufficient to provide vaccine for only 38 percent of the eligible persons. Congress cannot, in justice and in fairness, provide vaccine for one child and arbitrarily deny it to an equally deserving youngster. My bill will make the benefits of the Poliomyelitis Vaccination Assistance Act available to all of our children-not simply to a fortunate 38 percent.

My bill becomes effective upon the date of enactment. The reason for such action is that my bill, if it becomes law, will prevent any slowdown or stoppage of this program of assistance to the States between now and June 30, 1957, which is the date of expiration of the present act. As I have already pointed out, some States have already t;xhausted all of the funds available for vaccine, and unless something is done by the Congress to meet this situation promptly, the immunization effort may come to a standstill in a number of States. This is the season of the year in which immunization efforts should be underway. \Ve can save many lives and prevent the spread of this dread disease if we act now and guarantee the continuation of this vaccination progTam without slowdown or interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appeal to the House for favorable · and prompt consideration of this bill which I have introduced today, to continue the polio vaccination assistance program until June 30, 1958. Let us take effective action here and now to complete this immunization job that is so badly needed throughout the country.

CONSTITUTION AND THE SUPREME COURT

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Illinois IMr. O'HARA] is recognized for 10 minutes. . Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, at the close of this legislative day I am taking the time of the House to read a Senate joint resolution passed by the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, a copy of which bas just reached me. I regard this resolution as of sufficient importance to justify its reading in this Cnamber, where on other occasions some Members from other States have criticized the Supreme Court of the United States and advanced the theory of interposition. I wish to put in the permanent RECORD of the 85th Congress, an ofiicial statement of the position of my own State of Illinois, the State that gave to the Nation and the world, Abraham Lincoln~ the Great Emancipator.

It will be conceded that a resolution passed by both Senate and House in the General Assembly of Illinois must reflect the popular sentiment among the people of Illinois.

The resolution that I am about to read was introduced by four Democratic members of the Illinois State Senate, including the Honorable Marshall Korshak, who outstandingly represents a senatorial district within the congressional district that I have the honor to rep1·esent. No one in the history of Illinois has ever fought harder and more effectively for the common people than has Senator Korshak, and he is a champion among champions in the fight against discrimination in all its ugly manifestations.

Joining with Senator Korshak as the sponsors of the resolution that I am about to read were Senators Fred J. Smith, of the 11th senatorial district, William J. Lynch, of the 9th district, and

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5543 Roland Victor Libonati, of the 7th district, all from Chicago.

This is the resolution: Senate Joint Resolution 6

Whereas the United States Supreme Court and various Federal courts have been subjected to severe criticism as a result of the decisions and decrees in the school-segregation and related cases which declare that segregation and discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in public schools and facilities violate the principles of the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas these decisions and decrees of the United States Supreme Court and various Federal courts have been condemned as a usurpation of and encroachment on the reserved powers of the States by the Supreme Court and Central Government of the United States; and

Whereas the decisions and decrees of the United States Supreme Cow;t and various Federal courts are being cop.demned, disregarded, and evaded both directly and indirectly by State legislation, procrastination in complying with said decisions and decrees, coercion and intimidation, all under the theory that any State has a right to interpose its sovereignty in opposition to an exercise of power by the Federal Government which that State determines has not been granted by the several States to the Federal Government; and

Whereas all the States of the United States are bound by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including judicial interpretation of said Constitution and laws, until later changed through constitutional processes; and

Whereas the Constitution of the United States provides the manner in which said Constitution and laws of the United States are to be enacted, amended, or repealed; and

Whereas the Constitution of the United States does not permit any State to act in total disregard of any Federal law, court decision, or decree when the State has through an assumption of unconstitutional powers declared that any said law, decree, or decision is unconstitutional; and

Whereas to permit each State to decide of it.self by which provision of the United States Constitution, law, judicial decree, or decision it shall be bound would eventually result in the destruction of the Federal system of government: Be it therefore

Resolved by the Senate of the 70th General As:;embly of the State of Illinois (the House of Representatives concurring herein), That the United States of America is founded upon the principle that everyone is entitled to equal privileges, opportunities, rights, duties, and immunities regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin, and any public facility which segregates or discriminates against any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin is contrary to said principles; and be it further

Resolved, That segregation and discrimination because of race, color, religion, or n ational origin in public schools and facilities is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, and no State has the right to maintain at its own expense racially separate public schools or facilities; and be it further

Resolved, That this 70th general assembly go on record as approving and supporting the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the school-segregation cases; and be it further

Resolved, That the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter on questions of constitutionality, and any disagreement or dissatisfaction this State may have with any decision or decree ·of said Court should be resolved through the processes provided by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and be it further

Resolved, That the theory of interposition, whereby the authority of the Government of the United States is disregarded when any State decides it shall interpose its sovereignty in disobedience to that authority, is hereby condemned as a dangerous threat to the Constitution and Federal system of government of the United States; and be it also

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent by the secretary of state to the President of the United States, to each of the Houses of Congress, to Illinois' Represen ta ti ves and Senators in Congress, to the governor and legislature of each of the other States, and to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Adopted by the senate March 5, 1957. JOHN \VM. CHAPMAN, President of the Senate.

EDWARD E. FERNANDES, Secretary of the Senate.

Concurred in by the house of representatives March 28, 1957.

WARREN L. Woon, Speaker of House of Representatives.

FRED W. RUEGG, Clerk of House of Representatives.

WIDESPREAD PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR REASONABLE CONTROL OF BILLBOARDS ON NEW HIGHWAY SYSTEM Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, 2 months

ago I introduced H. R. 4593, a bill to provide Federal assistance to the States in controlling the erection of billboards along the new Interstate Highway System. Under H. R. 4593, the Federal Government would meet 90 percent of the cost of purchasing advertising rights within 500 feet of the new highways for those States which wished to control advertising billboards in order to preserve roadside scenic beauty. H. R. 4593 does not ban billboards, nor does it require any State to do so. It simply makes available the same percentage of Federal funds for billboard control as are presently available for procuring right-of-way and for construction.

When I introduced H. R. 4593, I anticipated a large measure of public interest in the proposal. But I must confess that I did not envisage the enormous volume of mail which has come into my office during these past 2 months from citizens all over the United States who feel deeply on this subject.

The extent of this public interest was revealed in the recently completed hearings held by the Public Roads Subcommittee of the Senate Public Works Committee on S. 963, an identical bill introduced by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. NEUBERGER]. At these hearings the spokesmen for many national organizations testified. Many of these national organizations have written to me as well. But to an unusual degree I have been hearing, too, from many individual voters and local organizations.

WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FOR H. R. 4593

From Concordia, Kans., for instance, an insuranceman writes me:

BAYS-PICKARD INSURANCE AGENCY, Concordia, Kans., March 9, 1957.

Representative HENRY REUSS, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C. DEAR Sm: Please accept my thanks for your

efforts in trying to keep billboards o1f the

new Federal Highway System, any hope you will be successful in this matter.

I have had pleasant trips into your State, and it was to see the beauties of the scenery, and found plenty of billboards on the present roads to obscure the views.

So please do what you can to keep these new highways free from the billboards.

Yours very truly, R.M.BAYS.

Another correspondent, from York, Pa., argues even more vigorously:

YORK, PA., March 9, 1957. Hon. HENRY REUSS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. REUSS: Today I read that you are working "to protect the new Federal highway program from :unsightly outdoor advertising," to quote Mr. Pearson. More power to you is all I can say.

I speak most feelingly, having just returned from a motor trip to Florida, where billboards lining routes 301 and 1 were most tiresome and exhausting. All I can remember of our trip were these wretched billboards lining the roads on each side. I couldn't tell you now what a single one of them was about, nor what they were advertising. A sad waste of time and money, and particularly of ruining the landscape.

Yours truly, P. 8. WHITLEY Mrs. Geo. H. Whiteley.

A Georgian writes me to compare American highways with European highways:

MouNT BERRY, GA., March 25, 1957. The Honorable HENRY REuss,


MY DEAR MR. REuss: I have been reading about the billboard lobby and its efforts to stop legislation for the protection of our new Federal highways against outdoor advertising.

A large segment of the American public is all for such protection, and I am writing this to tell you that we want you to push your bill to the utmost. I have already written to my Georgia Representative and Senators urging support.

You and Senator NEUBERGER are so rightAmericans do prefer to see nature in this country as nature made it. Why do people rave about the scenery in Europe? Because they are not reading an advertising section when they tour there.

Please keep up your fight. Sincerely,

CONSTANCE OHLINGER.

The contrast between controlled and uncontrolled billboards abroad was noted by another correspondent:

MILWAUKEE, WIS., February 19, 1957. The Honorable HENRY S. REuss,

The House of Representatives, Washington, D . C.

DEAR HENRY: From the papers we note that you are introducing a bill in Congress to keep our newly constructed Federal highways free from billboards.

We are much pleased that you are taking up this project particularly now when the Government contemplates the expenditure of huge sums on highways throughout the Nation.

During the past summer my sister and I visited Europe. We noted that there was quite effective control over billboards in Germany and Austria. However, upon going over the Brenner Pass into Italy, we were immediately met by the billboard in a most offensive manifestation_..:.a veritable billboard alley with the same large board repeated many times successively at short distances. This continued through otherwise beautiful sunny Italy.


As an old civic worker I wonder-ed how a civic group might eliminate this evil in Italy. Tlle difficulty would be appalling.

It would appear to be easier to prevent the billboard evil on our new highways than to try to eliminate it once a vested interest has developed. ·

May we encourage you in your endeavor. Very sincerely yours,

LEO TIEFENTHALER.

Many of those who have written me would go even further than H. R. 4593 and favor outright prohibition of billboards. For example:

MILWAUKEE, WIS ., March 4, 1957. Hon. HENRY REUSS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

In the best interests of the general public. I strongly urge and beg you . to promote or support legislation which will prohibit billboards and advertising within 500 feet of any interstate highway.

Since the Interstate System is of national importance such wholehearted publlcspirited action should be executed by the F'ederal Government for countless reasons which need not be enumerated.

Sincerely yours, VENCIL F. DEMSHAR.

MILWAUKEE, WIS., March 21, 1957. Hon. HENRY s. REUSS,

Washington, D . C. DEAR HENRY: I have just read your report

from Washington and have noted with interest that you have introduced a bill to control but not ban billboards along the new road network. I would certainly prefer controlled rather than uncontrolled billboards but I would like to register my opinion that I think they should be banned entirely.

Please don't trouble to answer this. You claim you want the opinions of your constituents so I am sending you mine for what it is worth. · Yours sincerely,

ALICE M. CHESTER.

A thoughtful student of the problem argues that the Federal Government itself rather than the States should exercise control under its police powers. Extracts from his letter follow:

NEW YORK CITY, N. Y., April 3, 1957 • . Hon. HENRY S. REuss,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: I have a copy of your bill to control outdoor advertising along the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, H.R. 4593.

Please allow me to say that excellent as ts the purpose of the bill, this form of the bill is objectionable ln a number of particulars to those who are familiar with the subject.

1. The Federal Government should exer.cise its own power wlth respect to the entire length of the new Interstate and National Defense Highway, instead of adopting a policy and asking the States to please be kind enough to put the national policy into effect.

This so-called States rights point was originally introduced into the subject 2 years ago by a southern Senator who was more interested in States rights than in the appearance of our national highway1:1.

The Federal Government has complete power to protect its own new highway from bedevilment by outdoor advertising and to protect highway tramc signs from confusion with or subordination to commercial advertising along the highway. The Federal Government should exercise its own power and protect its own project. The billboard industry would love to see this protection defiected to the States and the power to protect divided up among a score or more States.

2. Section 4 of your bill providing that the right to control signs along the new highway shall "be considered an interest in land which may be acquired" suggests that pro;hibition of advertising signs along the new highway and within a given distance therefrom must be paid for and is a matter to be dealt with under eminent domain rather than the police power. This is a false assumpt10n.

The billboard industry would live to see the policy adopted that prohibition of advertising signs within a given distance of highways must be paid for rather than controlled under the police power.

Respectfully yours, ALBERT S. BARD.

Among the most enthusiastic supporters of H. R. 4593 are the garden clubs, all over the Nation and particularly in my own State of Wisconsin. Here are some of their letters:

GARDEN CLUB OF VIRGINIA, HIGHWAY PLANNING AND ZONING,

Norfolk, Va., February 21, 1957. Representative HENRY s. REUSS,

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. REUSS: May I commend you

upon the introduction of H. R. 4593. The Garden Club of Virginia is prepared to

do ext~nsive work for the passage of this bill. We hope to throw individual support to it from the Virginia delegation, however, if you can point out any weaknesses to us we will appreciate it and go to work on it. On our delegation, that ls.

With kindest personal regards. S.l.ncerely,

KATHERINE DARDEN LlNDSA Y, Chairman.

COLBY, WIS., March 23, 1957. Mr. HENRY S. REuss,

Congressman, of the Fifth District, Washington, D. C.

FoND DU LAC, WIS., March 19, 1957. Hon. HENRY s. REUSS,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. REUss: • • • We will write our Congressman concerning your bill H. R. 4593 .and will ask for support of it or one with like content introduced by some other Representative. In other words, we want some a-ction against the clutter of billboards on our highways.

Thank you for introducing bill H. R. 4593. Sincerely,

Mrs. RAYMOND HARDGROVE, President, Fond du Lac Community

Garden Club.

FOND DU LAC, WIS., April 4, 1957. Hon. HENRY s. REuss,

Me?nber of Congress, Fifth District_, Wisconsin. ·

DEAR MR. REUSS: • • • I am herewith enclosing a list of the members who are for your bill as it now stands. Several expressed ·the hope that billboard advertising could be ·done away with completely, eventually. Let us view the natural beauty of our country.

Sincerely, GREEN THuMB GARDEN CLUB. Mrs. C. J. WISSINK, Secretary.

l\.fADISON, Wxs .• March 18, 1975. DEAR MR. REuss: As president ot our Mad

ison District of Federated Garden Clubs, I represent nearly 600 women who would vote for .your bill. Every magazine, every paper, rad10, and television blares forth these same advertisers that we see along the highway. It certainly would be wonderful to drive along our highways looking at our country.side rather than seeing these same names plastered on billboards. They are a nuisance an eyesore, and we certainly hope your bili passes.

Sincerely,

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: • • • The club .stands 100 percent behind your bill and expressed -themselves freely in favor of each phase of it, and we hope it passes.

Mrs. R. J. BRODHEAD, . President_, Madison District.

MADISON, WIS., March 26, 1957. The Honorable HENRY REUSS, Sincerely,

Mrs. ANTHONY L. SCHEMMER, President of the Blue Sky Garden

Club.

DE PERE, Wis., March 18, 1957. Mr. HENRY S. REUSS,

Member of Congrf}ss, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. R.Euss: Your sponsorship of the billboard-control bill ls greatly appreciated. Anyone interested in the preservation of the natural beauty of our country, as are all Garden Club members, is most anxious to have such legislation enacted.

The clubs in the Fox River Valley District are asking their legislators to support the H. R. 4593 bill.

Sincerely, IRENE S. REECE,

President, Fox River Valley Garden Clubs.

DE PERE, Wis., March 19, 1957. The Honorable HENRY REUSS,


MY DEAR MR. REuss; • • • We would like to take this opportunity to compliment you for your efforts. This bill is an answer to many of our efforts as Garden Club members to beautify the highways by eliminating the billboards from all highways. This at least will prevent them on the highways you mention. We most heartily do endorse this bill and will do what we can to see that it j.s passed.

Sincerely, Mrs. ALFRED E. KAYSER,

President, Garden Club.


MY DEAR Ma. REuss: I wish to express my . support for your bill H. R. 4593 restricting billboards along Federal highways. It is a real pleasure to enjoy the beauties of our country while driving, without having them

, constantly blocked by signs of large dimensions.

Even though you are not a representative of my district, it is reassuring to have a man of your ability and caliber from our State. You have already done a great deal in be-

. half of" democratic government. Sincerely yours, .

Mrs. LEONARD MONTIE.

MADl:SON, Wrs., March 28, 1957. Mr. HENltY S. REUSS,


DEAR MR. REUSS: Sunset Garden Club of Madison, Wis.. heartily endorses your bill for control of billboards along the new interstate highways.

We are for it 100 percent and wish to thank you for helping to preserve the beauty

-of nature which we all enjoy so much and - especially on our vacation trips.

Respectfully, Mrs. E. R. NAUUM,

Secretary, Sunset Garden Club.

MADISON, WIS., April 6, 1957. -The Honorable HENRY s. REUSS,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. REUSS: The Madison Garden Club at a meeting, April 2, unanimously endorsed

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5545 your bill, H. R. 4593, for the control of advertising on federally owned or controlled land adjacent to the National System of In• terstate and Defense Highways. ·

We earnestly hope that this bill may be passed and appreciate your efforts for some definite action in this matter. It is certainly deplorable the way our· scenic ~ighways have been defaced by signs.

Sincerely, FRANCES POST,

President, the Madison Garden Club.

MIDDLETON, wm., March 15, 1957. Hon. HENRY S. REUSS,

Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. Rross: Thank you for sending

me a copy of your bill to regulate billboards along our highways. I am absolutely for such regulation, even more strictly regulated than your bill states. But, in this day of high-powered big business, stiffer regulations could hardly pass either the House or the Senate, I suppose.

I! I had received your letter a day sooner, I would certainly have brought this matter before our garden club meeting last evening. But I am dead sure the whole club membership ls just as emphatic as I on the need of regulating the billboard nuisance.

Very sincerely, Mrs. HANS SCOTT,

President, Middleton Garden Club.

MILWAUKEE, WIS., March 20, 1957. The Honorable HENRY s. REUSS,

House of Representatives, -Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: • • • For many years the Na._ tional council of State Garden Clubs has been working to make the public conscious of the detrimental effect on our American scene of ugly, sprawling billboards. And cer~ tainly if there is an opportunity to regulate the construction of ·these billboards on a. new highway system we will all be quick to support such legislation.

We are very proud that our Representative from Wisconsin is the author of this bill which will be a source of satisfaction t<;> every one of the 400,000 garden club members in the Nation.

The Fox Point Federated Garden Club voted unanimously to assure you of our support and we shall watch the progrl?ss of this bill with interest.

Sincerely, MAltION B. WESSON,

President.

MOUNT HOREB, WIS., March 25, 1957. The Honorable HENRY S. REUSS,

House of Representatives,' Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. REUSS: As president of the Mound Vue Garden Club I should like to register the endorsement of the members to your bill H. R. 4953, which is to control bill-. boards on the new Interstate Highway System. · Sincerely,

EDNA THORESEN,

RACINE, WIS., April 8, 1957. Congressman HENRY S. REuss, ·


MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN REUSS: The members of the Racine Garden Club consider it a. privilege to send this letter of endorsement of your bill, H. R. 4593, limiting advertising along the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Please let us know what we can do to give you the backing necessary to have this bill become law.

The freeways in many of the Eastern States are a fine example: of how beautiful'- our highways can be when they are not cluttered with signs and billboards. We agree with you that it wm be much easier to prohibit

CIII--349

advertising along. these national highways right from the start than it would be to abolish it once it has been established.

We wish to take this opportunity to express our appreciation of your interest and forethought in bringing this matter to the /attention of Congress f-0r action.

·very truly yours, GRACE E. MILLER,

President.

SUPERIOR, WIS, Hon. HENRY S. REUSS,

Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR Sm: We have received a copy of your bill, H. R. 4593, controlling billboards along highways and would like to go on record as fully endorsing it and hoping it will be passed.

Sincerely, ROCKMONT GARDEN CLUB, LAURA KOBEL, Secretary.

WAUSAU, WIS., April 3, 1957. Regarding bill H. R. 4593. Mr. HENRY S. REUSS,

Fifth District, Wisconsin. DEAR MR. REUSS: I was very happy about

your bill which would control the number of advertising signs along the proposed new highways.

Our club is and has been very interested and active in trying to bring this curtailment about. ·

I think we all have experienced driving on a brand new highway and wondered why it seemed especially beautiful. Then in thinking about this feeling we discovered that there were no big roadsigns along this new highway to obscure its beauty and give one the f.eeling of clutter. Just driving along such a beautifully uncluttered road is relax-. ing. And why shouldn't we have highways that give our rides such a feeling?

I am sure I speak for all our garden club members when I say you are to be commended for your positive action in trying to keep our highways uncluttered of advertising signs. Please do all you can on this bill.

Sincerely yours, WAUSAU FEDERATED GARDEN CLUB, Mrs. OTTO EGGEBRECHT, President.

WISCONSIN RAPIDS, WIS., April 6, 1957. . DEAR MR. REUSS: Our Horticulture Club or

Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., ls for having this Jiew bill passed not to have billboards along the highways. We all think it's wonderful.

· Sincerely, Mrs. ALEX WoRLUND,

Secretary.

In addition to the garden clubs, many other Wisconsin organizations have also endorsed H. R. 4593, l.ncluding the Wisconsin Division of the American Automobile Association. In Milwaukee, the J:>ill has received the unanimous backing of the Milwaukee County Conservation Alliance and ·of the Committee on City Planning of the City Club of Milwaukee, who sent me the following resolution:

The committee on city planning of the City Club of Milwaukee expresses its support of your measure for billboard control, H. R. 4593.

We believe that now is the time to enact this legislation when the Federal Govern• ment is prepared to spend $50 b11lton in a Federal highway aid progra.m to . construct 41,000 miles of new limited access highways and before a vested interest has been acquired in b1llboards along these highways. · Once such an interest has been acquired, it will be exceedingly dimcurt to secure ·1eglslatlon for any measure of control.

We realize so fully the billboard evil that. 1n our opinion, the bill is very moderate.

We wish to lend our support to the movement the country over to eliminate the billboard blight on the landscape along our .highways that hawks its wares with continuing and insistent reiteration. . One can escape from similar appeals in the newspapers, over the radio and television, but from these appeals along the highways there 1s no escape. There they intrude and force .:themselves on one's consciousness with irritating lnsistency, detracting from what might otherwise be a pleasing and quieting prospect. . We trust you will be successfu~ in limiting this roadside harassment.

ARGUMENTS OPPOSING H. R. 4593

Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are also those who have written me in opposition to H. R. 4593.

A WEDGE FOR COMMUNISM?

For instance, an outdoor advertising fl.rm in Dassel, Minn., suggests that billboard control is an opening wedge for nothing less than communism itself:

DASSEL, MINN., March 28, 1957. Hon. HENRY s. REuss,

House of Representatives. Dear Mr. REuss: There are some bills in

the Legislature at the present time to govern the control of outdoor advertising on our Federal highways.

We certainly wish to solicit your coopera:. tion and help in the defeat of these unconstitutional and semicommunistic measures. · Undoubtedly, if a bill like this could be passed, the next move for certain groups and interests would be to control advertising in newspapers, magazines, radio, etc., and there could only be one end, and that would be -an absolute controlled economy commercially .• Obviously this ls just a first step in the direction of-let's be very, very blunt and say communism.

We have quite a number of signs in your great State and would certainly like to solicit your help and cooperation in defeating these measures. We have contacted the many landowners and advertisers that we do business with in your State also and have asked them to do everything they .can to control and vote on these particular measures which certainly are an infringement upon their personal rights.

We shall certainly appreciate anything you can do to help defeat this matter and shall watch with great interest the outcome of this matter.

D. DAHL, Auto See Ads, Inc.

A MATTER FOR THE STATES

The Milwat:kee County Industrial Council, the central CIO body in my hometown, is opposed to H. R. 4593 as an infringement on States rights. Its resolution, adopted March 20, 1957, reads: · Whereas there are presently b111s before Congress which would ban or control outdoor advertising ·on Federal highways; and ·

Whereas tnese bllls, ·H. R. 3977, H. R. 4593, and S. 963, are discriminatory and would have a depressing effect ori labor, and on our overall economy; and .

Whereas Milwaukee industry would suffer, especially the graphic arts industry, and .

Whereas the allied industries of beer, ~utomoblles, gas, on, paper, chemical, machinery, and trucking would all be effected; and : Whereas scenic areas, national parks, shrines, and public safety can be safeguarded .without Federal control of outdoor advertising; and . Whereas it ls national AFL-CIO policy that ff there is to be regulation of dissemination of information by billboards on highways, it be not on a Federal level but rather that

5546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11 standards be originated and promulgated by government at the State and local level: Be it

Resolved, That the Milwaukee County Industrial Union Council, AFI.r-CIO, join the national AFL-CIO in opposing such legislation.

Another lady writes me intimating that some people in Wisconsin must in some way profit from this legislation:

ERIE, PA., March 12, 1957. DEAR Sm: Feel it is my duty to write you

of a menace on the highway far greater than billboards, strung side by side, clear across the country: The drunken driver. Every taxpayer pays you a salary to work in the interests of all of us, not just a few. Far more unpleasant to see on the highway are human beings dying, unconscious, or dead. ·Ned · Dearborn, . National ,Safety Councjl, would willingly give you statistics that would convince you of the desperate need.

My sister, who worked her way up with an outdoor advertising company, stands to lose her job if you are successful. She is now 50 years old. Where would she, or thousands like her, get jobs that would pay as well, or jobs at all? How many people in Wisconsin profit from your efforts, eliminating billboards?

Hungarians of doubtful background can come here, guaranteed good jobs for 5 years, get housing and food, college educations, no taxes, while our own people who foot the bill get no consideration whatever. Get hep, mister.

Mrs. W.R. DAVIS. Bll.LBOARDS A SAFETY FACTOR

I 'am told also that advertising· signs are a factor in promoting highway safety:

MILWAUKEE, WIS., February 13, 1957. Hon. HENRY REuss,

House of Representatives, Washington~ D. 'c.

DEAR Sm: It has been brought to my attention that two bills, one H. R. 3977 and the other S. 963, are now pending in both Houses. This local has voiced its disapproval of such legislation by adopting a resolution, copy of which is enclosed.

The attitude that all outdoor aQ.vertising is bad is a ruthless discrimination against an industry that employs many of our members. Police and sheriffs' departments all over the country, I am sure will testify that good billboard advertising has served to prevent road hypnosis that sometimes occurs on long and straight highways.

Sincerely yours, NORMAN SIMON,

President, Local No. 7, Amalgamated. Lithographers of America.

BILLBOARDS A WELCOME RELIEF FROM MONOTO.NY OF GREAT OUTDOORS

One correspondent argues further that highway signs are positively attractive:

MILWAUKEE, 'WIS., February- 26, 1957. Congressman HENRY REUSS, ' ·

Washington, D. C. DEAR Sm: Why such a hubbub about signs

on highways? Surely there must be something more urgent than that to take up your time.

I am just one of the road-riding public. I want to express my views as to how these signs affect me. First there is a definite safety factor in favor of signs. It has been proven that having your eyes glued to the road causes fatigue and boredom. I, for one, welcome the road signs that appear. They are never in bad taste-the advertisers have more sense than to offend their customersand mostly they are humorous or colorful and oftentimes religious. They are a welcome, very welcome relief from all the green and from the positive monotony o:f a long trip.

Signs on a highway are no worse than railroad tracks, or sloppy farmyards, or junk yards or other unsightly areas. In fact, they are all designed by top flight artists and are good to look at.

In a city, I would prefer signs anytime to slums or factories or used car lots.

So, why all the hubbub? Very truly yours,

Mrs. WILLARD SCHROEDER.

My own feeling is that those who op~ pose H. R. 4593 do so out of a mistaken impression that this bill would outlaw all billboards on the new highway system. I personally have never favored any such drastic approach. The following exchange of correspondence with Mr. Addison Mueller, president of the Mid-City Lumber Co., Milwaukee, Wis., explains my position.

On March 21, Mr. Mueller wrote me as follows:

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE REUSS: We, as a Wisconsin business organization, are writing to ask you not to support legislation designed to ban absolutely all billboard advertising along Federal highways. Not only • is this form of advertising important to us '• and to businessmen like .us, but the billboard and general advertising industry depending on this medium is an important part of our State's commercial pattern.

There is certainly room for regulation of billboard advertising, and we will not dispute the fact that indiscriminate hodgepodges of billboards a.long the highways are both unattractive and annoying. On the other hand, well-designed and well-constructed billboards properly placed along our highways provide both interest and information to travelers on such roads.

• May we call your attention to a recent editorial in Life magazine entitled "Green Tunnel versus Billboard Jungle"? The point made in that editorial , is that a highway completely without billboards aµd buildings is not only uninteresting but also dangerous in that its monotony tends to make drivers sleepy and inattentive. We ask that you give careful consideration to this point of view.

Very truly yours, · A. MUELLER.

To this letter I replied : DEAR MR. MUELLER: I thoroughly agree with

you that an absolute ban on billboard advertising along Federal highways is unnecessary, and I have opposed such a ban. At the same time, I do think that some control of billboards in the interest of scenic beauty is necessary, and my bill, H. R. 4593, is aimed to accomplish just .this result. The enclosed description of my bill spells out exactly what it does.

Sincerely, HENRY. S. REUSS, M~mber of Congress.

On March 28 Mr. Mueller acknowledged my letter as follows:

DEAR MR. REUSS: Thank you for responding with something other than doubletalk to my recent letter expressing my opposition to legislation designed to ban all billboard advertising along Federal highways. Your .bill (H. R. 4593} providing for regulation without destruction of this important element of modern business operation strikes me as the sensible solution to the problem.

Very truly yours. A. MUELLER.

Mr. Speaker, I am completely convinced that outdoor advertising can and does serve a useful function in our economy. I am equally convinced, however, that the preservation of the natural beauty o,f the American countryside is of

the utmost importance to the health and happiness of all of us. Today's outdoor advertising needs reasonable regulation in the public interest lest the time come when Carl Sandburg's words in The People, Yes-1936-become prophetically true: Desecrate the landscape with your billboards,

gentlemen, Let no green valleys meet the beholder's eye

without Your announcements of gas, oil, beans, soup,

whisky, beer, Yo,ur proclamations of shaving cream, tooth

paste, pills, tonics, On the rocks and rugged hills, along clear

streams and pastures. Set up your billboard brag and swagger, your

raucous yells. . Desecrate the landscape, gentlemen, go to it,

hit 'cm in the eye. . Sell 'em. Make 'em eat it. Sell 'em the

names, the idea, the habit. If a rock stands proud and grand anywhere

sling your signs up on it.

H. R. .4593, it seems to me, ls a sound and sensible approach to a system of regulation v~hich will both permit advertising in those areas-where it does not interfere with the enjoyment of natural beauty, and also will preserve unspoiled for all to see our God-given heritage of fields, forests, streams, and mountains.

THE LATE HONORABLE SEYMOUR H. PERSON

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes . . The SPEAKER: Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Speaker,

I rise· to inform the House of the death of one of my predecessors, a distinguished lawyer and citizen, a commendable public servant, and a personal friend, former Representative from the Sixth Congressional District of Michigan, the late Honorable Seymour H. Person.

Mr. Person served in the 72d Congress during the event years, 1931 and 1932. His life and career spanned two of the most momentous generations of our Nation's history.

Mr. Person was born in Howell Township of Michigan's Livingston County in 1879. After studying law at the University of ·Michigan; he began practice in the city of Lansing in the year 1901.

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the life of Seymour H. Person, I am most impressed by the impact one active, responsible citizen can have on a growing community when his efiorts continue over the long span of 56 years. Mr. Person was active not only in numerous fraternal and civic organizations, but also in the· Bar Association, in the Michigan State Grange, in the adult education movement, in the humane society, and in the Lansing Historical Society.

Consider the fact that when Mr. Person started the practice of law, Lansing, now nearly 10 times as large, had a population of only 12,000 people. An engineer and businessman in Lansing by the name of R. E. Olds was just beginning to build motorcars. The Wright brothers had not yet gone to Kitty Hawk. Man's

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5547 knowledge of the universe was just beginning to take the quick strides we take so for granted today. Seymour H . . Person was a part of this period of truly revolutionary change, and he participated actively in it on the local, State, and National level.

Yet, Mr. Person had the wisdom to know that the individual man remains basically unchanging in the midst of change. Our personal problems are often the same today as they were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Mr. Person, though he enjoyed an extensive and successful law practice, was nevertheless quick to donate his services to the impecunious individual suffering injustice. He considered the law not only a profession but an instrument to serve the needs of people. He gave freely of his time and legal talent to countless civic and benevolent organizations. He was, in the fullest sense of the word, a responsible citizen.

Seymour H. Person served G years in the Michigan House of Representatives and 4 in the Michigan Senate. In 1930, feeling that the 18th amendment to the Constitution created more wrongs than it corrected, Mr. Person entered the race for Congress. His election made him a Member of the 72d Congress which was to feel the first great shock of that economic cataclysm which no man fully understood then or understands now, the depression. This was the Congress which struggled with a host of steadily increasing problems. Many of the issues considered in that Congress were to be quickly enacted into law in later sessions. This was the Congress which created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. It was also the last of the lameduck Congresses since, during this period, the 20th amendment to the Constitution was approved. This was, Mr. Speaker, a. period of profound change when the Nation and the world was moving from one era to another. . Mr. Person participated in the work of that transition period.

Though he served only one term in Congress, Mr. Person's interest in public affairs did not slacken. He remained active, even continuing his legal practice until just last month.

Mr. Speaker, I will long remember Mr. Person's kindness to me at a time when I was just beginning the practice of law. It happens that my law firm now occupies the offices which he vacated just a few years ago. As an attorney, as a citizen of Lansing and Michigan, and as a Member of this Congress, I find the distinguished career of the late Honorable Seymour H. Person has made a lasting impression far beyond the limits o·f the community where he lived.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I-yield. Mr. MARTIN. I would like to j_oin

with the gentleman from Michigan in expressing my deep sorrow at the death of Mr. Person. He was a man who made a deep impression upon all of us in the 2 years of his service here-a lawyer of outstanding ability; a great American who had but one objective, to serve his country well. _

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind remarks.

Mr. MARTIN. His State and the Nation are poorer for his having passed away.

WALL STREET PROPOSALS FOR SMALL BUSINESS FINANCING

Mr. PATMAN. Mr . . Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, occa

sionally some Wall Streeter comes forward with a proposal which we have reason to applaud. Such proposal was made yesterday by Mr. Edward T. McCormick, who is president of the American Stock Exchange.

In a speech here yesterday, Mr. McCormick pointed to small businesses' chronic and difficult problem of obtaining :financing; and he made a proposal whereby Wall Street bankers can help in solving this problem. He pointed out-and quite correctly-that:

The problem is not new but appears to be even more pressing now.

Then he added: While the Federal Government has given

long and serious consideration to it, leaders of the securities business also have a serious responsibility to seek some practical answers.

Mr. McCormick's proposal is that the leading investment banking houses in Wall Street organize a special committee to study the problem of small business :financing, and to set up a group of experienced men to advise small companies on specific :financing problems. This will lead, as he sees it, to a greater participation by the investment houses in supplying equity capital for small firms. Furthermore, Mr. McCormick declared that his exchange, which as I have said is the American Stock Exchange, stands ready to assist such a program in every way. SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE IS READY TO HELP

I believe that most of the Members already know that, as for my part, I do not have too much sympathy for Wall Street bankers. Their proposals are too of ten bad for the public interest than good for the public interest. But believing in the principle of giving the Devil his due, I must say that this is a constructive proposal and a step in the right direction.

Your Small Business Committee is sharing in the concern that most Members of the House have felt over the small business :financing problem. And, as the ·Members know, the Small Business Committee is devoting its primary attention to a study of this pl'oblem, in the hope that we can find some new and acceptable proposals which will help to solve this problem. I believe that as chairman of the Small Business Committee, I can speak for the committee in saying that the House Small Business Committee also stands ready to assist in any way in such a program as Mr. McCormick proposes.

FINANCING sTUDY PROPOSED

This is just the kind of thing that we have been hoping for. When I described

to the House Administration Committee, on February 5, the small business :financing study which we proposed to undertake, I particularly emphasized the point that the study would be directed toward friendly cooperation with the private financial institutions. In my statement to the House Administration Committee i said:

What we want to do is find out just what the problem is, and see if we can't make some constructive suggestions. We want to get the cooperation of the banks and insurance companies. It may be that with this kind of approach the leaders in the banking and insurance fields will come forward with some new suggestions which will solve the problem. BOTH CREDIT AND EQUITY CAPITAL ARE NEEDED

Mr. McCormick's proposal is concerned solely with equity capital for small business, as contrasted to credit.

He said: When I say funds I mean equity and not

debt, for debt could prove to be the death knell of many of these companies in the event of an unforeseen recession in their business. What these companies need is equity partners to share not only their risks of loss, but also the prospects of gain and their ambitious plans for the future should materialize.

This gentleman is correct in emphasizing the need for equity capital, although I would prefer a somewhat different phrasing of this statement. Certainly, the kind of capital small business finds most difficult to obtain is equity capital. As we all know, the gap "in equity capital for small business is even greater than the credit gap. But there is a credit gap too. I would prefer then to state the matter this way: there is a tremendous gap between small businesses' legitimate need for credit and the credit available for small business, but there is an even greater gap in the equity funds available for small business.

Consequently, I hope that our committee's study will help stim,ulate thinking on the part of private credit institutions and perhaps cause them to come forward with some new and more adequate mechanism for providing small business credit as well as more adequate equity :financing. Business institutions and business methods are not, of course, frozen into any rigid and permanent pattern. On the contrary, these are always taking new forms, with new forms of business and new methods of business adapting themselves to the needs and profit opportunities of the times. Surely, there is a large need and a large legitimate profit opportunity in supplying more private credit to small business. And adequate private credit for small industrial and commercial firms is, of course, the only final and permanent solution to the problem. CHANGES IN FEDERAL POLICY HA VE ADDED TO THE

PROBLEM

Furthermore, we have a special obligation to try to help speed up the development of new, private :financing services for small business. The recent

· changes in Federal policy toward assisting small business financing have created much of the ·pre1ent gap, and have rendered the problems of small business most acute. As I pointed out when we debated the extension bill for the Export-Import Bank, on April 9, Federal


lending to foreign governments, and to nationals ·of foreign governments, has been greatly enlarged over the past 3 or 4 years. For making loans abroad, we now have the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and the Export-Import Bank. The lending activities of these agencies are, furthermore, in addition to the activities of the International Cooperation Administration, which makes gifts of money abroad.

To take only one example of how foreign lending has been expanded, I might remind the Members that in August of 1954, on the recommendation of the administration, Congress passed Public Law 570, which increased the Export-Import Bank's lending authority by tenfold. This bank, which is financed entirely with Federal funds, had its lending authority increased from $500 million to a total of $5 billion.

MISTAKE TO ABOLISH RFC

Yet during the same period when foreign lending has been expanding, the only Federal agency for lending to small and independent business in the United States was eliminated. The RFC, which had supplied a very large part of the otherwise unmet credit needs of small .and independent business firms, was .abolished in 1953. And in place of this beacon light, small business has been given the merest candle flame, the Small Business Administ ration. In more than 3 years of operations, through December 31 of last year, the SBA had approved business loans committing only $236 million of Federal funds. The RFC lent more than this to small and independent. business firms each year in the last 7 years of its operations.

As compared to Federal lending abroad, furthermore, SBA has lent about one-twentieth as much as the ExportImport Bank has lent and about onesixteenth as much as the World Bank has lent, in the same period of operations.

NO HOPE FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Certainly the amount of SBA's lending to small business firms has been almost invisible. This is not, I think, because Congress would have been unwilling to appropriate adequate funds. Rather, it is because the administration has been unwilling to assist small business. Th~ SBA requests for funds have been inadequate. More than that, the SBA has consistently waited until its available loan funds were exhausted, before asking for more funds, knowing full well that its lending activities would be suspended during the time Congress is considering and acting on a new appropriation bill.

Behind all this, there appears to be a determined belief in the administration that there are no legitimate credit needs

·which small business cannot satisfy from private sources. In July of 1955, Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey was be-

. fore the House Banking Committee, proposing another new agency for lending abroad, the International Finance Corporation, which we approved. 1· asked him then about credit assistance for

small business, and he made it plain that he sees no need for such assistance. He said-and I quote:

There ls plenty of money available in this country for any project with the right kind of management (House Committee on Banking and Currency: Hearings on H. R. 6228, p. 10, 84th Cong., 1st sess., July 11 ar.d 15, 1955).

I tried to reason with him about this and show him where he was wrong, and again he said-and I quote:

I personally think that there isn't any place in this country where, if there is a legitimate opportunity to do business and make money at it, with good management, that you can't get money together to go into that place and do business (same hearings, p. 12).

Thus it seems clear that we cannot hope for any real Federal assistance to small business. The RFC was greatly disliked by big business. And the reasons are simple. The RFC lent to small and independent businesses in the United States, and these created competition for the big corporations. As our population increased, and our productivity increased, and the markets became larger, these new small firms grew and shared in the larger markets. This was displeasing to the big corporations. They wanted less competition and they wanted to control larger and larger shares of the market. And they wanted a greater stranglehold on the means of production.

Loans made abroad stand in a different light. These loans are made for the purchase of industrial goods and equipment which big corporations manuf acture. If you will examine the kinds of equipment being purchased in this country as a result of the World Bank; the Export-Import Bank, and the IFC loans, you will find that this equipment is being supplied by the big corporations. In short, these loans abroad simply expand the big corporations' sales, and aside from foreign nationals who benefit from the loans, it is the big United States corporations who are the principal beneficiaries.

In pointing out these matters, I am not, of course, arguing for the elimination of the World Bank, the Export-Import Bank, or the International Finance Corporation. I am simply pointing out the reasons for the sharp contrast in the Federal policies toward lending abroad and toward small business in the United States. And in pointing out these reasons, I believe I support the conclusion that the work of the committee's economists,. toward helping small business, must be directed at encouraging the creation of new, private, and voluntary organizations to finance small business. SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE STUDY NEEDS COOPER•

ATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The Export-Import Bank has already engaged in a program to stimulate private participation in foreign lending. On March 19, the Honorable Samuel C. Waugh, who is President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ExportImport Bank, described this program to the House Banking Committee. He said that during 1956 the bank's directors and staff members visited most of the 12 Federal Reserve districts, to educate private

banks and exporters in the program. And he further said that the Federal Reserve System had lent full assistance in arranging the meetings and had extended use of. the facilities of the system for this purpose. In addition, Mr. Waugh explained that the Export-Import Barik is now "exploring the life insurance investment area as a potential source of investment capital, as well as the opportunities which may exist to secure private participation from pension and endowment funds and other private sources of capital." · We a-re hoping, of course, that the Federal Reserve System will be equally as cooperative and helpful to the Small Business Committee in its investigation of small business financing problems. We are hoping also that the insurance companies and the other financial institutions will also actively participate in the committee's study. I believe that if we can get the facts on just what the problems are, and make these available for the consideration of everyone concerned, then constructive proposals for solving the problems will be forthcoming, and private, voluntary actions to solve these problems will follow.

CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that business in order on Calendar Wednesday of next week may be dispensed with.



LEA VE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent leave of ab

sence was granted to: Mr. KEATING for the period from

April 8 to 19, inclusive, on account of official business as delegate to Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration meeting _at Geneva, Switzerland.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission to

address the House, fallowing the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois for 10 minutes ·today, to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to:

Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. O'BRIEN of New York. Mr. SILER. Mr. PATTERSON Mr. JOHANSEN (at the request of Mr.

TEAGUE of California) and to include extraneous matter.

1\1).~. McCORMACK and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. SANTANGELO and to include extraneous matter.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5549 Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. ScoTT of Pennsylvania. Mr. FARBSTEIN.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

I move that the House do now adjourn. The motior- was agreed to. Accordingly <at 4 o'clock and 32 min

utes p. m.> the House, pursuant to its p.re~ious order, adjourned until Monday, April 15, 1957, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu

tive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

727. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting an amendment to the budget for the fiscal year 1958 involving a reduction in the amount of $254 mill1on for the Department of Agriculture (H. Doc. No. 149); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.

728. A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior, transmitting the Annual Report of the Activities of the Division of Coal Mine Inspection, Bureau of Mines, for the calendar year January 1 through December 31, 1956, pursuant to the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act (66 Stat. 692; 30 U. S. C., secs. 451-483); to the Committee on Education and Labor.

729. A letter from the Archivist of the United States, transmitting a report on lists or schedules covering records proposed for disposal by certain Government agencies, pursuant to the act approved July 6, 1945 (59 Stat. 434); to the Committee on House Administration.

730. A letter from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to amend the provisions of the Public Health Service Act relating to grants for construction of research facilities so as to increase their duration from 3 to 5 years and to authorize grants for medical and dental teaching facilities"; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

731. A letter from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to fix the fees payable to the Patent Office, and for other purposes"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

732. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of Labor, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to extend the unemployment compensation program to Puerto Rico, and for other purposes"; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

733. A letter from the Director, Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to provide for the development and modernization of the national system of navigation and traffic control facilities to serve present and future needs of civil and military aviation, and for other purposes"; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

734. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of Labor, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to extend and improve the unemployment compensation program"; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reparts of committees were delivered to the Clerk

for printing and reference to the proper the inability of the President to discharge calendar, as follows: . · the powers and duties of his office; to the

Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. ASHMORE: Committee on House Ad

ministration. House Resolution 230. ResoJution declaring that an unsigned paper is not a proper instrument with which notice could be given to contest the seat of the returned Member from the Sixth Congressional District of the State of Iowa to the 85th Congress as required by the Revised Statutes of the United States, title II, chapter 8 section 105; without amendment (Rept. No. 343). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BURLESON: Committee on House Administration. House Resolution 199. Resolution authorizing the printing of additional copies of the Synopsis of Benefits Available to Veterans and Their Dependents for use of the Committee on Veterans' ·Affairs: with amendment (Rept. No. 344). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BURLESON: Committee on House Administration. Senate Concurrent Resolution 13. Concurrent resolution to provide for the printing of additional copies of hearings held by the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary; without amendment (Rept. No. 345). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. FRIEDEL: Committee on House Administration. House Resolution 219. Resolution authorizing the employment of one additional mail clerk, Office of the Postmaster of the House; without amendment (Rept. No. 346). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. BURLESON: Committee on House Administration. Hous<' Rernlution 191. Resolution to amend House Resolution 152, 85th Congress, agreed to February 7, 1957; without amendment (Rept. No. 347). Ordered to 'be printed.

Mr. BLATNIK: Committee on Public Works. H. R. 3996. A bill to authorize the utilization of a limited amount of storage space in Lake Texoma for the purpose of water supply for the city of Sherman, Tex.; with amendment (Rept. No. 348). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. WILLIS: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 4193. A bill to amend section 1716 of title 18, United States Code, so as to conform to the act of July 14, 1956 (70 Stat. 538-540); without amendment (Rept. No. 34.9) . Referred to the House Calendar.

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

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. BERRY: H. R. 6826. A bill to provide that certain

lands shall be held in trust for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

H. R. 6.827. A bill to provide that certain lands shall be held in trust for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota and South Dakota; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. CARRIGG: H. R. 6828. A bill to increase annuities pay

able to certain annuitants from the civilservice retirement and disability fund, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. FINO: H. R. 6829. A bill granting to persons in

the classified ( competittve) civil service the right to a hearing before removal or suspension, and the right to a judicial review of a removal or suspension; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: H. R. 6830. A bill to establish a commission

to study problems aris"ing in connection with

By Mrs. GRANAHAN: H. R. 6831. A bill to amend the public

assistance provisions of the Social Security Act to eliminate certain inequities and restrictions and permit a more effective distribution of Federal funds; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 6832. A bill to provide for Government contribution toward personal health service benefits for civilian officers and employees in the United States service and their dependents, to authorize payroll deductions for participants, and for other purposes· to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. HARRIS: H. R. 6833. A bill to authorize loans for

the construction of hospitals and other facilities under title VI of the Public Health Service Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. HUDDLESTON: H. R. 6834. A bill to amend section 42 (a)

of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation into the United States of the piranha fish and certain other birds and animals designated by the Secretary of the Interior; to the Committee on the Judi- . ciary.

By Mr. JONES of Alabama: H. R. 6835. A bill to extend the Poliomye

litis Vaccination Assistance Act of 1955 until June 30, 1958, with certain amendments· to the Committee on Interstate ·and Foreig~ Commerce.

By Mr. JUDD: H. R. 6836. A bill to amend the Internal

·Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that the tax on admissions shall not apply in the case of admissions to an athletic game or exhibition if the proceeds therefrom inure exclusively to the benefit of a charitable organization of institution; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 6837. A bill relating to the computation of income for purposes of non-serviceconnected pension benefits payable to certain veterans; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. KILDAY: H. R. 6838. A bill to increase the number

Of Regular officers of the Navy who may be appointed for limited duty only, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mrs. KNUTSON: H. R. 6839. A bill to establish a program

of loans and technical assistance to farmer owned and controlled marketing, processing and storing business concerns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.

H. R. 6840. A bill to provide a special supplemental program of direct assistance of primary benefits to extremely low income family farms, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.

H. R. 6841. A bill to provide full parity family farm income protection and price supports and for other purposes; to . the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. McGOVERN: H. R. 6842. A bill to provide for financial

aid in industrialization of underdeveloped areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

H. R. 6843. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 so as to permit certain corporations to elect to be taxed as partnerships; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 6844. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 so as to impose a graduated tax on the taxable income of corporations; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 6845. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 so as to permit the

5550 (;ONGRESSIONAL REC9RD - HOUSE April 11 payment of the estate tax in installments~ to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. R. 6846. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 so as to permit the proprietor of .an unincorporated business- to be treated as an employee under a qualified pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plan; .to the Committee on Vf ays and Means.

H. R. 6847. A bill to amend section 167 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 so as to permit the use of certain methods and rates of depreciation for used property acquired after 1956; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. MORANO: H. R. 6848. A bill to provide for the admis

sion into the United States of 50,000 Hungarian escapees; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. PORTER: H. R. 6849. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that no documentary stamp tax shall be imposed with respect to conveyances to which a State or political subdivision thereof is a party; to the Committee on We.ys and Means.

By Mr. SISK: H. R. 6850. A bill to adjust the tax rates

on light sparkling wines in relation to those imposed on other wines; to the Committee on Ways and Means. ·

By Mr. TELLER: H. R. 6851. A bill to amend title II of the

Social Security Act to eliminate the provisions which would reduce an individual's disability insurance benefits (or child's insurance benefits based on disabili1iy) because of other periodic benefits to which he is entitled; to the Committee on Ways an~ Means. ·

By Mr. ABERNETHY: H. R. 6852. A bill to extend the death bene

fits of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to the dependents of certain Reserve members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. BURNS of Hawaii: _ H . . R. 6853. A bill to provide and adjust certain allowances, expenses, and ·other fringe employment benefits for certain Government employees stationed overseas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. CRETELLA: H. R. 6854. A blll to amend the Feder~l

.Firearms Act; to the Committee on Ways ana Means.

By Mr. HIESTAND: H. R. 6855. A bill to provide for the de

velopment and modernization of the national system of navigation and traffic control facilities to serve present and future needs of

civil and military aviation, and for other purposes; to the Comm1ttee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. KEAN~ · H. R. 6856. A bill to extend and improve the unemployment compensation program; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. OSMERS: H. R. 6857. A bill to amend the Labor Man

agement Relations Act, 1947, as amended; to the Committee on Education and Labor.

By Mr. SANTANGE'LO: . H. R. 6858. A bill to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to provide relucation payments to individuals, families, and business concerns displaced by low-rent housing projects; to the Committee on Banking and currency.

By Mr. SIMPSON of Pennsylvania: H. R. 6859. A bill to reduce individual and

corporate income taxes by 5 percent, to reduce the alternative tax on net long-term

·capital gains to 12¥2 percent, and to increase from $600 to $650 the personal 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); to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. McGOVERN: H. Con. Res. 160. Concurrent resolution

-relative to raising the standard of living of the American Indian; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. WIER: H. Con. Res. 161. Concurrent resolution

.relative to a definition of the phrase "peaceloving state," in the United Nations Charter; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. HIESTAND: H. Con. Res. 162. Concurrent resolution es

tablishing a joint committee to investigate and study the advisability of making labor organizations subject to the antitrust law&; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mr. MAILLIARD: . H. Res. 231. Resolution to create a select committee to conduct an investigation and study of the existing and probable future mass transportation problems in the large metropolitan areas of the United States; to the Committee on Rules.

MEMORIALS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials

were presented and ref erred as follows: By Mr. PRICE: Memorial of the State of

Illinois 70th General Assembly that the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States give favorable consideration to the passage of area redevelopment pro-

grams which would pro.vide aid and assistance to depressed areas through the development of natural resources; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. ·

By Mr. MARSHALL: Memorial of the Senate of the State of Minnesota urging legislation to improve economic conditions for :ramily-sized, owner-operated farms; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States relative to family farms and agriculture; to the Committee on Agriculture.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and sever.ally ref erred as follows:

By Mr. ALGER: H. R. 6860. A bill for the- relief of Isaac

Lidji, Henry Isaac Lidji, and Sylvia Isaac Gattegno; to the Committee on the Judiciary·.

By Mr. ANFUSO: H. R. 6861. A bill for the relief of Graziella

Spadini Nasca; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr.BRAY: H. R. 6862. A bill for the relief of Nikkl

Dorothea Hashimoto Godsey and Juliet Lynn Matsuda Godsey; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BROOMFIELD: H. R. 6863. A bill for the relief of Alvin

Ergin (Ahmet Hamdi Ergin); to the Committee ()n the Judiciary.

By Mr. BYRNE of Illinois: H. R. 6864. A bill for the relief of Rufus

Benjamin Campbell; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FEIGHAN: H. R. 6865. A bill for the relief of Barbara

T. B. Kuczek; to the Committee on the Judiciary. . .

By Mrs. GRAJS'AHAN: . H. R. 6866. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Catherine I. Goughan; to the Committee on .the Judiciary.

By Mr. McFALL: H. R. 6867. A bill for the relief of Claudio

.Diaz Torres; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. PILCHER: . H. R. 6a6s. A bill for the relief of Agnes _Moulton Cannon; to the Committee on · the Judiciary.

By Mr. ROOSEVELT: H. R. 6869. A bill for the relief of Roberto

Garcia-Marquez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Fort Benning, Ga.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. GEORGE P. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, April 11, 1957

J

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it was my good fortune, and that of many of my colleagues in the House and the Senate, to be guests of the Army at Fort Benning, Ga., on April 5 and 6. I wish to express ni'.y appreciation for the invitation to the Honorable Wil:ber Brucker, able Secretary of the Army,

and to his legislative liaison chief, Maj. Gen. J. H. Michaelis.

I would also acknowledge the commendable leadership displayed at this vast infantry center and school which the Army has entrusted to the command of Maj. Gen. Herbert B. Powell, the commandant, and his assistants, Brig. Gen. R. L. Cook and Brig. Gen. J. V. Thompson. It is noteworthy that the inspiring example set by these senior officers has obviously made its mark on the junior officers and noncommissioned officers of -the Infantry at Fort Benning.

As many of us know, the Infantry's traditional motto is "Follow me," that is to say, follow the leader up front. This

. one thought, development of leaders whom men will follow in ground and

·airborne combat, is the constant overriding theme of every action at Fort Benning. You see it everywhere you turn. Emblazoned on insignia, signs, literature is the call to "Follow me." In a world of shifting standards, the Infantry tells the world that it has this one unvarying rule today as it has had from time immemorial.

The weapons and machines of modern warfare, although wondrous to see, are as nothing compared to the display of leadership at all levels <>f Infantry organization. The Infantry leaders realize all too well the sacrifices that the Queen of Battles makes upan our youth in ground combat. There is no other time when personal cow·age, example, and determinatio~ are at the premium

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5551 required in an infantry attack, ' or if necessary, to stand and fight in the defense. Our young soldiers and paratroopers constantly look to their leaders, along side them in battle and sharing it all, and the old cry comes back clear and strong, "Follow me."

We Members of Congress saw leadership again at its best at Fort Benning last week. For those of us who may have for gotten, we were reminded of this indispensable quality. Let none tamper with it. For it is the infantryman with his bayonet who is given the task of making the final decisive blow, the defeat of the enemy in battle. The infantryman pays the greatest price in casualties and fights under the most incredibly severe conditions of weather and emotional strain. The infantryman has the place of honor. The infantryman leads while he others follow. He deserves to be well led.

As General Powell so well told us there at the old home of all Infantry everywhere:

It is this man, the infantryman, and this man alone, as a most important member of our military team, who uitimately determines the final outcome of war. Upon his courage, determination, leadership, and training rests the future of the United States. In the age of the airplane and atomic weapons, the infantryman has countered every development by devising new tactics and techniques to meet the changing methods of warfare. The infantryman has maintained his decisive position in war by creative and progressive thinking, and this has never been more.true than it is today.

The Nice Guy Club


HON. LEO W. O'BRIEN OF NEW YORK



Mr. O'BRIEN of New York. Mr. Speaker, recently I attended a dinner in my district which could well serve as a pattern for other parts of the Nation. It was in honor of a group of considerate people or what might be described in the vernacular as "nice guys.''

Thirteen years ago, an Albany attorney, Mr. Hyman Rosenblum, looked about him and noted that at every school graduation prizes are handed out to the learned among the young graduates. While applauding such awards, he thought it would be a good idea to have a prize for the young man or woman who was most considerate of the feelings and property of others. He has given such an award annually, to young people in the graduating classes of three area schools.

Mr. Rosenblum does more than that. He gives an annual dinner, to be continued after his death under terms of his will, at which tribute is made to each of the past winners of the "nice guy" awards.

There were many distinguished persons at the recent dinner, including the State commissioner of education. It was

a heartwarming experience to learn that sheer goodness is sometimes applauded in this era of conflict and tensions.

I believe we should do more than pay isolated honor to the nice people among us. I think we should make greater use of their warmth and talents in such important spheres as our foreign service and government generally.

Mr. Rosenblum deserves great credit for what he has undertaken, but I am sure he would be more than rewarded if his worthy idea was followed throughout the Nation.

Leadership Under Truman and Ike


HON. EUGENE SILER OF KENTUCKY



Mr. SILER. Mr. Speaker, we have noticed in recent press reports statements of former President Harry S Truman that forces of communism have been advancing in the Middle East and Far East and that free nations have been beset by differences and doubts. Then he went on to place the blame for this so-called advancing communism and alleged doubt among free nations on what he termed a "lack of leadership in the State Department and the White House." He further stated that our Government had lost both confidence and respect among the people of the world.

Now, Mr. Truman did not back up his bold and baseless assertions with any facts and figures, so far as I know. He merely told the Kansas Democratic Club, which, of course, wanted to hear such nonsense, that here are some of my ~'artisan conclusions and you may start your Fair Deal applause when you get all set and ready to begin.

But there are some real honest-togoodness facts, as recorded in history, for us to examine ar.d then remember after all the tumult and the shouting has faded out and left only the everlasting truth to be our shield and buckler.

ROOSEVELT-ACHESON-TRUMAN REGIME

In this late lamented regime, communism did its great and notorious advancing both at home and abroad. In every conference that was held it seems that we got a piece of paper and the Communists got a piece of territory. The Yalta Conference, for instance, was a catastrophe for our country and the free world. Alger Hiss, the convicted Communist who was upheld by Secretary Acheson, even as the dark shadows of guilt overwhelmed his integrity and patriotism, had access to the secret briefing papers used by our side during that conference. The decisions at Yalta paved the way for communizing Poland and for the .Communist conquest of China. The Yalta deal contributed in two ways to the Communist victory in China, for it turned over to the Russians the allimportant Manchurian Railway and the warm-water ports and recognized Outer

Mongolia as a satellite ·state. And so, , Communist China emerged and Nationalist China and Chiang Kai-shek became only symbols of a free China after the Yalta Conference.

It should also be remembered that the Harry Dexter White incident emerged out of publication of those Yalta papers. He, you recall, wanted our country to loan Russia four billions more than even Stalin himself wanted and this same White wanted the interest rate to be only 2 percent, although Russia had offered to pay 2 ¥4 percent, and the same White wanted the loan to run 35 years, although Russia only wanted 30 years for repayment.

What a leadership, Mr. Truman, under Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss.

What a communistic bonanza, Mr. Truman, with assists for communism in Poland and China and that extra $4 billion offered Russia but not even asked by Stalin himself during the RooseveltAcheson-Truman regime.

EISENHOWER-DULLES REGIME

Now in this present Eisenhower-Dulles regime, we have clearly seen a termination of communism's advance in Korea and in other places of the Far East. And we have seen a positive deterioration of Russian influence in Poland, Hungary, and the Middle East, the free people of the world having had our continual and effective encouragement every single day of the present administration.

Over 2,000 people with bad-risk files against them have been turned out of Government jobs and stopped from receiving tax-paid salaries during this present regime.

Vice President NrxoN, before ascending to that office, conducted the investigation on Alger Hiss and he went to jail.

And so, for more than 4 years we have been running along pretty smoothly sans Hiss, sans White, sans 2,000 security risks, and the forces of communism have been stopped or deterred on every front and all along the line throughout the earth.

The truth shall be our shield and buckler.

Mr. Truman, what do you say about the facts? How about the RooseveltAcheson-Truman leadership against the communistic forces you mentioned? And how about the Eisenhower-Dulles leadership against the same evil?

The truth shall be our shield and buckler.

Forced Relocation Compensated


HON. ALFRED E. SANTANGELO OF NEW YORK



Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Speaker, I have this day introduced a bill to provide ·that business concerns which are dis·placed by low-rent housing projects shall be compensated for the cost of relocation, together with a percentage of the loss of good will caused by their forced relocation.


It has been brought to my attention that many small businesses have- been completely destroyed and uprooted by the construction of public housing projects. Inadequate provision had bee,n made for their relocation in the area ~nd no provision has been made for the loss of businesses which have endured for many years. Communities have been changed and people thrown to the winds.

Recent editorials have demonstrated the ii;npact of housing projects on smallbusiness concerns and the hardships which small owners have been compelled

. to undergo because of farced evictions. Urban relocation programs provide for compensation to these small-busine~s

·men who have been displaced involuntarily. A decent respect for the prob:lems of the small-business man compels reimbursement in part to these people who through no desire or voluntary conduct on their part have been uprooted and cast aside.

My bill provides that in addition to the direct property losses sustained by smallbusiness men that these uprooted businesses shall be compensated for their moving expenses and 1 percent of the average of the past 2 years' gross business. In this wise, the hardships will be softened and justice will be done.

The Patriotic Spirit of Naugatuck,.s Crusader Post, No. 1946, VFW


HON. JAMES T. PATTERSON -OF CONNECTICUT



Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I wish to pay tribute to Crusader Post, No. 1946, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of Naugatuck, Conn., for itS organization of a Sea Scout Ship. This ·post, under the leadership of Chief James J. Owens, is organizing Naugatuck .Valley youth be..: tween the ages of 14 and 18 into a group of Sea Scouts who will receive training in navigation, instruction in small arms, and marlinspike seamanship. These young men will also visit naval installations, yacht clubs, and take cruises on naval vessels in addition to other activities. Moreover, under the guidance of Chief Owens and other outstanding Naugatuck citizens, these future leaders of our Nation will be better prepared to assume leadership and responsibility in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the Crusader Post plan will play a prominent role in developing better citizens, and I wish that veterans' organizations of other communities in the Nation would use the Crusader Post plan as a model. Those of tis who serve on the House Armed Services Committee know that Boy Scout training during an .individual's youth days enables the individual to become a better military man in later years.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Naugatuck Crusader Post for its patriotic spirit in organizing this Sea Scout past. .The

pest has taken the lead in a new crusade to mold better citizens, and at the same time prepare young men to become better members of the Armed Forces in the future.

Economy Drive Lags

· EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. AUGUST E. JOHANSEN OF MICHIGAN



Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, I wish to insert the following congressional bulletin sent out by my colleague from Michigan, ALVIN M. BENTLEY, to his constituents:

The week before last, the House completed action on the 1958 appropriations for the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare, .and Labor. The Appropriations Committee had. already cut $118 million out of the budget request of nearly $3 billion. During debate on the bill, further cuts of some

' $68 million were approved. But when the time came for recorded roll

call voting, the Congressmen were only "willing to approve $15 million of the $68 million cuts. In other words, they put $53 million back into the bill. Specifically, increases were voted for the Bureau of Veterans' Reemployment Rights, the Women's Bureau, the Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Edµcation and grants for waste treatment works construction.

Out of 14 rollcall votes on April 4, I voted for a cut in every single case as I had previously promised to do. I did this in spite of the fact I had received telegrams from several erganizations in Michigan asking me to vote for the higher figures. I should point out that in every single case the cut was merely to restore the amount spent in the present fiscal year. Nowhere did we try to cut below 1957 appropriations.

- What all this means is that in spite of · the high-sounding promises about economy in government and about budget-cutting, the House failed to practice real economy in this opportunity. The combined budgets for these two . departments rs only $34 million less than they got a year ago and most of the various offices, agencies, bureaus, etc. were increased. It meains that it is one thing to talk economy and another thing to practice i~. It means that the people who want real economy in government and real tax relief are going to have to create pressure on Congress that will outweigh the pressure from organizations which have a natural desire to protect their own projects from any cuts at all.

. It is interesting to know that, of the 14 rollcall votes, 6 Michigan Republican Congressmen had a solid vote for cuts on all rollcalls. In addition to myself, these were Congressman MEADER, Congressman JOHANSEN, Congressman HOFFMAN, Congressman CHAMBERLAIN, and Congressman CEDERBERG. It is also interesting to know that, among Michigan's 6 Democratic Congressmen, 1 of them voted for a cut--on 1 vote only.

The Michigan Office of Civil Defense has released a report showing funds made available to all Michigan counties from 1950 through 1956 for the purchase of equipment and supplies for civil defense. Clinton County pu.t up $2,2.80.93 and received a matching Federal share for a total of $4.561.87. Gratiot County put up $1,174.40, got $274.90 from the State and $1,449.30 from the Federal Government !or a. total of

$2,898.60. Ionia County1>ut up. $2,53-2.18 and that was matched by the Federal Government for a total of $5,064.36. ·Montcalm County's $1,765.38 was also federally matched for a total of $3,530.76. Saginaw County put up $3,599.94, got $3,081.94 from the State and $5,793.04 from the Federal Government · for a total of $12,474.92. Shiawassee County put up $2.,82L25 and that was matched by the Federal Government for a total of. $5,642.50. We. see, therefore, that during those 6 years the 6 counties of the eighth district only received a total of $16,642.08 for civil defense

· from. Federal sources. Compare this with $2 million plus which was spent by Wai:;hington in the State of Michigan as a whole. However, certain municipalities, such as Ionia, Belding, Portland, Alma, St. Johns, and others received matching- grants which are not included in the above figures.

On March 28 the Rural Electrification Administration approved a loan of more than $3 million to the Wolverine Electric Coopera.tive of Big Rapids which involves the possible use of nuclear energy for the generation of power. Wolverine's three member cooperatives, located at Portland, Newaygo, and Hart, serve more than 20,000 farmers and other rural consumers in west central Michigan.

A House subcommittee has just approved a 5-year, $2 billion school-construction program. This bHl calls for maximum Federal spending of $400 million annually for the next 5 years as well as a $750 million program to let the Government purchase schooldistrict bonds. There is also a $150 million authorization for the Government to service and guarantee State school-bond issues.

Annual Convention of the National Society, Dairghters of the UniOn


HON. E. L. FORRESTER OF GEORGIA



Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the National Society, Daughters of the Union, held its annual convention in Fitzgerald, Ga., a-wonderful little city in the district which I have the honor to represent. This is the :first time that the society has held a meeting in the Deep South, and there is much significance in the fact that they chose Fitzgerald, Ga., as the location.

Fitzgerald is unique in its history, and a living memorial to the brave men of both Blue and Gray who engaged in the terrible War Between the States. Nowhere in our Nation is there a better example of the brotherhood and love that came to exist between the people of the North and South in that era, and! think my colleagues might be interested in hearing a little about Fitzgerald.

Both Unionists and Confederates founded and settled in Fitzgerald, on about a 50-50 basis. The names "BlueGray Park/' "Lee-Grant Hotel," "Sher· man Street," and "Lee Street," sound a bit incongruous, but they were chosen with care by people of the North and South who built this city of unity, as a tribute to one another and the brave leaders of both sides.

Fitzgerald is built in a square extending 1 % miles from the center in each

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 5553 direction. All streets ~st of the main thoroughfare are named after northern generals such as Grant and Sherman, while streets lying to the west bear the names of southern generals-Lee, Gordon, Jackson, and so forth. There are four drives around the city and two of them are named for northern ships, two after ships which sailed for the South. Many people in Fitzgerald find that their ancestors were among those who first ~ettled the town, and many find that their southern grandmothers or grandfathers married northerners, and lived the balance of their lives in peace and harmony, together and amongst their northern and southern neighbors.

We can learn a great lesson from the city of Fitzgerald, Ga. If good people of both sides could get together at that time, when bitterness and animosity were at their peak, and settle a town together, intermarry, and live side by side with love and respect for each other, then certainly now, in 1957, there is no basis for any ill feeling between our different sections of the country. Yankees and southerners learned to like each other then, and they like each other now.

The American flag was prominent in the ceremonies conducted at the convention of the National Society, Daughters of the Union. A miniature flag was placed on each and every grave in the famous Evergreen Cemetery, where hundreds of veterans .• both Union and Confederate, of the War Between the States are buried. To all of the people of Fitzgerald and our section, that flag is not a northern flag or a southern flag, It is the flag of a united country and people. No wonder our people in Fitzgerald and our district love that flag, and have no patience with any group or individual who would change our way of life.

Spee~h of Hon. Hugh Scott, of PennsyJ .. vania, at 19th Annual Midwest Convention of the American Jewish Congress, April 7, 1957

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OJ'

HON. HUGH SCOTT OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. SCOTT of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am inserting excerpts from a speech made at the 19th Annual Midwest Convention of the American Jewish Congress in Chicago on April 7, 1957:

The compliance of Israel and the noncompliance of Egypt with resolutions of the United Nations stand in stark contrast.

Peace in the Middle East can never be achieved by appeasement of defiant dictators.

The refusal ot Egypt to permit passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and Egyptian threats to deny the right of innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran are in direct contravention of the established United Nations position. United States policy affirmatively supports the right of Israeli shipping to use both waterways.

This 1s clearly stated in the letter to me of March 27, 1957, from Under Secretary of State Herter:

"We believe that Israel-bound shipping should enjoy the right of free and innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran. We also believe that Israeli shipping should enjoy the right of passage through the Suez Canal. We have made our position on these points clear, both in public and in our relationships with the States concerned."

It is my opinion that the United Nations General Assembly should be convened to consider the implementation of the rights of all nations to waterways that are legally free under international law. Nasser's defiance of the United Nations ought to be disposed of now by that body. The United Nations should be no less prompt to act now to preserve the peace than it was last November.

If the United Nations will not act, by appropriate resolutions, to be followed (in the event of Egyptian defiance} by resort to

·united Nations forces or by sanctions against Egypt, then those nations which sincerely desire to avoid war in the area must consider what they will do to bring Nasser to his senses. This includes the United States.

Timely concert of action by the Western nations is much to be preferred to the ~lternative that Israel, in desperation, may resort to the international law doctrine of self-help.

To begin with, Nasser's bluff can and should be called. He has already played roulette with Russian chips and Marshal Zhukov has seen them disastrously expended across Sinai. It is unlikely that the Soviet will repeat such a bad gamble as to provide so bad a risk with a new stack of costly blue chips.

Moreover, Nasser cannot be sure of his other former friends. His only sure ally is Communist-infiltrated Syria. His reach for dominance of the Arab world has lost millions in oil ~evenues to his increasingly skeptical Arab neighbors.

Nasser's terms for one-man rule of the Suez Canal are those of a blackmailer and extortioner. His proposals would leave the area in a situation worse than the conditions prevalling prior to the intervention of the United Nations. But the United States is committed to the position stated .by Ambassador Lodge that a return to the status quo would be most unsatisfactory to the United 3tates.

Therefore, ln default of effective United Nations action, the United States should adopt measures of economic pressure against a dictator who will not listen to reason, but who might be compelled to react to strong economic pressures, resolutely applied.

Therefore, all United States aid in any form whatsoever should continue to be denied to Egypt. At the same time, loans and technical assistance should be made immediately available to Israel. This includes restoration of the grant to Israel proposed October 2, 1956, of $25 million of MSA funds and it includes necessity for early departure of the United States mission to confer on the need for a $75 million United States Export-Import Bank loan.

The surplus food distribution program to Israel should be resumed, and there ls good reason to believe that this wlll shortly take place. Israel will accept approximately 100,000 refugees this year from Hungary, Egypt, and other Iron Curtain type countries. This food program is therefore critical.

There are other economic pressures available against Nasser. There 1s the right to bypass American shipping (as well as British and French shipping} until the loss of canal revenues squeezes the Egyptian Government

· into economic grief. There is the increasing likelihood of the

use of larger and faster tankers, some of which are now being constructed and others -are in the planning stage.

Offering prospects of quicker relief from . oil shortages are new pipelines bypassing the Canal, and wherever feasible, bypassing certain of the more volatile Arab States.

Some of these measures are expensive, but it is questionable whether the pursuit of means to make the Western World free of Nasser's dangerous tactics could possibly be as expensive as would be a surrender to the tyranny of a tinpot dictator, acting from a. heart regardless of international consequences and evilly bent on mischief.

However costly the application of courageous tactics now may prove to be, they are certainly infinitely less costly to the United States than for us to be pitched into a war involvement through failure to act promptly and wisely to avert the consequences of the scheming folly o! a power-crazed and irresponsible Arab dictator with a powder keg in one hand and a match in the other.

Congressional Subcommittee Denounces Bureaucratic Secrecy

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OJ!'

HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, l include a splendid and informative article "Congressional Subcommittee Denounces Bureaucratic Secrecy," written by our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. JOHN E. Moss, chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Infor· mation of the House Committee on Government Operations, and appearing in .the Harvard Law Record of March 7, 1957.

There is no one more competent to discuss the subject matter of the within article than the gentleman from California [Mr. Moss]. In connection with the subject matter of this article, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moss], and the members of his subcommittee, have done outstanding work. The character of the work done by the subcommittee of which the gentleman from California. [Mr. MossJ is chairman is not only painstaking, but penetrating and objective, and the results that will flow from it will be in the best interests of our country.

The article follows: CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE DENOUNCES

B~EAUCRATIC SECRECY

(By Hon. JoHN E. Moss, of Californi!t, chairman, House Government Information Subcommittee} A massive accumulation o! restrictive reg

ulation challenges the people's basic right to oversee the workings of their Federal Government.

The pattern of restriction is documented 1n the 25th intermediate report of the House Committee on Government Operations. and in the volumes of hearings that lie behind this report. Case after case 1s described in which Con,gressmen and citizens were denied information without good cause. The e!fect, in every instance, has been harmful to our country's political traditions.

The report summarizes the 1lrst year's work of the Special Subcommittee on Government Information, chartered ln June

5554 ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE April 11

1955, by Congressman WILLIAM L. DAWSON, of Illinois, chairman o! the Government Operations Committee.

The subcommittee, exploring present law, already has documented the need for new legislation broadening public access to official records. It is equally concerned, however, with the deeper problem of the administrators' attitudes toward present law. Many Federal agencies apparently have twisted grievously their delegations of authority in an attempt to find justification for their restrictions on information.

As in any area of law, two nece.ssitie.s compete. No official denies, in principle, tlie public's right to inspect Government actions and policies. Neither does anyone-least of all the members of the subcommittee-question the need to .keep secret such classes of inf01;mation as military security data.

It is the subcommittee's ,purp.o~e, nonethe-, less, to see that the indispensable security systems protect only that information for which the need for secrecy has been demonstrated.

THE BURDEN OF PROQF The public and Congress now bear the

burden of proving their right to look at papers held by Federal agencies. Instead, it should be up to the agency to demonstrateto the satisfaction of Congress, the courts and the public-the overriding necessity to withhold information.

Congress often has stated explicitly that certain specific records shall be restricted to agency use: Such clauses stand in more than 50 statutes, their subjects ranging from military codes to postal savings deposits. In a much smaller number of statutes, ·the agency is ordered to make public other specific records. · ·

These orders from Congress to the agencies may deserve review later, but the subcommittee has begun its study with an exploration of the far wider area where no statute specifically commands either . publ~cation or

"restriction of information. Because a free fiow of information about this vast Government and its works is essential to the survival of democracy itself, the study is of great importance to the Nation. This responsibility made it necessary to reject the advice, tendered from the sidelines to every new inquiry, to start work with a flare of sensation.

There is sound reason to avoid building issues out of personalities or specific instances of restriction. The subcommittee wishes to convey the point that the restrictions which it is studying concern all the Government as an institution, and a whole body of administrative law.

A legislative inquiry has three · interests. It must examine the delegation of authority by Congress ·or the President to an agency. It then must look at the manner i'n which the agency uses that delegated authority. Finally, the inquiry must find ·a way to measure the effect-or lack of effect--that the agency's operations have upon our national life. The ultimate reality of law and politics clearly lies here.

GE'ITING THE FACTS The first step in the subcommittee's study

was to circulate a questionnaire to the 63 departments and agencies of the Federal Government. They were asked to describe in detail their information policies, defining specifically the types of data not available to the public and the Congress. They were asked to cite the legal authorities upon which they based these policies.

The answers to this questionnaire now provide a solid background against which a balanced inquiry can proceed-an anvil against which the subcommittee can hammer out individual cases of unwarranted restriction. The questionnaire performed a useful service, incidentally, in forcing many an agency to go through a tangle of unre-

lated rules and begin to develop, for the first time, a coherent and consistent policy on the availability of information.

The agencies' answers show exactly what delegations of authority are claimed in Gov• ernment information restrictions. It ap• pears there are .four of prime importance: two statutes, a Presidential letter and an Executive order.

AUTHORIZED SECRECY Executive Order 1~501 establishes the Na·

tion's security system for protecting information affecting the national defense. The order represents an entirely suitable exercise of the President's po:wer.

The President's letter of May 17, 1954, on the other hand, appears to represent the agencies' tendency to assume authority where the delegation is unclear. The letter authorized the Secretary of Defense t0 deny a single Congressional investigating group specific information during the Army-McCarthy controversy. No fewer than 18 other departments and agencies are now citing this letter as grounds for denying data generally to Congressional committees. The subcommittee believes this to be totally unwarranted, and draws support from an explanatory letter written by the President's special counsel declaring that the President was exercising a right which is his, and his alone.

The two statutes are title 5, United States Code, section 22, and title 5, United States Code, section 1002. The first, ' with a history going back to 1'789, is the most widely used of all the authorities. Designed as a housekeeping statute, it gives department heads the power to write regulations providing for the custody, use, and preservation of their records. This innocuous language has given rise to a jungle of rules restricting Congressional and public access to a vast variety of papers.

In. drafting the second stat11te, title 5, United States Code, section 1002, its authors ordered the agencies to inform the public of their doings, but they created broadly phrased categories of exceptions to the rule. These exceptions have been expanded by usage to cover · nearly any piece of paper an administrator ~ight wish to shield from public view.

The subcommittee consequently concludes that delegations of authority to the agencies have been widely misused and inflated.

To carry its point further, the subcommit.tee asked the counsels of many departments and agencies to define the powers delegated by the four authorities. The appalling variety of the answers demonstrated the subcommittee's contention that the agencies were, in effect, making up their own law individually as they needed it. .

The subcommittee has used two other de. vices to follow the legal arguments down to final reality-the law's effect on our national life.

Panels of specialists have been enlisted from the fields most immediately affected by Federal information restrictions. Groups of newspapermen and scientists have testified, and interested businessmen may be asked to do so shortly. A somewhat different panel was recruited among lawyers experienced in the field of Government information. Their opinions have added great weight to the sub· committee's legal findings.

These specialists are kept informed of the subconmiittee's progress, and are regularly asked for further advice and opinion. They are able to show where inequitable informa· tion rules work their worst damage, and what implications lie in proposed changes. In this fashion, these expert advisers bring into perspective the concrete cases of unwarranted information restriction.

About 300 cases have been reported so far to the subcommittee by Congressmen and Congressional committees, newspapermen,

trade associations and even the agencies themselves. In each of these cases, someone has felt himself unjustly barred from information.

THE CASE METHOD

Generally they are referred to the agency involved, with requests for verification of the facts and for the legal justification. When the answering letter appears incomplete, or where the matter is too complicated to be covered by · mail, hearings are called. The agency is asked to reconcile the concrete case of information suppression with its policy as stated in answer to the questionnaire.

It very often happens that this request results in the rewriting of agency rules. This happy solution is not always accomplished, however, and the subcommittee feels that changes must be made in the language of some of the original Congressional delegations of power to the agencies, to clarify

·their proper purpose. An amendment designed to return title 5,

United States Code, section 22, to its original housekeeping role has been submitted to Congress. Proposals to improve title 5, United States Code, section 1002, are being contemplated, and freedom· of information clauses are beginning to appear in other bills. . Amendments will be useful, but the · real source of the problem lies deeper. It concerns the spirit with ·which the agencies read the statutes, and. the attitude taken by administrators toward 'the public's right to SU• pervise the Federal Government.

Interview Between Congressman Farb· stein and Robert Spevak, New York

.Post, for Broadcast Over WMCA, New York, April 7, 1957


HON. LEONARD FARBSTEIN OF NEW YORK


Thursday, April 11, 1957 Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, under

leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following interview which took place between Mr. Robert Spevak, of the New York Post, and myself on April 7, 1957:

Mr. SPEVAK. Reporters, I know, are sup· posed to be hard boiled men and indifferent to peoples' feelings; but I can tell you from my own experience that it is never pleasant to report from the Capital of the United States. about duplicity and double standards of political morality where they involve Government officials. We all know that it exists to some extent but this past week we've been treated to such a large dose of it from persons in high office that it just can't go by unnoticed.

Secretary of State Dulles was asked to explain comments by a friendly biographer that he deliberately provoked the Aswan Dam crisis in order to call Russia's bluff on economic aid to Egypt. Dulles said in reply, "I think that question could be answered 1n the neg_ative," but he did not answer it in the negative. In his own fashion Secretary Dulles left the story substantially unchallenged. At his weekly press conference the President was twice asked what this country plans to do about Dictator Nasser's continual flouting of the U. N., and failure to permit Israel to pass through the Suez Canal. ~e President gave what I

1957 -,CONGRESSIONAL RECORD_- _HOUSE 5555 consider a disjointed answer wh_ich added up to exactly nothing.

David Ben-Gurion, ft seems, never informed the President in their correspondence that Suez was in any way involved. So it seems we are not prepared to do anything ab.out Nasser on this score either, _. I have asked Congressman LEONARD FARBSTEIN, of Manhattan, here today to discuss another -example of high moral pronouncements by .United States officials and the failure of this Government to do anything about them, namely, the forced exodus of thousands of Jews from Egypt.

Congressman FARBSTEIN. I understand you have a bill in on this subject. Just what are you proposing? \ · .. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Well, Mr. Spevak, I might say that it is singularly appropriate that this question is raised now, just prior to the beginning of the Passover period commemorating the exodus of the Jews from Egypt thousands of years ago. I int_roduced in the Congress a resolution to the effect that it is the sense of the Congress that the treatment of the Jews in Egypt recently constitutes persecution because of race, reli·gious beliefs, or political opinion. Further, it violates the human-rights sections of the United Nations Charter. I feel that this resolution should be passed by the Congress; and I feel that the United States should publicly do what it can toward ameliorating this situation. I feel further that the United Nations should pass a resolution calling upon Egypt and Nasser to discontinue their acts.

Mr. SPEVAK. Well, Congressman FARBSTEIN, in discussing this matter I think probably both of us would agree that it is important to keep several facts in mind, sort of background matter.

No. 1 of these facts Is that the Israeli Army ·entered the Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956.

No. 2 is this. On November 1, 1956, 72 hours later, the Egyptian Government promulgated a series of decrees and among them were the denationalization of certain Egyptian citizens, mostly Jews.

No. 3. Within 5 days the U. N. cease-fire was accepted by the belligerent parties.

No. 4, and what I think is most important, Egypt kept these decrees in effect and in fact I believe has them in effect right up to the present time. Yet by the middle of last November it was already evident that Egypt intended to exploit the brief hostilities to despoil and ultimately destroy its Jewish community.

Now Congresf:man FARBSTEIN, you're a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a great distinction, I might add, for a freshman Member of Congress.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Thank you. Mr. SPEVAK. Now can you tell us, Congress

man FARBSTEIN, how you feel about this question? Some people think that the Jews brought this matter all on themselves.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Well, frankly, Bob, I can't understand how anyone with any degree of intelligence could possibly say any such _thing because anyone who is knowledgeable in the least would know that Nasser has constantly been declaring the fact that he is at war with Israel. He has been actively blockading Israel both in the Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba. Now, a blockade itself is an act of war, and preventing Israel from using the Gulf of Aqaba for innocent passage of ships was such an act of war. Proclaiming its rights of bell1gerency and preventing Israel's use of the Suez, these are all acts of war. How could Israel, therefore, justifiably be called an aggressor? Must a man wait until he and his family are annihilated by gangsters who have continually threatened his life and that of his family and are purchasing weapons to carry out th~ir threats in full view of ·his proposed victim1 Or should he

do what any prudent man would do?-Move against his adversary before he is destroyed? That is all Israel did. Israel moved before Nasser had an opportunity io build up enough hardware to 11.nnihilate her people and to drive them into the sea as he and the other Arab people · had been saylng.

Mr. SPEVAK. Well, Congressman FARBSTEIN, you use the word gangsters. Now do .you think that there are any parallels, or do you find any parallels, between the techniques used by Hitler against the Jews. You remember his so-called Aryaniza ti on program and what Nasser calls his Egyptianization program.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. It's very obvious that Nasser learned from Hitler. He has gone even further than Hitler went. Hitler started this thing anew. It is my belief that Nasser with the benefit of people in his employ, who are former Nazis like Otto Remer, and Vonleers, had this thing prepared long, long before the adventure into the Sinai. As a matter of fact these decrees, as you suggested .earlier, were promulgated within 2 or 3 days after Israel, to protect itself, ventured into the Sinai.

Mr. SPEVAK. Do you think they expected this?

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Well, of course, they were only looking for some . means whereby they could oust the Jews out of Egypt just the same way they had prepared for the nationalization of the Suez.

Mr. SPEVAK. You don't think the invasion took them by surprise?

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Of course it did, yet this was all planned. They were only looking for a pretext, as you just mentioned, to come -in and start acting against the Jews to drive them out, to pauperize them, to denationalize them, and the various other things that were done against the Jews and are still being done.

Mr. SPEVAK. Now as you noted a moment ago, it is very close to the Passover season. Ironically we find a new exodus from Egypt thousands of years after the original exodus. But I just wonder if there isn't one difference here or at least one similarity with nazism. I've seen reports that Nasser has seized Jewish hostages from many of the families that he has ordered deported. In other words he is holding some back, I presume, for blackmail purposes or in order that people who leave the country don't talk too much about what is going on in there. Now does that jibe wit:1 the information that you have?

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Oh, yes; there is no question about it, as a matter of fact, not only information that has come to me but which has appeared in the public press. One of the reporters who works for your own newspaper wrote quite an article on that. · It appeared in the Times. I believe it is common knowledge, not only the knowledge that I may have personally.

Mr. SPEVAK. Now I want to ask you one thing, getting back to this matter of whether Israeli Jews are responsible for the plight of Egyptian Jews. Have Egypt's Jews been active in Zionist causes?

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Why that's ridiculous. Families that are being persecuted by Nasser today are amongst families that have lived in Egypt for almost 2,000 years. These families that have lived there for generations are being persecuted just the same as stateless Jews. All this is a pretext. As a matter of fact the Jews that were in Egypt were particularly careful to see to lt that they in no way could be connected with Israel or with zionism because they knew that the only method that they could have of retaiµ.ing their livelihoods and their very lives was by keeping away and steering clear of any semblance ·o! friendship for Israel or for zion. ism.

Mr. SPEVAK. Well, that jibes with information that we have too. Of course, you prob-

ably run into this, that NAsser claims he is not against Jews but acting only agains~ Zionists. I've run into that with other Arab spokesmen too. Now there are some people who regard this as a not too clever semantic moaneuver. But from what all we have been able to gather ls that the 50,000 Egyptian Jews were not active in the Zionist cause although they were very close to Israel in the physical sense. I noticed in a little booklet put out by the American Jewish Congress called The Black Record: Nasser's Persecution of the Egyptian Jewry, that this point ls stressed quite emphatically. Now what other ways do you know of that the Egyptian Government is persecuting Jews-I mean that have come to your attention?

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Well, of course-, what they are doing is they are depriving those who are remaining in Egypt of their livelihood. They are telling firms that if they retain Jewish employees they won't allow them any export or import licenses. They are denationalizing the firms that are doing business in Israel, making it impossible for the survival of the people who live there. As a matter of fact what they are doin~ is they are expelling people who live in Egypt, making use of hostages so that others, as you suggested, of their families won't advise the world of what's going on. The things that they are doing are very similar, as a matter of fact, even worse, as I said before, than those things that were done by HitlerA And I think it is an outrage.

Mr. SPEVAK. Now Congressman FARBSTEIN, it's always very nice for Congress to pass resolutions expressing sympathy with the Egyptian Jews or with any other persecuted people. But what else do you think might be done for them and also what do you think, in general at least, needs to be done so far as future relations with Israel are concerned?

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Aside from the fact that there should be a public expression by the President and also a resolution passed by the United Nations calling upon Mr. Nasser to discontinue his depredations, I feel that in a broader sense what this country should do is in its mutual security law make a token grant-in-aid toward the building of a 16-inch pipeline from Elath to the Mediter-

. ranean. That will make evident· that this country doesn't intend to remain at the mercy of Nasser insofar as the use of the Suez Canal is concerned, so that oil transshipment will not again be interfered withto show this country intends to stand by its moral commitment to Israel. And also so that the countries in the area. whose leaders fear the street mobs under Nasser's influence may clearly understand that it is our desire, our sincere desire, for them to make peace with Israel. And when these street mob3 and the people who control the various other governments that surround the Arab Governments that surround Israel realize that this country is truly behind Israel, I think that a better attitude wm be taken by them and that there will be a greater opportunity for peace.

Mr. SPEVAK. Well, 1f I may then summarize what we have heard from Congressman FARBSTEIN is this: The physical survival of one of the oldest and most peaceful religious com~unities of the world is at stake. :But strangely the Eisenhower doctrine doesn't seem to cover the subject. The President said at his Wednesday press conference that he will not speculate upon the character and reliability of Dictator Nasser.

So the question I guess remains what 1t has been here in recent weeks, where to drift from this point on? It's not a. very pretty picture it seems to me that we painted. here but it's one that does command immedl· ate attention.

This is Bob Spevak in Washington return-ing you to our studios. ·

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - Congress.gov

Documents

Transcript of HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - Congress.gov