SENATE - Congress.gov

12268 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22

safeguarding the headwaters of many important streams and the sources of water supply for hundreds of towns and cities.

The Forest Service last year cooperated with the State of Wisconsin and many other States in providing organized protection agaj.nst forest fires; also in producing and distributing trees for forest planting, and in furnishing technical advice to woodland owners on forest management.

COOPERATION IN FORESTRY

The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, is cooperating with State forestry agencies and private forest-land owners to promote effective protection and sound management of forest lands.

The Forest Service is cooperating with 44 States and the Territory of Hawaii to provide systematic protection against fire for State and private lands. Cooperative protection was extended last year to 4.8 million more acres, bringing the total area covered to 387 million acres. Some 44 million acres still remained to be covered by organized protection. Acreage burned on the protected areas was held to six-tenths of 1 percent of the area protected, compared with 11.3 percent on the unprotected area. The rate of burn on unprotected areas is 18 times greater than that of areas receiving organized protection.

_The Forest Service also cooperated with 44 States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico in the production and distrib~tion . of trees to farmers .and other landowners for forest and windbarrier planting. Distribution from the State nurseries last year amounted to some 559 million trees, an increase of about 60 million over the preceding year, and enough to plant about 560,000 acres. Interest in woodland planting was expected to increase still more because of the soil-bank program, in which tree planting is one of the authorized means for converting cropland to conservation uses. An increase in production of several hundred million trees a year is under way.

SENATE MONDAY, JULY 22, 1957

(Legislative day of Monday, July 8, 1957)

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

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

Eternal God, in whose peace our restless spirits are quieted, from the ft.ickering torches of our own desires and devices we would lift the difficult decisions of the public welfare into Thy holy light.

Be Thou our chart and compass amid the angry seas which assail our ship of state while the tempest still is high. Save the inner life of the Republic from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogance; and from all that embitters and divides.

Grant, 0 Lord, to the Members of this body, trusted by the people with vast powers as stewards of the world's future,

major rivers and - streams. They help protect the water supplies of some 1,800 cities and towns, of more than 13 million acres of irrigated farmlands, more than 600 hydroelectric power developments, and thousands of industrial plants.

PROGRESS IN FOREST RESEARCH

Another Federal-State cooperative program provides technical advice and assistance to woodland owners. Last year 38,121 owners received technical assistance on for est management problems. Products harvested under the guidance of the cooperative project foresters brought a total of $14,757,555 to the forest owners.

One of the major activities of the Forest Service, United States Depart

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS ment of Agriculture, has been research, The Forest Service, United State De- aimed at finding the best answers to

partment of Agriculture, is responsible many problems in forestry and wildf or the administration of a system of na- land management and in wood utilizational forests comprising in all about 150 tion. units, and totaling 181 million acres. The Forest Service maintains nine reNational forests are located in 39 States, gional forest and range experiment staand in Alaska, and Puerto Rico. tions in continental United States, with

Administration and development of the a number of branch stations and renational forests has progressed to a point search centers. New knowledge develwhere they are a significant factor in the oped through the work of these stations total national economy. Their resources has provided the basis for many manare the principal economic support of agement practices now widely used both hundreds of communities, and under the on the national forests and on the holdsustained yield management policy of the ings of progressive private timberland Forest Service they will contribute per- and rangeland owners. manently to the stability of those com- Research at the Forest Products Lab· munities. oratory, maintained by the Forest Serv-

National-forest timber is now making ice at Madison, Wis., has contributed an important contribution to the Na- hundreds of new or improved wood prodtion's timber supply. These forests sup- ucts, led to development of new indusplied 6.9 billion board-feet of timber last · tries, and brought about savings of milyear, a new record. The yearly cut will lions of dollars annually through imbe further increased as growing stock is provement of products or reduction of built up and as more roads are built to waste. give access to stands that cannot now be Among the many research accomplishreached. National-forest ranges last ments reported in the past year were year furnished 5.6 million cow-months .development of an effective method of .and 7.9 million sheep-months of seasonal fumigating seedbeds at forest tree nur_grazing for livestock, an important con- series to control root rot losses; new tribution to the Nation's production of techniques in wood boat construction to meat, wool, and leather. reduce decay losses; more economical

Recreational use of the national forests spraying procedures. for control of pine has doubled in the past 8 years. With bark b.e.etles. A hitherto unknown dis-45, 713,000 visits in 1955, the national for- ease causing losses of red, black and ests carried a big share of the Nation's scarlet oaks in the Northeast was disoutdoor recreation use. The total in- covered; research was started to detercluded more than 12 million visits by mine the causes and to develop control hunters and fishermen. procedures.

Of vital importance to local and na- Mr. Speaker, I commend Secretary tional welfare is the protection of water- Benson and the entire Forest Service sheds. National forests are located at for their record of accomplishment in the headwaters of many of this country's behalf of all our citizens.

a steadfast faith, a dauntless hope, an understanding charity, and a will to labor valiantly to open the gates of a new life for all mankind. Amen.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. JOHNSON of Texas,

and by unanimous consent, the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, July 19, 1957, was approved, and its reading was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the Presi

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

REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDER PUBLIC LAW 480, 830 CONGRESSMESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be-

f or:e the Senate the following message

from the President of the United States, which, with the accompanying report, was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry:

To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith the sixth

semiannual report on activities carried on under Public Law 480, 83d Congress, as amended, outlining operations under the act during the period January 1 through June 30, 1957.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, July 22, 19.57.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be

fore the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomination of Fred C. Scribner, Jr., to be Under Secretary of the Treasury, which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 12269 THE CIVIL RIGI-ITS BILL

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, we have apparently reached a point where we can dispose of a major issue in the pending bill. It is the section known as part III. The Senate has debated this section thoroughly. Every conceivable viewpoint has been presented. Every shade of interpretation has been explored.

One thing is apparent. Nobody knows what this section really means. The only clear certainty is that it grants broad powers, and the limit of those powers is undefined.

It has been argued that the President would not use these powers. I think that statement is probably accurate. I have confidence in the good faith and integrity of our President. But that is no argument to move responsible men.

I am confident that the President would never sanction the use of the "third degree.'' But my confidence does not mean that I would grant any President such power.

Our votes cannot be based on the assumption that the President will not use extraordinary powers if we go too far. We are supposed to vote our convictions as to the laws of the United States.

Part III merely complicates what should be the central theme of this billthe rig·ht to vote.

There are many persons who are ready to go as far as is legitimately necessary to guarantee that · right. They believe that with it, all genuine civilrights are possible; that without it, the others are a mockery.

They are not willing to complicate a simple and direct issue. Part III-with or without the use of troops-complicates the issue beyond human understanding.

It is my belief ·that this Senate can reach a meaningful conclusion to this debate. It is possible if we adhere to issues and avoid partisanship.

There are are other points in the bill which require clarification. A lengthy debate on part III might protract the legitimate discussion that is necessary.

I hope the Senate can reach an early vote on this question. It would clear the air and perhaps would pave the way ;for earlier votes on other issues.

Mr. President, today I shall pursue with all my energy an attempt to reach an agreement at the proper time to have the Set.ate vote on the Knowland-Humphrey amendment and on the AndersonAiken amendment.

Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senator from Texas.

THE DANGERS OF EXCESSIVE IMPORTATION.S OF CRUDE OIL

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, on Friday, the Texas Railroad Commission met to set oil production quotas for the mont h of August.

Once again, Texas oil producers will be allowed to produce for only 13 days of a 31-day month. Thus, for the second consecutive month, Texas oilmen face the lowest allowable in the history of Texas.

The State of Texas is, of course, dependent in large measure on oil and gas production, both for its general economy and for financing the State government. The effect of continuous reductions in production on the economy of the State is therefore quite obvious.

Not so obvious, however, is the longrange effect of these adverse economic conditions upon necessary exploration and drilling for oil. Drilling activity has declined continuously during the past 18 months. The full effect of lagging drilling operations is not felt immediately. Nevertheless, it is already clear that we are drilling too few wells to keep domestic reserves in proper relationship to withdrawals.

Mr. President, the unfortunate truth is that excessive imports of crude oil are eating away at the domestic oil industry and are undermining the security of our Nation.

Within a few years, if present trends are allowed to continue, the United States will be dependent on oil sources that would be completely unreliable at the very time we would need them most.

The Cabinet Fuels Policy Committee in its February 1955 report considered a 16.6 percent relationship of imports to domestic production to be the maximum safe level. In 1965, only 8 years from now, the relationship will be approximately 37 percent, if things keep going as they are going now.

Mr. President, there is simply no way by which we can force independent oil men to hunt new sources of oil. Their incentive is cut down sharply by the drastic curtailment of production made necessary by excessive imports. That is why the imports, at the point where th ey stand now, are a threat to our .nat iona,l security. They raise the possibility that one of these days we shall find we do not have enough oil when we must have it to survive as a Nation.

The administration has the authority to act to curb excessive imports of oil.

Action is past due. Mr. President, I urgently call for im

mediate and effective action to meet this threat to our national security.

TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. In accordance with the order entered on Friday last, providing a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with a limitation of 3 minutes on statements, morning business is now in order.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid

before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: AMENDMENT OF UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING

AND SERVICE ACT RELATING TO DEFERMENTS IN CERTAIN CASES A letter from the Secretary of the Army,

transmitt ing a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Universal Military Training and Service Act to authorize additional deferments in certain cases (with an accomp anying paper); to the Committ ee on Armed Services.

AUDIT REPORT ON REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF Am FORCE CONTRACT WITH GENERAL MOTORS CORP. A letter from the Comptroller General of

the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, an audit report on review of Department of t he Air Force Contract AF 33 (038)-18503 with Genera l Motors Corp., BuickOldsmobile-Pontiac assembly division, Kansas City, Kans. (with an accompanying re- . port); to the Committee on Government Operations.

ADMISSION OF DISPLACED PERSONS-WITHDRA WAL OF NAME

A lett er from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, withdrawing the name of John Koo Lee from a report transmitted to the Senate on February 1, 1956, nursuant to section 6 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, with a view to the adjustment of his immigration s t atus; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Pet itions, etc., were laid before the

Senate, or presented, and referred as indicated:

By the PRESIDENT pro tempore: A resolution adopted by the Griffin Circuit

Bar Association, of Fayetteville, Ga., recommending that Charles J. Bloch be appointed as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States; to the Committee on the Judici:uy.

The petition of Donald S. Nash, of Rochester, N. Y., praying for the .enactment of legislation to provide additional appropriations for the Talking Books for the Blind; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. · A telegram in the nature of a petition from Ma e Young, of Long Beach, Calif., relating to the proposed civil rights legislation; ordered to lie on the t a ble.

THE LATE SENATOR McCARTHYRESOLUTIONS

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, the Republican conference of the Senate on May 8, 1957, unanimously adopted a resolution expressing the sense of loss on the part of the members of that conference at the passing of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.

On May 11, 1957, the college caucus of the Massachusetts Council of Young Republican Clubs unanimously adopted a resolution of a similar nature with respect to the death of Senator McCarthy.

I ask unanimous consent that these two resolut ions be printed at this point in the RECORD, SO that we Will have a permanent record of the adoption of these sentiments concerning our departed colleague.

There being no objection, the resolution wer e ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JOSEl'H RAYMOND MCCARTHY Senator LEVERETT SALTONSTALL offered the

following resolution in a. combined meeting of the Republican minority conference and policy committee OJ.). Wednesday, May 8 , 1957, which was adopted by unanimous action:

"Whereas Almighty God in His infinit e wisdom has taken from us our beloved colleague, the Honorable Joseph Raymond McCarthy, late junior Senator from the State of Wiioconsin; and

"Whereas while he was in the . United States Senate he ren dered to our Nation and to his S tate a most distinguished service; and

12270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22 "Whereas he was our affectionate fr1end

and our esteemed colleague, ever ready to give of himself, of his efforts, and of his Judgment: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That we, the Republican colleagues in the United States Senate, of the Honorable Joseph Raymond McCarthy, express our sense of loss at his passing; and further

"Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to Mrs. Jean K. McCarthy, that she may be assured of our deep respect for her and of our condolences to her upon the passing of our friend, her husband."

Attest: LEVEREI'T SALTONSTALL,

Chairman of the Conference. STYLES BRIDGES,

Chairman of the Policy Committee.

MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL OF YOUNG REPUBLICAN CLUBS, BOSTON, MASS.

Be it resolved, That the college caucus of the Massachusetts Council of Young Republican Clubs does hereby express profound grief and sorxow at the passing of a great American and a distinguished Member of the Senate of the United States, Joseph R. McCarthy.

Adopted unanimously this 11th day of May 1957.

RICHARD MASTRANGELO, Vice Chairman.

SUZETTE DA UCH, Vice Chairman.

NORMAN WILLIAM SMITH, Jr., College Organizer.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees

were submitted: By Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina,

from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, with an amendm~nt:

S. 1903. A bill to amend section 7 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, as amended, relating to travel expenses of 'Civilian officers and employees assigned to duty posts outside the continental United States (Rept. No. 694).

By Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, with amendments:

S. 1631. A bill to amend certain sections of title 13 of the United States Code, entitled "Census" (Rept. No. 698).

By Mr. NEUBERGER, from the Committee on Post Office arid Civil Service, with an amendment:

S. 27. A bill to increase the rates of basic compensation of officers and employees in the field service of the Post Office Department· {Rept. No. 695).

By Mr. BYRD, from the Committee on Finance, with amendments:

H. R. 52. An act to provide increases 1n service-connected disability compensation and to increase dependency allowances (Rept. No. 696).

By Mr. CLARK, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, without amendment:

H. R. 6508. An act to modify the Code of Law for the District of Columbia to provide for a uniform succession of real and personal property in case of intestacy, to abolish dower and curtesy, and to grant unto a surviving spouse a statutory share in the other's real estate owned at time of death, and for other purposes (P..ept. No. 697).

BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first

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

By Mr. MANSFIELD (for himself and Mr. MURRAY):

S. 2596. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive

program of forest-fire research and to establish laboratories for research relating to forest fires, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

By Mr. BUTLER: S. 2597. A bill for the relief of Howard F.

.Knipp; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. LANGER:

S. 2598. A bill for the relief of Andreas Varlas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. NEUBERGER (for himself and Mr. MORSE):

S. 2599. A bill for the relief of Peter Kim May (Kim Paul) ; and

S. 2600. A bill for the relief of Patsy Deanne Roth (Huh Jai Soon); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. NEUBERGER (for himself and Mr. MORSE) (by request):

S. 2601. A bill to compensate the State of Oregon for fire-lighting costs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

By Mr. NEUBERGER (for himself, Mr. MURRAY, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. JACKSON, and Mr. CHURCH):

S. 2602. A bill to require that the three United States Commissioners on the International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

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

By Mr. IVES (for himself and Mr. JAVITS):

S. 2603. A bill to amend the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the con· struction, repair, and preservation of certain public worlcs on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," approved June 3, 1896; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. POTTER: S. 2604. A bill to amend the Railroad Re

tirement Act of 1937 and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

By Mr.HILL: S. 2605. A bill to amend title II of the

Social Security Act to provide that benefits payable thereunder shall not be considered as income in determining eligibility of veterans for non-service-connected disability pensions; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. KEFAUVER: S. 2606. A bill to amend Private Law 498,

83d Congress (68 Stat. Al08), so as to -permit the payment of an attorney fee; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HOLLAND: S. 2607. A bill for the relief of Thomas

Ginoza Bird and Susan Nakoma Bird; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HILL: s. 2608. A bill to amend the Civil Service

Retirement Act to provide that benefits payable thereunder shall not be considered as income in determining eligibility of veterans for non-service-connected disability pensions; and

S. 2609. A bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 to provide that benefits payable under such act or the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 shall not be considered as income in determining eligibility of veterans for non-service-connected disability pensions; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. LANGER: S. 2610. A bill for the relief of Michael

Alford Smith (Suh Kyung Shik); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mrs. SMITH of Maine: S. 2611. A bill for the relief of Pedro Mol

larinari Sanz; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WATKINS: S. 2612. A bill for the relief of Hendrlkus

Hartman; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PRINTING AS A SENATE DOCUMENT, SURVEY ENTITLED "NATIONAL P.OLICIES ON FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP" Mr. LONG submitted the following

resolution <S. Res. 169), which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration :

Resolved, That there be printed, with an illustration, as a Senate document a survey entitled "National Policies on Federal Land Ownership," compiled by Dr. John K. Rose of the Library of Congress, and that 3,000 additional copies be printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

COMPENSATION TO STATE OF OREGON FOR FIRE-FIGHTING COSTS Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, by

request, on behalf of myself, and my colleague, the senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to compensate the State of Oregon for fire-fighting costs incurred by the Oregon Forest Fire Association and the State of Oregon in extinguishing a for est fire on lands administered by the Department of the Interior. I am introducing this bill at the request of officials of my State, and I desire, at this point, to give a little of the history which leads up to the introduction of this bill.

The Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior has over 2 million acres of forest land which it manages in western Oregon, but, unlike the Forest Service, it does not directly provide fire protection Ior these lands. _Because these lands are intermingled with private lands, the Department of the Interior contracts the fire protection to the State and private forest fire associations who also protect the intermingled private land. This is a sound method for providing fire protection. In 1951 the Department of the Interior had a contract which specified that a certain amount per acre protected would be paid to the State. In that year a catastrophic fire, which cost almost half a million dollars to extinguish, swept almost 28,000 acres, including 11,000 acres managed by the Department of the Interior. This fire started on the lands of the Department of the Interior. After the fire was controlled, the State proceeded to endeavor to collect for the deficit it had incurred in extinguishing the fire. It is the position of the State that the Federal Government has a responsibility to contribute $184,101.89, and that, unless the Federal Government pays this amount, the cost of extinguishing· this fire will fall upon the land owners who finance the Forest Fire Association program and the State.

I was first advised of this situation on March 29, 1955, by Mr. Dwight Phipps, State forester of Oregon, who wrote to me and to all the other members of the Oregon d~legation. I immediately requested a report from the Director of the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior. The Bureau

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12271 advised me that they had not received a complete report on this matter, although the fire had occurred in 1951. Finally, in August of 1956, I learned that the question had been ref erred to the General Accounting Office, alt.nough the officials of the State had originally recognized in their well-prepared brief that legislation would be required to settle this problem.

I believe it is important and significant to quote from the original letter sent to all members of the Oregon delegation on March 29, 1956, by the Oregon State Board of Forestry, which said:

It is hoped that you will initiate , or assist in initiating with the other members of the Oregon Congressional delegation, the necessary legislation to provide for the requested Congressional appropriation of $184,-101.89. * * * This matter is of extreme importance to the fire-protection program ot the State of Oregon, thus, please advise by early reply as to the expediency of a separate appropriation bill.

I think it is important to make this statement a part of the RECORD, because it establishes that the State recognized from the outset that this was not a problem that could be determined administratively, either by the Secretary of the Interior or by the Comptroller General. It is a problem that could be solved only by legislation. I say this because on April 18, 1956, I wrote to the Department of the Interior and said:

If in your opinion the claim for $184,101.89 is a just claim, will you please provide me with a draft of legislation and justification in order that a bill may be presented to the Congress.

On April 3, 1957, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management wrote me explaining his delay in submitting a draft of the legislation by saying that the Comptroller General found no legal basis for a claim. At this time I would like to point out again that there was no doubt in the minds of those in the State that the contract calling for fire protection did not form a legal basis for a claim, but that the equities involved in the terrific fire catastrophe of 1951 provided the base for a just claim over and above the amounts called for in the then-existing fire-protection contract between the State and the Department of the Interior. I hope the committee to which this proposed legislation will be referred will give full consideration to the equities which are involved.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately i·eferred.

The bill <S. 2601) to compensate the State of Oregon for fire-fighting costs, introduced by Mr. NEUBERGER (for himself and Mr. MORSE), by request, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

CONFIRMATION OF PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES SECTION OF INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that I may pro-

ceed for not to exceed 5 minutes, in connection with a bill I desire to introduce.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Oregon? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I introduce today, on behalf of the senior Senator from Montana [Mr. MURRAY], the senior Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the junior Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the junior Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], and myself, a bill to require Senate confirmation of Presidential appointments to the United States section of the International Joint Commission which is charged with responsibility for settling international waterway problems between Canada and the United States under the treaty of 1909, and I ask that the bill be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

The bill (S. 2602) to require that the three United States Commissioners on the International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, introduced by Mr. NEUBERGER <for himself and other Senators) , was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the three United States Commissioners authorized to be appointed to the International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada, pursuant to the treaty between the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, signed January 11, 1909, shall hereafter be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Each such Commissioner serving on the date of enactment of this act shall continue to serve until his successor (as designated by the President at the time of nomination> takes office, but in no event shall any such Commissioner serve for longer than 90 days after the date of such enactment unless reappointed as herein provided.

Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, the bill proposes in legislative form a recommendation which I first made to the Senate in December 1955, when I reported to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on my trip to British Columbia to look into the status of plans for hydroelectric development on the upper Columbia River in Canada. The future of these plans, involves whether the high seasonal flow of the upper Columbia shall be harnessed in huge reservoirs to benefit both Canada and downstream projects in the United States, or instead diverted from the upper Columbia into the Fraser River entirely in Canada. This is un·questionably the most important problem now before the International Joint Commission. The developments at stake in the Columbia Basin are of vital importance to the people of the Pacific Northwest. They involve hundreds of millions of dollars. They include the great Libby project in Montana, authorized by Congress in 1950, as well as vast

Canadian water-storage reservoirs and power projects. Yet, until recently, the task of seeking the necessary terms of agreement and mutual accommodation between Canada and the United States to permit these developments to go forward was entrusted wholly to the International Joint Commission which, on the United States side, consists of three members appointed at the pleasure of the President for indefinite terms without Senate confirmation.

In the autumn of 1955 I found and reported to the Senate that efforts to agree on a mutually beneficial scheme of development had apparently completely stalled in the International Joint Commission, the United States section of which was then headed by former Gov. Len Jordan of Idaho. Governor Jordan's record on the question of expansion of the Federal power program in the Columbia Basin was not one to inspire confidence in his enthusiasm for doing everything possible to push toward early agreement. Consequently, the first two of six recommendations which I made to the Senate in December of 1955 were these:

First. That responsibility within the United States Government for these important negotiations be raised from the level of a purely advisory committee like the United States section of the International Joint Commission and be explicitly assumed by the policymaking executive departments themselves.

Second. That as long as United States members of the International Joint Commission are to play roles at least comparable to those of senior officers in the Foreign Service, their appointments be made subject to confirmation by t.lle United States Senate.

Mr. President, hearings were held by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, joined by a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in the spring of 1956, covering the substance of my report. They confirmed the fact that discussions within the International Joint Commission were hopelessly deadlocked. On the last day of the hearings, the committee was informed by the Department of State that on that day, the transfer of the negotiations to diplomatic channels was being announced by Canada and the United States. This had been my first recommendation to the Interior Committee.

However, hopes that this would mean a more vigorous pursuit of the goal of mutually agreed Columbia River development proved shortlived. The administration announced that the United States position to be presented in the diplomatic talks would be prepared by an interagency committee chaired by none other than Gov. Len Jordan.

Although Mr. Jordon put on another hat for this purpose, he was still Chairman of the United States section of the International Joint Commission-and he still was charged with responsibility for these most important and difficult issues dividing us and our close neighbor and ally, Canada, without having ever been con.firmed by the Senate for this taskalthough any beginning foreign service officer must be so confirmed . .

12272 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 22 M'KAY APPOINTMENT SHOWS NEED FOR

SENATE CONFmMATION

Now the case for requiring Senate con-. firmation of appointments to these important posts on the International Joint Commission has been made even more evident. Last Thursday, July 18, the aid.ministration announced the appointment to succeed Mr. Jordan of none other than former Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay.

It ·is not my purpose to criticize Mr. McKay personally or to object to his appointment to some Federal position generally, But considering that the most important and difficult issue before the International Joint Commission is the development of the Columbia River Basin, it is hard to imagine a ·more inappropriate Federal assignment to give to Mr. McKay than a position on the International Joint Commission. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement which I made on July 18 concerning Mr. McKay's appointment be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

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

EXHmIT 1 STATEMENT OF SENATOR NEUBERGER ON AP

P OINTMENT OF Ex-SECRETARY DOUGLAS

McKAY TO AMERICAN SECTION, INTERNATIONAL JOI NT COMMISSION

I am dismayed at the appointment of exSecretary McKay to a post charged with responsibility for negotiating with Canada an agreement to increase the capacit y of our Federal power system on the Columbia River. Upon these international discussions depend the benefits to the people of the Pacific Northwest of an additional 1,500,000 to 2,000 ,000 kilowatts from Federal dams on the Columbia . . The equivalent of three or four more Bonneville dams is at stake, and Iseriously doubt the wisdom of placing the fate of this vast power supply in the hands of a man who has implacably opposed expansion of the whole Federal power program.

While I therefore do not hav.e confidence in this appointment, Mr. McKay now has an opportunity to redeem and repair some of the terrible damage done to power development in the Columbia Basin during his administration of the Interior Department. When ex-Gov. Len Jordan, of Idaho, was Chairman of the Commission, our relations with Canada deteriorated to the point where Canadians have actually considered diversion of water out of the upper Columbia River, imperiling full production at United States powerplants downstream as well as the irrep laceable salmon runs of the Fraser River. Although there is nothing in his record to indicate that Mr. McKay will reverse the policies which have resulted in the present stalemate, I shall be pleased if he will tali;:e immediate steps to speed up the negotiations which have stalled so completely under Governor Jordan's chairmanship of the International Joint Commission.

The incredible choice of Mr. McKay for this key post, after last year's decisive repudiation in the Pacific Northwest of the resource and power policies With which he became identified as Secretary of the Interior, points up the need for action on niy recommendation of last year that appointment s to the . International Joint Commission at least should be subject to Senate confirmation. Mr. McKay's selection also makes all the more urgent early Congressional review of the status of the negotiations with Canada since the Senate hearings of last year, including full consideration of my proposal for

creation of a North Pacific Waterways Agency for the specific purpose of dealing with the problems of allocating the costs and benefits of river development on which the International Joint Commission has been deadlocked.

Despite my regret that this shockingly inappropriate appointment has been made, it is now my sincere hope that Mr. McKay will show more concern for the custodianship and best development of natural resources than he did as Secretary of the Interior, when the administration relinquished the irreplaceable Hells Canyon Dam site to partial ahd wasteful private exploitation.

Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I think it is safe to say that everyone familiar with the current problems of the International Joint Commission in the far Northwest of this continent has been amazed by Mr. McKay's appointment to the Commission. The singular inappropriateness of thi~ choice demonstrates the case for Senate confirmation of these important appointments. I do not state today that the Senate would necessarily reject Mr. McKay's appointment to the International Joint Commission if it were before us for confirmation. That would be beyond my power to predict, although, speaking for myself, I would oppose confirmation. But that is not the point. The point is that, if this appointment had been subject to Senate confirmation, it would almost surely never have been made.

I think my own record shows, Mr. President, that I am not one who constantly harps on t,b.e prerogatives of the Senate in its relat ions with the executive branch. I generally believe in giving the President of the United States, be he a Democrat or a Republican, adequate discretion to carry out his policies, particularly in the field of international relations-and that j_ncludes discretion in making· Executive appointments. However, it is obvious that Senate confirmation of important policymaking officers of our Government serves a useful purpose beyond any actual rejection of Presidentia1 appointments by the Senate.

As a matter of fact, it is extremely seldom that the Senate rejects an appointee. And the reason, of course, is that the mere existence of the power makes its exercise unnecessary. The very fact that an appointee must face the scrutiny of a confirmation hearing and Senate vote means that the Chief Executive will accommodate his important appointments to the limits of acceptability of the Senate. Those limits, as I have said, are and should be wide, but they cannot be ignored completely.

But, Mr. President, in the appointment of former Secretary McKay to the International Joint Commission, which is not subject to Senate confirmation, the Pres!. ident had and took advantage of an opportunity· to ignore wholly the limits of acceptability to the Senate. Consequently, the International Joint Commission must have seemed to the administrati-0n a very excellent and logical opportunity for an appointment for McKay. Where else. in our Government, can the President make a $20,000-a-year appointment of indefinite tenure without Senate con-firmation? ·

IJC'S WORK TOO IMPORTANT TO BE BEY-OND SENATE CONTROL

Mr. President, the work of the International Joint Commission, and the role of its Chairman in making United States policy in negotiations with Canada, are important enough to merit the attention of the Senate, especially when every vice consul and third secretary of any United States Embassy, and every postmaster and every collector of customs are subject to confirmation by the Senate.

Actually, outside the President's executive office itself, there are to my know1-edge no $20,000-a-year posts which do not require Senate confirmation.

Let me conclude these remarks by citing just a few facts to indicate the magnitude and the urgency of the issues involved:

First. The water storage capacity and the power potential of the upper Columbia River and its tributaries, the development of which has been stalled during the entire term of the present administration, are so vast that they dwarf even the great Hells Canyon storage and power project which the Senate voted to authorize last month. The Mica project at the Big Bend of the Columbia, in British Columbia, alone would store about 11 million acre-feet of water, three times as much as high Hells Canyon.

Second. The 5 million acre-feet Libby · project, on the Kootenai River in Montana just below the Canadian border, was authorized by Congress in 1950. In 1953 and 1954, it was widely touted throughout the Pacific Northwest as the next great dam to be staTted under the new Eisenhower administration. Nothing further has been heard about it since that time. For 3 years, there has been no progress on gaining consent for the construction of Libby Dam from Canada, where a large part of the reservoir would be located.

ThiTd. In the absence of agreement over the allocation to be made to Canada from downstream power attributable to Canadian storage projects, Canada actually began 2 years ago to study the possibility of diverting stored waters of the upper Columbia into the Fraser River system, where they would flow to the Pa.:. cific Ocean over a series of dams entirely in Canada. This would not only perma-. nently lose the benefits of this diverted flow to our own Pacific Northwest, it would also destroy the irreplaceable salmon runs of the Fraser River which are worth $32 n!illion annually to the fishing industry in both countries.

Fourth: The controversy which has stalled all progress on the upper Columbia for the past 3 or ~ years concerns the proper allocation between the United States and Canada of the costs and downstream benefits to be obtained from storage projects in Canada. It is in the natu1·e ·of large water-storage developments that they are economically feasible, ma.inlY because their . cumulative benefits downriver can be added to the benefits obtainable from power installations at the dam site. Thus, the allocation of downstream benefits is a crucial factor in the planning and construction of storage in Canada.

Such allocations are well recognized both in our qwn ;river basin plans-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12273 when we have an administration which believes in basin plans-and in our own Federal Power Act. Thus, in view of the long stalemate in the negotiations with Canada, I recently asked the Secretary of State to set forth for me the positions and proposals of the two parties on this subject, so that we might know how close to or how far from agreement we are, and what precise issues remain to be resolved. I also asked, in the light of Canadian demands for downstream benefits from future Canadian storage projects, what benefits we receive or have demanded from Canada for the improved flow at the Waneta Dam on the Pend Oreille River in British Columbia, as a result of the storage releases frQm the Hungry Horse Reservoir in Montana.

Mr. President, I think the letter I wrote to Secretary Dulles on these matters and the reply I received from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations speak for themselves. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

EXHIBIT 2 JUNE 17, 1957.

Hon. JOIL""i FOSTER DULLES, Secretary of State,

Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: During the past few

weeks, representatives of your Department initiated negotiations with representatives of the Canadian Government looking toward agreement on the issues which are delaying development of the upper Columbia River Basin in British Columbia. As you may know, I have followed with great interest the course of United States-Canadian relations with respect to these Issues, having traveled to the areas concerned on behalf of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular A1fairs and having participated in Senate hearings. on the subject in 1956. The potential storage development on the upper reaches of the Columbia and Kootenai Rivers in Canada, which is being delayed by disagreement, is of immense importance to the lower Columbia basin in our own Pacific Northwest. In fact, to overcome this delaying disagreement, I first suggested in my 1955 report the transfer of negotiations from the International Joint Commission to the respective diplomatic departments of the two governments, which has subsequently occurred.

I am therefore writing to ask you what progress has been made on these important negotiations since their first announcement on May 23, 1956. In addition to such general review of the status of these negotiations as you may be able to provide, I would be interested in having specific information on certain questions.

It has been difficult to determine the exact positions of the two governments toward the issues under negotiations, beyond the information placed on record in the 1955 hearings of the Canadian Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs and the 1956 Senate hearings. The main, and I believe decisive, point in _ controversy involves specifically the valuation to be placed on the additional power which may be generated at d-ownstream 1nstallations in the United States as a result of storage reservoirs built uptream wholly or partly in Canada, and whether these benefits attributable jointly to United States and Canadian geography and installations should be accounted for between them by a division of power, by continuing payments for the equivalent value of power, by lump-sum cash payments, or

by a combination of these methods. (I may add that, in Senate Resolution 121, I have myself offered an alternative proposal, but your Department has already commented ad.: versely upon it.)

I would, therefore, appreciate answers to the following questions to clarify the basis of the present negotiations:

1. What is the United States position toward valuation of downstream benefits from Canadian storage? What have we proposed to Canada, either in a diversion of power, in payments for power, or in lump-sum participation in the costs of upstream-storage development? In other words, wha t are the terms of the United States to Canada with respect to flood control and power benefits attributable to storage reservoirs wholly or partly on Canadian soil?

2. What is the Canadian position toward this valuation issue? What has Canada proposed to the United States, either in a diversion of power, payments for power, or other settlement for downstream benefits? What are the terms of the Canadian position expressed to the United States with respect to benefits attributable to storage reservoirs wholly or partly on Canadian soil? (During the recent Canadian election campaign, the press in British Columbia reported ministerial speeches referring to a 50- 50 split of downstream power between the two nations. Has such a proposal ever been mentioned to the United States?)

3. The Waneta project on the Pend Oreille River in British Columbia enjoys a substantial incremental power benefit as a result of the operation oi the storage reservoir behind Hungry Horse Dam, upstream on the south fork of the Flathead River in Montana. I am informed that Hungry Horse storage has increased the capacity of the Waneta project from 203,000 to 273,000 kilowatts. The installations of the two nations in this instance are in the exact reverse situation from that under negotiation with respect to upstream storage reservoirs to be built in Canada.

What accounting is today made as between the two nations with respect to those substantial downstream benefits in Canada attributable to the Hungry Horse reservoir? If none has been made, what demands has the United States made for such an accounting, and what proposals has Canada made to compensate the United States for these downstream benefits, or to divide the Waneta power increment attributable to Hungry Horse storage?

I understand that the change in the Canadian Government may perhaps affect the course of these negotiations. Nevertheless, I would appreciate knowing the specific positions and proposals of the two Governments which have formed the basis of negotiations so far, as outlined in my questions above. I cannot overemphasize that rapid progress toward agreement on upper Columbia development is of the utmost importance to the future of the State which I help to represent in the S:mate, and to the other States of the Columbia River Basin, and I trust that constructive proposals toward a mutually acceptable basis for such development will be processed by this Government on as urgent a basis as possible, with full consideration for whatever counterproposals may be made by the Government of Canada.

Respectfully, RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

United States Senator.

EXHIBIT 3 DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

. Washington, July 9, 1957. The Honorable RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Your letter of

June 17, 1957, refers to discussions between representatives of the United States and Canada concerning problems and issues aris-

ing out of waters whlcn cross the United States-Canadian boundaries and requests a review of progress made to date in this regard. As you will recall, Prime Minister St. Laurent suggested in March of 1956 that diplomatic discussions of transboundary waters would be helpful and President Eisenhower concurred.

Much preparatory work was required on both sides, and the first of what will probably be a series of discussions was held on May 20-21, 1957, in Washington. I am enclosing a copy of a press release describing this meeting with the Canadian authorities. During this meeting steps were proposed toward further facilitating the current exchange of information in the field of transboundary waters. This Department will send you details concerning the latter point as soon as arrangements have been completed.

I shall take up the questions raised in your numbered paragraphs in the same order as they appear in your letter.

( 1) I believe that the latest specific expression of United States Government opinion with regard to the valuation of downstream benefits from Canada storage is found 1n the State Department's statement in reply to the Canadian Government's response to our application for Canadian approval of the Libby Dam project on the Kootenai River in Montana. Among other things, this statement in reply said that "the Government of the United States is prepared to consider equitable recompense to Canada through the sale of power, or otherwise for the value which the Canadian natural resources would have for the production of power, taking into account the extent to which the project will result in compensatory benefits in Canada." Since that time no concrete proposals in this field have been made by Canadian authorities. Their reply in the matter of the Libby Dam application is still being awaited. Generally speaking, there seems to be a widespread recognition of the need to compensate upstream interests for works provided by them which redound to the benefit of downstream interests. The difficulty lies in finding a formula for implementing such compensation, assuming that there is no legislation that would prevent such action. It is, as you know, a very complex subject.

(2) The Canadian Government has not made any concrete proposals concerning the valuation issue. Consequently, this Department is unable to describe the canadian position, except by reference to public sources such as those mentioned in your letter. There is enclosed, however, a summary report of statements made by Mr. John Diefenbaker, now Prime Minister of Canada, during an election campaign speech last May 23 concerning the development of the Columbia River.

(3) I believe that no arrangements have been made for payments by the owners of the Waneta project in British Columbia for benefits received as a result of. storing water upstream in the Hungry Horse Dam. There have been no diplomatic negotiations regarding this subject. and no requests for compensation have been made through the State Department.

This Department agrees with you concerning the importance of the subjects raised in your letter and is well aware of the great interest you have shown in this field. Please call upon us whenever you find it desirable to do so.

Sincerely yours, JOHN S. HOGHLAND II,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

(For the Secretary of State.)

Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, it is plain from this exchange of con:espondence that, as of today, the Eisenhower administration has no program

12274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 22

and no position toward the development of the upper Columbia Basin, with its vast potential benefits for the lower basin in the Pacific Northwest. Only the most preliminary, wholly exploratory, brief meetings have been held in the negotiations which were announced with such fanfare more than a year ago. We are no further along than 4 years ago. RENEWED SENATE HEARINGS SHOULD SPEED

SEARCH FOR EARLY SOLUTION

I do not blame the Department of State for this. As negotiators in this difficult and technical field, they cannot prepare their own position; they mu~t develop their policies and proposals m collaboration with other executive agencies. What is obviously lacking is any real drive, any motive power within this administration, to make a concerted effort to reach early agreement, when the goal is the further development of the Federal power system of the Columbia Basin.

we have become used to this lack of drive and enthusiasm, to put it euphemistically, in everything the administration has done with respect to the Columbia Basin. Perhaps we would be naive to expect anything else in the context of negotiations with Canada concerning the upper Columbia and related resource matters. On the ;record, I think we may be justified in the suspicion that the administration just is not trying. · And the McKay appointment to the International'J oint Commission goes far toward turning such a suspicion into certainty. For who could have been chosen for this post who is less likely to impress the people of the vast area involved-both in the United States and in Canadawith this administration's eagerness to break the logjam and speed forward toward early Columbia Basin development?

For this reason, Mr. President, I hope that hearings may soon be resumed in the Senate on the status of these negotiations. I assume that the bill I introduce today, providing for Senate confirmation of appointments to the International Joint Commission, will be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. My proposed resolution, Senate Resolution 121, recommending establishment by Canada and the United States of a new North Pacific Waterways Agency, has also been referred to that committee. It is my hope, therefore, that members of that distinguished committee will again join with members of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, as in 1956, to hold hearings in which we may see what can be done to stimulate faster progress toward agreement. We trust that our Canadian friends and we ourselves can get to work on the best mutually beneficial development of the water resources which are so vital to the future prosperity of the Pacific Northwest in both countries, and which are now so tragically being allowed to go to waste.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. I wish to associate

myself with the general remarks made

by the Senator from Oregon. I hope the bill will pass.

I wish to remind the new appointee, however, that we in the Northwest have waited a long time to get some of these agreements because of the inactivity of the International Joint Commission. I hope the Commission will not continue to operate in the same fashion.

Mr. NEUBERGER. I thank the Senator from Washington for his observations. I -was very much pleased to note that the distinguished senior Senator from Washine-ton, in his able speech at the dedication of the Ice Harbor Dam project on the Snake River, some weeks ago, emphasized the urgent importance of reaching an agreement with our Canadian friends for the starts at Mica Creek, Arrow Lakes, and Libby, which could do so much to help the Pacific Northwest.

I think the Senator from Washington pointed out that these projects would add the equivalent of approximately 4 more Bonneville dams to our power production in the Northwest, if something can be started in Canada.

Under the present administration, no affirmative, effective · steps han been taken to achieve the necessary agreements.

CHANGE OF REFERENCE Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, it

has come to my attention that S. 1984, to provide for the transfer of the Civil Service Commission Building in the District of Columbia to the Smithsonian Institution to house certain art collections of the Smithsonian InstitutiJn, was referred to the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee.

This bill involves the transfer of a public building, a matter which is clearly under the jurisdiction of the Senate Public Works Committee. Therefore my office has discussed this with· the staff of the chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, and I have been advised that it is his desire that the Post Office and Civil Service Committee be discharged from further consideration of the bill and that it be referred to the Committee on Public Works for further consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be discharged from the further consideration of S. 1984, and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Public Works.

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

AMENDMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT-ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF BILL Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] may be added as an additional cosponsor of the bill (S. 2550) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, introduced by me on July 15, 1957.

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

Mr. CLARK. I thank the Sena tor from Minnesota.

ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTICLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE RECORD On request, and by unanimous consent,

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

By Mr. TALMADGE: Address delivered by him before the an

nual department convention, American Legion of Georgia, Augusta, Ga., July 20, 1957.

By Mr. REVERCOMB: Address delivered by him before the State

convention of the Sons of Italy, at Logan, W. Va.; on July 15, 1957.

By Mr. CAPEHART: Colloquy between him and George J. Bur

ger, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business, before Senate Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. CASE of South Dakota: Article entitled "Indian Lands, Indian

Rights, and the Stockgrower," written by him and published in the South Dakota Stockgrower of July 1957.

ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERATION OF MALAYA AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY WITHIN THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi

dent, on Friday, July 19, the British House of Commons passed a bill providing for the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the British Commonwealth. When Malaya achieves its independence on August 31, it will bring to seven the number of nations now free, which before World War II were under British control. This list also includes India, Ceylon, Pakistan, Burma, Ghana, and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Of these nations, all but Burma have remained as members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, this action by the House of Commons warrants our deepest approbation. The breakup of the western colonial system is one of the significant phenomena of the 20th century; and the attainment of freedom, independence, and self-determination by peoples in an orderly and constructive manner such as this, promotes, in the finest way, respect and support for the principles of law and peace.

We in America congratulate the English Parliament on this magnificent action. Its great history of high statesmanship and devotion to liberty and freed om has been manifested once more in the passage of this act.

Mr. President-The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Senator from New Jersey.

AMERICAN FJELD SERVICE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR STUDY BY FOREIGN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, as many of us did last Friday, I had the delightful experience of meeting some 250 foreign high-school students who have spent the past year in America as members of a group of recipients of American Field Service

1957 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 12275 scholarships. Thirteen of these- young people from 10 different lands were guests in my State of New Jersey. The enthusiasm and interest of these intelligent young people were proof positive of the enormous value of this fine program.

For 11 years the American Field Service has been active in promoting exchanges of American and foreign young people, and the members participating have increased every year. Many of these youngsters will be tomorrow's leaders in their home countries, and the bonds which have. been forged during their sojourn in America can be the . means of further uniting the free nations in the years to come.

For over 30 years I have been intimately concerned with the subject of student exchanges, and I can state with conviction that the most effective way to inform people about America is to have young enthusiastic people come here and live with us for a period of time.

Human contacts are the great things which will move us toward ultimate world peace. The more of these young

. people that come to us, the more we shall have going back as ardent crusaders for the American way of life. They could not be hired to do it. One cannot hire people to sell our way of life abroad and to promote understanding as effectively as that is accomplished through such programs as this. One cannot develop any propaganda comparable in effect to the influence of human beings who come to the United States and get the inspiration of the American story.

Mr. President, I salute the American Field Service and the many fine people who are associated with it for the great contribution they are making in the interests of deeper understanding between peoples of the nations of the world and for peace.

Mr. President, I have another matter to which I desire to refer.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey may proceed.

·MUTUAL SECURITY AUTHORIZA'.TION ACT OF 1957

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, the passage in the House on Friday of its version of the Mutual Security Authorization Act of 1957, which differs considerably from the Senate bill and from what the President regards as essential for tbe country, has caused concern among many of us on both sides of the aisle. Several of the Nation's leading newspapers have already expressed their anxiety about the effect of this action on the security of our Nation and of the Free World.

In an editorial in yesterday's-Sunday's-issue, the New York Times states:

If that were to be the final Congressional word on the matter, the consequences could indeed be grave. As President Eisenhower warned, it would compel some of our stanchest allies to cut down their armaments on the front line of Free World defense and thereby encourage further Communist aggression. • • • Should our support to them be cut-

It continued-

it would compel us to reverse the present military trimming process and increase our own armaments at far greater cost and at the expense of our present disarmament efforts.

The New York Herald Tribune char· acterized the House action "as a blow to national security and to that of the Free World."

Mr. President, I call to the attention of the Senate these considered appraisals by two of the leading dailies in the country, and I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New York Times of July 21, entitled "Impairing Our Security," and one from the New York Herald Tribune of July 22, entitled "A Blow To Security," be printed in the body of the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: (From the New York Times of July 21, 1957]

!MPAmING OUR SECURITY

Ignoring President Eisenhower's warning against impairing our national safety, the House of Representatives has approved a badly battered mutual-security program which falls far short of what the administration regards as essential to make it really effective. The House beat back isolationist efforts to shelve the program entirely and in a final scramble authorized the expenditure of $3,116,833,000 for it. But that is $747,577,000 below the President's final, trimmed-down request, more than half a billion dollars below the total authorized by the Senate and even more than a $100 million below the recommendations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

If that were to be the final Congressional word on the matter, the consequences could indeed be grave. As President Eisenhower warned, it would compel some of our stanchest allies to cut down their armaments on the front line of Free-World defense and thereby encourage further Communist aggression. That is especially true in the cases of Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan, which, in the President's words, "face potentially active military situations." But it is equally true in the cases of Turkey and Pakistan, members of the Baghdad pact, which guards the Middle East. Should our support to them be cut, it would compel us to reverse the present military trimming process and increase our own armaments at far greater cost and at the expense of our present disarmament efforts.

The drive for the House cuts was spearheaded by a bipartisan bloc in the name of economy. But the economy it espouses is a false economy which may have to be paid for in American flesh and blood. It is also a political fence-mending economy designed to preserve the issue of so-called foreign aid as a political football to be kicked around in order to deflect attention from local pork-barrel splurges. This is demonstrated by the fact that the House not only refused to put direct military-aid expenditures into our own defense budget, of which they are an integral part, but also rejected the administration's plan of putting economic aid on a long-term and ultimately self-sustaining basis.

Fortunately the House action is not the last word on that subject. The House bill now goes to the Senate-House conference, where the greater sense of responsibility displayed by the Senate should prevail. But President Eisenhower has obviously a fight on his hands, not only in the conference but also in the later appropriation debates, and it must be hoped that he will take new steps to rally public support behind a program upon which our own security depends.

[From the New York Herald Tribune of July 22, 1957]

A BLOW TO SECURITY

The House vote on the mutual-security authorization bill was a blow to national security and to that of the Free World. The overall total voted was 20 percent below what the administration, after a most careful study of world needs and conditions, had requested. Defense support, perhaps the most necessary item in the bill, in light of the fact that the Soviet Union has used an economic spearhead to press its political drive, was cut one-third. And the development loan fund, another important weapon in this struggle and one which represents a major step toward a real economic foreign policy for the United States, was held to 1 year, instead of the 3 the President had requested.

One of the most dangerous features of this vote is the fact that it applies only to authorizations; traditionally, the actual appropriations are likely to be trimmed below the authorized figures. Having sponsored a measure which falls so far short, in anticipated expenditures as well as in the method of disbursing the funds, of what the situation demands, the House has invited even more perilous prospects in later debates.

The only hope of salvaging the situation now lies in the House-Senate conference committee, which will attempt to reconcile the differences between the bills passed by the two Chambers. The Senate bill was far more forward looking, far more in line with what the administration has asked. It included $800 million for defense support, which the President felt was adequate, rather than the $600 million in the House bill. It indorsed the long-range planning made poss'lble by a 3-year authorization for the economic development loan fund.

The Senate's awareness of the hard facts of the world in which we live should be refiected in the conference committee report and in the final House action. Any Congressman who fiouts the President's grave warning that excessive cuts and alterations in the mutual-security program can be considered as no less than a threat to our Nation's security ~nd that of the Free World will be hard put to it to justify his vote to his constituen~ and to history.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi·

dent, I have had the pleasure of commending the Senate for its reasonable and able discussion of the civil-rights bill on several recent occasions. The debate on this important issue has attracted the attention of the country, and has reaffirmed the faith of the people in the rational approach to complex legislation through deliberation by our representative bodies.

Yesterday, the New York Times devoted its lead editorial to a discussion of the Senate's proceedings on this bill, and called attention to the fact that "a moment in history has arrived." To date, the Senate has acquitted itself in admirable fashion. A continuation of this spirit and approach will result in ef .. fective legislation in a field where it is sorely needed, and a heightened respect and admiration for our democratic processes.

I ask unanimous consent that this editorial from the July 21st issue of the New York Times be printed in the body of the RECORD at this point in my remarks.


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

A MOMENT IN HISTORY

History is not always an affair of battles or elections. It is sometimes a matter of ideas, growing slowly but seeming to appear suddenly. This year we have arrived at a moment in history with the Senate debate on the civil-rights bill. It is a moment comparable with 1870, whe!l the 15th amendment was ratified, and with the contested election of Hayes in 1876, which by a· twist _of circum.stances resulted in the end of carpetbagging in the south. It is a moment marking the probable restoration to the Negro of some of the rights given to him by the 14th and 15th amendments and taken from him after the white South resumed control of the situation.

The Eisenhower administration, with the backing of 168 Republicans out of 187 voting, and of 118 Democrats out of 225 voting, pushed the civil-rights bill through the House on June 18. There is little doubt that it could have been pushed through the Senate by a good majority if it could have been brought to a vote there after a normal <lebate. Some Senators who were not satisfied with the bill as it stood would still have supported it rather than have no civilrights legislation at all.

Under the Senate rules, of course, normal debate of such an issue was not possible. The minority was ready, as usual, to invoke the filibuster and tie up the ent_ire legislative business of Congress in order to frustrate the majority.

There had, however, been two changes in the situation-truly historic changes. First,

· it was·no longer politically expedient for the southern diehard minority to filibuster against placing the bill on the calendar. This minority, or its articulate spokesmen, contented themselves with pointing out certain defects and dangers in the measure. The bill seemed, for example, to justify calling out Federal troops to compel southern communities to integrate their schools.

But . the second change in the situation was that many Senators who supported the bill were willing to compromise on this and other points, so long as the essentials of the 15th amendment--that is, the right to vote, regardless of race-were retained. The meaning of this willingness to compromise is clear. There would have been no need for it if the Senate were heading for another prolonged filibuster, with an inevitable surrender at the end to a reckless and irresponsible band of obstructionists.

The Senate is not heading for such a surrender. It is heading for a civil-rights bill, which has a fair chance of being passed at this session and which will guarantee the Negro the protection and remedies of the Constitution, if any community continues to restrict his franchise on account of his race. The bill will not specifically guarantee the Negro the right to attend an integrated school, although he will still have remedies, under the Supreme Court decision of May, 1954, and under subsequent court orders, if that right is denied him.

The southern bloc has made an issue of the bill's provision for citation, trial and punishment for contempt of court without jury trial. Yet such contempt proceedings, as th() President has said, are a traditional means by which Federal courts enforce their orders.

The old and tiresome words and phrases are being heard and will continue to be. But this is a contest in which the ancient war flags had better remain furled and the drums be silent. The old South has changed, for its own good. The Negro has advanced in education, in self-knowledge and in capacity for good citizenship. Our position in the world demands democracy of us at home. We must all be equal and friends together,

as President Eisenhower said in another connection at his latest press conference, or we may all perish together.

A moment in history has arrived. Let us make note of it, turn a new page, begin another chapter.

THE ANDERSON-AIKEN AMENDMENT ·AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr.

President, I desire to make a statement of my position on the pending legislation which will take not more than 3 or 4 minutes.

I will vote for the Anderson-Aiken amendment to strike part III from the pending civil rights bill. Part III, by incorporating by reference the unfortunate excesses of legislation of the reconstruction era, raises questions of interpretation which, it seems to me, unwise to include in the bill at· this time.

I have a strong conviction that we must do all in our power this year to pass a bill giving the Negroes of the country the protected "right-to-vote." This is the first priority of all civil rights legislation. Our Negro population should not continue to have only second-class citizenship. If part III is stricken from the bill, we shall still have parts I, II, and IV, with the "right-to-vote" protected.

In the event that we could agree on a satisfactory substitute amendment to

· take the place of part III and make the . bill wider than limiting it · simply to the "right-to-vote," I would, of course, be prepared to vote for such an amendment.

As part III now reads, if it is included, it will either end in no civil rights bill this year, because of a successful filibuster, or in a futile bill because the attempted use of Federal force against a united and opposing area of the country could never be successful. The use of the Armed Forces of the United States is indefensible.

It is my feeling and sincere hope that our Southern colleagues would not oppose too seriously a "right-to-vote" bill, which would include parts I, II, and IV, as suggested above. I appeal to them to permit the passage of such a bill without too prolonged debate if we strike out part III.

I do not feel that this is a compromise. I feel it is what might be called constructive selectivity. We need not, and should not, include in this bill at this time the enforcement of the Supreme Court's segregation decision. That operation is being developed State by State by court action, as recommended by the Supreme Court itself. It would be confusing to the entire present steady march of judicial progress if the Attorney General were now given the power and were directed to bring about school integration by force.

The big question seems to me to be: Shall we now unitedly join in a sincere movement toward real cooperation, with a view to accomplishing first things first-the "right-to-vote"?

The passage of parts I, II, and IV, and the striking out of part III would give us the first sound, honest, statesmanlike civil rights law since the Civil War. It would be a real step to wipe out

the bitterness of the tragic and indefensible reconstruction era.

It is my considered judgment that if we adopt this "right-to-vote" approach, and strike out part III, limiting the bill to a "right-to-vote" bill, there would be no need or justification for the adoption of a jury trial amendment.

Mr. President, I shall support the Anderson-Aiken amendment.

TAX RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESS Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the

Senate may recall that I introduced a bill (S. 150) on January 7, 1957, and this bill was offered as an amendment during Senate debate on extension of corporate tax rates <H. R. 4090) on Maren 26, 1957. My amendment would have reduced the normal tax rate on corporate income from 30 percent to 22 percent, and was identical in principle with the unanimous recommendation of the President's Cabinet Committee on Small Business. ':'he significant difference is that my amendment would have raised the surtax rate to avoid a revenue loss, whereas the Cabinet Committee's proposal would cause a substantial reduction in Federal income.

Largely because of opposition generated at the White House, my amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 33 on March 27, 1957. Only five members of the President's party voted to reduce taxes for low-income corporations. I bring

· the matter up at this time, Mr. President, because I have just received an indirect expression from the President, that he is opposed to my proposal. This indirect reply arrived on July 16-more than 5 months after I wrote the President asking his views on my bill.

This reply-a letter dated July 15, 1957-addressed to me by Mr. I. Jack Martin, administrative assistant to the President, does not comment upon my· bill. Rather, the letter transmits a carbon copy of a letter dated July 15, 1957, addressed to Chairman Jere Cooper o1 the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.

The letter to Chairman COOPER was signed by the President, and contains a flat statement that the President is opposed to the Fulbright resolution. Although I am not an author of any resolution on this subject, the text of the letter would indicate that the President is, in fact, expressing his opposition to the bill, S. 150, and to my amendment No. 2-27-57-B to H. R. 4090.

I wrote the President on February 5, 1957, and called his attention to the similarities in principle and · in technique between my bill and the recommendation of his Cabinet Committee on Small Business. For the information of the Senate this recommendation reads as follows:

That the taxes imposed on business corporations be modified by reducing the tax rate from 30 percent to 20 percent on incomes up to $25,000.

It should be remembered that this recommendation was made on August 7, 1956-a few days after the Congress adjourned and just prior to the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. Two days later, on August 9,

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 12277, 1956, the President congratulated his Cabinet Committee and stated as follows:

I want to assure you that I shall give the recommendations of the Committee the prompt and favorable consideration they deserve-both in preparing for executive action and in drawing up the administration's legislative program for the new Congress.

Now, 5 months after my letter of February 5, 1957-the President has written Chairman JERE CooPER that my proposal "would discriminate against the overwhelming majority of small businesses which are not conducted as corporations." The President has to admit, however, that this objection also applies to the recommendation of his Cabinet Committee-the same recommendation which the President so warmly endorsed in August 1956, just prior to the election.

I suppose that the White House is operating on the mistaken theory that a poor excuse is better than none. The true reason for the President's opposition appears almost as an afterthought in his letter. He thinks it would be unwise to reduce taxes for small companies, which constitute about 98 percent of corporations, and to raise taxes slightry for big companies, which constitute about 2 percent of corporations. I have no real hope that a Republican President will ever see the wisdom of helping the economically weak before they completely succumb under the heels of the economically strong.

Mr. President, I am not surprised that it required 5 months for the White House to answer my letter. I am not surprised that the answer comes in the form of a carbon copy of a letter addressed to another Member of the Congress. I am surprised, however, that the answer is so feeble. Certainly, the agile minds of the team could be expected to formulate objections which do not strike down the very first recommendation of the Cabinet Committee on Small Business-recommendations so highly publicized last fall. The committee was told by the President in August 1956, that their recommendations deserved prompt and favorable consideration. The committee is told by the President -in July 1957, that at least their first recommendation "would discriminate against the overwhelming majority of small business." This argument is without substance, but I will reserve a rebuttal of this fallacy for a later date.

But the most annoying element in this ·weird series of events is the apparent pride which the administration takes in this letter of July 15 to Chairman Cooper. In his press release No. 353, dated July 16, 1957, Wendell B. Barnes, Administrator of the Small Business Administration, describes the President's gracious gesture in answering on July 15, 1957, a letter addressed to him on February 15, 1957, by Chairman Cooper. It should be noted, Mr. President, that the . July 15 reply carefully avoids the usual reference to the date of the letter being answered.

In press release No. 353, Mr. Barnes says that "The President's tax proposals for the benefit of small busi-

ness make me feel as though Christmas had come in July for small business." I submit that the celebration of Christmas in July is far more likely than any real concern about small business by this administration. In 1956, the administration proclaimed a small business Christmas in August, but Christmas passed, and Santa Claus must have been recuperating from the hypocrisy of the campaign because the promised presents were not delivered. In 1957, the administration is proclaiming a small business Christmas in July-a date during the Congressional session safely beyond the date for action. Thus, Christmas in 1957 will also pass and Santa Claus will again have no presents for small businesses.

Where was Santa Claus in January 1957, when advocacy of legislation had some chance of success? Where was Santa Claus in March 1957, when corporate tax rates could have been lowered for small business firms? Where will Santa Claus be next January, when the Congress reconvenes? Mr. President, I become ill with regret and remorse when I see a so-called businessman's administration slowly starving small businesses with carrot-on-a-stick techniques as appetizers, legislation by press release for a main course, and Christmas-inJuly promises as dessert.

Even the most intelligent doubletalk eventually ceases to soothe a disgruntled audience, and the doubletalk from the White House is no longer intelligible. I believe that most small-business men prefer to celebrate Christmas in December and, if they are to survive at all, to pay smaller tax bills in April. If the administration can be convinced of the validity of this preference, perhaps this natural order of events will occur and tax relief for small businesses will be realized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point (1) my letter of February 5, 1957, to the President, (2) the letter of July 15, 1957, from Mr. I. Jack Martin, and (3) the letter of July 15, 1957, from the President to Representative JERE COOPER. ·

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

FEBRUARY 5, 1957. The PRESIDENT,

The White House, Washington, D. C .

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I write you in the hope that you share my grave concern about the trend toward concentration of economic power among fewer and fewer business units. I believe that a primary factor in this trend toward concentration is the Federal tax structure.

The report of your Cabinet Committee on Small Business, submitted to you last August, recognized inequalities in the practical effects of Federal tax laws and made several recommendations for change. Specifically, the Cabinet committee recommended as follows:

"l. ·That the taxes imposed on business corporations be modified by reducing the tax rate from 30 percent to 20 percent on incomes up to $25,000."

"2. That businesses be given the right to utilize, for purchases of used propert y not exceeding $50,000 in any 1 year, the formulas of accelerated depreciation that were

made available to purchasers of new property by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954."

"3. That corporations with, say, 10 or fewer stockholders be given the option of being taxed as if they were partnerships."

"4. Tha't the taxpayer be given the option of paying the estate tax over a period of up to 10 years in cases where the estate consists largely of investments in closely-held business concerns."

I realize that these recommendations would involve some revenue loss for the Federal Government and that the committee's view was conditioned on the event that the budgetary outlook remains favorable. I note, however, that your letter of August 9, 1956, addressed to the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, assures him that you will "give the recom•mendations of the committee the prompt and favorable consideration they deserve-both in preparing for executive action and in drawing up the administration's legislative program for the new Congress."

Your recent messages to the Congre~s appear to endorse some of these recommendations, but most interpreters of your messages construe them to request a continuation of existing -corporate tax rates. For instance, your letter of January 23, 1957, transmitting your economic report, contains a statement that "the Congress should continue tax rates at their present levels." On page 53 of the economic report there appears a statement that "the congress should give early consideration to those Cabinet Committee recom-· mendations for tax relief that would involve only a minimum loss of revenue." Furthermore, your budget message for fiscal yeci.r 1958, as reported on page 603 in the CoNGP..ESSIONAL RECORD for January 16, 1957, contains the statement that you "must also recommend that the present corporate tax rates be continued for another year."

These statements, taken together, lead me to conclude that you have not given favorable consideration to recommendation No. 1 ot'. the Cabinet Committee on Small Business, and that your position is based in a determination that this recommendation would involve a revenue loss greater than can be afforded at the present time.

If this be the case, and if you are genuinely impressed with the need for tax relief for

· low-income corporations, I respectfully invite your attention to my bill (S. 150). This bill would adjust the normal and surtax rates on corporate income in such a way that lowincome corporations would receive a small tf1x reduction and the Federal income would be slightly increased. It would seem to me that this proposal satisfies the almost universal desire to correct a t ax bias now operating to the detriment of low-income corporations, and satisfies the necessity to maintain present levels of Federal revenue.

Since there is considerable speculation in the press and in the minds of Members of the Congress concerning the feasibility of proposals contained in my bill, as well as i.n the bills introduced by other Members of Congress, I would appreciate receivine some e::pression from you or other responsible offi cials in the executive branch concerning the merit of the bill, S. 150.

Respectfully yours, J. W. FULBRIGHT.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, February 7, 1957.

The Honorable J. w. FULBRIGHT, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: For the Presi

dent, I am pleased to acknowledge your February 5 letter respecting corporate-tax legislation and to assure you that a further reply will be forthcoming at an early date.

With kindest regards, Sincerely,

I. JACK MARTIN. Administrative Assistant to the President.

12278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 22 THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, July 15, 1957. The Honorable J. w. FULBRIGHT,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: With further reference to your letter concerning corporate-tax legislation, I herewith send you a copy of the letter that the President has sent to Congressman JERE COOPER, chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, in response to his letter concerning your proposal and other questions relating to this matter.

You will note that besides discussing your proposal and reviewing the administrative action which has been taken to help small business, the President makes some suggestions which he hopes the Congress will consider.

With best wishes, Sincerely,

I. JACK MARTIN, Administrative Assistant to the President.

JULY 15, 1957. Hon. JERE CooPER,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, D .. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your letter regarding small business. As you will recall, the Cabinet Committee on Small Business made 14 recommendations, including suggested changes in the tax laws. the latter conditioned on the budgetary outlook. It was suggested, subject to the existence of appropriate budgetary conditions:

1. That the taxes imposed on business corporations be modified by reducing the tax rate from 30 percent to 20 percent on incomes up to $25,000.

2. That businesses be ·given the right to utilize, for purchases of used property not exceeding $50,000 in any 1 year, the formulas of accelerated depreciation that were made available to purchasers of new property by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

3. That corporations with, say, 10 or fewer stockholders be given the option of being taxed as if they were partnerships.

4. That the taxpayer be given the option of paying the estate tax over a period of up to 10 years in cases where the estate consists largely of investments in closely held business concerns.

It now appears that the excess of income over disbursements in the fiscal year 1958 will be so small that no action should be taken by the Congress at this time which wlll involve any substantial tax reduction for anyone. In the economic conditions that prevail currently and can be expected during the next fiscal year, all the income which the present tax laws provide should be reserved in order to maintain the balance between income and outgo as now estimated an"d to make modest reductions in our national debt.

Therefore, it would be ill advised to consider the first recommendation noted above, because of the substantial revenue loss that it would entail. Also, in the absence of a general tax reduction, which the budgetary situation does not permit at this time, a tax reduction of this character would discriminate against all the many small businesses which are conducted in the form of partnerships or individual proprietorships.

The Congress should, however, in connection with its study of cases of unusual hardship or unfairness in the operation of the tax laws, appropriately consider some of the other suggestions, which involve no more than a minimum loss of revenue.

On that basis, I commend for your committee's consideration the second; third, and fourth recommendations in the committee's report as noted above, and one additional change in the law to permit an original investor in small business the right to deduct

from his income, up to some maximum amount prescribed by Congress, a foss , if any, realized on a stock investment in such business. At the present time the deduction of such losses from income is subject to the general limitation on net capital losses of $1,000. Each of these proposals could be helpful in the financing, operation, or continued independent existence of small businesses.

In your letter you asked for my views concerning the Fulbright proposal for reducing the normal tax on corporations from 30 percent to 22 percent and increasing the surtax on corporate incomes over $25,000 from 22 percent to 31 percent. This proposal would increase the tax rate on the portion of the income in excess of $25,000 to 53 percent. Since about 85 percent of the small-business firms are proprietorships and partnerships, it is not fair to give tax relief to small-business concerns which are organized as corporations at the expense of other taxpayers.

I earnestly loolt forward to reductions in tax rates for all taxpayers as soon as that becomes possible. Until that time, selective relief of the sort contemplated by the Fulbright proposal, and indeed by the first recommendation of the Cabinet Committee, would discriminate against the overwhelming majority of small businesses which are not conducted as corporations at a time when we must stand against any tax revision for anyone which might jeopardize our small budget surplus. Furthermore, in view of the very high rates now in effect, it would be unwise to increase the taxes on any group of taxpayers in order to provide a tax reduction for another group, as would be done by this proposal. For these reasons, I am opposed to the Fulbright resolution.

I know you are also interested in the status of the several Cabinet Committee recommendations relating to matters other than taxes. As I mentioned above, the Committee gaye me 14 recommendations for governmental action, only 4 of which dealt with taxes. Of the remaining 10 recommendations, some have been carried out by the executive branch; others must await Congressional action before the executive branch can act upon them. The following is a current status report on these 10.

In its recommendation No. 5, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That the President arrange for a comprehensive review of procurement policies and procedures of all departments and agencies, including the legislation pertaining thereto, with a view to facilitating and extending the participation of small businesses in work on Government contracts."

On September 2Q, 1956, I directed the Administrator of the General Services Administration to plan and conduct such a review, in cooperation with other major procurement agencies. The first summary report of the task force set up by the Administrator of the General Services Administration under this directive was issued on March 1, 1957. Several important improvements in procurement procedures have already been accomplished as a result of the task force efforts, and a comprehensive proposal for amendments to the procurement laws has been developed by the task force and is currently being reviewed by the cognizant executive agencies. The purpose of the amendments being reviewed would be to bring about greater uniformity and simplification of Government procurement procedures, and to improve the opportunities of small businesses to participate in Government work.

In its recommendation No. 6, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That the President direct departments and agencies engaged in extensive procurement to adopt procedures which would insure that a need for advance or progress payments by a bidder will not be treated as a handicap in awarding a contract, and which would facilitate and acceler-

ate the making of such progress payments as may be requested by small suppliers under Government contracts." In my letter of August 18, 1956, I directed the procurement agencies to implement Recommendation No. 6. In order to insure uniformity among the various agencies the General Services Administration on December 31, 1956, laid down a Governmentwide regulation prescribing policy and procedures in consonance with recommendation No. 6. Federal agencies are taking steps to comply with this:

In its recommendation No. 7, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That the Renegotiation Board clarify the fact that, although a contractor who subcontracts work may not reasonably expect to be allowed as large a profit thereon as if he had done the work himself, the puctice of subcontracting-especially the extent to which subcontracts are placed with small businesses-is encouraged by giving it favorable consideration in determining allowable profits."

On September 24, 1956, the Renegotiation Board amended its regulations to give effect to this recommendation.

In its recommendation No. 8, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That the life of the Small Business Administration, which is now scheduled to expire in mid-1057, be extended at the earliest opportunity."

Administration bills (S. 1789 and H. R. 6645), would remove the time limit on the life of the Small Business Administration, thus giving it permanent status.

In its recommendation No. 9, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That the maximum amount of an issue of corporate securities which the Securities and Exchange Commission may exempt from registration be increased from $300,000 to $500,000."

I have recommended this change. Legislation (S. 810 and S. 843) is now before the Congress to carry out this recommendation.

In its recommendation No. 10 the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That the President call a conference on technical research, development, and distribution for the benefit of small business."

I have directed the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to make plans for this conference. These plans have been announced and a Conference on Technical and Distribution Research for the Benefit of Small Business will be held in Washington, September 24-26.

In its recommendation No. 11, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That legislation be enacted to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers."

Legislation to accomplish this objective is before the Congress, and the Attorney General has outlined administration views in testim-0ny before the House Judiciary Committee.

In its recommendation No. 12, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That procedural changes be made in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement."

I have recommended three procedural changes in this area: first, that cease and desist orders of the Federal Trade Commission under the Clayton Act be final when issued, unless appealed to the courts; second, that the Attorney General be given the power, where civil procedures are contemplated, to issue a civil investigative demand, thus making possible the production of documents before a complaint is filed, and without the need of grand-jury proceedings; third, that the Federal Trade Commission, in merger cases where it believes a violation of the law is likely, be authorized to seek a restraining injunction before filing a formal complaint.

In its recommendation No. 13, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That wage reporting by employers for purposes of social secu

. rity records and income tax withholding be simplified."

. -1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12279

Legislation (H. R. 8309) to give effect to this recommendation has been submitted to the Congress. •

In its recommendation No. 14, the Cabinet Committee proposed: "That the Office of Statistical Standards of the Bureau of the Budget undertake a comprehensive review of the reports and statistics required of small businesses."

The Bureau of the Budget has underwav a study designed to determine whether the reports and statistics which small business must now maintain for, or supply to, the Government are unduly burdensome and, where necessary, to suggest remedial measures.

Pending the achievement of budgetary conditions that will permit a general program of tax reduction, these proposals for changes in our tax laws would appreciably improve the ability of small businesses to get started and, once started, to grow. Along wit h the administrative actions taken in other areas, and with favorable attention by the Congress to administration proposals for measures to benefit small business not yet enacted, they would provide a balanced program of constructive aid at a minimum loss of tax revenues. Such aid is keenly needed by small business, the economic position of which is vitally important to the soundness and vigor of our system of free competitive enterprise.

With kind regard, Sincerely,

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. Mr.

President, there is now much discussion throughout the Nation relative to the interpretation of our laws. Many feel that we do not have the right to criticize the opinion of any of our courts. Personally, I feel that this is the wrong conception of the American ideal. Our courts are a part of our system of government, and they have the privilege of defending themselves when under attack.

Arthur Krock, the very able Washington correspondent for the New York Times, made some comments which were commented upon by the Washington <Pa.) Reporter Thursday, July 18. The author of the Reporter article ably discussed that we have much legislation where a reference is made to another law. He mentions that Thomas L. Anderson, a Washington, Pa., lawyer, made the comment that the State constitution of Pennsylvania prohibits more than one subject in a law, and that subject must be clearly stated in the title.

I ask unanimous consent that the article ref erred to may be printed as a part of my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

[From the Washington (Pa.) Reporter] GUARD IN STATE CONSTITUTION STRESSED BY

LOCAL ATTORNEY-POINTED OUT AS "CIVIL RIGHTS" BILL Is BEING DEBATED The anticipated long and hot debate on

the civil-rights bill by the Senate has drawn the fire of lawyers from all over the Nation with emphasis being placed on the growing custom of reverting to legislation by reference.

In TUesday's issue of the New York Times, in the column by the distinguished member of the Washington, D. C., staff of the Times and political writer of long and meritorious

service, Arthur Krock, the matter is dealt with in some detail and reference is made to the comments of lawyers across the Nation.

Among the comments was one from one of the attorneys of the Washington County bar. Thomas L. Anderson, of Washington, wrote "We do things better in Pennsylvania. For 80 years the State constitution has provided that a statute may contain but one subject, clearly stated in the title, and set forth in the body of the text."

This statement from the local l awyer led Mr. Krock to comment as follows: "This provision did not, of course, save Pennsylvania's antisedition law (upheld by the State courts) from the Supreme Court's decision that a State may not use its police power agains t subversives-a ruling based on the Court's assumption that Congress desired to preempt this field. But the Pennsylvania formula for legislative draftsmanship is excellent, just the same."

The point that is stressed in Mr . Krock's summation of legislation by reference is the one dealing with a punitive law against the South passed by the Reconstruction Congress in 1865, authorizing the Executive to call out the troops to enforce the execution of judicial process. And the judicial process covered in part III now includes Supreme Court decisions since 1954 that ban all public forms of racial segregation.

On this point President Eisenhower has found it necessary to publicly reject any idea of using troops to enforce school integration. Mr. Krock's column in full follows:

"WASHINGTON, July 15.-The heavy weather encountered by the administration's civil rights bill, even in areas where the forecast was friendly, is the product of several forces. But it is evident that one of these forces was created by the device of legislation by reference that the drafters of the measure employed in part III.

"This device consists of invoking in the text on an amended statute a law already on the books that in turn invokes a number of others. In the administration bill now being debated in the Senate the statute invoked for enforcement of racial desegregation was section 1985, title 42, United States Code. This was incorporated in the measure by a single blind reference. It was blind because of the fact that 1985 invokes three other sections of the Code. One of these, 1993, a punitive law against the South passed by the Reconstruction Congress in 1865, authorizes the Executive to call out the troops to enforce the execution of judicial process. And the judicial process covered in part III now includes Supreme Court decisions since 1954 that ban all public forms of racial segregation.

"THE PENNSYLVANIA FORMULA "This sleeper in part III was uncovered by

Senator ERVJN of North Carolina in the hearings before a Senate judiciary subcommittee last winter. But not until Senator RussELL of Georgia dramatized the potentialities of this reference in his recent speech did the public, including the President, become aware by means of it that the new judicial process could be enforced by the military if and when the Executive chose to do that, as well as by new and drastic procedures by the Executive in the Federal courts. The sound consequence is the growing movement in which some of the stanchest champions of equal rights have enlisted, to strike part III from the administration text.

"The Federal practice of legislation by reference is a vicious one," is among similar comments made to this department by lawyers who have been following the Senate debate. "We do things better in Pennsylvania," writes Thomas L. Anderson, a distinguished lawyer of Washington, in that Commonwealth. "For 80 years the State Constitution has provided that a statute . may contain but one subject, clearly stated

in the title, and set forth in the body of the text." This provision did not, of course. save Pennsylvania's antisedition law (upheld by the State courts) from the Supreme Court's decision that a State may not use its police power against subversives-a ruling based on the Court's a ssumption that Congress desired to preempt this .field. But the Pennsylvania formula for legislative draftsmanship is excellent, just the same.

A REVEALING EXPERIENCE The experience of a Washington lawyer

who was asked to draft an apparently simple amendment to section 243 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 furnishes a startling revelation of the dangers implicit in the Federal practice of legislation by reference. He made a preliminary check of the single reference incorporated in the section he was asked to amend and discovered that the procession of statutes it invoked was as follows:

Section 243 (a) incorporated 244 ( 1) , which in turn incorporated these sections of the statutory code-247, 368 (a) 371, 1081, 1082, 1083 (plus an indefinite number of others in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939). Section 368 (a) incorporated 354, 355, 356, and 357. Section 371 incorporated 77 (m) of the Bankruptcy Act, chapter 10 of the Revenue Code of 1954 "and corresponding provisions of prior law." Section 1081 incorporated 1082 (a), 6501, 6503, and 3 and 11 (b) of the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935. Section 1082 incorporated 167, 611, 613, 1081 (a, b, d (1) and e), and 372 of the Revenue Code of 1939 before its amendment in 1942, also 3 corresponding provisions in prior revenue laws. Sect·ou 1083 incorporated "any section of the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935."

"A LEGAL WILDERNESS "When the lawyer had run down these

first seven invocations he was obliged to 'leave to the imagination the infinite possibilities' of what additional laws this second crop would invoke in the application of the simple amendment he was aslted to draw. It also must be left to the imagination the accountability of any citizen thrust into this wilderness of references.

"Lawyers and occulists are the obvious beneficiaries of this legislative drafting practice. But no others come to mind; certainly not litigants. And in the instance of the administration's bill, which was publicized and generally accepted as a measure principally to punish infringements of 'the right to vote.' the practice appears in its most misleading guise in part III.

"The rules of the Senate, which assure minute e·xamination of legislative texts and protracted debate, make this branch the only forum in which the public can be fully informed on issues that are latent in many proposals. These issues cannot be developed under the limitations of discussion that the size of the House makes necessary there."

REQUEST OF METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT A DAM IN BRIDGE CANYON Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, it

is not an easy nor is it a pleasant task for me to stand on the floor of the Senate today to take to task certain people living in our sister State of California. I find it difficult because of the warm feeling of friendship I have for both of the distinguished · Senators who represent that State in this body, and also because I know that the great majority of the citizens of that State resent the action which prompts my remarks.

12280 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE July 22 Mr. President, not content with- now

taking all of the water from the Colorado but a piddling amount which is allowed to ft.ow into Mexico, to satisfy the water treaty with that country; not content with now receiving the lion's share of the power developed at Hoover, Davis and Parker Dams; California-no, let us confine it; the Department of Water and Power of the city of Los Angeleshas applied to the Federal Power Commission for authority to construct a dam in Br.idge Canyon. This is typical of the callous lack of conscience displayed by this group throughout history. More than 40 percent of the Colorado Basin is in Arizona, but California gets the water. Arizona and Nevada both are in the lower basin, but the metropolitan water district wants all the power. Arizona and Nevada both have an interest in any new dams which might be constructed in the reaches of the canyons above Hoover Dam, but California ignores this. This dam site which they seek is entirely in Arizona, it is a site which is necessary to the ultimate development of the central Arizona project and Arizona, through its power authority, has had on file for years an application for it.

California has water sources within her boundaries which are so enormous that they waste themselves into the sea, yet this group-the Department of Water and Power of the city of Los Angeleshovers over Arizona's drying up water holes with the covetous eyes of buzzards waiting for death finally to come so that they may feast completely on what belongs to us.

I remarked facetiously a while back on this floor that California occasionally makes claims concerning the Grand Canyon. I was joking then, but now that joke turns into a serious reality. Bridge Canyon is in the Grand Canyon. It is one of the finest dam sites left on the Colorado, and now the city of Angels wants it. Oh, but that the ghost of Junipera Serra or of Padre Kino might come back to walk among the people who inhabit that city so that they could again kindle the fires of brotherly love; so that they might again remind those people that what is not theirs should not be coveted; so that what little water is left to Arizona, after years of supplying the Mexican Water Treaty and of Los Angeles' siphoning the mairi stream away, might at least flow onto our parched lands and caress our dry lips unt11 the Supreme Court rules on the suit now before it to decide the question of rights.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous conEent that an editorial from the Arizona Republic entitled "Incredible Grab" and an editorial from the Phoenix Gazette entitled "New Low in Water-Grab Trickery" be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

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

[From the Arizona Republic] INCREDIBLE GRAB

Southern California water hogs have outdone themselves in sheer effrontery. They have staked out a claim to a hydroelectric dam site wholly within the State of Arizona.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and _ Power is asking the Federal Power Commission for a permit to construct a $400 million dam and power project at Bridge Canyon on the Colorado River.

Not only is Bridge Canyon a part of Arizona, to which California has not the . slightest claim, it also is the key to the central Arizona project, which this State has been urging Congress to authorize for years. As far back as 1939 Arizona applied to the FPC for authority to erect a multipurpose dam at Bridge Canyon. But southern Oalifornia greediness knows no bounds. Presumably our neighbors would file a claim to the State capitol building in Phoenix if they thought they could use it.

The Los Angeles plan calls for a dam nearly as high as Hoover Dam. It would back up 3.7 million acre-feet of water in a new and bigger version of Lake Mead. California hasn't said anything about evaporation frbm this vast reservoir, but we look forward to the day when the power interests in Los Angeles announce that' they expect the water evaporation to be charged to Arizona, since the dam is to be located here. The power, however, will all go to Los Angeles, which admittedly has oil to produce all the electricity it needs, but prefers to get cheaper hydroelectric power at the expense of Arizona.

The arrogance of southern California is almost unbelievable. It not only wants all the water of the Colorado, in direct opposition to the Santa Fe compact, the self-limitation act, and the law of the river, but also wants the right to make power with Arizona water on Arizona soil at a site which Arizona has long planned to use in an effort to solve its own water and power problems.

Los Angeles' claim is so preposterous that one can hardly take it seriously. But Arizona must take it seriously. There are no limits to the ambition of the people who live in what is grotesquely named the City of L'os Angeles

[From the Phoenix Gazette] NEW Low IN WATER-GRAB TRICKERY

Southern California never has hesitated to steal water from any source it could · exploit at the expense of other Western States. But the Los Angeles proposal to build a power dam at Bridge Canyon on the Colorado River re'presents a new low point in the long record of California water trickery.

The Bridge Canyon site lies wholly within Arizona. And it has long been the proposed location of the key structure in the central Arizona project, conceived many years ago in an effort to help this State obtain its fair share of water from the Colorado and bring it into the water-short central Arizuna valleys.

Knowing this, the southern California water interests either seek to cripple the future development of central Arizona or else they hope to influence the current Supreme Court test with their fantastic proposal. In either event, the Los Angeles action has made it clear to all that southern California will stop at nothing-regardless of the cost to others-in its efforts to take over the Colorado River and, if possible, all of the water in it.

The ridiculous Bridge Canyon raid has one bright spot, however. It should aid Arizona in proving before the Supreme Court that southern California cannot be trusted where Colorado River water is concerned. This is not new, but it bears constant reiteration through the Nation.

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

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is recognized.

Mr. KUCHEL. On.my own time, then, Mr. President, I wish to thank my delightful friend, the Senator from Ari-

zona, for warning me in advanoe that he intended to engage in a diatribe against the people of California, particularly the city of Los Angeles, so that I might be on the ftoor to listen to him and, in a sentence or two, dispose of the gratuitous insults which he has lodged against a. very great and progressive municipality in this Nation.

All I wish to do, Mr. President, is ta say this: The city of Los Angeles, througb its department of water and power, act~ ing in a perfectly legal fashion, has filed an application before the Federal Power Commission all in accordance with Fed~ eral statute for a license to expend a half billion dollars of its own money to construct a dam on the Colorado River. The city of Los Angeles has a legal right to do that.

If representatives of the people of my sister State of Arizona want to object to that, they have a perfect right to come into court and make their objection, and have it considered by the Federal Power Commission, created by Congress for exactly that jurisdictional purpose.

Mr. President, I regret exceedingly that my delightful friend, the Senator from Arizona, has used such epithets as "buzzards" to describe his neighbors. I do not intend, during the time that I remain in the Senate, to engage in that kind of debate or vituperation.

I wish to say that it is qu.ite apparent from what the junior Senator from Arizona has said he is completely unaware of and unacquainted with the facts of the situation. I suggest that rather than indulge his personal spleen, he acknowledge what the truth is; namely, that the city of Los Angeles is the great metropolitan area it is today because of a vision and a zeal upon the part of its pioneers that the city needed to develop water resources by which to sustain the millions of people who intended to come there and who live there now. It is to their credit, Mr. President, that today people representing that great municipality have taken advantage of the provisions of law and have filed an applica- · tion to develop additional power which that city will need so desperately in the future.

Mr. President, on another subject-Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, a

point of personal privilege. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, are we still

in the morning hour? Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, may we have order? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

time of the Senator from California has expired. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] is recognized.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I desire to have printed in the RECORD a news release which is pertinent to the subject just discussed. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield to me for that purpose? ·

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. KUCHEL. I thank my frie:Q.d, the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a news release from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power be printed in the RECORD fallowing

1957. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 12281 the colloquy I had with the junior Senator from Arizona.

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

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power today (July 15, 1957) filed with the Federal Power Commission in Washington, D. C., an application for a preliminary permit for a $400 million dam and powerplant project at Bridge Canyon on the Colorado River.

Transmission line construction to deliver the power to Los Angeles would cost another $109 million, bringing the total proposed project investment to more than $500 million, it was stated.

"This is · a long-range program that is keyed to the constantly expanding growth of Los Angeles,'' said J. C. Moller, Jr., president of the board of water and power commissioners. "It may be 1966 before Bridge Canyon power is available to the local market.

"It is one of the last large blocks of hydro- · electric power remaining to be developed on the Colorado River. If it can be brought here in time, it will be possible to defer presently scheduled construction of some steam-plant generating units by several yea rs."

Moller said the amount of power that can be generated by harnessing the energy of falling water at Bridge Canyon would save 6,750,000 barrels of oil each year that otherwise would have to be burned in producing the same amount of electric power in the department's loeal steam-generating plants.

The 750,000-kilowatt capacity of the proposed new plant is almost twice the share of Hoover Dam generating capacity allotted to Los Angeles. It ls sufficient to completely meet the power needs of a city of 1,500,000 population, based on present rate of use.

Outstanding features of the project described in the formal FPC application signed by General Manager and Chief Engineer William S. Peterson include a dam 673 feet in height. The massive structure would be of concrete arch gravit:sr design and would contain 5,700,000 cubic yards of concrete, compared with Hoover Dam's 3,250,000 cubic yards. (Hoover Dam is 726 feet tall.)

The dam-site is in Arizona, 117 miles upstream from Hoover Dam at the approximate location where Lake Mead now ends. It is 252 miles downstream from Glen Canyon Dam on which preliminary work already has been· launched by the Federal Reclamation Bureau as part of the upper Colorado storage project. .

The reservoir created by the dam wouid have a storage capacity of 3,700,000 acre-feet, and would extend to the lower edge of the Grand Canyon. •

Today's action by the department of water and power in filing an application with the FPC to appropriate water for development of power follows a series of studies dating back to 1943. At that time Department officials made · ari engineering and reconnaissance trip to the Bridge Canyon dam site.

Although the cost of the new power supply delivered in Los Angeles would be only slightly less than present costs of steam-generated power, it would not be subject to the uncontrolled price fluctuations of fuel oil used by local steam plants. The recent jumps in fuel prices have forced the department to ask city council to add a fuel-adjustment clause to the city's present electric-rate ordinances; Peterson said.

Legislation seeking construction of Bri~ge Canyon Dam and powerplant by the Recla- · mation Bureau as part of the proposed central Arizona project was approved twice by the United States Senate, but failed to secure passage in the House of Representatives.

Economic and engineering objections raised nationally against the Arizona irrigation plan

CIII--772

would not apply to the filing made today for a power project by the department of water and power, it was declared.

During the 3-year period that the preliminary FPC permit would be in effect, department engineers will carry on extensive surveys and other necessary studies at an estimated cost of $750,000. Actual construction of the project would require 6 years, it was estimated.

WHEN FEDERAL BAYONETS DID RULE THE SOUTH

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. Presijent, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD an outstanding article from the July 26, 1957, issue of the U. S. News & World Report. It is entitled "When Federal Bayonets Did Rule the South"-and is most pertinent to the debate on the proposed amendment which is now being considered by the Senate.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WHEN FEDERAL BAYONETS DID RULE THE SOUTH

Bitter memories of the past crop up in the argument over Negro rights in the South.

Southerners are recalling another day when the Federal Government moved in with laws to tell the States what to do.

Take a look at what happened in the days of reconstruction after the Civil War

Soldiers, then politicians, then looters and thieves invaded the old Confederacy.

They decided who could and couldn't vote, decreed what the law would be, rewrote State constitutions as they saw fit.

Result then: Civil rights-and propertyof Southern whites all but vanished.

The time when Northern bayonets, Negro legislatures, carpetbag and scalawag governments ruled the South is being recalled by Senators from the States of the old Confederacy in today's battle over civil rights.

A move by the White House has revived those bitter memories. A new legislative proposal was aimed at reviving some of the reconstruction acts that followed the Civil War, using them as a basis for new plans to project Federal power into the South to police race relations.

For 10 years-from 1867 to 1877-Northern troops occupied a conquered South. The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, relating to race relations, were adopted by the vote of Southern States that were under military occupation. There was no alternative to approval. The States could not obtain readmission to the Union until they adopted the 14th amendment. They did so in a period of military rule by the North over the South that still is remembered with bit-terness by southerners.

Senator HARRY F. BYRD, Democrat, of Virginia, opposing a revival of the reconstruction acts, told the Senate: "I represent a great Commonwealth which within the memory of some of our people was Military District No. 1 in the United States. We have felt the heavy heel of Federal dictatorship at our throat far more than any conquered country." The same thr-ead runs through the speeches of Senator W. KERR SCOTT, Democrat, of North Carolina, and others.

Few Americans today are informed about the period that theEe Senators are recalling.

There was no Marshall plan to rebuild the South at the end of the Civil War. Yet it was a land of desolation. It had been drained dry of men and resources by the war. It counted 258,000 dead in battle. The army of Gen. William T. Sherman had burned its way from Chattanooga to Savan.:. nah, from Savannah to Raleigh. Many

thousands of whites had no homes. And almost 4 million Negroes, just out of slaveryignorant, homeless and helpless-were scattered across the 11 States.

Military dictatorship: In the North, there were many who complained that the Federal military commanders had granted surrender terms that were too liberal. There was much criticism of the moderate plan President Lincoln had devised for reconstruction. After Mr. Lincoln's assassination, radical Republicans in Congress thrust aside his plan and took over the South as a conquered province. The North ruled most of the 11 States as such for almost a decade.

· This period of Federal rule in the South produced strange scenes.

Federal agents moved through the South preaching to the Negroes hatred for their former masters, organizing them into masses of voters whom they marched to the polls. A large share of the southern whites were disfranchised. Radical Republicans in Washington directed the work.

With the support of Federal bayonets, un- · scrupulous whites from the North had used the Negroes to take over the governments of the Southern States. Negroes, carpetbaggers and a scattering of their southern sympathizers, called "scalawags," filled the legislatures, took over State, county, and city offices. They looted the States systematically, exploited hatred between the races in the South, took everything of value that was not nailed down.

The end result was to destroy the twoparty system in 'the South. Old-line Whigs turned in desperation to the Democratic Party. And not since Reconstruction has the modern Republican Party managed to make a dent in the solidarity of most of the States of the deep South.

Occupation: The bitter days for the South began in March 1867, when an army of occupation moved into the area. The conquered States were divided into 5 military districts. ruled by 20,000 Federal troops and Negro militiamen. Civil governments that had been operating for a year under the reconstruction plans of Presidents Lincoln and Johnson were thrown out.

With the troops came hundreds of northerners, many of them bringing all their belongings in carpetbags. Thus, they got the name "carpetbaggers." They floated through the area, mingled with the Negroes. Some were from the Republican Party's Union League Clubs of New York and Philadelphia. Others were Federal agents, paid by the Government, devoting their time to party organization.

Thousands of local officials were thrown out of office to make room for the newcomers and former slaves. Six governors were displaced. Three legislatures were purged of men who might prove hard to handle. Sheriffs, county and city officials, judges were thrust out of office. State laws were modified or set aside. Back of the civilian invaders stood the power of the United States Army.

The first task assigned to the military commanders by the radical Republicans in Washington was to enroll a new electorate. The Boards of Registry were composed of Army officers, officials of Federal agencies, discharged Union soldiers, and Negroes. A few white natives cooperated. Federal agents and Union League men informed the freed Negroes that the Government required their enrollment in political clubs and their registration.

Revised lists: In five States-South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana-more Negroes than whites were registered. Only a small majority of white voters showed in Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, and Texas. In the latter five States, the white voting lists were combed through to make certain that the

12282 CONGR~SSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22 radical Republicans would control the governments. Tennessee, whose earlier reconstruction had not been set aside, escaped the brunt of the new invasion.

Earlier constitutions drawn up by the 10 States were thrown out. Each of them was r equired to write a new constitution, giving the franchise to the Negoes, taking the vote away from anyone who had taken part in or given comfort to those who had fought in the war. This covered most of the white people in the South. At the same time, as a condition of readmission to the Union, they were required to ratify the 14th amendment, and to assure the vote and other civil righ t s to the Negro. Every Confederate State except Tennessee had rejected this amendment when first submitted.

With the registration lists purged by the military commanders, delega tes were elected to State constitutional conventions. At the same time the Southern States were being compelled to vote to give the franchise to the Negro, the Northern State of Ohio was reject ing by a la rge popular majority a State constitutional amendment to permit Negroes to vote.

To get out the vote for the constitutional conventions, military commanders kept the polls open 2 or 3 days in each State. In Georgia, polls remained open 5 days. By this time, large numbers of Negroes were organized in the Union and Loyal Leagues and sworn to obey orders. In North Carolina, they had been ordered to enroll in the leagues. The Negroes generally were marched en masse to the polls by their white organizers.

New constitutions. The convent ions that wrote the new constitutions for the States were dominated by carpetbaggers and Negroes. In Alabama, an Ohioan serving as temporary chairman recognized a Pennsylvanian who nominated a New Yorker for secretary. Often, the delegates had never J

seen the districts they represented. Among the Negro delegates chosen to draft State constitutions, large numbers could neither read nor write. In the South Carolina convention, there were 63 Negro and 34 white delegates.

In all the new constitutions, except that of Georgia where a native white had managed to hold the governorship, there was wide disfranchisement of the whites. Almost invariably this was put through by the carpetbaggers and usually over the pro tests of Negro delegates. In Virginia, the carpetbaggers ignored a personal appeal made in the convention by Gen. John M. Schofield, the military commander of the district, that such restrictions not be written.

Under the new constitutions, the carpetbaggers were placed firmly in control of every southern State except Tennessee and, to some degree, Texas. They moved into most of the governorships, filled the legislatures and State and county offices with Negroes and scalawags who would obey orders.

New voters. The Negroes, ignorant, just out of slavery, were as helpless as the whites under their new northern masters. Agents on the payroll of the Federal Government preached hatred of the native whites, stirred up riots in several places. If the Negroes turned to their former masters for advice, they were threatened or beaten.

In Louisiana, 57,300 Negroes were bound together in secret clubs. In all of tbe Sout hern States except Tennessee and Texas, the ignorant, led and driven by the unscrupulous, took control under the shadow of Federal bayonets. In Alabama, Negroes were mobilized and marched into towns on the night before elections, many of them armed.

A description in the New York Herald said "The voter got his ticket from the captain, tbe captain had it from the colonel, and he got it from the general, and the general, of course, had it from the owners and managers in Washington of the grand scheme to secure political supremacy."

Civil rights all but disappeared for the native white citizens of the conquered States. Habeas corpus was suspended. The University of Georgia was closed because of a student's speech. Sheriffs were removed. The courts were closed in Arkansas. In New Orleans, Gen. Phil Sheridan replaced white officials of the city with Negroes. In Vicksburg, an editor who criticized the policies of the Radical Republicans was tried by a military tribunal, denied writ of habeas corpus, barred from appeal to the Supreme Court. In Louisiana, a reporter was excluded from a State convention for calling Negro members colored.

Raid not aid. Wit h the installation of the carpetbag Governors, the thievery started. It started at the top and ran through the State governments. Much of the stealing was done through the issuance of bonds for railroads and various private and public enterprises that were never built or performed.

The debts of the St ates p yramided. Carpet bag government cost South Carolina $20 million, Arkansas upward of $15 million, Louisiana almost $40 million. In Louisiana •. the State tax rates multiplied five times until they reached a point triple that of New York. There were few visible evidences of what the money h ad been spent for.

A few glim pses show: In South Carolina, State bonds were is

sued and divided among the looters. The speaker of the State house of representatives made out a pay voucher for $2,500 for himself. The lieutenant governor refused to approve the voucher unless he got a share of the money. The voucher was raised to $5,000 to take care of bot h. The State senate had 25 employees. The payroll carried 350 names.

Thieves turned their imagination to furnishing the statehouse, managed to run up a bill of $200,000. They had such fancy items as $750 for a mirror, $480 each for clocks for individual members, $8 each for an average of two spittoons for each member. As late as 1872, a Pennsylvanian who was among the State's chief looters remarked that there still were 5 more years of good stealing to be had in Sout h Carolina. · In Georgia, the carpetbag governments put

the State $750,000 in debt on a railroad that had turned in $25,000 a month in profit before the war. An adventurer built r a ilroads with State money. He bought an opera house that he thought .was a waste of money, remodeled it and sold it to the State for use as a Statehouse at a fine profit. He built a hotel and paid for it with State bonds. He bought r ailroad cars from his own company, paid himself out of the State treasury, and forgot to deliver the cars.

Fairly typical of the operations of State legislative committees was an expense account turned in by some G!'lorgia legislators. They listed expenses for 50 gallons of whisky, 15 gallons of sherry, 7,000 cigars and 57 dozen lemons.

In Arkansas, a speaker of the house of repres~ntati ves persuaded the people of a county to issue $100,000 of bonds for a railroad of which he was president. He took the bonds to New York and found a bank that was willing to give $80,000 for the bonds if the Arkansan could get a bank to guarantee payment of the interest for 5 years. The speaker deposited $30,000 with a second bank to guarantee the interest, collected $50,000 profit and left for Colorado.

In Louisiana, a reporter for the New York Herald found that a simple list of the legislative acts "whose sole and transparent purpose was plunder would fill half a dozen paPoes" Th~ reporter found a lottery operated in

Louisiana by a few men living in New York and New Jersey that was clearing $750,000 a year for them. He found two navigation companies without boats that had gotten $235,000 in St ate bonds. He found a packet company organized by the lieut enant gover-

nor and several State senators that had gotten $250,000 from the State with no visible sign of any packets. He listed numerous other large-scale thefts.

THE RULING CLASS

Fully as much complaint arose from the type of officials that were put in power, and the manner in which they were kept there by Negro votes, as came from the looting carried on by the men in office.

In Alabama, an Iowan bought a seat in the United States Senate from the State legislature and paid for it with Government funds taken from the internal reve;nue offices at Mobile and Montgomery and from the Mobile post office. He gave Federal jobs to 30 members of the legislature that elected him.

In Mississippi, a northern adventurer was elected Governor in 1872, on a ticket wit h 3 Negroes, 1 of them under indictment in Brooklyn for larceny at the time. Here, from 36 to 64 members of the legislature were Negroes, at different intervals. Quite a few of them could neither read nor write the laws they were supposed to malce.

In Louisiana , an Illinois man became Governor and managed to save $100,000 a year on a salary of $8,000. Visitors from the North organized slumming expeditions to see the legislature in action.

At one juncture, when the native whitesDemocrats joining with old Whigs-were on the verge of organizing the legislature, General Sheridan moved into the ·house of repre-

· sentatives with Federal soldiers and ejected the n ew speaker bodily to keep the carpetbag government in control. Soldiers with cann on guarded the statehouse.

Common talk in the New Orleans streets revolved about the price needed to buy the vote of a member of the legislature. Across the State, there were corrupt district attorneys and judges. A man openly charged with theft was elected a parish judge. A m a n whom the United States Supreme Court h ad held to be guilty of fraud in the sale of railroad propert y was appointed to be chief justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The ignorance of officials was widespread. Illiterate Negro juries tried complicated cases of commercial law. Hundreds of county commissioners and justices of the peace had to sign official papers with crossmarks. In Mississippi, where Republicans were scarce, men held more than one office.

Trouble in Georgia: Under the military re gime, the citizens were helpless in efforts to restore honest government. In Georgia, there had been a smooth beginning. The State adopted a constitution, organized a legislature, went to work. One writer says the new legislature was a cross between a gambling den and a colored camp meeting. Enough Republicans, sick at the way things were going •• joined with Democrats to expel 25 Negro members of the house and 2 Negro State senators.

There was an immediate appeal to Washington by the Georgia Governor. Things were getting out of hand. The legislature rejected the 15th amendment. ·And, almost immediately, in the election of 1368, the State gave its electoral vote to Horatio Seymour, the Democratic candidate for Presid ent. This frightened the Republicans in Washington.

Troops were hurried back into Georgia. The Federal men clamped down in a hurry. The St ate was compelled to return the ejected Negroes to their seats in the legislature and to ratify the 15th amendment b efore being admitted to the Union again. Congress wrote a new list of qualifications for whites before they could serve in the legislature and gave the governor power to use Federal troops when he needed them. The State was driven back into line.

Election promise: The situation changed but little until Rutherford B. Hays went into the White House after the disputed election of 1876 with a promise that he

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 12283 would take the Federal troops out of the South. By that time, there had been such a revulsion of opinion in the North that Republicans had all but lost the Presidency.

It is this 10-year period of bitterness, when carpetbaggers and Negroes, backed by Federal bayonets, ruled the South, that southern Senators think of when President Eisenhower and northern Senators speak of basing a civil-rights law upon the old Reconstruction Acts. Their grandfathers felt the bayonets, were shouldered away from the polls by northern soldiers, saw the looting of their States. The use of Federal power carries real meaning to them.

Mr. RUSSELL subsequently said: Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to an article entitled "When Federal Bayonets Did Rule the South," which has been printed in the RECORD, on the request of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] and which appeared in this week's U.S. News & World Report.

I refer to this article, not to revive bitter memories of a very tragic period in our Nation's history, but to give some background in justification of the apprehension some of us feel when force bills are suggested, because in our early days we were regaled with stories of that very black period of our Nation's history.

It may develop, Mr. President, that though we did penance for the folly of secession in anguish and tears and suffering, and though we were called upon to make sacrifices and to endure humiliations which no other section of this land ha.s ever been asked to endure, it was a blessing in disguise to all of these United States, because it gave the people of the area from which I am honored to come a g·reat awareness of the danger of force and of the unspeakable horrors and degradation of military occupation.

I well remember that back in the 1940's before Pearl Harbor, a bill which would have abolished the draft and would have disbanded the forces we had assembled in the effort to prepare for the attack that fell at Pearl Harbor failed by only one vote in the House of Representatives. I opposed that bill in the Senate yery vigorously. One of my colleagues chided me. He said, "You fellows from the South are too militant." I said, "My friend, we are perhaps no more militant than any other section of this land, but we know what it means to be occupied by military force. We know what it means to lose every right and every liberty we are supposed to enjoy as American citizens, and indeed to have the elemental rights human beings are supposed to possess curtaffed and repressed. .s.o when you talk about the threat of m1htary occupation of any part of these United States, we vote solidly to maintain the power and the might to prevent it."

An examination of the yea-and-nay votes in the House and in the Senate on that bill will disclose that but for the almost solid opposition of southern Senators and southern Members of the House of Representatives, we would have been naked and defenseless in the days that followed Pearl Harbor. We would have had practically no military forces at all, and could well have lost World war II and in so doing have lost everything 'every American citizen holds dear.

CIVIL RIGHTS Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent to proceed for not to exceed 4 minutes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator may proceed.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, Massachusetts, my home State, has always felt strongly about the right~ of a;n individual citizen. At the same time, it always has believed in a governme~t th~t begins at home. The town meetmgs m Massachusetts each year stand as a symbol of home rule. It is interesting to note that Massachusetts did not ratify the Bill of Rights-the first 10 amendments to our Constitution-until 1939. It was upon my recommendation as Governor to the State legislature that the Bill of Rights was ratified. Notification of that fact was recevied by me in an embossed parchment signed by Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

This late ratification was not because the citizens of Massachusetts in 1789 did not agree with what was asked. They refused to ratify the Bill of .Rights because it did not go far enough in protecting the rights of the individual citizen. So I say, we in Massachusettts have always believed in promoting the privileges and rights of the indi'~i~~al citizen, and in stimulating respons1b1llty to exercise them.

The primary right of the individual in a free government is the right to vot~; otherwise, he cannot take any par~ m his government and thereby is deprived of his freedom. Naturally, a free citizen has other rights than merely the right to vote. He has the right to sit on a jury of his peers; the right to be a litigant; to have a fair trial when charged with a crime; generally, the right to equal protection under the law; the right to hold public office, the opportunity for an education, and others. But when we give him the right to vote, we give him the opportunity to help to solve his other problems by electing officials who may be responsive to his needs at the local, State, OT Nat.ional levels.

If every citizen who is qualified to vote is assured of the right to vote and does vote, then certainly we will have a government tnat represents the people of the community, State, or Nation. We will have a government which, in its judgment, is responsive to the needs of the majority of its citizens. If it is not, then it can be turned out at the next election. Under such circumstances, neither Federal nor State nor local officials can indefinitely flout the popular will.

At the same time that we are considering the right of every individual to vote, we must look carefully at the foundation upon which our system of life is built here in the United States-the system of keeping our Government close to the people which it represents. I have always believed that our system of life begins with a good home in a happy community, where children wil~ have opportunities to get ahead, where their parents can take their part in community life under a sound local administration, in a healthy, busy State with a State govern-

ment that is promoting the common welfare.

So we give to our local authorities the responsibility within their localities, to the State governments the responsibilities within their jurisdiction, and to the Federal Government in Washington the responsibility for our national security and our international relations. We hand to it those domestic problems which concern more than one State; or involve the resources of more than one State.

To solve the problem of civil rights for the individual in a sound manner, we must balance these two fundamental concepts of government-the rights of the individual versus the principle ·of keeping the government close to the peo-ple. -

The right to vote is clear. It is truly a national right. If all individuals can vote, they can solve their problems by electing officials responsive to their demands and to their needs. Many of the other rights that each one of us has as an individual citizen will come in time, with patience and understanding, when the right for all who are entitled to vote is given, and they exercise the sacred privilege of the franchise.

But, when we perm1t the Federal Government through its Attorney Generalone individual official-in his discretion, to enter into a community at the request of two or more individual citizens-and either with or without the request of the local authorities-we violate one of the cardinal principles upon which our Government is founded, namely, the. principle of home rule or government close to the people. Such action taken at the discretion of one Federal official may be in direct opposition to the best judgment of local officials. Certainly it weakens the authority of and respect for State officials, including the governor of the State, the State attorney general, the district or prosecuting attorney of a county, the local police, and all who must keep the peace and protect the welfare in the locality or in the State. I speak feelingly on this question because as a governor for 6 years, I felt the impact of Federal dictation on local, State administration, and sensed the harm done to State responsibility. In the end, individual and civil rights are not promoted but may be demoted by such broad powers of a Federal official to intervene. The powers granted under part III as now drafted are so broad that they may well extend beyond the problems commonly considered in this bill. I can think of a number of such possible extensions.

Furthermore, this bill for civil rights proposes to establish a thoughtfully conceived Commission to study the problem of civil rights throughout the length and breadth of our land. We give it time to make further recommendations by which we can promote the civil rights of an individual.

At the same time, this bill, when it pecomes law, guarantees each quali~ed person the constitutional right of an mdividual to vote. Let us watch the progress thereby made. Let us not in our desire to promote the civil rights of an individual take other steps that may in

12284- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 'July 22

the long run remove rights, privileges, from New Jersey [Mr. SMITH] for the and responsibilities he now has. fine statement he made earlier.

For these reasons, very briefly ex- It is my intention, in a moment or two, pressed, I intend to vote to eliminate to ask unanimous consent to modify the part III, entitled "Strengthening Civil amendment offered on behalf of the SenRights" from the bill because, in my ator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] and judgment, part III may not strengthen, myself so that it will strike out only secbut rather weaken, the civil rights of an tion 121. I was encouraged by what the individual. If later there are offered to Senator from Massachusetts said, to the the bill amendments which, in my effect that he desired to eliminate the opinion, strengthen civil rights without whole of part III, and his statement that impairing the principle of local re- if later amendments were offered to the sponsibility, I shaP. hope to support bill which, in his · op1mon, would them. I have long been an advocate of strengthen civil rights without impairing civil rights. , the principle of local responsibility, he

I shall vote for part IV, entitled ''To would support such amendments. Provide Means of Further Securing and I see no reason why the amendment Protecting the Right to Vote" because offered by the Senator from California that right is fundamental to our way of [Mr. KNOWLAND] and the Senator from life. I trust that part I, establishing a Minnesota should not be very promptly commission on civil rights, will pass be- adopted by the Senate. It involves a cause it will give us over the next few subject which might have been handled years further recommendations upon in separate legislation, but certainly which to pass judgment. Part II simply there is no reason to vote against the provides for an Assistant Attorney Gen- amendment of the Senator from Calieral in the Department of Justice to help fornia and the Senator from Minnesota. that Department forward its duties. In line with suggestions made by the

Mr. President, I have taken this op- Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], portunity briefly to express my best I wish to modify the amendment offered judgment upon the very deep and far- by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. reaching problem ·of civil rights upon AIKEN] and myself so as to strike out which the Senate of the United States only section 121, leaving the remainder will act. When we vote upon this bill, of part III in the bill. we cast our judgment upon a problem I ask unanimous consent, even though that is fundamental, a problem that will it may not be in order in the morning affect our way of life, the lives of our hour, that the amendment may be so children and grandchildren and later modified. generations to come. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- there objection to the modification of the dent, may we have order in the Cham- amendment? ber? The distinguished Senator from Mr. AIKEN. As I understand, unanMassachusetts is making an important imous consent is not necessary to modistatement. I should like to hear his fy one's own amendment. remarks without distraction. Mi'. HUMPHREY. I do not raise any

Mr. THYE. Mr. President, a parlia- objection, but I did not quite understand mentary inquiry. what the Senator from New Mexico was

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The saying with reference to the purpose of Senator will state it. his suggestion. If we are going to amend

Mr. THYE. Is the Senate still in the or modify amendments, I should like morning hour? to know what the purpose of it is.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Mr. ANDERSON. I have stated what Senate is in the morning hour. The the purpose is. Senator from Massachusetts asked per- Mr. HUMPHREY. I did not quite un-mission to address the Senate for longer derstand the Senator. than 3 minutes. Mr. ANDERSON. I shall be very

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have only one happy to state it again. My original momore sentence, and then I shall be tion was to strike part III. The Senthrough. ator from South Dakota [Mr. CAsEl

We exercise our responsibility not came to me and said, "Why do you not alone to the people of our individual take the portion that remains in part States, but essentially our obligations as III and put it into part IV? I suggested United States Senators to all the people that the Senator do that. However, what of the country which we love and the I am doing is narrowing my motion to Government which we serve. have it apply to section 121 only.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I Mr. HUMPHREY. I have no objec-congratulate the able Senator from Mas- tion, Mr. President. sachusetts for his very fine statement. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is He, like many others of us, is a moderate, there objection to the request of the Sentemperate man. He would like to see ator from New Mexico? The Chair hears the proposed change in our law accom- none, and the amendment is modified plished. Let me say to the Senator from accordingly. Massachusetts that I appreciate his Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I had prestatement. I thought it was very fine, pared an answer to the question just and that it was typical of the admirable asked by the Senator from Minnesota. qualities which he had displayed many The effect of the modification ·of the times on the floor of the Senate. amendment offered by the Senator from

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Sen-Senator. ator from South Dakota EMr. CASE] and

Mr. ANDERSON. I also express my myself will be to permit Members of the appreciation to the able senior Senator Senate to vote for the Knowland-Hum-

phrey amendment, and then to vote to strike the objectional portion of part III without embarrassment.

As a matter of fact, there should now be no objection by anyone to approving the Knowland-Humphrey amendment. It repeals an obsolete law which is unnecessary and which ought not to remain in the statutes.

I hope the Knowland-Humphrey amendment will be agreed to by unanimous vote, and I believe it will be.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, it is true, as the Senator from New Mexico has stated, that my first amendment would transfer section 122 from part III to part IV, but I later submitted an amendment which would preserve section 122 in part III.

As I understand, the Senator from New Mexico is modifying his amendment to conform to the second amendment I have presented, which is identified as 7-17-57-A, which preserves section 122. It deals wholly with the establishment of jurisdiction for Federal courts to entertain suits relatipg to the right to vote.

Mr. ANDERSON. That has been done because· it was originally the Senator·..> proposal. With his permission, I have added him as a cosponsor, and I thank him very much for his suggestion.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator a question, if I may have the attention of the distinguished minority leaqer and of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY]. As I understand, the yeas and nays have been ordered on the Knowland-Humphrey amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. In the light of the statement made by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], I should like to ascertain from the minority leader and the Senator from Minnesota, if they would be agreeable, so far as they are concerned, as the authors of the amendment, to vote on it today.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I can say to the distinguished Senator from Texas that I hope very much the Senate will be able to vote on the pending amendment today.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the views of the Senator from California. I hope we can vote on it today.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I wonder whether we could prepare a unanimousconsent agreement, so that Members of the Senate could be on notice at about what time we would have a yea-and-nay vote on the amendment. How much time would the minority leader desire in support of the amendment?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I would say that if we had an hour and a half for debate on the pending amendment that that would be sufficient time, if it were equally divided.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe that will be more than enough time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I shall wish to confer with other Members cf ihe Senate in that connection.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12285 Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I

should like to subscribe to what the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] has stated. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to vote at once. I hope the Knowland-Humphrey amendment will receive the unanimous vote of the Senate. It is an amendment which should be adopted. I should think it would not be necessary to dis.cuss that amendment for an hour and a half.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Of course, we can always yield back the remainder of our time, if we do not need all of it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The Senator is correct. I wished to find out what the disposition of the authors of the amendment was before I conferred with other Members of the Senate on the subject.

VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES BY MEMBERS OF THE INDONESIAN PARLIAMENT Mr. THYE. Mr. President, on

Wednesday, June 26, we in the United States Senate and its Members were honored by a visit of a group of 12 members of the Indonesian Parliament. These representatives of the Republic of Indonesia, one of our sister republics in the world family of democratic nations, have been touring the United States to meet Americans and become acquainted with our institutions.

Unfortunately, Mr. President. our American press seems to have paid little

. attention to the presence of these Indonesian legislators in our. midst. I am sure that this has not been intentional, but even so, it is unfortunate. The people of the United States should be made more aware of the opportunity of meeting these friends of ours because such meetings work to the advantage of both ourselves and them through the development of better understanding.

The importance of our American press should not be overlooked, because it plays a significant role in such communication of understanding and ideas.

My own State of Minnesota was visited by three of these gentlemen, and their visit was commented on last Wednesday in an editorial in the Minneapolis Morning Tribune. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial appear in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks. It is a very intelligent editorial comment, and I commend its reading to my colleagues.


LITTLE THINGS ARE BIG In the painstaking job of building inter

national understanding, the little things often count for more than the big things.

Or put it another way: Things that seem trivial to one of the parties involved assume large proportions for the other.

All very obvious, you may be saying. Nothing we haven't known for a long time.

Maybe So, but we suspect that even the most cosmopolitan American, trying to help overseas visitors understand this country, would constantly run up against surprising new demonstrations of these truths.

The current visit to this city and State of three distinguished members of Indonesia's Parliame n t is a case in point.

These men are part of a parliamentary delegation of 12, which has split into small groups so that its members may get the most out of observing work in their own professions and fields of interest during a 10-week visit in America.

The men visiting Minneapolis and Minnesota have nothing but good to say about the friendship and hospitality of ordinary Americans they have met. It seems certain that during their stay they h ave been disabused of some of their previous notions about America.

Two are doctors of medicine, one is an educator, and it is a good bet tnat all have found their observation of American educational and medical facilities interesting and instructive.

Yet, when you talk at length with two of the three, you discover that one negative factor is weighing at least as heavily as any of the positive ones: what they call the American news blackout on the visit of their delegation.

They concede this has not been countrywide. The Sunday Tribune carried an interview that ran more than half a column, and at least one of the three, Dr. H . Ali Akbar, expressed satisfaction on reading it. A paper in Harrisburg, Pa., carried their picture and last Friday the New York Times ran an account of a Harlem tour by two of their colleagues, including the President of Parliament.

But these men cannot forget that in stops from Honolulu all the way to Washington they were ignored by the local press, in spite of the fact that this is the first delegation from the Indonesian Parliament to visit the United States.

It is hard to convince them that this is not a deliberate blackout, related directly to the current State Department attitude toward President Sukarno's ~ew guided democracy. You can say to them by way of pacification: This is unfortunate but it represents negligence, certainly not malice. You have the feeling they are only partially convinced, for they persist in using the word "blackout."

It would be unfair to conclude that it is their respective personal vanities that have been wounded. It is surely not that. It is the delicate sensitivity of a new nation at work here-a sensitivity easily hurt by anything that seems to indicate lack of respect and lack of equal treatment at the hand of the white man and the West.

We may protest that this is unreasonable. It remains a fact--a fact directly related to the success or failure of United States efforts in a part of the world of which most of us know little.

The little things can be as important as military alliances or economic aid and, even when we find them baffling, all of us-the press included-must handle them carefully as part of the price of free-world leadership.

We must do this because, to the peoples on the receiving end, the little things are not little at all, but big things.

THE ADMINISTRATION AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, the Presidential press secretary replied to the statement I made before the Senate last Friday about the incredible irresponsibility of this administration in matters pertaining to our national defense.

Able and personable gentleman that he is, Mr. Sagerty was hard put to justify his position. But he has contributed a very real service, because he has shown clearly the effort being made to ,disassociate the President from certain activities of this administration.

He tried to show I was wrong because President Eisenhower did not actually write the two letters asking for a further reduction in the military budget, which only a few weeks ago he was urging be approved.

I did not say President Eisenhower wrote these two letters. But Mr. Hagerty's implication that because he did not write them he has no responsibility for them is a strange and dangerous innovation in American politics.

Secretary Wilson signed one of the letters brought up and discussed between the House and Senate conferees, ·and Mr. Wilson reports to the President and the President only.

Director of the Budget Brundage signed the other. Mr. Brundage reports only to the President; in fact, he is actually a member of the President's personal staff, as are all Budget Directors under all Presidents.

A column this morning by an informed newspaperman on national defense, Mr. Stewart Alsop, entitled "Who's Loony?" gives the facts in crisp and clear fashion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Alsop's article be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

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

WHO'S LOONY? (By Stewart Alsop)

The way the Eisenhower administration's defense budget has been handled suggests a simple question: Is somebody in the administration loony? For looniness seems the obvious explanation of what has happened. Consider the peculiar drama in seven acts:

Act 1: The President submits to Congress a defense budget of $38.5 billion. The budget revolt boils up. The President invites Congress to cut his budget. The House obliges, slicing the defense budget by a whopping $2.6 billion.

Act 2: The President decides to defend his budget after all. The defense budget, he says, in effect, can take a cut of $1.4 billion without doing any harm (which, of course, suggests that the budget as originally proposed was heavily inflated, as charged by the economizers). But, he says, it is absolutely essential that at least $1.2 billion of the House cut be restored.

Act 3: As the budget battle reaches a climax, the President goes on the air with a passionate plea for his defense and foreign-aid budgets. To fail to restore the minimum of $1.2 billion would be, he warns, a fearful gamble with national security.

Act 4: Like a couple of middle-aged Lochinvars, Republican Senator LEVERETT SALTONSTALL and Democratic Senator STUART SYMINGTON ride to the rescue, in response to the President's anguished plea. Breasting the economy tide, at considerable political risk to themselves, they fight and bleed to get as much as possible of the House cut restored in the Senate. They do well. The Senate passes a defense budget restoring almost a billion dollars of the House cut.

Act 5: House and Senate conferees meet, with blood in their eyes, for the decisive struggle to determine whether the House or Senate defense budgets shall prevail. The odds favor the Senate version emerging in substance.

Act 6. Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson sends a letter to the Senate-House conference, which is seconded by a letter to the same effect from Budget Chief Brundage. It seems that the Defense Department does not

12286 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 22 need the $1.2' billion, which the President had described as "the dividing line between national danger and excessive spending," after all.

Indeed, the $1 billion for which SYMINGTON and SALTONSTALL fought in response to the President's plea is not needed either. Thanks to heavy reduction in defense (which do not-heaven forbid-represent a fearful gamble) the Defense Department can get along fine if only about half that amount is restored.

Act 7 is still being played out. But as this is written, the Senate-House conferees are busy noting "S. R."-for "Senate recedes"on itelll after item in the defense budget. The prospect is that the defense budget will end up at or near the level set by the House economizers, which, according to the President himself, would lead to national danger.

Nor does the story end there. For this strange maneuver also makes it extremely probable that the heavy House cuts in the foreign-aid program, for which the President also pleaded so passionately in his television speeches, will substantially stand. More than that, the sorry record of tergiversation has left the sourest possible taste in the mouths of those who fought on the President's side in the battle of the budget-above all the Democrats, who are, after all, in control of both Houses and will remain so at least through the next session.

"If Ike thinks we're going to stick our necks out for him again," one of them has remarked, "he's got another think coming."

The question remains: How did it happen? Aside from the obvious explanation of simple looniness, the basic answer seems to be that the administration has painted itself into a corner in its handling of defense financing. For more than 4 years it has lived on the fat of previous appropriations, and on one-shot savings. Now there is no more fat, and no more fake economies to be made.

This time has come, moreover, at just the point where the missiles and other weapons are coming into production and must be paid for, if this country is not to lose the arms race with the Soviets. In this situation, the administration could choose between heavier defense spending, or a balanced budget and a future tax cut. The strange drama recounted above means that the administration has chosen the latter course, which does indeed represent a fearful gamble.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD only a few-17, to be exact-of the many almost unbelievably conflicting statements about the defense budget made by many persons in high authority during recent months.

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

ADMINISTRATION'S VIEWS ON FISCAL YEAR 1958 BUDGET

President Eisenhower (January 16, 1957, budget message) : "It is a carefully balanced budget. • • • I consider it well adapted tothe needs of the present and the future."

Secretary Humphrey (January 17, 1957, press conference) : "There are a lot of places in this budget that can be cut."

President Eisenhower (January 23, 1957, press conference): "As long as the American people demand and, in my opinion, deserve the kind of services that this budget provides. we have got to spend this kind of money."

Under Secretary Burgess (March 11, 1957, American Bankers Association): "But after an explanations, the budget is still too big for the future best good of the citizens of this country."

President Eisenhower (March 13, 1957, press conference) : "If there are to be any great cuts in the budget, I can see only the cutting out or the elimination or slowing up, at least, of some of these great programs. Otherwise, there is no great amount to be saved."

President Eisenhower (May 14, 1957, televised broadcast): "I earnestly believe that this defense budget represents, in today's world, the proper dividing line between national danger on the one hand and excessive expenditures on the other. If it is materially cut, I believe the country would be taking a fearful gamble. For myself, I have seen unwise rnilitary cuts before. I have seen their terrible consequences. I am determined to do all I can to see that we do not follow that foolhardy road again."

Secretary Wilson (May 23, 1957, Senate appropriations): In referring to House cuts: "If permitted to stand, I believe that reductions of the magnitude proposed would amount to gambling unwisely with the security of the Nation. • • • Our 1958 budget program is both austere and carefully bal-

. anced." Admiral Radford (May 23, 1957, Senate

appropriations): "We believe it to be a sound budget and a necessary one if we are to have the type of defense for this country which will insure the security of our people and institutions. • • • I merely wish to emphasize for the record that our 1958 budget program is as well balanced as the best military planning and thinking could devise. Large cuts in the budget would not only disturb that balance but, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would risk the security of the Nation and the Free World."

Secretary Brucker (May 24, 1957, Senate appropriations): "Any reduction in this budget would considerably handicap us in our efforts as a member of the defense team to provide adequately for the security of the United States."

General Taylor (May 24, 1957, Senate ap-propriations): "Thus it is that I assure the committee as Chief of Staff, that the Army needs every dollar of the President's 1958 budget if it is to be able to field and fight the Army forces which are essential to our security."

Secretary Gates (May 28, 1957, Senate appropriations): "The budget presented to Congress by the President of the United States for the Department of the Navy was tailored to meet our minimum requirements. It was a carefully planned, calculated, and reviewed estimate of the cost of our programs • • •. Only a drastic change in world affairs can permit major readjustments in our naval program, and this budget which supports it."

Admiral Burke (May 28, 1957, Senate appropriations): "It is a solid budget which has been repeatedly reviewed to make sure it includes only the most essential items. It is a minimum budget. It cannot be reduced without serious effect upon well-considered programs essential to our national security."

Secretary Douglas (May 29, 1957, Senate appropriations): . "In my judgment our budget for fiscal year 1958 requests a minimum of funds to carry out our fiscal year 1958 Air Force program • • • it is an austere budget."

General Twining (May 29, 1957, Senate appropriations) : "The Air Force budget, as presented to you today, has already been reduced to a point which lies in what I consider to be a dangerous area."

Secretary Wilson (June 28, 1957, to Secretaries of Army, Navy, and Air Force): "Pending the apportionment of funds for fiscal year 1958: • • • (3) no actions will be taken to increase the scope of programs, undertake new programs or new increments of present programs unless the use of funds for such purposes has been specifically approved by the Secretary of Defense."

Director Brundage (to all members of the Cabinet): "The President has requested that all agencies in the executive branch keep the rates of commitments, obligations, and expenditures for fiscal year 1958 at or below the level for the fiscal year 1957."

Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President as these statements are read, it should be remembered they were not made over a period of years, but in recent weeks and months.

Let me point out that President Eisenhower is now approving expenditure ceilings which heavily reduce, not only our research and development, production, and training with respect to the more conventional weapons, but also our research and development, production, and training with respect to missiles.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Disarmament, I know of nothing which justifies this radical shift in our programing.

More than ever, figures now dominate forces, and in that this Nation, the richest in the history of the world, is the basic power left against communism, the President should tell the people why he has decided on this policy of unilateral disarmament.

POSTAL PAY LEGISLATION Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, in my

home city, and in my State, I know many postal employees, personally. I know how devoted they are to their branch of Government service, and to giving the best they have to our people. I also know some of the hardships under which they labor. I know of the parttime jobs in which they and their families engage in order to live modestly and decently.

Postal employees in America are underpaid. As a result, there is a large, unfortunate, and costly turnover of employment in the postal service. To train a man, only to have him leave the service for a more attractive position in private business, is a waste which could be eliminated by realistic salary legislation.

I desire to document the starting turnover in some of the post offices of my State. I ask unanimous consent that a tabulation of personnel changes in 34 California post offices be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my comments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

(See exhibit U Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, when

the problem of realistc take-home pay · for postal employees is considered in the

Senate, I suggest that Senators ascertain

Assistant Secretary McNeil (June 4, 1957, Senate appropriations): "We have been informed that considering the anticipated rev

. enues of the Government, and the statu

. tory debt limit, expendtiures for the Department of Defense must not substantially ex- the percentage of turnovers in their own ceed the budget estimate of $38 b1llion dur- _ States. If, as I believe, they will be in ing the coming year." the general area of these California fig-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12287 ures, they will demonstrate one more persuasive reason why postal salaries are out of line.

EXHIBIT 1

Percentage Number City turnover separated

195G

11~~~~~~===:::::::::::::::=== ~: g ----------53 Heverly Hills _________________ -- ---- ------ J 86 J~urlingame_ ------------------ 41. 8 28 ('anog'.I Park___ __ ___________ __ 2 40. O Clrnl::l. Vista______ ______ ___ __ __ 27. 0 Compton_---------------- ---- 43. O Da\·is--- -----··---------------- 50. O .El Monte____________________ _ 39. 0 Oarrlena. -------------------- - 58. 0 Glondale______________________ a 45. O Huntington Park_----------- - 41. 0

--------·-19 ()()

7 39 76

'72 5 GO

Inglewood ____________________ . 42. 0 --------- ---Livermore _------------------- 55. O ---- ------- -J,ong BP.ach___________________ s 22. O -- ---- ------Los An~eles________ ___ ________ 21. 9 2, 233 I.os G:i.tos______ _______________ 15. 4 6 North Hollywood____________ _ 48. O 182 Outario_______________________ 2 25. O ---------- --Oxnard_---------------------- 10. 0 7 .Palo Alto______ ____________ ___ 25. 0 __________ 57 Pasadena ____ --------------- -- 35. O ----------Iii Redwood City________________ 56. 5 Riverside_______ __________ ____ 24. 0 - -----------Santa Ana_---- ------- ----- -- - 22. 9 Sacramento________ ________ ___ 2 26. 0 Sau Lorenzo__________________ 38. 0 San Diego _____ _____________ .___ 2 25. o San Jose.--------------------- 13. 0 San Pedro_______ ____ __ ________ 33. 0 Santa Barbara.--------------- 20. O San Mateo_______ ____ ____ _____ 56. 2 8anta. Monica__ _______________ 7 25. 4

------- --263 20

254 65 53 37 91

7 59

~~~i!l~~~~~~~=:::::::::::::::::: ~~: g ----------36 'J'otal, 34 offices _________ -- ---- --- -- - s 3, 929 Average_________________ 35. 0 ------------

1 To May 1957, 38 separated. 2 Approximately. a 'l'otal not complete as 9 offices did not send total

number employees separated during 1956. j 1957. • 'l'o Jun!' 1957, 49 separated. 6 195G. 5 months of 1957, 30 percent . • Jst 5 months of 1957, 42 percent; 48 separations. s Separated in 1956 in 25 offices.

THE NEED FOR CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO THE BOW RESOLUTION Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I ask

.unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement prepared by me relative to the so-called Bow resolution.

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

STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY Mr. President, apparently we may expect

still more misguided efforts to jeopardize the national security by renouncing the statusof-forces treaties. I reiterate today my continuing, unalterable opposition to renunciation of these treaties.

I heartily endorse the continued sound position of the President of the United States, as expressed over the weekend in a letter to House Republican Leader JosEPH w. MARTIN, JR. In that letter, the President pointed out that legislation to bar trials in foreign courts of United States servicemen stationed overseas would "gravely threaten our security, alienate our friends, and give aid and comfort to those who want to destroy our way of life."

Last week, by a vote of 134 to 134, the House of Representatives narrowly defeated a move to attach an antistatus-of-forces treaty amendment to the foreign aid bill. But we may expect still another effort in the form of the Bow resolution, which is still pending before the House Rules Committee.

Rarely have we heretofore witnessed proposed legislation so harmful to the very cause in whose name it was prepared. Let

it be noted that if the status-of-forces treaties were renounced, American servicemen would have no protection whatsoever for offenses committed off duty overseas.

In other words, the proponents of destroying these treaties would harm the very servicemen in whose name they say they are acting.

It has long been international law that a sovereign nation has a right of trial for offenses committed within its territory.

Thanks to these status-of-forces treaties, however, our servicement are given protection.

When the House of Representatives came close to passing the antitreaty amendment, it virtually disregarded the unanimous position adopted by the leadership of the executive branch of Government. That includes the position of the President of the United States; the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles; the Secretary of Defense, Charles E. Wilson; the Under Secretary of State, Robert Murphy.

I know of no official-diplomatic, legal, mi!itary-of the United States Government who regards this antitreaty amendment as anything but tending toward the utmost danger to the well-being of the United States.

The case for renouncing these treaties is compiled of a mixture of misinformation, illogical fear of foreigners, lack of understanding of international law, and all-out isolationism.

The Kremlin's leaders in Moscow could want few objectives more dearly than to see the status-of-forces treaties scrapped. If those treaties were destroyed, America would have to dismantle its foreign bases and bring its servicemen home, because no foreign government will tolerate a violation of its sovereign rights and prerogatives.

One of the most basic trends today is nationalism. Even so good a friend of ours as Gen. Carlos Romulo of the Philippines has warned America that even his Philippine countrymen feel strongly on this issue of having the right to try American servicemen in foreign courts.

We should not fear our friends, any more than our friends should fear us.

The record of past foreign trials of American servicemen shows that in over 70 percent of the cases, the right of trial has been waived back to American military courts. The record shows that foreign courts have "bent over backward" to be lenient to our servicemen.

The record shows that in those relatively few instances, where Americans have been convicted for off-duty offenses, the sentences have been rather light.

The record shows that our men have been given every legal protection which could possibly be provided for them.

That, we are sure, will be the situation in the Girard case, as in other cases.

Let it be clearly noted that I am just as interested as anyone else in protecting the rights of those who serve in the uniform of our country abroad. When a man is drafted for overseas duty, he goes where he is sent by higher authority. He is, therefore, entitled to the protection of the United States Government, and there is every indication that he is getting every bit of protection to which he is entitled under international law and treaty.

I earnestly hope that the American people will not heed those who are seeking the destruction of these vital treaties which are so crucial to our own defense.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS BIIL-TELEVI· SION INTERVIEWS WITH SENA .. TOR RUSSELL Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, on yes

terday, on the Columbia Broadcasting

System television network, the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] took part in the program Face the Nation. The subject of the interview was the civil rights bill which now is before the Senate. The Senator from Georgia touched upon the main points of .the bill, and did so in a very fine manner. I think his remarks are of value to the entire Congress and the Nation; and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD.

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

FACE THE NATION ANNOUNCER. Senator RUSSELL, Face the

Nation. You are about to see Senator RICHARD

RussELL, Democrat, of Georgia, and leader of the forces opposing the civil rights legislation currently before the United States Senate, Face the Nation, with questions from veteran correspondents representing the Nation 's press-Warren Duffee, Senate correspondent for the United Press; Bill Shadel, of CBS News; and William H. Lawrence, national correspondent for the New York Times. And now from CBS News and Public Affairs, today's moderator of Face the Nation, Griffing Bancroft.

Mr. BANCROFT. Tomorrow the United States Senate starts its third week of debate on the civil rights bill. Many think this may be the decisive week, at least decisions are promised on some fundamental issues about how far this bill is going to go, and everybody seems divided on that except the southerners who are pretty well united in really preferring that it doesn't go anywhere at all.

Well, Senator RussELL, there is no question about the leadership of these southerners. You are it--a tribute not only to your 24 years in the Senate, but to your parliamentary skill which I am sure you are about to prove is as great here as it is in the Senate, and so without further preamble, let's have the first question from Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Senator RUSSELL, now that the civil-rights bill is on the floor and we have had some debate about it, is there any civil-rights bill that you, as a southerner, a Senator from the State of Georgia, could conscientiously support?

Senator RussELL. Oh, indeed, Mr. Lawrence. I am as much in favor of civil rights as any man in the United States. I think all Americans are in favor of bigger and better civil rights for all, but we have in these bills a question of where one individual's-one group's civil rights might collide with the civil rights of another individual or another group.

Now, it is not that easy a question to , answer. I am strongly in favor of all our constitutional civil rights.

Mr. SHADEL. Senator RUSSELL, if this bill is made a guaranty of voting rights only, would you vote for the bill?

Senator RussELL. Well, if I can write the bill, and it guarantees voting rights all over the country, as well as guaranteeing that those votes would be counted and obviating the pressures that are brought to bear throughout the United States by all groups effecting the voting and coercing the votes of individuals, I could very readily support a right-to-vote bill, universal in its application.

Mr. DUFFEE. Senator, under these present circumstances, the bill that you have before you, could it be, shall we say clarified, modified to any extent where you, yourself, might possibly support this bill?

Senator RussELL. It could be rewl"itten, of course. It is a little difficult for us to enthuse over this particular bill. It is brought

12288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22 forward on the premise that the South needs a guardian in the form of an Attorney General to spank us with the most unusual and cruel devices whenever he sees fit. I don't think that the premise on which this bill is launched, against one section of the country, can be justified.

Mr. DUFFEE. But, Senator, if this thing were reduced merely to a voting-rights bill, which it has been called by many people-

Senator RussELL. Yes; it sailed under that false fiag for a good while.

Mr. DUFFEE. All right, supposing it was really reduced to a voting-rights bill. Would you support it?

Senator RussELL. I undertook to answer that question a moment ago. If it can be written solely as a voting-rights bill, that is universal in its application throughout the United States, I would gladly support it.

Mr. DUFFEE. Even though it has the words "civil rights" in its title?

Senator Russ&LL. Oh, indeed. The title "civil rights," of course, is just a tag that ls applied to this bill. You would be just as justified in preparing a tag saying the contents were sugar-cured ham and tying it to a polecat. That wouldn't make that polecat ham, and the mere fact that you call this bill the civil-rights bill doesn't make all phases of it a civil-rights bill.

Mr. SHADEL. Senator, to get down more to specifics, the elimination of section 3 of this bill that is talked about to do away with one objection, I understand on the part of the southerners, and then if we came to this, some modification of the so-called injunction proviso, would this be agreeable to you?

Senator RussELL. I will not accept any part of the third part of this bill. That is the most all-embracing and far-reaching legislation-delegating more powers to one manthan has ever been brought before the Congress of the United States. It is a cunningly contrived provision. It can be used not only as an instrument of oppression in the South, but to destroy the way of life and the method of operation of school boards and things of that kind throughout the entire country. That bill poses just as great a threat to the school board in let us say Lincoln, Nebr., as it does in my hometown of Winder, Ga., because it doesn't undertake to define what is a civil right. In reality, lf this bill is passed, the Congress will ratify every one of tha recent decisions of the Supreme Court that undertake to define new civil rights and establish new civil rights for individuals.

.Just let me give you an illustration.: Recently, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a New York case. There the New York City charter provided that no person who took refuge behind the fifth amendment could be an employee of that city. There was a schoolteacher in New York who did take refuge in the fifth amendment in a legislative hearing and he was promptly discharged. He went to the courts. The New York Court of Appeals said that he had no right there. He came to the Supreme Court and they reversed that decision. The Supreme Court said that the school board couldn't discharge him because he took refuge in the fifth amendment.

Now, suppose in the city of Lincoln, Nebr., the school board undertook to discharge a teacher who was accused of being a Communist and took refuge in the fifth amendment and refused to answer, if this bill is enacted, the Attorney General would have the power to move in on that school board, enjoin them, put them ln jail without a jury trial if they refused to continue the man in his employment. And I might say as the bill stands now, if the citizens of Lincoln, Nebr., gathered in the streets or around the schoolhouse, resentful of the fact that their school board had been thrown in jail in such summary fashion and resisted the efforts of this man to continue teaching, the Federal Government could send up a regiment of Marines and tanks and dispel the crowd or

jail them all. Now that is the sweep of this bill. It would ratify every decision of the Supreme Court in this field and empower the Attorney General to use these very drastic procedures. I could give you a dozen such cases. That's the reason why I said that I was willing to submit this bill to a national referendum.

Mr. SHADEL. But Senator, is there any feellng in the Senate that this bill is going to go through, as is, without modifications?

Senator RUSSELL. Not on my part because I will certainly die fighting it in my tracks before this vicious a bill could go through, and I would feel the same way if it were aimed at any section of the country.

Mr. BANCROFT. Senator RUSSELL-Senator RussELL. This bill is vote bait. Mr. BANCROFT. Senator RUSSELL, you men-

tioned a referendum of the people. Just what is it you propose along that line in connection with this bill?

Senator RusSELL. Well, there is no question that both of the major partiei:; are captive of a very small group within both parties that we might call rather extreme left wingists, and those groups have convinced both parties that they have got to have the votes of certain bloc votes in some of our large cities to win. Therefore, you have many men in public life, politicians, who have almost mortgaged their souls with promises to vote for anything that is called a civil rights bill.

What I am undertaking to do by the referendum is to appeal from the politicians to the people of this country who would be shocked and will be shocked and will defeat this bill in a referendum when they see the impact it is going to have on them. Now it is all well and good, to say that as a result of this great campaign against the South that they would take any steps against the South, but this bill will affect every section of the country as much as it does the South. The school integration would be the main effect in the South, but your school boards, your State laws dealing with subversion against the States, this recent decision of the Supreme Court that the State of California had to license as a lawyer a man who invoked the fifth amendment and who said it wasn't any of the board's business as to whether he had been a Communist. California had a StP.te law that no man who was a member of that party eould be a lawyer. The Supreme Court wiped it out and said they had to license him. Now that is a new civil right they have created in that field. Under this bill the Attorney General could move in, in any State, and jail the board of bar examiners without benefit of a jury trial, hold them there until they rot unless they violated their oath to uphold their State laws. People everywhere will oppose this bill.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Senator, where is there in the Constitution, either explicit or implicit, authority for a referendum?

Senator RUSSELL. There is no--Mr. LAWRENCE. In the kind of representa

tive government we set up where you know the little States are equal to the big States in the Senate and the House is more or less proportional, I just wish to make this point about representative government being the fundamental thesis of this Constitution. Now, I return to my original question which you were about to answer in midstream and I am sorry--

Senator RussELL. Of course, Mr. Lawrence, the answer is that there is no express provision for a referendum in the Constitution. Neither is there any clause that forbids it. We submit questions to referendum as to whether farmers will approve this plan or that plan for planting wheat or corn or tobacco and the farmers vote on them ·and the Supreme Court has held that that is· a valid expression of opinion in that field.

It would seem to me that when we are confronted with a situation like this, when it is proposed to ratify every one of these recent Supreme Court decisions by .an act of Congress and fix it where a man couldn't even appeal it, because if men met to plan, raising this question anew, if the Attorney General wished to do so, he could enjoin them and jail them if they were planning even to bring a law suit if it has been settled as a civil right by one of these recent Supreme Court decisions. That would be under the clause of the bill that if he has reason to believe that they will try to deny the man the right be can proceed. Now you can tell me that Herbert Brownell would not bring such a law suit. I don't know. I have an idea that if Mr. Brownell thought that a timely suit might assure the election of a Republican as governor of New York that he might bring one, but we had an Attorney General here not so long ago, Attorney General Biddle, who subsequent to leaving the Attorney General's Office, was the head of the Americans for Democratic Action who undoubtedly approved every one of these decisions whether they involved integrated schools or these Communist cases and if you had an Attorney General like that, he would apply this new body of judicial or Supreme Court law.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Now, you've been talking about some decisions of the Supreme Court and I go back now to the unanimous decision of the Court that segregation in the public school, is, by itself, un~nstitutional. Now as a Senator, and as a citizen, 1f you are asked by your constituents or the authorities of a given city as to whether or not they should obey this decision, what do you tell them?

Senator RussELL. I would tell them that the Supreme Court had handed down a decision that was the law in the cases that was handed down, but we have State laws that are different from those States and I would tell them-it wouldn't be necessary for me to tell them-they are going to do it anyhow-for them to resist any litigation compelling them to integrate their schools. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court or some successors to the present members will come back to the Constitution. They ·do change their minds. They changed it within 6 months here on the question of women shooting thelr husbands overseas; whether they could be tried in a military court and unless we pass this bill where a man can't even plan to bring a law suit, to get them to change their minds, I am hopeful they will change their minds again.

Mr. DUFFEE. Senator, going back to this referendum for a moment, how would you propose to enact this, would this be law?

Senator RUSSELL. I have been doing considerable work on that amendment, Mr. Duffee.

Mr. DUFFEE. Amendment to this bill or to the Constitution?

Senator RUSSELL. To this bill. Just as we say in the case of the wheat farm plan, that this law shall not take effect until it has been submitted, and passed upon in a referendum.

Mr. DUFFEE. You think there might be a constitutional challenge to that, though?

S~nator RUSSELL. Well, there may bethere may be and I would be a little apprehensive about what this Court would hold despite the fact that they held you could submit it in a referendum in the case of whether you could plant so many acres of wheat or corn or not. This issue goes to the preservation of our system of government and certainly, you ought to be entitled if you are confronted with a situation where the ordinary garden variety of American citizen cannot be heard to express himself on these Supreme Court decisions because both of the political parties are held captive by their leftwing groups as far as these de-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD - SENATE 12289 cisions are concerned, why I think it would be a very saluta!y thing to let the people of this country pass on it in a referendum.

Mr. DUFFEE. Senator, you first made that suggestion, I believe, in a speech, July 2 or 3.

Senator RUSSELL. The 2d. Mr. DUFFEE. The first part of this month,

July 2. What has been the response from over the country, not just "from the South, but other parts of the country?

Senator RussELL. Well, my mail has run very heavily in favor of it and I have been extremely gratified to find that there are thousands of people throughout the country and I am not referring now to the South, who see the dangers in this bill and a great many of them who have not be~m taken in by this hate-the-South campaign. Many of them have been in the South. Others have served in the military forces there. They know that it is exaggerated and the vast majority of my mail is in support of my position.

Mr. BANCROFT. Senator RUSSELL, you said at the opening here that you would support a civil rights bill if you could write it. Now can you tell us briefly what kind of civil rights bill you would write?

Senator RussELL. Yes; if we can get a bill that would assure that it would be enforced _ equally across the country, that any coercion by labor leaders, for example, of members of their union in voting could be strictly forbidden. I think that the right to vote as you want to vote is just as important as the right to vote. Of course this stuff about the Negro being denied the ballot in my State is completely unfounded, but I will go on from that, I won't deal with that now. If a man happens to be a member of a labor union ·in Akron, Ohio, and he is threatened by a goon squad if he doesn't vote a certain way and has to vote against his wishes, I think perhaps he has been denied a greater right than the man who hasn't even tried to register and vote, and certainly a man . who does vote is entitled to have his vote counted and counted correctly, and there are undoubtedly areas in this country where that isn't always done. · Mr. LAWRENCE. Senator, this bill that you are about to write-

Senator RussELL. Well, i•m not going toI can't write this bill right here on this program. I said I would support a fair rightto-vote bill protecting the sanctity of the ballot equally throughout this country.

Mr. LAWRENCE. I did not mean that in the sense that you were doing it right here, ·but I mean in the sense if there were a bill that you could agree to the writing of, it would also have a jury-trial provision for those who violated injunctions, I take it.

Senator RussELL. Certainly, I am not going to favor the abolition of the jury system under any circumstances. I don't think it is necessary. Of course, we have miscarriages of justice before our juries. There was a verdict here in Washington the other day that some people think was a miscarriage of justice. I don't know enough about the facts to say whether it was or not, but over a span of about 10 centuries free man everywhere have striven to protect--first to secure and then to protect the jury system to prevent tyranny and I do not propose tp surrender it without a battle.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Senator, you spoke of the abolition or the surrender of the jurytrial system. You used to be Governor of Georgia. In your State when a district judge, a county judge makes a ruling in an injunction case and if I were a citizen of Georgia and I violated that, would I get a jury trial°?

Senator RUSSELL. Of course, in my State, the equity jurisdiction is common with the law. The judge can issue a restraining order, but he can't issue a permanent injunction until after you have had a jury trial of the facts.

Mr. LAWRENCE. A jury trial of the facts of the restraining order?

Senator RussELL. Oh, yes; indeed. Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, once I violate that

order-let's say we have decided on the order and that the judge and jury decide that this is a wise order to make.

Senator RussELL. After he's had a jury trial, yes, indeed. He can be jailed, of course, and should be.

Mr. LAWRENCE. He can be jailed by the judge?

Senator RUSSELL. This question of jury trial in contempt cases, of course, is a complex one. There are a great many laws on it. I have never heard any lawyer contend that a man who committed a contempt in the presence of a court should have a jury trial. The court must have a means of protecting its order in the court. There are a vast number of different laws that apply to contempt cases, but under Federal statute now, if a man is enjoined for something by an individual that involves a criminal offense, the judge can't punish him for contempt until he has had a jury trial. But, if the United States Government is a party to the suit now, he does not have a jury trial. That is the reason why they 'want to make the United States Government, through the Attorney General, a party to all these cases. They seek to impose summary punishment on people who think that they are defending their inherent and inalienable rights. Bear in mind that a great many of these district judges have been appointed by Mr. Brownell and naturally they think a man that had good enough judgment to select them for appointment, that they ought to follow him when he presents a case to them. ·

Mr. SHADEL. Senator RUSSELL, you just made reference to a recent miscarriage of justice in the jury trial here in Washington.

Senator RussELL. I perhaps shouldn't have done that. I don't know enough about it. I said a great many people thought so, and able people.

Mr. SHADEL. You think there was a racial question involved there? I presume you refer to the James Hoffa, teamster vice president.

Senator RussELL. Well, I saw where a very eminent Senator who was not from a Southern State, was quoted in the press as having said that Joe Louis made an excellent defense counsel, although he didn't sit with the lawyers, but sat with the defendant. I don't know anything about that, Mr. Shade!, and I don't like to speak unless I have some knowledge of the facts.

Mr. SHADEL. You didn't see a racial ques-tion there? ·

Senator RUSSELL. I do not know enough about it to say.

Mr. BANCROFT. Senator RUSSELL, I wonder if you could give us a quick, informed prediction. Do you think there will be a civil rights bill in this session?

Senator RussELL. Well, I don't know about that, Mr. Bancroft. I think a great deal has to do with the form the bill will be in when the Senate has completed the process of amendment. I am completely convinced that there are enough men of courage and independence in the Senate to see that this bill never passes as it is now. They can never impose it on us and I don't think they could do it by a majority vote. I don't think they can pass it with all of its present evils and evil nakedness.

Mr. DUFFEE. Senator, along that line, the two things that we have been talking about here are the jury trial, of course, and your desire to have this injunction provision knocked out of the bill. Let me aslt l ·ou a two-part question. Do you think your chances are good, A, for having what is part III of the bill, it provides for the injunction that you object to, and also the Jury trial written into the bill. You think the chances for both of those are good?

. Senator RussELL. Mr. Duffee, I am a very cautious man in making predictions as you know.

Mr. DUFFEE. But you are a very experienced operator, too.

Senator RusSELL. Well, I have been here for some time. I am convinced that we have the votes to strike section 3 from the bill at the present time. Now I have been taking first things first. I have been working on this part III and I therefore have not devoted my efforts to going around and trying to ascertain sentiment with respect to the jury trial. I think that there is substantial sentiment in the Senate in opposition to abolishing the right of trial by jury by this devious subterfuge of going into equity where there is ample redress at law. That is the first rule of equity-that a man can't get into equity court if he has any remedy at law and you've got not only law, action for damages, but criminal cases in all these cases that they are trying to enjoin and jail people without the benefit of a jury trial. I should be very much surprised if the Senate did no·t apply a jury trial amendment to this blll.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Now assuming that your forecasts are both right, knock out part III, title 3 or whatever it is C'alled and that you also had a jury trial amendment, would the South then consent to a quick vote on this thing or are we going to have an extended filibuster in any event?

Senator RUSSELL. Well, I don't know what you call an extended filibuster. Definitions of filibuster vary. One I have heard is very appropriate-it is a long speech with which you disagreee. That is always a filibuster. Up to now I think that most any fair-minded man will agree that this bill has been discussed strictly on its merits. There are a number of other provisions of this bill that present novel questions. One of them is the fact that you are creating an entirely new division in the Department of Justice with a large number of lawyers to enforce a certain series of rights, at the expense of the Government of the United States when there is no showing here that the individuals involved, the organizations that support them, can't finance the litigation as everybody else has to do. That is a rather dangerous precedent. Suppose we establish a division in the Department of Justice to enforce the rights of labor? Suppose we create a new division there to enforce the rights of employers against abuses by labor? That is almost an endless proposition and it is one, just another example of the spreading bureaucracy that we see here for a supposedly noble purpose.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, to put it in the bluntest terms, you asked me to define a filibuster, regardless of the two changes I have mentioned, knocking out title 3 and possibly the jury trial--

Senator RusSELL. No, sir; I am not going to vote for this part 2 of the bill in its present form. You or Mr. Shadel asked me about a voting-rights bill and I said if it was fair and universal in its application, and protected the sanctity of the ballot equally against all abuses that are perpetrated anywhere in this land, that I would support a voting-rights bill.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, would it be the intention of the South under the circumntances that .I can foresee and that you can foresee at the moment, to talk this bill to death?

Senator RUSSELL. I can't say that, Mr. Lawrence, without seeing the bill and if it has these very vicious provisions in it, well you may be sure that we will use every means at our command to fight it to the very death because it is a very vicious piece of legislation in its present form.

Mr. BANCROFT. Senator RUSSELL, there in the Senate you don't talk about anything now but civil rights, but that's no reason that we have to confine ourselves to that, and you have a lot of other responsibilities


here as chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Atomic Energy Committee, and I think Bill Shadel has a question on that.

Mr. SHADEL. Well, Senator, I am just curious about this 100,000 manpower cut announced last week by Secretary Wilson. Is your committee going to question that?

Senator RussELL. Yes; we will certainly examine into that, Mr. Shadel. I have only seen the memorandum that was submitted by the Secretary of Defense outlining his reasons for it. I am somewhat concerned about some aspects of it. Congress passed a law making it mandatory on the Depart· ment of Defense to maintain three divisions in the Marine Corps. Well, if you reduce it by 10,000 men those divisions are going to be so skeletonized that you will to have to look twice to find them. I don't think it would hardly be in conformity with the express will of the Congress. I am very apprehensive likewise about any reductions in our Air Force at this time and I think that is somethinig that should be studied with great care. I don't thir..k the American people are putting any monetary value on their insurance policy that will assure them that we can protect this country against foreign aggression and I think we ought to move very slowly about any reductions in our Armed Forces until we have a firm and fast agreement with complete, and open inspection with the Communists to see that they are reducing their forces.

Mr. DUFFEE. I have 1 or 2 other questions on another line. In your speech of July !', you suggested that some of the information media of the country should be investigated by the Congress for failure to give a fair p~cture of th~ civil rights. Now you specifically mentioned television. Do you still feel that same way?

Senator RussELL. I think, Mr. Duffee, that there has been a great eye opening of all of our media of information since this bill has been made plain to the American people. I am not going to call any names, but there was one of the broadcasting networks that had had 2 or 3 very long films that partook very strongly of pure propaganda against the southern P.eople. They emphasized, for example, that they-well, for example, in my State. There was a Negro who was a high school principal. He expressed an opinion that he didn't think they ought to integrate the schools and his colored brethren ran him out of town and he lost a $7,000 job, at least that income was coming to his family. If that had been white people it would have been advertised to death all over the country, and newsreels would have gotten up some fringed man in the Ku Klux uniform denouncing the Jews and Catholics and everybody else and would have said that is representative of the South. I do think that since this debate has started that all of the media of information have been exceedingly fair to those of us in the South in carrying out-

Mr. BANCROFT. Senator RUSSELL, on that note I am afraid our time is up and Senator RussELL, many thanks for being with us on Face the Nation.

Senator RUSSELL. Glad to have appeared. Mr. BANCROFT. Our thanks also to today's

panel of newsmen-Warren Duffee, of the Uni~ed Press; Bill Shadel, of CBS News; and Wilham H. Lawrence, of the New York Times.

This is Griffing Bancroft. We invite you to join us next week when Senator HUBERT HUMPHREY, Democrat, of Minnesota, will Face the Nation.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, on July 14, the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELLJ participated in another television interview, this time conducted by the American Broadcasting Co. The program was entitled "Open Hearing." 'The subject matter of the inter.view was

largely the civil rights bill. I ask unani~ mous consent that this excerpt from the program be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows: INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

OPEN HEARING, AMERICAN BROADCASTING Co., JULY 14, 1957 Mr. SECONDARI. Formally you could call this

the cause of it all, H. R. 6127-627 lines of large print.

According to the administration which sponsored this bill, it is a prospective law intended to guarantee the voting rights of all citizens. In this respect it is a reinforcement of both the 14th and 15th amendments which guaranteed like rights to all citizens, and also gave Congress the power to enact laws to protect those rights. The bill is divided into four parts. It causes the creation of a civil rights division in the Justice Department. It calls for the establishment of a civil rights commission with the power to rectify instances of racial discrimination. The bill sets up a complex system of cross references into existing laws, amending some, changing others to empower the Attorney General to act in such a way as to insure respect for all these laws. And here starts the controversy. ·This civil rights bill has been called a moderate bill-at least that is what its sponsors call it. President Eisenhower in his last news conference described it as moderate. He also said that all it was meant to do was to make certain that no one interfered with any of the citizen's rights to vote. The newspapers in the North all termed the bill moderate. And, as a matter of fact, it had little trouble getting through the House of Representatives. In the Senate, the Senators have called it other things. Se~ator RICHARD B. RUSSELL, of Georgia, said o~ it that it was "in truth a cunningly deV1Sed and contrived piece of legislation which would hold the Federal bayonet at the South's neck in an effort to force commingling of the races from the schoolhouse to places of public entertainment."

He also said and I quote, "If you propose to move into the South in this fashion, you may as well prepare your concentration camps now, for there will not be enough jails to hold the people of the South who will today oppose the use of raw Federal power to forcibly commingle white and Negro children in the same schools and places of public entertainment." And there it stands.

The talking has gone on for a week. Already the air is heavy with compromise. A certain number of Senators still claim that the civil rights bill under consideration is a just and moderate law. The southern bloc is still de~ermined to bar it in its present

. form. How can one body of men, serious men, at one and the same time hold two such divergent positions?

Senator RUSSELL. Senator RUSSELL is the leader of the southern bloc.

Mr. SECONDARI. Senator, how can a serious body of men hold two such widely divergent positions?

. Senator RUSSELL. Well, Mr. Secondari, this bill, of course, has been presented as a civil rights bill. That is the label that it bears. All Americans are in favor of civil rights. We are all in fa var of more and bigger civil rights. Tbe people of the South are as strongly in favor of civU rights-and indeed they are stronger defenders of constitutional rights than the people of almost any other area of our land. The question involved he~e is how far you can go to establish rights claimed by one group without infringing on the rights of another group. And how far the Federal power can properly be used to create a new and special right for one group of our citizens at the expense of another group and the rights of the States.

Mr. SECONDARI. Sir, in describing this bill you charge that it has been misrepresented

Senator RUSSELL. Well, there is no question about that, Mr. Secondari, I think that the press now very generally admits that by claiming this was merely a right-to-vote bill, they had overlooked the most drastic provisions of the law.

Mr. SECONDARI. That is quite true, sir, but in this misrepresentation as you allege, would you say that it was collusion?

Senator RussELL. I didn't charge collusion. I said it was a cunning contrivance to rush this bill through the Senate under false colors, calling it a right-to-vote bill, when really its primary mission was to force the intermingling of the races in the schools and in all public places in the Southern States. The heart of this bill, Mr. Secondari, is part III of the bill. It is a very cunningly de· vised section of the law. You have it there. If you will read it, on its face it means hardly anything. You recall that President Eisenhower at his press conference, when asked about the comments I had made about the bill, said just what you said he had said, and also that he had gotten the bill that morning and tried to read it and had found certain sections of :t most confusing. I may say he had a great deal of company in that regard, because of that third part which by a process of obscuration makes it necessary to do a great deal of reading in the laws that are referred to by numbers of sections, in order to find out its true purpose.

Mr. SECONDARI. What is its true purpose? Senator RussELL. Part III is, of course, un

doubtedly designed to enforce integration of the races in the schools of the South and in all places of public entertainment in the South at the point of a bayonet if need be.

Mr. SECONDARI. What do you mean by point of a bayonet?

Senator RussELL. Well, this bill was tied on to one of the old reconstruction statutes, one of the laws that was passed by Thaddeus Stevens in the wake of the fraticidal and tragic strife of the sixties, when he said they y.rere going to put black heels on white necks, and did for the 12 years that we were occupied. It ties it into that section.

There are other sections that relate to civil rights it could have been put in, but the one they put it in is referred to in another statute that doesn't appear in the bill. It says that to enforce the provisions of section 1985, the President or any person that he may designate may use the Navy and the Army and the militia to enforce these decrees. The fact that they sought out this old reconstruction statute makes very clear to me th.at the purpose was, if need be, to intimidate the people of the South at least by the threat of bayonet and if that didn't work to call in the troops.

Mr. SECONDARI. Sir, you had an interview with the President just a few days ago. Did you find him aware of the true meaning of this bill as you see it?

Senator RussELL. Well, the President stated at his press conference just what you said he had said that he thought this was a right-to-vote bill and that is what he wanted. I shan't go into the details of my 58-minute conference with the President. I have always regarded that as inappropriate. I don't quote the President. I do think we both had a better understanding of each .other's views and that the President understood the objections that we are urging to this bill much better when I left the White House. But that is as far as I would go-and could with propriety go-into a conference I had with the President.

Mr. SECONDARI. Senator, do you actually believe that there would be a danger-no matter what the provisions of the law-of the President actually calling out the troops?

Senator RussELL. Well now, you talk about the President-if you mean the Office of the President-yes; if you mean President Eisen-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 12291 how er-no. I don't think he would, but no Congress can properly legislate on the basis of who is the President of the United States. If these powers are placed in the law, in the next election there will be promises made to the heads of those groups who vote in blocs that if elected the full extent of these powers will be used.

Mr. SECONDARI. Those groups? Senator RussELL. Well, the National Asso

ciation for the Colored People is one of them. 'l'he so-called Americans for Democratic Action is another extreme leftwing group, that is most anxious to send punitive expeditions deep into the South and they are not at all mindful of the history that lies back of this.

For nearly 90 years, the people of the South under the protection of Federal law and decisions of the Supreme Court-had taxed thems~lves heavier in proportion to their wealth than the people of any other section of the country in order to keep their schools operatiug. Their State laws required separate schools for the colored children and for the white children. They also required that they have Negro teachers for the Negro schools and white teachers for the white schools and they required that they be paid equally. There were thousands of communities in the South where the trustees of the schools and the leading citizens went out and urged the people to bond themselves and tax themselves to maintain this system of schools. The Supreme Court for 90 years said that was legal and constitutional; for 90 years it was done under State law-then it was changed. It wasn •t changed by an act of Congress where men debated the bills and where it was publicized in the press, where the people of the South could see and hear the reasons that were advanced. It was changed overnight by the Supreme Court. They said that all these other Supreme Courts had been wrong, that they had made unconstitutional decisions, and all of our State laws and local laws were to no effect whatever. Now where people have known no other way of life for 90 years than to have separate schools for their children, it is a rather monstrous proposition, to my mind, to threaten them with the unlimited power that this bill in part III would give to the Attorney General. It is a sad thought, but it could only result in the destruction of your system of public education in 8 or 9 of the States of this Union. That would work irreparable harm to white and Negro children alike. I do not believe that the American people generally would favor this violent action to enforce judicial law. ·

Under our Constitution, the Congress is supposed to have the legislative power. But here you have a law that was made by the Supreme Court, overriding all of the Supreme Courts for 90 years. The Congress had never passed any such law and-so far as I knownone had ever been proposed. But it is asking a great deal-and I think it is wholly unreasonable-to say to people who have this system, the only one they have ever known, that the Attorney General should be granted the power to hire lawyers to bring suits, whether the Negro citizens want them brought or not, at the expense of the American taxpayer, to tax the people of the South to pay these lawyers, to tax the people of the South to pay the FBI to run down all the evidence to prosecute the cases and then to pack them off to jail without even the benefit of a jury trial. It is a very severe and unAmerican measure in my opinion.

Mr. SECONDARI. Senator JAVITS said yesterday that the question of a jury trial is not guaranteed by the Constitution in cases of contempt, which would be the cases arising out of this law.

Senator RussELL. All of that specious reasoning that is advanced by those who are seeking to do away with the jury system in these cases. Of course, the jury trial is guaranteed in three separate provisions of our Constitution.

No lawyer would contend that in the case of a contempt created in the presence of the court, a man is entitled to have a jury trial. For example, if a defendant cursed the prosecuting officer of the court or if there were any disorder in the court of course the judges always punish without a jury trial. But here they enjoin an act that is a crime. But they are not going to treat it as a crime, because if they do so the man is entitled to a jury trial. They propose to come in and enjoin a man and then to punish him and send him to jail by a Federal judge. He can sit there until he rots without ever having a jury trial. There is a great deal of difference in degrees of contempt and this seeks to make contempts out of acts that are punishable as crimes. That's one of my principal objections to the bill.

It's a flagrant insult to all of the people of the South to say that every white juror will forswear and perjure himself where a colored citizen is involved-and that is simply not true.

I have practiced law and tried many hundred jury cases myself and I know that is not true and this harsh and unusual procedure cannot be justified on the basis of the Constitution.

Now they talk about the failure of juries in the South. I had occasion the other day to examine a report of the crime commission appointed to study the conditions in the great city of Chicago in the State of Illinois. It was composed of outstanding citizens, not of Georgia and other States, but citizens of Illinois and those gentlemen filed a most revealing report. According to them, and if they are to be believed, for many years in Chicago, Cook County and adjoining communities, there was no serious effort made to enforce the law. The gangster named Al Capone had control of the government. There were some 13,000 felonies committed. Only about 3,000 of them were ever prosecuted. About 500 of them were all that were ever convicted. No one came forward proposing that the Attorney General move in by contempt. In the East during prohibition days, the Government finally quit trying to convict people before juries. But nobody said we are going to make a contempt out of it and abolish the jury system. That is one reason we feel so keenly that as a people we are being indicted and convicted before we have ever had a fair trial. The Attorney General doesn't say that in such cases, a large number of cases, southern juriesgrand juries-didn't indict or that petit juries didn't convict.

Mr. SECONDARI. Senator, let's get back to the South. Do you, sir, as a southerner, besides a Senator, do you feel that all Americans should be treated as equals regardless of race?

Senator RUSSELL. I certainly do. Before the law every person in this country should be treated equally.

I said the voting provisions of this bill was a smokescreen, because it is the least important part of it. If there is any limitation or restriction on the Negro citizen to vote in my State, I don't know it. In my capital city, Atlanta, the voters elected a Negro to one of our most important city offices-a member of the board of school trustees, though there are only about 30 percent of the people in the city that are colored. The white people had to vote for him or he couldn't possibly have won.

The South has been greatly misrepresented in this matter, Mr. Secondari. The Negroes do vote down there and they have voted for a long time.

Mr. SECONDARl. Sir, there is a question of division in the South and if we permit a large area of the country to discriminate ·against our Negro population, aren't we in a sense failing to give them the equality which is guaranteed. by the Constitution?

Senator RussELL. Well, you are just falling into the common error-I don't accuse you of it deliberately-in a way it is a slander on the South that we deny the ballot. Why doesn't the Attorney General bring his cases and prove where he tried to enforce the criminal statutes on voting and failed. I say that generally speaking the Negro citizen does vote in the Southern States. I only have personal knowledge of two and that is my own State and the State of Florida where I once participated in the primaries. In those States I know that the Negroes do vote, if they are qualified and can meet the qualifications prescribed for all electors.

Mr. SECONDARI. Yes, sir; but aside from the question of voting-they attend separate schools from the white-they have separate places of entertainment--they have separate places of assembly.

Senator RUSSELL. Indeed they do. Now if you call that course illegal discrimination why that is. Of course the decision of the Supreme Court in the school cases was not predicated on any law. They relied on a book on sociology by a Swedish Socialist who declared in the same book that our Constitution was a plot against the masses of the American people. That is really the basis for their decision and I do not regard separate schools as being discriminatory. To hold that it is discriminatory, in my opinion, is a great reflection on the Negro race. It is a charge that they have an inferiority complex that is so great that they can't enjoy life unless they have the strong arm of the Government to force them into intimate association with the white people in States which have this separate system.

It's a great deal of difference, Mr. Secondari, for a man who lives in an area where they have 2 percent of Negroes-who sees 1 perhaps every 2 weeks-he can settle this question in a hurry. But when you come down to our section where the races are more nearly equal, we have found from experience that this separate system for the races is better and the developments that have been made in voting and the great economic changes that have been madeparticularly in my own State-have come as a result of evolution and if you try these revolutionary and strong-arm tactics you will destroy the results of patient efforts of men of good will of both races over a long period of years.

Mr. SECONDARI. Senator, do you feel that the status of the Negro needs any improvement in the Sou th?

Senator RussELL. Well, of course, it does. But let me tell you this. In the enjoyment of their constitutional rights we have Negro citizens who have accumulated a million dollars or more. I don't think it is challenged that in the city of Atlanta, Ga., there are more Negro millionaires than there are in New York:, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles combined though there are 7, 8, or 10 times as many Negroes in those cities as there are in Atlanta. We have thousands of Negro citizens who own their own homes and their own farms and their own places of business. They run taxicab companies. They operate all kinds of businesses. And in the enjoyment of their constitutional rights they earn their livelihoods, but you must remember that 90 years ago they started out from scratch. The South had nothing. And while that is a long time in life of an individual it is not a second in the life of a society or civilization. The amazing progress that the Negro in the South since emancipation cannot be equaled anywhere else on earth the Negro has ever lived. But of course we have many poor Negroes, indeed we have many poor white people. We have been a poor people for a long time. You know, we committed the folly of trying to leave the Union and we were destroyed. It was from 1860 to 1940 before the tax values of my State of Georgia got back to where

12292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 22.

they were. The rest of the Nation was getting richer all the time.

Mr. SECONDARI. Can you envision a time in the future, when in the South the Negroes a n d white children would go to school in the same school?

Senator RussELL. Well, forever is a long, long time and there are some communities in Southern States today where the schools integrated. They have a number of them in the State of Texas. As for my own State, in the foreseeable future, I don't think there is any likelihood of the races being intermingled in the schools. I know it is not going to be done by the r aw use of Federal power and our people feel very deeply they have a right for their children to go to schools that are attended by members of their own race. In my judgment they will do away with our public schools systems before they would submit to this raw use of Federal power to compel mixing the races in the schools.

Mr. SECONDARI. Well, would you favor the closing of the public schools in your State?

Senator RUSSELL. Oh, I don't favor the closing of the public schools in my State and I hope that nothing is done that will bring about that very sad and lamentable condition. White people will somehow manage to get their children educated if they have to. We don't want to be driven to that. We h a ve taxed ourselves as I have stated to a greater extent than the people of any other section to maintain these schools for the white and Negro children. We have around 20 ,000 Negro schoolteachers in Georgia that are paid as much or more in some cases as the white teachers are paid. We have endeavored in good faith to carry out the law and the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court until the recent decision. I t will be a great mistakea tragic mistake for the people of the rest of the country or their represen t atives--for political purposes-to take this very drastic step against the South now. I don't believe that it will appeal to the fair thinking people of this Nation generally.

Mr. SECONDARI. Senat or, judicial law though it might be, the Supreme Court has decreed that schools must be integrated. So do you in Georgia have any intention of living up to this decree?

Senator RusSELL. Well, you know Mr. Secondari, the Supreme Court held in any number of cases that under the Constitution the schools didn't have to be integrated. Now this decision that you referred to was and is undoubtedly the law of the cases that were involved. But we do not think that it applies to circumstances that exist in the Georgia schools and we are not bound by this decision, but I don't think that we have any purpose to integrate our schools in the foreseeable future.

Mr. SECONDARI. At length, do you hope that the future Supreme Court may--

Senator RussELL. Oh indeed, I hope that we will get constitutional lawyers like Mr. Justice Taft and others that wrote those great constitutional decisions that we had a right to have separate but equal schools. I have been greatly impressed particularly by reading one article from a Negro authoress or writer in Florida in which she bitterly resented the Supreme Court's decision because she thought it a reflection on her race that they could have such an inferiority complex. As for the National Colored People's Association, who of course agitate this, it was a significant . thing that one of those Negro children who was involved in this tragic instance at Clinton, Tenn., when asked by some reporter, if he wanted to go back to h is school, said that he · didn't ever want to leave his school but the National Colored People's Association told him to come to this white school.

If they are going to have a goon squad like that they can cause an awful lot of trnuble. Particularly if you grant these

vast powers to the Attorney General to handle it at the expense o.f the American taxpayer.

Mr. SECONDARI. Sir, we have just 1 minute left. Do you feel that the proponents of this civil-rights bill under discussion are moved by political reasons or are they moved by sincere desire to improve the status of the Negro? Are they moved by desire to embarrass the South or what?

Senator RussELL. I shall not impugn the motives of any individual, but I want to say that unquestionably this overall movement is political. The South is just a political pawn in this interplay of forces. These minority groups have convinced the leaders of both political parties that the one that carries their punitive expedition more deeply into the South will win the presidential election of 1960. There is no question but that this thing is shot through and through with politics.

Mr. SECONDARI. Thank you very much Senator RUSSELI ..

Senator RussELL. Thank you. Mr. SECONDARI. You have just heard Sen".'

ator RICHARD RUSSELL of Georgia. The name of the program is Open Hearing and the subject is the South and how it views the civil-rights legislation. I will be back with you in just 60 seconds.

(Commercial.) Mr. SECONDARI. After a week's debate,

people are taking a second look at the civil-rights bill and how it is written. Three major amendments have already been proposed. Several others are in preparation.

But the Senators are not alone in their reconsideration. Such newspapers as the New York Times and the Washington Post have changed their editorial minds or at least are conceding the wisdom to a second and deeper look at the bill as it is writ ten. If this is all the South accomplished, it could still claim a victory. It has caused us to call a halt and look. It has made us honestly divide emotion from what is written in the law, reading the words with our minds and reality rather than with our hearts and the way we should like things to be. 1 t seems we are all agreed on this-North and South: Emotion is a poor basis for legislation.

This is John Secondari.

THE CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have

always understood that debate on measures pending before the Senate should be conducted, according to rule VIII, at the conclusion of the morning hour, and that the morning hour itself should be reserved for the making of insertions in the RECORD and for incidental or routine business.

However, in view of the fact that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] and the Senator from New J ersey [Mr. SMITHJ have utilized a part of the morning hour to attack part III of the pending civil-rights bill, I there-

. fore ask unanimous consent that I may be accorded the privilege of speaking for 5 minutes during the morning hour, in defense of part III.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALMADGE in the chair). Is there objection?

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-although certainly I shall not object-I wish to say that we are getting ourselves into a difficult position in regard to the morning hour and the transaction of routine business during the morning hour. Many Senators would like to have more than 3 minutes allowed to them during

the morning hour. I hope the regular procedure will be followed.

However, in this instance, I shall not object.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I would not have sought an opportunity to discuss part·III at this time if the Senator from New Jersay had not previously discussed it and if the Senator from Massachusetts had not spoken for approximately 10 minutes. In view of that fact, I do not think it improper for me to request that I may proceed at this time for 5 minutes. I am willing to disarm bilaterally in the discussion of this bill, but not unilaterally.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. ls there objection?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I hope the request of the Senator f rem Illinois will be granted. As I recall, the Senator from Massachusetts requested unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes, and later he obtained consent to proceed for an additional minute. I do not know how long he finally spoke.

However, it is not unusual for Sena~ tors to speak for more than 3 minutes during the morning hour. As is understood, the 3-minute limitation is established by unanimous consent, and frequently it is necessary to deviate from that limitation.

The request of the Senator from Illinois is one which frequently. is made. Senators often find themselves unable to confine their remarks to 3 minutes.

So I hope no Senator will object, just as no Senator objected to the request of the Senator from Massachusetts. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Illinois? Without objection, it is so ordered; and the Senator from Illinois may proceed.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, it is obvious tliat there is a very strong movement on both sides of the aisle to support the Anderson-'Aiken amendment to strike out part III of the bill in its entirety. ·

Before the Senate reaches the final debate on the Anderson-Aiken amendment, I think it highly important that we should realize what is at stake.

Part III in its present form aims to give the Attorney General the power to intervene and institute court proceedings to protect citizens and localities in the enjoyment of the constitutional rights guaranteed to them by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. The 14th amendment provides that no State-and this includes the civil subdivisions thereof-shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. Since 1871, no step has been taken by the legislative branch of the Federal Government to implement the 14th amendment. So for 85 years there has been a period of legislative inaction, in that regard.

In the past few years the Supreme Court has made a series of rulings to apply the protection of the 14th amendment and the definition of the equal protection of the laws to outlaw segregation on public golf links, in interstate transportation, and ultimately in the public schools. In the case of the schools, however, the Court did not set

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12293 a definite time schedule, and provided for legal methods by which a reasonable transition to compliance could be determined in further proceedings before the district courts.

Part III of the bill aims to give to the Attorney General the power to institute suits for preventive relief in behalf of a community which wishes to comply, but which is being pressed by private individuals or by State authorities not to comply. It also gives the Attorney General the power to intervene by court action, through the injunctive process, ]n behalf of individual citizens who feel that the localities are not calTying out the provisions of the Constitution as clearly defined by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The injunction sought by the Attorney General will have to be heard and evidence taken from both sides by the district court. Appeals can be taken from the district court's order to the circuit court of appeals, and then to the Supreme Court. So no hasty action will be required; but, instead, a perfectly valid judicial and constitutional process will be carried out.

Senators who vote to strike out this part of the bill will be voting to make the 14th amendment to the Constitution ineffective. They will also be voting in effect to overturn or at least to give no congressional support to all the historic decisions of the Supreme Court, in the case of public schools and in the case of interstate transportation and in the case of public golf links and public parks, among other public facilities.

If Senators who are supporting the Anderson-Aiken amendment wish to say they believe the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject of discrimination due to race, religion, or national origin should be dead letters, let them say so. If they feel that the 14th amendment to the Constitution deserves no implementation, despite the explicit words in section 5 of that amendment let them make that clear. But the voters and the public opinion of the country-and the public opinion of the world-will know precisely what decision has been made.

So, Mr. President, I hope the vote will not be taken in any light mood, but that Senators who vote will know precisely what they are voting for, and, of course, will be ready to stand behind and def end their vote before their constitutents and before the bar of public opinion. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT ON FURTHER

CONSIDERATION OF KNOWLAND-HUMPHREY AMENDMENT TO THE .CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I propose the following unanimousconsent agreement. I do so on behalf of the distinguished minority leader and myself:

Ordered, That upon the adoption of this order, further debate on the KnowlandHumphrey amendment, adding a new section to part III of House bm 6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, shall be limited to i10t to exceed 1¥2 hours, to be equally divided, and controlled by the majority and minority leaders.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALMADGE in the chair). Is there objection to the proposed agreement?

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I desire to have the attention of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] when I ask these questions, because I have not had an opportunity to talk to him: Let me ask the majority leader whether I am to understand that adoption of the proposed agreement in no way would modify, as of now, part III of the present bill, save and except as I understand that the amendment ref erred to has the effect of adding a proposed new section to part III. But am I to understand that the proposed agreement, if entered into, would not mean that the Senate was committing itself to a limitation of debate on the question of whether section 121 of part III is to be eliminated from the bill?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have just glanced over the unanimous-consent request, as reduced to writing; and it is my understanding that, in its present form, the request refers merely to the Knowland-Humphrey amendment to abandon any possible use of force, and does not refer to the Anderson-Aiken amendment, as modified, which provides that a certain portion of part III of the bill be stricken out.

Mr. MORSE. I understand that the Knowland-Humphrey amendment really repeals an old reconstruction law which should have been repealed decades ago in the interest of cleaning up the code, with particular reference to the provision dealing with the use of troops in com~ction with the enforcement of the raw. That statute could be applied to whatever measure the Senate passes. It is an existing statute, although the Senate will still discuss it as the days go by, as attention is called to what the inherent powers to carry out judicial decrees may be.

I want to be perfectly sure, if I give my consent to this proposed agreement, that I am not in any way silencing myself for a rather long speech which I am about two-thirds through preparing in regard to section 121 of the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. If the proposed agreement be entered into, it is my understanding the limitation of time would apply only to the HumphreyKnowland amendment, not to the Anderson-Aiken amendment, or not to any other substitute. Is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It would apply only to the Knowland-Humphrey amendment.

Mr. MORSE. With that understanding, I have no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the Senator from Texas? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

CIVIL-RIGHTS DISPUTE IN NEW YORK CITY

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, there appears in today's Washington Daily News a very illuminating article which has bearing upon the present con-

test in the Senate. It is written by Mr. Lyle C. Wilson, one of the top newspapermen, and is entitled, "New York Welfare Group Has Rights Dispute, Too."

I see on the floor our friend and distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITs]. I call attention to a statement in the article that the original New York City ordinance proposed a fine of $500. Then this statement appears in the article:

Senator JAVITS opposed the fine provision. He urged instead resort to mediation, conciliation, and technical assistance.

The Senator from New York was in favor of softening up that bill, although I understand he has taken the stand here of being opposed to softening up the civil-rights bill in any way whatsoever.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed at this point in the RECORD as a part of my remarks.


NEW YORK WELFARE GROUP HAS "RIGHTS" DISPUTE, Too

(By Lyle C. Wilson) For the record, it should be noted that the

Senate is not the only political forum in which rages a dispute over the rights of Negroes to equality and integration.

It may surprise some persons, including the embattled southern Democratic Senators here, to learn that the other forum in which such a dispute prevails is the general welfare committee of the Municipal Council of the City of New York. Strange, but true.

A considerable part of the pressure on Congress to enact the pending civil-rights bill without any softening of its provisions comes from New York City and similar great urban areas outside the South. Even so, New York's general welfare committee has been troubled since last May 21 by a simple proposal. The proposal would make it unlawful to discriminate for reasons of race, color, rell.gion, national origin, or ancestry in the rental or sale of dwelling space. The proposed ordinance is intended to open to Negroes dwelling units evidently now closed to them by reason of such discrimination.

Newspapers and individuals which long have championed such a civil-rights project as now confronts the Senate have been less enthusiastic about the antidiscrimination project in their hometown. The real-estate boards of all five boroughs of New York City vigorously opposed the proposed ordinance.

After public hearings in mid-June, the project was sent back to committee. The mail count against the proposition was 3 to 1 at city hall. Some councilmen said their mail was 4 to 1 against. What happens next is anybody's guess.

The ordinance already has been substantially amended. It originally provided fines up to $500 for discrimination in the sale or rental of housing units. Senator JACOB K. JAVITS, Republican, of New York, was among those stanch advocates of the civil-rights bill now pending in the Senate who urged modification of the New York proposition to eliminate certain punitive provisions. The $500 fine provision has been abandoned.

Senator JAVITS opposed the fine provision. He urged instead resort to "mediation, conciliation, and technical assistance, with court injunctions as the primary enforcement medium to back it up."

Charles Abrams, head of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination, took the same stand. The New York Times

12294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 'July 22

reported the Javits-Abrams action in this language:

"Two champions of civil rights called yesterday [July 7) for amendments to soften proposed city legislation to outlaw discrimination in private housing."

n, indeed, the proposal was to soften, then Senator JAVITS' position toward the civilrights legislation pending in the Senate is substantially different. He opposes any softening there.

The committee also amended the bill to eliminate all cooperative apartments. As introduced last May, the bill exempted only 1- and 2-family houses, except those sold in developments of more than 10 units.

Councilmen Joseph T. Sharkey, of Brooklyn, and Earl Brown, of Harlem, both Democrats, sponsored the ordinance with Councilman Stanley M. Isaacs, of Manhattan, described as a great Liberal-Republican. Brown, representing one of the great Negro constituencies, has bitterly protested the handling of the ordinance and the activities of Mr. Sharkey and of some of their fellow Democrats.

Neither the sponsors nor others who might know will venture now to predict what may happen to this antidiscrimination project in the capital city of civil rights. Mr. Sharkey could offer no more than a "hope" that he could get the ordinance out of committee and before the council for final action.

Mr. JAVITS subsequently said: Mr. President, the Sena.tor from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] has raised a question about my agreeing to certain actions with respect to what we call the antibias bill regarding housing in the State of New York.

It is never a good idea to make a speech about something on which one does not have all the facts. What the Senator from New York did in New York City was exactly what he is doing on the floor of the Senate. I urged and advocated that, instead of criminal punishment, we should rely upon the proc. esses of mediation conciliation, and tech-nical assistance, backed up by the injunctive power. That is exactly what I am advocating here, and exactly what I think is being completely overlooked in the whole debate as to part III of the civil-rights bill.

What we who are for part m of the . bill are seeking to do is to substitute for a more drastic remedy, namely, criminal prosecution, which is ineffective because it is too drastic-and that is exactly the situation I faced in the case of the city ordinance of New York-a remedy that is less drastic and therefore more effective, to wit, the injunctive remedy.

I hasten to point out again that in the State of New York there is no right of jury trial in a contempt case. I cite the case of Soprinsky v. Polman (289 New York Supplement 1110).

In short, I suggest to my friend, the Senaitor from Alabama, that before he decides I have vitiated my own position he had better obtain all the facts. I have just given the facts to the Senate.

Mr. President, while we are on this matter of part III of the bill, let us understand one thing. I should like to underline and emphasize the words of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] on the Gubject. If we strike out part III of the bill, we are pulling the rug from under the Supreme Court and from under constitutional rights which are as valid as the constitutional right to vote, to the

extent it exists. I refuse to believe th1t any Senator will say that the right to sit on a jury or to be a litigant or to enjoy a public facility in a nonsegregated way is a right of some lesser order of magnitude than the right to vote.

I point out, Mr. President, that the minorities in the South are suffering now from what will be taken care of by part III of the bill. Part IV represents something which over the years they may be able to use to improve their own conditions, but part III will give immediate relief in circumstances which caused the bombings in Montgomery and the shootings to death in other areas of the South. This is the immediate incident and the immediate emergency with which we are dealing.

Mr. President, lest we run away with ourselves in this matter, the New York Times has been cited widely here as the authority for the proposition that there ought to be some easy civil rights bill, painless in its effect. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that there be printed in the RECORD as a part of my remarks an editorial from the Sunday New York Times, entitled "A Moment in History," in which the new York Times comes out flatly against any jury trial in contempt proceeding~, provided for in part IV of the bill. I quote from the New York Times editorial this excerpt:

The old and tiresome words and phrases are being heard and will continue to be. But this is a contest in which the ancient Wflr flags had better remain furled and the drums be silent. The old South has changed, for its own good. The Negro has advanced in education, in self-knowledge and in capacity for good citizenship. Our position in the .world demands democracy of us at home. We must all be equal and friends together, as President Eisenhower said in another connection at his latest press conference, or we may all perish together.



A MOMENT IN HISTORY

History is not always an affair of battles or elections. It is sometimes a matter of ideas, growing slowly but seeming to appear suddenly. This year we have arrived at a moment in history with the Senate debate on the civil-rights bill. It is a moment comparable with 1870,-when the 15th amendment was ratified, and with the contested election of Hayes in 1876, which by a twist of circumstances resulted in the end of carpet-bagging in the South. It is a moment marking the probable restoration to the Negro of some of the rights given to him by the 14th a.nd 15th amendments and taken from him after the white South resumed control of the situation.

The Eisenhower administration, with the backing of 168 Republicans o-:.it of 187 voting, and of 118 Democrats out ot 225 voting, pushed the civil-rights bill through the House on June 18. There is little doubt that it could have been pushed through the Senate by a good majority if it could have been brought to a vote there after a normal debate. Some Senators who were not satisfied with the bill as it stood would still have supported it rather than have no civil-rights legislation at an.

Under the Senate rules, of course, normal debate ot such an issue was not possible. The minority was ready, as usual, to invoke

the filibuster and tie up the entire legislative business of Congress in order to frus.trate the majority.

There had, however, been two changes in the situation-truly historic changes. First, it was no ionger politically expedient for the southern diehard minority to filibuster against placing the bill on the calendar. This minority, or its ~rticulate spokesmen, contented themselves with pointing out certain defects and dangers in the measure. The bill seemed, for example, to justify calling out Federal troops to compel southern communities to integrate their schools.

But the second change in the situation was that many Senators who supported the bill were willing to compromise on this and other points, so long as the essentials of the 15t h amendment-that is, the right to vote, regardless of race-were retained. The meaning of this willingness to compromise is clear. There would have been no need for it if the Senate were heading for another prolonged filibuster, with an inevitable sur_render at the end to a reckless and irresponsible band of obstructionists.

The Senate is not heading for such a surrender. It is heading for a civil rights bill, which has a fair chance of being passed _at this session and which will guarantee the Negro the protection and remedies of the Constitution, if any community continues to restrict his franchise on account of his race. The bill would not specifically guarantee the Negro the right to attend an integrated school, although he will still have remedies, under the Supreme Court decision of May 1954, and under subsequent court orders, if that right is denied him.

The southern bloc has made an issue of the bill's provision for citation, trial, and punishment for contempt of court without jury trial. Yet such contempt proceedings, as the President has said, are a "traditional" means by which Federal courts "enforce their orders."

The old and tiresome words and phrases are being heard and will continue to be. But this is a contest in which the ancient war flags had better remain furled and the drums be silent. The old South has changed, for its own good. The Negro has advanced in education, in self-knowledge and in capacity for good citizenship. Our position in the world demands democracy of us at home. We must all be "equal and friends" together, as President Eisenhower said in -another connection at his latest press conference, oi we may all perish together.


Mr. JA VITS. Mr. President, I think everybody here is going to get a liberal education, after he has heard the arguments on part III, the arguments of all of part IV, and the argumerits relating to the Commission. In short, we are presented with a proposal to go after each citadel of civil rights and to destroy it separately. If the friends of civil rights, who represent a distinct majority in this Chamber, are taken in by that strategy, then, Mr. President, we do not deserve to win on this great issue.

SMOKING AND CANCER

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, last Tuesday I introduced a bill, S. 2554, requiring that a warning label be placed on every package of cigarettes sold in the United States, similar to the warning labels which we already require on innumerable medicines, drugs, and preparations-many of which are far less harmful than cigarettes.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12295 Since the bill was introduced, I have

received more than a hundred telegrams and letters on the bill. I believe it would interest the Senate to know that so far only one has been in opposition to it.

Thursday afternoon, I spent an hour talking with the author of the nowfamous report which stirred up the present alarm about cigarettes, Dr. Cuyler Hammond, director of statistical research for the American Cancer Society. Dr. Hammond told me that when he began his studies on the death rates of cigarette smokers, he sincerely hoped that his study would lead to the conclusion that cigarettes were harmless. At that time, Dr. Hammond was a heavy smoker of cigarettes-consuming more than three packs a day. As soon as he was confronted with the alarming figures which his preliminary investigation disclosed, Dr. Hammond immediately switched from cigarettes to a pipe. So did his assistant, Dr. Daniel Horn. .

Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] has said that the Senate is not competent to judge whether or not the link between cigarettes and lung cancer is sufficiently strong to warrant the placing of a warning label on cigarettes. He said that "this is a matter which should be left in the hands of people who know what they are doing and at least those who have the scientific and professional qualifications to make a competent judgment."

I agree with the Senator that Congress is not competent to judge the dangers of cigarettes. But Congress is able to weigh the opinions of those scientific and professional experts who have studied this matter, and their opinions are pretty solidly behind the American Cancer Society report. The Surgeon General of the Un~ted States has taken a firm stand upholding the findings of the report. - If we are to leave this matter up to authorities what better authorities can we seek than the Surgeon General and the American Cancer Society?

Mr. President, it may be true that the cause-and-effect relationship between cancer and cigarettes is not yet proved, but nobody denies that certain forms of cancer and certain heart ailments are far more common among smokers. In my opinion, that should be sufficient reason for taking the moderate action I have suggested.

In my State, where we have many roads through mountainous country, we frequently see the sign, "Warning-Beware of Falling Rocks." I do not suppose the cause of each of these rockfalls is understood. Sometimes they may be caused by erosion, sometimes by earth tremors, sometimes by freezing. But whether we fully understand the cause or not, we know that the danger exists and, therefore, we take the simple precaution of placing a warning sign on the highway. We should take the same precaution with respect to cigarettes.

Mr. President, the July 26 issue of U. S. News & World Report contains an informative interview with Dr. John R. Heller, Director of the National Cancer Institute, United States Public Health Service. I ask unanimous consent to have an excerpt from this interview printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE TRUTH ABOUT SMOKING AND CANCER

WHAT Is KNOWN AND UNKNOWN

Question. Dr. Heller, is cancer among smokers a serious problem?

Answer. Well, let's put it this way: The problem first came to the attention of the medical profession when it was found that we had an increasing number of people who were dying of lung cancer. It was found that many of those dying from lung cancer were also heavy and prolonged smokerscigarette smokers.

We don't know why people get lung cancer. We do know that men get lung cancer to a much greater extent than women.

Question. If smoking is the cause, why doesn't it show up in women?

Answer. It is showing up in women. There are several reasons, perhaps, why it is more prevalent in men. There is a sex difference, certainly. Men have a greater risk of lung cancer than do women, whether they smoke or not. That's first. Probably more men than women smoke, although we're speaking of proportional figures here. Men have been smoking longer than women, as a rule-for greater lengths of time. Therefore, our data are more complete on men.

However, data which have been reported recently indicate that, as one adjusts the length of time of smoking, of ages and what not, the death rate from lung cancer in women is beginning to come closer to that of men.

Question. Does every heavy smoker stand a chance of getting lung cancer?

Answer. He stands a chance. Question. Is that chance very slie-ht? Answer. It's reported from the data in this

country that, if one does not smoke, his chances are 1 to 275 of acquiring lung cancer. If one is a heavy cigarette smok:er-ty.ro packages of cigarettes or more a day-his chances of dying from lung can~er are 1 in 10.

Question. How many cases of lung cancer are there in this country in a year?

Answer. Of reported lung cancer, there are about 25,000 deaths a year.

Question. Out of how many deaths from all causes?

Answer. The figure is about 1.6 million, I believe. Lung cancer is not a great factor but, when added up, year after yerti, the chances of one dying from this-if he is a man, if he is above 45, if he is a heavy smoker-his chances of dying from that particular condition are almost as good as his chances of being hit by an automobile.

Question. This person you just described is 1 in 10 of these?

Answer. His chances of acquiring lung cancer are 1 in 10.

Question. Is lung cancer always fatal? Answer. Almost invariably fatal, unless

found very early. The rate of survivors from lung cancer ~s less than 5 percent. In other words, of all those who were diagnosed and surgery undertaken, less than 5 percent survived for a period of 5 years.

Question. If only 25,000 people die yearly of lung cancer, how can one's chances be 1 in 10 if he is a heavy smoker? Aren't there enough heavy smokers so that 1 in 10 would .produce far more than 25,000?

Answer. His chances of dying of lung can·cer from the time he starts smoking until he dies are 1 in 10. ·

Question. How does that compare with deaths from all cancers?

Answer. There are about 250,000 deaths a year in this country from all cancers. It's about one-tenth of the cancer deaths.

Question. So you could escape lung cancer and still have nine other chances of dying from some other form of cancer?

Answer. Cancers cause 13 percent of all the deaths in this country.

Question. Then lung cancer causes about 1 percent?

Answer. Yes, slightly more than 1 percent of all the deaths.

Question. Is the proportion of deaths caused by all types of cancer increasing and the proportion of deaths caused by lung cancer increasing?

Answer. Yes. In other words, as we are surviving typhoid and gastroenteritis, malaria and so forth, we are living longer. We must die of something. We're most likely to die of heart disease-cardiovascular disease. But if we don't die of that, the next chance is cancer, and the next, I believe, is accidents.

The chances of any particular individual dying of any given disease-unless he has been exposed to an infectious disease or something on that order--can be mathematically computed, and it doesn't mean that he needs to worry about it particularly. A person who is a heavy smoker looks at these figures and says, "Well, I enjoy smoking. My chances of dying of lung cancer are pretty remote. I'm not going to worry about it." And maybe he goes on and lives to the age of 85 or 90 and dies of heart disease.

Question. What would be the advice of the Public Health Service?

Answer. The job of the Public Health Service is to present the facts, its best judgment or interpretation of the facts, to the health professions and the public generally. We don't, of course, generally act as a physician in giving . medical care or advice to individual patients.

Question. Have you noticed that the British Government has issued a warning about the dangers of lung cancer from cigarettes?

Answer. Yes, we have read that in the newspapers.

Question. What is the United States Government's position on that?

Answer. You will recall that on July 12 the Public Health Service issued a statement to the effect that there is increasing and consistent evidence that heavy and prolonged cigarette smoking is one of the causative factors in lung cancer.

Question. Why do you put your finger right on smoking as the cause of lung cancer?

Answer. I wouldn't say we put our finger "right on smoking." We simply say the signs are pointing increasingly to smoking as one of the factors involved in lung cancer. It's one of the common denominators we find around the world. It's been the British experience, Scandinavian experience, Austrian experience-the experience of anybody, I think, whose evidence we can rely upon. On the other hand, we know that heavy cigarette smoking certainly is not the only factor in lung cancer. Nonsmolters get lung cancer, too.

Question. Were tests carried out in all those other countries?

Answer. Yes. Question. What you are saying now is a

new viewpoint for the Public Health Service, isn't it?

Answer. Well, it brings our position up to date.

Question. Is it because of some recent evaluation you've received?

Answer. We believe that the increasing and consistent material which has come to our attention warrants this viewpoint.

Question. Is that based on your own studies, as well as on others?

Answer. The studies throughout the world that we have access to.

Question. How recent is this conclusion? Six months ago would you have made the same statement?

Answer. Well, we didn't. It has been arrived at gradually.

Question. How does the incidence of lung cancer in the United States compare with

12296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE July 22 the incidence in some of these other countries that made studies?

Answer. The rate has been increasing in this country. It is not as great as the incidence of lung cancer in Great Britain, in Austria, or in Scandinavia.

Question. Do those people smoke more than we do?

Answer. They do in Austria, I'm told. In Great Britain it's very difficult because their smoking habits are slightly different. Their total cigarette consumption is less than ours, but they smoke a cigarette right down to the bare nub in Britain. They smoke different types of cigarettes in other countries.

Question. But there is some common factor in there?

Answer. There's some common factor, apparently.

• • • Question. If you had a p~rfect ft ter you

really wouldn't be smoking, would you? Answer. Taken to its ultimate conclusion,

that's correct. With a perfect filter no smoke would get through-just hot air.

Question. Doctor, are you a smoker? Answer. I am not. I have never smoked. Question. How about some of the people

you are associated with, people who have the same knowledge of these matters as you? Do you notice that a good many of those people have stopped smoking?

Answer. Yes. Several of my associates in the National Cancer Institute in the study of this problem stopped smoking as long as 2 to 2% years ago. Some have not stopped.

Question. Would you recommend, Doctor, that any smoker should stop smoking?

Answer. I would say this: I believe the weight of the evidence, from the data we have at hand, is that a man who is a heavy and prolonged smoker is at a much greater risk of acquiring lung cancer than a man who does not smoke.

Nobody has ever contended that smoking is good for one from a health point of view. But, if a person gets pleasure out of it and desires to smoke, knowing the facts , then, in the final analysis that's his determination.

Question. Would you say, "Smoke what you like, but do it in moderation"?

Answer. If a patient said to me, "Doctor, I just can't stop smoking," I'd say, "Well, the data that we have at hand indicate that a moderate smoker is less of a risk than a heavy smoker, and that a man who smokes a pipe or cigar is less of a risk than a cigarette smoker."

WHAT IS EXCESSIVE?

Question. What do you regard as excessive?

Answer. Two packs a day or more. Question. What do you regard as moder-

ate? Answer. Certainly less than a pack a · day. Question. What if you smoke moderately? Answer. You have less risk of acquiring

lung cancer. Question. Is there any risk? Answer. There is still a risk. One may

acquire lung cancer even though one doesn't smoke, I hasten to add. However, the risk of acquiring lung cancer begins to climb appreciably as one smokes more--more cigarettes, particularly-and to some extent with pipes and cigars, but much, much less.

Question. But your advice would be moderation, certainly?

Answer. That would be my personal advice as a physician.

Question. Or would you advise complete abstinence?

Answer. If an individual is up to it, I think as a physician I would say to him if he was suffi.ciently afraid-if he was in the age range and was sufficiently worried about lung cancer-I'd say, "If you can quit, quit."

Question. Would you say, "Switch to a pipe?"

Answer. Switch to a pipe or a cigar.

.· Question. Is there· general agreement on that? · Answer. Among many students of the problem, yes, although naturally there are -also some differences of opinion.

Question. Is there any sure way that a ·person can detect lung cancer early enough to be almost sure of curing it?

Answer. No. Question. You can't tell a person that he

can go ahead and smoke and rely on a certain regimen to protect him?

Answer . Not to my knowledge. The only dependence we've got is X-ray and, of course, the introduction of a )::>ronchoscope into the bronchi to take out material for examinatim1. But this is an impractical procedure from a screening viewpoint. Or taking sputum and examining it under the microscope. Frequently, by the time that one finds cancer cells in the sputum, the leEion may have progressed to the point that it's too late for surgery to be effective.

Question. Is surgery effective if the lung cancer is detected soon enough?

An<.wer. Yes, it is, in the hands of a good surgeon.

Question. Does this surgery remove the cancer?

Answer. It removes the lung, u sually. Question. Is early cancer painful? Can

you rely on a pain in the chest? Answer. No, as a rule it would be painless.

It could be that a ruptured blood vessel possibly would result in hemorrhage, or cancer adjoining a large nerve might create pressure that would cause the individual to cough frequently, or some other such warning. Usually, the lung cancer would be so small it would be unnoticeable. Unhappily, there's no easy way to pick it up early enough for it to be really classed as a good risk. This is an area in which prevention ls important.

PREVENTING CANCER

· Question. Prevention calls for what? Answer. Prevention calls for staying away

from those things that we have reason to believe are cancer causing or tied up with the things that cause cancer. For example, we could help protect people in the chromate industry by keeping them away from the chromium material or by having them wear masks. People who are out in the sun a great deal-and therefore much more likely to get skin cancer-should cover their heads, bodies; or, if it's arsenic with which they come in contact, we should protect them by suitable clothing or keep arsenic out of the industrial process-or whatever it may be. Those are preventive measures.

In this instance there seems to be reason to believe that cigarette smoking is increasingly important in the scheme of things. Then, to prevent Jung cance~-, you simply say, "0. K., let's tell the people what we know or believe so they can stop smoking excessively if they want to in the light of the facts." Or you can take out the thing in the cigarette that's causing it, or whatever preventive measures might be appropriate. ·

NATIONAL FARM SAF'ETY WEEK Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, this is

National Farm Safety Week and the National Safety Council and the United ·states Department of Agriculture are .sponsoring Farm Safety Week . in coop.:. eration with the State Agriculture Extension Service, farm organizations, farm press, radio, television, and other groups interested in the welfare of farm people.

President Eisenhower issued a proclamation setting aside the week beginning July 21 as National Farm Safety Week.

In 1956 there were 12,800 deaths and 1,050,000 injuries on the farms of our Nation. Of the 14,3-00 workers killed ori

the job in all industries in 1956, approxi.mately 3,600 were killed in farm work; Although this was a greater number of deaths than occurred in any other national industry, the death rate per l,OOQ workers was not so high as in construction and mining industries.

The number of accidental farm deaths was third among the industries of the Nation. Of the accidents that occurred on farmland, nearly one-third involved farm machinery, while somewhat more than one-third were caused by drowriing~ firearms, and falls. Nine out of ten victims were males.

And it is interesting to note the statistics which show that . yol:.ths ranging in age from 15 to 19 have the highest rate of accidental deaths on the farm.

Kansas provides one of the outstanding examples of long-term continuous accomplishments in reducing farm work deaths. Death and accident records on the farms in Kansas were started in 1932, and Kansas was the first State in the Union to keep these records and make a thorough analysis of them. . In 1956 the favorable work death trend shows that these deaths dropped to a record low of 43 in 1956 from 100 in 1932. This was a 10-percent improvement from the previous low of 48 in 1955 and more than 60 percent below the high of 112 which occurred in 1924.

Since the records were started in 1932, the trend of work deaths in Kansas has been down for every principal accident source except tractors.

Farm machinery deaths, other than tractor deaths, have dropped from an average of 20 percent to 6 percent during the 25 years in which records have been kept.

Deaths from animal accidents decreased from an average 22 a year during the 5 years 1932-36 to an average of only 5 years in 1952-56. In 1956 alone there was only 1 death from animal accidents.

During the past 25 years Kansas has carried on a very .aggressive campaign for farm safety. The Kansas State College, through its extension service, has had outstanding cooperation from the press, radio, television, farm organizations, and other civic groups. rt has been paying big dividends.

The National Safety Council, with its headquarters in Chicgao, and under the very able direction of Maynard Coe, is directing the National Farm Safety Week drive.

I commend every individual and -agency that is participating in the farni safety programs this year. · I ask unanimous consent to have ·President Eisenhower's proclamation on National Farm Safety Week printed in 'the RECORD as a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the procla·mation was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: . .BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA-A PROCLAMATION .

Where·as farm accidents each year infiict a heavy loss upon the economy of the Nation ·and cause untold suffering among our rural -population; and

Whereas the death toll from farmwork accidents last. year was higher than that in any ether major industry; and

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12297: Whereas the health, prosperity, and wel

fare of the Nation's farm families are o! vital concern to all citizens·; and

Whereas the effect of accident-prevention programs has indicated that our rural residents, through attention to safety education, can greatly reduce accidents and the resultant loss and suffering: Now, therefore,

I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby call upon the people of the Nation to observe the week beginning July 21, 1957, as National Farm Safety Week, and I urge all farm fam-· ilies and farm workers to join in a continuing campaign designed to prevent needless accidents in their homes, on their farms, and along their highways.

I also request all persons and organizations interested in the welfare of farm people to support and participate in this special endeavor.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this 14th day of March in the year of our Lord 1957, and of the Independence of the United States of .Ainerica the 181st.

(SEAL] DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. By the President:

CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, Acting Secretary of State.

APPOINTMENT OF ANDREW M. BRADLEY TO CABINET OF PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNOR Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, wh1le we

discuss the civil-rights bill in Washington things are happening across the country. I think it would be useful if ~here were called to the attention of my colleagues an editorial, which I hold in my hand, printed in the Evening News of Harrisburg, Pa., Saturday, July 20, 1957, entitled, "Not All of This Story Is Happening at Washington."

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con.,; sent that the editorial may be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.


NOT ALL OF THIS STORY Is HAPPENING AT WASHINGTON

In Washington today, the ringing argument goes on and on over whether the constitutional civil rights of American Negro citizens should be guaranteed and enforced; by Federal intervention if necessary, in a vast area of our land where they are denied.

A leading Washington newspaperman, Richard L. Strout, who is covering this Senate battle as he has covered similar ones that have gone before, wrote in The Christian Science Monitor:

"Communist leaders Khrushchev and Mao, and all the other heads of all the Communist countries that fear, hate, and despise the United States, are sitting in the Senate galleries these days, watching the battle ave~ whether America gives Negroes voting rights, and whether the American legislative system can operate.

"America's friends as well as America'~ enemies are watching the great scene; so are the neutral countries who cannot be sure whether to believe the Communist stories of alleged 'oppression' and 'serfdom' in the United States • • • ."

We wish that somehow, some way, America's friends as well as America's enemies, and the on-the-fence neutrals of this divided world, could have been on the scene here in Harrisburg this week.

What is going on in the Nation's Capital right now is a true and continuing presenta-

CIII--773

tion of the role of the American Negro in American life.

But this is not all of the story. Far from it.

What went on in our State capital this week is a big part of that story, too.

Here in Harrisburg, Andrew M. Bradley raised his right hand in solemn oath and placed his left hand on the Bible. He was being sworn into office as Secretary of Property and Supplies, the No. 1 man in one of the really major departments of Pennsylvania government.

Just as he had been the first Negro to be a member of a Pennsylvania governor's cabinet, as secretary of the budget, so, too, he became the first Negro to head a department of Pennsylvania State government.

Mt. Bradley was not named to this high office because he is a Negro.

He was named, matter of fact and without any special fanfare, because he is a talented and qualified American.

Governor Leader's appointment was one to make Mr. Bradley proud.

It was one to make every Negro citizen proud.

It was one to make every Pennsylvanian proud.

More . than all of this, it was one to make every American proud.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the editorial has reference to my good friend, Andrew M. Bradley, of Pennsylvania, a longt1me member of the Democratic Party . of my Commonwealth, an experienced and able account&nt, Governor Leader's first budget secretary, who has been appointed secretary of property and supplies, a large and important of-· :fice in the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The editorial concludes: Governor Leader's appointment was one to

make Mr. Bradley proud. It was one to make every Negro citizen

proud. . It was one. to make every Pennsylvanian proud. ·

More than all of this, it was one to make every American proud.

Mr. Bradley, I believe, is the first member of his race to serve as a member of the cabinet of the Governor of Penn~ylvania. I know him as a friend. I know he will do a fine job. I am haPPY. to pay ~his tribute to him.

CIVIL RIGHTS Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I

send up an amendment which I ask to be printed and lie on the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the desk.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the amendment may be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks and as a part thereof.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. ls there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. ·

<See exhibit U Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, as

we all know, the Smith Act, title 18, United States Code, section 2385, is an existing Federal penal statute making crimes certain acts relative.to overthrow of the Government by force and violence.

Under the provisions of this act, fines .of not more than $20,000 or imprison~ inent of not more than 20 years, or

both, are imposed against those found guilty of:

First. Willfully advocating the overthrow of the Government of the United States, any State, political subdivisions, Districts, or Territories by force or violence or assassination of any officer;

Second. With intent to overthrow, disseminating printed matter advocating the overthrow with force or violence, or those attempting to do so;

Third. Organizing, or attempting to organize, any groups which advocate the 9verthrow by force or violence, or those who are members of such groups;

Fourth. Conspiring to commit offenses under the Smith Act.

An additional penalty for violating this law is ineligibility for governmental employment for 5 years following conviction.

H. R. 6127, the pending measure in part III, gives the Attorney General the remedial right to secure injunctions against those who are engaging, or with. respect to whom there is reason to believe they are about to engage, in any acts or practices which would give rise to a cause of action pursuant to title 42, United States Code, section 1985.

Title 42, United States Code, section 1985, we find, gives an injured party a civil action for damages against those who conspire to interfere with the injured party's civil rights in three enu~ merated classes of cases. The third claS£ is the wide-open class as it encompasses the depriving of privileges and immunities and equal protection of the · laws under the Constitution. The 14th amendment is the source of power. Corpus Juris Secundum has over 240 pages of categories of equal protection of the laws.

Title 42, United States Code, section 1993, incorporates title 42, United States Code, section 1985, by reference and empowers the President to send military might to enforce court decrees arising under section 1985.

Title 42, United States Code, section, 1986, also incorporates section 1985 by reference and is known as the Com-· pulsory Informer Statute. It requires persons with knowledge of violations occurring, or about to occur, with reference to section 1985, to inform. This requires a child to inform on parents, and newspapers to divulge their sources of information.

The purpose of my amendment to H. R. 6127 is to give the Attorney General the same injunctive remedies relative to the Smith Act violations as i:; provided, and which he will get in part III of the bill relative to the civil rights act in section 1985, if the bill is enacted.

Contempts and injunctions against Communist conspiracies or violations of. the Smith Act would then be tried without a jury in either case, and the President might enforce the injunctions in either case by armed might; and everyone must inform on everyone else in either case.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Arkansas has expired.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes.

12298 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 22 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator may proceed.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, my purpose in submitting this aimendment is to call attention again, as forcibly as I can, to the Communist conspiracy in this country, which is, according to our concept of freedom and way of life, the very antithesis and greatest enemy of, and constitutes the greatest danger to, the civil rights and liberties of all of our people, and not merely one segment of our citizens in one section of our country.

If the radical and unorthodox procedure proposed by the bill is to be invoked and applied as a substitute for indictment and prosecution of crimes under civil-rights statutes, I shall insist on the adoption of this amendment, which would establish the same procedures against those who teach and plot the overthrow of our Government by force.

If the device of this bill, and the radical procedures it proposes, are sound, practical, and justified for punitive purposes against the white race in the South, "then such procedures are onethousand-folC:: justified in fighting the Communist conspirary, which threatens the destruction of our system of governr~1ent and the destruction of the liberties of all our people.

If it be said that what I propose would violate the constitutional rights of Communists, then must not he who makes such charges concede that without this amendment the pending bill would violate the constitutional rights of those against whom it is intended to be applied? If the proposed subterfuge of substituting contempt proceedings for established criminal jurisprudence is to be applied in the civil-rights field so as to deprive the accused of the right to a trial by jury, then let us invoke the same subterfuge and proceedings against the Communists, the arch enemies of everything America stands for.

If the proponents of the bill insist upon vesting powers in the President to delegate authority to some person to call out the Armed Forces of our country to enforce decrees of injunction and contempt against alleged violators of civil-rights statutes, then let us provide the same power and authority in the President to use the Armed Forces of this country to enforce injunctions and contempt proceeds against those who teach, and conspire to bring about, the overthrow of our Government by force and violence in violation of the Smith Act.

Again, if the so-called informer statute, title 42, United States Code, section 1985, is to be invoked in civilrights proceedings, then let us insist that it also be invoked against Communists who conspire and who act in violation of the Smith Act.

If part III is stricken from the bill, or if the objectionable provisions, which would lead to the abuses described, are eliminated from this measure, then I shall offer the amendment which I have submitted at another place in the bill. I shall ask that it follow part IV and be designated part V. I shall insist that the Senate agree to the adoption of my

amendment at the proper place in the bill, either as an amendment to part III or by adding it as a new part-part Vin the bill.

I can see no reason, and no justification whatsoever, for permitting a less effective procedural remedy to stand against the Communist conspiracy than that which it is proposed to i~voke against one who might violate a civilrights statute. If we want to provide for anticipatory injunctions against expected crimes, let us begin with this practice against the avowed enemies of our Government, and not discriminate in their favor. I submit that if one is guilty, or about to become guilty, of an offense under the Smith Act, that is a far more serious crime than a civilrights violation, and at least equally effective remedies should be applied against it.

If anticipatory remedies are to be used when quick action is demanded, it is more important to have quick action under the Smith Act than under civilrights statutes. The contrast is that the violators of the Smith Act are enemies of all of our people, and this is certainly a greater crime than the alleged temporary disenfranchisement of one voter.

I submit; Mr. President, that if there is any one place where an exception to public policy against criminal equity is called for, it is in the field of national security.

If the Federal Government is now ready to resort to the expedient pro"'.' cedure proposed in this bill, it should begin where threats to our natio.nai' security are involved and not invoke it in some minor area of law violations and exclude the category of crimes which strike at the very security and survival of our country.

Mr. President, I cannot conceive that any proponent or supporter of part III of this bill can logically or consistently oppose this amendment. I trust it will have the unanimous support of every Member of this body who wishes to fight against the menace of communism.

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

Mr. McCLELLAN. I am very happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. I certainly agree with the Senator that if a white southern man is to be denied the right of trial by jury, merely for wanting the company of his own race, it certainly would follow that those who are traitors to our country, who are trying to overthrow the Government by force and violence, should deserve no greater privilege than is enjoyed by a patriotic white citizen of the South.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I agree with the Senator. I' do not believe in the proposed procedure. I think it is all wrong. It is a radical departure from the traditional jurisprudence and procedure in our country.

However, if we are to depart from our traditions, and if we are to be radical and unorthodox, let us not do it with a punitive measure directed against the people who reside in one section of our country.

If we are to do that, however, I say let us start with our common enemy. If what is proposed is good procedure, if it is sound procedure, and if it can be justified in a so-called civil-rights action, it not only can be justified, but should be invoked, against the conspirators who would overthrow our Government.

Mr. LONG. I thank the Senator. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I

wish to commend the Senator from Arkansas for submitting his amendment to the pending bill. I agree with him thoroughly when he says that if we are to go into the whole field of injunctions we should do something concerning the Communist conspiracy. As a member of the Internal Security Subcommittee, and having made some investigations of this question, I know that the greatest threat to America is the undercover workings of the Communist Party. A great many times they are found to be stirring up discontent, and very often they are the cause of our fighting among ourselves in the Senate on matters which they have instigated in the first place. I certainly believe we should root out the people who are trying to destroy our Government.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the Senator. I believe that, in good faith, we owe it to our constituents, and to the people of our country in general to pass upon this issue, and I propose to have the amendment voted on if I can get support for it. We should know whether we are singling out inferior crimes and are instituting the use of the injunction in contempt proceedings in the case of such crimes.

It is a great deal more difficult to convict a Communist conspirator and to have the Supreme Court sustain the conviction, than it is to convict a person for a breach of a so-called civil right.

We have already seen, in very recent decisions of the Supreme Court, the great protection that is thrown around a Communist's constitutional rights. I want Communists to have their constitutional rights protected, but I do not want my Government, through legislative power granted by Congress, to single out one area, one section of this country, and one segment of the citizenship of this country, and say to them, "We are going to apply to you an extraordinary remedy, a harsh remedy, but we are unwilling to apply it to those who conspire to overthrow our Government."

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I gather from the remarks of the Senator from Arkansas, then, that he would have the Communists treated just as we treat everyone else.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I certainly would not want them to be treated any better.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Not better and not worse.

Mr. McCLELLAN. If there is to be more, it should be used against Communists. I would place them all on an equal basis. The pending bill would be directed only against white citizens in the South.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12299 Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.

That is evident when we consider the Reconstruction Act that would be a part of the law.

Mr. McCLELLAN. That is perfectly obvious.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. We can see what the proponents are driving at.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not know what would have happened if it had not been for this so-called filibuster-if we can call what has happened so far a filibuster. Had it not been for our discussion of the bill, and if it had been rushed through the Senate, as it was i·ushed through the House, without adequate consideration, the statute would have come back to plague Congress and the whole Government of the United States time and time again.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I agree thoroughly with the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. MANSFIELD in the chair) . Is there further morning business?

EXHIBIT 1 The amendments, submitted by Mr.

McCLELLAN, are as follows: On page 9, line 13, stril~e out "two" and

insert "three". On page 9, line 14, strike out "'Fourth'

and 'Fifth' " and insert " 'F'ourth,' 'Fifth,' and 'Sixth'".

On page 10, after line 3, insert the following:

"Fifth. Whenever any person has engaged in any act or practice which constitutes a violation of section 2385 of title 18 of the United States Code, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any such act or practice, or whenever two or more persons are conspiring to engage in any act or practice which would constitute a violation of such section, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons are about to conspire to engage in any such act or practice, the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order. In any proceeding hereunder the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person. .

On page 10, line 4, strike out "Fifth" and insert "Sixth".

AUTHORITY FOR THE USE OF TROOPS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I

had intended to speak on the legislative history of section 1993 of title 42 of the United States Code during one of the afternoon sessions on H. R. 6127, the socalled civil-rights bill. That section authorizes the President of the United States, or someone empowered by him, to use military force to enforce certain designated sections of the United States Code. By a cross-reference device, part III of H. R. 6127, if enacted into law, would be incorporated into one of the sections of the United States Code which may be enforced by section 1993. This was not known to the public until it was pointed out by the very able senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELLl. He also pointed out that a suit to force racial integration of a school could be

brought under part III of H. R. 6127, and charged that, therefore, the military force provision of section 1993 could be used to force integration of southern schools.

The proponents of H. R. 6127 attempted to answer the charge by citing precedents for section 1993. It is interesting to note, however, that the proponents failed to cite the precedent relied upon when section 1993 was enacted in 1866. In this course the proponents were well advised, because a review of the legislative history of section 1993 will show -:;hat it was not based upon sound precedent when enacted, and that its existence today is attributable solely to the radicals who controlled the 39th Congress.

The legislative history of section 1993 shows that the language therein was never directed at internal domestic issues, except during the reconstruction period; and that its first usage was in connection with our foreign relations. The statute in which it finds its genesis had as its purpose the protection of the neutrality rights of the United States and the prevention of interference in foreign disputes by citizens of the United States. In short, the language was used to avoid entanglements in foreign hostilities, and had a purpose with which no one could quarrel.

Yet, in a spirit of vengeance and vindictiveness equaled by few despots of history, the radical Republicans of 1866 used the language for a most unsavory and tyrannical purpose in the Reconstruction Statutes designed to bring a great section of our Nation to its knees. In doing so they violated the concepts of sound precedent traditional in our legislative system, and the historical review which I have prepared will so demonstrate.

The perverted use of the military force language, now found in section 1993, was originally used to enforce the law in regard to rights which exist among nations. Violations of these rights could mean· war, because that is the final court of appeal for sovereign nations. Therefore, there is a great need to prevent any violation at all in this area.

Recognizing this is an emergency situation of 1838, Congress enacted the statute which granted President Van Buren the extraordinary power to use military force to prevent violations of the rights of foreign nations. In this context, the justification for such sweeping power is manifest. · ·

Justification was not, however, present in 1866 and is not present today because the statutes involved affect the rights which exist among citizens, not nations. The need to protect citizens' rights stands upon a very different footing from the need to protect the rights of a nation. A citizen may protect his rights by resort to the courts and their normal enforcement procedures. He need not go to war. Indeed, violation of a citizen's right does not even disturb the public peace in the vast majority of cases.

Moreover, when such rights are violated, perfect redress may be had by an action at law or by an action in equity. For violations already committed, he may recover monetary damages in a law

action. For violations not yet committed, he may obtain an injunction against their commission if the potential damage is irreparable. Thus, complete protection of a citizen's rights is available without the use of military force.

Therefore, the 1838 statute was not a sound precedent for the enactment of section 1993. The purposes of the two statutes were not at all analagous. "Military force" was not needed to enforce civil rights in 1866 and it is not needed today. Section 1993 was enacted into law in a spirit of vengeance and vindictiveness known only to the Reconstruction period.

It has lain dormant for many years, but today some of the proponents of H. R. 6127 still seek to breathe new life into it. They would do this by part III of H. R. 6127, so that troops could be used to integrate southern schools.

However, it seems that because of recent changes in the parliamentary situation, the issues raised by section 1993 may soon be behind us. The charge that troops could be used to integrate the schools of the South has been admitted.

The leader of the proponents of H. R. 6127, the senior Senator from California, in effect, made this admission by introducing an amendment which repeals section 1993. Under these circumstances, to speak upon section 1993 would be to speak upon a largely conceded point.

Nevertheless, the historical origin of section 1993 will further illumine the issues raised by H. R. 6127, and I think it would be a worthwhile contribution to the record on that bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have my prepared statement relating to the history of the matter printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 42, UNITED

STATES CODE, SECTION 1993 Section 1993 of title 42 of the United States

Code is captioned "Aid of Military and Naval Forces" and provides that "It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as may be necessary to aid in the execution of judicial process issued under sections 1981-1983 or 1985-1992 of this title, or as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of the provisions of sections 1981-1983 and 1985-1994 of this title."

The above section stems from the statutes passed by the 39th Congress, which history records as being controlled by the radical Republicans. The section was a part of S. 61, which came before the Senate on January 12, 1886, and later, upon being enacted into law, became the forerunner of our present civil-rights act. The part of S. 61 which provided for the use of military force follows:

"SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the d'ue execution of this act."

123GJ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22

During the debate on S. 61, an amendment to strike the above section from the bill was proposed by Senator Hendricks, of Indiana. Hii;: arguments in support of the amendment were in much the same vein as the arguments of the opponents of the present civilrights act. He foresaw the evils which would and did follow the enactment of the section, and cited the very vices that the opponents of H. R. 6127 had cited. (Full text of Senator Hendricks' argument and other comments on his amendment follows this historical review of 42 U.S. C. 1993.)

Senator Trumbull, in opposition to the Hendricks amendment, argued that the language had been adopted verbatim from a statute enacted in 1838 during the Democratic administration of Martin Van Buren. The 1938 statute was cited by Trumbull as a sufficient and sound precedent for carrying the language forward to assure the enforcement of S. 61. (See the Congressional Globe, pt. I, 1st sess., 39th Cong., p. 605.) The validity of the 1831 statute as a precedent was not analyzed during the debate on S. 61, and indeed it could not have been analyzed properly because of the spirit and mood of the day.

S. 61 was, of course, p assed by both the House and the Senate and thereafter vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. President Johnson's veto message in regard to the section under discussion follows:

"The ninth section authorizes the President, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, 'to employ such part of the land and naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act.' This language seems to imply a permanent military force, that is to be always at hand, and whose only business is to be the enforcement of this measure over the vast region where it is intended to operate" (The Congressional Globe, pt. 2, 1st sess., 39th Cong., p. 1681) .

In response to the Presidential veto, Senator Trumbull again cited the 1838 statute as sound precedent and also as sufficient reason for overriding the veto. Trumbull summarily dismissed President Johnson's reasoning by the following statement:

"The eighth and ninth sections of the bill which authorize the President to· require a court to be held in any portion of the district where a court may be necessary to punish offenses under this act, and to use the Army and Navy to prevent its violation, are also objected to, but both those sections are copied from an act passed March 10, 1838, which was approved by Mr. Van Buren, and when he did so I presume it never occurred to him that these sections were specially designed for colored persons, or to keep up a permanent military force whose only . business it should be to enforce the act.'' (The Congressional Globe, pt. 2, 1st sess., 39th Cong., p. 1760.)

History records that the misgivings of President Johnson and Senator Hendricks were well founded, and that Senator Trumbull's desire for vengeance brought no real benefits to the Nation. That is a digression, however, because the purpose of this discussion is to show the impropriety of using the language of the 1838 statute as it was used by the 39th Congress, and that the 1838 statute was not the sound precedent which Senator Trumbull conceived it to be.

The fact is that the 1838 statute was enacted to protect the neutrality rights of this Nation from being infringed upon by foreign powers, and to pr~vent American citizens from interfering in foreign hostilities. The 1838 statute resulted from an incident which occurred on December 29, 1837, involving an American steamer, the Caroline. The Caroline had been used to carry reinforcements, provisions, and munitions across the Niagara River to the camp of Canadian insurgents under William Lyon MacKenzie.

The Caroline, while on the American side of the river, presumably ready for a similar trip, was boarded by an armed body of Canadians sent over in boats for that purpose. The Canadians hustled the passengers and crew ashore, killing one man on shore in the fray, towed the vessel out into the stream, set it on fire and sent it over the Niagara Falls. A great uproar ensued. President Van Burean issued a proclamation ordering the neutrality laws to be respected, called out the militia under Winfield Scott and demanded reparation from the British Government. President Van Buren also requested Congress to strengthen the laws so that American citizens could be prevented from aiding rebel forces in a nation with which we were at peace. President Van Buren's message to Congress follows:

"To the Senate and House of Representatives of the Uni t ed States:

"Recent · experience on the southern boundary of the United States, and the events now d aily occurring on our northern front ier, have abundantly shown that the existing laws are insufficient to guard against hostile invasion, from the United States, of the territory of friendly and neighboring nations.

"The laws in force provide sufficient penalties for the punishment of such offenses, after they have been committed, and provided the parties can be found; but the Executive is powerless in many cases to prevent the commission of them, even when in possession of ample evidence of an intention on the part of evil-disposed persons to violate our laws.

"Your attention is called to this defect in our legislation. It is apparent that the Executive ought to be clothed with adequate power effectually to restrain all persons within our jurisdiction from the commission of acts of this character. They tend to disturb the peace of the country, and inevitably involve the Government in perplexing controversies with foreign powers. I recommend a careful revision of all the laws now in force, and such additional enactments as .may be necessary to vest in the Executive full power to prevent injuries being inflicted upon neighboring nations by the unauthorized and unlawful acts of citizens of the United States, or of other persons who may be within our jurisdiction, and subject to our control.

"In illustration of these views, and to ShOW the necessity Of an early action on the part of Congress, I submit herewith a copy of a letter received from the marshal of the northern district of New York, who had been directed to repair to the frontier, and take all authorized measures to secure the faithful execution of existing laws.

"M. VAN BUREN. "JANUARY 8, 1838." (For comments and action on the message,

see pp. 79, 87, and 114 of vol. 6 of the Congressional Globe.)

Congress responded to the President's request by enacting a statute entitled '"An act supplementary to an act entitled 'An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to repeal the acts therein mentioned,' approved 20th of April 1818" (vol. 5, U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 212). This statute, which was approved by President Van Buren on March 10, 1838, is the one from which Senator Trumbull copied the military force language now contained in section 1993 of title · 42 of the United States Code. The military force language of the 1838 statute follows:

"SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the ·President of the United States, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation, and to enforce

the due execution, of this act, and the act hereby amended."

The statute also provided that it "shall continue in force for the period of 2 years, and no longer."

Although Senator Trumbull did not refer to it during the debates on the Civil Right s Act of 1866, the act which was supplemented by the above statute should be noted. The supplemented act, approved on April 20, 1818, is the true genesis of the military force language. It contained the following :

"SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he shall empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, as shall be necessary to compel any foreign ship or vessel to depart the United States in all cases in which, by the laws of nations or the treaties of the United States, they ought not to remain within the United States" (vol. 3, U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 447).

The 1818 act supplanted an act approved on March 3, 1817, and entitled "An act more effectually to preserve the neutral relations of the United States" (vol. 3, U. s. Statutes at Large, p. 370). This act did not contain the military force language, nor did any of its predecessor statutes.

ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIX SPEECHES ON TITLE 42, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1993, BY SENATOR THOMAS ANDREW HENDRICKS AND SENATOR HENRY SMITH LANE (THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 1ST SESS., 39TH CONG., p. 601 ET SEQ.) Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not agree with some

Senators that this is a more dangerous bill to the country than the one that was passed last week. If the amendment which I have proposed should be adopted and the last section stricken from the bill, it will be a much less d angerous bill, in my judgment, than the Freedmen's Bureau bill, for the reason that that bill sends an army of irresponsible officers among the people to control their affairs, and from their actions and their decisions there is no appeal to the courts; but this bill sends the people with their causes into the courts of the United States, and if a great wrong be done in any of the inferior courts perhaps an appeal will lie to a court where justice will be done. I am not so much afraid of any law that sends the people to the courts as I am a law which places them under the control and power of irresponsible officials.

But the section which I propose to strike out is an unnecessary and very dangerous one, and I submit it to the judgment of the majority of this body whether it ought to be enacted into a law. This bill is a wasp; its sting is in its tail. Sir, what is the bill? It provides, in the first place, that the civil rights of all men, without regard to color, shall be equal; and, in the second place, that if any man shall violate that principle by his conduct, he shall be responsible to the court; that he may be prosecuted criminally and punished for the crime, or he may be sued in a civil action and damages recovered by the party wronged. Is not that broad enough? Do Senators want to go further than this? To recognize the civil rights of the colored people as equal to the civil rights of the white people, I understand to be as far as Senators desire to go; in the language of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], to place all men upon an equality before the law; and that is proposed in regard to their civil rights.

Then, sir, we have the framework for the execution of these two sections. I recollect that during the holidays it was heralded to the country that a great achievement was to be expected from the Senator from Illinois; that he was going to introduce a bill as soon as Congress reassembled recognizing the civil

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12301 rights of the colored people as equal to the civil rights of the white people; that he was going to so frame his bill as that these rights should be positively and certainly secure, and that to accomplish this he had adopted the framework and the fashion of the former fugitive-slave law. That was regarded as a great achievement, and much credit was claimed for the Senator because when he came to prosecute and follow white men he had adopted the language and the framework of a law which was intended to recapture runaway slaves-a law which in its framework and details was denounced as most unjust and dangerous. And yet it was regarded as a feat and an accomplishment for the Senator from Illinois to incorporate into this bill the language of that lo.w.

Why, sir, this bill provides that there shall be commissioners, not ordinary commissioners that the courts in the exercise of their judgment and discretion shall appoint, but extraordinary commissioners, and from its language it seems to contemplate that there shall be a commissioner in every county of the United States, and these commissf!oners are authorized to appoint as many agents or deputy marshals as they may see fit to appoint, and these deputy marshals may call upon the body of the people, for what purpose? To pursue a runaway white man. Oh, I recollect how the blood of the people was made to run cold within them when it was said that the white man was required to run after the fugitive slave; that the law of 1850 made you and me, my brother Senators, slave-catchers; that the posse comitatus could be called to execute a writ of the law for the recovery of a runaway slave under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States; and the whole country was agitated because of it. Now slavery is gone; the Negro is to be established upon a platform of civil equality with the white man. That is the proposition. But we do not stop there; we are to reenact a law that nearly all of you said was wicked and wrong; and for what purpose? Not to pursue the Negro any longer; not for the purpose of catching him; not for the purpose of catching the great criminals of the land; but for the purpose of placing it in the power of any deputy marshal in any county of the country to call upon you and me, and all the bOAY of the people to pursue some white man who is running for his liberty because some Negro has charged him with denying to him equal civil r ights with the white man. I thought, sir, that that framework was enough; I thought, when you placed under the command of the marshal in every county of the land all the b ody of the people, and put everyone upon the track of the fleeing white man, that that was enough; but it is not. For the purpose of the enforcement of this law, the President is authorized to appoint somebody who is to have the command of the military and naval forces of the United States-for what purpose? To prevent a violation of this law, and to execute it. Let me read it, as I do not get the words exactly:

"SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ sue}} part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of this act."

What violation, .sir? The denial of equality to the colored people. Some man disputes the proposition; some judge proposes in his adjudication not to recognize the civil equality of the colored people. Now the military may be called in to prevent the violation of this law. Before there is a violation, before a crime is committed, the military may be brought to bear upon any person who is charged with a design to violate the law. Then if there shall be a vio-

lation, if some judge of a court shall hold . that the colored man is not entitled to equal

civil rights with the white man, the military force may be called in to execute this law. How and why? Are we not in time of peace? Where is society now disturbed? Upon our honors we must legislate fairly for the country, We have no right, in the form of legislation, to go to punishing men, and I cannot believe that Senators intend any such thing. If you create an army of officers to execute this law, and if you authorize the deputy marshals everywhere to call upon the whole body of the people to execute it, why is it that the military shall be brought in to execute this law of all the laws of the United States, the only law relating to the civil affairs of the people? Is it right? Are you willing to do it in reference to other laws? Are you willing to say in your laws declaring and protecting the civil rights of white men that they shall be enforced at the point of the bayonet? I know you would not. You would say that the military must not be brought in except where there is an insurrection, or when there is such an interference with the enforcement of the laws as justifies the interposition of the military power of the country.

In the State of Indiana we do not recognize the civil equality of the races. I refer to Indiana, as the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Johnson] referred to his State the other day, as a mere mode of illustration. The policy of that State was to prevent the further immigration of colored people into the State after 1852, and as a means of preventing that we denied to the colored people who might come into the State after that date the right to acquire real estate. Suppose that during the past 13 years some colored man has come into the State of Indiana and has purchased real estate. He brings his action of ejectment after the passage of this law to recover that land. our supreme cou~t has decided that law of the State to be constitutional. That decision of the supreme court is the rule of decision for all the inferior courts of the State. The trial of the ejectment comes off before the circuit or common pleas court of the State, and the judge instructs the jury that under the law and constitution of the State of Indiana this man could not acquire an interest in real estate and that he cannot recover. Here is a denial of a civil right, it is claimed; but it is a question of law; and you make that judge not only responsible in the civil but in the criminal courts of the United States for his adjudication. You make him a criminal for following the authority of the supreme court of the State. You make him a criminal because he obeys the constitution of the State. You make him a criminal because he enforces the law of the State as it is plainly written before him. You are not content with capturing him, but you call in the military power of the country and you stop his court. You will not allow that case to go to judgment, but when it is announced to the jury that this is the rule that must govern them, I suppose the military must be brought in to prevent a verdict and a final judgment. That would be preventing a violation of the law. Is this law to make a good title in Indiana? Is this law to have the force of vesting in the colored people who came into that State since 1852 a good and sufficient title to land when the constitution and the law of the State denied that right? You are not content that this judge may be pursued by a host, an army of marshals, and the body of the people, but a military chieftain is to be called in that this may not go into the judgment of the court.

I am giving an extreme case, but it is a case that all Senators will admit might occur under this law. A court may be stopped midway in the investigation of a cause; and to prevent its judgment, the military are authorized to interfere. Do Senators desire

that? I thought the time for military government had passed. It may not have passed here, but this military control, I believe, is about passed. I believe, taking the course pursued by the administration in disbanding the armies, that it has substantially passed at the other end of the avenue, and a desire for its continuance has passed away from the hearts of the people. Two years ago it was a very easy thing anywhere throughout the North to maintain a military force and to repress a public sentiment that was offensive to the authorities in power. It is not so now, sir; and I am very glad of it. I never want to see a return to the time when a man's house may be surrounded by armed men in the nighttime, and he may be carried off to a distant portion of the State-

Mr. JOHNSON. And out of it. Mr. HENDRICKS. And out of the State and

cast into a dungeon, and denied that trial which the Constitution and laws of the country have guaranteed him. I never want to see the time return when a man in the middle of the night shall hear the stealthy tread of the spy at his door, in the forcible language of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan] when he shall hear the breathing of the spy at his keyhole; when he shall hear the jingling of false keys at his girdle. If men are guilty of crimes, let them be brought before the courts. Do not you Sena tors want it to be so? Are there any Senators here that want this to be a country governed by military power? Now, in a time of peace, when the southern armies are abandoned, when the States are rapping at your door for admission, when they wish to be heard when we legislate in regard to them; at this time of profound peace in the country, when there is a more perfect subjugation to law, if I may use that expression, than at any period heretofore, we propose that a law for the benefit of the colored people shall be executed at the point of the bayonet.

It seems to me that I need add nothing further. I repeat that it is enough that you clothe the marshals under this bill with all the powers that were given to the marshals under the fugitive slave law. That was regarded as too rigorous a law, as too arbitrary in its provisions, and you repealed it. You repealed it before the constitutional amendment was adopted. You said it should not stand upon the statute book any longer, t!lat no man, white or black, should be pursued under the provisions of that law. Now, you reenact it, and you claim it as a merit and as an ornament to the legislation of the country; and you add an army of officers and clothe them with the power to call upon anybody and everybody to pursue the running white men. That is not enough, but you must have the military to be called in, at the pleasure of whom? Such a person as the President may authorize to call out the military forces. Where it shall be given, we do not know.

Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss the bill. I hope it will not pass, let us not unite the sword with the court.

Mr. LANE of Indiana. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate b'..lt a very few moments at this stage of the proceedings, for I am as anxious to have a vote as any one; but it is perhaps necessary for me to say a few words in explanation of the reasons for the vote I shall give.

My distinguished colleague, if I understand him aright, places his objection to this bill, first upon the ground that we have pressed into the service the machinery of the fugitive slave law; and secondly, that we authorize this bill to be enforced by the military authority of the United States. It is true that many of the provisions of this bill, changed in their purpose and object, are almost identical with the provisions of the fugitive slave law, and they are denounced

12302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 22 by my colleague in their present application; but I have not heard any denunciation from my colleague, or from any of those associated witl. him of the provisions of that fugitive slave law which was enacted in the interest of slavery, and for purposes of oppression, and which was an unworthy, cowardly, disgraceful concession of southern opinion by northern politicians. I have suffered no suitable opportunity to escape me to denounce the monstrous character of that fugitive slave act of 1850. All these provisions were odious and disgraceful in my opini.on, when applied in the interest of slavery, when the object was to strike down the rights of man. But here the purpose is changed. These provisions are in the interest of free man and of freedom, and what was odious in the one case becomes highly meritorious in the other. It is an instance of poetic justice and of apt retribution that God has caused the wrath of man to praise Him. I stand by every provision of this bill, drawn as it is from that most iniquitous fountain, the fugitive slave law of 1850.

Then my colleague asks, Why do you invoke the power of the military to enforce these laws? And he says that constables and sheriffs and marshals when they have process to serve have a right to call upon the "posse comitatus," the body of the whole people, to enforce their writs.

Here is a justice of the people of South Carolina or Georgia, or a county court, or a circuit court, that is called upon to execute this law. They appoint their own marshal, their deputy marshal, or their constable, and he calls upon the "posse comitatus." Neither the judge, nor the jury, nor the officer as we believe is willing to execute the law. He may call upon the people, the body of the whole people, a body of rebels steeped in treason and rebellion to their lips, and they are to execute it; and the gentleman seems wonderfully astonished .that we should call upon the military power. Vie should not legislate at all if we believed the State courts could or would honestly carry out the provisions of the constitutional amendment; but because we believe they will not do that, we give the Federal officers jurisdiction. Because we ,believe they will . not do it, because we believe their people will not carry it out, we authorize the President of the United States to do what he would have a perfect right to do without the enactment of such a law under peculiar circumstances'. Where organized resistance to . the legal authority assumes

, that shape that the officers cannot execute ·a writ, they have a right through the governor of the State to call upon tbe President to s~e that that law, as well as every other law, is faithfully executed. We pro. pose by law' to say that the military may be called in for the execution of this law. * * *

· I think then, that the provisions of this bill are admirably calculated to secure to those colored people their rights under the constitutional amendment, and I think the · provision contained in the last section of the bill more ilnportant than any other and that is, that the President shall have a right with the strong arm of military authority to see .that this law is carried out; and I say without that provision this act would be a mockery and a farce. It will not be worth the paper upon which it will be engrossed unless you make it a law in deed and in fact, and authorize the judicial officers appointed under it to call upon and to command the military power of the country for the purpose of carrying it out.

EFFECTS OF ADMINISTRATION'S TIGHT MONEY POLICIES IN THE FIELD OF HOUSING Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, for

the past several months Robert J. Lewis,

of the Washington Star, has been writing on the effects of the administration's tight money policies in the field of housing. I have found his articles most interesting and informative. In last Saturday's Washington Star, Mr. Lewis reported that tight money policies are creating a serious housing shortage and at the same time driving the price of houses up and apartment rents up also.

Mr. Lewis asks this basic question: Does the Eisenhower administration want families ·to have to double up as they did during and after World War II, when a house or an apartment was almost impossible to find?

The article points out that fewer apartments are vacant today than at any time since the FHA started its vacancyrate studies in 1950.

Housing starts this year are running at an annual rate of less than 1 million, which is far below the country's needs if we are to adequately house our rising population. GI loans are a thing of the past. As one builder says in Mr. Lewis' article:

VA building is dead. The administration's money policies killed it dead as a dodo. I can't see the sense in that, and I don't think veterans do, either.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this article from the July 20 Washington Star be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

CASH-DOWN TERMS

(By Robert J. Lewis) When a thing you need is scarce, the price

you pay for it goes up. That's an economic truism you don't need

to have explained by an economist. Housing is getting scarcer under policies

of the Eisenhower administration, and both prices and rents are going up.

This is understandable. And, unress the policies are changed, housing is going to be even scarcer in the future-and even more expensive to buy-than it is today, in the opinion of many observant persons.

The administration's monetary policies have sharply increased the new-housing cost to buyers. Higher interest rates are notably involved. They have also made it more difficult for you to sell a house you own.

Under current policies, home production has been held down, and hardly any apartment construction (other than the luxury type) has been built in recent years.

MORE FAMILIES

Meanwhile, the population has been steadily i-ncreasing, and new families are being formed-and are expected to be formed in the next decade-at a record rate.

Does the Eisenhower administration want families to have to double up a:s they did during and after World War II, when a l1ouse or an apartment was almost impossible to find? That is a question builders are asking. It may soon be a question that the public will be asking, too.

The Federal Housing Administration this month said fewer apartments are vacant today than at any time since its vacancy-rate studies were s t arted in 1950.

SCARCER HERE

In many areas, the vacancy rate in FHA apartments is well below 1 percent. In Baltimore, for example, it is only nine.tenths of 1 percent. In Chicago, it is tw9-tenths of 1 percent. In Boston, it is .six-tenths of 1 percent. ·

In Washington, apartments are becoming scarcer. FHA projects here have only a 2.2 percent vacancy rate. The Washington situation is worse than the record-breaking scarcity noted in the Nation as a whole.

Even expensive luxury apartm,ents are scarce. Demand for them has resulted in a recent burst of activity in this field. They are being produced to meet this demand. But the rents are too high for the average family to pay. ·

Many people are aware of these trencts and think something should be done to forestall the housing shortage that is building up, as well as the inflationary rent situation that is certain to follow.

Builders, for example, are saying that while the Eise~ower administration says it pur sues. its monetary policies to combat inflation, it seems not to recognize as a just complaint the contention that higher an d higher interest rates are having the infia tionary effect of raising costs to the home buyer and of holding production down.

One builder said today: "I would like to see somebody figure out

how many extra billions it has cost the Government to service its debt since it started out on this higher interest rate binge. It's a mighty strange course for a Government that is supposed to be budget-minded."

Another said: "I see by the Wall Street Journal this

week that, as a result of higher interest rates the Bell Telephone Co. will have to pay on $250 million in bonds, the company is beginning to ·talk about higher telephone charges. Isn't that kind of thing inflationary? I thought higher interest rates were being used to lick inflation. Seems to me they're causing inflation. Personally, I think higher interest rates are raising the cost of everything."

Another builder said: "VA building is cj.ead. The Administra

tion's money policies killed it as dead as a dodo. I can't se'3 the sense in that and I don't think veterans do either."

Congress, too, was aware of the lagging housing trend when it passed new legislation which the President just signed. The legislation liaberalized_ downpayment terms for FHA homes and was expected, on that basis, to stimulate new-home construction. As Written, the law authorized FHA to put the lower downpayment in effect at · any time.

TWO HELD TO FAVOR MOVE

Both Housing Administrator Cole and FHA Commissioner Mason are reported to favor putting . lower downpayments into effect now. But rumors this weekend say that ~heir hands have been tied by the administration's tight-money leadership. A decision on the matter is expected next week .

Only recently has the administration's tight-money policy been getting really close scrutiny by Congress and the public. It's beginning ·to be recognized as a politically pot ent issue. ·

If the policy should lead to a more acute housing shortage and a further inflationary wave of rent and price increases, it undoubtedly will be time for the a:dministration's poll ti cal strategists to make their voiC€s heard in councils where, apparently, only .the voices of ·the monetary strategists are being heard today, some observers believe.

For people need homes and want them. The end of World War II showed that a housing shortage could quickly become the No. 1 issue in many a country the world around.

Hardly anyone who remembers the clamor and the fumbling to cure the shortage-not to speak of the difficulties and hardship which millions of American families had to undergo-would want to see it happen all over again. ·

Mr. HUMPHREY. In . the Sunday Washington Star there was an excellent summary o:( the dismal record of Secre-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12303 tary Humph1'ey in refinancing the ·national debt. This article points out that Secretary Humphrey leaves office with the Treasury in a much worse mess than when he came to Washington in 1953 to save the Nation from those terrible Democrats. The Washington Star states that the new 4-percent Treasury notes offered last week will not only drive up the interest payments on the public debt, which the taxpayers will have to bear, but it also means that the cost of time purchases is likely to climb, from the purchase of a toaster to a home. It also means even a tighter squeeze on the ~mall-business man who hopes to expand h is business.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this report from the Sunday Washington Star be printed at this point in the RECORD.


FEDERAL DEBT: INTEREST UP Secretary of the Treasury George Hum

phrey has often referred to "the mess," which he says he inherited from the Truman administration in 1953. Part of that mess was the problem of short-term Government debt which lowered the average time before maturity of the public debt to 49 months.

Mr. HumphreY,'s announced goal was to lengthen this time, thus easing the drain on the Treasury. But this week as he malces ready to leave the post he has held for 4V:z years, the public debt, on the average, will come to maturity in even a shorter time-43 months.

Mr. Humphrey, when he wok office, saw the answer to a lot of his problems in a higher rate of interest for those who lend to the Government by buying Government securit ies. Consequently, he .raised the interest on long-term Government bonds from the prevailing 2% percent to 314 percent. It was hoped that holders of obligations that were near maturity would exchange them for the longer te1:m bonds. At the time of the offer, the new issue sold above par, an indication that buyers would have taken them for less than ·3lf.l percent, had they been offered for less.

The issue, naturally, was oversubscribed, and the effect of the higher rate was to force the prevailing rates throughout the economy to rise. There were numerous side effects. Lenders, for example, began to prefer conventional mortgage financing to FHA and VA mortgages, the rate on which was frozen.

The effect on the problem of debt management, after the spiral process was set in motion, was to cause investors to shy from future long-term commitments and wait out the possibility of still further rate increases.

' Additionally, the announcement in 1953 that the Federal Reserve Board would not be asked to buy slow-moving bonds from the Government, encouraged lenders to hold back in expectation of a higher yield.

Last week the Treasury offered 3 shortterm securities at the highest rate since the bank holiday in 1933 in order to refund $24 billion worth of issues coming due in August and October. The new certificates and notes were offered at from 3% percent to 4 percent. The offer was made only to holders of these securities and was not opened to cash subscriptions. The legal limit is 414 percent.

FAR-REACHING EFFECTS The effect of last week's offer will be far

reaching. The taxpayer, of course, will pay the higher interest. Already the cost of carrying the debt amounts to almost 10 percent of the entire budget. It now costs about $4 billion more to carry the debt than it did in 1952, figured on the basis of refunding the entire debt. As old issues mature

and are exchanged for issues at higher rates, the cost continues · to increase.

B·ut the effects of the new issue go far beyond what is reflected in tax bills. The cost of time purchases · is likely to climb, whether the item purchased is a toaster or a home (already a vetei:an buying a home on a 30-year GI loan will pay more in interest than the amount shown on the original price tag on the house) .

Small-business men hoping to expand also would feel the increase if it is refiectep in a general rise in interest rates. For instance, an independent auto repairman would find financing the time purchase of a new piece of equipment more costly than it would have been a few months ago.

Democratic Senator KERR charges that this policy of higher interest r ates, which restrict.c:; credit, has contributed to inflation, rather than slowing it, as Mr. HUMPHREY once claimed it would. Only last week, the Agriculture Department blamed higher interest rates for helping to increase the production costs of farmers.

The debt structure, then, is still far from the overhaul Mr. Humphrey promised in 1953. But the big troubles are still to come. Incoming Treasury Secretary Robert B. Anderson faces the problem of refinancing still another $50 billion within the next year. He has as yet little reason to expect that he can manage it any less expensively than Mr. Humphrey.

There was one bright note in the Government fiscal picture last week, however. It was the announcement that for the second year in a row Uncle Sam had managed his affairs in the black. The 1957 fiscal year that ended on June 30 showed a surplus of $1.6 billion, despite unexpected increased costs. A similar . unforeseen increase in income made the difference.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Evidence is already coming in as to the effects in the money market of the Treasury's offering of 4-percent notes, the highest in 24 years. The Dow-Jones municipal yield index for Monday, July 22, reads 3.41 percent, as compared with 3.39 percent a week before. And the Wall Street Journal of July 22 reports:

The Government breakthrough into a 4-percent coupon may portend a general rise in tax-exempt bond costs.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this article from the July 22 issue of the Wall Street Journal on municipal bond yields be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: MUNICIPAL YIELD INDEX AGAIN MOVES UP•

WARD AS MARKET WEAKENS The municipal bond market, resurgent in

recent weeks after its tumble to a 22-year low at the end of June, is again moving downward.

The Dow-Jones municipal yield index, which rises as prices drop, today reads 3.41 percent compared with last Monday's 3.39 percent. The index represents yields on 20 representative 20-year bonds.

Dealers said the termination of the shortlived rally was a matter of supply and demand. During the first part of July the volume of tax-exempt bonds sent to market fell off appreciably from the previous month, and investors found they could not pick and choose as they had before.

But new issues of tax-exempt bonds flooded into the market following the initial July drought and inventories of unsold issues in the hands of dealers became swollen. This morning the blue list of advertised inventory

of unsold bonds stands at $16B,566,000, up from $140,751,500 a week ago.

The visible 30-day supply of bonds moving to market now stands at $275,249,119 according to the Daily Bond Buyer. A week ago, the figure was nearly the same, $275,319,769. These two figures, with the slack August days of bond buying just ahead, indicate the upturn in municipal financing. About a month ago, the 30-day visible supply was $173,078,214.

With their eyes on the forthcoming United States Treasury refunding of $24 billion short-term notes, ~any municipal traders were hesitant to predict the market's future. 'The Government breakthrough into a 4-percent coupon may portend a general rise in tax-exempt bond costs. One dealer, less wary than his fellows, said "It's possible for the market to sink lower than the 3.48-percent index level of 3 weeks ago."

Others agreed it might prove dangerous to allow large inventories to accumulate. Buyer resistance, they said, is quick to develop in the present boom market for money.

The big issue moving into the market this week is the $50 million block of California veteran's bonds Wednesday. Next largest is the $17 ,500,000 Georgia Rural Road Authority bond issue up for sale tomorrow.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Not only municipal bonds, but corporate bonds and longterm Treasurys fell last week due to the new 4-percent Treasury offering. As one dealer put it, according to the Wall Street Journal:

The Street was lowering prices all week in anticipation of the news, but the 4-percent coupon on two issues forced still further adjustments Friday.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this report on falling corporate and Treasury bonds as reported in the July 22 Wall Street Journal be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD. as follows: BOND MARKETS: TOP-GRADE CORPORATES, ·

LONG-TERM TREASURYS FALL FROM RECENT HIGHS NEW YoRK.-Investment grade corporates

and long-term Treasury liens tumbled from recent highs last week.

Corporate bonds sold off actively Wednesday morning. Although most of the volume had dried up by noon, the group continued to drift downward Thursday and Friday.

Two recent issues were freed from price restrictions Thursday. Central Illinois Light Co. 4%s, set at 100.80 at their July 10 introduction, were quoted 9714 bid late Friday, Jersey Central Power & Light Co. 5·s, brought in Wednesday at 101.563, were at 98Ys bid Friday.

Long-term United States Government bonds lost ground day by day, in two casesthe December "Vies" and 3 lf.ls of June 1978-83-dropping within a point of the record lows.

Some dealers quoted the Victory loan 2 V:z s of December 1967-72 at 86 24-32 bid, off 2-32 Friday and 26-32 behind on the week. The 3lf.ls of June 1978-83, were bid at 93 24-32, off 3-32 for the day and 26-32 for the week; 40-year 3s fell 10-32 during the week to 88 26-32 bid, a 4-32 loss for Friday.

Yields were up to 3.63 percent on the "Vies" and 3lf.ls, while the 40-year 3s returned 3.54 percent.

Some traders mentioned the Treasury financing announcement late Thursday as an important infiuen.ce on the week's market. "The Street was lowering prices all week in anticipation of the news," explained one dealer, "but the 4-percent coupon on 2 issues forced still further adjustments Friday. The noncallable feature of the 4-year

12304" CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE July 22

notes also tempted some holders of Treasury long-terms, bringing a little selling to that sector of the market." . The municipal market saw a sharp drop in buyer interest last week, with an easier trend expressed more in reduced volume and lower quotes than in actual selling.

Dealers reported sluggish retail response to some issues for which bidding competition was strong. They saw a test of current price levels in Wednesday's $50 million of California bonds. Revenue bonds were lower on the week, with sharp cuts in West Virginia Turnpike issues. •

Rails moved down gradually in slack trading.

Convertible liens were mostly lower, with Dow Chemical 3s down more than 8 points. The new United Artists 6s, a strong exception, first traded in the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday around the 105 level, and ended the week at 116.

Foreign bonds drifted lower throughout the week on small volume.

~.IESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre

sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill <S. 2130) to amend further the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes, .with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate; that the House insisted upon its amendments to the bill, asked a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. GORDON, Mr. MORGAN, Mr. CARNAHAN, Mr. VORYS, and Mr. JUDD were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

further morning business? If not, morning business is closed; and the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill <H. R. 6127) to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Allott Anderson Barrett Beall Bennett Bible Bricker Bush Butler Byrd Capehart Carlson Carroll Case, N. J. C'ase, S. Dak. Chavez Church Clark cooper Cotton Curtis Dirksen Douglas Dworshak Eastland

Ellender Lausche Ervin Long Flanders Magnuson Frear Malone Fulbright Mansfield Goldwater Martin, Iowa Gore Martin, Pa. Green McClellan Hayden McNamara Hickenlooper Monroney Hill Morse Holland Morton Hruska Mundt Humphrey Murray Ives Neuberger Jackson O'Mahoney Javits Pa.store Jenner Potter Johnson, Tex. Purtell Johnston, S. c. Revercomb Kefauver Robertson Kennedy Russell Kerr Saltonstall Knowland Scott Kuchel Smathers Langer Smith, Maine

Smith, N. J. Talmadge Wiley Sparkman Thurmond Williams Stennis Thye Yarborough Symington Watkins Young

Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] is absent by leave of the Senate because of illness.

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NEEL yJ is absent on official business.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the Sena tor from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], the Senator from Maine [Mr. PAYNE], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. ScHOEPPELJ are absent because of illness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. MoNRONEY in the chair.) A quorum is present.

The question is on agreeing to the Knowland-Humphrey amendment, inserting a new section in part III.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California will state it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. At this time the Senate is operating under the provisions of a unanimous-consent agreement which calls for a division of the available time. Is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Will the Chair state the time allowed under the agreement?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not to . exceed one hour and one-half.

Mr. KNOWLAND. One hour and onehalf to each side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; a total of one hour and one-half, or 45 minutes to each side.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Callfornia is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, the amendment submitted on behalf of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY J and myself would repeal section · 1989 of the Revised Statutes, title 42, United States Code, section 1993. The reason is that during the course of the debate, a point was made of the fact that, because of a cross-reference, in the enforcement of certain of the orders of the court the use of Federal forces might be invoked. Although it was not stated in so many words, the inference was that it would be the intention of the sponsors of the bill and those who propose its enactment that the full might of the Armed Forces of the United States-the Army, Navy, and Air Force-might be brought to bear upon a school district or locality in the enforcement of certain court orders. Needless to say, Mr. President, that was not the intent of the President of the United States, in sponsoring the proposed civil-rights legislation; and in my judgment it was not the intent of the House of Representatives in passing the bill by a vote of 2 to 1; and to the best of my knowledge and belief it certainly was not the intent or policy of any Member of this body, on either side of the aisle. But the mere fact that the section was there and, by cross reference, a case might be made,

was the reason the Senator from Minne .. sota and I decided to clarify the atmosphere. While there are other great questions of constitutional and legal principle upon which Senators may honestly differ, at least we should eliminate that argument from the discussion of the bill. The particular section which is being repealed by this amendment, if in the judgment of the Senate it is repealed, and I hope the vote on it will be unanimous-and there has been some indication that might be the case-reads as follows:

It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as may be necessary to aid in the execution of judicial process issued under sections 1981-1983 or 1985-1992 of this title, or as shall be necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of the provisions of sections 1981-1983 and 1985-1994 of this title (Revised Statutes, sec. 1989).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the minority leader that the 3 minutes he allocated to himself have been exhausted.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California yields himself 1 additional minute.

Mr. KNOWLAND. As I stated, it was for the clarification of the debate that the amendment was offered, and the amendment is only to repeal that particular section of the code which dates from Reconstruction days.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the distinguished minority leader has stated very succinctly and precisely the case and the argument for the amendment

·which it is my privilege to cosponsor With him. I feel it is most regrettable and unfortunate that the debate on part III of this bill should have been clouded by, and, in fact, distorted by, reference to the use of the Armed Forces of the United States as an instrumentality of law enforcement in civil-rights matters. I have felt that the reference to this particular enforcement provision of a reconstruction law, or a law from Reconstruction days, was also unwise and psychologically unfortunate. Therefore, it was with a sense of sincerity and happiness that I was able to join with the Senator from California in sponsoring what I believe to be an amendment that will do something very constructive for this proposed legislation.

I conclude my remarks relating to this amendment on this theme: The practice of civil rights requires the mature understanding of all persons. It requires patience, indeed, steadfast patience. Civil rights, to be meaningful, must be essentially secured by observance of law. To be sure, enforcement has · its role in the fulfillment of any

1957 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12305 law, or in the fulfillment of the objec .. tives of the law; but as I have said on the floor on several occasions, when we are dealing with human rights-and that means human emotions as well-we

·must seek to obtain the compliance of individuals, through respect for the law and knowledge of the law which is based on understanding of the law and the place and problems toward which the law directs its attention. Therefore any reference in this proposed public statute to the use of the military forces has an unfortuntae connotation, and I must say that those who have vigorously opposed our efforts to write into law reasonable provisions concerning civil rights protections found in this particular reference to the use of military power a dramatic incident, putting out of focus the whole purpose of the proposals which are before the Senate in the field of civil rights. So I am delighted we are going to have a vote upon this question, and I am confident the vote will be overwhelmingly for the amendment.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CLARK. I should like to say to my good friend from Minnesota, with respect to the position he has taken, I intend to support his amendment, and I should like to ask--

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield, I may say I am prepared to yield to him in his own right such time as he may want, in addition to questions he may want to propound to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. CLARK. I shall be happy to have that done.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I should like to say--

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from North Carolina such time as he may desire.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. ERVIN. I merely wish to state that what has been said represents no recent discovery of the fact that under the bill in its present form the President of the United States could call out the Army and the Navy and the militia ·to enforce decrees to be entered in suits under title 42, section 1985, in which the .right of trial by jury would be denied.

On February 16, 1957, I undertook to examine the supposed author of this bill, namely, the Attorney General of the United States, about this matter. As appears from page 214 of the Senate subcommittee hearings on the civil rights bill, title 42, section 1993 of the United ·States Code, which is the section which allows the use of armed forces to enforce court decrees, was read to the Attorney General of the United States.

The Attorney General of the United States was asked if, under the statute, the President could not resort to the use of the Armed Forces to enforce these ·decrees, and the response which I received in the first instance was this, as shown at the bottom of page 215:

I frankly don't think that it would be appropriate to have an exercise in the in· terpretatbn of that statute.

Being a rather persistent person, I kept asking the Attorney General about the statute, and said I was not debating the matter from an academic standpoint, as appears at page 217 of the record of hearings. I quote from what I said:

It is not entirely from an academic stand· point. We are not debating this point any further, but we do think we are entitled to make a record here that will show that if this bill is passed, that it will create a new type of remedy in which judicial decrees can be entered, and under which the President of the United States under existing law can enforce by the use of the Armed Forces of the country, so Senators may know what they are voting for.

Then, as appears at the foot of page 217, one of the most unusual things that ever happened before a Congressional committee occurred. The Attorney General, who was before the committee asking the committee to approve a bill which he was sponsoring, challenged the authority of the Congressional committee to ask him about the legal meaning of the bill which he was asking Congress to pass. Here are his words, after raising that point:

Mr. BROWNELL. I would respectfully ask for a ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not this line of questioning is within the authority of the comm.ittee.

Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee ruled that I had the right to ask the Attorney General whether, if the bill were passed, the President, under section 1993, title 42, of the United States Code, would have the authority to call out the Army, the Navy, and the militia to enforce decrees to be entered at the instance of the Attorney General in suits in which people would be denied the protection of the Bill of Rights, insofar as the right of trial by jury was concerned. After the Attorney General had challenged the authority of the committee, and after the chairman of the subcommittee had ruled that the question was proper, the Attorney General asked that he not be asked that question, and I made this observation, as shown on page 219 of the hearings, as I say, away back on February 16, 1957:

Mr. Chairman, I'd hate to refuse any request of the Attorney General, but all we are doing is asking the Attorney General about the laws of the United States which would be brought into operation or which could be brought into operation in this new type of proceeding, if we passed the amendments that have been urged upon us. On the other hand I consider it most important for the people. I have said all the time that all I want is an adequate opportunity to develop a case that the people of the United States will know what they are getting, and where the Senators and the Congressmen of the United States will know what they are getting if they pass these amendments. Now, I contend that it reminds me of Omar Khayyam when he spoke about the wine sellers. He said, "I wonder often what the Vintners buy one half so precious as the stutf they sell."

I want the American people and the Congress to know that if these amendments are made, what it is they are getting, so that they may determine whether what they are to get is half as precious as what they are relin· quishing. Therefore, I think it is very germane, and that this country is entitled to know and consider whether Congress ought to pass the law to create a new type of pro-

ceeding, judgments of which could be enforced by the Army and the Navy and the militia, and I think that is wholly germane. We want to find out if what we are getting is half so precious as the stuff we are relinquishing.

Incidentally, the Attorney General never answered the question.

Mr. President, the pending bill is rightly subject to many constitutional and legal objections in addition to the fact that in the name of civil rights some Americans are to be deprived by it of benefits of the Bill of Rights. I also object to the bill because of the power the bill would confer upon one man, the occupant of the Office of Attorney General who came before the subcommittee to sponsor the bill. When he was asked questions about the legal effect of the bill he was advocating, and when it was called to his attention that under the bill which he was advocating the President could call out the Army, the Navy, and the militia to enforce decrees of the Court, the Attorney General challenged the authority of the committee to ask him questions about title 42, section 1993. I do not think a man who would challength the authority of a Congressional committee to ask him questions about the legal effect of a bill he was requesting the committee to approve and the Congress to pass ought to be given powers which the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD] so well called the powers of a Caesar. I say this because the Attorney

·General would be given personal possession of a public law if this bill were passed in its present form.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ERVIN. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Do I correctly understand the Senator from North Carolina to say that he personally asked the Attorney General about this matter, while the Attorney General was testifying before the subcommittee in support of the bill which is before the Senate, and the Attorney General refused to say what the effect of the bill would be with respect to that section of law authorizing the calling out of troops?

Mr. ERVIN. Absolutely. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Do I correctly un

derstand the Senator from North Carolina to say that the Attorney General not only challenged the authority of the committee to ask the question, but he appealed to the chairman of the subcommittee to deny to a member of the subcommittee the right to ask the question?

Mr. ERVIN. In answer to the Senator's question--

Mr. O'MAHONEY. I hope the Senator will permit me to ask these questions and to keep them in consecutive order.

Mr. ERVIN. Yes, sir. Mr. O'MAHONEY. I am leading up to

a point. Mr. ERVIN. Yes. The Attorney Gen

eral raised the question as to the authority of the committee to a.sk him that question.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Is it not a fact that the chairman of the subcommittee

12306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 22

refused to give the ruling the Attorney General wanted?

Mr. ERVIN. Yes. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Is it not the fact ,

also, that after such colloquy had transpired, the Attorney General failed to r.;ive any testimony with respect to this particular point, and left the subcommittee in ignorance as to his legal interpretation of this provision of the bill?

Mr. ERVIN. Absolutely. Mr. O'MAHONEY. Is it not a fact

thll.t, according to the press conferences of the President of the United States, he also was denied by the Attorney General the information as to what this section of the bill meant with respect to the power to call out the Armed Forces?

Mr. ERVIN. I cannot say what the Attorney General told the President, but I draw the inference, from the President's statements, that the Attorney General did not make the situation clear to the President.

The Attorney General was asked these ouestions on the 16th day of February i957. Apparently he wanted the bill passed with the provision referred to in it, and, so far as I know, he still wants it passed with that provision in it.

To my mind the situation was most unusual. The Attorney General questioned the authority of the subcommittee only when the subcommittee started to ask him whether or not, if Congress enacted a law amending title 42, section 1985, according to his recommendation, the President, under title 42, section 1993, could call out the Army, the Navy, and the militia to enforce decrees which the Attorney General would obtain in proceedings in which the defendants would be robbed of their right under the Bill of Rights to trial by jury.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ERVIN. I yield. Mr. LONG. Is it any wonder that the

President of the United States himself did not know what was in the bill, when his own Attorney General had been all but claiming the fifth amendment before the subcommittee in testifying upon the bill? '

How could the Attorney General advise the President if he would not even advise the able attorneys on the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary what the bill provided, and whether or not it would give the President the right to deny to the people of the South the right of trial by jury, the right to confront their accusers, and various other civil rights, and to use the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to help deny those rights? How can the President say that the bill would or v1ould not do certain things when his own Attorney General would not testify before the subcommittee whether the bill would or would not do some of those very things?

Mr. ERVIN. I cannot answer as to what the Attorney General told the President, because I was not present at any conference between them. But if the Attorney General did not tell the President any more about this phase of the bill than he was willing to tell the subcommittee, it is quite ·understandable vrhy the President said that he thought

it was nothing but a voting-rights bill, and that he did not understand it to be a force bill.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President-Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I

yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania. .

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I should like to state very briefly for the RECORD why I propose to support the KnowlandHumphrey amendment.

Under article I, section 3 of the Constitution, the President of the United States is required to see to the faithful enforcement of the laws. Since 1795 the President has had full power to use the military forces of the United States to execute the laws if wholesale resistance is encountered.

It is my belief that the 1795 act was the result of what was known as the Whisky Rebellion in Pennsylvania. George Washington, as the head of the Federal troops, went forth and put down a revolt in the back country regions of my Commonwealth.

In view of the fact that these laws have been on the books since 1795, and that the President has the constitutional duty to enforce the laws in any event, I am in accord with my friend from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] and my friend from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] that it would be psychologically unsound and unwise further to embitter the civilrights controversy by referring, in the .bill under consideration, to an old section of the Ku Klux Klan Act, which inevitably would arouse age-old passions which were better left to die on the ashes of their age.

So I shall support the pending amendment, knowing full well that after the amendment is agreed to, the President will still have, as he has always had, adequate authority to enforce · the laws of the United States.

A very able memorandum has been prepared by the American Law Division of the Library of Congress and submitted to my distinguished friend, the junior Senator from Colorado [Mr CARROLL]. This memorandum, dealing with the use of the Armed Forces to enforce the civil-rights bill, sets forth in some detail what I have briefly stated. I ask unanimous consent that the memorandum be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks.

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

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, July 9, 1957.

To: Hon. JOHN A. CARROLL. From: American Law Division. Subject: Use of Armed Forces to enforce

civil-rights bill (H. R. 6127; 85th Cong.). To suggest that under the terms of the

proposed civil-rights bill, the entire armed might of the United States might be mobilized to enforce compliance with judicial law (namely, the Supreme Court ruling that segregation is violative of the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment) but not to enforce other provisionJS . of that bill pertaining to denial of the right to vote is to overlook existing statutory provisions authorizing employment of the Armed Forces by the President to fulfill his constitutional duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws (art. II, sec. 3). Under title 10, sections 332-333 of the United States Code,

the President already is vested with ample authority to employ the Armed Forces to enforce obedience to any Federal law, whether that disobedience be directed at judicial and executive officers enforcing decrees issued pursuant to judicial interpretations of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, or is manifested in the form of resistance to Federal officers attempting to execute statutory law. Moreover, such resistance elsewhere is declared by statute to be a crime against the United States; and if the ordinary, judicial processes are inadequate to punish those found guilty of committing such offenses, suppression of disobedience to said statutory provision legally would warrant the President's use of troops consistently with his constitutional duty as chief law enforcer.

The applicable provisions of law hitherto cited are the following:

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstruction, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any St ate • • • by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the Armed Forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws, or to suppress the rebellion (U.S. C. 10: 332).

"The President, by using the militia or the Armed Forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he deems necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it ( 1) so hinders the execution of the laws • • • of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection, or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws cu:. S. C. 10: 333).

"Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any judge of the United States, any United States attorney, any assistant . United States attorney, or any United States marshal or deputy marshal, or person employed to assist such marshal or deputy marshal, or any officer or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice • • • (etc.), while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties shall be fined • • • (U. S. C. 18: 111, 114) ."

The purpose of this presentation of the aforementioned statutory provisions is to

. demonstrate that independently of the proposed civil rights bill, the President already is vested with ample authority to deploy the Armed Forces to meet concerted popular :resistance designed either to obstruct enforcement of judicial decrees issued pursuant to constitutional and statutory provisions or to interfere with enforcement of statutory law by Federal officers. It matters little, therefore, whether title 42, United States Code, section 1993 is to be viewed as expressly authorizing the use of military force to execute title 42, United States Code, section 1981, as amended by part 3 of H. R. 6127, but as not complementing execution of title 42, United States Code, section 1971, as amended by part - of H. R. 6127 and relating to the denial of the right to vote.

As a perusal of the first cited provisions will confirm, the President's right to use the Armed Forces is clearly circumscribed. Military forces cannot be mobilized to mow down private citizens merely because they have congregated together in the exercise of their constitutionally protected freedom to assemble. On the contrary, these forces can be deployed for one purpose only: namely, to

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12307 combat organized resistance to the enforcement of the law. To condemn the use of armed force without acknowledging the only legitimate occasion for its exercise is either to becloud the issue or to conceal behind such protest what amounts to an arrogation of a right to resist with impunity.

NORMAN J. SMALL,

.American Law Division.

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

Mr. CLARK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. CARROLL. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. At the time I asked the American Law Division of the Library of Congress to give an opinion I was privileged, on the same day, to preside over the Senate and listen to the very excellent address of the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL]. I knew that this would be a highly controversial issue before this body, and that eventually we would have to answer it. I asked for the opinion. The opinion is here. It is a very clear one. It states the law on both sides of the case, and fully bears out the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and, I believe, once and for all, puts this issue to rest.

The amendment sponsored by the distinguished Senator from California and the distinguished Senator from Minnesota ought to be adopted. The law is clear. It has always been clear; and we now have the opportunity to clear away some of the smokescreen which has surrounded the present issue.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio JMr. LAUSCHE].

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, it seems to me that there ought not to be any question about the wisdom and propriety of supporting the amendment offered by the minority leader [Mr. KNOWLAND] and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY].

The very statement of the proposition, in the boldness with which it is set forth in the section under discussion, can only shock not alone the most ardent supporters of the bill, but especially all Americans, when they reflect that in the proposed legislation it is set forth pointedly, harshly, and severely that the Army, the Navy, and the militia shall be called out to put the law into effect.

I shudder to think that in America, in connection with a problem of this type, toward the solution of which all good Americans are striving, someone possessed the audacity to sponsor such a provision, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution which give the President the power to enforce judicial decrees when they are resisted by armed revolution or otherwise. Who thought of this scheme? Who conceived the idea that in order to enforce a judicial decree this bill should contain language to the effect that the Army, the Navy, and the militia shall be called out?

I ask my fellow Senators, Who are the sponsors of this proposal? That is the

vital question which we are discussing at this moment.

No Senator should hesitate to vote in support of the pending amendment. We have a responsibility, especially when there are some persons and agencies demanding that there be no single change made in the bill .

I voted to refer the bill to committee last June. Severe condemnation has fallen upon some Senators who voted that way. But I believe that in the Senate we must be controlled by laws, and not by the whims and caprices of Members of the Senate, whose whims and caprices change so as to conform to their attitude every time a question of procedure comes before the Senate.

The President of the United States, it is said, shall have the power to use the militia, the Army, and the Navy, to enforce the decrees.

There was no need for that provision, Mr. President. The Constitution, as pointed out by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CARROLL] and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK], already gave ample power to the President.

What should be our inquiry? Who possessed the fanaticism? Who, under the objective of achieving a good end, was in favor of using the Machievellian theory in its most severe aspect to accomplish that end?

I want a civil-rights bill passed. I want to give to all Americans the full enjoyment of their civil rights. However, I do not want to destroy certain parts of the Constitution intended for the protection of all Americans in order to give one special type of relief.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Ohio has expired.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield 2 additio~al minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LAUSCHE. This situation should make advocates of the civil-rights bill realize that even in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, and in the Attorney General's office, in measures of this type improvements may be made. I venture to say that if the issue were placed before the American people, they would vote overwhelmingly to condemn this provision of the bill as it came before us. How was it possible? I think we ought to find out, Mr. President, whose creature it is. We should know who contemplated imposing this proposal upon the Senate and the people of the United States.

I humbly submit to the advocates of the bill that there are some other provisions in the bill which are just as nefarious. They will be discussed at a later time.

In conclusion, although, probably I should not say this, I cannot conceive of how anyone can possibly vote against ·the amendment. I cannot understand how a course of thinking could be pursued which would come to the conclusion that this provision ought to remain in the bill. While we think of that, let us give superior thought to the need of making certain that in this historic period we do not adopt the weak method of allowing our judgment to become warped, and cast aside constitutional

protections in the avid desire to achieve a good end.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall support the amendment. I believe it will be adopted by the Senate by a very substantial majority. However, I think it would be a great mistake to sit silent in the face of the observations which have just been made. They are fairly typical of the type of opinion that has been expressed, particularly the statement that the bill represented a nefarious undertaking by those who are in favor of its passage.

It should be remembered that the provision we are talking about has been in the law for more than 85 years. It has been in the law with respect to judgments and decrees obtained by individuals. In the 85 years in which it has been on the statute books, no one has complained about it. If one were to make a study of the subject, I am sure he would find that there are a great many other archaic provisions of law still on the statute books, which, if Congress ever got around to dealing with those subjects, would be repealed, particularly if anyone took objection to them.

The real danger in connection with the pending amendment is that its adoption-and, as I have said, I believe it will be adopted by a substantial majorityineans that the bill will go to conference: therefore it sets in motion another step in the legislative procedure which gives opportunity for killing the bill through parliamentary devices.

We who are in support of the bill and who will vote in favor of the amendment are, by doing so, showing our g-0od faith. We do not want any misconceptions to arise from our action. I believe what we are doing is a concession. It shows our good faith.

I should like to observe the injunction of the Senator from Ohio that we should keep our heads on our shoulders.

There is no doubt about the fact that the adoption of the amendment will be a success for those who are opposed to the bill, because they have succeeded in creating an issue where there was no issue-creating an issue out of no- issue at all. However, the action the Senate is about to take should not blind us to the fundamental purposes of the bill. We should not allow it to jeopardize the fundamental purposes and the real objectives of the bill. The fundamental issue has been stated by the principal opponent. He has spelled it out.

The fundamental issue is: Do we want to maintain the system of the separation of the races in a large section of the United States, or do we not? Have we reached the historic moment in the history of our country when we ought to be doing something by way of dealing with that system of the separation of the races, or have we not?

I hope very much that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], who is a very staunch ally-and no one welcomes him more than I, even though I am a junior Member of the Senate-will understand me when I say this.

12308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22 .

I hope very much, Mr. President, that we will not permit ourselves to be swept away, in terms of the substance of the bill, by the feeling that here is something in the bill which ought to be re-moved. Mr. President, we remove it gladly. The principal leaders on both sides of the aisle, so far as the measure before the Senate is concerned, do it gladly and voluntarily. So far as I know, there is no objection to doing it. However, in doing it, let us not forget that the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL], when he originally debated this provision of the bill, as shown at page 9711 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, had this to say:

I unhesitatingly assert that part III of the bill was deliberately drawn to enable the use of the military forces to destroy the system of separation of the races in the Southern States at the point of a bayonet, if it should be found necessary to take this step.

Mr. President, the majority in the Senate does not believe it is necessary to take that step. That is not the purpose of the majority, and it will show that that is not the purpose by its vote on the amendment. However, that is not the same thing as the statement by the Senator from Georgia, who believes sincerely and deeply that the system of the separation of the races is essential and ts right. Those who are in favor of the bill do not entertain that view, and they believe that something ought to be done about it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New York has expired.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, that is very important. Naturally, those who are opposed to the bill are determined to do all they possibly can to def eat it. It is our duty, on the other hand, as the majority of the Senators who are in favor of the bill to do what we can reasonably do to satisfy the opponents by quieting their legitimate fears, within the context of the bill. That is what we are doing by supporting the amendment. I think it is right to do that.

However, let us not be taken in by the argument that a great error, or a big mistake in the bill, has been discovered; or that it is a nefarious imposition, which imperils the faith and con-. fidence of ·the people and the liberties of our country. I do not believe such an attitude is justified.

I should like to give one further example. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] has constantly taken the floor and talkeq about the whim and caprice of the Attorney General-who will be able to do what? Start injunction suits. As every lawyer knows, that is the beginning of a very long· road be-fore an end is reached. There has been IDllCh inveighing against the idea that .contempt proceedings may take place without jury trials. But I do not think a,nybody pas yet read the section of the

bill on page 12, which is section 131 (e), and reads as follows:

(e) Provided, That any person cited for an alleged contempt under this act-

Not under this section; "under this act"-shall be allowed to make his fuil defense by counsel learned in the law; and the court before which he is cited or tried, or some judge thereof, shall immediately, upon his request, assign to him such counsel, not exceeding two, as he may desire, who shall have free access to him at all reasonable hours.

The paragraph then continues. Let us see how iniquitous it is, and how much whim and caprice of the Attorney General is involved. The last sentence of the section reads:

If such person shall be found by the court to be financially unable to provide for such counsel, it shall be the duty of the court to provide such counsel.

An appropriation is provided in the bill for that purpose. Certainly it is a very unusual provision in respect of civil relief.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. JAVITS. In a moment. I promised to yield first to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I point out that there are two very active groups which are giving their attention to the bill. With due respect to each of the groups, I am still obliged to say that they may be looking at the subject in an ardent light, from the point of view that it is not recognized that there is another group, the American citizenry, which wants to make certain that the Constitution will be complied with in all respects.


Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from New York. ·

Mr. JAVITS. I may say to the Senator from Ohio that one who is intense about a subject is not necessarily wrong because he is intense. I want my arguments to be judged upon their merits. The fact that I feel strongly upon a subject, although I do not think I have at all gone overboard about it, as is evidenced by my position on this amendment, and perhaps possibly upon other amendments, does not invalidate my view on a particular subject. Whether my position is sound or unsound, I submit it to the Senate to judge.

Second, there is nothing written in the Great Book which says that the majority of the American people are dispassionate about the subject. I happen to think that the majority of the American people want civil rights to be asserted at this historic moment. We who are fighting for civil rights, as I think are the Senator from Ohio and myself, represent the prevailing majority view of the American people. ·

I now yield to the Senator from South · Dakota.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, I desire to ask: the Senator from New York a question concerning

his statement about the use of a term on page 12 of the bill. What does the Senator say the word "act" refers to?

Mr. JAVITS. I think it refers to the whole act.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I do not think it refers to the pending ac·~. The quotation marks refer to the act which is section 2004 of the Revised Statutes, which is proposed to be amended by section 131. The Senator will note that subparagraph (e) on page 12 starts with quotation marks which go back to page 11.

Section 131 reads: Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes ( 42

U. S. C. 1971) is amended as follows:

The words "under this act" do not refer to the bill (H. R. 6127); they refer to the act which is set forth in title 42, United States Code, section 1971.

Mr. JAVITS. If the Senator will per-mit me to say so, I do not think he and I differ about that subject. What I was pointing out was that as to the argument concerning the whim and caprice of the Attorney General in contempt proceedings under the part of the bill we are discussing, there is very, very complete protection for a defendant in terms of due process of law. It is even unusual protection, to the point of having his counsel fees paid. I do not think the Senator from South Dakota and I differ ·about the substance of my statement.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Earlier during the debate on the bill it had been said it was immaterial where subsection (e) appeared in the bill. The Senator may remember that subsection (e) was the whole point at issue with reference to the so-called star print and the language of the bill as it was printed when it was voted to place it on the calendar.

Mr. JAVITS. Yes. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The

statement was made by someone at that time that it did not make any difference where section 131 appeared in the bill. I said I thought it made a good deal of difference. Hao it appeared in the other portion of the bill, it might have ref erred to the entire bill. Here in a series of paragraphs amending an act it clearly refers to the act in the revised statutes which is being amended by the section of which it is a part.

Mr. JAVITS. I shall check that particular allusion. The point of my argument was that, whether the reference extends to other parts of the bill or not, as I will check to determine for myself, the question of the whim and caprice of the Attorney General was cited as arising in a material part of the bill. I pointed that out by way of indicating that this was one of those terrible things it was said would happen, but which do not always happen, though we should exercise great care as to each provision and act on them with justice.

I do not want to enlarge the task. I believe the Senator from South Dakota and I agree on the purpose for which I made allusion.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. As the Senator from New York checks the matter I trust he will also note on page i 1, line 3, where subparagraph (c) intro-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 12309 duces the paragraphs which follow in quotations. Subsection (C) reads as follows:

( c) Add, immediately following the present text, three new subsections to read a.s follows:

When the Senator checks this, I trust he will agree with me that the word "three" should be changed to "four," because obviously four subsections follow:

Furthermore, when the Senator reads subparagraph (e) inside the quotation marks on page 12, he will read the words: "Provided, That any person cited". The words "Provided, That" should be stricken.

Mr. JA VITS. I intend to study this very carefully.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The sentence is without any preceding colon. The "Provided, That" is not hinged to anything.


Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Does the Senator from New York desire additional time?

Mr. JAVITS. No, I think not. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. How much

time does the Senator from Colorado de-sire? . ·

Mr. CARROLL. Five minutes. Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 5

minutes to the Senator from Colorado. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, I think

the very fact that an amendment to the pending measure before the Senate today is a recognition of the weakness of the position of the Attorney General when he testified in February before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. It seems to me that what we are trying to do today with this amendment is to quiet the fears

· which have been aroused. Why were they aroused? They were aroused by the inclusion in the bill of an old statute which unnecessarily stirs up mahy, many sad and tragic memories.

Certainly no one can say the Attorney General is not a poli~hed politician; as · I recall, he was a campaign manager in previous presidential campaigns, but had he been astute in this case he would have known of the political impact of this piece of proposed legislation. He · was interrogated by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina last February on this specific subject, the Force Act, which involves the use of military and naval forces. The Attorney General refused to respond. He did not want to discuss the matter. He called upon the chairman of the committee to determine whether that was an appropriate subject for investigation by a Congressional committee. What happened? The bill went through the House of Representatives, and in the House of Representatives there was no debate, I am informed, regarding this point. However, the issue did not escape the keen scrutiny of the Senate and in this body it became an issue obscuring and. cloaking in a smokescreen the real values of the law we are trying to enact.

The point I sought to make previously, in my colloquy with the distinguished junior Senator from Pennsylvania, was that I occupied the chair when the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] dropped a bombshell on the fioor of the Senate and throughout the Nation, leaving the impression that Federal troops were about to march into the Southland to compel compliance at the point of a bayonet.

In order to clarify that point and to clear the atmosphere, let me say that I am confident that was not the intention of the Attorney General. I am confident it is not the intention of any official of the Federal Government. Nevertheless, that provision was hidden in the bill. I do not think it was secretly contrived; instead, I think it was a product of sheer stupidity.

Now we are trying to make a correction, here on the fioor of the Senate, so that we may get at the main issues.

What are the main issues in this case, Mr. President?

What are the proponents of the bill trying to hold the discussion to, Mr. President? They are trying to discuss the constitutional rights, the civil rights of citizens in every section of the country. That is one of the reasons why I think adoption of the pending amendment is necessary. I cannot agree with my distinguished friend, the junior Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] that, merely because the bill, if thus amended, will have to go to conference, the result may be to slow down final action on the bill.

Certainly it is the job of the Senate to clarify the atmosphere and remove the smokescreen which has enshrouded this measure.

What is being sought by means of the pending bill, Mr. President? In the case of part III, the Congress is merely seeking to implement the supreme law of the land. That is the exact purpose of this section of the bill.

In part IV, the bill seeks to guarantee to every citizen the right to vote, and the purpose of that part is to implement that right. The platforms of both political parties are pledged to guarantee that right, Mr. President.

The American people will understand the real issue, if we cari only remove the atmosphere of fear. Fear cannot be legislated. But we can legislate into reality the hopes and ambitions of a people. This is what we are doing with the proposed legislation before us. The pending bill will stand as a symbol of what this great body can accomplish for the hopes and aspirations of a people, if only the Senate will move forward in a proper way.

I agree with my distinguished friend, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], that the provision relative to voluntary investigators in the proposed Commission should be stricken from the bill. The Senate does not want voluntary groups to engage in snooping of their own under the title of a Government body. If a commission is to be established, it should be a strong one; and a body of paid, trained men-not volunteers-should be available to perform

the work directed by the Commission. So I think the amendment to modify the Commission should be agreed to.

But my !lOint at this time, in addressing the Senate, Mr. President, in regard to the pending amendment, is to urge that all Senators agree on the amendment; and when the amendment is agreed to, the Senate will be able to come to grips with the significant and the real issues about which the pending bill is concerned.

As to part III, perhaps there is an honest difference of opinion. But I believe that when all the fine Members on the other side of the aisle and all the fine Members on this side of the aisle once get rid of the fear that an attempt is being made to punish someone by means of the use of t roops or by court actions or by the Attorney General, the Senate will take a historic step forward. Punishment is not the purpose of this bill.

Mr. President, in the field of civil rj_ghts, the executive branch of the Government has moved forward; the Supreme Court-representing the judicial arm of the Government-has moved forward; and another branch of the Congress, the House of Representatives. has moved forward. Is this great body, the Senate of the United states, to be looked upon as the only backward part of the Government?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Colorado has expired.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. CARROLL. I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I am a new Member of the Senate. I cannot presume to advise the older Members. But, Mr. President. somtimes new Members are closer to the grassroots. In my case, I know how the thinking people of Colorado regard this proposed legislation. But there is no political gain for me in this bill. To me, the pending issue is a simple one. If I believed that enactment of the bill would result in the)mposition of a police force on the Southland, I would vote against the bill. But I do not believe the bill proposes any such thing.

Mr. President, if the present part IV is included in the bill as it is finally enacted into law, how long do Senatoi·s think it will be before part IV becomes effective throughout the Nation? · Even with part IV enacted into law progress will be slow. It will be years before there will be any reasonable exercise of voting rights in the South. How long, Mr. President, do you think it will take to change materially the social pattern which has existed in the South for 100 years? Da you think it can be changed hurriedly by legislation? Progress in that direction can be made only an inch at a time. Even with the help of this bill there will be no real progress in this field for many many years.

So at this historic moment, when the Senate has an opportunity to pass upon .sound, progressive proposed legislation,

12310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- SENATE July 22

the issue is whether the Senate of the United states will use this opportunity to demonstrate its belief and faith in progressive democratic government in the United States.

It seems to me very significant that medical science, and the social sciences, and the exact sciences have moved forward. Is it only that in this body that there will be stagnation, whereas all the rest of the Nation is willing to move forward? Mr. President, I cannot believe that this will be true of the Senate of the United States.

I have no fear about the power proposed to be given to the Attorney General, because it is a moderate power. The most moderate of all enforcement power comes in the field of equity; and the criminal punishment to which reference has been made is not really criminal punishment at all. It is distinguished from punishment under the criminal statutes, because the purpose there is to protect the public interest. Instead, the contempt punishment will be applied only in an attempt to vindicate the authority of the court. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Colorado has again expired.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. CARROLL. I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I have asked the American Law Division of the Library of Congress to give me its opinion regarding the force part of the proposed legislation. Its statement on the matter is clear. The President has always had the power to use force to insure the functioning of United States laws. But because the Attorney General, through a mistake or stupidity or inadvertence, incorporated this provision in the bill, it has thrown a smokescreen over the entire debate. We can clarify the issue by 3,greeing to the pending amendment; and when the pending amendment has been agreed to, the Senate can come to grips with the real issue before it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the senior Senator irom New York [Mr. IVES].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. IVES. Mr. President, in my remarks on the Senate floor on July 16, I stated that I would oppose all amendments to this civil-rights bill, other than amendments of a technical nature.

However, I am a realist when it comes to matters of this kind. I recognize that the inclusion of any modifying amendment which will save an essential provision of the bill, will be much better than to have the provision stricken out entirely.

In this connection, I am aware that there now seems to be a preponderant sentiment in favor of striking out part Ill, as it is written in the bill passed by the House. I feel that part III, modified as .Proposed -by the amendment be-

fore us, is far better than no part Ill at all.

Therefore, I favor the pending amendment. I expect to take the same position with respect to other amendments which may be offered for a similar basic purpose.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield 5 minutes to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I shall vote in favor of the amendment which will strike out the provisions of the bill relating to the Reconstruction Act.

However, I believe certain things should be made clear. One of them is that the Senators who are proposing that this provision of the bill be stricken out are not doing so because they do not envision the use of Federal troops to support integration in the South. They are moving to have the provisions stricken out because, as they have explained, they believe that under the Con.stitution and other sections of the law the use of Federal troops, including the .use of bayonets, to enforce such measures will still be available.

It is said that certain constitutional rights are sought to be enforced by means of part III and part IV of the bill. I should like to point out that the rights sought to be obtained by the Attorney General, including the right to use the proposed procedure to deny Americans their constitutional rights_the right of trial by jury, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right of indictment by a grand jury-relate, not directly to constitutional rights .which the proponents are seeking to preserve, but, rather, to rights created under State laws. .

For example, the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] has stated that it is his purpose to have the schools in the South integrated under legislation such as that now proposed. The right to an education exists under State laws, which establish systems of public education. It is only because the Constitution states that each person is entitled to uniformity of privileges and immunities that the Supreme Court has written into State laws the provision that the schools must be integrated.

When persons seek to integrate schools, they will have considerable difficulty, both now and in the future. Some of those who oppose this proposed legislation realize that many other ·such matters are involved; just as the Senator from New York has pointed out, he would like to integrate the races in the South with all possible haste, he would .like to use this measure to do it. He would like to rewrite State laws to create -rights that do not now exist and use the . power of the Federal Government to do it.

I point out to Senators that whether troops are used or not used, whether Federal marshals are used or are not _used, there will be gi:ea_t difficulty in ob-taining· that objective. That type of

thing was attempted previously by force in the South, and it was unsuccessful even when minority groups were in the seats of government in those States, and Federal troops were there to support such minority rule.

I submit that when there is such resentment to what may be envisioned under part III of the bill, even with the use of Federal troops that objective could not be accomplished.

The point has been made that, with regard to voting rights for colored citizens, this bill is only a beginning. The truth is that the colored citizen is obtaining his voting rights without the bill. I happen to represent in part, in the Senate, the State of Louisiana. At the present time, about 15 percent of the electorate of that State is composed of colored voters. The colored population Is only about 30 percent of the entire population of the State. Therefore, more than half of the job of enfranchis- · ing the colored in the State of Louisiana has already been accomplished. It has been accomplished without the Attorney General's obtaining the right to vote for those people. It will be more completely accomplished in due course, whether we pass any bill to use Federal force to achieYe such objectives or not.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield me about -10 minutes?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes. ·

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I shall, of course, support the pending amendment. Senators may differ as to the general authority of the President, of the United States to employ the military forces, but I assert that the adoption of the amendment will eliminate from our law the specific power of the President to delegate the authority to employ troops to execute speCific judicial process in specific cases.

There is a vast difference between the employment of troops under a specific statute to carry out a specific judgment of a court, and the general powers of the President of the United States to quell insurrection within this land. It should

·be u,nnecessary to dwell upon th.at difference.

It .is most gratifying to me that . this amendment has been proposed, and that it will apparently be adopted by an overwhelming, if not a unanimous, vote of the Senate.

The record of this vote will demonstrate the validity of the charges made on the floor as to the broad scope of the powers sought to be created and delegated in this bill. It is a short bill that means practically nothing on its face when one reads it but, by a process of interlacing code references, it is the most comprehensive and far-reaching bill that has ever been presented to the Congress of the United States, conferring, as it does, upon a political .appointee greater powers over the American people, not only of the South, if you please, but of every State in this land,

. than any J:?ill that l}as ever been presented to Congress.

I

1957 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12311 I am glad that Senators are display

ing an open mind and that they are about to vote for this amendment almost unanimously. I repeat what I have asserted before. I urge my colleagues in this body to retain open minds on other amendments which will bring to light provisions of the pending bill that are as drastic and as vicious as the one it is now proposed to strike by repealing the force statute under which troops may be used to enforce a specific judgment in a specific case.

This morning I heard the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] say that if we hope to enforce the recent decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with school integration and the mingling of the races in the parks and other places of entertainment, Senators will vote against eliminating part III from the bill, or section 121.

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

Mr. RUSSELL. My time is limited. Mr. DOUGLAS. Since the Senator

has quoted me, will he yield? Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator from

Illinois has quoted me without yielding, but I yield to him.

Mr. DOUGLAS. ! said if Senators vote to strike part III they will be voting to make invalid the decisions of the Supreme Court in these cases under the 14th amendment. Mr~ RUSSELL. I do not accept that

statement at all, because no individual in this country is denied his right to proceed in such cases. I wish to call to the Senate's attention-and Senators will do well to ponder-that if they do not strike part III they will put the stamp of senatorial approval on every recent deCision of the Supreme Court establishing and declaring new civil rights. If Senators do not strike part III they will, for example, put the stamp of approval on the New York school case-the Slochower case, I believe it was-where a schoolteacher sought refuge in the fifth amendment before a legislative committee. The charter of the city of New York sets forth that any employee of that city who seeks refuge in the fifth amendment shall be summarily discharged. The board of trustees of that school undertook to discharge the teacher. The teacher appealed his case. He carried it to the New York State Court of Appeals. When he reached that court, the New York State court held that the charter provision was valid, that school trustees and the parents of the children involved had rights in the matter equal to those of a fifth-amendment Communist, and that the board was justified under New York State law in discharging the man.

That case was taken to the Supreme Court. When it reached there the Supreme Court decided that, under the equal privileges and immunities and due process sections of the 14th amendment, the teacher could not be discharged merely because he was a fifth-amendment-taking Communist.

There we have a new civil right established by the Supreme Court which Senators will approve and ratify if they do not strike part III from the bill. It is the right of one charged with being a

Communist to hold public office as a teacher even if he invokes the fifth amendment. Not only that, Senators will delegate to the Attorney General the power and the authority to proceed, in the name of the United States and at the expense of the American taxpayer, to assert the rights of a fifth-amendment Communist everywhere in this land.

That is merely one of the new civil rights established by Supreme Court decisions which the Senate will approve and ratify if it does not strike part III from the bill. Have not the school trustees any rights? Have not the parents of children of tender age committed to the care of one charged with being a communist, who sought refuge in the fifth amendment, and rights? · If Senators approve part III, they say to the Attorney General, "You have the . authority-yea, the duty-to enjoin school trustees, whether in Lincoln, Nebr., in Oshlrnsh, Wis., or in Stockton, Calif., if they seek to discharge a teacher charged with being a Communist who has sought refuge in the fifth amendment."

Under these powers the Attorney General could go into a court, enjoin the school trustees, and incarcerate them in jail without the benefit of a jury trial, if they undertook to discharge such a schoolteacher who had pleaded the fifth amendment. That power is implicit in .part III of the bill, and no lawyer who has studied the provisions of part III would think of denying it.

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

Mr. RUSSELL. Not at the moment, please.

I say, Mr. President, that we go a long way in this country when, influenced by the attractive label "civil rights", it is demanded that we protect and defend, at the expense of the Federal taxpayer, all of these new rights established by Supreme Court edicts at the cost of the rights of public officials and the rights and powers of local and State governments.

What about the Pennsylvania case? The State of Pennsylvania had an oldfasmoned idea that as a sovereign State it had a right to protect the institutions of the State against subversion, and passed some protective statutes. The Supreme Court struck them all down. They were no good, the Court said, for they were in violation of the 14th amendment and because Congress had preempted the field. And the Supreme Court said that insofar as the Pennsylvania State law was concerned, every citizen of the United States who was a ·communist, was immune from prosecution under that sort of State law.

If Senators approve part III of this bill, what do they do? They tell the Attorney General that if the State officials of any State of the Union undertake to enforce a State statute, which any State legislature was so misguided as to pass, in an effort to protect the State from Communist subversion, he can move in, enjoin the State officials, put them in jail without a jury trial, and leave them there until they rot or else abandon their design of enforcing the State law they were sworn to uphold.

Mr. President, I could recount illustration after illustration of that kind. They are all covered in this bill. If part III remains in this bill, the Senate is putting the stamp of its approval on all the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, declaring these various new rights. You will embrace and adopt every one of the rather startling decisions of the present court.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. Some of them are rather wondrous rights to be labeled and called rights. They in effect deny the rights of a great majority of the American people and any and all rights and powers of local officials.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota and Mr. HUMPHREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield first to the Senator from South Dakota .

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia a question.

Mr. RUSSELL. I have little time. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. When

the Senator refers to striking part III of the bill, he really is referring to striking the first section of part III, is he not?

Mr. RUSSELL. I am speaking of section 121 of the bill as it passed the House.

Mr. CASE ·of South Dakota. Section 121?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The

Senator has no objection to section 122? Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think it is

absolutely necessary, but I am not particularly opposed to that section. As a matter of fact, I should be glad to support it if it stood as an independent proposal, though I doubt that it adds anything to existing law.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield the Senator from Georgia 3 additional minutes.

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I should like to ask .the Senator a question, if I may, if the minority leader will permit whatever amount of time is required to come out of that remaining to our side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has been granted 3 additional minutes.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am always impressed with the Senator's argument and the sincerity of his conviction, as he knows. In the light of what the Senator had to say yesterday on radio and television, and what he has had to say today, relating to the possible numbers and types of cases which might be prosecuted under part III as presently written, when the Senator refers to the fifth amendment cases, if there were language in part III which limited the equal-protection-of-the-law cases to those involving questions of race, color, religion, or national origin, is it not true that the cases to which the Senator alludes would not be involved?

Mr. RUSSELL. !, of course, had expected that proposal to be advanced. I had expected some Senator to rise and say, "Oh, no, the only place we are going


to apply the recent Supreme Court decisions is in the South." And that is exactly what the Senator is proposing now. "We are not going to apply the decision to the rest of the country. Our boards of trustees are threatened, our boards of bar examiners are threatened by this vile bill, but we will accept an amendment to confine it simply to the South."

Mr. HUMPHREY. Not at all. Mr. RUSSELL. Let me say to the

Senator that with any real Supreme Court such a provision would be invalid in such a law. I will tell the Senator why it would be invalid. It would be invalid because the 14th amendment does not mention race or creed or color.

I see the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has a copy of the Constitution and is turning through it. I hope he will look at it. The 14th amendment does not mention race or creed or color.

If we had a real court, any such provision as that, which would be manifestly designed to pillory the South and punish the South, by applying the Supreme Court decisions only to the South and not letting the rest of the country feel their heavy hand, would be considered the most unjust proposition ever submitted and a court of real lawyers would so declare.

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

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, I yield. Mr. HUMPHREY. What is it that

drives the Senator to the unwarranted conclusion that problems of race, color, religion or national origin are relegated to the South alone? May I say, most respectfully, that there are more Negroes in Chicago than there are in any southern city? May I say, most respectfully, that there are problems of religious prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination in the West, East, and North? I have never felt the South wore all the blisters and had all the evils. Not at all. I have great respect for the South. I am ashamed of other parts of America, and at times my own, when they abuse civil rights.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I made my statement because the Senator from Illinois had hooked his statement onto the fact that if it was desired to enforce the school integration decision and the decisions which affect the mingling of the races in places of public entertainm ent, part III must not be struck out.

The Senator cannot do that and tie it into the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment does not mention race, color, or creed. It deals with rights, privileges, and immunities of all citizens, and that is all we are asking to have considered now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The t ime of the Senator from Georgia ha::; again expired.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield 2 additional minutes?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield 2 additional minutes, Mr. President.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia one additional question. I appreciate the Senator's responses. While such response$ are given vigorously, they are also stated with enlightenment and conviction.

I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia; If part III were to limit the action of the Attorney General so that he could intervene in cases only where requested either by a duly constituted authority or by individuals who are incapable of seeking the protection of their own rights, because of particular reasons or circumstances in the area-personal reasons, financial reasons, or othersdoes the Senator believe that limitation would have any ameliorating effect on his attitude?

Mr. RUSSELL. Is this in the Senator's time, or my time?

Mr. HUMPHREY. This is in my time. Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, let me

say that my experience in dealing with this type of legislation causes me to ·be extremely cautious in making commitments. Here we have a bill which came to the Senate called a right-to-vote bill. It develops now the bill can be used to destroy local government and the power of States all over the United States, and to protect the rights of Communists and fellow travelers.

I am not surprised that some Senators would support such a proposal, because, as is their privilege, some Senators believe in every one of the recent Supreme Court decisions. Some Senators have defended all those decisions in recent months.

I will look at the Senator's amendment, if he will draw it up, and I will give him an answer. I may not do it overnight, because experience has taught me to be most wary in dealing with proposals in this field. Wb.en Senators find they have opened up the door so that their own areas will feel the oppression they want to apply to integrate schools in the South, they immediately prepare another amendment so as to boil the proposal down simply to that point, which bears out my original statements that this bill was designed for that purpose. They want no part of the oppression they plan for us.

But, Mr. President, Congress cannot legislate punitively against Southern States in . this field, approving all these decisions of the Supreme Court, without putting a heavy hand on every board of trustees and every State official everywhere, indeed, on all the citizens of the United States.

In the illustration I just gave, if the amendment proposed by the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from California were not adopted, if the citizens of a community in the State of Wyoming-for example, Cheyennewere to resent the Attorney General's action in enjoining and jailing a board of trustees for trying to get rid of a fifth amendment Communist, and they met at ·the school and protested and resisted the entrance of the fellow traveler into their community, because parents wanted to protect their children, a regiment of marines and a tank corps could be called out, in the absence of the KnowlandHumphrey amendment, and sent to Cheyenne, Wyo., to enforce the law. I have a dozen cases of that kind, involving decisions of the Supreme Court, which I shall discuss at a later time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Georgia has expired.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, may I have a little more time?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. RUSSELL. I wish to see how many Senators are willing to confine the proposed law to breaking down the system of separation of races in the southern States, on the basis of a Supreme Court decision, and how many are willing to go the full distance and subject their people to such an unbridled grant of power in the drastic procedure to enforce all the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in their States. We shall see, now, who is punitive and who is fair. My time has almost expired.

I wish I had a few minutes to discuss what I started to discuss, namely, the statement which the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. CARROLL] made with respect to Negroes voting in the South. Not having time at my disposal-I would need at least 5 minutes! shall not go into that question at this time except to say that they vote in my State.

I 'thank the Senator from Texas for yielding me time.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. What time remains to our side?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 7 minutes remammg. The Senator fr0m Texas [Mr. JOHNSON] has 2 minutes left.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, are there any further requests for time?

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I wish to make only two brief points.

F irst, there has been a great deal of discussion by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHEJ and other Senators as to who prepared the bill we are considering today. I had understood that everyone agreed that it was prepared by the Department of Justice. This is indicated in the testimony of Mr. Brownell, on page 2 of the hearings, in which he said:

Proposed bills to carry out the administrat ion program were submitted to the Congress last year. These bills in the form submitted by us are contained in one of .the bills which is before the subcommittee ,today,$. 83-

Senate bill 83 was substantially the same as the bill which came to the Senate.

The other point I wish to make is that -while there was entirely too much delay in the Judiciary Committee, which I regretted-I thought the committee should have met more often and gotten down to business-the subject matter of the Knowland-Humphrey amendment was the pending question before the Judiciary Committee, on motion by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] at the time the bill was sent

-1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12313 from the llouse, and consideration was suspended in the Judiciary Committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Tennessee has expired.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield an additional minute to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. KEFAUVER. That proposal was designed to accomplish the same thing which the Knowland-Humphrey amendment seeks to do.

I think that, together with the lengthy discussion we are having today, proves the point which the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] made. He was right in feeling that time would be saved and that we would legislate more intelligently and give the courts better direction if the bill were placed before the Judiciary Committee for 1 week, and then returned to the place it occupies today. An amendment substantially the s~me as the pending amendment would have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. We could have avoided all this argument, and also argument on other objectionable provisions which may be found later in the bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield 3 minutes to me?

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. First, I wish to make a brief comment to my friend, .the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER]. I recognize that there can be a continuous argument about what could have been done had the bill been processed in the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee was in the process of consjdering the bill to the point where it began to grow whiskers. There was no lack of time in the Judiciary Committee. There was no lack of opportunity for the committee to have made available to us the combined wisdom of that esteemed body. All the many little problems we now apparently face could have been brought to our attention had there been the desire and the will to do so. The Judiciary Committee proceedings were well covered by the press. The subcommittee's deliberations are well noted in the hearings. I gather that there was no guarded secret as to what was transpiring.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield for a brief question.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I hold no brief for the long delay in the Judiciary Committee. However, if the motion of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoRSE] had been agreed to, the Judiciary Committee would have been under compulsion of an order of the United States Senate to act on the bill and report it back to the Senate within 1 week, which I think would have been quite different from .the consideration which dragged on for so long previous to that time.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I respect the Senator's view. Of course, that was the object of that motion. However, it was the view of the majority of this body that the Judiciary Committee had had ample time to perform its duty.

CIII--774

I make one further observation. It is entirely probable that amendments could be offered to certain sections of the bill which would please the sponsors. Undoubtedly some amendments could ·be offered which would more clearly define the purposes of particular sections, and might even have the effect of limiting the purposes and objectives of particular sections. I think that is undoubtedly true in some areas of part III.

I hear a great deal about what the Attorney General can do to people. I am one who worries considerably about the powers of the Attorney General. I recognize the fact that the Attorney General is a political officer. But I would like to have the same sense of conviction, the same sense of outrage, the same sense of feeling that rights are denied, when I see, hear, and read that people's rights are being denied wholesale in area after area of America. Such rights include the right to vote,.the right to transportation without segregation, the right to purchase homes, the right to jobs, some of which are rights far beyond the compass of this bill. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin is plaguing this country.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Minnesota has expired.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ·yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. At the same time, Members of this body raise their voices and point with hysteria and frenzy at the Justice Department, and even at the Supreme Court, for what it does or does not do. I wonder where the same sense of moral outrage is when we see people denied the right to register, denied the right to vote. Where is the same sense of outrage when people are denied the opportunity even to get a job because they are· of a certain religion or race?

It seems to me that the Senate ought to think of itself not only as an institution, but as representative of all the people of the United States. Therefore when I look at part III, even with its limitation-I admit that it has limitations, and if I have my way we shall try to correct some of those limitations-even with its limitations, part III is far less evil, far less undesirable, than would be the situation with no part III. "Without it, the Government of the United States would be left without clear power to protect important rights of American citizens.

I repeat what I said some years ago. There is involved here not only the issue of States' rights, but the issue of human rights. People are citizens not only of Minnesota, Georgia, Illinois, or North Carolina. They are citizens of the United States, and they are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, whether they are good looking or homely, black or white, green or purple. That is the purpose of the proposed legislation.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator referred to discrimination in connection with employment. That is always very deplorable; but does the Senator see a compulsory FEPC in the bill?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I do not. Mr. RUSSELL. I have found almost

everything else in it, but I have not found that, unless the Supreme Court should establish one by judicial legislation. If we approve part III, we shall not only be approving all the decisions which the Supreme Court has made in the past, but those it may render in the future. So we might have a compulsory FEPC.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator fror.i Minnesota has expired.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the minority leader yield me 1 more minute?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time allotted to the Senator from California has expii-ed.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. That will consume all the remaining time.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator from Texas. I wish to say to my friend from Georgia that, although the bill does not encompass what we call fair employment practices, it would be heartening if Members of the Senate who were willing to vote for selective service regardless of color, race, or creed, would also be willing to vote for equal opportunity to get a job regardless of race, color, or creed, and would be willing to throw the same protection around employment. It would be a heartening thing if, as we witness repeated denials of human rights and legal rights, Senator after Senator would rise in indignation to say, "This is something that must stop."

Mr. President, we have witnessed everything frame intimidation to murder, and not so much as an information filed on a charge made in many cases.

Or course, it is possible to find legislati-1e hobgoblins and legalistic ghosts in any bill Congress passes. For example, we have all seen such hobgoblins and ghosts raised in connection with bills which would give statehood to Alaska and statehood to Hawaii. No law in a democracy is any better than the spirit of those who administer the law. We must depend on the temperament, the judgment, the fairness, the decency, the vision, and the wholesomeness of those who administer the law. It is never possible to make a law completely fool· proof.

I submit that if America has gotten to the point where we must set out each last dot and dash in a bill because we are fearful of the man who may be President or Attorney General, we have indeed reached a hopeless situation. Democracy cannot survive under continuous suspicion. Suspicion leads to totalitarianism. Suspicion is the very virus that gnaws away and chews up and eats and destroys democratic life. I submit we need a little more trust in our administrators. We need more confidence.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Minnesota has expired. All time for debate on the pending amendment has expired.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Allott Anderson Barrett Beall Bennett Bible Bricker Bush Butler Byrd Capehart Carlson Carroll case, N. J. Case, S. Dak. Chavez Church Clark Cooper Cotton Curtis Dirksen Douglas Dworshak Eastland Ellender Ervin F landers Frear

Fulbright Goldwater Gore Green Hayden Hlckenlooper Hill Holland Hruska Humphrey Ives Jackson Javits Jenner Johnson, Tex. Johnston, S. C. Kefauver Kennedy Kerr Knowland Kuchel Langer Lausche Long Magnuson Malone Mansfield Martin, Iowa Martin, Pa. McClellan

McNamara Monroney Morse Morton Mundt Murray Neuberger O'Mahoney Pastore Potter Purtell Revercomb Robertson Russell Saltonstall Scott Smathers Smith, Maine Smith,N. J. Sparkman Stennis Symington Talmadge Thurmond Th ye Watkins Wiley WilUams Yarborough Young

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from California [Mr. KNowLAND] and the Senator from ~innesota rMr. HuMPHREYl' to insert certain language in part III of the bill. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that

the Senator from Missouri CMr. HENNINGS] is absent by leave of the Senate because of illness. The Senator from West Virginia CMr. NEELY] is absent on official business.

I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri CMr. HENNINGS] and the Senator from West Virginia CMr. NEELY] would each vote "Yea."

Mr. DffiKSEN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire CMr. BRIDGES], the Senator from Maine CMr. PAYNE], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL] are absent because of illness.

If present and voting, the Senator from Maine [Mr. PAYNE] and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL] would each vote "yea."

The result was announced-yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

Aiken Allott Anderson Barrett Beall Bennett Bible Bricker Bush Butler Byrd Capehart Carlson Carroll Case, N. J.

YEAS-90 Case, S. Dak. Chavez Church Clark Cooper Cotton Curtis Dirksen Douglas Dworshak Eastland Ellender Ervin Flanders Frear

Fulbright Goldwater Gore Green Hayden Hickenlooper Hill Holland Hruska Humphrey Ives Jackson Javits Jenner Johnson, Tex.

Johnston, S. C. Kefauver Kennedy Kerr Knowland Kuchel Langer Lausche Long Magnuson Malone Mansfield Martin, Iowa Martin, Pa. McClellan

Bridges Hennings

McNamara Monroney Morse Morton Mundt Murray Neuberger O'Mahoney Pastore Potter Purtell Revercomb Robertson Russell Saltonstall

Scott Smathers Smith, Maine Smith, N. J. Sparkman Stennis Symington Talmadge Thurmond Thye Watkins Wiley Williams Yarborough Young

NOT VOTING-5 Neely Payne

Schoeppel

So the amendment offered by Mr. KNOWLAND and Mr. HUMPHREY was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, the amendment which has just been agreed to unanimously was the same as my amendment which was pending in the Committee on the Judiciary at the time when the Senate placed the House bill on the calendar. This was the amendment I offered in the Committee on the Judiciary on June 20. I think I should thank the Senate for its vote at this time.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the Senate has agreed to the amendment.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from California to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from South Carolina to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

ORDER OF BUSINESS-ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL NOON TOMORROW Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I congratulate the Senate on the decision it has just reached. I express the hope that in the days ahead there will continue to be such harmony in this body.

I wish to announce that it is expected to have the Senate remain in session until 6:30 or 7 o'clock this evening, if any Senators desire to address themselves to the pending business.

I ask unanimous consen~ that when the Senate concludes its deliberations today, it stand in recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS TOMORROW Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senate convenes tomorrow, there be the usual morning hour for the transaction of routine business only subject to a 3-minute limitation on statements.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957 The Senate resumed the consideration

of the bill <H. R. 6127) to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I wish to present a suggestion to my colleagues for their consideration, if not their action, at this time.

I am informed that there has been rather full . discussion of the Anderson-· Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment which is now pending, and that many Senators may be ready to proceed to vote on that amendment in the near future.

I suggest that at the conclusion of the morning business tomorrow, the Senate allot 6 hours for general debate on the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment, 3 hours to be controlled by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] and 3 hours to be controlled by the minority leader.

I have not proposed this as a formal unanimous-consent agreement, but I should like to have questions raised and to receive suggestions from Senators, so that it may be possible to know whether a vote can be had late tomorrow on this proposal, or whether it will be necessary to have it go over.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I understand that

the Senator from Texas is not at this moment proposing a formal unanimousconsent request.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I am exploring the question.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I hope that on tomorrow it will be possible to reach a vote on the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment.

The only thing I should like to say to the Senator from Texas now is that I assume if there was to be a unanimousconsent agreement, with a limitation of time, the Senators on the other side of the question-that is, those who are opposed to the proposed civil-rights legislation-may want to be assured that there will not be an amendment in the nature of a substitute or additional amendments offered. Until I have had a chance to explore the matter and determine whether there will be an additional amendment, it will be difficult at this time to enter into a unanimousconsent agreement without providing such assurance.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. It is planned to have the Senate convene at 12 o'clock noon tomorrow and to stay in session until 7 or 7:30 o'clock in the evening. That would provide some 6 or 7 hours to debate the merits of the AndersonAiken-Case of South Dakota proposal. As I understand, when action is taken on that amendment, every Senator will be protected in his rights to offer additional amendments. The proposed unanimous-consent agreement would pertain only to this particular amendment.

I wish the Senator from California would explore the matter. I have talked with some of our colleagues on this side

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12315 of the aisle, and I have talked with the Senator from California. I think 6 hours is sufficient time. If it is agreeable, I should like to proPQse that as a formal unanimous-consent agreement before the Senate stands in recess today.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I suggest that the Senator from Texas have a proposed unanimous-consent agreement prepared in written form, so I may consult Senators on this side who are favorable to the proposed legislation, and so the Senator from Texas may consult Senators on his side of the aisle.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I have one prepared, and I shall discuss it with the Senator.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I wish to say that

so far as I am concerned-and I am sure I speak for the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CAsEJ-2 or 3 hours to a side will be satisfactory. I h pe that in that way the Senate .will continue the progress which has been commenced today.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I shall try to see whether it is possible to arrive at such an agreement.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. MORSE . . The only unanimous-.

consent agreement I would favor would be one providing that the final vote on the bili be taken at 4 o'clock on next Satmday.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I do not think there is much chance of that at the present time, although the developments in connection with part III conceivably could make it possible for the vote to be reached that soon.

Mr. MORSE. I do not seek· to take advantages of the Senator from Texas, but unless· the Senator from Texas is able to arrive at such ·a unanimousconsent agreement in regard to the final vote · on the bill, · I suggest that he abondon any attempts to obtain other unanimous-consent agreements, because I shall oppose attempts to arrive at the result by mea.ns of the installment plan.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. RUSSELL. In connection · with

them matters, I wish to say that the Senate should not attempt to have the cat swallow the grindstone, instead of take a lick at it. [Laughter.] Certainly the cat has no inclination to swallow the grindstone all at once.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. THURMOND in the chair) . The question is on agreeing to the modified amendment submitted by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON]' on behalf of himself, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE].

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr.· President, on tpis question, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, ·the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPERJ has ·been seeking the. floor.

Mr. RUSSELL. . Mr. President, . I do not wish to prevept the recognition of

any Senator; but certainly on this question I have a right to request the yeas and nays.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California will state it.

Mr. KNQWLAND. If the yeas and nays are ordered on the question of agreeing to the Anderson-Aiken amend"!' ment, will that preclude the offering of amendments which would seek to change the language of part Ill? In other words, once the yeas and nays have been ordered on the question of agreeing to the Ar.derson-Aiken amendment, would it be impossible for Senators to submit amendments which would seek to change the language of part III of the bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would not.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, of course, the Senator from California knows that in these circumstances I threaten quite easily.

I do not think my request for the yeas and nays is at all unusual. On Frid'ay the distinguished senior Senator from California offered an amendment, and immediately requested that the yeas and nays be ordered on the question of agreeing to the amendment. No Senator protested. No Senator · thought the procedure requested was unusual. The Senator from California made the request without even undertaking to explain the amendment.

However, if my request for the yeas and nays gives such umbrage to the Senator from California, I withdraw the request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request for the yeas and nays has been withdrawn.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which I send to the desk and ask to have stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 9, ·beginning with line 10, it is proposed to strike out all through line 18, on page 10, and to insert the fallowing: PART III-ACTIONS To SECURE COMPLIANCE

WITH COURT ORDERS ISSUED To SECURE THE

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

SEC. 121. If two or more . persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory, or any legal subdivision or agency thereof, from complying with any order of a court of the United. States issued for the purpose of securing to any person within such State or Territory the equal protection o:{ tt1e laws, the. Attorney General may institute for the United States a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or tempor.ary injunction or restraining order.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I do not intend to speak ait length, but I am anxious that the Members of the Senate know what the amendment comprehends.

I may say that for the past 2 weeks I have listened as faithfully and as carefully as I could to the speeches which have been made in the Senate, and particularly to tne . speeches which . have

been made in favor of or in opposition to part III of the pending bill.

I was very much interested in the first speech made by the able Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELLJ, when he stated that, in his view, the scope of part III is such as to embrace every claim of right under the Constitution which might be asserted by the Attorney General of the United States. While I do not agree with all his conclusions, I must say that I believe the Senator from Georgia performed a very valuable service for the country in pointing out the breadth and scope of part III, and particularly that it is not solely a right to vote bill.

It is my view that if part III becomes the law, it will embrace all the rights which are named and guaranteed by the Constitution itself. It will embrace the rights named in the first eight amendments to the Constitution, which are parts of the Bill of Rights; and which were designed to be safeguards of the individual citizens, against the Federal Government itself. It will certainly embrace the rights which are named in the 14th and 15th r.mendments, and also the sometimes inchoate and indeterminable rights-at least, until they are adjudicated by the courts--which are described in the 1.4th amendment-the privileges and immunities guaranteed to an individual-and the right of equal treatment under the law.

It is my view that if part III becomes the law, it will give to the Attorney Gen:. eral of the United States the power to institute for the United States actions in which he would seek to secure any constitutionail rights named in the Constitution or any rights adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States-both those which have been adjudicated, which some persons call judicial law, and those which in the future may be adjudicated.

I believe it should also be remembered-and I speak now of basic propositions-that the United States Congress has the constitutional power to enact part III, if it so desires. The rights of which it speaks are Federal rights and constitutional rights. The 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution which either define the rights or give them validity specifically state that the Congress has the power to enforce them by appropriate legislation. .

Further, the Congress has asserted its power by the enactment of criminal statutes which permit the punishment of individuals who deprive others of these rights; and in such cases the Attorney General now has the authority to assist in, and in fact to initiate, the prosecution and punishment of those who are guilty of criminal offenses against the civil rights of individuals in the United States.

I know there are other important questions -involved in the consideration of part III, because when we discuss it, we are in fact not only discussing the constitutional rights which might be brought into question under its operation, their, validity, and the.ir enforce.ment; we are also discussing the question of the proper relations of the Federal Governmeµt with the States.

12316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 22

I think it must always be kept in mind that we are trying to determine whether the courses of action which we may prescribe by legislation will actually move toward the effectuation of these rights or will simply make it more difficult to secure them. I should like at least to make my own position clear as to what I believe about these rights. The very fact that we are discussing this issue suggests that there is a defect in our system of Government. It indicates that for some reason the rights of all our people have not been made equal throughout the United States. It points to the responsibility of the Congress to act in a proper and reasonable way, as it may determine, to make effective those rights.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I say respect

ful!y to the Senator I still find myself confused by his proposal.

Mr. COOPER. May I say I have not begun yet to explain it? Will the Senator permit me to explain it? I have been attempting to give my own views about the basic questions that are involved.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point ?

Mr. COOPER. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I wish to say to my

able friend from Kentucky that I have modified my amendment, with the approval of the Senator from Vermont, joined by the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], so it strikes out only section 121. It does not strike out section 122. I merely wanted to call attent ion to the fact that it would make the Senator's amendment subject to a point of order, because it starts ahead of the pending amendment and finishes aft er the amendment. I do not desire to make a point of order at this time, but I suggest that it might be better to wait until disposition has been made of the amendment offered by me and the Senator from Vermont, or the amendment could be reformed so it would be in order, to deal only with section 121.

Mr. COOPER. I will make the formal correction. At present, I desire to explain my views.

Mr. ANDERSON. I merely wished to point that fact out so it would not take the Senator by surprise if later, when his amendment was called up, a point of order was made against it.

Mr. COOPER. I thank the Senator. I know that no one Senator can say

that he has a greater interest in this bill than has any other Senator. Certainly, if the bill shall be passed; and particularly if part III shall become law, its impact will be felt in the Southern States.

That fact is perfectly clear from the debate which has proceeded on this floor. I have presented the amendment, and I speak today because I believe this is the most important bill the Senate will consider during this session. It happens also that I come from a State, Kentucky, which for more than 150 years has felt the impact of this question, has been

torn by it because of differing view· points.

The amendment which I offer differs in several respects from the provisions of part III and also from the amendments which, it has been suggested, according to newspaper reports, might be offered in place of part III. I should like to illustrate briefly the purposes of my amendment.

It is the law today, that if an individual in any State believes that he is being deprived of a civil right, by action of the State such individual has the righ t to go into a court of the United States, ask for equitable relief, and, if the facts warrant, seek to compel those who are depriving him of the right to desist, so that the civil right may be made effective.

I think it can be said that the courts will pass correctly, in the consideration of the law and facts, upon the claims that will be placed before them, and if the law and facts justify, they will enter orders directing those who are depriving petitioners of their claimed civil rights to remedy the wrongs, and to grant the rights.

If it is a governmental body, as I believe under the 14th amendment it must be-for the action or nonaction of the State body must in some way be involved in the case-that body will either obey the order of the court or will defy the order of the court. If it defies the order of the court, we know the court has the power, by civil contempt proceedings to punish those who could remedy the situation, but who continue to deny relief in order to secv.re compliance. The governmental body may decide to take a third course, and appeal from the order of the court. Certainly, that is its legal right, and it is a peaceful right.

So I think we can say, to that point, there is no great trouble or problem involved in the right of an individual to petition for the enforcement of his right and to seek its adjudication. It is at the point of the enforcement of such a right after adjudication, that the trouble begins. When there has been a final adjudication, and the court has entered its final order that the governmental body or officials acting under color of law must assure the petitioner rights-if at that time other individuals intervenethird parties-and by their lawless action-and it is lawless action because it is action against the order of the courtbegin to hinder and obstruct the order of a court of the United States, it is at that point that the greatest difficulty is faced in the enforcement of civil rights.

If part III should be enacted, it would permit the Attorney General of the United States to initiate an action before any individual had gone into the court, and at any point during the proceedings. The amendment which I have drawn differs from part III in that respect. Under my amendment the Attorney General would not be empowered to initiate an action for injunctive relief before an individual had asserted his claim of right. After the order of the court had been entered, the final adjudication, or some interlocutory order of the court, ordering the governmental body or official to grant

the right of which the individual had been deprived, the Attorney General would be empowered to act. There is quite a difference between the proposal which is embodied in part III and that which is contained in my amendment in this respect.

One of the principal arguments which has been ma~e on the floor, by those who oppose the bill, is that part III is a measure involving the use of force, that it is a measure which would enable the Attorney General of the United States to intervene at will, at his own decision, in any place in the United States, to secure rights he decides ought to be secured, and before any individual had asked that such action be taken. This bill has been called a force bill for that reason, because it is said that it is an effort on the part of the United States to impose its will a.nd force upon any part of the country, and even punitively. I do not accept that view, but if the opponents of this bill are serious in arguing it, the amendment which I have offered meets that argument by those who oppose part III, because the Attorney General of the United States, and therefore the United States, would not be empowered to intervene until a private individual had asked for the protection of his rights, and had secured the preliminary order of the court granting those rights.

The second point I make is that much argument has been made on the floor to the effect that if part III should be adopted in its present form no one could determine the rights which might be claimed under part III and which might be added to the existing category of civil rights. It has been argued that the Attorney General would by his determination seek to enlarge the field of civil rights, or to determine what rights should be protected and what rights should not be protected and in what areas of the United States.

The amendment which I have offered would assure the determination and adjudication of rights by the court. The court would determine the right and would determine the individuals who were entitled to it, before the United States, through the Attorney General, could enter the proceeding.

Therefore, in my own opinion, if those who argue against part III are sincereand I believe they are-in making the argument that the measure is a force bill, and that it leaves, as has· been said, the whole scope of civil rights stretching from horizon to horizon, to the determination of one man, then the amendment should be an answer to those cl~ims and those charges.

Finally, I would ask this question: After a court has adjudicated the civil right of an individual and has said, "This mar. or this woman has this right, and a court of the United States, created under the Constitution, has upheld this right, what argument can be made that effective proceeding should be supplied against those who are outsiders and third persons and who obstruct the order of the court?

I say, for myself, that I consider such persons lawless, if they act willfully. Mobs, wherever they may be-whether in Clinton .. Tenn .• in my own State of

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12317 Kentucky, or elsewhere-when they lawlessly attempt to obstruct the orders of a court, after there has been a hearing and at times even a final determination by the Supreme Court of the United States, as there has been in the Clinton case, must not be permitted to work their will. Who can stand to say that such individuals are anythfhg but lawless, when they willfully obstruct the judicial system of the United States?

In summing up, I wish to repeat that the amendment would enable the United states to protect its own courts, and to back up their prestige and their power. Second, it would accomplish this purpose upon the basis of an adjudicated civil right, adjudicated by the district court, of the United States. Sometimes by the circuit court of appeals, and at times even by the Supreme Court of the United States. Third, this amendment can be termed a force measure, because the initiative has to be taken by an individual who claims the deprivation of a right.

And finally, by providing a more effective means of improving remedies for those individuals whose rights are denied-it moves toward the good of full equality in our country.

I may differ with some of my colleagues from the South in this respect, but I believe if a right has been named in the Constitution or adjudicated by the Supreme Court, it is a right to be enjoyed by all our people. I believe all the people of this country, wherever they may live and whatever may be their color or race, are entitled to equal protection of the law and to equal rights under the law. I recognize that the Congress of the United States cannot change the customs of a society by legislative enactment, but, on the other hand, I think when the ·Constitution and when the courts have spoken, this body cannot deny its responsibility to take action to insure the equal rights of all its people.

The amendment I have proposed does not go so far as part III does. It may not go so far as do some of the amendments which-may be offered. However, at the least, the amendment I have offered deals with a· situation which is before us. My colleagues from the Southern States who oppose any form of part III simply argue for the status quo in their States. · They are good men, yet I have been disappointed that while they oppose any legislation, they do ' not suggest remedies to correct the inequities that now exist. To argue that an individual may go to the courts of the United States, and that the courts may go through the process of defining and declaring civil rights and then that a mob may obstruct and defy the courts and the Government of the United States without the Government protecting its courts, would make a mockery of the judicial process. If we cannot make progress toward equal treatment through the judicial processes, so that citizens can be heard and the courts may decide, and if people can defy the courts; then I say there is little chance for progress. That is what I am trying to help· with my amendment. ·

I would say to those who feel the provisions ought to be a great' deal stronger,

that it is true this amendment will not take care of an individual who, by reason of intimidation, or lack of funds, cannot, in a practical sense, go into court and ask for relief. On the other hand, it is my judgment, from what I have heard, that if the issue comes to a vote on the clear question of striking part III, it will be stricken. Then the situation which exists in the courts today-in Clinton, in Hoxie, and in my own State last fall-will arise again and again, and nothing will have been done to help cure some of the problems which now exist, with respect to the enforcement of the decrees of the court.

A few minutes ago the Senate voted to repeal the archaic reconstruction statute which gave to the President of the United States, presumably, the power to enforce the orders of the court by the use of military force. It was wise to repeal it, because it is old and archaic, and because it would not be enf ore ed.

Yet, everyone who is familiar with the Constitution and who knows the law is aware that the President has such power, without that statute. The United States cannot permit the Federal system and the judicial system to collapse, if local law enforcement should collapse.

I am not saying, by implication, that force should be used. What I am trying to argue is that the amendment I am offering provides an alternative to force. Today, in some instances, the orders of the courts cannot be executed because of the action of mobs. We certainly do not wish to rely upon the National Guard of the States, or upon any other troops in such cases. I believe that my amendment would give to the courts a better method of obtaining compliance with their orders, that of preventive relief. It would bring into play, at the point where it is most needed, the prestige and influence of the United States against lawbreakers, not against people who, in the first instance, were in the courts to determine the adjudication of their rights.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COOPER. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I have two or three questions which I should like to ask the Senator in order to clarify the situation, which is still quite confusing to me.

Mr. COOPER. I am very sorry. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I understand

the Senator's statement, but my confu- · sion arises from his conclusion as to what results would flow from the proposed amendment. Let me state my understanding of the amendment. The Senator can correct me if I am mistaken.

I understand that the Senator's amendment · contemplates, first that a person who believes himself to be aggrieved by reason of being denied his civil rights can go into court and obtain an order from the United States court against local officials who are allegedly interfering with his civil rights. That is the preliminary step.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It seems to me

that that in and of itself. would fiy dia.:.

metrically in the face of the position of those who are advocating part III, as I understand their position, they say that people do not dare to go into court and obtain orders for their protection, and that the Attorney General must be substituted; he must be permitted, on his own motion, to go into court when the people aggrieved do not dare to do so.

Mr. COOPER. I am saying that the right exists today for an individual to go into court.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. That right already exists.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. As I under

stand, the advocates of part III, especially section 121, contend that they are trying to reach the situation in which individuals are intimidated from going into court and claiming their rights. I do not see how the Senator's amendment would be acceptable to those who are advocating the bill without amendment.

Be that as it may, the Senator's amendment presumes that people must go into court on their own and obtain relief.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The Senator

says that lawless people would conspire to interfere with local bodies carrying out the order of the court. Is that correct?

Mr. COOPER. I say that if they attempt to willfully obstruct or hinder the order of the court, they are lawless people.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. They are lawless people; and it seems to me, after reading the statutes, that they are clearly violating the law.

Mr. COOPER. Yes; but the fact would have to be proved.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Therefore there is a remedy. The United States district attorney can go into court now and obtain relief by way of prosecution, or whatever other relief may be open, as against the lawless people who might be interfering with the orders of the Federal court previously entered with regard to civil rights. So a remedy already exists.

Mr. COOPER. I disagree. The United States attorney could prosecute for any violations of law.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes. · Mr. COOPER. But the purpose of the amendment which I have offered is to provide an additional remedy, by way of preventive relief, to enable the United States attorney to take measures to prevent interference with the order of the court, and to enable him to obtain injunctive relief against people who would obstruct the orders of the court-to act before a crime is committed.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Who would determine when the injunction should be applied for? What actions or what activities would determine when the United States attorney would move in and apply for another injunction? There would already be a court order in existence. It seems to me that we are piling one injunction on top of another.

Mr. COOPER. I do not think the Senator has the situation clearly in mind.

12318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 22 The first injunction, if one is issued,

is obtained upon thP. petition of an individual, or the petition of a group of individuals who are seeking enforcement of their rights. That case is heard. Cases are being heard continually. I am informed that 22 cases have already been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. I am informed that there are about 50 cases now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States or in circuit courts of appeal.

There is a hea1:ing upon the original petition and all sides have the opportunity to present their testimony and be heard. At the conclusion of the testimony a judgment of some kind is entered. An appeal may be taken from that decision; and after the usual period of a week or a year, or whatever length of time it is, the final adjudication is made. The court then enters its final order, and orders the governmental body, or whoever is depriving the individual or individuals of their rights, to comply with the order, and to provide a remedy so as to guarantee to the individuals their rights.

Mr. ffiCKENLOOPER. That right already exists.

Mr. COOPER. It exists as against a State governmental body or a person acting under color of law.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes. Mr. COOPER. I think all of us will

agree that when that has been done, and when every legal step under the Constitution and the statutes has been taken, the injunction ought to be obeyed.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I agree. Mr. COOPER. At that point some in

dividual, some organization, or perhaps a mob may decide that it will not obey the Constitution or the laws and will not obey the orders of the Court.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. They will conspire to defeat the existing order of the court, which is the law in the situation.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Let me ask

one further question. If they so conspire, and commit an overt act, which a mob might do, the remedy today would be prosecution, would it not?

Mr. COOPER. Absolutely. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. They can be

prosecuted today, and they can be sentenced to the penitentiary, or they can be given other penalties provided for by law.

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. But a jury

trial would have to be provided under the law as it stands today. Is that cor.rect?

Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct. But even after the jury trial the lawless group could continue to commit the acts-new acts-additional acts.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes; and they could continue to be prosecuted.

Mr. COOPER. But they could continue to commit those acts. We should recognize that preventive relief is a kind of relief which is often more effective than criminal prosecution. If preventive relief could be taken at the point needed, and with the influence and the power of the United States against tpose

continued obstructions of the court, it could be very effective.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I wish to add one other observation, and then I shall desist from further questioning the Senator, because I presume there are other Senators who wish to ask questions of him. I am sliill at a loss to know why piling one court order upon another court order will necessarily solve the situation, when there is in existence in the statutes today complete relief against those who in an official position deny civil rights, and when it is possible to prosecute those who conspire to prevent a court order from going into effect.

Mr. COOPER. The am,endment would add an additional remedy, it would give preventive relief.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Does the Senator believe that adding an additional provision of this kind would bring any more summary relief to a situation which might or might not be objectionable; depending on one's point of view, than the already very strong language of the law which is available to the people today, whether it is exercised or not? Does he believe such relief would be brought about merely by adding more relief measures to those already in existence?

Mr. COOPER. That is the reason for presenting my amendment. I believe that to provide preventive relief, and to give authority to the United States, would be more effective than prosecution for a criminal act, in many cases.

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

Mr. COOPER. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. First I should like to

say that I appreciate the fine spirit .of the Senator from Kentucky, and the very real desire he has to be helpful, and to deal with what is a difficult situation.

I should, however, like to ask the Senator if I am correct in my understanding; namely, that what he is proposing is to give to the Attorney General the power to institute civil action, including the application for an injunction, to protect legal authorities against possible intimidation by groups of citizens within their communities. . Mr. COOPER. I believe my amendment reaches that situation. There is one situation which it does not reach. If a school board or any other governmental body, on its own motion, took action required to place itself under the law, as in the case of integration-and there was obstruction of their action, my amendment would not cover such a situation.

Mr. DOUGLAS. But it applies only in cases where there has already been a prior order dealing with the particular locality. Is that correct?

Mr. COOPER. That is true with respect to my amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I take it, however, that it does not deal with · what in my judgment is the much more common and much graver case; namely, where an aggrieved individual, generally a Negro, finds himself faced with a solid phalanx of opposition, namely, local au-thorities, backed up by State authorities, and backed up also by powerful groups inside the community who are support'ing the denial of his rights. The amend-

ment does not enable the Attorney General to move in to help that individual obtain a restraining order, but instead requires that individual-who in most cases is poor and in most cases is in a very low social position, and subject to economic, social, and, at times, other forms of pressure-to pursue his case on his own in a v. ry tedious and expensive process, in which he must face virtually the whole world alone.

Mr. COOPER. My amendment does not bring about that situation. That situation exists today.

Mr . .DOUGLAS. It does not help to remedy the situation either.

Mr. COOPER. I said plainly at the beginning of my remarks that my amendment was intended to remedy a certain condition which exists today, ang. which I believe is the most flagrant cause of the failure of enforcement.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator takes one small step, but he does not take the more important second step; namely, to protect the rights of individuals which are violated by local action or by a community, and who are powerless in practice to carry through the lengthy course of ordinary legal processes, and who increasingly now are not able to gain aid from certain organizations, because of the antibarratry laws which have been passed by five Southern States, and which very shortly will be passed by other States, making it a penal offense for any group to come to the aid of such people by helping to finance their lawsuits.

Mr. COOPER. I do not agree with the Senator that my amendment is a small step. It is a large step. As I pointed out a few moments ago, I am informed there are 22 cases which had been decided by the Supreme Court, and I understand that there are 50 or more other such ca&es which are in process of decision regarding the rights of individuals. The process of enforcement is underway at this time. But it is not wholly effective, because groups of people prevent the final order of the court from being carried into effect. I am saying that this is an actual situation with which we can deal, and deal with very promptly and effectively rather than the speculative situation .the Senator suggests-and I have no doubt that there is fact in what he says.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to make one final comment. The Senator from Kentucky mentioned the 22 suits which have been carried throug_h the courts, and the 50 other suits which are now pending. I believe he will find that almost all of those suits were started or carried on-and· I believe 22 were completed, before the Southern States, during the last year started passing antibarratry statutes. Those previous cases, as I understand, have been largely financed by people who are sympathetic with the aggrieved individuals, and who have pitched in and made contributions to help fight those cases.

That support is now being closed off by the State statutes, which make it a penal offense to come to the aid of any person in those circumstances. In the ·future, therefore, unless the Federal Government takes action, it will be in-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 123rn finitely more difficult foi· individuals to terf ere with its actions the local school get justice through the legal processes board went into court and asked the than it has been in the last 2 or 3 years. court to protect them. When that hap-

Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, will pened, the case became a criminal con-the Senator yield? tempt case. The United States, which

Mr. COOPER. I yield. could not move in the first place, moved Mr. CARROLL. I understand the very in the second place and prepared to take

fine purpose of the amendment the Sen- part in the proceedings. ator from Kentucky has offered. I If I follow the reasoning of the Senashould call his attention to the fact that tor from Kentucky, he is thinking in every civil contempt may develop into a terms of a double equity suit. An injunccriminal contempt. A criminal con- tion is entered. There is a violation of tempt, under rule 42 of the Federal rules it. The party aggrieved wants the of criminal procedure, must, in the nor- United States Government to go into a mal procedure, be prepared by the local court of equity and to have a further United States attorney, and he must ap- equity order imposed. There is a difpear in behalf of the Government in ferent group of people. prosecuting the suit. Mr. COOPER. Yes; but the decision

As I understand, the amendment of- as to whether the United States could fered by the distinguished Senator from institute an action and get an injuncKentucky would work in this fashion: tion would depend upon the court. The Suppose there is an equity case in which court would make the decision. a civil contempt order has been issued. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will If that order is violated, the conspirators the Senator yield? are brought into court, and automati- Mr. COOPER. I yield. cally the case becomes a criminal con- Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate very tempt case, I believe. much the candor of the Senator from

I heard the colloquy between the Sen- Kentucky, because he has conceded, beator from Kentucky and the Senator fore I ever got to the asking of my quesfrom Iowa, and I believe that that is tion, the principal point I had in mind. what the Senator from Kentucky had in The Senator concedes, does he not, that mind when he said he was talking about in the case which he mentioned and has a violation of a criminal statute, which tried to take care of by his proposed is entirely separate action. I am think- amendment, the coming into court of ing now in terms of criminal contempt, the United States Government as a petiwhich, as I have said, under rule 42, gives tioner to get an injunction operates the United States district attorney juris- automatically-in the event the injuncdiction. I wondered if the Senator from tion is violated, either by· the parties to Kentucky had thought that out. it or by members of the pub~ic, who have

Mr. COOPER. . Absolutely. I had knowledge of the facts-operates autoconsidered this issue. Of course, if there matically to deprive those persons of the is a violation of an injunction, and it is right to trial by jury. a violation which falls within the terms Mr. COOPER. That is one conseof criminal contempt, a local district at- quence. But I will not agree with the torney will act and try the case. Senator's statement concerning the dep-

The point which I think is not clear is rivation of the right of trial by jury, this: What the amendment provides is because that involves tne whole question that, if there is an obstruction of the of whether the proceeding is one in orders of the court, the United States equity or one in law. There is a distincGovernment will become a party. In tion in this amendment, and the consethe matter to which the Senator is refer- quences that follow, even under part III. ring, John Jones or Bill Smith, or who- It has been charged that one purpose ever began the case in the first place, will of part III, the purpose of making the still be the plaintiff in the case. United States a party at the beginning,

Under the amendment, the United is to assure that all the way through the States Government will become a party. proceedings there will be no trial by jury. And I believe that . when the United That has been said again and again. It States Gcvernment becomes a plaintiff, has been said that the Attorney General, that fact has an effect upon everyone. by caprice, will initiate a case; and it It has an effect in bringing about com- · has been charged that one of the purpliance with the orders of the -court, for poses of his doing so will be to make the United Sta.tes as the petitioner en- certain that there will be no trial by genders respect. jury anywhere in the proceedings. So,

. I know what Senators will be asking some persons have said that it is the in a few minutes, and I want to be per- Attorney General who can make that fectly honest about all possible questions. decision. When the United States Government It will be noted that if the amendment becomes a party, the court has the right I have offered were adopted, and the and the power to try for contempt. Attorney General filed a petition for an

Mr. CARROLL. I wish to make an- injunction, the court then would decide other point. I think we have an excel- whether it was necessary for the United lent illustration in the Clinton case. States to intervene as the principal That case arose originally as a civil con- party. That would be determined by tempt case. It was a suit instituted by the local court. If the local court beprivate parties who went into court and lieved that the situation could be taken asked the court to permit their children care of by its own power to undertake to attend a certain school. The circuit a contempt proceeding, the court could court ordered the local school board to deny the petition of the United States. admit the children. The school board But if the situation were such that it admitted the children. As a result of a was clearly a rebellion against the court conspiracy among other persons to in- order, then I say there is a rig·ht of equi-

table jurisdiction to protect the court, and I will not concede that the question of the right of trial by jury enters into the situation.

Mr. HOLLAND. Am I correct in my understanding that the Senator proposes by his amendment to limit the application of what we have been talking about as part III to cases in which it is alleged that the equal protection of the laws, assured under a part of the 14th amendment, is denied citizens of the United States?

Mr. COOPER. Those words are in the amendment.

Mr. HOLLAND. For that much of his purpose, I wish to commend the Senator, because I think he very greatly limits the application of part III, and with that I am in i:.ccord.

Mr. COOPER. I must disagree with the Senator from Florida. I think every right which could be claimed under part III as far as the equal protection of the laws can be claimed under this amendment. The difference is that the right would first be adjudicated and would be known before the United States Government intervened. So it could not be claimed, as it has been claimed, that the Attorney General had some strange power to determine what a civil right is. In my reference to the Attorney General, I am, of course, arguing on the question of principle.

Mr. HOLLAND. Without arguing that point in . detail, one ·.of .the things of great interest is the protection of the right to vote. What we are complaining of is not the unequal protection of the laws passed by the States, but the fact that the equal application of the law has been denied to particular individuals by the wrongful acts of other individuals. So, it is not at all directly under the provision of the 14th amendment, which provides that no State may by its law withhold from citizens of the United States the equal protection of the law.

Mr. COOPER. I disagree with the Senator. There is a long line of case~ which have held that once a Federal court has taken jurisdiction-and it would have to take jurisdiction under the 14th amendment-the question which the Senator has raised is out. If persons interfere with the orders of the court, once it has taken jurisdiction, they are within the scope of the 14th amendment.

Mr. HOLLAND. I do not care to argue that question now, because the distinguished Senator does not know, and nobody else knows at this stage, what will be the field to be covered by civil rights, because that field is enlarged occasionally by orders of the Supreme Court of the United States. The distinguished Senator himself knows of the long list of cases which were cited by the Attorney General, and also by others at even greater length, during the course of the debate, as cases which come under the classification of civil-rights cases. But let us leave that point for the moment.

If the Senator will go back to the Clinton case, which was brought forward by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR· ROLLJ-and I think he was exactly correct in pointing out that that is a case to which the Senator's amendment could

12320 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE tJuly 22 have been applied-if I understand cor-1·ectly, in that case two or more persons brought suit to protect their civil rights. Those individuals brought suit for the right to have their children attend the Clinton public schools. Am I correct in my understanding?

Mr. COOPER. That could be a case, and it was a case.

Mr. HOLLAND. Following that, and after the final adjudication of the matter by the United States Supreme Court, and following the complying action by the school board in opening the school to children of both races, there were persons who sought to prevent the colored children from enrolling in the school. I am sure the Senator from Kentucky will agree that was the case.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. HOLLAND. At that stage the

local school board came into the same court and applied for an injunction to permit it to function in carrying out and complying with the order of the supreme Court of the United States. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. HOLLAND. If in that case the

Attorney General, instead, had come into the matter-as he would have a right to do, under the amendment-but, Mr. President, first let me ask whether my understanding is correct, namely, that if the amendment had been applicable, the Attorney General could have come into the case at that stage.

Mr. COOPER. The Attorney General could file a petition for injunctive relief.

Mr. LAUSCHE. At what stage? Mr. HOLLAND. At the stage when

the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled and the local school board had complied with the ruling and had opened the school to children of both races, and when various persons were opposing the right of the colored children to enroll in the school and to attend the school.

My question is this: Is it not com-• pletely clear that the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky would have applied-if it had been the law at that time-at that stage of the proceedings, and would have applied in such a way as to have allowed the Attorney General to petition the court to issue an injunction, upon his suit, to protect the earlier ruling, instead of upon the suit of the local school board, as was the case? ·

Mr. COOPER. He could have filed a petition, and the court would have made the decision as to whether the United States could become a party or whether it would prefer to have the school board secure the injunction.

Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate the candor of the Senator from Kentucky.

I should like to go a little further: If the Attorney General had come in at that stage, and if the court had issued an injunction upon his petition, just as it did upon the petition of the local school board, and if the injunction had been violated-as it is alleged the defendant Kasper and his codefendants violated the injunction which actually was issued by Judge Taylor-then it is correct, is it not, that for the same acts for which the defendant Kasper and the

other defendants are now being tried said about the inherent .right of trial by before a jury, or on the allegation of jury. I may say I have been a judge them, the defendants would have been myself, and I treasure the right of trial tried solely before a judge, not before a by jury, and I know how important it is. jury, and thus would have been deprived But a misconception has arisen about of the opportunity for a jury trial which the entire matter of trial by jury. It they now have, under present law? has been argued here that, somehow,

Mr. COOPER. I agree that would be there is an inherent right of trial by ·the state of facts. jury for everyone. Mr. President, there

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from is no such inherent right of trial by jury Kentucky agrees that is correct; does for everyone in every case. The distinhe? guished Senator from Florida, who is ai

Mr. COOPER. Yes. But this time good lawyer, knows that to be so. There the Senator from Florida said "the op- were equity proceedings before there was portunity for a jury trial," rather than a Constitution of the United States, and "the right of trial by jury." A distinc- the Constitution provides that the courts tion exists there. shall have the power to try cases both in

Mr. HOLLAND. Regardless of wheth- law and in equity. The right of trial by er it is an opportunity or a right, I hope jury goes to the criminal cases and to the Senator from Kentucky will agree common-law cases. From the ratifica .. that it is a very precious privilege. tion of the Constitution until, I believe,

Mr. COOPER. It is. 1912, there never was any question that Mr. HOLLAND. When 15 of the 16 a court itself had the right to try all

defendants haled there are not parties cases of contempt. A modification has to the injunction-and that might just been made in respect -to the Norris-La as well have been the case if the in- Guardia Act. But it was written into the junction had been issued, upon the suit Clayton Act, I believe, that in every case -of the Attorney General, rather than in which the United States is a party, upon the suit of the local school board- there is no right of trial by jury. Why when they are brought into the case was that provision included? It was inand now are subjected to prosecution eluded because if a case arose which was for criminal defiance of the court's order, so important as to warrant having the so that it is necessary to prove, first, United States become a party to it, that they knew about the injunction; then-because the United States repre· second, that they knew the terms of the sents broad interests, represents the ininjunction and knew that those terms terests of many persons, represents the applied to them; and, third, that in con- country and the Constitution and the cert with the defendant Kasper, who laws of the United States-the court was the named defendant under the should have the power to carry out its original injunction, they operated to decrees and its orders. That is the defy the injunction-it seems to me that whole basis of this provision. The Senwith all those matters coming up for ator from Florida knows that. ·trial, and with the jury now empowered Under my amendment, if the court did to hear the evidence as to them, and not permit the United States to become with the jury actually hearing the evi- a party, if the court did not grant the dence now, I do not believe that the dis- injunction, there never would be any tinguished Senator from Kentucky question about the right of trial by jury. would want-despite his passion for the But if the court, with full knowledge of enforcement of the decisions in the 22 the situation, allowed the United States school-board cases which he says have to secure an injunction against the percleared the United States Supreme sons who were lawless concerning the Court, and the enforcement of the deci- court, then I say to the Senator from sions in the larger number which are Florida that the principle, upon which about to clear it-to have those 15 de- rests the provision of law, which profendants, never before appearing in the Vides that there shall be no right of trial case, deprived of the right of trial by , by jury when the United States becomes jury. Does the Senator from Kentucky a party, has validity. wish to have persons in such positions Mr. HOLLAND. And by making itself deprived of that right? a party, the United States would pre-. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, with all elude any defendant charged with deference to him, I will not let the Sen- criminal contempt from ever having a ator from Florida make my argument. l'ight of trial by jury, would it not? A little while ago, when he referred to Mr. COOPER. The United States my passion for having the decisions could not make itself a party unless the in these Supreme Court cases enf creed, court allowed it to become one. in order to secure integration-he was Mr. HOLLAND. But it seems to me not continuing the legal argument we the Senator from Kentucky is begging had begun. the question.

Mr. HOLLAND. Let us say ''strong Mr. COOPER. No; I am not. The desire." Senator is arguing from an incorrect

Mr. COOPER. I believe-and I stand premise. by my belief, insofar as an individual Mr. HOLLAND. If the United States can-in the decision of the Supreme becomes a party by its own act and by Court as the law of the land. I do not the order of the court, does the Senator wish to make it nugatory, and I um not from Kentucky deny that from that time trying to nullify it. forth, every citizen charged with crimi·

One purpose of my amendment, as I nal contempt for violation of the orde1• have stated, is to protect the prestige will not be allowed to have a trial by a.nd dignity of the Court. jury, whereas under present law he does

I have listened to the debate tn the have that right? Senate. I must say there has been much Mr. COOPER. That is conect.

1.957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 12321 Mr. HOLLAND. That is all I wanted

the Senator from Kentucky to admit. Mr. COOPER. But I do not accept as

a fact the statement that when there arises a situation in which it is necessary for the United States to become a party-and, under my amendment where the court has said it is necessary-there is any evil in that fact. That has been the law for hundreds of years, contrary to the impression which has been assiduously built up here during the past 2 weeks.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, in closing in regard to this matter-and I appreciate the kindness of the Senator from Kentucky in allowing me to question him-I wish to say that so far as I am concerned, I do not wish there to be a return to the situation existing prior to 1912. Instead, I wish to have continued the right of persons who are in exactly the same situation as that of the 15 persons now on trial at Knoxville, in Judge Taylor's court, to be tried before a jury of their peers. I greatly regret that my distinguished friend, the Senator from Kentucky, wishes to change the existing law, so that in the particulars in which h'e proposes that it be changed, when the Federal Government comes in as a party, from that time forth the citizen who is charged with criminal contempt shall have no right of trial by jury.

Mr. COOPER. Again, Mr. President, I do not accept the statement by the Senator from Florida· that my amendment would change the law. It would not change the law in any respect; it would maintain the law that exists today.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. THURMOND in the chair). Does the Senator from Kentucky yield to the Senator from New York?

Mr. COOPER. I yield. Mr. JAVITS. I think that the Sena

tor from Kentucky, in discussing the matter with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], has omitted to state one ingredient of his amendment which I believe is all-determinative, namely, that the Government would have to show by its moving papers or evidence that there was prim a facie evidence of a conspiracy. It is that additional element which it seems to me would distinguish the case and let the United States come in as of right in order to sustain the dignity of the court. Does the Senator accept that statement?

Mr. COOPER. Yes. The basis of the amendment is that there must be a conspiracy, a conspiracy against the orders of the court, against the court itself. It would have to be established. · Mr. JAVITS. I hope the Senator will

go along with me a little bit, because I have very deep respect for his effort and his desire to do the just and wise thing. I might say, too, if the Senator will allow me, that, coming as he does from a border area, what he says on this subject, coming as it does from the standpoint of living experience, is of great significance to me. Dedicated as I am to this bill, I nevertheless listened to the Senator from Kentucky with a very open mind.

Mr. COOPER. As I said at the beginning, I do not claim any more interest or knowledge of this situation than does any other Senator; but, on the other hand, it is true that the people of my State have been torn by this question for more than 150 years, and I think they have at times contributed to solutions.

Mr. JAVITS. If the Senator will go along with me for a little bit in trying to crystallize these issues, it is a fact that all the rights which would be encompassed by the Senator's amendment and be protected in the way the Senator's amendment protects them are rights which an individual could go into court and assert in an equity suit. Is not that true?

Mr. COOPER. It is true. Mr. JAVITS. It is also a fact, is it not,

that, under the Senator's amendment, a local body could go into court and protect rights, which would also be further safeguarded under the Senator's amendment? Is that also correct?

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. JAVITS. Finally, it is a fact that

if an individual or local body secured a court injunction, either one could proceed against those who conspired to subvert the decree of the court? Is that not true?

Mr. COOPER. That is true. Mr. JAVITS. At that stage the Sen

ator introduces the authority of the Attorney General upon a prima facie showing of conspiracy. So I should like to ask the Senator this question: Is he seeking to protect the individual who may be intimidated in starting a suit as well as in trying to bring contempt proceedings against conspirators who sought to undo the judgment, or is the Senator's amendment directed to the majesty of the court and the dignity of the United States because persons might be prevented from bringing suits because of antibarratry statutes or because of local pressures? In short, is the Senator's proposal to give an additional way in which the intimidation of a party can be avoided, or is the Senator's proposal, on the contrary, to give an additional way in which the majesty, the dignity, and the power of the United States can be maintained?

Mr. COOPER. I think the most obvious result of this amendment would be to give additional authority to the court by reason of the fact that at a specific point, when its authority was challenged, the United States Government would enter the scene. I think it is important to protect and enforce the authority of our courts. I point out that in doing so there is also given added protection to the rights of an individual, because today there is a judicial process underway, and the process is being followed to protect individuals' rights. But when steps have been taken in court proceedings, and at length a proceeding reaches the point where rights would be made effective, if other people then prevent those rights from being made effective, I do not believe those rights are actually being guaranteed to an individual. So I think my amendment does what the Senator has asked about. It helps secure the rights of the individual-the object Qf the case-the law.

Mr. JAVITS. There has been talk on this :floor about an amendment which would provide that when a local body invites in the United States in an effort to safeguard equal protection of the laws, then the Attorney General can enter. As I understand the Senator's amendment, it is one step stronger than that, because the consent of neither the local body nor the individual is required. Is that correct?

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. JAVITS. I appreciate deeply the

sincerity and the experience with which the Senator proposes the amendment. I should like to add that it would be fair to say that those who feel deeply about the matter think it is also necessary to take care of a situation where an individual is intimidated or where a situation makes it impracticable for him to start a suit because of antibarratry statutes or local pressure. We have felt that provision could be retained and we could also have the Senator's amendment. The two are not mutually exclusive. Would the Senator agree?

Mr. COOPER. That, of course, is a decision for the Senate to make; and I know his deep sincerity and concern for justice.

The proposition that the United States should enter a case upon the request of individuals is one which I really do not like. If there is a situation which requires that the United States enter, then I believe the facts themselves should be sufficient to warrant its doing so, and it should not be dependent upon the request of an individual. That is my .own judgment. Furthermore, as the Senator knows so well, if the United States wanted to find an individual who would ask for intervention, or someone else wanted him to seek intervention, it would not be very difficult to find such a person. I think the test should be whether or not the facts warrant the intervention of the United States. That is one reason which led me to propose this amendment. The fact that third parties are obstructing the courts seems to me to warrant the institution of an action by the United States.

Mr. JAVITS. May I say to the Senator that, in my view, the compelling public necessity dictates that the provisions contained in part III should be directed to dealing with a situation where an individual is, by local pressure, prevented from proceeding; but I express my appreciation, as one Senator, for the sharpness with which the Senator has put the issue before us. It has been a very constructive contribution and effort to resolve a very historic and complex question.

Mr. COOPER. I thank the Senator. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, may I

ask the Senator one more question? Mr. COOPER. I yield for that purpose.

May I say I have followed the Senator's arguments and statements during the entire debate, and I have enjoyed them very much. . Mr. HOLLAND. I thank my distin .. guished colleague. Will he yield to me just one more time? ' Mr. COOPER. Yes.


Mr. HOLLAND. I noticed in the earlier stages of his very able address, he referred to the fact that deprivation of civil rights might occur under the first eight amendments of the Constitution, and they might also occur under the original articles of the Constitution, might they not?

taining the dignity of the court, but to procure compliance from the defendant for the benefit of the plaintiff's enjoyment of the rights ·for which he sues.

Mr. COOPER. That is true. Mr. HOLLAND. Then I heard my dis

tinguished friend say later, unless I misunderstood him, they could not arise except under the 14th amendment, section I, which prohibits the denial of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the equal protection of the laws.

Mr. COOPER. No; I said that, generally, claims could arise under the 14th amendment.

Mr. HOLLAND. I am very glad we cleared up the point, because I understood him to say any claim of civil rights would come under the scope of the equal-protection-of-the-laws clause.

Mr. COOPER. No. Mr. HOLLAND. There are many,

many other kinds of civil rights. All of them are omitted if the Senator's a1:.1endment is adopted.

Mr. COOPER. My amendment goes to the deprivation of equal rights-the equal protection of the laws.

Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate that, because I may say that on that point alone of his amendment, I find very g~·eat merit in it, because it really does limit the much too great scope of ·part III by confining it to the one matter assuring equal protection of the laws. While I cannot approve the amendment in toto, I think the Senator is very wise to cut down the scope of part III so that the · Attorney General cannot go on fishing expeditions on every civil right arising under the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any later amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. COOPER. The words "equal protection of the laws" raise many, many questions and many rights.

Mr. LAUSCHE and Mr. CASE of New Jersey addressed the Chair.

Mr. COOPER. I yield first to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I should like to ask some questions so that I may be certain we have a common understanding of the ·definitions which have been ascribed to the different legal terms used.

First, it is my understanding that, under the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, when an individual's civil rights have been violated, the individual would have the right to go into a court of equity to obtain injunctive relief, if the facts warranted it.

Mr. COOPER. Yes, if the facts war-· ranted it.

Mr. LAUSCHE. After the individual obtained -such injunctive relief, if the defendant failed to provide him with his civil rights, he could ask for a civil-contempt proceeding.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. LAUSCHE. Will the Senator

agree · that this definition of "civil contempt" is correct: A civil-contempt proceeding exists whenever a court imposes a penalty not for the purpose of main-

Mr. COOPER. That is true, except that it is also to maintain the dignity of the court, though that is not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is to secure compliance. .

Mr. LAUSCHE. There has been much use of the terms "civil contempt" and "criminal contempt."

Mr. COOPER. They are pretty difficult to define.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I think the case of Gompers defines them clearly. In the decision in that case it is stated that civil contempt exists whenever the purpose is not to preserve the dignity of the court but solely to procure for the plaintiff the enjoyment of the rights declared to be his.

Mr. COOPER. That is, if a person can assure that right from the person against whom the contempt proceeding is directed.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. There may come a time when one cannot procure that right for the plaintiff.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. LAUSCHE. Criminal contempt,

on the other hand, exists whenever the prnsecution for contempt is intended to maintain the dignity of the court and not to procure for the plaintiff the enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment.

Let me state my understanding. The plaintiff could ask for a civil contempt citation. I think we agree on that.

Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. LAUSCHE. Secondly, it would

not be the plaintiff who would ask for the prosecution for criminal contempt, for he would have nothing to do with that. The citation for criminal contempt would be ordered by the court and would be instituted by the United States District Attorney.

Under the present law, when the plaintiff is an individual, the person who is cited for criminal contempt has the right to a jury trial, has he not?

Mr. COOPER. Cited for what? Mr. LAUSCHE. For criminal con

tempt. Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. Under the law, the

Government also has the power to prosecute the defendant for violating the criminal laws. ·

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. LAUSCHE. Therefore, under

existing law two remedies would prevail, criminal prosecution for violating the statutes, and criminal contempt for flouting the court's dignity, and in each of those instances the defendant would have the right of trial by jury.

Mr. COOPER. For civil contempt? Mr. LAUSCHE. No; for criminal con·

tempt. Mr. COOPER. In a genuine case of

criminal contempt; yes. Mr. LAUSCHE. The purpose of the

amendment is to have the United States become a party and thus shear the wrongdoers of their right of trial by jury.

Mr. COOPER. I do not accept the Senator's suggestion; it is not its purpose. __ Mr. LAUSCHE. Very well.

Mr. COOPER. That is the charge which has been made about any action by the United States in these cases: that it is brought, as the Senator has said, to shear the accused of his right to a trial by jury.

I think we have to keep in mind that for hundreds of years the Congress of the United States, the people, and the courts thought the right of the court to try all contempts was important. Then, when a change was made in the law it was specifically stated that if the United States were a party the court had the power to try .all contempts.

I do not think it is fair to say that to make the United States a party in every case is done so that a person can be tried without a jury. I think what we have to ask is whether the facts are of such importance as to bring the United States into the case? That is what I have been arguing.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I see. Mr. COOPER. I have been arguing

that point. My amendment is quite different from part III. Part III provides that before any facts are known and before any case has actually been held in the court, the United States can begin an action. So it has been charged, for that reason, that such a provision is for the purpose of securing trial of contempt cases without a jury.

I am arguing that when a case has been finally determined, when the court has made its order, and when a group of people who have nothing at all to do with the case or with the individual's rights enter the situation, both to deprive the individual of the rights which have been denied and attack the court, something should be done. I say to Senators that the Federal Government ought to have the right to petition to intervene in such circumstances. It ought not be argued that such a provision is simply for the purpose of giving the United States a right to punish a man for contempt without a trial by jury.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I have deep respect for the views of the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOPER. Let me add another point. Before the United States could enter the proceeding, the court which had tried the original case and which had full knowledge of all the facts in the proceeding would determine whether the situation and the facts were important enough and urgent enough .to allow the United States to become a party.

Mr. LAUSCHE. I have the deepest respect for the sincerity of the Senator from Kentucky. I know that he is contemplating a desirable elaboration of a qill. However, I have difficulty in reconciling my views with his, from his standpoint: The right of trial by jury was not the consequence of one individual ex. ploiting another individual, it was the consequence of an all-powerful, tyrannical government exploiting the rights of the common citizen. When the Magna Carta was extracted from King John at Runnymede it was not because one individual was taking from another individual his rights, it was . because the Government became the oppressor and

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 1232i1 was exploiting the rights of the individual.

I honestly say to the Senator from Kentucky-and I view this matter as sincerely as does the Senator from Kentucky-we need not fear individuals. We will be able to cope with individuals in our Government and in our society. There is fear of the Government when we begin giving it powers in the belief that it will act with sacred regard for its obligations. The Government is made up of human beings, and they are the ones who exploit. That is my view.

Mr. COOPER. I have great respect for the Senator's views. I point out that in this amendment I have placed limitations upon that power.

Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. COOPER. I yield. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Let me

state, first, that while I feel that the substitute offered by the Senator from Kentucky is perhaps less than I believe ought to be included in part III, nevertheless I am most grateful for his thoughtful and deeply sincere effort to improve this particular piece of legislation. I believe that to the extent he deals with this area he has made some very useful suggestions, indeed.

I have a high regard for the sincerity of colleagues who feel otherwise than I do on this question. However, it seems to me that it is time to make the point again that we are not here for the purpose of depriving people of rights. The object is to give people rights which they do not now have.

I ask the Senator-and I know what his answer will be-if he does not believe that, although in his view part III is not all it should be at the present time, there is still a need for legislation on this subject, because individuals are being deprived of rights under existing law, in spite of court orders issued for the purpose of protecting them in those rights. I wonder if the Senator will not tell this body about 1 or 2 of the instances which he has in mind on the question of rights of which people have been deprived, and if he will relate some of the circumstances, so that we can obtain a little better picture than the one which has heretofore been given to this body and to the world, of people being deprived of constitutional rights. Let us have an illustration or two of the kind of rights of which people have been deprived, and which we . are seeking to secure for them by the proposed legislation.

Mr. COOPER. I may have told the Senator of this particular incident. For whatever it is worth, I mention it in this body.

Last year, in my State there was a situation involving integration of the schools; and, because of the opposition of some people, the Governor of the State deemed it necessary .to send in troops. The officials of the schools opened the ~chools to Negro children.

The adjutant general of the State, who was in command of the troops, was Maj. Gen. J , J. B. Williams, a great combat soldier of three wars-the Mexican War, World War I, and in World War II, chief artiller~ officer for General Patton

in Africa-and later chief of staff of the 11th Armored Division in Europe. He was wounded and decorated many times and with the Silver Star. He told me that he led those children, with their mothers, through streets lined with people to the school several days, and the fact that he was with them enabled them to reach the school safely.

•Finally a mother said to him, "General Williams, we cannot go through this any longer, through these menacing crowds. We cannot go every day with those children." And finally they stopped making the effort.

That was a case in which the crowd itself, directly or indirectly, prevented the exercise of individual rights just as effectively as though they had been able to surround the school. That is only one illustration. My thought is that my amendment, which is not as broad as part III, and which imposes limitations which everyone who can read can understand, would give added authority and prestige to the courts. I think it would better enable the carrying out of the orders of the courts and without the deprivation of any other rights.

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

Mr. COOPER. I yield. Mr. ERVIN. I should li.ke to ask the

distinguished Senator from Kentucky, for whose opinion as a lawyer I have the highest respect, several questions.

Mr. COOPER. I may say that I have been studying with great interest all the Senator has said in committee and on the floor, and I respect his legal scholarship and advocacy.

Mr. ERVIN. Is it not true that at the time the Constitution provided that the judicial power of the Federal Government should extend to suits in equity under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and trea-ties which shall be made by the United States, the juris·diction of· courts of equity was limited to protecting property rights and contraet rights against irreparable injury?

Mr. COOPER. That may be true. The distinguished Senator is a profound legal scholar. I have not lately studied every point. ·

Mr. ERVIN. I will state to the Senator that at the time the question of ratification of the Constitution was under consideration, Alexander Hamilton wrote a very interesting essay on the extent of equity jurisdiction, which I placed in the· RECORD. It indicates that my position on that question is correct.

Mr. COOPER. Whether it involved property rights or not, the important point about equity jurisdiction is that it was invoked when common law could not in a particular case, afford relief. If a person could show that the common law could not provide relief, and that he wouid suffer immediate and irreparable harm if equitable relief were not given him, he would be entitled to equitable relief. So equity was for the individual. It was to protect his individual rights, whether they were property rights or other rights.

Mr. ERVIN. Is the Senator familiar with the staitement of Mr. Justice Story in his commentaries, to the effect that the failure of the Constitutional Conven-

tion to place in the Constitution a guaranty similar to that later placed in amendment 7, giving the right of trial by jury in common-law actions, almost wrecked the ratification of the Constitution?

Mr. COOPER. I am familiar with that history.

Mr. ERVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky would agree or disagree with me in the opinion that if the drafters of the Constitution had ever contemplated that equity would be extended into the criminal field, to deny the right of trial by jury, it is questionable whether the people would have ratified the Constitution.

Mr. COOPER. That is speculation. Ho~ever, I do not accept the argument, which has been made again and again during this debate as directed to the point in issue. I do not accept it for this reason: the amendments in the Bill of Rights which provided for trial by jury specifically refer to criminal cases and common-law cases, arising in common law. In article 3 of the Constitution it is provided that the courts shall h~ve jurisdiction of cases arising in law and equity. So, it was true before the Constitution was adopted, and it has been true since the Constitution was adopted, to the present, that a court punished for offenses which otherwise might have been punishable under criminal statute.

Mr. ERVIN. I should like to ask-Mr. COOPER. Even though a de

fendant may be punished for a crime and also by the court for a contempt, the distinguished Senator will agree that it is not a case of double jeopardy under such circumst.ances.

Mr. ERVIN. Yes. We lawyers are perhaps .able to understand that better than a layman. We say that in one case a defendant is punished for contempt because he has disobeyed an order of the court but not for violating a criminal law, and in the other case he is punished because he has violated a criminal law.

I should like to ask the Senator this question. If we can circumvent the constitutional right of trial by jury by converting what are now crimes in the civil rights field into a basis for exercise of equity jurisdiction, why cannot we circumvent the constitutional right of trial by jury in every other case that is now within the domain of criminal law? '

Mr. COOPER. That might be possible. -However, I do not accept the premise upon which that question is based. The premise always is that the reason the United States is made a party is to circumvent trial by jury. The United States from the very beginning of the Constitution, and even now, if the facts are important enough, could be made a party. Who determines whether the facts are important enough to make the United· States a party? It is the Congress. Congress, of course, would

. weigh all the facts to determine if, in a stated case, the facts were important enough for the United States to be a party. That is the whole basis of my argument this afternoon. I feel that under the set of facts I have outlined it is im:. portant for the United States to be a


party. The purpose is not to circumvent trial by jury.

Mr. ERVIN. I do not know whether the Senator from Kentucky has read the statement made by Mr. Warren Olney, III, at the time we were writing into the Senate bill in committee the right of trial by jury provision so far as contempt cases are concerned.

Mr. COOPER. No; I have not. Mr. ERVIN. If the Senator had read

that statement, he would find that it is a confession on Mr. Olney's part that one of the main objects of the bill was to circumvent the statute giving the right of trial by jury in contempt cases.

Mr. COOPER. That does not make it my purpose. I believe the Senator will agree that there is at least a distinction between the Government of the United States intervening at the beginning of an action, and intervening under the set of facts that I have described.

Mr. ERVIN. Yes. Mr. COOPER. The Senator may not

believe that it is important enough for the United States to intervene, but at least he will agree that there is a difference.

Mr. ERVIN. I agree with the Senator that there is a valid distinction in such cases. The Attorney General appeared before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rig·hts and he stated that the only course left open to the Government under the laws as they stand now was criminal prosecution of those responsible. Does the Senator agree with me in the observation that under existing law the only legal right the Federal Government has in a civil-rights case is that of criminal prosecution?

Mr. COOPER. That is true. Mr. ERVIN. The Attorney General

also said this, as shown at the top of page 6 of the hearings--

Mr. COOPER. I ask the Senator to excuse me a moment. The Attorney General could, of course, come into court as a friend of the court, and I understand he does not come in as a friend of the court at times in these cases.

Mr. ERVIN. But he has no legal right to come in. Is that correct?

Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. ERVIN. He may come in as

amicus curiae. Mr. COOPER. That is correct. Mr. ERVIN. The Attorney General

also said this, as shown at the top of page 6 of the hearings:

Jurors are reluctant to indict and convict local officials in a criminal prosecution even though they recognize the illegality of what has been done. As a result, not only are the election officials freed, but also the Government is not able to get an authoritative determination regarding the constitutionality of what was done.

Then he goes on to say: The Federal Government ls limited to

criminal prosecutions which, as in vo:ting cases, are cumbersome, difficult, and in situations r.ot involving brutality and violence, often unduly harsh.

I take that to be a confession by the Attorney General that the reason he wants to be allowed to proceed in equity, among other things, is so that the people might not have this cumbersome jury trial.

Mr. COOPER. I would not agree with any legislative proposal, whose purpose is merely to circumvent a right. There might be a difference of opinion; that is, there may be a difference of opinion as to whether, in a stated situation, it is important for the United States to be a party. The Senator will agree with me on that, I believe. Congress has made the United States a party in various types of cases.

Mr. ERVIN. I do not agree with the Senator that there ought to be any distinction where the United States is a party, because I stand with Senator Borah. When the Clayton Act was under consideration, Senator Borah offered an amendment to strike out the exemption to the right of trial by jury in contempt cases in which the United States was a party. He made a very eloquent speech, in which he said if a defendant had the right of trial by jury he ought to have it regardless of who the plaintiff was. He said he thought it was discrimination which could not be reconciled with justice to give a defendant the right to trial by jury in one contempt case because the plaintiff was one person, and to deny the same right in another contempt case because the plaintiff was a different person.

So, whenever the Federal Government goes into court in the capacity of a litigant, the Federal Government ought to stand on the same procedural ground that every other litigant must stand on.

If there is any distinction that should be made, I believe it should be made, in favor of the citizen against the great power of the Government.

Therefore I do not believe there is a valid distinction on that point. That is my own conviction in the matter.

Great liberals stand with me on that point. · among them Senator Borah and Senator Norris. They stand with me on that proposition. I thank- the Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. COOPER. I understand the Senator's viewpoint and respect it.

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

Mr. COOPER. I yield. Mr. MORTON. In view of the change

which has been made in the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico TMr. ANDERSON], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], I suggest to the Senator that he change his amendment so as to strike out all through line 8, page 10, instead of all through line 18. That would meet the parliamentary situation, and the Senator's amendment would then be in the nature of a substitute for the amendment that is pending.

Mr. COOPER. I thank my colleague. I did not know, until the Senator from New Mexico rose after I had began to speak, that that was the situation. I thank my colleague for the suggestion. Mr. President, I modify my amendment so as to provide for striking out all through line 8, on page 10, instead of line 18, on page 10.

And now I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CAR

ROLL in the chair). The Senator has a right to modify his amendment.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The secretary will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following· Senators answered to their names: Aiken Fulbright McNamara Allott Goldwater Monroney Anderson Gore Morse Barrett Green Morton Beall Hayden Mundt Bennett Hickenlooper Murray Bible Hill Neuberger Bricker Holland O'Mahoney Bush Hruska Pastore Butler Humphrey Potter Byrd Ives Purtell Capehart Jackson Revercomb Carlson Javits Robertson Carroll Jenner Russell Case, N. J. Johnson, Tex. Saltonstall Case, S. Dak. Johnston, S. C. Scott Chavez Kefauver Smathers Church Kennedy Smith, Maine Clark Kerr Smith, N. J. Cooper Know land Sparkman Cotton Kuchel Stennis Curtis Langer Symington Dirksen Lausche Talmadge Douglas Long Thurmond Dworshak Magnuson Thye Eastland Malone Watkins Ellender Mansfield Wiley Ervin Martin, Iowa Williams Flanders Martin, Pa. Yarborough Frear McClellan Young

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky will state it.

Mr. COOPER. May I now withdraw my amendment, and thereafter submit it, in order to have it printed and lie on the table, so Senators may have an opportunity to read it?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has a right to withdraw his amendment at this time.

Mr. COOPER. Then, Mr. President, I now withdraw the amendment; and I send it to the desk and ask that it be printed and lie on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky has been withdrawn; and it will be printed and will lie on the table.

The question now is on agreeing to the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment, as modified.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, I am having prepared an amendment which I wish to submit to part III and part IV of the pending bill. I send the amendment to the desk, and ask that it be received and be printed, and lie on the table, until such time as it may be called up; ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received· and printed, and will lie on the table.

Mr. HUMPHREY . . Mr. President, is the amendment of the Senator from Ohio to be read?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator from Ohio merely has submitted his amendment, to be printed and to lie on the table.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment, and ask that it b~ stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 12325 The CHIEF CLERK. On page 9, in line

20, after the words "Attorney General", and before the word "institute", it is proposed to insert "whenever so directed by the President, shall."

On page 11, in line 21, after the words, "Attorney General", and before the word "institute", it is proposed to insert "whenever so directed by the President, shall."

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota will state it.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Is not the pending question on agreeing to the amendment submitted by the Senator ~rom New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], for himself and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] and myself, as that amendment has been modified?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the parliamentary inquiry to be whether the AndersonAiken-Case of South Dakota amendment is the pending question.

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Yes. I may say that the reason for pro

pounding the parliamentary inquiry is that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio goes beyond the scope of the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico. So I do not see how the amendment of the Senator from Ohio can be called up until the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico is disposed of. It is not limited to perfecting the section which the modified Anderson-Aiken amendment would strike. Mr~ KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a

parliamentary inquiry: Does not the amendment of the Senator from Ohio amend part III of the bill?

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. It amends part III, but it also amends part IV, on page 11. If the amendment of the Senator from Ohio were confined to amending part III, which is proposed to be stricken out by the Anderson amendment, the amendment of the Senator from Ohio could be called up at this time. But I do not see how it can be called up now, inasmuch as the amendment of the Senator from Ohio also amends part IV.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] goes beyond the scope of part III of the bill, to which the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment, as modified; relates.

Mr. BRICKER. Then, Mr. President, I modify my amendment by striking out the part which refers to part IV of the bill, and by leaving in the part which relates to part III of the bill, which is the first part of my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, as modified by him, is in order at this time.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment, but it deals with a very important part of the bill and with the section of the bill now under consideration.

Under the bill as drafted, the Attorney General has the responsibility and the duty of determining in his own right whether or not he shall ente1· into a case

upon application. The Attorney General overriding of State and local governis not an elected official of the Govern- ments; but if the authority is going to be ment of the United States. He is an placed in the bill, it would be better to appointed official. Of course, his ap- have the President rather than the Atpointment is ratified by the Senate. torney General make the decision if he This amendment seeks to make one who has the strength to be burdened with adis responsible to the electorate, one who ditional duties. has been voted on by the people of the Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, this United States, the authority that shall points up exactly what some of us have pass upon the question of whether or been saying. As we study the section, the not the Federal Government shall inter- things that are wrong with section 121 vene. It is a duty that ought to lie in begin to become apparent. While I comthe President of the United States, who mend the Senator from Ohio for trying is answerable to the people in their to shore up what is obviously a bad secvotes. Of course, it might be indirectly tion of the bill, I am surprised to hear an the responsibility of the President to admission that such a change in the bill determine the· action of his Attorney will make it all right. A day or two ago General, but I am opposed to granting to it was stated that the section was all an official of the Government, outside of right. Senators were saying that section an elected official, the arbitrary right 121 would do no damage. It was deto bring the power of the Federal Gov- fended, and it was stated that there was ernment and the authority of the Fed- nothing wrong with section 121. Now eral Government to interfere in local the able Senator from Ohio proposes an affairs when he is not one who has ever amendment which would put the authorbeen voted upon by the electorate. That ity in the President of the United States, power should lie in the President of the rather than the Attorney General. It is United States. then said that that is the way it should

The same argument goes to part IV of have been in the first place. the bill, of course, but that can be made I point out only this: I am not trying at a later period. in the slightest to say anything against

Before the Senate seeks to give to an what the Senator from Ohio has proofficial who is an appointed official the po~ed. I think as the section is studied great power which is encompassed in the over and over again, it will be realized bill, I think it ought to consider very that there is only one thing to do with seriously transferring to the President of section 121, and that is to strike it from the United States, who is responsible to the bill. That is what the Senator from the voters of the country, the power to Vermont, the Senator from South Dahave the Attorney General act in the kota, and I have proposed to do-delete name of the United States. it, and thus eliminate the complicated

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the and perplexing questions which would Senator yield? arise under it. The Senator from Ohio,

Mr. BRICKER. I yield. who has been militantly concerned about Mr. JAVITS. I think the Senator has what the Federal Government can do,

proposed a most constructive amend- because he was for a long time the execument. I believe those of us who are for tive of a great State, realizes that this the bill have always felt that, since such power should not be placed in the Attora decision would be made at a high level ney General to institute actions on behalf and would be taken after careful deter- of the United States; that a man who is mination, the Attorney General would appointed to an office ought not to have not move by whim or caprice, but in the that sort of authority. I think the sec· highest public interest. I see no reason tion would be improved by his amend· at all why: we should not make it crystal ment. clear that he shall act as the servant and Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the agent of the President of the United Senator yield? States, and I shall support the . amend- Mr. ANDERSON. I yield. ment of the Senator. Mr. GORE. Is it not reasonable to

Mr. BRICKER. I thank the Senator. presume that the Attorney General of That is my only purpose. · the United States, a member of the

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Pres- · President's Cabinet, appointed by the ident, will the Senator yield? President, would act under the direction

Mr. BRICKER. I yield. of the President of the United States? Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Is it not Mr. ANDERSON. I assume he would

true that the amendment which the-Sen- act under the direction of the President ator has offered is proposed as a perfect- of the United States or get out of the ing amendment? Cabinet. I have had enough experience

Mr. BRICKER. That is correct. in ,such an office to know that if one is Mr. CASE of South Dakota. That is, in the President's Cabinet, and the

if it were adopted, action would still President wants him to do something, have to be taken on the motion to a the Cabinet officer has the alternative strike section 121? of doing it or retiring. The only thing

Mr. BRICKER. In my judgment, that I am trying to point out, as we go along is a parliamentary question, but that is and read section 121 of the bill, and the my opinion. suggestion is made that we had better

Mr. CASE of South Dakota. If we are change this phrase, or had better change going to have the authority placed in a that phrase, that this one section was central body, I would rather have the perfect yesterday, but is not good today, decision made by the President, an and it may be all right tomorrow, is that elected official, rather than the Attorney I think it proves that the whole section General. Personally I happen to be op- ought to come out of the bill, rather posed to the idea of further centraliza- than be acted on in that fashion. That tion of power in Washington for the is why I hope the amendment we have

12326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - S~NATE July 22

proposed will be adopted and that we shall get rid of a section that is giving us trouble. I think that section has brought about more trouble and misunderstanding than any other section of the bill.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Ohio has pointed out a glaring weakness in section 121, but I agree with the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from South Dakota that the only way we can get rid of this menace is to eliminate section 121 from the bill. My own opinion is that the perfecting amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio makes the danger greater rather than less. If the Attorney General should undertake to get highhanded and assume rights which belong to the States, communities, and the individuals who live there, there is a President who can hold the reins. If a President takes it into his head to go ahead and exercise this great power which Congress had never been asked for before, then there is no check over him whatsoever, other than the impeachment procedure, which Congress should be certainly very, very reluctant to impose. I do not think the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio makes things better; it makes them worse.

I ask Senators to think back through the years to previous Presidents and Attorneys General. In the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt we had Attorney General Biddle. The Senator from Ohio would have put abnormal law enforcement powers in the hands of President Roosevelt rather than Attorney General Biddle. The Senator from Ohio would have put the same abnormal legal powers in the hands of President Truman rather than Attorney General McGrath. If the amendment does anything, it makes the situation worse, because if the Attorney General undertakes to usurp powers belonging to the States, towns, communities, and individuals, as he could under section 121, then the President can have some control over the Attorney General.

When it comes to putting this power in the hands of a President, with nobody having control over him, I would not give this power to any President. I do not say I would not trust any President, but I would not give this power to any President. I would not even give it to the next President.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield. 1\-ir. ANDERSON. Would the Senator

also say that this language-and I know the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] has tried to be helpful and careful. in the preparation of the language-would cause trouble, if the President of the United States issued an instruction and it got into the hands of a judge appointed by the President of the United States? It probably would aggravate the situation which could exist. There would be, in such a circumstance, local officials who have been named by the President, and then an instruction would be received from the President for this type of injunctive relief. I think such a provision would make the procedure far more .dangerous, by adding the name

of the President to a procedure which everybody says is a bad procedure in the first place.

The whole argument goes back to what I have been trying to say, that we had better get the section out of the bill and then, if there is to be submitted constructive language, such as has been suggested during the day, we can take a look at such language.

Mr. AIKEN. There is no question that putting such an enormous power in the hands of a President would be much more dangerous than putting it in the hands of an Attorney General. Of course, we assume that Presidents and Attorneys General work together, but sometimes it may be that the Attorney General does things which the President does not know about, and is inspired by motives which the President may not know about. I think the President has more control over the Attorney General, if the Attorney .General goes off on a tangent, th&n anyone could have over the President. The only recourse, if the President undertook to exercise his power wrongfully, would be impeachment, and everybody knows that is not · easy.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I think we all recognize the good purpose of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] but I wanted to ask the Senator from Vermont how the President would handle the mechanism of considering all the matters of this kind which might be brought before him. Necessarily very few people can see the President. In the course of a day the President cannot see delegations from some local community, to present one side of some problem or the other side.

I wonder if the Senator from Vermont does not think this responsibility would terribly bog down the office of the Presidency, by forcing the President to go into a lot of detailed local matters of which we have always tried to relieve him.

Mr. AIKEN. The President certainly should not have this added duty imposed upon him. He cannot possibly know what is going on in all the different agencies of the Government. I am not sure that the present President knows all the hidden implications of this bill. I would be very much surprised if he did. On the other hand, I do not know.

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

Mr. AIKEN. We cannot keep loading more and more of this work onto the Office of the President.

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

Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr., President, I am delighted that the distinguished Senator from Vermont has indicated some of the reasons why this proposal should not be agreed to. I originally rose to ask the distinguished Senator to undertake to prevail upon the Senator from Ohio, if

·he could, to have the amendment read: "At the approval of . the Pre.sident. so

long as the office is occupied by Dwight D. Eisenhower."

When I read the list of some of the names of those who are being very prominently mentioned in connection with the next Presidency, I shudder to think how this power might be applied if one of such persons were elected. Of course, in the first place the whole matter would be thrown into the political arena immediately. The President would be the one who had the power., and naturally the groups involved in all the recent decisions of the Supreme Court would be seeking candidates for the Presidency and trying to get statements from them as to how they would apply this power, if elected.

Some of the leftwinger groups, who are involved as beneficiaries of the new civil rights which the Supreme Court has created by judicial law, to the detriment of the rights of the people and the rights of the States, and to the destruction of the. rights of local officials such as boards of trustees and State boards of bar examiners and the like, would be very interested in having some leftwinger get the nomination.

Mr. AIKEN. How far left? Mr. RUSSELL. Pardon me? Mr. AIKEN. How far left? Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator would

have to go rather far to get as far as some of those being most prominently mentioned now. I regretfully say that, in connection with the nominations from my own party.

Such groups would undoubtedly get assurance from the candidate, in the form of a statement such as, "No. We will see that the Attorney General protects all these leftwingers. You . fellow travelers and you fifth-amendment takers have nothing to fear from me."

I do not think that issue should be thrown into the political arena or that it should be made a political football. I am confirmed in that faith when I again reflect on the names of those so prominently mentioned as probable candidates for the Presidency in the next election.

Since the Senator from Vermont has risen to the high ground of saying we should not give to one President what another should not have, the purpose for which I originally rose is out of date.

We must remember that when we legislate in these fields we are legislating for the United States of America, and that the statute is supposed to · be in existence throughout all time.

For my part, so far as the recent decisions of the Supreme Court are concerned, I do not propose to put the stamp of my approval on them, even if they are pledged by some candidate for the Presidency ·in the next presidential election. Congress should take some steps to rectify some of the decisions; but if we are too cowardly to do so, too afraid of the political aspects of doing so, and the leftwingers take control, with both of our parties more or less captive, and unable to take action, we can at least refrain from embracing or approving such decisions and saying, "They are within the purview of this statute. We embrace those decisions. We see that

· this judicial law established this new and wondrous set of civil rights in the hands

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12327 of the people, and it shall be maintained and enforced by the Attorney General, or even at the direction of a President."

Congress has a responsibility in the legislative field, Mr. President, and this is a power whiqh should be considered in this critical period of our history, when we are confronted with this great spate of judicial law that is poured from a judicial body to the derogation of our power as a legislative body. We should strike down any proposal to confer power anywhere to deny the Congress the right to review and revoke some of these extreme decisions.

Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

STENNIS in the chair) . Does the Senator from Vermont yield; and, if so, to whom? The Chair understands the Senator from Vermont has the floor. To whom does the Senator yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND] for a question, and then I shall yield to the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE], who, with the permission of the Senate, desires to ask a question of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELLJ.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, remembering the statements made by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] in an interesting debate only a few minutes ago that already in the field of segregated school decisions there have been 22 such cases decided by the Supreme Court, and, as I recall, that 50 cases, or about 50 cases, are approaching decisions, does not the distinguished Senator think it is almost cruel and unusual punishment to tallk about adding the responsibility of checking all that multitude of cases to the duties of a President already confessedly overburdened and carrying the weight of the heaviest office in the world?

Does not the Senator believe it would be unthinkable to impose upon the President that one field, alone, of added jurisdiction and difficulty?

Mr. AIKEN. I should say that enforcement of ·the law in this connection would certainly not be one of the duties of the President, and it should not be imposed upon him.

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

Mr. AIKEN. I ptomised to yield to the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE], and then I will yield the floor. The Senator from Nevada desires to ask a question of the Senator from .Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Such a question would be out of order. Is there objection to the Senator from Vermont yielding to the Senator from Nevada for the purpose of asking a question of the Senator from Georgia? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Nevada may proceed. TRANSFER LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPON•

SIBILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia a question.

The Senator from Georgia is complaining about transferring legislative power to the Executive.

Mr. RUSSELL. That was not the main burden of my argument. What I

was really discussing, to be frank about it, was the usurpation of legislative authority and power by the judicial branch of the Government.

Mr. MALONE. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Georgia: Has it not been customary, for the past 24 years, for the legislative branch continually to transfer to the executive branch its constitutional responsibility to regulate the economic affairs of the Nation?

Mr. RUSSELL. There has been far too much of that. I think perhaps in some instances in years gone by I have been particeps criminis with respect to some of such actions. Such a transfer should not be made. However, there has never been a bill before the Senate which proposed a grant of power so great as that proposed by the pending measure, without at least some legislative standards for its enforcement. In this case we are not prescribing any standards. It is proposed to delegate the power to the Attorney General in the first instance, or to the President, if the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] is approved, to define and declare what is a civil i·ight. We are authorizing him, at the taxpayers' expense, to proceed before the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court declare such right"; an·d, before the Supreme Court has everi made such a decision, we are embracing the so-called right here today, and providing this very unusual procedure for its enforcement. It is the most monstrous proposal in the way of delegation of power that has ever been suggested, be~ cause it contains no definition and no limitation except what the Attorney General might propose or the Supreme Court might decide.

For my part, I am not willing to risk such a procedure. I would not venture into this field, even if it did not involve the integration of schools or intermingling of the children of the two races. I would be opposed to it as a matter of policy. It would be a complete surrender by the Congress of its power to legislate.

Mr. MALONE. Reviewing the legislation of the past 24 years-because this process did not start yesterday; it is not beginning today, but it started 24 years ago-does not the Senator believe that by transferring the constitutional responsibility of Congress to the Executive, to independent commissions, and to a multitude of organizations, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at Geneva, with 34 competitive foreign nations regulating our foreign trade and national economy, which is the constitutional responsibility of Congress, we have brought about an intolerable situation and to understand the result after two and one-half decades, we must take a look at the entire picture by adding up all the transfers of Congressional constitutional responsibilities, and reestablish a principle by action of the Congress? Beginning with the Senate, does not the Senator believe that we should establish the principle of taking back the constitutional responsibilities we have transferred to the Executive?

· I would go one step further, let me say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I ask if he agrees with me that there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which provides that the administrative authority of the Government, the Executive, shall write the legislation and send it to Congress?

Mr. RUSSELL. That is a vice into which we have fallen. It should be the rule that every bill presented to Congress should spell out, in terms which the average man can understand, what it is proposed to do by the bill.

When we leg.islate delegations of power by cross-references, sometimes we are 'hard put to it to defend ourselves in voting for a bill which we think is being enacted for one purpose, only to find that it has been applied and administered for other purposes. We should spell out the purpose of proposed legis· lation. Many of the States have provisions in their State constitut.ions requiring such procedure. I think the State of Pennsylvania has a rule that a proposed law must spell out in explicit terms what it is proposed to do, so that any citizen of the Commonwealth can read and understand it. · We have before us a bill which all the Members of the House and Members of the Senate have read, but we still do not know what it proposes to accomplish. We are trying to shore it up by legislating on the floor of the Senate.

Let me say to my friend from Nevada that the bill is called a civil-rights bill. When we consider the scope of the Supreme Court decisions, we find that the provision we are now discussing is a civil-wrongs bill. It would do irreparable injury to local officials, local laws, and people who do not enjoy the special 1·ights which have been created. Men rally to its support, because it bears the label "civil-rights bill." We might as well call a mess of stale -tripe which one could smell across the room sweet attar of roses, as to call this provision a civil-rights provision. It would do more violence to civil rights, and create more civil wrongs than would be compensated for by any civil rig·hts which could possibly be weighed against the hal'm it would do.

Mr. MALONE. Let me say to the Senator from Georgia that in my State of Nevada we are very careful to protect the right to vote of every citizen. We are also very much concerned that the legislative branch of the three-branch Government should retain its constitutional responsibility. So in the future I think we should join in repealing the legislation which transferred much of the legislative responsibility to the Executive, and in the future we should be very careful not to transfer any further authority by legislation.

Furthermore, we should revert to the status of the old-'time Senate, which had the guts to say, when the President delivered a message on the state of the Union, that the Senate and the House should write their own legislation.

Follow the mandate of the constitution.

Mr. RUSSELL. I shall be very happy to join the Sepator from Nevada and as· sociate myself with any Senator who will

12328 <;:ONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22 __

seek to recapture some of the lost legislative powers which have all but subordinated the legislative branch of the Government to the other branches. with which it is supposed to be coequal.

However, I must say to my friend from Nevada that at the present time I am engaged in trying to prevent a delegation of powers under the terms of the pending bill which if made would end all legis-lative powers. If the Senator from Nevada will associate himself with me in this effort, and enable us to resist the proposed delegation of powers, which is broader than the ocean and higher than the sky-it is as broad as the horizonwe shall very much appreciate his support. It is proposed to delegate to the Attorney General the power to establish and declare what are civil rights, and it is proposed to embrace whatever the Supreme Court may declare to be a civil right.

It is said that the old system in this country, under which an American citizen maintained his rights by bringing a case himself, will not do. We are told, "We have the Supreme Court decisions, and we are going to allow the Attorney General to intervene, on his own volition, and at the expense of the American taxpayer, and bring suits to enforce all thesecivil rights"-a nebulous mass of imaginary rights-or civil wrongs-which have been perpetrated by the Supreme Court.

Mr. MALONE. I will never vote for cloture to stop debate, unless a war is imminent; and I shall never vote to preclude' a jury trial for any man or woman accused of a criminal act in the United States of America.

A jury trial is a part of our American system of government.

It is good to remember that any weapon a man can use to further his immediate ends can also be used against him.

Mr. RUSSELL. I thank the Senator for that statement.

The section with which we are dealing cannot possibly be made palatable to men who have any respect for the legislative power of government. To attempt to change, alter or modify such a delegation of power on the floor of the Senate by way of amendment merely tends further to confuse the issue.

Mr. President, several amendments have been brought forward. Some of. them have been printed in the RECORD. In some instances the author of an amendment, after reading it, found he could not agree with himself as to what it proposed. He would take it back, and try to rewrite it, and perhaps bring in an entirely new amendment. He would then bring forward that amendment. He would then take that amendment to one group, and they would say, "No, that amendment does not go far enough." Another group would say, "We do not understand this language." Still another group would say, "It should not go that far."

The trouble is that no lawyer however able could undertake to define before the Senate the field covered by section 121 of the bill. It is impossible to determine in advance the position the courts will take in the future, and what impact an undertaking to establish a certain right might hav~ upon the various States, and

upon the various local subdivisions of government, and upon the rights of the masses of the people. I have already referred this afternoon to the case of the school trustees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. STENNIS in the chair). The Senator will suspend for a moment. Persons in the Chamber who are not Members of the Senate or of the House will please take seats in the rear of the Chamber. That is what the seats are for. Such persons are the guests of the Senate, and· they are asked to extend the same courtesy to the Senate that has been extended to them by giving them permission to be on the floor. Those persons are supposed to be on the floor on ofiicial business-although the Chair sometimes d.:>ubts it-and the Chair would ask them. to extend the same courtesy to the Senate that is being extended to them, by remaining quiet in the Chamber. They will please retire to the rear of the Chamber and take their seats.

Mr. RUSSELL. I repeat that it is. impossible to cure this matter with a sprinkling of one little amendment after another, or by a Senator offering one amendment and then withdrawing it, and reo:ffering it in another form later on. I understand that three amendments have been submitted during the last hour or two. The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky has been withdrawn. After he discussed it for a while, he withdrew it for the time being. I say to the Senator from Kentucky that if he will read his amendment very carefully he will perhaps make changes in it before he proposes it again.

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

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. COOPER. I may say to the Sen

ator that I will not make any change in it. I have sent it to the desk to be printed.

Mr. ItUSSELL. I am happy to hear the Senator say that, because I was a little apprehensive when the Senator proceeded to discuss an unprinted amendinent; therefore, I am glad that he will have the amendment printed. I believe we are at least entitled to know the nature of the efforts which are being made by all the Members of the Senate to convince the country that tne mess of stale tripe in .section 121 is heliotrope or attar of roses. I say they will never be able to do that. It is defective beyond all possible repair on the floor of the Senate. . Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? .

Mr. RUSSELL. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. AIKEN. The Senator suggests what might happen if the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] should be adopted. It would leave the President in charge of enforcing the law as it affected schools, social security, labor unions, and so forth, and the Attorney General in charge of the law that affected the voting rights of the people.

Mr. RUSSELL. The Senator is correct. ... Mr. AIKEN. Is that not a sort of split personality in law enforcement?

Mr. RUSSELL. I do not intend to belabor the present Attorney General. He may be doing the best he can with the light he has. I think, however, that sometimes he stands in the shadows a great deal. I do not wish to be too critical of any Attorney General or of any President. At the same time, I do not want any Attorney General or any President to have the power over the American people which this proposal would create. It has no limit. Certainly there is no way the situation can be remedied by these diversionary amendments.

The President of the United States has quite a bit to do now. The history of the bill shows that. For example, he was supposed to have had the Attorney General explain it to him in detail. Nevertheless, at the press conference the President admitted that it had not been explained to him in detail. This is true despite the fact the President must rely on his legal omcer.

When I look down the lane of the years and see the trend of the poljcies of the two major parties, and when I see today millions of average, gardenvariety type of American citizens, Godfearing and taxpaying AmericansA who cannot express themselves on the sub-· ject of recent Supreme Court decisions, I become apprehensive for the futm:e of the United States.

In both parties we find the· tail wag -ging the dog; the leftwing tail of the party wagging the bulk of the conservative and thinking members. We ought not at the behest of such leftwing groups pass any legislation which is so vicious and all embracing as this bill is.

I remember a number of Attorneys General who have been in office since I have been a Member of the Senate. I would be just as critical of some of them as I have been of the present Attorney General, Mr. Brownell. I remember Attorney General Frank Mur-· phy. I would not have trusted Attorney General Frank Murphy with any part of the powers which it is now suggested be given to the Attorney General. Everi without these powers, he would be appearing as amicus curiae in case after case before the Supreme Court, trying to get the Supreme Court to go even further than it has already gone.

I am not impressed by the statement that we must give these powers to the Attorney General in order to protect our people. I remember other Attorneys General. There was Attorney General Biddle, and Clark, and McGranery . Whenever any of the leftwing groups appealed to the Attorney General, he would rush forth and appear in the Supreme Court as amicus curiae. He did not have to be armed with any of the extraordinary powers contained in this bill. He would rush forward to protect fifth amendment Communists. I may say that some of those decisions have been wondrous decisions indeed.

I do not like to deal with the racial ~spect of this situation, but I must say one of the most wondrous of any Supreme Court decision ever written was in the so-called restrictive covenant cases, under which it has been held that people may not contract and stand to.: gether and spend their own money in

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12329 buying property, which -they· could keep, if such action collided with the rights and desires of a Negro citizen.

We have the situation of 20 men who desire to associate themselves together and say, "We will be more congenial and· we will be happier if we buy a tract of land and i! we buiJd our homes on it, and invest our money, with agreement that only those of our own kind shall be our neighbors."

A psychologist probably would tell them that they were wrong about it, and that they would be much happier if they had some Negroes for neighbors. However, one of the great rights of an American citizen is the right to make a mistake. and agreeing that he h·as been wrong, although a psychologist may not agree with that statement.

There we have 20 citizens embarking on that kind of venture. The 20 men act together under a solemn contract, under seal. They pay their money. For €0 years courts have held that that was a solemn contract, and that the right and power to enter such a contract could not be impaired.

Yet now, if 1 of those 20 men became angry with his neighbor and said, "I am going to sell my house in the middle of this subdivision to a Negro citizen; I am going to get even with you," he could do that under the Supreme Court decision. He could sell out the 19 parties to the contract who had put up their money to buy that land. They would be powerless to do anything about it, because the Supreme Court has reversed every one of its former decisions, and has reversed the decisions of the supreme courts of nearly every State in the Union. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that where the rights of the 19 white men collide with the right of the 1 Negro citizen, the 19 citizens, who had entered into a solemn contract, have no rights.

One of those citizens came forward and sued the man who sold the house. 'Ihe Negro citizen was not a party to that case. A white man sued a white man, saying, "He has damaged me by this sale. It has depreciated the value of my prop·erty."

The court held that the plaintiff had no standing in court whatsoever, although he was not suing the Negro. The Negro was not involved ill the case at all, under the 14th amendment. But the white man said he had been damaged.

The court said, in effect, "No; you cannot go before a jury on that question, because we have created this civil right of the Negro citizen to buy, in spite of the contract, in derogation of the rights of the 19 white people, and they are powerless to protect themselves by suing the white man who damaged them."

It might be said that that is a narrow position to take; that we ought to be glad the Supreme Court struck down such contracts. But some of us who went to law school, perhaps too long ago to be able to follow the rapidity of the Court's movements at present, were taught that a signed, sealed, witnessed contract was a rather significant thing, and that the contract of itself conferred certain rights on all the parties to it and that they had rights under the contract.

CIII--775

. Under the present Supreme Comt de-= cisions, a person has not only no right to do anything about the violation of such a contract or to protect his neighbors, so as to provide a neighborhood where they will have only neighbors of their own kind with whom they think they will be more agreeable, at least. They have not that right.

If the bill shall be passed in its present form, we shall be saying to the Attorney General that if any citizens, anywhere, in their desperation try to find some new means to protect their contractual rights from this amazing declaration, although they had a legal contract-the Supreme Court said the contract was perfectly legal-those rights simply cannot be en-forced. _

In other words, in the case to which I referred there was a right without a remedy. That was the position of the Court. The first thing a student learns in law school is that for every wrong there is a remedy. In this case there was a right, but no remedy.

It may be said that it is narrow, that it is bigoted, to criticize the Supreme Court for such a decision. But I think the 150 million white people in this country, whose rights to enter into contracts have been denied by this decision, might hope that someday the Supreme Court will take another look at its decision and might say, "After all, we took away more contractual rights than the rights we created by judicial law"-not legislative law. A right was created by judicial law.

Mr. President, I have seen various types of so-called civil-rights legislation proposed since I have been a Member of the Senate, but I have not yet seen any Member of Congress who had the temerity to introduce a bill which would have ·outlawed the right of men to contract and to live in a community of people of their own kind, if they wanted to d'o so.

But the Court did that; and we are being asked in this bill to underwrite that action of the Court. We are being asked to ratify it. We are asked to approve, in the name of civil rights, the action of the Supreme Court, without any regard whatever for the rights of 150 million white Americans who might desire to enter into contracts, or, indeed, of the rights of any of the 20 million Negro citizens who might wish to enter into contracts-and in my area of the country some of them like to live with their own kind.

If we pass the bill, we shall be telling the Attorney General that if a group of white citizens have entered into this kind of solemn contract, having to do with the conveyance of land, and have met together and have started planning to ask the Court to overturn this decision, or to start proceedings in some way to deny any man the right to violate a contract made by 20 men and as to ·which 1 man has run out, and if the Attorney General has reason to believe that they are about to proceed under the terms of this part of the bill, he can have the Court enjoin them and jail them without a jmy trial, and keep them in jail until they rot or else desist in their design to undertake to enforce their

contractual right, a right which had been held sacred by the courts in hundreds of decisions, until the present supreme Court wiped them all out.

That may be narrow, Mr. President; it may be bigoted. But I think we are going far afield when we say that a man cannot even contract to pay his money to be wrong-wrong in the terms of the psychologist who says that a man will be happier if he has a Negro for his neighbor.

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

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. ERVIN. The Senator from Geor

gia has pointed out very well that under the bill the Attorney General could bring suit at the expense of the taxpayers concerning things which might happen in the futme.

Mr. RUSSELL. We shall be underwriting every decision which the Supreme Court may make in this field when we pass the bill. We shall be telling the Attorney General to move in and prosecute at Federal expense to assure all these new, nebulous rights.

Mr. ERVIN. In addition to looking into the future, I ask the able and distinguished Senator from Georgia if the Attorney General could not invoke the recent decision in the Stephen Girard Trust case, and bring lawsuits to get the Court to write post mortem codicils to the wills of men who have been sleeping in their graves for a hundred years.

Mr. RUSSELL. That, of course, is true. In the old days, a will had great sanctity. Before the advent of the present Supreme Court, it had been a longterm rule of law, from Roman days until modern times, that a court should exert every power and should lean over backward to sustain the intent of a testator in his will. It was believed that however a man made his will, the efforts of courts should be to sustain his will.

In the Girard case, as the Senator from North Carolina has said, the Supreme Court ruled as it did some 125 years after the man died. In effect, the Court exhumed Girard. They did not write a codicil; they broke his will wide open. They exhumed the man and said, "Girard, you are a narrow bigot. You tried to leave your money to establish a school for white orphans. You cannot do that and let the trustees of Philadelphia administer the fund."

That decision stands today. The right of the people of this country, who have worked to accumulate property, to devise their property as they see fit, to leave it in their wills, to distribute it for the purposes for which they wish to expend it, no longer exists.

Under the decision in the restrictive covenant case to which I have referred, if someone left a will--

Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. MARTIN of Pennsylvania. The

Supreme Court of the United States, more than 100 years ago, sustained the Girard will. A distinguished former Member of this body, Daniel Webster, was the attorney who tried to break the will. But after. I think, 8 or 9 days of


constant argument, the will was sus .. tained.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, that was before we got the glories of the modern Court. [Laughter.] That was at a time when the Justices of the su .. preme Court read from the lawbooks, instead of from the works on psychology of a Swedish Socialist who, in the same volume on which the Supreme Court has relied for some of its decisions, declared that the Constitution of the United states was a plot against the masses of the American people.

I was discussing the impact on all the American people of the decision that Senators are asked to make by underwriting the Supreme Court's decisions by passing this bill, and calling it a bill for civil rights.

Mr. President, suppose today a man wished to will his money for the establishment of a. foundling home for white females. Under the decision in the restricted covenant case, he could not even get his will probated, because that would be the exercise of State power to discriminate.

Civil rights. Civil rights. What crimes have been committed by this line of decisions in the sacred name of civil rights. But we are asked, by means of this bill, to underwrite every one of those decisions.

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

Mr. RUSSELL. I yield. Mr. LONG. In the State of Louisiana

if a man sues someone and if he has no basis whatever for suing him, he can be made to pay a 10-percent judgment for filing a frivolous lawsuit. But under the pending measure there would be no such thing; the Attorney General could sue anyone in the United States, and could do so at the expense of all the American taxpayers, and could make people from one end of the country to the other defend themselves; and no matter how ridiculous the suit might be, after the defendants had all the expense of defending themselves, they would have no recourse whatever to get back the cost of defending themselves.

Mr. RUSSELL. That is correct. Mr. President, I wish to observe that

if the trustees under a will leaving a fund for the establishment of a home for white orphan foundlings, undertook to set up such a home, under the provisions of the will, then, under the powers now J?roposed to be granted, the Attorney General could proceed, at the cost of the American taxpayers, to enjoin the trustees, and, if they persisted, could have them put in jail without the benefit of a jury trial; and they would either have to remain there until they agreed not to probate the will, or else they would have to rot in jail.

Mr. President_, I hope I may have the attention of the two distinguished leaders. I should like to ascertain how late the leadership propose to have the Senate remain in session this afternoon.

I hope we have expressed sufficient willingness to have the Senate vote, to be allowed a little indulgence as regards the time, so as to have an opportunity to a;tudy some of the amendments which

have been submitted without being reduced to writing.

I intend to proceed with extreme care in this matter. I do not intend to hold the Senate until a late hour this evening. I hope the leadership will not force the Senate to vote in such a situation. I think my suggestion is fair. We have been here all day. I have undertaken to ·agree to have the Senate vote on one proposal. Now I am asking that the Senate not vote at this time on the pending proposal.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, that will be entirely satisfactory to me. I should like to direct some attention to my amendment. Let me assure the Senator from Georgia that there is no leftwing inspiration in connection with the amendment.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, there was a time when I would have had no suspicion of the sort; but now we have reached such a situation that I am almost suspicious of myself. [Laughter.] I have seen Senators who have been as strong as granite in their defense of the constitutional rights and privileges of citizens, suddenly begin to buckle at the knees in the face of some of the attempts which have been made in connection with this bill.

Mr. BRICKER. My amendment is offered without regard to whether the bill does or does not pass and without regard to the policy which might be established by its passage.

Mr. RUSSELL. Let me assure the Senator from Ohio that I do not claim that his amendment would make part III worse. In fact, there is no way in the world that part III could be made worse than it is now. [Laughter.]

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, is it the will of the leadership that the Senate take a recess at this time, and that the vote on my amendment be taken tomorrow?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I cannot assure Senators that the Senate will vote on these amendments tonight.

As Senators are aware, 3 different proposals to this part of the bill have been made in the last 3 hours. I had hoped unanimous consent could be obtained to have the Senate vote on the amendment which has been the pending question for several days. I do not wish to charge · any Senator with seeking to avoid·a vote on the amendment or with· seeking to prolong the deb?.tte prior to the vote on it or with seeking to filibuster, or anything of the sort. However, it is unusual to have amendments offered and debated and then withdrawn because they were not printed, and then to have another amendment offered and debated, and then to have its consideration go over · to another day. Certainly I do not wish to be responsible for delay.

I had obtained the consent 'of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], and the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND], and the conditional consent of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], to a proposed unanimous consent agreement, when I was confronted with these last 2 amend-

ments-1 offered by the Senator from K,:mtucky [Mr. COOPER] and 1 offered by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER]. These amendments have not been printed.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I shall yield in a moment.

Mr. President, this is the unanimousconsent agreement which was proposed:

Or dered, That, effective on July 23, 195'.7, at the conclusion of routine morning business, during the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 6127), to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of persons, within the jurisdiction of the United States, debate on the AndersonAiken-Case of South Dakota amendment, as modified to strike out section 121 on p age 9, begim;_ing with line 12, shall be limited to 6 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by Mr. ANDERSON and the minority leader, to the exclusion of all other amendments and motions thereto.

I had thought that since the Senate had discussed the amendment for several days, and since the leaders in the respective fields were willing to agree to a time limitation on further debate on the amendment, perhaps it would be possible to obtain a unanimous-consent agreement to have the Senate vote on the amendment, and then to have the Senate take up all the other proposals which might be offered, and to have them called up at their regular times.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I only wish to say

that if it would improve the situation by having the Senate proceed to vote tonigh.t on the Bricker amendment, I would certainly have no objection to having that done at any time the Senate might desire. I only h'ope that if that is done tonight, the Senate will not then proceed, later tonight, to act on other proposals. .

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi .. dent the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Dou~LAS] wished to be sure that if any substitute proposals were made, ample time would be allowed to debate them. I do not think a decision was made on that point this evening. For that reason, I think if would be impossible to obtain such a unanimous-consent agreement. - Mr. President, as I understand the parliamentary situation, an order has been entered that when the Senate takes a recess today, it will stand in recess until 12 o'clock tomorrow; and I understand there is also an order that when the Senate convenes tomorrow, there will be a morning hour, and that at conclusion of the morning hour, the unfinisned business will be laid before the Senate. I understand that at that time the pending question will be on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER], and that debate on that amendment will continue for as long as may suit the convenience of Senators.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. Presiden.t, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yie'!d. Mr. KNOWLAND. I wonder whether

with the approval of the Senator from

/

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12331 Ohio-since there has been some debate this afternoon on his amendment-the yeas and nays can be ordered on the question of agreeing to his amendment, and whether it will be possible to have the Senate enter into a unanimous-consent agreement to vote on his amendment after 1 or 2 hours of further debate.

Mr. BRICKER. Mr. President, it will take me only 10 minutes to say what I wish to say about my amendment; and my remarks will pertain to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I do not think the course proposed by the Senator from California would be quite fair to Members of the Senate who are not now in the Chamber, inasmuch as no notice has been given, and inasmuch as the amendment has not been printed.

The Senator from Kentucky has withdrawn his amendment because it has not been printed.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I was not suggesting that the vote occur tonight.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I understand. But I should like to have the Senators concerned notified. I have spent the day in working on one proposed unanimous-consent agreement. I would not want to have the Senate enter into another one that is proposed just now, without consulting Senators whom I find it necessary to consult.

Mr. COOPER. ~ Mr. President--Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOPER. I think it only fair to say that I do intend to call up my amendment for a vote by the Senate before the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment is voted on. If the Senate desires to continue, I shall be glad to call up my amendment this evening, to be voted on this evening; or, if not, I shall call up the amendment tomorrow.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, on the question of agreeing to the Bricker amendment, I should like to have the yeas and nays ordered; or I shall request the yeas and nays tomorrow.

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. Is it or is it not a fact

that after the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment is voted on, amendments such as that proposed by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CooPER] will be in order, regardless of what the effect of those amendments on the vote on the Anderson amendment would be?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is my understanding. But evidently some ·Members desire to have their amendments voted on before a vote is taken on the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment.

Mr. President-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

·Senator from Texas.

RECESS Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, I now move that the Senate stand

in recess. under the order previously entered.

The motion was agreed to; and Cat 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess, the recess being, under the order previously entered, until tomor:row, Tuesday; July 23, 1957, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATION Executive nomination received by the

Senate July 22 (legislative day of July 8), 1957:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Fred C. Scribner, Jr., of Maine, to be Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice H. Chapman Rose, resigned.

•• •• HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MONDAY, JULY 22, 1957 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,

D. D., offered the following prayer: Eternal and ever-blessed God, we are

entering upon this new week conscious of our need of Thee.

We humbly confess that our human wisdom and strength are unequal to the many tasks which daily confront us.

Inspire us to hear and heed Thy voice and to follow the ways which Thou hast marked out for us, for they are the paths of peace.

Grant that our legislators may understand clearly and appreciate fully that good laws are the principal foundation stone of a great nation.

May we all seek to be law-abiding citizens, worthy and capable of participating in the rights and duties of selfgovernment.

Hear us in Christ's name. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of

Friday, July 19, 1957, 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. Tribbe, one of his secretaries, who also informed the House that on the following dates the President approved and signed bills and joint resolutions of the House of the following titles:

On July 17, 1957: H. R. 1754. An act for the relief of Eleanor

French Caldwell; H. R. 3558. An act for the relief of Ernest

Hagler; · H. R. 4342. An act for the relief of Mrs. Thomas L. Davidson;

H. R. 5728. An act to clarify the general powers, .increase the borrowing authority, and authorize the deferment of interest payments on borrowings, of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation;

H. R. 6191. An act to amend title II of the Social Security Act, as amended, to extend the period during which an application for a disability determination is granted full retroactivity, and for other purposes;

H. R. 7238. An act to give the States an option with respect to the basis for claiming Federal participation in vendor medical-care payments for recipients of public .assistance;

H.J. Res. 288. Joint resolution to waive certain provisions of section 212 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in behalf of certain aliens;

H.J. Res. 290. Joint resolution for the relief of certain aliens;

H.J. Res. 307. Joint resolution for the relief of certain aliens; and

H.J. Res. 316. Joint resolution for the relief of certain aliens.

On July 18, 1957: H. R. 1359. An act for the relief of Mrs.

Theodore (Nicole Xantho) Rousseau; H. R. 2070. An act for the relief of Mrs.

Rhea Silvers; and H. R. 4159. An act for the relief of z. A.

Hardee.

AMENDING MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House insist on its amendments to the bill <S. 2130) to amend further the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes, and ask for a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

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

the request of the gentleman from Missouri. (After a pause.] The Chair hears none and appoints the following conferees: Messrs. GORDON, MORGAN, CARNAHAN, VORYS, and JUDD.

SIXTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON ACTIVITIES UNDER PUBLIC LAW 480-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, together with accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Agriculture and ordered to be printed.

To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith the sixth

semiannual report on activities carried on under Public Law 480, Eighty-third Cong.ress, as amended, outlini~g operations under the act during the period January 1 through June 30, 1957.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. THE WHITE HOUSE, July 22, 1957.

THE LATE KENNETH ROBERTS, OF KENNEBUNKPORT, ME.

Mr. HALE. 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 Maine?

There was no objection. Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, I feel it my

painful duty to announce to the House this morning the death yesterday of my friend, Kenneth Roberts, of Kennebunkport, Me.

Mr. Roberts was known throughout the world as a writer of historical novels which included among others Lively Lady, Arundel, Rabble in Arms, Northwest Passage, Oliver Wiswell, Lydia Bailey, and many others. All of these books were and still are widely read in English and in other languages.

12332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22

Mr. Roberts probably knew as well as any professional historian the years of the American Revolution and the period which preceded it. All of his books drew their inspiration from Mr. Roberts' love of our country and particularly of the Maine countryside.

On a later occasion, I will attempt some more adequate discussion of his life and career. I want to record this morning the sense of my personal sorrow and of the Nation's loss. My sympathy goes particularly to his devoted wife, Anna Roberts, who was his constant collaborator.

POSTAL EMPLOYEES PAY INCREASE Mr. MUMMA. 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 Pennsylvania?

There was no objection. Mr. MUMMA. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to take this opportunity to state my position on the postal pay legislation that is coming up today, since I do not expect to get time during debate.

I hav received visitations and some letters on the subject of the postal pay increase to which I have repeatedly pronounced that I thought the first consideration of this House should ·be the postal rate bill. That is the position I am going to take on -it today. Unless there is some method by ·which we can get the postal rate bill considered first, I am going to vote against a salary increase, not that I am against a raise for the postal employees, especially with the rise in the cost of living. I have on occasions heard their leaders in national affairs tell them not to support General Summerfield in his rate raise. I do not think it is a good attitude to take, nor in the public interest.

POSTAL EMPLOYEES' PAY INCREASE Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.

Speaker, under clause 4, rule XXVII of the House, I call up motion to discharge No. 2, to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 249, providing for the consideration of the bill <H. R. 2474) to increase the rates of basic compensation of officers and employees in the field service of the Post Office Department.

The SPEAKER. Did the gentleman from Louisiana sign the petition?

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was No. 1.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I make the.point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. ·

A call of the House was ordered.

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to answer to their names:

Anderson, Mont.

Avery Baker Beamer Boggs Boykin Boyle Byrne, Ill. Celler Clark Collier Coudert

[Roll No. 150) Davis, Tenn. Dawson, Ill. Dorn, N. Y. George Gordon Gregory Holtzman James Kluczynski Knox Laird Lesinski Mailliard

Metcalf Miller, N. Y. Moss O'Brien, Ill. Pillion Porter Powell Preston Staggers Teller Thompson, N. J. Wilson, Ind. Yates

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 392 Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further pr6-ceedings under the call were dispensed with.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. THOMPSON] is recognized for 10 minutes. If any member of the Committee on Rules desires to be recognized in opposition, the Chair will recognize him. Otherwise he will recognize the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES].

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be-permitted to extend their remarks in the RECORD during general debate.

The EPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection. Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr.

Speaker, I should like to thank sincerely the Members of this body who have signed this motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of H. R. 2474.

As you know, there is only 20 minutes of debate allowed on this motion, which is in effect the rule,· for House Resolution 249 merely gives the House an opportunity, as was intended by those who signed the petition, to have full debate on and the opportunity to dispose of this greatly needed postal employees pay bill.

It has been decided by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service · that there will be an across-the-board increase of $546. The vote in the committee was overwhelming. The wisdom of voting for this discharge motion today, I am sure, is recognized by all of you.

I regard it as a high privilege to have introduced this resolution as the first step to provide a reasonable-in fact, a most modest-salary adjustment for our 500,000 postal field service employees. -

I might observe, also, that once again, as so often in the past, the House is considering postal salaries under conditions which find those charged with responsibility for operating the postal establishment-and for maintaining sound personnel policies-opposing any pay adjustment whatever for their employees. While I acknowledge the existence of this steadfast opposition, I am frank to say that I have given it what in

my judgment· is its proper evaluation and find my convictions unswayed.

To set the record straight, I am convinced that the $546 increase in postal salaries provided by this legislation is a minimum flgure. · Personally, I feel that the postal employees have amply demonstrated, and the facts of record clearly prove, that we are understating, not overstating, their needs in settling for this figure.

Postal employees are entitled to a pay increase that will bring them up to parity with salaries of employees with comparable responsibilities in private industry. They must regain a great deal of lost ground in maintaining a decent standard of living. They certainly have the right to share in the improved standards of living which our Nation has been blessed. I do not feel that they can accompli~.h these ends fully by the minimum increase now before the House, but at least it will help them keep abreast of the tremendous increases in the cost of living and in the prices they must pay for necessary commodities that are causing real hardship among them at their present inadequate salary rates.

This is a matter of simple justice. For one thing, it will give some recognition in the form of adequate pay-which apparently they cannot obtain willingly from the Post Office Department-for their fine record of increased productivity.

Now it is all very well for officials to claim that the· increased productivity of 17 percent in the past 6 years is due to improved management. But we all know that the greatest manager in the world has not figured out a way to deliver a letter and place it in the mail slot in a homeowner's door by pushing a button, preparing a chart, or issuing a regulation. This can only be done by a car-1·ier, that is, a trained and experienced employee operating-in the field where the action takes place. He represents postal service to the 48 million homeowners and the million or more businessmen who daily have the benefit of his loyal and efficient service. I daresay that the overwhelming majority of these people appreciate his services considerably more than do those who presently oppose an adequate salary to compensate him for his efforts.

To my knowledge, when we consider the many impediments, the outmoded fa .. cilities, and the consistent opposition to adequate pay that has met the postal employee's best efforts, his record of increased productivity is without parallel in private industry.

There is no escaping the fact that a good measure of responsibility for lagging postal salary levels can be laid squarety at our own doors. These rates of compensation are set by the Congress, but we have failed in recent years to measure up to our responsibility and give the employees the recognition they deserve through establishing and maintaining their pay at the proper level. Recent history of postal-pay legislation has been characterized by adjustments that are too little and too late. By the time the employees go through the long and

, I

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12333 harassing experience of obtaining Congressional action-as, for example, the period in 1953 and 1954 when they were left holding the bag-and Congress does approve a pay raise, often the parade has passed them by. The amount of the increase leaves the employees still a year or two behind in the economic scale.

That is one of the critical reasons for prompt action in this session of Congress. If we do not act now, what we do next year will be outdated and may be used at a later time to further confuse the issue and again delay a justified pay increase or reduce it far below the amount it should be.

I am deeply concerned also, and I am sure my concern is shared by other Members of the House, at the damaging effect of backward pay policies on postal services. There is real feeling throughout the country that our postal service -is slipping badly. The postal operation, more than any other in Government or private industry, is an operation performed by individuals-500,000 of them. Some 82 percent of postal expenditures go to pay postal personnel. Clearly maximum efficie_ncy of personnel is the one essential ingredient of effective postal service. It takes no personnel expert to realize that morale, in turn, is the one essential ingredient for effective performance by personnel. Again, and it certainly is no reflection on the workers involved, the golden key to high morale is adequate compensation. How, then, can we create and maintain this strong chain of morale and efficient performance with the most important link-adequate pay-missing?

I cannot help but feel that the arguments of inflationary pressure and budgetary limitations are specious. To deny postal employees the salary increases they have earned would be pennywise and pound foolish.

The cost of this bill, estimated at $279 million, is no small sum, but it is minute in relation ·to the record $71.8 billion peacetime budget for the current fiscal year. It is completely warranted in the light of benefits it will bring to the postal service as well as our responsibility to treat our postal employees fairly and recognize that they, too, have their own pressing obligations to meet.

And so, I urge the Members of the House to adopt House Resolution 249, and then to approve the postal pay bill, H. R. 2474. This bill will provide a very moderate and entirely justified increase for postal workers so that they may make up some of the ground they have lost in attempting to keep their proper place with other American workers in our expanding economy. Unless we take immediate action they will become even more firmly entrenched in the unfortunate category of second-class citizens.

I am confident that adoption of the rule and approval of the bill will receive the overwhelming endorsement of not only postal employees but, also, the people of the United States.

I appreciate your efforts to help us bring this bill to the floor, and I hope the resolution will be adopted in as short a time as possible.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to oppose the rule, but I would like to call attention to the manner in which this legislation comes to the ftoor of the House. Let me say that I know as well as other Members do that everyone who signed the petition was within his rights. I understand 191 Members, according to the letter from the gentleman from Louisiana, signed the petition for H. R. 2474 that provides for an increase in salaries approximately averaging about $1 ,600 across the board ranging from $1,500 to $1,800. Then, after the 191 had signed, according to the letter from the gentleman from Louisiana, 218 signatures were secured on that petition and that action brings this legislation to the floor of this House.

I just want to say, I hope you will listen very carefully to the discussion today. There will only be 2 hours for general debate and then there will be amendments offered.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I have

asked the gentleman to yield to me for the simple purpose of stating to the House and for the RECORD that although this petition is to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of this bill that the bill has never been before the Committee on Rules.

Mr. REES of Kansas. The gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HALLECK. I am glad that the gentleman from Kansas took this time in order that the membership may know, as he is telling the membership, just what transpired. As the gentleman from Mississippi said the discharge petition was filed to discharge the Committee on Rules on May 6. The legislative committee had not acted on the bill. The purpose of the discharge petition was to bypass the :Legislative committee and also the Committee on Rules who had no opportunity to act upon the measure to bring the matter to the floor. The discharge petition was filed on May 15 within a very few days after the filing of the rule. Of course, the ft.ling of the rule, which was referred to the Committee on Rules, had to be filed first in order that it be before the Committee on Rules. I would just like to supplement what the gentleman from Kansas said. The bill with reference to which the majority of the Members signed the discharge petition in this fashion called for the ultimate enactment of a pay raise running from $1,500 to $1,800 for each employee at an overall cost of over $1 billion a year, and that at a time when a rate bill still is not before us, and when many who seem to be the most vigorous in support of pay raises are most vigorous in opposing rate increases. That increase is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers and not out of the pockets of the people who pay to use

the postal facilities because already the Post Office Department is in the red to the extent of something over $500 million. So, obviously, whatever increase is voted will necessarily have to come out of the taxpayers' pockets generally. Now I have voted for a lot of legislation for postal employees in years past, and if I continue to be here, I probably shall vote for some more, but I think it might as well be understood that this measure, as I see it, is not in line with administration policy. Perhaps, that will not make much difference so far as its passage here is concerned. What will ultimately be the figure, nobody knows, but I do think everyone ought to start out with a fair understanding of just what is before us.

Mr. REES of Kansas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make 2 or 3 more statements. One is that the chairman of our committee did not have the chance to appear before the Committee on Rules because the petition was already on the Clerk's desk.

An amendment was proposed by the distinguished· gentleman from Louisiana, which will be considered a little later on. It is a lump-sum, across-the-board $546, for all postal employees, except that it is less for rural carriers and fourth-class post offices. That I understand will cost $320 million a year.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HALLECK. As many Members know, I do not sign discharge petitions; but, in respect to a motion to discharge, after 218 Members have signed such discharge petition, it has been my belief that there is nothing to do except to support the motion to discharge the committee, although certainly that would have no bearing upon what ultimately might be a Member's position on final passage of a bill.

Mr. REES of Kansas. At the proper time I shall expect to offer a substitute for the committee amendment which, in substance, · provides for a 5-percent increase for postal employees, with some increase in the starting grades in the Post Office Department. I will not take the time to explain that at this time.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield. Mr. BECKER. I want to get one thing

straight. If we vote this rule, irrespective of the statement of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. THOMPSON] about amendments to be submitted later, we are actually voting on a rule to bring out the bill H. R. 2474, calling for an increase of $1,500 across the board. Is that correct?

Mr. REES of Kansas. That is substantially correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMITH].

Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I did not claim the time for the Rules Committee f o~ consideration of this rule, but I do want to say a few words about the parliamentary situation under the


rules under which we now operate with these discharged petitions.

A petition can be filed for a bill that has not received consideration by a legislative committee, has not received consideration by the Rules Committee, and without any notice to the Rules Commitee or of any request of the Rules Committee. That is what happened in this case. , The Rules Committee was never asked for a rule. I do not know whether the Rules Com~ mittee would have given a rule if they had been asked for it. Certainly I should not be in favor of passing up the privileges of the Committee on Post Of-:fice and Civil Service which should first pass upon the legislative bill. It is an awkward situation. In my judgment it is an unfortunate situation that the rules are framed as they are. The proof of that is the fact that in all the time since this rule has been on the books, 1932, and the number o~ petitions that have been filed and committees discharged from their legislative functions and the Rules Committee discharged without ever having been asked for a rule, of all those cases that have arisen in the last 25 years only 1 piece of legislation has ever been passed upon by the Senate and signed by the President. So I think we are doing a very futile thing in what we are doing, and I think it should be considered by the legislative committee which is very sympathetic toward postal employees, and a good piece of legislation that people can conscientiously support should be forthcoming. There are some of us who cannot conscientiously support this piece of legislation. I happen to be one of them. If relief is needed and if relief is expected to be had, we had better go about it in the regular way and get out a bill that people can conscientiously support, rather than doing what you are doing this morning, which is to put out a bill which will pass this House and which I do not have the faintest doubt will be vetoed, and these people who say they need an increase just will not get any.

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DAvisJ.

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this discharge petition was filed on May 6. I did not sign it then because at that time the legislation bad not gone before our committee, the Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service. I felt that that committee should give careful study and consideration to an important matter of this kind, and our committee did that. We heard all of the witnesses who wanted to be heard both from the administration and from the postal employees. After giving it careful study and thought the committee by a majority vote-and a good majority-voted out a bill to give the postal employees a $546 increase across the board.

After that was done and after no steps were being taken to have the bill come before the House I concluded, and I think justly and properly concluded, that the only opportunity which would be given the membership during this session of Congress to vote on a postal pay increase would be to bring it out through the method of a discharge petition.

Therefore on July 9, I believe it was, after the bill had been reported out favorably by the Committee on Post Office and the Civil Service I signed this discharge petition, and my number was 185. Within a couple of days the 218 Members had signed, and it is before us today.

The bill upon which the discharge petition was filed will not be the bill upon which the membership will vote. The bill which was reported favorably by the committee will be the bill on which the vote will be taken. It provides a flat $546 increase across the board. That is not a tremendous increase, but it is an increase which I think will just about bring the postal employees up with the employees in private industry. Since 1952, employees in private industry have received increases in pay amounting to approximately 18.5 percent. Postal em"." ployees in that time have received a 6-percent increase. This increase will bring them up just about to the 18.5 percent which people in private industry have received.

This is the only opportunity the postal employees will have to obtain a raise They are affected by high prices just as are the employees in private industry. I think the postal employees deserve an increase. If you do not think this figure is correct, possibly down the line somewhere the correct figure may be put into the bill, but certainly they are entitled to an increase and this is the only opportunity they will have to get it.

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT].

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable discussion here this afternoon about the nature of the procedure under which we are operating and about the fact that we have not considered a rate bill in this body to date. Let me report to you that the House Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service reported a rate bill last May 23. To date, as the chairman told me when I interrogated him last week, he had not yet requested a rule from the Rules Committee.

Now, then, we passed a rate bill out with a substantial majority, and despite all this talk and confusion we know the practical facts of the matter are, as the gentleman from Georgia just stated, if we wanted a consideration of these bills we had to utilize the discharge petition because of the parliamentary roadQlocks that were in the way. I know that year after year after year since 1945 instead of the Bureau of the Budget, the committee and the representatives of the employees getting together and negotiating and trying to find out the right thing to do, we have had to have these trials by strength. Instead of getting the right answers we are getting answers that come out of conflict. It is not the right way to legislate and, believe me, I say the folks who signed the discharge petition are not the ones who are to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves. They need not apologize for what they have done. Someone else is clearly to blame.

Two things are eminently clear. Some adjustment in these salaries is both

necessary and desirable. It is just too oad that we cannot arrive at the right answer through proper procedure.

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON].

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, this bill provides for a .flat $546 salary increase across the board for postal field service employees.

· This means approximately $10.50 per week and 26 cents per hour for those on an hourly basis.

In our committee, while the discharge petition was pending-before the hearings started-we heard every witness who asked to appear before the committee. In fact, all of the postal organizations were heard and 93 Members of Congress either appeared personally or submitted statements in support of this legislation.

The committee was not in complete agreement at the beginning on $546. Some of us wanted more, and some wanted less. Frankly, and in all fairness, this was the figure arrived at and it was a compromise. It will equal an overall pay raise of about 12.5 percent.

The statement is made that this is inflationary. Well, it is not actually inflationary, Qr as much so as suggested by the opponents of the bill, for the reason that the cost of this increase of $546 to the postal workers is approximately $279 million or four-tenths of 1 percent of the budget recommendations for this year. From 1951 to date the postal employees-and we take level 4 because that is where 70 percent of them are-have received an increase in these 6 years of approximately 7 percent, whereas in many industries the workers have received an increase over this period of time of as much as 30 percent.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that last week the Members of this body authorized over $3 billion in foreign aid. In one breath the opponents of this bill say it is inflationary, that it is going to cost too much, but if you consider the budget recommendation for foreign aid and the manner in which the House cut down the amounts, the reduction will more than take care of the $279 million cost involved in this bill.

I believe I can argue on a sounder basis that this is an economy measui·e in that the present turnover in postal employees exceeds 100,000 a year-about 20 percent-and it is estimated that approximately 50 percent or 50,000 of those turnovers aTe due to insufficient pay.

According to the Hoover Commission report and recommendation it costs the Government $3,000 to indoctrinate a new employee, which alone would mean a saving of $150 million if postal employee turnover is reduced by only one-half as a ·result of approval of the $546 pay raise in this bill. This would go a long way toward paying the $279 million cost of the $546 increase provided by the reported bill. ·

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana has expired. All time has expired.

The question ·is on the motion of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. THOMPSON] that the Committee on Rules be

1957. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12335 discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 249 providing for the consideration of the bill H. R. 2474.

The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the resolution. The Clerk read as follows: ResoZVed, 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. 2474 to incre'ase the rates of basic compensation of officers and employees in the field service of the Post Office Department, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 2 hours to be equally divided and controlled . by the author of the bill .and a Member who is opposed to said bill 1'._o be design_ated by the Speaker; the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration o{ 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. This special order shall be a continuing order until the bil~ is finally disposed of. ,

The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to. The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the pro

visions of House Resolution 249, the Chair designates the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY] to control the time in opposition to the bill H. R. 2474.

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. M~·. 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. 2474) to increase the rates of basic compensation of officers and employees in the field service of the Post Office Department.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself

into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 2474, with Mr. MILLS 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. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I

yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. Chairman, it is only fair that the

Members of the House be informed of the reasons for my support of H. R. 2474, as reported from your Post Office and Civil Service Committee. The reported bill as amended, provides a $546 salary increase for all postal :field service employees except' rm:al carriers and fourtl}class postmasters, who would ;receive a 12-percent salary increase.

In my judgment-and it is amply supported by the record-our postal employees clearly have established their right to an increase considerably above the $546 :figure. I introduced H. R. 2474 for that purpose. At the same time, I recognize that other factors have been injected into consideration of postal pay legislation which, as a matter of practicality, will require settlement _for _a figure somewhat lower than I belleve is justified.

My view that a pay increase well above the $546 provided by the reported bill is warranted, remains unchanged. But I am willing in a spirit of compromise to agree to a reasonable and practical settlement in the interest of immediate action · to relieve the truly desperate plight of hundreds of thousands of postal employees. That is why I am supporting the $546 increase recommended by the overwhelming majority of your Post Office and Civil Service Committee in the reported bill.

Mr. Chairman, prompt action is imperative so that the postal employees may have the salary increases they deserve before this session of Congress ends. It is my c·onsidered opinion that an emergency situation of unprecedented proportions now exists within the postal field service. Almost daily we hear predictions, from those charged with the responsibility for conduct of the postal establishment, that postal service of one kind or another will have to be curtailed. Basically, the reason assigned is increasing costs. Yet, at the same time, they appear blind to the fact that the postal workers-without whom not one letter or package would move-likewise are faced with ever-rising costs and do not have the unlimited resources of our great Government to fall back on when they must have additional income.

This present situation is an emergency not only for the employees, but for the postal service itself. What we have been proud to call the greatest communication system in the world shows definite evidence of deterioration-a falling off of quality of service that is linked directly, at least in good part, to inadequate salary scales. I can tell them that there is no measure they could take which would· be more helpful ·to improve service than to give evidence of their sincerity by support of, rather than opposition to, adequate salaries. The employees, to a man or woman, would respond with redoubled efforts. They, too, are proud of the service. But they also have an obligation to themselves and to their families. POSTAL SALARIES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF

THE CONGRESS

I ask the Members of the House to consider, at the outset, the position of our postal employees in respect to their earnings. They do not have-and do not want-the right to take certain actions available to employees in private industry to enforce their salary requests; They must rely entirely on the Congress and, I am sure, feel th.at .their trust is well placed. . They look to the Congres& to provide them a fair da,y's pay in return for a fair day's work. In short, they must rest their case with us.

I am confident that this Congress will again demonstrate, bY overwhelming approval of this legislation, that we are keeping faith with our postal employees.

The record is conclusive proof of the right of postal employees to this $546 salary increase, as a minimum. Extensive hearings before the Post Office and Civil Service Committee developed persuasive reasons showing the necessity of pay increases at this time.

Unfortunately, in the past 5% years the Congress has not been ·as responsive as it was earlier to the just requests of postal employees for pay revisions. In the preceding period, from 1946 through 1951, they received annual salary increases totaling $1,370. From January 1952 to the present they have received a woefully inadequate basic salary increase of only 6 percent which became effective more than 2 years ago, on March 1, 1955.

During this 5 %-year period industrial workers in many of the major industries received approximately 18.6 percent increases in pay as compared to the postal worker total of 6 percent. INCREASED COSTS AFFECT EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS

THE POSTAL SERVICE

In the 3% years between the 1951 pay raise and the 1955 pay raise the cost of living, according to the Bure·au of Labor St atistics, increased 3.07 percent. In the 2 % yeats since, it has spiraled upward more than 4% percent. It shows no evidence of stopping its upward curve.

Now, this cost increase is directly related to the problems of the postal service, and is so argued ~hen postal officials want to increase postal rates or decrease postal services. Yet, almost in the same breath, they reject any consideration of its effect on their employees. It is as much as to say that rising costs affect them, and thus the Congress shouid give them more money to carry out their responsibilities-but that the same cost increases have no effect on their 500,000 employees who should be satisfied to struggle along at their same

' old inadequate salaries. Much has been said about improved

management in postal service in recent years. I submit that one evidence of bad management in any enterprise is to be c'ompletely out of step in salary and' other personnel matters. Your postal management is out of step with management in private enterprise, at least so far as concerns salaries for its employees.

Since 1952, average hourly straighttime earnings of employees in manufacturing industries have increased 18.6 percent. The 6 percent salary increase grudgingly given postal employees in the same period certainly suffers in comparison. Clearly, on this basis if on no other, the increase provided _by the reported bill, an average of 12 % percent, is fully justified.

Witnesses representing organizations of postal employees testiped and submittea P.rQof th.at thousands upop thousands of postal employees must seek additional outside employment, or have their wives or children work, in order to make ends meet and support their families. It should be noted that postal employees are family people. I believe that a larger proportion of them are married and raising families than in any other large segment of Government or private industry. The family still is the keystone of our economy and our Nation. FRINGE BENEFITS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR ADEQUATE

PAY

Fringe benefits provided pootal employees in recent years have been put forth by opponents of this legislation as

\ 12336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22

justification for denying Postal employees a pay increase. Congress never intended, and has not approved, fringe benefits with any idea thaot they be considered as a substitute for adequate compensation. No grounds exist for such an erroneous impre ion. As a matter of fact, the two most important fringe benefits-retirement and group life insurance-have substantially reduced the take-home pay of postal employees. The Congress clearly intended to provide these and other -fringe benefits because they are deserved and bring the personnel policies of the Government more nearly in line with most of private industry. POSTAL LABOR SHORTAGE DIRECTLY RELATED TO

INADEQUATE PAY

Government representatives presented a number of st&tistical charts in an attempt to show that the postal service is not having a di:tncult time retaining and recruiting qualified employees. What t):ley did not say was that these statistics generally compare the postal service and all private manufacturing industry. This is not a valid comparison. It lumps together all private manuf acturing industries, whether good or bad, and whether advanced or backward, in personnel and pay policies. The only rea.sonable comparison would be between the postal service and those major private enterprises which have established a record of progressive and attractive personnel and pay policies-such as we certainly should have in the Federal Government.

Faoilure of postal salaries to keep pace with those in private industry have made it extremely di:tncult, and often impossible, for postmasters in all parts of the country to retain career employees or recruit new personnel.

I will cite one example, which I am sure is typical of the experience of many Members of the House. The largest city in the district I represent is Baton Rouge-a city not classified as having a critical labor shortage. Yet, the postal service constantly is advertising on both television and radio, asking people please to seel{ positions at the post o:tnce because they do not have su:tncient personnel to carry on the operation of the Baton Rouge post o:tnce at this time. Leading private industries in Baton Rouge, on the other hand, report that they have a wealth of talent available for their positions, with many applications on file that cannot be accepted, and that their career employees are anxious to stay with them. The di:tnculty facing the postmaster obviously is caused by the fact that private industries are paying far higher wages than the post o:tnce and thereby attracting all of the young people to industry rather than the post o:tnce.

Furthermore, the Postmaster General himself pointed out, during the hearings, the need for an increase in the entrance salary for clerks and carriers in many post offices. He stated, and I quote:

Now, much has been said, as I started to say, about this big turnover. It is true that we have it. But it can be corrected to a major degree by a very simple piece of legislation, the identical legislation that was passed by the 83d Congress giving the classi-

fied workers, through the authority giv~n to the Civil Service Commission, the opportunity to adjust starting levels in critical areas where there ls labor shortage or excessively high rates of pay in comparison to the Post Office Department.

The reported bill will provide a modest salary increase of $10.50 a week-26% cents an hour-for most postal employees, and will permit the entrance salary for most positions in the postal service to be increased from $3,660 to $4,206 a year. This would answer theneed pointed out by the Postmaster General. POSTAL EMPLOYEES ARE VICTIMS, NOT CAUSES,

OF INFLATION

The principal objection to a postal pay increase that has been interposed by the Post Ofiice Department and the Bureau of the Budget is the claim that it will set off intl.ationary pressures which will damage our economy or raise the cost of living. The great majority of our committee members agree that, on the contrary, this modest pay increase will help reduce the heavy debts and obligations of postal employees who are now forced into credit financing for many of the commodities they purchase.

It has been well said before our committee that refusal to provide adequate incomes on the ground that increases will be intl.ationary is like suggesting that a victim of appendicitis operate on himself. These postal employees, working for fix(,d incomes set and controlled by the Congress, are the defenseless victims of inflation that has come about through no doing of theirs. They merely ask to be relieved of the unfair and excessive portion of the economic pressure caused by intl.ation which has fallen to their lot because of their salaries lagging so far behind our expanding economy. POSTAL SALARY INCREASES LAG BEHIND PRICES

AND INDUSTRY PAY

During the past 6 years, while postal employees received a meager 6 percent basic salary increase, industrial employees have received several rounds of wage increases and private industry has enjoyed recordbreaking profits. Prices of all basic commodities to the consumer likewise have been increased repeatedly. Just last month the United States Steel Corp. announced an average $6-a-ton steel price increase and other steel companies undoubtedly will take similar action.

The question, therefore, is not whether this pay increase will in some remote way contribute to inflation-and in my opinion it will not-but, rather, how the postal employee is to meet the tremendously increased living cost already forced on him, and how the postal establishment is to maintain a reason .. able standard of service without granting adequate pay adjustments to the employees. Surely, the laborer is worthy of his hire. Frankly, I consider these arguments about the intl.ationary effect of a postal pay raise as a bogeyman that simply does not exist. Based on current economic trends, most authori .. ties agree that our Nation will continue to enjoy economic growth and prosperity. A Nation that this year can afford the l~rgest peacetime budget in

history, a Nation that is wealthy enough to give billions of dollars each year to other countries, certainly is able to spend four-tenths of 1 percent of its budgetrepresenting the $279 million cost of the reported bill-for a well-deserved pay increase for its postal employees. We will receive in return a great deal more in the way of improved postal service, through ability to retain and recruit topnotch workers in the postal establishment. PAY RAISES WILL NOT DISTORT POSTAL PAY

SCHEDULES

Another bugaboo raised by opponents of this legislation is the claim that it will distort the postal pay schedule and the relationship between the various levels of salaries and the duties and responsi-1bilities of positions. This does not hold water. If there be any distortion, it is caused solely by artificial compression from the top, that is, by refusal to raise the salaries of the comparatively few higher level positions to where they should be in relation to the duties and responsibilities. We have had a ceiling clamped on to keep the top salaries at a certain level, and now this is being used as an argument to keep salaries at the lower levels-where the great majority of employees work-below a fair and reasonable wage. The rank and file employees, the 350,000 clerks and carriers and rural carriers who actually move the mails, should not be penalized in this manner. There will be no distortion of pay schedules or position ranking caused by this bill. It merely 'brings the lower salaries more nearly into line with what they should be and extends this principle through higher levels so far as is practical.

It is pointed out also, in this connection, that when the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 was enacted the Postal Field Service Schedule, approved by the Post Ofiice Department, provided a top salary of $14,800 in level 20. The starting salary for the clerks and carriers, in level 4, was $3,660. Last year, in Public Law 854, the top salary was increased by $1,200, to $16,000, and levels 18 and 19 were given comparable increases. Yet the starting salary for the clerks and carriers remains today at $3,660. Assuming that the Post O:tnce Department was correct in its original approval of the $14,800 ceiling, as related to salaries for lower levels, then it follows that at least proportionate increases should have been- given to all levelsinstead of just the top 3-to prevent distortion when Public Law 854 was approved.

INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY JUSTIFIES SALARY

INCREASES

Increased productivity of postal employees never has, in my recollection of many years of service on the Post O:tnce and Civil Service Committee, been acknowledged by responsible administration officials as a factor in affecting pay adjustments. This is at least as important a factor in salary determinations as budgetary considerations, changes in costs of living, and other matters that have been given weight in the committee consideration of postal pay raises.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12337 In the past 6 years-when their basic

salaries have increased only 6 percentpostal employee productivity has increased by an amazing 17 percent. In the past 4 years, the volume of mail handled has increased about 15.5 percent. Next year's postal budget provides for a man-hour increase of only 4.1 percent above 1953, although the volume increase will continue and probably accelerate even further. Further, the entire man-hour increase represents carrier service, caused by extended delivery requirements in mushrooming urban and suburban areas-a factor largely beyond control in terms of increased productivity. There are only so many miles that can be walked and so many homes that can be served in a working day. More carriers are needed to cover more miles and more homes. In short, the full volume increase has been shouldered substantially by the employees without any comparable increase in man-hours.

In many private industries the productivity factor alone, with such a magnificent record of accomplishment, would fully justify the modest pay raise provided by the reported bill.

RURAL CARRIER PAY ADJUSTMENT

I will say at this point that I intend to offer an amendment to equalize the increase for rural carriers at $546, at an appropriate time in the proceedings today.

POSSIBILITY OF VETO NOT CONTROLLING

The threat of a veto, whether it has been made or will be made, should not influence this Congress. In 1954 President Eisenhower refused to sign a 5 percent pay increase bill for postal employees, then the following year recommended a 5 percent basic salary increase plus reclassification adding 1.5 percent average increa.se for a total of 6.5 percent. The next year he approved a bill providing for a larger increase-an average increase of over 8 percent in postal field service salaries-that became Public Law 68, 84th Congress.

With respect to the cloud of a possible veto, I think our best approach will be an overwhelming vote for this legislation as the answer of the legislative branch to the executive branch and particularly to the President's advisers on the postal-pay question.

In this same connection, much has been said of President Eisenhower's letter of June 14 to the chairman of our committee. The President rested his conclusion largely on his--and I quote"several appeals this year to private citizens to observe restraint in everything that could add to the inflationary pressures on our economy." Hardly had this letter been written when his appeals were answered by the announcement ·by the United States Steel Corp. of a price increase of $6 per ton in this most important commodity. This alone could justify considerable modification of the position of the executive branch on postal-pay legislation since the writing of this letter.

SUMMARY

In summary, as pointed out in the report of the Post Office and Civil Service

Committee, there are three pressing rea .. sons for enactment of this legislation.

First, postal employees should be granted increa.ses comparable to those which have been granted wage earners in private industry since 1951. The national pattern since that time ha.s been an increase of nearly 5 percent each year. The pay increase provided in this bill of 12% percent in the average salary of postal employees will eliminate a part of this inequitable condition.

Second, the increa.sed efficiency and productivity of postal employees justified legislative action to prevent a higher turnover rate. Adequate compensation should be provided in the entrance salary-level 4-to attract better qualified employees in the postal service.

Third, surveys by responsible, impartial groups, such as the Heller Committee for Research on Social Economies, have pointed out that for the average American family of 4, husband, wife, and 2 children, in urban areas a yearly income in excess of $5,000 is required to support such families on a modest basis. The new report says over $5,500. The an .. nual salaries of most postal employees fall far short of this basic minimum.

Mr. Chairman, I urge, and expect, the wholehearted support of the Members of the House for this necessary legislation.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield. Mr. HALLECK. The gentleman spoke

of accepting the compromise. Does the gentleman still want his original bill? Does he think it ought to be passed?

Mr. MORRISON. I think a figure higher than $546 should be approved. But I voted for $546 and I am supporting $546. I think that is the highest amount it is possible to obtain under the circumstances at this time.

Mr. HALLECK. Was there any possibility of getting the gentleman's original bill out of the committee?

Mr. MORRISON. We did not vote on my original bill. After hearing testimony and when the amendments were offered, there was no motion offered for the full amount.

Mr. HALLECK. There was no motion offered, then, to bring the original bill to the floor?

Mr. MORRISON. The gentleman means in the committee?

Mr. HALLECK. Yes, in the committee.

Mr. MORRISON. No, there was no motion for the full amount.

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

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

Mr. ANFUSO. Is it not true that in 1939 the average salary of the factory worker was less than the average salary of the postal worker, but today the average salary of the postal worker is less?

Mr. MORRISON. The gentleman is substantially correct, yes.

Mr. ANFUSO. Is this bill going to cost a billion dollars, or less?

Mr. MORRISON. The bill on which we are going to vote is going to cost a little in excess of $279 million, as is contained in the majority report.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield to the gentleman from Calif omia.

Mr. GUBSER. I think the gentleman's ca.se might be considerably strengthened if he pointed out that from the years 1946 to 1951 the cost of living went up by a much higher percentage than it has from 1951 to 1955.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield to the gen .. tleman from Indiana.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the gentleman from Louisi .. ana [Mr. MORRISON] and also the mem .. bers of the Post Office and Post Roads Committee for bringing the postal pay raise bill to the floor of the House. Of course, I realize that an amendment to H. R. 2474 will be offered from the floor of the House to reduce the $546 across .. the-board annual increase for postal workers which this bill calls for and I hope the amendment is rejected.

The cost of living in the Calumet region of Indiana which comprises the Congressional district which I represent, is on a par with the extraordinarily high cost of living in the Chicago district be .. cause this area adjoins the city of Chi· cago on the south. Every Member of this House realizes that the cost of liv .. ing has risen each month since last April and has gone up 7.7 percent since l951. This increase of the cost of living is the average over the Nation but in the Chicagoland area, it is much higher than in the rural localities. The postmasters in Hammond, Gary, East Chicago, Whiting, and other localities in my district have constant difilculty retaining postal employees and also hiring competent substitutes for vacancies occurring on account of low salaries. The eftlciency of the postal service in my area has decreased to such an extent that business and residential patrons are registering constant complaints. The Calumet re .. gion is a great steel producing area. The wages of the average steelworker have gone up 56 percent in the same period of time that the postal workers have gone up 14 percent. It is astound .. ing to know that as compared to 14-percent increase in postal wages during the same period, textile workers' wages have increased 63 percent, furniture workers' 59 percent, chemical workers' 58 percent, lumber employees' 73 percent, and the same average increase in wages obtains in almost all the skilled-worker crafts. In a survey that was made recently in the Calumet ai-ea, it was revealed that 60 percent of the wives of postal workers are compelled to work outside of the home or the postal worker himself must secure outside overtime work to meet the high cost of living. This fact no doubt contributes to the . low morale among postal employees, not only in my area, but in all the metropolitan areas throughout the Nation.

I do hope this legislation calling for a substantial postal salary increase will pass the House and be enacted into law before this session of Congress adjourns.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield.


Mr. ANFUSO. I wish to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana on the very fine statement which he is making and also for the study which he has put into this very important .subject. I believe, as every other Member believes, that the Post Office is a service and that the people who work in that service and give it to the people of the United States are entitled at least to the same. salary adjustment, to the same benefits as other workers in our land.

For all of those reasons I am going to vote for this pay increase and I urge all Members of this House to do likewise.

It is my view that the increases proposed in this bill as modified are not out of proportion. Certainly, present salary rates paid to postal and Federal employees are out of proportion in the light of the constantly rising cost of living; hence, salary rates should be increased to a more realistic level so that these people are adequately compensated for their services and are enabled to make ends meet.

When Congress enacted Public Law 68 in 1955, many of us in Congress were well aware of the inadequacies of that law. The postal and Federal employees were most especially aware of the fact that the salary increases provided in that law were entirely too low. It is a well-established fact by this time that pay increases granted in recent years by the Government to postal and other workers have not kept pace with the steady upward movement of the cost of living, which is now at its highest level in our history.

In many instances it was found that the wage scale for postal workers has lagged behind the wage scale in private industry. It is a fact that unskilled laborers in private industry were being paid higher wages than postal workers. For example, in 1939 the average weekly wage for all factory workers was $23.86, while the entrance salary for postal workers at that time was $30.76. At the present time, the average weekly wage for factory workers is $82, but the entrance salary for letter caniers and postal clerks is only $70.36. How can any Member of this Congress consistently vote for foreign aid and deny equality in living to American workers?

Thus, in 1939 postal workers' salaries were about 30 ·percent higher than the wages paid to factory workers, but today postal workers receive about 15 percent less pay than factory workers. Proportionately, this is a substantial difference.

Let me cite for you another striking example. A comparison was recently made between the salary structure of postal workers and that of employees of the New York City government, with some very interesting results. The entrance salary for workers in the New York City Department of Sanitation is $3,950 per annum, with 3 yearly increases which bring up the annual salary to a maximum of $5,050. In other words, after 3 years of employment a New York City sanitation worker receives $5,050 per annum, plus uniform allowance.

How does this compare with the salary, let us say, of a letter carrier? The entrance salary of a letter carrier is $3,660 :>er annum, the maximum salary he can

obtain is $4,710, but for this he must put in at least 25 years of service. This is exclusive of uniform allowance of $100 per year. Actually, the maximum automatic grades go up to $4,410 per annum and the longevity grades follow after 13, 18 and 25 years of service in the Post omce Department. The comparison between the postal worker and the sanitation workers speaks for itself.

And here is another interesting comparison. New York City policemen and firemen start out with a salary of $4,000 per annum. One year later their salary is increased to $4,200; 2 years later they receive $4,700; 3 years later it is $5,315. On October l, 1957, they are scheduled to receive a $150 increase, and on January l, 1958, they will receive an additional increase of $150, making a total increase of $300 by next January. This will give them an annual salary of $5,615 after 3 years of service, plus $150 uniform allowance. Thus, the average policeman or fireman of New York City will by next January earn. about $1,200 more per year than the average letter carrier.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising to find that the Post Office Department encounters difficulties in recruiting competent employees who will remain with the postal service and make a career in it. Low salaries are no inducement for a family man to make a career in this field when he needs more and can earn more in private industry or elsewhere, so as to provide his family with a more decent standard of living.

In order to augment their earnings, it has become customary for many postal workers in recent years to take on a second job or to encourage their wives to seek employment. Many employees in the lower income bracket find this situation intolerable as they struggle along to maintain their family, the upkeep of the houshold, the education of their children, and to maintain an adequate standard of living.

I understand that in due time it is planned to bring up for consideration a bill to increase the present postal rates, in order to provide greater income for the Post Office Department. I say to you in all sincerity that I cannot and will not vote in support of such measure, unless I know in advance that part of this income from higher postal rates will be used for salary increases for postal workers.

Adequate pay increases for both postal and Federal workers are long overdue. These people are entitled to an adequate increase to cope with the cost of living which has gotten out of hand for many of them. No one, I am sure, will question the fact that postal and Federal employees are a hardworking, loyal, and conscientious group.

I sincerely believe they deserve a fair remuneration for the important services they perform in keeping our Government functions operating smoothly and efficiently to the benefit of the Nation and our economy. I think we take them and their services too much for granted and should give them greater consideration. Let us show them the same kind of loyalty and consideration we demand of them.

Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity to grant to these people a substantial pay increase and to afford them a fuller opportunity to maintain a decent standard of living commensurate with the rest of the country. I urge you to approve this bill by an overwhelming majority, so that there is not the slightest doubt as to how this House stands in the matter.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., July 20, 1957. Re discharge petition bill H. R. 2474 provid

ing for increased salaries for postal workers.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: There have been numerous rumors about what will be before the House when the discharge petition, providing for the consideration of H. R. 2474, comes to the floor Monday, July 22.

So that you may be correctly informed as to the true and correct facts, I submit the following information:

When the discharge petition is called up Monday July 22, H. R. 2474 will come before the Committee of the Whole for consideration. The said bill, H. R. 2474, which will be considered, is a bill which was overwhelmingly reported by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with an amendment striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting language providing for an across-the-board pay increase of $546.

At the appropriate time, I propose to offer an amendment to said committee amendment which would give the same salary increase of $546 to the rural mail carriers.

From the Members that I have talked to, it is my humble opinion that on final passage this bill will be enacted by an overwhelming vote. I will certainly appreciate your vote and your coop era ti on.

With kindest personal regards and best Wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours, JAMES H. MORRISON,

Member of Congress.

Mr. MORRISON. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield. Mr. FULTON. I believe that when the

gentleman says this measure helps largely the lower salaried people he really is saying that it goes into food, clothing, and the necessaries of life, which is certainly not inflationary when it is spent that way; and then to settle the argument once and for all that this is not inflationary, we in this House have just cut the foreign aid bill by twice as much as the pending bill will cost and thus have made a place for it in the budget where it has always been opposed in the past without a rate increase. I am willing to pass it, but we have already made a place in this budget for this very bill. I think the gentleman understands what I mean.

Mr. MORRISON. The gentleman is absolutely correct.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM of Nebraska. I want to congratulate the gentleman on the speech he is making in favor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I rise in support of the bill. I have favored an increase in pay for postal workers as necessary for the pres-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12339· ervation of orderly distribution of the mail. The all-too-large turnover in many of our larger post offices has caused dissatisfaction among . many of our citizens, despite the most earnest efforts of the postal workers to handle the growing volume ·of mail.

We cannot expect to retain the longtime postal workers and those who are new to the Department without recognizing that all too many of these workers now have two jobs or have their wives work in order to make ends meet. We cannot expect applicants to look on the postal service as the honorable profession it has been for many years when workers in the. most menial jobs can earn more money in many localities.

Certainly we are all a ware of the need for economy in Government. We are all aware of the need to prevent any inflationary influences. But must postal workers become second-class citizens and are the only ones to hold the line on wages? I am convinced that the American people favor pay increases for postal workers. They are willing to pay more for their mail service so the Department will have funds to balance against the cost of increased pay for the postal workers.

Certainly we cannot expect postmen to stay in jobs where they receive only enough money to meet the bare neces- . sities·. When Government employees must work at two jobs to pay insurance bills and medical bills, there is something wrong. Not only does efficiency decline, but interest also suffers when a man must hold two jobs.

The House should keep faith with our career postal workers and with the mail users of the country and approve a payincrease bill today.


Mr. MORRISON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GUBSER. Can the gentleman in. form me as to whether or not, if this bill is passed, it will be necessary to -have a supplemental appropriation bill passed during this session of Congress or risk curtailment in the postal service?

Mr. MORRISON. I think that question should be directed to the Committee on Appropriations. Frankly, I do not know. Is the gentleman on the Committee on Appropriations?

Mr. GUBSER. No; I am not. ' I am asking the gentleman. It is my understanding that if the Postmaster General were to conform with the Antideficiency Act and if this bill were to become law, it would be necessary to have a supplemental appropriation bill passed during this session of the Congress.

Mr. MORRISON. All I can say to the g :mtleman from California in answer to that question is this, that in all of the time that I have been in this House when we have passed increases for postal employees and classified employees there was never a question as to whether they would be paid or not. I have never known an instance in which any Federal employee did not receive his Federal pay check, and I do not see any reason to change that at this time, unless the gentleman knows more about it than I . do.

Mr. GUBSER. The gentleman should not interpret my remarks as saying

. something in opposition to his bill. It is a practicality and a reality, however, that we should consider.

Mr. MORRISON. If it will make the gentleman happy, I will be glad to take it up with the Committee on Appropriations.

I want to say to the Members of the Committee that I do not believe in the whole time that I have · been on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service-and I have been on that committee since the Reorganization Act created it-I have ever seen a better and a sounder or more logical case made than the case now made by the postal employees for a raise. We have given them salary raises before and reported out bills for salary raises before, but never before at any time do I think they have made as solid and as good and as reasonable and as strong a case as they made on this particular bill. I can assure you gentlem~n that 93 Members of this body, besides those who signed the discharge petition, appeared or gave statements in support of this legislation, and there was not one Member out of the 93 who did not support this bill.

I do not know of anyone who came before the committee in opposition to the bill except the Postmaster General and his staff and the representatives of the Bureau of the Budget. I asked the gentleman representing the Bureau of the Budget if, had the President recommended this legislation, he would be taking an opposite position to the position in opposition to postal pay increases

. which he took at that time, when he appeared. Yes, he sail, he wo.uld be in favor of it, instead of against it, if the President of the United States had recommended this legislation.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan .

Mr. HOFFMAN. Does not the bill that the petition asks to come before the House call for $1,800?

Mr. MORRISON. That is true, but that bill was amended by our committee by an overwhelming vote to provide a $546 increase.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Did you not by implication, when you signed that petition, agree to vote for $1,800?

Mr. MORRISON. You better ask each member.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, you signed it. Mr. MORRISON. You asked me a

question. Let me answer it. Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes. Mr. MORRISON. You asked about

each member signing it. I signed that petition, frankly, because I wanted to be sure that our committee was going to hold hearings on it, and the committee did.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Then, you did agree to vote by implication for the $1,800.

Mr. MORRISON. I do not vote by implication. When it came up for a vote, I voted for the $546 increase.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Then, you abandoned the $1,800.

Mr. MORRISON. Well, you can interpret it any way you want to.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, I am asking you.

Mr. MORRISON. You can interpret · it any way you want to, so long as it pleases you.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I do not want to be pleased. I would feel bad if you did.

Mr. MORRISON. In conclusion, I would like to bring this matter before the Members of the Committee. This appeared in the U. S. News & World Report in August 1956. The heading is "Inflation Race-Who's Ahead, Who's Behind." It starts off with 1939 and covers the situation up until August 1956. In· terms of pay increases as related to rising costs during that period coal miners are up 107 percent; cigarette factory workers are up 84 percent; lumber workers are · up 73 percent; papermill workers are up 65 percent; textile workers are up 64 percent; investors in stock are up 63 percent; furniture makers are up 59 percent; metal miners are up 59 percent; chemical workers are up 58 percent; steel, copper, and aluminum workers are up 56 percent; metal product workers are up 56 percent; and so on down the line, until you get almost to the last one which shows Federal Government workers are up 14 percent and are next to the last in the list when y-0u leave out the bondholders and retired Federal workers.

In other words, in this comprehensive list of American workers, the Federal Government workers-which classification includes the postal workers and a11 others-stand fourth from last. They are up just 14 percent. That compares with various groups who have mov.ed ahead by percentages ranging from 50 percent on up to 107 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that the Members of the House give this bill an overwhelming vote. Frankly, there have been many opinions, pro and con, as to whether the President will veto the bill. That is not Qur responsibility. That alone is his responsibility. We have this bill before us and it is our responsibility to act on it. I ask the membership for its favorable consideration.

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

Mr. MORRISON. I yield to my distinguished friend from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. I wish to compliment my colleague from Louisiana on the splendid statement he has made and associate myself with his remarks.

Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I want to

. compliment the gentleman on the remarks made with regard to the postal

. pay raise and associate myself with his remarks and ask unanimous consent that I may revise and extend my remarks at the conclusion of his remarks.

There is no department of . the Government more directly concerned with the everyday life and activities of our citizens and the orderly functioning of our business world than the postal de· partment. We are prone to overlook

12340 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- HOUSE July 22

that ·which· has become commonplace and to take for granted the many conveniences and fine services available to us. Should our postal system fail for just 1 day, think of the havoc that would be created: The personal mail we receive is a very important item in our daily exiStence. We visit, renew old acquaintances and friendships and find new ones via the mails. Business would come to a standstill if mail were suddenly stopped. Our communities, cities and States would become far apart if the cpnnecting link afforded by our postal service were to be severed.

Our postal service is only as good as the men who make up that service. In my opinion, we owe a vote of thanks for a job conscientiously well-done to the men and women of the postal service. What better way can we say thank you than by rewarding faithful service with a well-deserved salary increase. It is only just and proper that the salaries of postal workers be commensurate with their duties and responsibilities. In private industry, in the business world, among laborers and professional men, et cetera, increased incomes have been enjoyed. Despite the importance of their jobs, postal workers as a whole have not advanced salary-wise as they should. The time for an adequate adjustment upward in their salaries is overdue.

I am very glad to lend my vote and wholehearted support to H. R. 2474. I hope a sufficient number of my colleagues feel as I do so that this bill to increase the postal workers salaries may be passed without further delay.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES].

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion, H. R. 2474 ought not to be approved in its present form. At the proper time, when amendments are . in order, I shall offer a substitute for what is described as the committee amendment, my substitute provides for a pay increase of 5 percent in the annual compensation of postal employees. It will also grant authority to the Postmaster General to increase the salaries of employees in the fourth step of the classification level of these positions. The salaries of these clerks and carriers would be increased where it is found that such action is necessary to recruit and to retain postal employees. This is similarly granted by legislation approved in the 83d Congress to the Civil Service Commission in respect to classified civilservice employees.

I think a review of this situation is timely. We have received hundreds of letters from postal employees and their i·epresentatives asking Members to support H. R. 2474 introduced by the distinguished Member from Louisiana.

This bill provides from $1,500 to $1,800 to all employees in the Postal Service in whatever grade or rank they are employed. Twenty-three Members of this House introduced similar legislation. Representatives of groups from all districts came to Washington in support of this proposal. The cost of that bill, as the gentleman who just left the floor has

suggested, would be something over· $1 billion.

We held hearings on that measure. The hearings on the bill are printed and are available for the members. Unfortunately we did not get the benefit of the testimony of the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON], with respect to the provisions of his bill.

As a matter of fact there has been no explanation or testimony to or for the committee as to how the proponents arrived at the figure of $546 increase across-the-board to all postal employees.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. Not at this moment. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman of the committee asked the gentleman if he would like to explain his bill. He told us he would rather. testify at the close of the hearings. I am not complaining about it. I just say that it is unfortunate for members of the committee they did not get to hear the dis-. tinguished member give a complete explanation of the merits of his bill that caused so much correspondence and publicity among postal workers. The postal workers were also entitled to have . his testimony on such an important bill.

I hope he will give a full explanation to the House as to why he abandoned his own bill. Also how he arrived at the figure of $546. Just what does it represent? I do not criticize. I just want it explained. It was not explained to our committee.

As the gentleman from Michigan has just stated, he did not even ask us to support his bill, H. R. 2474, in the committee. He submitted a different proposal.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. Not now. I have no objection to his submitting

this amendment. I would like to know how he arrived at such a different proposal.

Mr. MORRISON. Just a minute; will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REES of Kansas. Not now. I will yield later on.

This proposal carries an -increase of $546 to all employees across the board, irrespective of their grades or position, except rural mail carriers and fourthclass postmasters. They receive a 12-percent increase.

The cost of the committee amendment is $317,500,000 and not $279 million. It is $40 million more than the majority of the committee stated it cost. If we adopt the proposal, the normal chain of reaction throughout the Government service will result in similar increases for another million Federal employees, and rightly so. Employees in the classified service and members of the armed services are also entitled to a pay increase. As a matter of fact, this action has begun. On July 18 our committee approved an 11-percertt increase for classified employees at a cost of an additional $532 million. The total cost of salary increases for postal, civil service, and Armed Forces, if the pending legislation is approved, will amount to about $2 billion a year.

I should indicate that although rather complete hearings were held on this proposed legislation, ·the hasty manner in which this committee considered this legislation is shown by the fact that the across-the-board annual increase of $546 would distort pay schedules for most of the employees in the postal service.

For example, a 19-percent increase is provided in the salary of a janitor, a 17-percent increase in the salary of a clerk at a third-class office, and a 16-percent increase in the salary of a clerk-typist. Yet, at the same time, a committee amendment would grant supervisors of these employees a 13-percent or less increase. In some instances subordinates would receive more compensation than their supervisors. This distortion will, in my opinion, affect the morale and create dissatisfaction among the postal employees as well as service to the public.

A similar situation existed several years ago, but our Committee, after long and painstaking efforts, finally enacted Public Law 68 in the 84th Congress and established a pay schedule for postal field service which we believe is modern and realistic. It had the complete support of the members of our committee. The action recently taken by the majority of our committee will, I think, nullify our best efforts in establishing a fafr pay schedule for postal field service.

There are some people who would have you feel that Congress has been . unfair in providing increases for postal employees. This is not correct. It is npt right. Over the past 12 years, I believe Congress has intended to be generous in increasing salaries of postal employees. The largest pay increase postal employees ever received was enacted during the 80th Congress. Between January 1946 and July 1951 postal employees received salary increases amounting to $1,370 a year. Ori March l, 1955, they received a basic s·alary increase of 6 percent plus a reclassification adjustment of 2.5 percent. In other words, there has been a 115-percent increase in the entrance salaries for postal employees and an employee who went into the service at $1,700 in 1945 is at the top level of a clerk-carrier salary range and receives 165.3-percent higher salary than the salary he received in 1945. We are informed the cost of living has risen 4.6 percent since the last pay increase in March 1955, when postal employees received a basic increase of 6 percent plus 2.5 percent average classification adjustment.

My proposal, if adopted, will provide a 5 percent increase over and above the increase granted in 1955. It will mean that postal employees will receive 7.8 percent increase in the cost of living since July 1955. The proposal, if submitted, which is a 5 percent increase for all postal employees and adjustments to be made by the Postmaster General, will cost between $129 million and $170 million. The amendment proposed by the committee will cost more than $317 million, a difference of $147 million. I am trying to be realistic when I tell you that, in my judgment, my substitute is the maximum increase that may be expected and may have a chance of becoming law. Let me say this, I believe

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12341 my proposal meets the objections that have been made by various groups with respect to increased cost of living, as well as the ability of the Post Office Department to secure competent employees to take these jobs. My proposal does not throw our classification out of alinement.

If you feel that the people in the Post Office Department have been underpaid and that the amount I have suggested is inadequate, you will vote against the amendment, but let me call your attention again to the statement of the President in a letter to the chairman cf our committee which is as follows: .

In view of the tax, budgetary and economic implications, and in view of my several appeals this year to private citizens to observe restraint in everything that could add to the inflationary pressures on our economy, I cannot at this time, in keeping with the national interest, recommend enactment of legislation for pay increases for postal workers which, as you point out, would lead to a pay increase throughout the Federal Government.

I do not want to be in a position of giving high hopes to a half million employees of Government and make them think they are going to get proposed leg -islation that is not likely to be enacted into law.

I do not yield to anyone in trying to be fair with the postal people of this country. I have been on this committee for a number of years and at all times I have tried to be fair and tried to be realistic. It is easy to propose a bill for $1,500 or $1,800 increase. But to secure the enactment of a pay increase for postal employees is a far different problem.

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

Mr. RE~ of Kansas. I yield. Mr. ARENDS. I want to say that I

have come to the same conclusion as the gentieman from Kansas, namely, that I think we ought to pass this 5 percent pay increase with the possibllity that something might happen in the way of its becoming law. I am convinced in my own mind, and I feel I am safe in saying what will happen, namely, that the committee bill which will cost approximately $317 million will not become the law of the land. I do not want to place myself in the position of saying to my postal employees back home that I voted for something knowing or feeling they most likely will never get such increase. The President's letter of June 14 clearly indicates his position in opposition to the committee bill.

Mr. REES of Kansas. I would like to say this about the turnover. I took this from the hearings. Official figures from the Department of Labor show that the per month turnover or quit rate in industry is between 1.5 and 3.8 percent per month. In the Government it is 0.95 percent per month. In the postal service it is 0.5 of 1 percent per month.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield. Mr. CORBETT. The gentleman made

the statement, and if it is true I think we ought to be familiar with the details. The gentleman said, if I heard him cor-

rectly, that if the committee bill were passed there would be instances where someone who is a subordinate would be making more money than his superior. I would like the gentleman to tell me how, if we are adding $546 to a lesser salary the total could ever be greater than $546 added to something higher. Can he give me any example of that?

Mr. REES of Kansas. It is because the committee amendment further distorts the Postal Pay and Reclassification Act of 1955.

Mr. CORBETT. Well, it could not be accurate, and if it is we ought to amend the bill, because $500 added to $3,000 could never be greater than $5,000 added to $350.

Mr. REES of Kansas. I have been so advised. An inequitable condition now exists in this respect between levels 4 and 5, and the committee amendment further distorts this situation.

Mr. CORBETT. I am sure the gen·tleman will want to correct that statement.

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

Mr. REES of Kansas. I gladly yield to one of the hardest working members of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman . . I listened to the colloquy between the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. ARENDS]. I am wondering if the administration has signified its approval of your amendment which would provide a 5-percent increase.

Mr. REES of Kansas. No. I have not asked the administration to signify its approval. I am not here to ask that anybody support my proposal. I am offering it here for your consideration. I think my proposal will come nearer becoming enacted into law, and I think it is fair to postal employees and to the American taxpayers.


Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield. Mr. GUBSER. Is it the gentleman's

opinion that if the pay raise for postal employees is passed and signed into law that we will also have to pass a supplemental appropriation bill during this session of Congress, or face curtailment of postal service?

Mr. REES of Kansas. I think we will have to appropriate more funds for the Post Office Department.

Mr. GUBSER. And we will have to appropriate it at this session, will we not?

Mr. REES of Kansas. I believe so. I do not know any other way to handle it.

Mr. Chairman, although I may be in the minority in respect to this legislation, I have the highest respect and regard for the postal workers of our country. They are loyal, faithful public employees. They are free of so-called isms and security risks. I have always supported legislation for their benefit, while employed and after retirement. The highest increases in salaries granted them during a given period was while I had the honor of being chairman of this great committee. The present chairman

[Mr. MURRAY] was ranking minority member of the committee. We worked together in securing these benefits.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be in position of supporting proposed legislation that in my ·opinion will result in disappointment to our postal employees.

Mr. MORRISON. Since the gentleman from Kansas refused to yield to me, I yield myself one-half minute.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what my distinguished colleague from Kansas [Mr. REES] means when he said I failed to testify before the committee. There have been many bills before the committee since I have been a member of it, and I have yet to testify for any one bill. I thought we were supposed to hear testimony and then pass on it.

I might say that I have never heard the gentleman from Kansas himself testify before the committee on any particular bill.

Mr. REES of Kansas. I did not have any bill there.

Mr. MORRISON. The gentleman has had a number of bills before us in the past but he did not testify on any of them.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 30 seconds.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. DAVIS].

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, an experienced employee is an asset to the Postal Department or to any other employer. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] has, I befieve, covered all of the basic aspects of this bill. I want, however, to call your attention to one phase of the bill which I think is of considerable importance, and that is the question of keeping our postal employees in the service.

I want to call your attention to the turnover rate in the postal service. The testimony which we had shows that the turnover rate in the postal service is approximately 22 percent per year, and of that 22 percent, about lZ percent quit their employment because they either could not live on the salary or they were able to get better employment, better pay, and better conditions in private industry. If you will look at page 104 of the hearings you will find testimony with reference to a poll of postal employees that was taken in nine cities in Michigan, and included in them is the city of Detroit. You will see as a result of that poll that of the postal employees who answered the questionnaire, 44 percent of the wives of those employees are wor:.;.ing, taken out of the home. That leaves the children in the home without supervision of either father or mother during the working hours of the day, and that is a serious thing to consider.

You will find also that more than 60 percent of those employees who answered hold two jobs. Those are the conditions under which our postal employees are having to work.

I shall support this bill. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr.

Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gen- · tleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG].

12342 CONGRESSIONAL ~CORD - lIOUSE July 22

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to advise the committee that I intend to propose an amendment "to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, which would ·have the effect of raising the increase to 7 :Y2 percent across the board.

Why did I provide for a 7%-percent increase? Had I been able to I would have put on a 7-percent amendment in the committee; however, the parliamentary situation precluded my doing so. The Subcommittee on the Post Offi.ce in the other body has already repo.rted out a 7·%-percent increase across the board. It did, however, place a temporary increase of $240 in addition to that for the post om.ce employees, which, I think, is unrealistic. The basic amount is still 7 % percent.

What will my amendment do? There is another feature which I feel is important and I urge that you give consideration to it because I feel it wilr be very helpful. First, I want to say that I make no prediction as to what will happen to the bill if the 7%-percent rate is approved. I will say this, that I believe that if the 7%-percent rate is approved and there is a rate increase we have a reasonable opportunity to see that it becomes law. I would hesitate to predict what would happen to any salary increase, even if it is 1 percent, unless there is sum.cient revenue in the form of a rate increase to take care of it. It seems to be the generally understood situation, and it does not make any difference what we say or do here, my prediction is that the $546 across the board increase will llave absolutely no chance of becoming law. I do not intend to go along and try to kid my postal employees and go through the same situation we went through 2 years ago and come up with absolutely nothing. We are on very thin ice when we try to base the need for a salary increase in the turn-over rate because that cannot be justified. I will take the hometown of the gentleman from Georgia, Atlanta, as far as separation is concerned. Look at page 269 of the hearings and go to Atlanta, Ga. 'The separation rate for postal employees is 2 percent, for manufacturing industries it is 3.53 percent. The quit rate in the post ofilce at Atlanta is 0.84 percent, in manufacturing industries it is 1.59 percent.

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. The gentleman means by months?

Mr. CEDERBERG. Yes. That is the same for the post office as for manufacturing. 'So by comparison it is not a unique or unusual situation.

May I say, too, it is misleading to try to say that the Members of Congress have not been aware of the problems of the post office employees, because they have. I will agree that our postal employees are entitled to an increase and that there are some areas in the country where the increase is more definitely needed than in others. But it might interest the committee to know that a statement was gotten up which took in all the capital cities of t-he United States, throughout the entire 48 States of the Union, and in only 6 of these capital cities do the city fathers pay the police and firemen more than we pay our postal employees. Taking the city of Baton

Rouge, La., from which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] comes, they pay a patrolman an average of $3,820, a fireman $3,603. We pay the let· ter carriers an average of $4,298. So I do not think we should condemn the Congress of the United States as being neglectful. I do say there is a need for an increase for our postal employees.

Another thing that I propose with my amendment is this: As you probably know, the Postmaster General at the present time is required when a new postal employee comes in to start that employee in the first step of the level. My proposal would allow him to start the postal employee in either the 1st, the 2d, the 3d, or the 4th step, depending on ~he need of the area. In other words, . if there are particular areas where it is very difficult to get postal employees to come into the service because there are more productive jobs in the area, he would have that authority.

Here is what they would do as far as this bill is concerned: A postal employee at the present time starts at $3,660 a year. My proposal would start him at $3,936. But let us assume that there is a particular area in one of the large metropolitan districts, and I have some problems in my own district, and the postmaster, if the findings definitely showed it was necessary to start them at another level, could start them at the second level. They would then start at $4,070, or $410 more than they can start at the present time. If he decided it was necessary to start them at the third level they would start at $4,204, which is $544 more than they would start at the present time. In such an area where it required starting at the fourth level it would be $4,338, or they would start at $678 higher than they start at the present time. To me that seems to be areasonable way to handle this problem of the different area wage rates.

I recognize, and I think we all recognize, that there is a reluctance cin the part of those who rep1;esent the postal employees to set up any definite areas for wages. There is a reluctance also on the part of the Department to set up that kind of a basis. They recognize that there are some difficult problems involved. But this, I believe, would go a long way in solving that particular problem.

What would happen as far as the need for financing is concerned? J estimate, and I think I have estimated on the liberal side, that my amendment would cost something in the neighborhood of $200 million. It could cost a little more if you find many areas that they had to be started in steps 2, 3, and 4. But a liberal estimate is about $200 million, in my opinion, and that would include the necessary 6 % percent retirement contribution that we have to appropriate for at the present time.

I feel a legitimate raise for our employees would be about 7% percent and it can be jlistified, and I hope those of you on the committee who feel that you can support it will do so vigorously.

Now, I want to say this, in level 4, where the bulk of the employees are found, here is what my amendment would do. Eight thousand plus em-

ployes in step 1 would receive $276; 10,000 in step 2 would receive $285; 9,000 in step 3 would receive $284; 11,000 would receive $303; 17 ,900 would receive $331, but 156,964 would receive $330 a year. I think that is a reasonable proposal, and I hope that yqu will do your best to support it.

And, I will say this. Remember that whatever we report out of here, we will soon take quick action on the postal rate bill. I think the present rate bill as reported out is somewhat adequate, because we have to go a little further and be r~a.listic about this matter. I just urge you to go along and see if we cannot come up with some kind of a reasonable compromise. I predict there will be no increase, regardless of the amount, that is a ft.at across-the-board increase . I do not think it will be passed.

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

Mr. CED::!:RBERG. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. JONAS. Your proposal and the different starting salaries would apply only to new employees?

Mr. CEDERBERG. That is correct. If we have an employee in a given office, say at Charlotte, who was in step 2 and the postmaster decided that all employees ought to start in level 3,· then those would be placed in level 3. But, it pertains mainly to starting employees, and that is the area where we have the big turnover, but the turnover in the Post Office Department is far less than in manufacturing or other industries across the country. And we do have acute problems and it is particularly in the first step level that that is the problem that we have.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELDJ.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this body will shortly have an opportunity to vote upon the legislation to provide for a salary increase to postal employees. This increase has been long overdue. The House Post Office Committee on June 27 voted to report H. R. 2474, as amended, to provide for an annual increase of $546. If this full amount is enacted into law, it will still be less than that to which the postal employees are entitled if they are to be brought up to the level of private industry and if they are to enjoy the standard of living of their friends and neighbors.

In my home city of Los Angeles the transit company uses identification checks bearing the following inscription: "Los Angeles needs alert young men as police officers and firemen-$417 to $489 per month." The salary offered by the city of Los Angeles as an attraction to qualified people to enter public service are certainly no more .than what the job deserves. But consider what the Post Office Department pays for the great bulk of its employees.

Most letter carriers, post office clerks, and postal transportation clerks start at $3,660 a .year; or $305 a month. The top step to which they progress autom~tically is $4,410 a year; or $369 a month. Even if the full $546 reported by the House Committee on Post Office and Civil-Service were to be enacted into law,

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12343 these faithful public servants 'would be underpaid by national standards and certainly by the standards my cons titu en ts have a right to expect.

While it is possible to understand that fixed salaries would lag in an economy where for 9 consecutive months the cost of living has risen to an all-time high, it is impossible to understand the thinlt:ing of the administration leaders in opposing an adjustment in the salaries of Federal employees. · It is incredible to me that not only should the administration try to obstruct and prevent approval in this House of salary legislation, but also that pos~al employees are daily. faced with fresh predictions that if their .bills actually clear the Congress, they will be vetoed by the President.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would lik:e to say that I am supporting this bill for $546, which amounts to $21 a pay period..f or these people in the Post Office Department. The turnover in California in personnel in the post office runs around the lowest I have here ·for about 37 cities, 22 percent up to as much · as 100 percent. In Los Angeles it. runs to 25 percent. In Whittier, a town next to my district, it runs 23 percent. In San Bernardino the personnel turnover is 51 percent.

I have figures here from the Department of Labor which I will seek to put in the RECORD later, and from the Veterans' Administration and the National Educational Association, which show that since 1939 schoolteachers have had a r~ise of pay of 36 percent, steelworkers 56 percent, lumber workers 73 percent, farm laborers 89 percent, coal miners 107 percent, and Federal Government workers have been raised 14 percent since 1939. Now, anyone who will peruse this list of figures and then make the argument that the .Postal employees are not entitled to a raise just simply does ·not understand the meaning of figures. I have tickets here in my hand which are given out for passes on the Los Angeles transit system asking for police officers and firemen at the rate of $417 to $489 a month, which is far above the average that the lower paid postal workers receive. These are starting wages only.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE].

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I hope at the appropriate time to be able to offer an amendment or a substitute to the bill before us. I have worked, ever since I first came to Congress 10 years ago, on the distinguished Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and it is only since this present session that I have left that committee to go on the Committee on Armed Services.

I would like to say that the question of the postal employees and their welfare has always been very near to my heart. I think we will all agree, after what we have heard here this afternoon, that we are of one mind, that something has got to be done. We know, if we are intelligent and have given thought to the problems of the day, that whether we like it or not, we are in an inflationary spiral. How we are going to stop it and how we are going to come out of it is very difficult to know. Certainly

we are not going to come out of it by raising prices and then raising wages and then raising prices again. Nevertheless it seems unrealistic to think that just one segment of the population, Government employees and postal employees, should be the ones who have to hold. the line. The line is not ·being held in industry. The line is not being held anywhere else that I know of.

So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this afternoon, that what we want to do here, certainly what I want to do here, is to get some legislation passed, some legislation that will be signed into law, something that will work and that we can live with. Year after year we have heard this same discussion. We have heard the same arguments in the committee. I may add that we have heard the same witnesses. Every time a raise is granted, it crones too late and it is too little. In my tenure of office I have never yet heard that the employees were sati~fted with the raise that they received. I would be willing to stand corrected if that is not a fair statement.

Why is that? Well, it is because the raise just does not seem to keep pace with what is going on. For that reason I would like to off er this amendment which is based on the escalator clause which exists in many contracts in industry, and which seems to have worked very satisfactorily in most cases.

This amendment of mine would, first of all, grant a fiat $400 per annum increase to employees under the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955. Someone will say, why the fiat increase? Mr. Chairman, the reason for that is again that we have not kept pace with the cost of living in any way. For that reason we have got to establish a floor in this wage scale below which the wages cannot possibly go, and I am going to work up from there and down to there. I was interested to see in one of the postal magazines not long ago an article about my amendment in which it was stated that, of course, it was a very bad amendment because the cost-of-living increases would go up from what the wage scale was today and then might go down below it. Of course, that is exactly what this amendment does not do. This amendment, as I said before, establishes the floor which will be $400 above any scale today. It will also give a 20-percent increase to postmasters at fourth-class offices under the act.

There is also provided in section 2 of this amendment a cost-of-living pay adjustment, increase or decrease, based on changes in the average basic consumers' price index at 6-month intervals: These adjustments are $50 per annum for regular employees and 2 Yz percent of the basic compensation for postmasters of fourth-class offices. There would be no decrease which would reduce the $400 fiat increase for employees and the 20-percent increase for postters of fourth-class offices. There steady escalator clause such as that in the automobile workers contracts and many other labor contracts all through the country.

It is estimated that the additional per annum cost of this amendment to

the Post Office Department would be approximately $172 million for the $400 fiat raise and approximately $20 million. for each point raise under the escalator provision.

Year after year we have the question of pay increases, which we an admit · are . necessary. We know that the cost of living not only has gone up but is going up. It is going up while I am addressing you at this very minute. For that reason, it seems to me only practical and only sensible that we should put this escalator clause in any of these pay raises so that automatically these employees will be taken care of at the time of the increases and not afterward, when it is too late and when . the increases cannot possibly be realistic or satisfactory.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to state here, and I am awfully afraid I will be proved right, that this House may pass this $54.6 fiat increase and that next year it will prove insufficient and inadequate. For that reason, I hope that consideration will be given to the escalator clause in this bill and also in any other pay bill for Government employees.

Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the gentleman from California. '

Mr. GUBSER. May I compliment the gentlewoman on her magnificent statement and associate myself with her remarks. I have introduced an identical copy of her bill, which would accomplish what the amendment she is speaking about will accomplish. I do feel that postal employees, despite some of the feelings of their national leadership, would be far better off if this legislation had been in effect for the last 10 years than they are today.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. May I say to the gentleman that there is absolutely no doubt about that fact. May I also tell him I have received many communications from employee groups that have been extremely heartening and that have approved the idea of the escalator clause in these bills.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield. Mr. REES of Kansas. I want to say to

the committee and to the public that I know of no one who has been more in· terested in, and worked more diligently on behalf of the employees in the postal service on our committee than the gentlewoman who is addressing us at this time.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the committee.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FULTON. May I likewise join in complimenting the gentlewoman on her fine statement, and say, as a former de· bating coach, that she could certainly make any debating team that I ever saw. The gentlewoman speaks very well.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I thank the gentleman. I hope that means he will sup .. port the amendment.

12344' . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCKI].

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, the subject we are discussing today is not simply a matter of a budget or the budget, it is the highly complex problem of the budgets of 500,000 men and their families. I say men because the greater proportion of the postal employees are men-heads of familiesmen who have substantial family responsibilities. There are only a limited number of women employed in the postal ..service, and when employment is normal, there are few single men employed. The budgets we are discussing today are a matter of life and death; they involve proper nutrition and proper living standards; they involve proper health and proper welfare of a large segment of our population; they involve an adequate education for the coming American generation. These budgets are not simply a matter of red ink or black ink-they are rather a consideration of red blood and strong sinews. Last week we discussed our line of defense, our preservation of the American way of life-today we are dealing with what really is our first line of defense-people. We are striving to enact legislation that will preserve the American way of life.

In America we have made much progress in improving our standard of living. Every year, every month, and every day produces new items to make life a little more pleasant, items that expand economic horizons. Our great chemists and physicists, our engineers, and technicians working in their laboratories and in their shops are constantly creating new products that create new demands that improve our standard of living. To keep pace with this rapidly improving standard of living, industry generally surveys the pay schedules of its employees once a year and adjusts their salaries to keep up with improving standard of living. In dealing with our postal employees we have been sadly remiss in our duty. In the past 6 years, we have granted them one pay increase. The chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee has listed the number of pay increases granted postal employees during the past few years with apparent pride. Compared to pay raises secured by others, the record of Congress toward postal employees is indeed a sorry one. In 32 years we have granted 6 pay raises, always too little and too late. Many people today wish to make this one too little again-it is already too late.

I was interested in rereading the Economic Report of the President, transmitted to Congress on January 23 of this year, which states:

Finally the positive elements in the current economic situation augur well for high employment which, combined with good earnings, should provide consumers with the means to spend more in the months ahead. The confidence of the American people in the strength of the economy remains high, favoring continued large consumer expenditures.

In the light of this most optimistic statement, it is difficult to understand how opposition to a justified pay increase

can spring from the same source. I believe that the postal employees should be entitled to some of these good earnings we hear discussed. We know that over five million American workers have received pay increases already this year. We were happy to learn that the Secretary of the Treasury, George Humphrey, without turning a hand, was able to increase the value of his holdings from $'1 million 4 years ago to $12,600,000 today. Surely in the light of these facts, and wallowing in his increased wealth, Mr. Humphrey, when confronted with the pay increase requests of the postal employees should spontaneously shout: "Give it to them." If this was his reply, he did not mean pay-he meant despair-he meant dismay-he meant a complete shattering of the once proud morale that was a distinguishing mark of our fine postal service. Standing on tiptoes to peer over his rapidly rising breastwork of moneybags, the distinguished Secretary of the Treasury said, no, we cannot-it would be inflationary.

Inflationary, you say, to give a decent pay raise to good American citizens who have had one pay raise in 6 years? Inflationary to give a pay raise to postal employees who have to seek outside employment to pay their simple living costs? Inflationary to give a pay raise to men whose wives must work to maintain a modest standard of living? The other day I received a letter from the wife of a letter carrier who was compelled to add to her role as a mother .and housewife and, without business experience, seek employment after she had passed the age of 40 to supplement her husband's meager earnings. Her f amily was denied her much-needed service, with small children in the family, simply because we have not kept pace with proper pay increases.

The postal employee entering the service accepts a position that has a great deal of responsibility, requires much learning of a special technique that can be sold nowhere else-a skill that sentences him to remain on that specialized job or leave it and start over again. His only chance for advancement lies in being promoted to a supervisory position and they are very limited in number. These considerations should be weighed most carefully when we are considering pay increases for postal employees. If you have had the opportunity to read the Cordiner report recently published by the special committee making a study of employment in the Defense Department, you will find this challenging statement:

The Federal Government has lost the advantage it once enjoyed in the area of fringe benefits. In brief, the magnet of interesting work and public service is no longer strong enough to overcome the pull of higher salaries in non-Federal employment.

To readjust salaries so that a given class of employees can regain their former economic positio11 in our economy is not inflationary. To fail, however, to adjust salaries so that large segments of ·our population cannot keep up their former standard of living, or keep pace with the rest _of the American population, is to bring about an unbalanced economy that could very well lead to most serious consequences. That is our economic

problem today. I can well subscribe to the following statement made by the Conference on Economic Progress:

The slowdown in economic growth has been due largely to an even greater slowdown in consumption growth. Purchases by American consumers, measured in 1956 dollars, grew only 1 Y2 percent from fourth quarter 1955 to fourth quarter 1956. The deficiency in this consumption now accounts for 70 percent of the deficiency in total production.

Practically all of this deficiency in consumption is due to deficiencies in wage income and depressed farm income. Incomes :Which furnish investment funds have grown relatively too fast. From fourth quarter 1955 to fourth quarter 1956, investment in producers' durable equipment grew eight times as fast as consumption.

Many leaders in our Nation today are blaming the increase in the cost of living on labor. We have a constant, continuous increase in the cost of living. U.S. News & World Report of Jul-112 declares: "Living costs to keep going up." Food prices have risen sharply, 10 to 11 percent in meats within a year-yet the workers in food industries are poorly paid. Most shocking indeed are the revelations found in charts that show the increase in the cost of food products and the dec1ine in farmer profits. No, we cannot blame the postal worker or the farmer for high prices. We must look elsewhere. On this one point, 1 find myself in hearty agreement with one of our outs tan ding businessmen, a man who now holds a high place in Government. I am ref erring to Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense, who stated in the March 1952 issue of the Reader's Digest:

I contend that we should not say the wageprice spiral. We should say the price-wage spiral. For it is not necessai·ily wages that push up prices. It is primarily prices that pull up wages.

Let us take a specific look at the salaries of postal employees. In 1939 a topgrade letter carrier had a take-home pay after retirement deductions of $2,026.50. Today, after all taxes and other deductions, he has a take-home pay of $3,-682.06, an increase of 81 percent. The cost of living during the same period has increased 101.2 percent. To merely keep up with the cost of living, his take-home pay should be $4,077 .32. This would require a gross pay of approximately $5,-000. The pay bill we have before us today is merely a cost-of-living-increase pay bill. I know we are late and I am afraid that we are too little. We have made no attempt to take care of the past deficiency that has been created by the sluggish manner in which we adjust postal pay. We have not made a real attempt to provide a standard-of-living increase.

The Heller committee of the University of California in August 1956 made a study of the amount required for the modest budget of a wage earner family in the city of San Francisco. The amount required, if the worker was renting, was $5,592.59 per year; if the worker was buying his home, the amount required was $5,849.67. I am placing this budget in the RECORD for your careful study. Do you think it is an extravagant one? The people in my section of the country would criticize it because it does not con-

1957, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOlJSE 12345 tain any allowance for fuel. Please read it .carefully: .NEW HELLER STUDY INDICATES NEED FOR -$5,-

592.59 FOR RENTER; $5,849.67 FOR HOME . OWNER

The Heller committee for research on 'Social economics of the University of California has released a study on a budget for the family of a wage earner, consisting of a man, woman, boy of 13, and girl of 8. The study was based on prices for the San Fran'Cisco Bay area in September 1956.

The previous study, made in September 1955, indicated that a modest budget for a family of 4 required $5,465.74 for a renter. The new budget shows that during the year an additional $126.85 would be required. 'The 1955 · budget for a homeowner · showed the homeowner would require $5,797.90; the 1956 budget requires $5,849.67.

It is interesting to note that in the total budget for a home renter, only $702 is provided for rent. That is $58.50 a month, which is an extremely low level of rent in any secti-on of the country. The -total budget follows: ·

Item

119. 08 2. 1

84. 00 1. 5

30. 00 .5

103. 85 1. 9

202. 24 3. 6 94. 12 1. 7 32.30 .6

6. 33 . 1 54. 84 1. 0 .82. 57 1. 5 14. 75 .3

1 Income taxes are calculated on the total cost of the budget using the method of tax computation resulting in t he lowest taxes which means filing either joint or separate returns for the State income taxes, but for the Federal tax the renter files separate returns with standavd deduct ions while the owner files joint or separate returns with itemized deductions.

Today we are voting on a modest bill. I think $546 is a most modest increase under the circumstances. I believe further that this is an emergency measure. I think we have a grave responsibility. I favor the $546 . amount because I think we can have it enacted into law. We have a . most serious respon-

. sibility. I do not think . we should be CIII--776

· Lending institutions consider them· as poor customers in home purchases, unless they can make a 50-percent· downpayment on a relatively inexpensive home, not because they are poor pay, but because they wouldn't want them to .starve while paying.

On_e of the very few items that hasn't tripled or quadrupled since the war is postage cost. Certainly we could stand an increase in rates.

These loyal employees of the postal service have no force they can exert to obtain -an increase in pay. Consequently they have thrown away their pride for a living wage, but to no avail. I am not a believer in radical methods to obtain an end, but, in this case, even if they have signed a no-strike pledge, they are certainly justified in striklng.

Here is an opportunity for one of our long-winded politicians (either side) to blow his horn in the right direction and obtain, not $10 per week as will be proposed, but an increase of $40 per week minimum, for

. the postal workers. They are 6 years behind in pay increases.

ROY C. LARSON, President, Twin City Federal Sav

ings and Loan Associati on.

Are we less sensitive than the-banker? Are we who are charged with the responsibility, unaware of the facts? Do we look at our . responsibilities with our eyes closed? I am aware of the demands of economy, but the people in my district want real economy, not phony economy. It is indeed the most expensive thing we can do to ignore the demands of postal employees for a proper pay adjustment. It. is not only unfair and cruel to our faithful postal workers and their families, but it leads also to mortal destruction of our once fine postal service. The turnover of employees in the postal service today is extremely costly, poor morale is costly, and the callous attitude of many people in official positions toward the proper requests of the postal employees may well cause a deterioration in morale that will require many years to rebui1d.

Defrauding laborers -0f their wages is one of the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance. We are equally guilty of .defrauding if we withhold all, or if we withhold part. If we do not grant our postal employees a proper wage at this time, we are withholding part of a just wage. It is our grave responsibility to pay proper salaries so that our postal employees can live properly. It is our grave responsibility to pay proper salaries so that we can recruit employees .of proper loyalty and proper ability. I am supporting the Morrison bill providing for an increase of $546 a year. I wish it were more-I certainly will resist any effort to make it less. It is our responsibility to not only pass it today, but to make it stick in the finals. This I pledge to do.

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time in op

. positi-0n to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take

all of the balance of the time allotted to me of 23 minutes. I realize that whatever I say here in opposition to this legislation will prov.e futile and will have no ·effect upon your decision since 218 Members have already signed the discharge petition. This legislation is before the House as a result of a discharge petition which was filed on May 15,


which is the date that about 2,000 postal employees descended upon Washington from all sections of the United States for the purpose of making a drive on Congress in behalf of their pay bill, H. R. 2474, which was introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] on January 10, 1957.

I do not know whether the march on · Washington had anything to do with the introduction of the discharge petition upon the first day of the arrival of these 2,000 employees in Washington by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON], but the timing of the date of the discharge petition upon the arrival of this army of postal employees is rather significant. On July 11, the discharge petition became effective when the 218th Member of the House signed the same. Before that time, and on July 8, your Committee .on Post Office and Civil Service had already reported out the bill, H. R. 2474, with an amendment. H. R. 2474, as introduced, provided an increase of over $1,800 for the great majority of postal employees at a total cost of $1,039,000,000. I want the 218 Members who signed the discharge petition to have an opportunity of voting on this bill, as introduced. You voted to discharge this committee from further consideration of the bill, H. R. 2474, 3 days after the committee had reported the bill in to the House. I want to see how many Members, if they have an opportunity, will now vote for H. R. 2474, as introduced, at a cost of $1,039,000,000. So for that reason, I hope the amendment providing for a $546 increase to all postal employees across the board from top to bottom with the exception of fourth-class postmasters, will be defeated and then the Members will have an opportunitythose of you who signed the discharge petition-to vote upon H. R. 2474, as introduced.

On July 8 the committee voted out this legislation, with an amendment, which provided $546 increase per annum for all postal employees, from top to bottom, with the exception of rural carriers and fourth-class postmasters. It gave to the fourth-class postmasters and rural carriers an increase of 12 percent upon their present compensation. The cost of this legislation as voted out by the committee, according to the Post Office Department, is $317,500,000. As amended, I am opposed to this bill, for three reasons. First, because it will cost $317,-500,000. I have voted consistently for economy in this Congress, and I have voted for practically every motion that has been made to reduce the expenditures of the Federal Government.

I am against it, second, because this increase will aggravate the ever-increasing inflationary spiral.

Third, because it will distort and put out of proper balance the proper salary classification structure as amended in Public Law 68, which was passed by this Congress in 1955, since this amendment gives the same increase of $546 regardless of grade or classification and regardless of duties, and regardless of responsibilities of the various employees.

My opposition to this bill will have no effect. I know my opposition will

prove ineffective, and as · far as the passage is concerned it will be useless for me to discuss this matter further.

However, I cannot remain silent when I fully believe that the House will make a serious mistake in approving this leg·islation. Let me state my reasons briefly ·on these three grounds for my opposition.

First, the bill will add fuel to the everincreasing inflationary spiral which is the Nation's No. 1 economic problem today. People are becoming more inflation conscious and are viewing with alarm and serious concern the ·ever-increasing inflationary trend which is becoming more serious every day, with the constant increases in prices and wages. This country is on a merry-go-round with continuous increases in prices and wages and where or when it will stop nobody knows at the present. Our economy is heading for real danger unless it is stopped effectively at once. If not checked this creeping inflation will soon become runaway inflation. It will result in a buyer's strike and probably another recession or depression in this country. Vve cannot go on with this inflationary trend as it has been without serious effects to our economy. It must be checked and stopped. I say that the Federal Government must take more aggressive and bolder action to check the inflationary spiral, and that big business, like the automobile and steel industries, and big labor organizations like the leaders of of the A~CIO must exercise niore restraint and statesmanship in curbing inflation. I think the big steel companies made a great mistake in re- · cently increasing the cost of steel $6 per ton. Continuous wage and · price increases will price goods out of the market. Large excessive expenditures of the Federal Government, if continued, will have a most devastating effect upon . our economy. Unless inflation is effectively halted soon, there will be a buyer's strike. Wage rates have been going up in private industry, but overtime in factories is being eliminated in many instances. So that the real take-home pay of many factory workers has been declining on account of this inflationary trend.

I would like to read you some comments of Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey and also the distinguished chairman presiding over the Committee of the Whole House today, Representative WILBUR MILLS, on this question of inflation, as set forth in my minority report on this legislation.

The chairman of the Fiscal Policy Subcommittee to the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress, Representative WILBUR MILLS, has this to say in his report:

Inflation is a grave economic problem facing the American economy today. Failure to deal with it forthrightly will result in increasing hardship for millions of Americans. It will impose the costs of economic insta- · bility on future generations by making achievement of steady economic progress increasingly difficult.

Public policies must face up squarely to the problem of inflation. Restraining inflation never has been and never will be an easy job. It requires making hard decisions

in public policies to contend with problems which may become increasingly complex.

I also quote the Secretary of the Treasury, the Honorable George M. Humphrey: ·

The financial program of the administration for fiscal year 1958 does not include pay increases. Enactment of the legislation which we are here discussing would require an increase in the tax burden or, as an alternative, the very real possibility that the budget for fiscal 1958 would not be in balance. ·

And, further, Secretary Humphrey said:

One of the important ways in which our Federal Government promotes price stability and sound, long-term growth and prosperity for our Nation is through balanced Federal .budgets, and substantial pay increases now would not only destroy the chance for a balanced budget but would be inflationary and a step toward higher costs of living for everyone.

This legislation is also opposed by the President of the United States. A few weeks ago the President invited the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] the ranking minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and myself to the White House to discuss this legislation. The President is opposed to the legislation. He sent our committee a message that he could not at this time recommend enactment of legislation for pay increases for postal workers.

I am further opposed to this increase because it is a flat across-the-board · increase, giving $546 to every employee from top to bottom with the exception of the rural letter carriers and fourth-class postmasters.

This recommendation of the commit-tee in this respect is in total disregard of our postal classification system. It shows no regard for the responsibilities and duties of the employees in the 20 different levels or grades. We have a classification system of 20 levels or grades set up under Public Law 68 passed by this Congress in 1955. These 20 levels set the pay rates for all postal employees from janitor through clerktypist, and on into the higher grades according to their responsibilities and duties. Yet you are going to give the same increase of $546 in this bill for those in level 1 as you give to the higher levels. It will absolutely throw out of kilter and balance our postal classification system.

Let me show you what happened to the postal pay system prior to the enact_ment of Public Law 68. Over 11 years Congress gave the same increases to employees from top to bottom. Twice we gave $400; once we gave $450; another time we gave $120, and these increases were given to everybody from top to bottom without regard to their responsibility or their work or their classification, and we finally had to enact Public Law 68 to restore a proper balance to our classification system based upon duties, responsibilities, and work in the various levels of the Postal service.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, the cost of living since the last po.stal increase was given in 1955 has gone up

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12347 only 4.45 percent, a little less than 4% percent, yet this bill as amended gives increases of anywhere from 12, 13, 14, to 16 percent which is certainly out of line with the increased cost of living since the last postal increase.

Much has been made of the allegation that postal employees' salaries have not kept up with the cost of living.

Beginning with the enactment of Public Law 134, 79th Congress, the employees in the Postal Field Service have received six salary increases as follows: Effective date: Amount

July 1, 1945------------------------ $400 Jan. 1, 1946---------------------:--- 400 June 30, 1948---------------------- 450 Nov. 1, 1949_______________________ 120 July 1, 1951________________________ 400 Dec. 3, 1955 (average)--------------- 360

Total-------------------------- 2130

It should be pointed out that the employee who was in the entrance step of the clerk-~arrier salary range in 1945 was then receiving salary at the rate of $1,700 a year. This employee is now in the top step of the schedule at a base salary of .$4,410 plus a longevity increase of $100. While the cost-of-living index since July 1, 1945, has gone up 54.7 percent, this employee has received an increase of 165.3 percent in his salary. There has been an increase of 115.3 percent in the entrance salary of these employees over the same period.

Any way you figure it, the ipcrease in salaries for the large majority of postal field employees has more than doubled the increase in the cost-of-living index since 1945.

In my home city, the postal clerks and carriers with top longevity salary are receiving today more than school teachers, policemen, firemen, retail clerks, and bookkeepers.

Let me show you what some postal employees will get under -this legislation.

Let us take a janitor. That is your custodial service and includes-your charmen and charwomen. What will they get under this bill? They will get $4,326 in the top longevity grade. What will the clerk in a third-class office get? That is a very small office. The clerk in that office will get $4,566 in the top longevity grade. What will a clerktypist get under this bill, in the top longevity grade? $4,866.

I tell you that the salaries for postal employees in the smaller first-class offices and the second-, the third-, and four.th-class offices are adequate today. The employees are not suffering. As you know, the employees, the clerks and carriers, in the second-class offices, which are in small towns, get the same salaries as the clerks and carriers in the first-class offices. Of course, there is a difference in the cost of living in some large metropolitan areas, where the large first-class offices are located than in the towns with second-class offices. Yet they get the same pay-many of you Members have second-class offices. They are in small towns. You know what the employees are getting today, and they should be well satisfied. These employees, generally, are satisfied.

I have a letter from a postal employee in a second-class office in my district. He says:

DEAR Ma. ToM: I know you are being kept busy but I just wanted to tell you the public is highly pleased on your stand against the postal pay raise bill. For the past couple of days the newspapers have been mentioning the fact that enough signatures have been secured to move the bill from your committee to the House floor for a vote over your opposition and that of the President.

Being a postal employee it may not sound right for me to write this but I know the public is very much against a pay raise a't this time and you are being highly commended for your stand.

Of course, a few postal employees are bellyaching about you being against it, but it is a very few-you know the kind it is-the ones who want everything.

I just wanted to let you know the people around here are very much against a pay raise of this kind -at this time, and we all .appreciate your standing for what you think is best.

Here is a letter I received ·last Friday from Washington, D. C., which was .signed by four Federal employees here:

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MURRAY: We, the undersigned employees of the Federal Government, read with interest of the recent bills presented to Congress to raise the salaries of Government employees. As is probably only human, we would be more than happy with a larger paycheck each pay period. However, in the interests of the economy of the Nation, economy in government, and the pressures that would be exerted for another wage spiral throughout the lanq, we believe it would not be in our or the Nation's best interests to vote a pay raise at .this time.

Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers will wake up sooner or later and call the Members of Congress to task for voting for these tremendous increases in salaries and for other huge Government expenditures. I have tried to be a friend of the postal employees. I have been one myself, my father was one before me, and I want to be fair to them, but I am not going to stand for the pressure tactics of the present leadership of certain union employee organizations. I am not afraid of them, and they know it. They know they cannot dictate to me; they know that I will follow my best judgment and dictates of my conscience. Since I have been a Member of Congress I have introduced and sponsored much beneficial legislation for the postal employees, but the heads of the postal union employee groups are making unreasonable demands of Congress today.

As a final word, I ask the Members to examine their conseiences as to their actions with respect to this legislation. If this pay increase is given to postal employees, then similar increases must be voted for the classified employees and members of our military services, resulting in a total pay increase of over $2 billion. There is no room for hypocrisy or demogoguery in this matter of grave national interest.

I know of the tremendous pressure the Members of the House have been under on the part of these leaders of the organized unions of postal employees. 1 want to continue to be f.air to the employees, but they will never cause me to advocate anything that I think is against the best interests of this Nation.

Right today, throughout the country, we have many depressed areas. One of the Members of Congress who testified before our committee in favor of pay increases for postal employees testified as follows:

I have 20,000 people who have been into employment offices saying, "I would like to have a job," and I have another 20,000 who are working part time, which means about 20 percent of the employable force is unemployed.

Let us take an average postal worker who entered the postal service at 25 years of age and works until he is 65 years of age, at which age in private industry he would be entitled to social security payments. This employee receives a base salary of $4,710 a year today. His net take-home pay is $3,787 a year. When he retires at 65 years of age, he will receive $3,591 a year. In other words, after he retires, he will continue to receive within $200 a year in take-home pay of what he received while working. In addition, he will receive a paid-up life insurance policy-of $5,000 reducing down to a minimum of $1,250-and his widow., should she live longer than he, will receive a guaranty of practically $1,800 a year for as long as she lives. The employees have various fringe benefits such as annual and sick leave, nightwork differential, uniform allowance, group life insurance, liberal retirement system, military leave and longevity pay which cost an additional 29 Y2 percent of the amount of the total payroll of all employees.

Mr. Chairman, it is useless to say more. I just wanted to explain my position, and I say to you today I do not believe that this bill with the $546 increase from "top to bottom" for all postal employees will ever become the law of this land. _

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. LESINSKI].

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, it seems rather peculiar to me to talk about inflation when the Hanna Corporation and other steel corporations constantly increase the rates on steel, a basic commodity which affects practically all manufactured products in this country. Is that not inflation? On the other hand they say that an employee trying to catch up with the cost of living does tend toward inflation. Yes, when an employee is paid way above his basic needs, it is inflation. On the other hand in this case it simply is not so.

We had before us in the Committee Mr. Stans of the Post Office Department who cited the example of school teachers as an argument _ that postal employees should not receive a salary increase. Many teachers receive a base rate of $1,846 a year. Let us not forget that school teachers' salaries, although paid annually, are for 9 months a year. School teachers also have to take parttime. jobs. How can you compare a poorly paid school teacher with a postal employee. Yes; they should be paid more. On the other hand, I think that his argument was very, very unfair and impractical. The school teachers of the Nation are also underpaid. The administration, wl;lich opposes this bill, gives


lip service about inflation throughout this Nation and states that the Federal employees should be used as a base to stop inflation. Why single out only one segment of our economy?

The total number of Federal employees is roughly 4 percent of the total working force in this country. Of the 4 percent about one-fourth or 1 percent are postal workers. Now, if all workers of the full working force of this Nation received a general increase, there would be inflation. Ori the other hand, when 1 percent receives a simple readjustment of pay, it is not inflationary.

Talk as you may against increases, the labor force, irrespective of the section of the country they come from, will always seek to regain purchasing power whenever the cost of living increases. This is natural, and especially so when others all around are receiving increases and Federal employee_s are not.

So long as the cost of living continues to increase, there will constantly be a need to increase the salaries of Federal employees in order to keep the agencies of the Government properly staffed and operating at full efficiency with a minimum of expense.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. PFOST].

Mrs. PFOST. Mr. Chairman, a nation that can afford to spend $36 billion for defense-and over $3 billion for foreign aid-can afford to pay its postal workers a living wage.

We are not paying them a living wage now-and we are losing many of our finest career men in the postal service to other jobs. A letter I received from an Idaho post office official just this last week made this flat statement:

In my 27 years in the Boise post office, I :Q.ave never experienced such a high rate of turnover or seen morale so low.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a handdra wn cartoon, done in India ink, and sent to me by a constituent from Lewiston, Idaho. She has pictured a little bulldog entitled "Low wages" and he has grabbed hold of the postal carrier's leg. As he gnaws away, President Eisenhower stands watching, wringing his hands and saying, "Well, it may be a little inconvenient, but you can still worlc, can't you?"

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to attract and retain the type of postal employee who will dedicate his life to the postal service, and do his work with pride and satisfaction, we must assure him decent pay and a reasonable amount of security.

Otherwise, he will go out and look for a job elsewhere-and I do not blame him.

Here is a letter from a postal worker's wife in my Congressional District which tells the story of what the postal worker and his family are up against right now, far better than I can. She writes:

This month we had two pay checks, which grossed us $340.50. My husband, myself and our five children live on this.

We raise most of our food by part-time fa,rming. The whole family works at that. We have our own chicken, eggs and meat. Last summer, I canned or froze about 800 quarts of vegetables and fruit. We are buy-

ing a cow so that the children may have the milk they need.

Most of our clothing is hand-me-downs altered or cut down to fit the various members of the family. Our budget is too tight to allow much for clothing. I sew, bake bread, etc., and cut all the corners I can to save expenses.

With my husband's Christmas overtime pay that he managed we bought glasses for the oldest boy. That was all the further it could be stretched. Our income is so low that we don't pay any income taxes.

From the same town in which this letter is written, a 12-cent hourly pay boost has just been announced for workers in the construction industry. Naturally the morale of the postal worker, and his wife and children is at rockbottom low.

The administration argues that this postal pay raise bill should not be passed until .the postage rate raise bill is passed.

If the Post Office Department should pay its own way, why shouldn't all other departments pay their way?

Should Congress pay its own way? It costs about $85 million a year for the legislative branch. The Veterans' Administration takes in about $98 million a year, and spends $4.7 billion. We don't try to put the services of the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior on a paying basis.

The Post Office Department costs us far less than most of the other Government departments-and gives essential service to every man, woman and child in the United States.

We have a good postal service-with a fine, patriotic body of postal workers. They deserve a better deal financially than they are now getting. I shall vote for the postal pay raise bill before us today.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VANIKJ.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I am

pleased to support H. R. 2474 with the amendment offered by its sponsor, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON]. This salary increase of $546 per annum appears to be a minimum this Congress can do to provide long overdue salary adjustments for employees of our postal service.

The constant increase in the cost of living and the continued decline in the purchasing power of the dollar has forced postal workers to accept a plummeting standard of living. The wives of the postal workers have been forced to supplementary jobs to nolster family income. The privilege of higher learning has become almost impossible for the children of postal workers. How much longer can we compel the postal worker to subsidize the cost of the postal service by inadequate and discouraging salary levels?

The American public is in full and hearty approval of pay increases to postal workers. Several years ago, when wage-increase legislation failed because

of the administration's insistence that it be made dependent upon postal rate increases, there was widespread public indignation. A pay increase for postal workers is a fair and just obligation of this Congress, irrespective of whether this Congress provides postal rate increases.

In recent weeks, thousands of residents of my district have sent me a letter or card urging that the quality of postal service be maintained and that postal employees receive adequate compensation. There is no doubt in my mind that the American public is in hearty agreement that postal salaries must be increased in order to preserve the integrity and the quality of the postal service.

I am sure that the members of this House will consider the plight of the loyal and fine Americans who serve the Nation so admirably as employees of the postal service. They are dedicated · to the public trust which they serve. They have always been modest in their appeal for pay increases and their only method of receiving adequate compensation is by an appeal to Congress. It is our duty to provide salary justice for this important group of Federal workers.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. BOYLE] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in support of H. R. 2474. As one of the first, and early signers

and one of the most consistent backers of the bill under discussion, it is a pleasure to take the floor today to assist in enacting this very much needed measure.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana ·and· the other splendid members of the committee for their unt~ring efforts.

Early in the session I appeared before the Post Office and Civil Service Committee of the House to offer testimony in support of this measure. When it became apparent that the committee intended no action, with considerable reluctance I signed the discharge petition at my first opportunity and my nam.e appears on line 46.

Not content with the amount of assistance I continued to work for the regular committee process, as did other members of our delegation and those of us who are sincerely interested in the welfare of our postal employees. I believe our continued work was responsible for the rescheduling of hearings once abandoned, and the subsequent moving of the bill to the floor for final debate.

I am cognizant that the pay raises provided by H. R. 2474 are modest, longneeded, and most necessary to maintain the standards of living of postal employees and for the morale and esprit de corps of the postal service.

With more than 60 billion pieces of mail being handled annually, with a postal force which has not been increased for 5 years, it is obvious that these raises are well earned.

It is my hope that this measure will clear the Senate and be signed by the

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12340 President this session ·so that .those people who perform a dedicated service in delivering our mails day in and day out can receive the benefits this year of their long-sought· pay increases.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANEJ.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively here this afternoon to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] explain this bill. I want to congratulate him and compliment him on a very well prepared statement. He has given to us today many, many reasons why the House should be in favor of this bill for an increase of $546 for postal employees. I notice from the committee hearings that there were 124 statements made to that committee, and countless witnesses testified in person. After listening to all of that testimony, the committee, as I understand, by a substantial majority voted out this bill.

Again, 218 of our Members have signed the discharge petition and there is no doubt in my mind that the trend of the Congressional thinking is that the salaries of postal employees must be increased.

My only hope, Mr. Chairman, is that we will have some action on this matter in this session before we recess this Congress, so that some beneficial legislation in behalf of postal employees will . be passed.

Mr: MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gen-· tleman from Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL].

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I feel that we may liken ourselves here today to members of a board of directors of a large corporation, a corporation employing 2,300,000 people. Certainly, any efficient board of directors of a successful corporation has the interests and the welfare of their employees at heart. So it is fitting and proper that we should be concerned here today about their health, morale, security, and well-being.

We have heard a lot of charges about politics. I do not think there is anything wrong with any Member of Congress representing what he feels are the best interests of his constituents. I represent more Federal employees than any other Member of this body and I make no apology for having their best interests at heart. But aside from the political aspects of it, I think it is in the part of good judgment that we take the w~lfare of Federal employees and postal employees to heart when we consider this problem. We cannot ignore their prob-

. lem, regardless of how small it may seem to be.

Of course, the problem we have before us today is the increase in the cost of living. We know that the cost of living, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has gone up 102 percent approximately since 1939. We talk about trying to bring the standard of living of postal employees up to the level which they enjoyed in 1939. I maintain that our country has enjoyed rapid growth and expansion and has made great strides and progress since 1939. In the year of our Lord 1957 we are enjoying the greatest period of prosperity we have ever known. I think we should consider

bringing our employees not up. to the 1939 level but up to the 1957 level. They should be better off today than they were in 1939. I hope that 10 years from now, 20 years from now, our employees as well as all of our people will be better off than they are today.

We know that employees in private industry are much better off than they were in 1939. In some instances they have enjoyed increases in salary of as much as 200, 300, and 400 percent. We should know that it will be very costly to us in the long run if we do not recognize this increase in the cost of living that our employees have had to ·bear. Their turnover is quite great and it is costly to our operation. We have to replace these people. And, let me add that the turnover in the postal service is much greater than it is in private industry, regardless of the statistics which have been presented to the committee to the contrary.

Mr. Chairman, a few days ago, the United States Department of Labor announced that the cost of living has increased by three-tenths of a percent over the previous month. This has been the ninth consecutive month that the cost of living has risen. The cost of living today is 4 percent higher that it was a year ago.

This simple statistic of a 4 percent rise in the cost of living means that more than 2 million Federal employees will have to absorb the ever-increasing cost of living on their far from generous salaries. It means that during the past year the standard of living of the Federal employee has declined. ·

Again, according to the United States Department of Labor, it costs $4,743 to maintain in Washington a family of 4 on an adequate but modest budget. Such a budget does not allow for any luxuries but merely for thrifty living. More than 50 percent of Federal employees do not make that much and, therefore, have to subsist on a budget below what the United States Department of Labor considers an adequate maintenance budget.

The average Government employee makes less today than tt_e average coal miner, steel worker, automobile worker, oil worker, or construction worker. It was not always this way. A Government position used to be sought after, not only because of the opportunity of service that it offered, but also because of the good pay and fine working conditions that Government employees used to enjoy compared with other groups in the popu-lation. .

This is no longer so. We have allowed the status of Government employees to deteriorate. Let me illustrate the experience of one occupation in the Gov·ernment with which we are all familiarthat of the letter carrier. The average letter carrier today makes $4,383. In most American cities this is less than is required, for what I called before, an adequate but modest cost of living. It is no wonder, therefore, that most postal employees have to look for a secondary job to supplement the income that they receive for long hours of work in the post office. During the past 10 years, the average salary of a letter carrier

has increased by 52 percent, but most of this increase was absorbed by the rise in cost of living,.so that during the whole decade since 1946, the real rise in the wages of letter carriers has been only 10 percent. Compare this with an increase of three times as high for workers in manufacturing, coal, and building construction. Even retail employees have gained relatively twice as great a wage boost in real wages during the past decade than those of the letter carrier.

The lot of the classified civil-service employee is not much better. Their money wage over the decade between 1946 and 1956 has increased by 61 percent, but the average real wage has risen by only 16 percent, or half as much as that in manufacturing, coal, and building construction.

Over the past 2 years alone, since Federal Government employees li'ave received their last and inadequate salary raise, wage rates of the major groups in American economy have risen between 10 and 20 percent.

Is it, therefore, any wonder that the posit.ion of Federal employees has corroded over the years and that the status of Federal employment has been seriously injured?

In private industry we take it for granted that the increases in cost of living and improvements in productivity are compensated so that the remuneration of employees improves with increases in productivity. Most Government jobs do not lend themselves to measurements of productivity, but such measurements do not appear necessary. It is quite obvious that Government employees who perform essential services and who help create a climate which makes possible the overall growth of productivity should be entitled to share in the economic growth of this economy.

But in some areas. where productivity of Government employees can be measured, like in the post office, we find that the rise in productivity has compared favorably with that in private industry. According to the Postmaster General and the Bureau of the Budget productivity of postal employees has increased at an annual rate of some 3 percent, and the best available data indicate that these increases are going to continue in the future.

Plain justice and fair pfay would, therefore, require that we grant a substantial wage increase to Federal employees in order to make it possible for them to catch up with the increases granted to employees in private industry doing comparable work. This in itself would be sufficient and good reason for granting the increase, but there are other compelling reasons which would require Congress to raise the wage and salary scales of Federal employees.

Evidence presented before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee shows that in many cases the Federal Government has difficulty in hiring suitable personnel to replace those who retire or who leave Government employment for more remunerative occupation outside of Government.

In addition, independent studies conducted by the Department of Defense, the Civil Service Commission and a

12350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22. Commission especially appointed by the President to study the problems of Federal pay practices have all concluded that in many areas, Federal wages and salaries are too low to attract the necessary caliber of men to perform the high level of responsibility that Government work requires.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of reducing the budget and in favor of reducing the heavy burden that taxation brings upon our population. But we cannot accomplish this at the expense of the already underpaid Federal employees. Failure to enact a fair wage increase to Federal employees will not constitute a saving but a loss. Failure to act now would impair essential Government services and would, therefore, constitute a damage to our total economy.

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

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

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania [Mrs. GRANAHAN].

Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Chairman, as a new Member of Congress I have had very few occasions to take the :floor of the House. But while I am a new Member, I was for many years before coming to the House the wife of a Member of Congress who was a sincere good friend of the postal employees in Philadelphia and in the country.

Therefore, I have been thoroughly familiar over the years with the problems of the postal employees, as their representatives came to see my husband at our home to discuss these problems. I know that the postal employee over the years has been losing ground. His standard of living has not kept pace with the standard of living of industrial workers and most <'f the population.

Now I might point out that we require the highest · of security and loyalty standards for our Government employees and yet, while expecting every bit of their devotion, we have not been treating them fairly.

I sat on the committee day after day and listened to high officials of this administration tell us it would be inflationary to raise the pay of postal employees.

This administration does not seem to consider the tremendously increased rates of return of our banks and lending institutions under the tight money policy as inflationary apparently, but a few extra dollars in the pockets of the postal employee, we are told, would cause in:fia ti on.

Mr. Chairman, we have inflation now. 'The cost of living is at its highest level in all history. The families of the postal workers cannot make ends meet. I think it is cruel and heartless to say it would be inflationary to enable these people to live like true Americans with a decent standard of living.

In the last year alone, many of the essential costs of running a household have been shooting up alarmingly. The cost of transportation-of running a car to get to work or of taking a bus or other public transportation-has gone up about 7 percent; medical care is up at least 4

percent; shoes are up about 4 percent; coal and fuel oil are up about 6 percent, and so on.

These are increases in living costs in just the last year. Going back to just a few years before that, right before we had the last fairly good increase in pay for our employees, we find that the cost of milk and other dairy produc.ts has gone up 19 percent, cereals and bakery products have gone up a tremendous 27 percent, the costs of household operation are up about 25 percent, and so on-the figures are shocking in many instances.

In my own city of Philadelphia there has been an increase in living costs generally in the past year of about 3 percent, and that is duplicated in other major cities-in Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Washington and many others. In Cleveland the increase has been more than 4 percent and the same in Houston.

Now all these facts indicate to me, Mr. Chairman, that the raise we contemplate voting for here is by no means excessive. I would say instead that it is not enough. I would be willing to vote for an $800 increase, knowing that every family in the postal service could use that amount at least, and knowing, too, that those at . the lowest level on the salary scale need at least that much really to catch up with their higher expenses.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. SANTANGELO], a member of the committee.

Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, H. R. 2474, as amended.

This bill provides for a pay increase of $546 per annum for postal employees, or a 12%-percent increase of the average salary.

· I . support this bill because I believe that the defense of our country begins not in Vietnam, Cambodia, or the Middle East but begins at home, and because I believe that the greatest force against communism within our borders is a satisfied Government worker, who is proud of his employment, satisfied with his salary, and is faithful to his duties.

I believe that a Government employee deserves a salary which will permit him to work in dignity and to obtain the basic necessities of life. I am opposed to a salary scale which requires a postal employee to hold down a second job to make ends meet or requires his wife to leave her children to supplement the family income. At the present time, postal employees are paying this week's bills with next week's check or with borrowed funds. This condition must not be permitted; it must not be tolerated.

The various reports obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other surveys show that an American family of 4 requires an income in excess of $5,000 to support itself on a modest basis. This amount provides only the basic necessities and does not permit of luxuries and extravagance. The annual salaries of most postal employees fall far short of this basic minimum and this bill will raise postal salaries to meet most of their necessary expenses.

I personally favored a higher increase, but in view of the attitude of this admin-

istration and the fears which have been expressed, I have supported this modest increase and do not press for a higher amount at this time.

Criticism has been raised that the proposed increase will reduce the salary differentials between the higher and lower grade employees since all of them will receive the same raise. After hearing this argument, you would almost think that the wage and salary pay schedule of postal employees was the Code of Hammurabi which must not be tampered with, or the Decalogue which was handed down from Mount Sinai. There is nothing sacrosanct about the classification schedule.

The Postmaster General in opposing a salary boost for postal employees has stressed the alleged fact that postal employees receive higher wages and salaries than municipal employees doing comparable work. The Postmaster General submitted facts and figures from cities which in my opinion were not representative. To check this allegation, I had prepared from the Library ot Congress, the facts and figures of 34 cities which the Department of Labor considers typical metropolitan areas and which have been used for measuring the cost of living in the United States. The conclusions are revealing. In two-thirds of the cases, I found that the average letter carrier's salary is two-thirds lower than that of teachers, patrolmen, and firemen in these cities.

Finally, the administration argues that the wage increase to postal employees would be inflationary. In my opinion, since these services do not produce a product the price of which is raised, this increase would not be inflationary, but would permit the postal employees meeting the cost of the present inflationary prices. In my opinion it is inflationary for the steel industry to raise the price of steel $6 per ton because that increase reflects itself in your stoves, your frigidaires, your cars and in other articles. What does the administration propose to do about that . . If we followed the reasoning of the administration, we would put the whole burden of controlling inflation on the underpaid postal employee or other Federal servants. Apart from the questionable ethics and justice of such an argument, I believe it is also poor business.

We must realize that if we continue to allow the relative position of postal employees to deteriorate too long, the caliber of employees in this extraordinary service will decline and with it will decline its efficiency, This we must not allow.

In conclusion, I say we have the legislative duty to relieve our postal employees. You shall not press down on the backs of our letter carriers a bag of misery. You shall not burden them with a yoke of penury,

Pass this bill as amended. Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. HEMPHILL], a member of the committee.

Mr. HEMPIDLL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation designed to give a much needed increase to postal employees. In my opinion, this pay in-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12351 crease is long overdue, especially when you compare the take-home pay of postal employees with that of other groups.

While we do not call this a cost-ofliving increase, that is what it is.

I have talked with postal employees in my district, out in Virginia; where I am renting while Congress is in session, here in the District of Columbia, and on two occasions I have stopped in Maryland and talked to postal employees there. In my home district I am personally familiar with the problems of these loyal employees of the Federal Government. I am reminded that most of them are veterans, many of them suffering wounds and disabilities, and all of them loyal Americans. ·

In the case of the regular employee, a limitation of 40 hours a week often keeps his nose to the financial grindstone, and I know of a number of men who told me how difficult it is to clothe and feed the family properly, pay the doctor, and save even a small bit toward the education of their children. I admire them for wanting to educate their children, and I respect them in their desires to pay their bills and keep up with their other obligations.

In the case of a substitute, irregular hours cause extra expense of going to and from work, extra meals, and other incidental expense. Lacking a guaranteed schedule, they find themselves some weeks making more and some weeks making less than the regular employees.

The rural carrier not only has had his mail volume increased in the last few years, but the shift of the population to the rural and suburban areas, together with the increased· birthrate, has resulted _in the growth of the number of patrons. The equipment of the rural carrier is more expensive, his gasoline and oil are higher, but he still occupies a place of intimacy in the hearts of the families he serves. In addition to his regular duties, he performs a thousand personal services each week, and the American people are glad that he does. The rural family has always been able to depend on the rural carriers, and that is the way it should be.

Recently, I heard an opponent to this legislation make the remark, "Well, . if they don't like the job, why don't they quit?" That was a most unkind remarlt. If any service, outside the military, demands loyal employees, the post office does. I am proud of the post office in my town, and I know you are proud of the one where you live. I want it to be a symbol of outstanding and excellent Government service. I want the men and women who work there, my friends and neighbors, to be proud of the postal service and have a great loyalty to that service . . None of us desires the kind of post office which has a constant turnover of employees. We want to build up experience in the post office as in any other important parts of our national picture. Postal employees are family men.

Comment has been made about . the fact that so many post office wives work. That is a significant reflection of the American way of life today. They have to work, like other wives have to work, to meet the family budget. I do not think this is peculiar to the post office,

but I salute those ladies who do work to keep up the family budget.

Not long ago I stopped at a filling station to have a tire repaired. When the young man had done part of the work, he was waiting for the machinery to supplement his work and I had a chance to talk to him. I asked him what he was doing and he told me he was working in the post office and was working extra to meet his bills. He was a veteran and a wonderful inspirmg American just like I know at home-a post office employee-a good citizen-a patriot-in his time. That happened in the District, almost in the shadow of the Capitol and certainly not more than 1 mile from here as the crow flies.

As most of you know, our record here has been for economy. Some might wonder why I can vote for this pay raise in the light of the economy drive we have put on in other fields.

Just like I can vote against foreign aid. I saw one item in the budget approved by the Congress in which $7 million was allocated 'fl)r what is known as an atoms for peace program, when the organization set up for that purpose could spend $4 million, more or less, allocated to them last year. We are throwing our dollars at the foot of every despot in the world. These post office employees are paying their proportionate share of the taxes from which the State Department gets this money to waste.

I believe in doing a little something for the boy back home, and it is not good economy to have this necessary vital service filled with underpaid employees. I believe that is the present status.

We all know that United States Steel has recently increased the price of steel and that means another stepup to spiral inflation, and more hardships on the salaried employees, especially the postal worker. I am for doing something for the postal employee, and I ask you to support this legislation and I hope the President will not veto this bill if it is passed. For once during this session of Congress, I would like to see Mr. Eisenhower do something for the little man the wage earner. '

Mr. BURNS of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORRISON. I yield. Mr. BURNS of Hawaii. Mr. Chair

man, in supporting H. R. 2474, I am conscious of a very personal interest-an exceptional long-time acquaintance with postal employees' salaries. My mother raised her family of four-I being the eldest-on the wages of a clerk in the Honolulu post office. Though it was a job that called for qualifications in excess of many other positions paying far more, the salary was sufficient only for the barest minimum in living standards. The family budget was so tight the normal requirements could not be met even with the loans and debts which accumulated through the years. · While this condition existed many years ago-my mother is now drawing a pension -as a retired employee, having retired about 1954-I am inclined by the report of the committee and by the information I have received to believe that the postal worker, particularly those who

make up the greatest number of employees, are not receiving a living wage, much less recei_ving adequate compensation for the work performed since productivity has increased 17 percent over the past 6 years, according to Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield.

Certainly, those employees who by their loyalty and high productive service have accomplished this should also have the benefits of their increased productivity in the form of the wherewithal with which to pay their bills as well as to maintain a decent standard of living.

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, the Honorable JAMES H. MORRISON, and the members of the committee are to be complimented for their concern with the welfare of those whose faithful service expeditiously carry our communications.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman I yield to the gentleman from Penn;ylvania [Mr. FULTON].

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I heartily support this pay raise. I believe the pay raise in substantial amount should be passed by Congress not only for the postal workers but for all other employees in the Federal Government. Every person working knows the impact of the rising cost of living on personal and family budgets. Secondly, this action is completely in line with the present industrial pay raises going on all over the country. Thirdly, the governmental pay scales are out of line with costs of living and purchasing power. In the city of Pittsburgh, they pay postal workers, in some instances, less than they pay day laborers in private industry. Fourthly, I think the postal representatives representing all the various United States postal worker organizations and as Government employee representatives have acted in every way consistent with high public service. I hope the chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee when he used the words "dictating" or "pressure" did not refer to any of the activities of these respected and devoted organizations and agencies. If he did, I would like to hear it, as I cannot let any such inference stand with.out denial or explanation.

From my experience, I challenge any Member on the floor to give me any instance where any member of a postal workers' organization, or Government employees' organizations, or their officers have in any way acted by pressure or dictat1ng methods.

From my own experience, I have aiways been treated with courtesy and thoughtfulness by the representatives and officers of the postal workers and Government employee unions. In 'fact, I like the association so well that I joined one voluntarily myself and am an . active dues-paying member. We need good, honest, and willing representation for our Government employees and postal workers.. I am sorry there is·not more emphasis on the policy of conference table consultation and negotiation between Government and representatives of employee organizations. We fairminded Congressmen must work for this development in improving employee relations.


I hea1·tily favor a substantial, and really a substantial, pay raise for the postal employees as well as the Federal employees. Everyone has been hearing so much about the increase in the cost of living, and for the average family it has substantially increased. Likewise everyone here has heard repeatedly time after time the difficulties that postal workers are having, particularly, at the present wage scales. As a person who is interested in good government, I am getting pretty tired of always hearing that the Post Office Department is a poor employer. It is a poor standing to have with the public. The person that gets a reputation, or corporation that has a reputation, for being a poor employer very quickly finds that he is not having efficient personnel, does not have willing personnel, and is not getting the job done. In justice to these employees, as well as the taxpayers and the public, we must at present remedy the lag that has become chronic for our postal and Federal employees.

I am glad to say to you in recommending this postal and Federal employee pay increase that I likewise recommend a postal-rate increase.

So many postal employees have their wives or their children work or they have to take other jobs themselves that actually it gives the United States Post Office a bad name. I might say about the Congressman from Chicago, Ill., with eight children, who testified before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, he simply could not work for the Post Office Department. There is no room in the Post Office Department for anybody with a large family. Let us face it. Therefore, the policies of the Government on this particular economic group militates strongly against families because of the low pay scale. I believe that policy is an error, that the economics of this country should not be run so than any economic group takes more of the burden than any other.

I believe I am one of those Congressmen who is classed as a good friend of the union man. I am generally endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the steelworkers from my district, as a Republican for reelection each year. It means that I know something of the problems of the working people and a good bit about the working people's conditions in my area. The Federal Government should treat its postal and Federal employees at least as well as business treats its employees through contracts worked out by voluntary collective bargaining.

I believe the Congress should feel that these Government and postal employees are the showcase of the Government. They are the Government people that the average person in public sees.

For example, the postman, as well as the people working in the post offices themselves are the persons that the public sees more than anybody else in Government. Why then shouldn't we have a real career service in the Post Office Department and have these people be career persons who are out selling the good of the Department?

In my district I might say that the poor postman goes around and everybody rather looks at him as a person

that is hard up, having a bard time to get along, having a grinding time with a Government that always gives him a pay raise about 2 to 5 years after it is due. Then we people in the community have to see if we can help him or his wife get another job just to make ends meet for a decent living. As a matter of fact, I hire some of these people occasionally myself on the side on various special jobs just to help them out in our area.

There is another effect that we should consider. When the Post Office Department or the Government has a bad reputation as an employer it is not a happy situation. Why not have an .enthusiastic team spirit for the Federal and postal employees when a real career service works so well in business?

We have the situation in the Post Office Department where the older ones in the service are very discouraged, but they are loyal. How do you think you are going to recruit these fine new young people to keep the service going for the future when they see this condition ahead of them? We employers are going to be getting the better ones and I might say in Pittsburgh·we are having a hard time recruiting fine young people to replace the better ones that are moving into the upper echelons. As you heard here today, many times it is getting to be the people that are marginal, that just have the intelligence just to get over the lower limit of the examinations that are becoming the new employees of the Government and the postal service. · My recommendation is, therefore, that there be a good substantial pay raise for both the Federal workers and the postal employees, and I believe it will pay on the matter of efficiency. It will pay on the reception the Government gets from the public as well. We people in the House Foreign Affairs Committee know how necessary it is to have a broad general base for the support of the Government and know that a narrow base makes a weak government. Whether our Government is Republican or Democratic, whatever it is, I want a good broad base support of it, of satisfied people and taxpayers who believe the Government renders efficient service.

Therefore, I would urge you for the Government Department that has the most contacts with the public, :Please look your best, please. Please have happy, intelligent, ambitious people out front in all Government departments that make it look like the Government service is a wonderful place and that they would like to be part of it.

Too many young people these days feel unless they can get a job that is simply a top white-collar job in the Government they should not even be part of the Government service. I feel that is an error, and it is partly the Congress' fault. I might end by saying that I voted and would have voted for the restoration of the full amount of the postoffice funds when there was a cut recently, because I feel that economy can be placed on the wrong bas.is. It can hit too hard on essential services. How can I on the House Foreign Affairs Committee recommend that we assist foreign governments in making up budgetary

deficiencies when any · government in Europe gives better postal service and more often-that we are aiding-than we get in the United States?·

As you recall, the President now has voluntarily cut $500 million from the proposal of $4.4 billion he recommended to begin with; so we have a $500 million saving already in the current budget that can be used for a really substantial postal and Federal employee pay raise. and Foreign Affairs Committee and the House have added over $700 million to that cut.

We w.ill likely cut $500 million off the foreign-aid program to help the budget. As you remember, last year it was my amendment that cut the foreign-aid program which carried the lower House, with over a billion-dollar cut. The $1.1 billion which we cut the foreign-aid program last year in the House is just where the foreign-aid program ended up in conference.

So there is room in the current Federal budget without inflation or going above administration cost estimates to include a really substantial pay raise for postal workers and Federal employees. . I am trying to explain that in necessary points we must economize, but on this particular bill I believe it would be false economy for the committee to postpone an immediate substantial pay raise for postal and Federal _employees, because it will hurt the service in the future.

I believe that it is very necessary that we have an immediate substantial raise for our postal workers at this time. The average wage of a post-office clerk in 1956 was almost $6 per week below the median wage in private industry. In 1939 the average weekly wage received by a post-office clerk was above that of all employees in private industry. In comparison with 1939 figures, the average postal clerk's actual buying power has declined about 15 percent. While the postal employee's buying power remains low, the average production worker's actual buying power has increased more than 100 percent.

Low salaries make it extremely difficult for the Post Office Department to attract the top personnel that it needs to operate at top efficiency. In the small city of Beaver Falls, Pa., located not far from Pittsburgh, they have the same difficulty in recruiting postal employees that we have in Pittsburgh. In Beaver Falls they recently advertised an examination and received only one application. This is a small office having a total of 22 letter carriers. The employees in this small community find it necessary to hold extra jobs just the same as they do in our city of Pittsburgh. It is almost impossible to recruit postal employees in the city of Pittsburgh. A common laborer is paid $2.40 an hour, and in many industrial plants the pay is much higher. So, when it comes to recruiting personnel in the postal service where the starting salary is a mere $1.82 an hour, you cannot secure the type of individual that is needed to do the highly skilled work of a. postal employee.

The average postal clerk serviced 254,-609 pieces of mail in 1954; this year he will have to service 281,719, and he is ex.

1957" CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12353 pected to increase his production to 287 ,-414 pieces to meet budget plans for 1958. President Eisenhower noted in his budget message that there has been an increase of 11 percent in volume of mail handled in the past 4 years with only a 3-percent increase in personnel. This greater productivity per postal worker strongly justifies a pay increase.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CoRBETTJ, a member of the committee.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Tennessee has always been sincere and earnest in presenting the point of view which he believes is best for his district and his Nation. I want to commend him on being sincere and forthright, and I know that extends to the other members of the committee from other sections, and I know that he extends to other members of the committee from other sections the same right. Many of us who come from high-cost of-living areas recognize that the postal employees really are suffering from inflation and they are suffering badly. We know in summary that the matter of dual employment within a family and the matter of one individual having to have two .jobs to sustain a reasonable standard of living for their families is a correct and valid argument for this pay raise. We know also that the cost of recruitment and training of new employees in the largest city offices has been staggering. But, as I have. listened through the debate today, and the debates in committee, I can find no good reason why anyone except those from the small rural areas would feel apologetic about supporting this bill. The argument about inflation and this bill being inflationary simply does not hold water. We are trying here to bring the level up to the figure that it would have been in 1939. It is necessary that we do that·. As the gentleman from Virginia said earlier, over and beyond that we have a desire for some progress. We want the people in the post office to share the better things that America produces, the same as people on the outside of Government. There is no reason why all the people, including Federal employees should not have a rising standard of living which is the real American dream. Why do we say to this group, "You hold the line. We are going to put prices up everywhere else. We can spend $71.8 billion for goods and services but we have not budgeted anything for you folks. You are just people."

One other argument I want to address myself to, and then I will be happy to yield.

Because this proposed raise is across the board some say that therefore it is bad. That is not correct. I submit this is not a reclassification bill. This is a bill to meet the increased cost of living, and it costs just as much for the janitors to live as it does for people in brackets 19 and 20.

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

Mr. CORBETT. I yield.

·Mr. GROSS. The gentleman spoke of the differential between metropolitan areas and the rural areas or small-town areas. Is it not true that approximately 80 percent of those employed in the field service of the Post Office Department are in metropolitan areas?

Mr. CORBETT. The gentleman is exactly correct. The gentleman also knows that no one who has opposed this bill because it is a cost-of-living increase has come forward with any area pay raise suggestion. I believe everybody in this House can support this bill properly.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT] has expired.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, it is well recognized that postal employees as a group are at a disadvantage insofar as they are not paid salaries commensurate with average industrial employees.

It is not in the public interest that this group be compelled to bear this handicap on the assumption that any salary raise at this time is inflationary when their present deficiency in purchasing power is the direct result of the past and present inflationary trend.

That postal · employees are entitled to a reasonable salary increase is too well known to be denied. They are, by any yardstick of measurement, entitled to a salary adjustment which, together with unbroken periods of employment, annual accumulations, longevity, and retirement benefits will assure them an overall equality with employees in business and industry.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support an adequate salary increase for our postal employees. Postmaster._; in many parts of the country are finding it increasingly difficult to employ qualified persons who are indispensible to the operation of an efficient postal system. Many of the postmasters report they :;tre losing good men for better paying jobs. I have also received evidence to the effect that many more are delaying seeking or accepting better paying jobs pending present congressional consideration of a salary increase.

I should like to give an example of a local post office within 15 miles of the Nation's Capital. In this post office, there are 66 persons employed. Of these 53 are married and have children. Of the 53, the wives of 26 have found it necessary to seek outside employment in order to exist. Thirty of the employees at this post office have found it necessary to take part-time jobs to supplement their income. Of the 36 who do not have other part-time jobs, 13 are fortunate enough to have private sources of income. To put these facts a bit differently, 33 of the regular employees have to supplement their incomes through part-time jobs or working wives or through other private sources of income.

In this office, breaking down the income by the week, the regular employees-including supervisors, have an average weekly income for a 40-hour week of $66 take-home pay after deductions. The substitutes, because they have longer hours, have an average income of about $72.

Should an increase in wages be delayed, it can serve no purpose but to deteriorate service and in the long run, will cost far more than a cost-of-living wage.

Mr: RAY. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, H. R. 2474, as amended by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, is unsound in principle and will be unfair in its application should it become Jaw. Notwithstanding that belief, I expect to vote against other amendments and to vote for the committee recommendations because, for the postal employees in New York City the proposed increase is not more than fair under conditions prevailing in that area.

I say that the bill is unsound in principle because its flat dollar increase across the board, disturbs basic differentials which now exist between grades and it disregards the differences in costs of living and competitive pay situations which vary throughout the country between small and large communities and in other respects.

I take little satisfaction in voting for what I think is a badly conceived bill but I cannot ignore the need for fair treatment of postal employees in the city of New York. That city includes all of the district which I represent.

Mr. BREEDING. Mr. Chairman, and my distinguished colleagues, I would like to rise and say a few words in favor of the postal pay raise bill. I feel this loyal group of Government employees who so loyally and faithfully serve our Government and the public, a.ire urgently entitled to a pay increase at this time. The average postal worker has receivec,i only a small pay increase in the past several years. This fact, in addition to the higher cost-of-living level, makes it imperative that something be done to give him some relief. Where a postal employee has a family to support, he is reduced to a subsistence level which in the face of our present high standard of living, makes it impossible for him to have more than the barest necessities of life without seeking additional employment.

We have certainly worked hard to enact legislation in the interest of the farmer, and also the small-business men. and now this category of our Federal workers is seeking some relief, and I feel they are justly entitled to the raise they request.

I do not know whether or not it is true, but it is rumored here on the floor that the President has sent word to the Hill that if this bill is passed, he v.·m veto same. If that is true, then I feel the President is wielding a club over the heads of the Members of Congress.

I am proud to say that it is my intention to support H. R. 2474.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, and I ask unan- · imous consent that my remarks may be inserted in the RECORD during the general debate on the bill just under considera ti oh.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.

Chairman, everybody in Congress knows


how I feel about the postal people and Post Office Department and who now obthe carriers and everybody in the om.ces ject to paying $5,000 a year total salary in the cities and towns and the rural to letter carriers, clerks, arid other postal carriers. I do not know what we Mem- employees for the hard work they perbers of Congress could possibly do with- form and the loyal and efficient service out the help of these wonderful workers they give. It is about time that a little in the postal services. They aid us in more attention be paid to these emour regular Congressional work, .in our ployees. A :fiat across-the-board inprivate business and during the holiday crease of $546, as provided for in this seasons and during our. campaigns. I bill, is the most equitable way to raise do not see how they can stand the pres- the pay level of postal employees who are sure. suffering the most from the rising cost

Their work is arduous. Most persons of living. do not realize the sacrifices they must H. R. 2474 is a fair bill, it is a reason-make and hardships they endure. able bill. It must be enacted if we are

They are tireless and deserve the best to keep faith with the devoted employees there is·. It is generally agreed that their · of our postal establishment. Mr. Chairpay should be raised-that their pay is man, we hear all sorts of rumors about inadequate. what the President might do if this bill

I hope this bill will .be signed by the is placed on his desk. I say that we President. I have a feeling it will be. must concern ourselves with what is fair Many others have received raises in and right in this matter of postal pay. salary. The threat of a Presidential veto should

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, last not deter us from acting on this bill. If week we voted at the urging Qf the ad- we are convinced that postal employees ministration for several billions of dol- deserve this raise, let us pass this measlars in foreign military and economic ure . . aid. I personally voted for this measure Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, the with great reluctance because it was Nation's hard-working and loyal postal offered on the heels of a series of de- workers and their families are looking feats for efforts designed to assist Amer- to us today to fulfill our duties and reican farmers and other depressed groups sponsibilities to them. They have no here in the United States. I felt, too, other place to turn. Their fate and that the measure was weighted too heav- their future is in our hands. Only by ily on the side of military aid rather than enacting the bill before us raising the economic and technical assistance. salaries of the Nation's 500,000 postal

But the point is that we make our- employees will we be living up to our selves look ridiculous when we under- duties and responsibilities. write costly aid programs abroad and There is no doubt that the postal then ignore hard-pressed groups here worker deserves and needs this pay raise. at home. Such a group is the American I am getting just a bit tired of the Post postal workers. These faithful public Office Department and - the President servants have been waging a losing bat- bragging about how the volume of mail tle with the cost of living. They are handled has increased 11 percent in the being forced to supplement their in- past 4 years with only a 3 percent incomes with after-hours jobs. Their crease in personnel and then turning wives are leaving the home to work in around and opposing a pay increase for the factories and shops of the Nation. the people who have made this great Their children are being denied needed record of increased productivity passible. health and educational opportunities. There has been a net gain in postal pro-

We all lose in this kind of a situation. ductivity of 38.5 percent. This pay inLarge numbers of experienced, efficient crease, then, is certainly justified by inpostal employees are resigning from the creases in production and is in line with service. To replace and train their re- the President's warning in his state of plaeements is a costly public expense the Union message that the danger of inthat places a greater burden on the ft.ation lies in wage increase not justified public than would a modest postal pay by increases in production. The Presiincrease. dent admitted that the danger of intla-

It is not fitting that the world's most tion does not lie in wage raises earned powerful Nation should permit its public through a real increase in productivity. servants to live on a substandard income. Applying his own test of what causes I strongly urge the passage of the pro- in:fiation this postal pay increase will not posed postal pay increase. add to the in:fiationary · spiral. More-

Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr. over, the workers who have made this inChairman, I rise in support of H. R. 2474. creased production in the Post Office DeThe efficiency and honor of the postal partment possible should share in them. service in this country is at stake. If Without question the hard working the pay of our loyal and hard-working postal worker deserves this raise. postal employees is not raised to a decent Even more importantly, he needs it, level, I fear that much of the competence and needs it badly. No one denies this, and experience will be lost. It has been not even the President. No responsible adequately demonstrated that postal pay is lagging far behind the wage levels in person has come out and said "The postal private employment. Postal employees worker doesn't need a raise now. He's must have this opportunity to earn making enough to get along." If any enough to support themselves and their have, the facts completely belie their families on a decency level. argument. The postal worker needs a

It is difficult for me to understand the raise so that he can meet today's high reasoning of opponents of this bill who cost of living without holding down an supported salary increases of as much as after-hours part-time job and forcing $5,000 for political appointees in the his wife to go out and work besides.

Fully half the p0stal workers in the country have outside jobs just to make ends meet. They do not do this extra work to become millionaires or earn unneeded extra cash. They do it out of dire necessity; out of an inability to obtain .the necessities of life on their postal salaries. Why today the average postal worker is actually worse off, by 15 percent, than he was in terms of actual buying power in 1939. His salary may be higher but it ~uys much less today than in 1939. I know most of us here on the :floor today have received letters from postal workers back home describing in detail their financial state of affairs. In a nutshell, their present salary just is not designed to cope with today's high cost of living and they need this raise to correct that terrible situation.

The fact that a postal pay increase is both deserved and needed does not seem to impress the administration, the Post om.ce . Department heads, or the opponents to this bill here this afternoon. After listening to the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Postmaster General, and the Budget Bureau one would think that the poor postal worker is directly responsible for the high cost of living and the in:fiationary spiral we find ourselves in. Of course, they have to blame someone. They have to take the heat off their own "tight money" policy and the recent industrywide price increases which are the real causes of in:fiation.

The argument that ~postal salaries should not be increased now because such an increase would be iilflationary is a typical example of just how this administration operates. The fact that the postal workers are also the victims of in:fiation seems to be ignored. The fact that they need this raise because of in:fiation seems to be overlooked.

The administration is going all out against the postal worker and this proposed salary increase. Without a blink of the eye they come up here and ask for billions for defense and foreign aid and -then turn around and argue that a pastal pay increase will be in:fiationary, will result in deficit financing, and continued high taxes. Why Secretary Humphrey went so far as to say that this pay raise would "seriously impede our progress" toward reductions in Federal taxes and the public debt. · My first question is: What progress? The debt is higher than ever, interest payments on it are higher than ever, and taxes are just as high as ever with no relief in sight so long ~ the administration continues to oppose tax cuts. It is grossly unfair to the ·postal worker to saddle him with the responsibility of reducing taxes and the public debt when this administration has not been able to do it despite all the campaign promises and oratory.

My second question is: Should the needs of over half a million people and their families be overlooked now because

· of the possibility of a tax cut sometime in the future? This postal pay increase bill will not have so great an atiect on the administration's fiscal and monetary plans as they would have you believe. It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to expect them to be·

J.~57 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12355 lieve that if the postal workers get a pay raise the rest of us won't get a tax cut. Is Humphrey just setting the stage for a 1958 campaign excuse when the American people ask Republican candidates why their taxes were not cut like the President promised? Could it possibly be that the answer is going to be, "We tried to cut your taxes but the Democrats raised the salary of the postal workers and so we couldn't cut taxes." The boys on Madison Avenue will have to work late at night to make that one palatable to the American people.

Why do they not come right out with it? This bill will not keep taxes high. It will not result in deficit financing any more than we have now. It will not affect the debt or interest payments on it. It will not cause a depression. What it will do is help some people. That has never been too great a concern of this administration and I doubt if it ever will be.

What interests me especially about the President's opposition to this bill is his fear that it will add to the inflationary spiral. It is amazing how tough this administration can be against a group such as the postal workers and how very lenient it is with big business and administered price increases.

Actually the techniques used by United States Steel to justify its latest price increase and the administration to justify its opposition to this bill are quite similar. The steel company cites wage boosts as the cause of price increases. The administration warns that this proposed postal wage boost will keep taxes high. In both cases ·we have the situation where labor is being used as a scapegoat, on the one hand to justify an unnecessary price increase by steel management and on the other hand to oppose a necessary wage increase for postal employees. Of course, it is not surprising that the minds which control United States Steel and this administration run in the same channels.

Why does not the President and his fiscal advisers crack down on big business price increases as hard as they crack down on the postal workers? To big business the President says, "Now, boys, act like statesmen and do not raise prices too bigh or we will have inflation." How in the world can they be expected to act like statesmen? They are businessmen. They are concerned with the amount of profit they can receive on their investment. They are not concerned with the welfare of the public; with the affect their price boost will have

·on the Nation's economic strength; with ·statesmanship. Not in the least.

There are a number of facts that must be apparent to all. First of all we are in a period of inflation. Second, a major cause of this inflation is the widespread use by big business of the administered price technique. Third, the administration, while opposing postal rates because they would be inflationary, is doing little of anything but talk about getting to the basic causes of and solution to the inflation problem.

Take the recent steel price increase as an example. After the President urged restraint the United States Steel Co. on June 27 announced that it was

raising its steel prices an average of $6 a ton. The company cited recent wage and fringe benefit increases as the rea:. son for the increase.

This old saw about wage and salary increases are the primary causes of price increases is just a lot of hot air. Recently the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a report completely exploding this antilabor myth. The AFL-CIO economic policy committee in their pamphlet Economic Trends and Outlook recently reported fully on the Bureau of Labor Statistics report as follows:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics report deals with productivity, wages and salaries, costs and prices in the private nonfarm part of the national economy in 1947-56. Although the Government agency's figures are rough estimates at best, the report does show the trend of post-World War II wage costs and prices.

LABOR COSTS LOWER THAN PRICE RISES

The report states: "The index for unit labor costs was lower than the price index for every year prior to 1956, although the difference was very slight and probably insignificant in 1953 and 1954." In other words, nonfarm prices were rising faster than unit labor costs, between 1947 and 1956, except in the 1 year, 1956. During the post-World War II years, price increases have been pulling up unit labor costs, not vice versa.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics study also states: "The index of nonlabor costs (profits, depreciation, and other nonlabor payments) was higher than the price index for every year prior to 1956, with only slight differences in 1953 and 1954." It was profits, depreciation, and other nonlabor payments that received the benefits of the price increases since 1947.

The June 1 issue of Business Week reports ' its examination of the Bureau of Labor Statistics study. The business magazine states: "One obvious way of trying to determine which caused which would be to measure whether labor costs or prices moved up first. Subjected to this test, unit labor costs seem to have followed prices uphill through most of the postwar years-and particularly in those years when the inflationary heat was most intense."

The record of the past 6 months or so indicates that we are back to the 1947-55 trend. Commenting on record corporate profits in the past half year, the New York Journal of Commerce, May 21, declares: "Since the volume of production has held remarkably stable, the chief key to the better profit showing has been improvement in the average margin per dollar of sales."

This increase in profit margins points to the likelihood that price increases in the past 6 mo.nths have exceeded increases in costs, including unit labor costs-as has occurred all during the post-World War II period, except for several months of 1956.

Referring specifically to the steel price increase, David J. McDonald, president of the United Steelworkers of America said:

Based on the corporation's own figures of total employment and hours worked and of shipments of finished steel, found in the most recent financial report issued, United States Steel could absorb the cost of the wage increase for the remainder of 1957, reduce steel prices by $6 a ton instead of raising them by that amount, and end 1957 with the greatest net profits after taxes in the history of the corporation.

If the corporation were as sincere in its concern about higher prices as it proclaims, it would absorb the equitable wage increase which, in real terms is an increase of approximately 31h percent, it would keep steel prices stable and, based on its current rate of

pro.fits, still be able to enjoy record profits of $437 million a:fter taxes in 1957, as compared with its previous alltime record of $370.1 million.

If we come to the point where workers cannot look forward to a real increase in purchasing power of about 31h percent, when their efforts result in increasing productivity by an even greater amount each year, and when their employers reap an annual profit increase many times this amount, then we are in trouble.

I do not believe that we are in that situation. Corporations like United States Steel may seek to .make us believe that price increases must be levied to pay for wage increases. But the history of our Nation proves the opposite.

And I think Walter Reuther, head of the Auto Workers, hit it right on the head which he said:

This price increase, as other price increases in steel, autos, and other industries in the postwar years, is nothing more than an unconscionable and greedy grab for higher and higher profits at the expense of American consumers. This is further proof that the crushing burden of inflation imposed on American consumers by the steel and other key price-setting industries is a rigged inflation arbitrarily fixed by industrial management.

The point is this administration is doing nothing about the real causes of inflation while it opposes a postal-pay increase on the unfounded ground that such an increase would be inflationary. Of course, the administration's attitude toward the steel-price hike might have been influenced by a statement made by Mr. Clifford Hood, president of United States Steel, who said: "Our price increase has been the result of inflation rather than the cause of inflation." That is all the postal workers are saying with regard to their request for a pay hike. It is not that it will cause inflation. They need it because of and as a result of the inflationary period we find ourselves in. So long as this administration continues to do little if anything to hold down inflation it is extremely unfair and unjust for it to use inflation as an excuse against a postal-pay increase. The postal worker deserves a raise. He needs a raise. Let us pass this bill and make certain he gets it.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman, no one has challenged the fact that postal workers deserve, not only a pay increase, but a very substantial one.

The House of Representatives, through the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, has already given preliminary endorsement to this bill.

I call your attention to the fact that 33 bills were introduced on this subject, each of which provided a pay increase for postal employees higher than the increase provided in this bill.

The testimony of all the witnesses except those representing the executive branch brought forth cogent reasons why pay increases for postal employees are necessary at this time.

The stark fact that cannot be sidestepped is that, since July 1, 1951, postal employees have_ received a basic salary increase of only 6 percent. Within a shorter period of time, or, since 1952, the average hourly straight-time earnings of employees in manufacturing industries, have increased 18.6 percent.


The purpose of this bill is to raise postal salaries from their substandard level to a position comparable to that of their fellow citizens who are employed in private industry.

The opposition seeks to divert our attention from this compelling fact by employing a classic military diversion. They try to confuse the issue by saying that the Government cannot afford to do the right thing by its employees, and, that if it is done over their objections, it will somehow jeopardize the whole economy.

But no solution is offered to the problems of:

First. How postal employees are going to reduce the heavy debts and obligations that have forced them into credit financing to pay for the necessities of life.

Second. How postal employees can continue to do their work efficiently when they must take on extra jobs outside their regular employment, in order to bring their incomes up to average.

Third. What will happen to the morale of postal workers, already at a low ebb, due to official indifference to their predicament, if this pay raise bill is not passed.

We, who favor this bill, are not dealing with hypothetical situations. We have massive evidence to support our contention that a pay raise is imperative.

They have no rebuttal to our assertion that postal employees are deserving of a pay raise.

They cannot present fiscal reasons to show why this Nation, at a time of unprecedented prosperity, cannot afford to spend four-tenths of 1 percent of its budget for a pay increase for postal employees that is essential to the proper functioning of the Federal Government in the performance of a basic service to the American people in their personal and economic activities.

As the committee stated in its report: The question is not whether this pay in

crease will in some undetermined way contribute to infiation, but rather how the postal employee is to meet the pressing infiation without an adequate pay adjustment.

There is the crux of the situation, that cannot be avoided.

Even the Postmaster General, who reflects the administration viewpoint, and who stresses other solutions which the committee does not consider adequate, even he agrees that pay increases are necessary to recruit and retain postal employees.

Are the postal employees t'o be treated as second-class citizens who are supposed to subsist on second-class incomes?

Time and again, this administration has suggested that pay raises in private industry should be contingent upon increases in productivity. Let us hold the administration to its own argument on the present issue.

Surveys of responsible impartial groups, such as the Heller Committee for Research on Social Economics, have pointed out that for the average Amer- In the J?ast 6 yea:s. postal employees ican family of four in urban areas, a • have recei~ed pa:y mcrease~ .of ?nl~ 6 yearly income in excess of $5,000 is re- percent ~hile th~1r .product1v1ty m the quired to support such families on a same period has mci eased ~ 7 percent. modest basis. The annual salaries of . H. R. 2474 re~resents a Just and logmost postal employees fall far short of 1cal and d.eter~med effort to make up this basic minimum. for that disparity.

The files of many Congressmen bulge Because we have the facts on our side. with letters from postal employees, some we also have the strength in reason and of whom have invested years of their in conscience, to overcome any possibillives in faithful and productive service ity of a Presidential veto. to the Government and the Nation. In summary, this bill will remedy a They want to continue in that service glaring inequity. until they reach the age of well-earned Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairretirement, but find that they will be man, we have before us today an imunable to do so on their backward portant piece of legislation, namely, incomes. H. R. 2474. And it seems important to

The opposition points to the fringe me that we keep faith with the vast benefits provided postal employees in army of postal workers who have l{ept recent years, as an excuse for not grant- faith with the American people through ing a pay raise. But fringe benefits are the war years-through times of inflano substitute for adequate compensation. There should be no doubt in any ti on. Group life insurance and retire- Member's mind as to the necessity for ment benefits have actually reduced the a substantial raise for the loyal and effitake-home pay of postal employees. cient employees of the Post Office De-

The opposition claims that projected partment. With the exception of legispay raises for Federal employees will un- lation concerning taxation and national balance the budget. Even though this defense, there is perhaps no legislation Congress has effected certain economies which affects so many of our citizens elsewhere. Even though amendments to vitally and personally as does the legisthis bill, possibly requiring that only 1 lation proposing an increase in salary in every 3 vacancies in the Federal for the men and women in our postal establishment would be filled, until service. 300,000 employees would be trimmed Mr. Chairman, all of us here in Confrom the Federal roster, could offset gress recognize the fact that living costs most of the additional cost of pay raises. are higher now than ever before and Ahd even though the Federal Govern- they are continuing to rise. The Dement, on July 19, announced its second partment of Labor has just released figbalanced budget in a row, showing a ures for the cost of living index which $1,645 ,000,000 surplus for the 1957 fiscal indicates a rise for the ninth consecuyear that ended June 30. tive month. Further rises in the index

The opposition arguments are not are predicted for the remainder of 1957. convincing. And yet no steps are being tal{en or even

planned by the present administration to reduce these costs. Therefore, it is up to Congress to accept the responsibility of providing more adequate pay for the postal employees and to endeavor at least to bring their salaries somewhat in line with the present living costs-and in line with the salaries paid in private industry.

I have received a great volume of mail from postal employees in my district. Out of the many, many letters, let me quote from only three which reflect the opinions expressed in the others.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: Very soon the House committee will be considering the merits of H. R. 2474, a bill amending the pay schedule of postal help. They are going to have expert testimony regarding this bill, both pro and con. Both sides will present arguments in support of their views.

I, naturally, am in favor of this proposed legislation. All the rhetoric and clever arguments which will be presented will not alter one whit, the facts of life as i:hown to me by my cancelled checks and receipts. The truth is that every day I stay in the postal seryice, I am dropping a little further behind economically, and I can see no way of breaking even under the present pay schedule.

I suppose I am foolish to cling to the idea that a man should be able to support his family without his wife working, especially when a majority of postal employees find it impossible. I am trying to do it, however, on a base pay of $3,785 per year. We have 2-week pay periods, so I figure 12 months at $253.62 and an extra bonus month of $231.44 (vacation pay, no 10 percent).

You will understand why I am asking for your approval and support of this bill. Speaking for myself, I feel a large part of the proposed pay scale has been earned, and is due. You have heard from no less an authority than the President, that we have increased in efficiency, but there has been no corresponding increase in wages. Other workers are able to convert increased output into increased wages, by negotiation with management. We do not have that right, so I must plead my case to you, my elected representative. • • •

I am certain that this legislation, if passed, would enable more new men to stay with the (postal) service. Men will stay when they find they can achieve something for their families and themselves that is worth while. Such is not the case at present." • • • · I apologize for this lengthy letter, and the fact that I have taken so much of your time. My only wish has been to help you understand why so many postal people consider this legislation necessary. by revealing to you my problems, opinions, and personal expenses, eo you may have firsthand knowledge of the importance of this bill to hundreds of people like me. I thank you for your time and consideration.

DEAR MRS. GREEN: This letter is to solicit your support of legislation to provide a salary increase for postal employees <iufficient to attract and retain competent employees.

Postal morale is at an all-time low-never has the turnover been so great, almost 100 percent in this office, and this in spite of widespread unemployment in this area. This is due chiefiy to two reasons.:

1. Low salaries. The take-home pay of the postal clerk in relation to other skilled crafts has steadily slipped since 1939.

2. Unusual working conditions. When a person enters the postal service as a substitute clerk he works nights, and the hours of employment may vary from 2 to 12 hours or more. His homelife becomes utter chaos. Under Public Law 68 the ratio of substitute clerks to regulars was increased from 1 to 6 to 1 to 5 thus· adding to his period of un-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12357, certainty. Then during this same period he is required to learn mail distribution schemes on his own time. Three during the first year. The brutality of this systeni is enough to malt:e a Spartan sob, or at least resign.

Then aside from the problem of recruitment and retention of new employees is the injustice worked on the employee who has served for 20 years or more. He entered the service when it was a relatively good paying and respectful position, and he has reason to expect it to remain that way. He now finds himself at an age when he is no longer wanted as an apprentice at another skill. So he remains with a service which no longer pays well nor is respected.

Please accept my sincere thanks for the support you gave us during your freshman term.

DEAR MRS . GREEN: In prewar days, a job in the post office was considered better than average pay.

When I took the examination in 1936 there were about 3,500 men who took th~ examination. They filled both the Washington and Lincoln High Schools on three different Saturdays to take care of all the applicants for the examination, and I was among the 200 men sent to the Shattuck School on the last Saturday so we could take the examination.

I received a notice to report to work on August 31, 1936, as I was among the 50 men called. Your grade had to be 95 percent or better to be called for the post office service.

Now our pay is no inducement for anyone to take a civil-service examfoation. The few who do take it are called in even if their grade is below 70. Close to 300 men were called for duty last year but before the year .was up 90 percent had left the service. They may work 2 to 5 .hours 1 day and the next .12 hours from 4 p. nJ.. to 4:30 a. m. at straight .time. No wonder the wife tells them to get a better-paying job.

In June 1955 I received a salary increase of $244 per year or 11.7 cents per hour. On December 1, 1955, another increase of $66

,or 3.17 cents per hour-that is 25 cents a day. I don't have to itemize how. prices have soared above our incomes as all you ladies and gentlemen of the House should know. Do the postal workers n.eed a salary increase? The answer is "Yes."

Mr. Chairman, the wives of many postal workers, even those with very young children, have found it necessary to seek employment to supplement their

-income. In addition, many postal employees are compelled to hold part-time jobs after working for a full day for the Post . Office Department. Surely this should not be necessary and Congress should be both willing and eager to compensate these faithful and tireless workers who have served and are still serving the Nation so well. By passing this legislation, we would be helping not only the 500,000 postal employees but all those whom they serve.

Mr. Chairman, spokesmen for the President have stated that he is against a pay raise since this would rekindle the fires of inflation. And yet he did not hesitate for one moment to grant a fast tax writeoff to the Idaho Power Co. on 2 Hells Canyon dams that would have cost the Government $83.5 million and would have given the utility a $339-million benefit. And this same administration that threatens to veto a bill granting a pay raise to postal employees does not hesitate to grant subsidies to the airlines. And yet when it comes to approving legislation which will cost the

Government approximately $270 million annually and would certainly compensate the postal workers for their humanitarian service rendered over the years, that same administration cries that it is inflationary.

Mr. Chairman, on another pbint, I d<:> not favor hitching any postal pay increase to an increase in postal rates. The two subjects are separate and distinct from the standpoint of public policy. There are many people working in the Department of Agriculture, and we do not say that the Department must make a certain amount of money before those employees can have their salaries raised. There are persons enf arcing the food and drug laws, and we do not raise the fees for permits in order to get enough money to pay them. Postal rates have . nothing to do with postal salaries; and postal salaries have nothing to do with postal rates. One is not connected with the other.

Mr. Chairman, the very fact that 218 Members of Congress signed the discharge petition on this bill is ample evidence of the support of the measure. Since I came to Congress I have been interested in the welfare of the postal and classified civil service employees and have consistently supported legislation that would benefit them. I shall vote for H. R. 2474 and sincerely hope that this bill can be enacted into law before the -adjournment of this Congress.

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H. R. 2474. There can be no question of the proven need for this legislation, nor of our responsibility to act upon it favorably today.

All of us recognize, Mr. Chairman, that our Nation today is caught in an inflationary spiral which threatens every segment of our economy. And it surely goes without saying that among all of our citizens, the groups which are hurt worst by these pressures are those groups whose incomes are fixed. These groups include social-security annuitants, men and women living on the proceeds of msurance policies in which they have invested over a period of many years, and white collar and other employees whose income always lags behind increases in the cost of living.

We are here today, Mr. Chairman, to decide whether the postal employees of this Nation shall suffer continued economic inequity and further financial hardship. During the 6-year period since July 1, 1951, these employees have received a woefully inadequate salary increase of only 6 percent~and this became effective March 1, 1955, more than 2 years ago.

Since 1952 the average hourly straight time earnings of employees in manufacturing industries have increased 18.6 percent.

Even more significant is the fact that the cost of living index today stands at 119.6-as compared to an index of 111.0 on July 1, 1951. What this means, Mr. Chairman, is that the American public is paying over $17 billion more today for the same amount of goods and services which they purchased 6 years ago.

Perhaps I should say "most of the American public" because a sizable

segment of our population-including postal employees-have simply had to decrease the amount of their purchases in proportion to the increase in the cost of living.

The administration answer to this is that any increase today in compensation for postal and other Federal employees would be inflationary. Perhaps this is true, Mr. Speaker, but since when have we singled out a particular group or segment of our population to bear the brunt of an economic situation over which they have had no control? The argument that . today's legislation to increase postal salaries is inflationary is hypocrisy at its worst. Nobody presenting this argument raised his voice against the 1954 tax changes which resulted in quick tax writeoffs and runaway plant expansion-a sequence wh\ch benefited big business but which certainly aggravated the inflationary pressures which today plague small business and people of modest means in every part of the country.

It is high time, Mr. Chairman, that the pay of postal employees be measured in terms of adequate compensation for the work performed. Even Postmaster General Summerfield admits that the productivity of postal workers has increased 17 percent during the past 6 years. If we are unwilling to readjust postal salaries in view of these figures and the ever-widening breech between ilxed income and mounting living costs, then we must be prepared to bid goodby to the loyal, faithful, and highly productive service which hundreds of thousands of postal employees have rendered for so many years.

I urge, Mr. Chairman, the immediate enactment of H. R. 2474.

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I was one of the signers of the discharge petition which brought the matter of the postal pay increase before us and I would like to speak briefly in support of the legislation proposed.

I have enjoyed my association with postal workers and with their organizations. I feel that we enjoy a mutual respect. With same postal workers I have close friendships which have contributed to my awareness of their problems.

It has been my observation that the modest pay increase we propose is desperately needed both by postal employees and by the service itself. In each instance of knowledge of the income situation of postal workers with a wife and one or more children I learn that the family income must be supplemented in a manner which must either detract from the worker's efficiency or disrupt his family's morale. The worker must either get a second job at night or in the late afternoon or his wife must work. This situation is an unhappy one and of itself justifies the pay increase in question.

Another consideration is the welfare of the postal service. There are hardly any post offices of consequence in Cali· fornia which do not experience the constant departure of trained employees in numbers which indicate that job conditions are unsatisfactory. This valuable loss of trained personnel is costly


to the service and this detriment is compounded by the fact that replacements are not efficiently available from the standpoint of time or from the standpoint of the average caliber of the applicants. This double problem of holding goo<.l people and recruiting good people has reached the point of scandal, and postal service is suffering. It would be wise economy to off er sufficient salary inducements to keep good people in and to attract the best applicants for vacancies.

The Postmaster General has characterized this raise as inflationary. In a sense the increase in the take-home pay of any worker is inflationary if we mean that it adds to his purchasing power. This increase will not create inflation or even aggravate it. Inflation is here and this increment of income is peanuts compared to the inflationary aspects of our current fiscal and monetary policies which have continuously raised the prices of money and credit to the detriment of everyone except those who are in the business of lending money or dealing in credit. Inflation cannot be laid at the door of the postal worker. It must be laid at the door of the Secretary of the Treasury and of the Federal Reserve Board and its member banks.

Mrs. KELLY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I desire to associate myself with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana to the postal-pay bill before us.

Like many of my colleagues, I find myself disappointed in the amount of increase suggested by the amendment. It must be said that it is modest beyond what many reasonable persons in possession of the facts believe well justified. However, we are dealing with practical considerations, and I am sure the sponsor of the amendment and its supporters are chiefly motivated by the desire to present a bill which will have the approval of the Congress and the White House.

Postal employees in the 10th District of New York have demonstrated to my complete satisfaction a need for a greater increase than is provided in the bill before us. For that reason I cannot conceive of any amount being offered less than is contained in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana. It represents the absolute minimum if we are to treat postal workers with any degree of justice and equity.

If we approve H. R. 2474, as amended, it certainly will not make our faithful postal employees rich overnight. Indeed, the difference in their take-home pay will scarcely be discernible. But it will be a step in the right direction; it will enable some employees to spend an occasional evening at home with their family instead of working at a second job. Most of all, I would sincerely hope that the modest increase we are offering these employees will make it possible for the mothers and wives to remove themselves from the labor market and return to their home and children, for that is where they want to ·be.

In terms of gross amounts, the amendment under consideration will give each postal worker an increase of $10.50 per week, or $1.50 a day. I will leave it to my colleagues to contemplate precisely what goods and services can be purchased with $1.50 in today's economy.

Mr. Chairman, I submit that we are dealing with career employees of the United States Government-the richest and most powerful government on the face of the earth. These career men and women are also family men for the most part. Let us pay them a family wage rather than a job wage. Let us provide them with a saving wage rather than a mere living wage.

Mr. ULLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I signed the discharge petition because I felt it imperative that the House take action on H. R. 2474 as it has been overwhelmingly reported by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

The existing inequity of salaries which are currently being paid to many postal employees has been a matter of great concern to me. Since elected to Congress, I have received literally hundreds of letters from dedicated public servants which have convinced me that many postal employees are receiving compensation which has little relation to the existing cost of living or to the service provided. Most of these letters were extremely thoughtful and supplied me with detailed information concerning the inability of the average family to maintain a decent standard of living on wages currently paid by the Post Office Department. I became convinced that we could no longer ask public servants to continue in their present jobs at the expense of providing their families with the necessities of life. For these reasons, I introduced legislation which called for an across the board increase in the rate of basic compensation for post-omce workers.

Unless rates of compensation are increased, we will soon find ourselves with

·untrained civil-service employees in the postal field. Continued failure to provide adequate salaries can only mean that we will have a progressive lowering of the present high level of efiiciency which now characterizes the work of our postal employees. I continue to receive disconcerting reports indicating that many qualified postal employees have reluctantly turned to private industry in order that they might support their families.

It seems to me that it is indeed false economy to pay salaries so low that efficient employees are no longer able to remain in the Post omce Department. Yet, that will be the natural and inevitable result if postal wages are not increased.

Mr. Chairman, the last few years have witnessed a steady increase in wages paid to employees in private industry. Employees in manufacturing, in building and construction trades, in wholesale trades and in many other industries, have all realized substantial wage increases. Yet postal workers have received nothing, They have continued to

receive the same wages at a time when the cost of living is skyrocketing.

Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that I signed the discharge petition and it is for these reasons that I support H. R. 2474. However, while I am in complete sympathy with the objectives of that bill, I feel that it should be amended so that rural carriers and fourth class postmasters receive the same across-the-board pay increase which is stipulated in the amended bill for other post office workers. Equity demands such an amendment. If adopted, I believe that the postal pay bill will stand as a proud accomplishment of the 85th Congress.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, there are four good reasons why postal employees should receive an increase in pay.

First, postal workers cannot live decently on the wages they are now receiving. This is a sad reflection on their employer, the United States Government, and one which humanity alone would dictate promptly be changed.

Second, postal workers are a skilled labor force, yet are seriously underpaid compared to other public employees and to employees in private industry. Government employees certainly should not lag behind.

Third, fewer postal employees today are handling more mail than ever before and this higher productivity should be reflected in higher pay.

Fourth, despite this increased productivity, the postal service is suffering, and its costs are higher than they need be, because of the rapid turnover in personnel due to low pay. If we fail to attract and keep able men, the entire future effectiveness of our public service is jeopardized.

For these reasons, I trust that Congress will act swiftly to approve a decent pay increase for postal employees.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, the bill now before us will, if adopted, raise the salary of postal workers $546 per annum across the board for all of them in their several grades. They are entitled to this recognition. It will bring the salaries of these faithful workers in line with the increases that have come to industrial workers in the last few years.

We are all grateful for the fact that we have today in this country the highest national income of any time in our history, Certainly, our postal workers and all other Government employees are entitled to share in this prosperity. If they were workers in industry, or any commercial pursuit, or any form of activity they would receive salary increases incident to the increased national prosperity.

Furthermore, we are all aware of the increased cost of living that has come as part of our increased prosperity. Our workers both in and out of Government are entitl~d to have such fact reflected in their rate of wages and the salaries they receive.

Too often there has been a lag in bringing our Government workers wage increases to meet the increased cost of living. This has in many instances made it necessary for such workers to look

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12359 for additional employment or for their wives to take on employment duties to meet the necessities of the family. This should not be so in America. Our national economy can and should recognize the needs of Government workers. They are entitled to an increase and I give my support to this bill that raises the salaries of postal workers; and I will be equally pleased to give my support to raise the wages of all Government workers to the point that is necessary and proper under existing conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expjred. The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That (a) section 301

(a) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (Public Law 68, 84th Cong.) is amended by striking out the Postal Field Service Schedule contained therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following new schedule:

POSTAL FIELD SERVICE SCHEDULE

,Level Per annum rates and steps

2 3 4 ----------1·--- ---------!_ _________ -----------2 __ __ __ -- -- -----------3 __________ -----------4 ______ ------ ---------5 ____ -------- - --------6 ________ ---- - ------- -7 __________________ __ _

8 ______ ___ - ------ ---- -9 ___________ - ---------] o _____ --- --- ---------1 l_ __________________ _

12 __________ --- - -- ----13 ____ - ----- - -------- -14 __ -- -- ---- - ---- ----}.~_ -------------------16 _________ --- --------17 ____ __ _______ ______ _

18 ____ ---- ----- -------1~----- - ----- ------- --20 _____ --- -- --- --- - ---

$4, 645 4, 870 5, 140 5, 500 5, 720 6,000 6,300 6, 600 6,835 7,400 8,040 8, 740 9. 510

10, 340 11, 250 12,000 13, 000 14, 000 14, 800 16, 000

$4, 820 5,050 5, 340 5, 700 5, 920 6,200 6,500 6,800 7, 035 7,600 8, 260 8,980 9, 770

10, 620 11, 550 12, 300 13,300 14, 300 15,000

$4, 995 5, 230 5, 540 5,90.0 6, 120 6,400 6, 700 7,000 7 235 1'.soo 8,480 9, 220

10, 030 10, 900 11, 850 12, 600 13, 600 14, 500 15, 200

$5, 170 5,410 5, 740 6, 100 6,320 6,600 6,900 7, 200 7,435 8,000 8, 700 9,460

10, 290 11, 180 12, 150 12, 000 13, 000 14, 700 15, 400

(b) Section 302 (a) of such act is amended by striking out the Rural Carrier · Schedule contained therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following new schedule:

RURAL CARRIER SCHEDULE

Per a nnum rates and steps

3 4 ---------1---------

Ca'rriers in rural delivery Jervice:

Fixed compensation per almum _________ $2, 614

Compensation per mile per.annum for each mile up to 30 miles of route __ _

For each mile of route over 30 miles_

Temporary carriers in rural delivery service on routes to which no r~~u.lar carrier is assigned:

Fixed compensation

88

30

per annum_________ ?, 614 Compensation per

mile per annum for each mile up to

$2, 686 $2, 758 . $2, 830

91

30

94

'30

97

30

30 miles of route __ _ 88 ------- ------- -------For each mile of route over 30 miles. 30 ------- ------- -------Temporary carriers in

rural delivery service

~fa:0~~·i~r~vi~~e;t without pay or on mili-tary leave______________ (l)

Substitute carriers In rural delivery service on routes having car-riers absent with pay__ (l)

(1) (1) (l)

(l) (1) (1)

1 Basic compensation authorized for regular carrier.

( c) Section 303 (a) of such act ls amended by striking out the fourth-class office schedule contained therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following new schedule:

act shall be placed in step 3 of the corresponding new schedule; and

(4) All employees who are in steps 4, 5, 6, and 7 immediateily prior to the effective date of this act shall be placed in step 4.

FOURTH-CLASS OFFICE SCHEDULE

Gross receipts Per annum rates and ~teps

2 4

---------1--- --------$1,300 to $1,499.99. ------- $3, 761 $900 to $1,2!J9.99__________ 3, 447 ~600 to $8!19.99 ____________ 2, 822 $350 to $599.9!) ______ ------ 2, 195 $250 to $349.99 •. __________ l, 56S $200 to $249.99____________ 1, 253 $100 to $199.09____________ 941 Uuder $100_______________ 627

$3, 874 3, 552 2, 907 2, 261 1, 615 1, 292

969 646

$3, 990 3, 657 2, 993 2, 328 1, 663 1, 330

998 665

$4, 104 3, 761 3.079 2,394 1, 710 1, 368 1, 026

684

SEC. 2. Employees shall be adjusted to each new schedule, as follows:

( 1) All employees who are in step 1 immediately prior to the effective date of this act shall be placed in step 1 of the corresponding new schedule;

(2) All employees who are in step 2 immediately prior to the effective date of this act shall be placed in step 2 of the corresponding new schedule;

(3) All employees who are in step 3 immediately prior to the effective date of this

Nothing in this act shall change the anniversary date of employees for automatic promotion.

SEC. 3. This act shall become effective as of January 1, 1957.

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

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

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

port the committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Strike out all

after the enacting clause and insert "That (a) the Postal Field Service Schedule contained in section 301 (a) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. C. 971 (a)) is amended to read as follows:

"POSTAL FIELD SERVICE SCHEDULE

Level Per annum rates and steps

2 3 4 5 6 7 ---------------1---- ------------------------1. --- - -- -- - -- --- ------------ -- ------ - --- -2 _____ - -- - ------- - - - --- ----- -- - -- --- - - - - -3 ______ - - - - - --- --- -- -- ------ ----- - -- - - - --4_ ---- ---------- - ----- -- ----- - -- -- - - -- -- -5_ - - -- -- -- --- --- ----- -- --- -- --------- --- -6. -- --- - ---- - - --- --- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - --- - --7 - ---- -- -- - - --- - -- - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - -8 ___ -- - --- ---- - - ----------- -- -- - -- - --- - -9 ______ - - --- - ---- -- - ----- -- -- - - - -- --- - - - -10_ ---- - --- - ----- -- - -- -- - - --- -- - ---- -- - - -ll_ ____ - --- - - ---- --- - ---- - - -- --- ----- --- -12 ____ - - - - - - - - - - ---- -- -- - - - -- - -- - __ ; _ - --13 __ --- ---- - - - ------ -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - --14 __ _ --- - --- - ---- ----- -- - - - - --- --- - - ---- -15. ------ --- - --- -- --- ---- - -- -- --- -- - ---- -16. ---- - --- - - - - ---- - -- ---- - ----- - -- -- - ---17 --- --- ------- - --- - ----- -- ----- -- -- - ----18 _____ -- ------- ---- - ------ ---- --- -- - --- -19 ___ ---- - ------ - --------- - --- - - - ---- --- -20. - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --

$3, 426 3 636 3: 876 4, 206 4,426 4, 736 5,076 5,436 5. 826 6,346

' 6, 926 7, 566 8, 276 9,046 9,896

10, 846 11, 946 13, 346 14, 546 16, 546

$3, 526 3, 741 3, !)91 4, 331 4,Ml 4,876 5, 231 5,606 6, 011 6. 546 7, 146 7,806 8,536 9,326

10, l!l6 11, 146 12, 246 13, 646 14, 846

$3~ 626 3, 846 4. 106 4,456 4, 676 5,016 5,386 5, 776 6, 196 6, 746 7, 366 8,046 8, 796 9,606

10, 496 11, 4.46 12, 546 13, 946 15, 146

$3, 726 3, 951 4, 221 4, 581 4,801 5, 156 5, 541 5, 946 6, 381 6, 946 7, 586 8, 286 9,056 9,886

10, 796 11, 746 12, 846 14, 246 15, 446

$3. 826 4, 056 4, 336 4. 706 4, 926 5, 296 5, 696 6, 116 6, 566 7, 146 7,806 8, 526 9,316

10, 166 11, 096 12, 046 13,1411 14, 546 15, 746

$3, 926 4, 161 4, 451 4. 831 5, 051 5,436 5, 851 6, 286 6, 751 7, 346 8,026 8, 766 9, 576

10, 446 11, 396 12. 346 13, 446 14, 846

$4,026 4, 266 4, 566 4. 956 5.176 5, 576 6.006 6. 456 6, 936 7, 1546 8, 246 9,006 9, 836

10, 726 11, 696 12, 646 13, 746 15, 146

(b) (1) The Rural Carrier Schedule contained in section 302 (a) of the Postal Field

Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U.S. C. 972 (a)) is amended to read as follows:

"RURAL CARRIER SCHEDULE

Per annum rates and steps

4 7

---------------1----------------------------Carriers in rural delivery service:

Fixed compensation per annum _____ $1, 736. 00 $1, 791. 00 $1, 846. 00 $1, 001. 00 $1, 956. 00 $2, 011. 00 $2, 066. 00 Compensation per mile per annum

for each mile up to 30 miles of route_ 74. 00 For each mile of route over 30 miles_ 24. 50

Temporary carriers. in rural delivery service on routes to which no regular carrier is assigned:

Fixed compensation per annum _____ 1, 736. 00 Compensation per milo per annmn

for each mile up to 30 miles of route_ 74. 00 For each mile of route over 30 miles__ 24. 50

Temporary carriers in rural delivery service on route.s having regular carriers absent without pay or on mili-tary leave________ ___ __________________ (1)

Substitute carriers in rural delivery serv-ice on routes having carriers absent with paY------------------------------ (1)

76.00 24. 50

(1)

(1)

1 Basic compensation authorized for the regular carrier.

78.00 24. 50

(1)

(1)

80. 00 24.50

(I)

(I)

82.00 24. 50

(1)

(1)

84.00 24. 50

(1)

(1)

86.00 24. 50

(1)

(1)"

12360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSY July 22. (2) No r ate of basic salary 1n the Rural

Carrier Schedule contained in such section 302 (a) shall be increased by more than $546 by reason of the amendment made by paragraph ( 1} of this subsection.

( 3} Section 302 ( c) of the Postal Field S:irvice Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. C. 972 (c}}, relating to additional compensation for rural carriers serving heavily patron ..

1zed routes, ts amended by striking qut '.'$4,700'' and inserting in lieu thereo! "$5,246."

(c} The Fourth-Class omce Schedule contain~ in section 303 (a) of the Postal Field Service· Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. C. 973 (a}) is amended to read as follows:

"FOU RTH-CLASS OFFI CE S CH E DU LE

regardless . of . the length_ of their _ r_µral routes, by providing each one an increase of $546 in basic compensation. After all, the cost of living affects the man· Y.,ith the short route just as certainly as it does the man with the longer route. :rood, clothing, and other living costsfl,nd automobiles when they wear out have to be replaced-are the same on all routes.

P er ann um rates and steps Gross receipts

6 7 ---------------1---- ---- -- -- ---- -------- -- - -

I would like to read in this connection a letter from the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, as follows:

~ATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D. C., July 22, 1957. lion. JAMES H. MORRISON,

$1 ,300 to $1,400.99 _________ _____ ________ _ _ $900 to $1,299.99 ___ ___ _______ • __ ___ ____ _ _

$000 to $899.99---·------ ·-- - - --------- - --$350 to $599.99 __ ______ ________ __________ _

$2, 816 2. 581 2; 112 1 64a 1: 174

$2, 910 2, 6ti7 2, 183 1, 698

$3, 004 2, 753 2. 253 1, 753 1, 252 1, 001

$3, 098 2.839 2, 324 1, 808 1, 291 1,033

$3. 192 2, 925 2, 39!i 1, 863 1, 331

$3, 286 3, 012 2, 465 1,~17 1, 370 1, OP5

$3, 380 3, 098 2, 536 1, 972 -1,409 1, 127

House of Representati ves, $250 t o $349.99 __ ___ __________ ____ ____ ___ _ ~200 to $249.99 _______ ____ __ ___ __________ _ 939

705 469

1, ~fg 1. 064 799 532

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. $100 to $199.0!L _____ __ ______ · - - --- - ----- -

U nd er $100. ______ ------------ - -- -- - -- - --

(d} Section 401 of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. C. 981) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(d) Any increase in basic salary granted by law on or after the effective date of this amendatory subsection shall not be deemed to be an equivalent increase in basi'c salary within the meaning of subsect ion (a) of this section."

SEC. 2. The first section of this act shall become effective at the beginning of the first

728 485

752 501

775 516

822 548

846 563"

pay period wh1ch begins after September 1, _1957.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the committee amendment which is at the desk.

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

the committee amendment: Page 5, strike out the Rural ·Carrier Schedule following line 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MORRISON: Since you will be the floor manager for the consideration of H. R. 2474, which provides salary increases for field service employees of the Post Office Department, we respectfully request that you offer a technical amendment to H. R. 2474 which would provide an equitable rural carrier salary schedule and thus afford rural carriers the same dollar increase provided. other postal employees.

H. R. 2474 as reported by the House Post omce and Civil Service Committee would grant a fiat $546 salary increase for employees under the postal field service sched. ule, but would only provide a 12 percent increase with a ceiling of $546 for rural

"RU R AL CARRIE R S CHEDU LE carriers. ·

This different application of salary .adjustments would result In approximately 18,000 rural carriers' receiving far less than the dollar increases provided in the bill for other postal field service employees such as clerks, city carriers, postal transportation clerks, motor vehicle and custodial employees.

P er annum rates and steps

2 3 6 7 -----·--- - -----1-.--- - -----------------Carriers in rural deli>ery service:

Fixed compensation per annum _____ $2, 112. 00 •moo •moo • ~oo - ~oo-~oo •~oo Rural carriers, depending upon the length

·of their route and their length of service, -would receive dollar increases of from $224 per annum to the $546 figure which is being allowed other postal field service personnel. This would mean that those rural carriers in the lower salary steps, who need a cost of living increase the most, would receive the least dollar increase, as little as $224 per annum.

Compensation per mile per annum for each mile up to 30 miles of route_

For each mile of route over 30 miles_ T emporary carriers in rural d elivery

service on routes to which no regular

65.00 22. 00

a1. oo 69. oo 71. oo 73. oo 75. oo n . oo noo noo noo noo noo noo

carrier is assigned: Fixed compensation per annum ____ _ Compen sation per mile per annu m

for each mile up to 30 miles of rou te_ For each mile of route over 30 m iles_

T emporary carriers in rural delivery ser vice on routes having regular car· riers absent without pay or on military leave __ --- - -- - ---- __ -- __ _ -- . - - -- - -- - - - -

Substitute carriers in rural delivery service on routes ha>ing carriers ab-sent with pay ______ ________ _____ __ ___ _

2, 112

65. 00 22. 00

(I)

(I)

(1)

(I) .

t B asic compensation au thorized for the regular carrier.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] in support of his amendment.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. MORRISON. I yield. Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman,

I have a substitute amendment at the Clerk's desk. Should it be offered now or later?

The CHAffiMAN. The Chair will endeavor to recognize the gentleman later, at which time it will be possible for him to offer his substitute.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, all this rural-carrier amendment does is to equalize the increases for rural carriers with those granted other postal field- · service employees by the committee amendment. It will preserve the historic relationship between salaries of ·

(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

(1) (1) (I) (1)"

· Mr. MORRISON, we do not believe it was the committee's intention to discriminate against rural carriers in the proposed salary

·adjustments. Entirely equitable a.nd identical treatment can be afforded rural carriers simply by applying the $546 fiat increase to the fixed compensation in the rural carrier salary schedule. We are enclosing a salary schedule amendment which would establish E:qual treatment for rural carriers in H. R.

rural carriers and salaries of other postal field-service employees. On a great many rural routes of short length the reported bill would grant increases of far less than $546. For example, a rural carrier now receiving $3,750 would get an increase of only $440 under the reported bill, but my amendment would change the amount of increase for these rural carriers from $440 approximately · to $546.

2474 as reported. _ We respectfully µrge that you offer this

suggested technical amendment which would afford rural carriers identical treatment with all other postal field service employees.

Sincerely yours, RAY L . HULICK,

President.

Frankly, I think the rural carrier I urge that this amendment be should receive the same pay raise the · adopted. city carrier receives. The fact is that - Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, under the committee amendment those I offer a substitute for the committee on the longer routes would get $546, but amendment. those on the shorter routes would not. Mr. MORRISON . . Mr. Chairman, a They would get, as I said a moment ago, parliamentary inquiry. $440 in many cases, and even less ih The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman others. This amendment does the only will state it. · reasonable and fair thing by bringing tne Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, at increase for all the rural carriers up to · this point can the gentleman offer a parity with the other postal employees, substitute?

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12361 The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it is proper

for the substitute to be offered at this time.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. REES of

Kansas as a substitute for the committee amendment: Strike out beginning with line

5 on page 4 and all that follows down through the fourth-class office schedule following line 4 on page 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "That (a) the Postal Field Service Schedule contained in section 301 (a) of the Postal Fie1d Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. C. 971 (a) ) is amended to read as follows:

" 'POSTAL FillLD SERVICE SCHEDULE

Level

l _ - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - --- - -2_ - - -- ---- -------------- - ------ ---- ------3_ - ------------------------- --- --- --- - -- -4 ___ - ------- - ---------- --------- -- -- - ----5_ - - - - -- - - - ----- -- - -- - - - ---- -- -- - - - - - -- - -6_ - - - ---------- ------- ----------- ------- -7 - - - -- --------------- -- ---- --------- -----8_ ---- --------- --· ----. -- -- ------ - -------9_ - - ---- --- ---- ----· --- • - - - ---- ----- --- - -10_ -- -- -- ---------- ----- •• --- ---- - ----- --1 l_ _ --- - ------- - ---- ---- --- ----- - --------1:!_ - - - • --·-------- - -------. ---- - --- - -- ---

/ 13 __ - --- ----- - ---- --- - -- -- - - ------ - ---- - -

~ ;= = = = = = == =: :: : : : = = = == ~:::: ===: = = = = = = = == = l(l_ - - - ------- ----- -- --- -- -- --- - -- ----- - - -17 _ - ----- -- - -- - ------ _____ ._ ---- - ----- - ---18_ - - - ------------------- ------ - • -- -- -- -] 9_ - - - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - • 20_ - - - --------------------- -- - - - -- -- - - -- -

$3, 024 3, 245 3,497 3,843 4,074 4,400 4, 757 5;135 5,544 6,090 6,699 7,371 8, 117 8, 925 9,818

10, 815 11, 970 13, 440 14, 700 16,000

2

---$3, 129 3,-055 3, 618 3,974 4,205 4,547 4,920 5,313 5, 738 6,300 6, 930 7, 623 8,390 " 9, 219

l0, 133 p,130 12, 285 13, 755 15, 015

----------


3 4 ---------

$3, 234 $3,339 $3, 444 3,465 3, 575 3,685 3, 739 3,860 3,981 4, 105 4, 236 4,367 4,336 4,467 4, 598 4,694 4,841 4,988 5,083 5,246 5,409 5,491 5,669 5,847 o,932 6, 126 6, 320 6,510 6, 720 6,930 7, 161 7, 392 7,623 7, 875 8, 127 8,379 8,663 8, 936 9, :nil 9, 513 9,807 10, 101

10, 448 10, 763 11,078 11, 445 11, 760 12, 075 12, 600 12, 915 13, 230 14,070 14, 385 14, 700 1..5, 330 15,645 15, 960

---------- ---------- ----------

6 7 ------

$3, 549 $3, 654 3, 795 3,905 4, 102 4,m 4,498 4, 1)29 4, 729 4,800 5, 135 5,282 5, 572 5,735 6, 025 6, 203 6,514 6, 708 7, 140 7,350 7,854 8,085 8,631 8, 882 9,482 9, 755

10,395 10,689 11,393 11, 708 12. 390 12, 705 13, 545 . 13,800 15, 015 15, 330

---------- ---------, ---------- ---------Whenever the Postmaster General finds that a sufficient number of qualified eligibles for employment in positions in the Postal Field Service Schedule of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 cannot be obtained in one or more areas or locations at the existing minimum rates for such p<;>sitions and that there is a possibility that a sufficient number of such eligibles can be obtained by increasing the minimum rate for such positions in such areas or locations to

one of the higher rates of the salary level in which such position is placed, the Postmaster General may establish such higher rate, not in excess of the rate for the fourth per annum rate and step of such salary level, as the minimum rate for that position In the area or location concerned.

"(b) ( 1) The Rural Carrier SChedule contained in section 302 (a) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. C. 972 (a)) is amended to read as follows:

" 'RURAL CARRIER SCHEDULE


2 3 4 5 6 ______________ , ____ ------------------------Carriers in rural delivery service:

Fixed compensation per annum _____ $1, 653. 00 $1, 703. ()() $1, 753. 00 $1, 803. 00 . $1, 853. 00 $1, 903. 00 $1,953. 00 Compensation per mile r.er annum

for each mile up to 30 miles of route_ 68. 00 For ea.ch mile of route over 30 miles__ 23. 00

Temporary carriers in rural delivery service on routes to which no regular carrier is assigned:

:Fixed compensation per annum_____ 1, 653. 00 Compensation per mile per annum

for each mile up to 30 miles ofroute_ 68. 00 For each mile of route over 30 miles._ 23. 00

T emporary carriers in rural delivery service on routes having regular carriers absent without pay or on mili-tary leave_________________________ ____ (1)

Substitute carriers in rural delivery serv-ice on routes having oorriers absent with paY------------------------------ (1)

70.00 23.00

(1)

(1)


72.00 23.00

(1)

(1)

74.00 23. 00

(1)

(I)

76.00 23.00

(1)

(1)

78.00 23.00

(1)

(1)

80.00 23.00

(1),

"(2) Section 302 (c) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U.S. C. 972 (c)), relating to additional compensation for rural carriers serving heavily patronized routes, is amended by striking out A$4,700' and inserting in lieu thereof ·is,040',

"(c) The Fourth-Class Office Schedule contained in section 303 (a) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. s. c. 973 (a)) is amended to read as ·follows:

"'FOURTH-CLASS OFFICE SCHEDULE

Per annum rates and steps Gross receipts

2 3 6 7

------------------$1,300 to $1,499.99 ____ .:o___________________ $2, 640 $900 to $1 ,299.99_________________________ 2, 419 $000 to $899.99 ________________ .;o__________ 1, 981

$350 to $599.99.-------------------------- 1, 541 $250 J:o $349.99.-------------------------- l, 100 $200 to $299.99.-------~----------------- 880 $100 to $199.99.-------------------------- 661 Under $100------------------------------ 440

$2, 728 $2, 816 $2, 904 $2, 992 $3,080 $3, 168 2, 500 2, 581 2,662 2, 743 2, 824 2, 905 2,0.47 2.113 2, 179 2. 245 2,311 2,377 1,592 1, 643 1, 694 1, 745 1, 796 1, 847 1, 137 l, 174 1, 211 1, 248 1, 285 1, 322

910 940 970 1,000 1,030 l,OGO 683 705 727 749 771 793 455 470 485 500 515 530',,

CIII--777

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the substitute which I have offered in lieu of the committee amendment will provide a 5-percent increase in the annual compensation of all postal employees and will allow the Postmaster General to establish a higher rate of pay for many postal employees-clerks and carriers-in order to recruit a;nd retain qualified postal employees.

The substitute will accomplish two objectives.

First, the 5-percent pay increase will have the etrect of raising the entrance salary in level 4 for clerks and carrierstwo-thirds of all postal employees-from $3,660 per annum to $3,843 per annum or $i83 a year. In the second step of the clerk-carrier grade the increase will be $189 annually, and in the third step $3,910 of the grade $195 annually, or $4,105, and gradually increasing to an increase of $219 annually at the top of the grade where there are now 166,000 postal employees. In other words, the effect of this across-the-board 5-percent increase I propose will raise the salaries of 320,000 postal employees in a range from $183 annually to $219 annually depending upon the step in which they are located in the clerk-carrier grade.

Secondly, the authority granted the Postmaster General to raise the entrance salaries for postal employees from the first, second. or third steps to the fourth step would have the effect of granting an additional increase in the salaries of thousands of clerks and carriers.

In addition to the 5-percent acrossthe-board increase I have mentioned~ this provision would allow clerks, carriers, special-delivery messengers, and motor-vehicle operators in the first step to be raised an additional $393 annually, ·and such employees in the second step would receive an additional $262 annually, and such employees ·in the third step would receive an additional $131 annually. These increases would be over and a.bove the 5 percent of their present compensation provided in the .first part of my substitute, whenever the Postmaster General determined that it was impossible to recruit a sufficient number of qualified postal employees in particular areas.

My proposal combines a pay increase to offset the increased cost of living and a provision to overcome the problem which was pointed out to our committee -0f the impossibility of recruiting or retaining a sufficient number of postal employees at the entrance levels.

There is ample justification, in my opinion, for this pi:oposal. In fact, the proposal provides a more generous in.crease than the increase in the cost of living since March 1955 which was the effective date of the last pay increase for postal employees. There has been a 4.6-percent increase in the cost of living since March 1955, but my proposal is to grant postal employees a 5-percent increase in their annual compensation.

The convincing argument for those who advocate pay increases for postal

·employees is the contention that such employees should receive a pay increase in order to offset the increased cost o-f living. It is my purpose in offering this substitute to provide postal employee-s


with a reasonable pay increase and, at the same time, not permit an increase in Federal expenditures more than is absolutely necessary.

There has been much discussion this afternoon about the fact that there has been only one pay increase for postal employees since July 1951. I call the Members attention to the fact that since July 1, 1951, the cost of living has increased only 7 .8 percent. In March 1955, postal employees received a basic pay increase of 6 percent plus a 2.5 percent average reclassification adjustment. If my proposal is adopted providing a 5 percent pay increase over and above the increase which was provided in 1955, it will simply mean that postal employees will be granted pay increases substantially more than the 7 .8 percent increase in the cost of living since July 1951. In fact, my substitute will provide postal employees with salary increases nearly 5 percent greater than the increased cost of living since July 1951.

In the last few months we have noticed grave concern on the part of the Members regarding the huge Federal budget for fiscal year 1958. The House membership has voted time after time to cut appropriations requests by the executive branch. It occurs to me that if the membership is really sincere about this problem of increasing Federal expenditures that they certainly will approve my substitute which costs about $140 million annually less than the committee anmendment.

A 5 percent- salary adjustment for postal employees, as I have proposed, plus the adjustments which can be made by the Postmaster General will cost between $129 million and $180 million depending on the extent to which the Postmaster General exercises his payfixing authority. On the other hand, the committee amendment will cost more than $317 million annually. This means that not only will the postal deficit be increased by this amount next year but also the savings in reduced expenditures which have been voted by the House will be cut by a similar amount.

Again I stress the fact that in my judgment my substitute is the maximum pay increase which the President will consider. Judging from his statements it would appear that the President is opposed to any pay increase, but I assure you that if my substitute is approved I shall strongly recommend that he approve this legislation.

I urge the Members to vote for a proposal which has at least a chance to become law. I sincerely believe that it is likely that any legislation embodying a proposal other than my substitute will be vetoed and that this membership will be asked to vote on overriding that veto provided the Congress is still in session.

I do not think this body should approve a pay increase in excess of what they really believe will become law, because to adopt any other position will be cruel to postal employees and their families by pretending to hold out a pay increase which will never be in their pay envelopes.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this substitute, if adopted, would result in an increase for the postal employees per pay period of approximately $7. That would mean that for each 2 weeks we are voting here an increase of just $7.

Now, the figure of $546 which appears in the committee amendment was not arrived at accidentally. There are 26 pay periods, and this bill would result in an increase of $21 per pay period, which would go a little bit of the way to help out for the grocery bills, for the increased rent, for the new tax on gasoline, and so forth. So, basically I am opposed to this amendment, because when people are asking for bread, they are giving them a stone.

Second, I thin! we ought to make this point. We have had varying estimates that the cost of the committee bill would be from $270 million to $320 million. Supposing it is roughly $300 million. Let us not for get that the Government is going to withhold upward of $60 million of that money that will never see its way into the pay checks of the postal employees.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this substitute amendment should be defeated and the committee amendment sustained, simply because the sums provided in this amendment amount to practically nothing.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. ·

Mr. Chairman, I . rise· in · opposition to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES]. The 'gentleman has no assurance that the substitute which he offers, as meager as the increase provided by his substitute would be, as meager as it may be, would not be subjected to the same threat of a veto as the biij which the committee now has before it and as reported out by the Committee on Post Office and Civil ·service. In fact, the bill which we do have before us is a compromise bill; it is a compromise bill at best. Several of us felt that the increase for the postal employees should be . a great deal more than that which we agreed to when we were in executive session of the committee. It is a compro.mise both in distribution as well as in the actual percentage of increase.

As I tried to point out a few minutes ago, if we fail to recognize this increase in cost of living which the postal employees are suffering, it would be much more costly in the long run to our Federal Government. Most certainly the quality of the personnel will go down in years to come unless we recognize the cost-of-living problem which they have. I think everyone will agree with me, just as in everything else in life, we will get in personnel exactly what we :t>aY for. All of us are conscious of our budgetary problems and the problem of inflation. But, as has been pointed out before today, I feel that the Congress has done a very good job so far in reducing the budget requests of the administration. It seems to me that we can grant these increases that this bill provides for and yet maintain a balanced budget for fiscal 1958.

The problems of inflation are serious, but I do not think we should expect the postal and Federal employees to be the ones to stop the inflationary spiral. So far as I know, there is no assurance that if we fail to grant this increase for the employees that it would prevent industry from going along with additional increases in the future. I submit that we are merely trying to catch up with what outside industry has been doing over the past few years. This is not the place to stop wage increases. We need to bring the 1'1ederal employee up to the employee in outside industry. The fact of the matter is that since the Secretary of the Treasury testified before our committee in regard to the dangers of inflation, the steel prices have gone up. Certainly the increase for the postal employee or the proposed increase has nothing to do with the price of steel going up. And that will be reflected in the cost of living throughout the country.

Mr. Chairman, we have to recognize that the only way we can economize in Government is by more efficient management, by eliminating waste and duplication, and, if necessary, eliminating some governmental services. But we cannot economize by the blood and sweat of human beings who are serving our country in the Federal service.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that we had to bring this bill to the floor through a dis~harge petition. As a member of the Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service, I was reluctant to sign that discharge petition. I felt that the committee should act on the legislation. Yet this .seemed to be the only way in which we could get consideration of the bill on the floor of the House. I feel it is a reasonable bill. It is a compromise at best. It is the minimum which we should consider at this time for the postal employees. I urge that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] be defeated.

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

Mr. BROYHILL. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. But the committee did act on this legislation. I do not want the impression left that the committee did not act, because the committee did act.

Mr. BROYHILL. That is correct. That is the reason why some members of the committee were reluctant originally to sign the discharge petition. But after the committee acted, it did appear that we would not get the bill to the floor unless the discharge petition had 218 signatures.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, if I came from a large metropolitan area I would not have any trouble here today at all. I would vote willingly and happily for a wage increase. But I want to call your attention, to some of the difficulties that we, who represent some smaller rural areas, have.

For instance, in my home county, where you are paying a caretaker, or janitor as we refer to them, in excess of $3,000, that is in some instances more

1957. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12363 than schoolteachers with college degrees receive, and it is very difficult to reconcile that situation.

Frankly, I think that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kansas will meet the objections of the President, whereas we have every reason to believe the proposal in the committee bill would be unacceptable to the President.

I have heard many Members of the House say that we should vote for this bill and put the burden on the President, that he is going to veto it anyway, and we should do that. I do not like to be a party to that because I feel that we should use some commonsense in determining pay increases.

As the gentleman from Kansas said, this 5.5-percent increase he offers does take care of the increased cost of living. I am not going to be critical of the Post Office Committee ~or not bringing forward a bill which takes into account the cost of living in various communities. I am not a member of the committee and I have not had the opportunity to try to evolve some scheme of a cost-of-living differential. I do know that our unions recognize the cost of living in setting wage scales for labor. In other words, a bricklayer down in my town works for a less rate per hour than a bricklayer would get if he went to a metropolitan area. I think the unions recognize that difference. I think something like that could be worked out for all Government employees.

I know that here today we are going to set a pattern that will affect not only the postal employees but every other Federal employee. I think we do have to recognize that the Government and particularly the Congress should accept -its responsibility in trying to curtail in:flation.

Further, I wish it were possible that we could put some proviso in this bill to the.effect..that if we have the courage to grant wage increases we should also have the courage to recognize the need and justification for a postal rate increase which would at least partially off~et the money you are going to spend under this bill.

I do not want to take up more of your time. I am not an expert in this line at all. I think the things I have said are basic, though. First, that we have to meet the cost-of-living increase, and second, we should arrive at some way of taking care of a part of the cost where we !1.ave the opportunity. Third, I think

. that the committee, not only for the postal employees but for other Government employees, should at least explore the possibility of granting a cost-ofliving differential in the pay scheJ:lles.

Last but not least, someone spoke about the schoolteachers getting less than the Federal workers. May I point out that the rate of pay of the schoolteacher is set in the local community. The school boards recognize supply and demand, and that is what we have here. I feel sorry for the fellow working in the larger cities of the district I represent, and in the great metropolitan areas whose cost of living has gone up. I know he is in a squeeze and I want to do something for him. I am conscientious in

that. At the same time, in the rural communities, I know that the rural carrier, for instance, in most communities has if not the best, among the best, and one of the highest paid jobs in that community. I do not think any of

. us who have had any experience with that would feel we were doing a great injustice if we had the opportuni~y to vote against the proposed wage increases in some of these cases. I think this bill that was brought in by the committee does not recognize the situation as it exists. For that reason, I intend to support the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kansas, believing that by so doing l will be voting for a more realistic proposal which I believe will be approved by the President when it is passed.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee bill, subject to a correction of an inequity in the proposed pay adjustment for rural letter carriers.

I voted in committee for the $546 across-the-board annual pay increase for postal field service personnelr I had no illusions that it is an ideal solution of the postal pay problem. Indeed the longer I serve on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service the more my suspicion grows that, practically speaking, there probably is no ideal solution.

I voted for the bill because I am convinced that there are pay problems among the substantial majority of the postal employees which cry for relief. I know the hazards of the legislative and executive gauntlet which this or any other pay bill must run. But I do not believe it is logical to try to escape those possibly fatal hazards by voting, either in committee or on the floor, to kill the bill. I intend to meet what I regard as my responsibilities, a step at a time, and leave it to others in this House, in the other body, and in the executive branch to do likewise.

I am aware, also, of the argument that something less of a pay increase may stand a better chance of survival. There is, so far as I know, no authoritative assurance that something less, or just how much less, has any more chance of such survival. The Bureau of the Budget early this year appeared to close the door of any administration approval of a pay increase this session. Moreover, I am not in favor of a substitute proposal which gives substantially higher increases for the relatively few higher paid employees and, -at the same time, reduces substantially the proposed increase for the pay levels which include the bulk of postal personnel. ·

In my brief remarks I want to confine myself to 2 or 3 basic principles which, it seems to me, are at issue in this debate. I hope, thereby, to indicate to my colleagues in the Committee of the Whole the reasons for my position for whatever value that has in the decisions my colleagues now must make.

At the outset I want to say a personal word with respect to the distinguished and able chairman of our committee, Mr. MURRAY. and the distinguished and able ranking minority member, Mr. REES. I have the utmost respect anci

high regard for them, and for their sin .. cerity of viewpoint and purpose. It is not easy or pleasant to find myself in disagreement with them. I differ with respect and with faith in their continued patience and tolerance. I want also to pay my respects to the distinguished, able and courageous Postmaster General of the United States who has repeatedly demonstrated his devotion to an improved postal service and his capacity for matching that devotion with skilled, imaginative and highly qualified administrative leadership. Under no circumstances would I knowingly add to his heavy burdens; it is my hope that even in disagreement on this issue I may, in some degree at least, be helpful to him in his desire for an ever-improved postal service.

Now for the points I wish to make: First. I have profound sympathy and

basic agreement with the position taken by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Humphrey, in testimony before our committee that "I hope, if you spend more money you will provide it.'' As I have repeatedly commented during the committee hearings, I feel that I-indeed, that all of us-face a bitter dilemma. As I have repeatedly said, I find it difficult to be understanding and patient toward the attitude of those colleagues who felt no compunctions and showed little restraint in advocating at the outset an unconscionably large pay increase. I subscribe completely to the testimony of the Postmaster General that it is "a grave disservice to plant false hopes in the minds of postal employees." I think just that was done with the initial pay increase proposals sponsored by the leadership of some postal employee organizations and by some of my colleagues. I did not sign the discharge petition because, among other reasons, I believed the increase in H. R. 2474 unconscionable. _ .

I might say that, perhaps unwittingly, some false hopes were also planted in the minds of both taxpayers and postal employees when the Bureau of the Budget counted its chickens before they were hatched by including in the 1958 Federal budget as an anticipated source of additional revenues the highly problematic yield of a still-to-be-enacted postal·rate bill.

I will say that if an unbalanced Federal budget is inflationary-and I agree that it is-then that inflationary damage can be done by failure of Congress to enact the postal rate bill to a far larger and more serious degree than by enactment of a $279 million pay increase along with the rate increase. I, of course, doubly deplore the position of those colleagues who not only testified before the committee in favor of an unconscionable pay increase but, at the same time and in direct response to questions I asked in committee, indicated their opposition to a first-class rate increase which must, of necessity, be the largest factor in any fiscally effective overall postal rate in .. crease.

There is a strong appeal, so far as I am concerned, to the argument that until or unless there is a rate increase there should not be a pay increase. But I

12364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - . HOUSE July 22

must, in all candor and in all kindness, gress and out, oz perennial pay increase It has worked well so far as I have been say that much of the appeal of that argu- campaigns. able to ascertain. ment is lost so far as I am concerned In that connection I should like to Mr. JOHANSEN. I wonder if the when, · as is presently the case, it seems commend the testimony of our colleague situation is entirely parallel in view of to me apparent that action on the rate from Michigan [Mr. BENTLEY] before the fact that the bulk of the employees increase is actually being delayed in the the Committee on Post Office and Civil in the postal service, particularly the hope of thereby preventing a pay in- Service. It was, in my judgment, out- carriers and clerks, are in a single level, ·crease. In saying that, I speak only of standing among the numerous able pres- which might, I think, create a little difmy own impression and reaction and I entations made by colleagues not on the ferent situation with respect to that, quest~on the motives of no one. committee. where a clerk or a carrier may spend

Second. Now I should like to address I quote from Mr. BENTLEY'S statement virtually all of his career in that level. myself briefly to the argument that the this particular comment: ·-Mr. REES of Kansas. This is recstraight across-the-board increase will- I would urge that another matter be given· ommended, as the gentleman well knows, result in serious distortion of-the overall- consideration. There are areas and com- · by . the Postmaster General. He came pay schedule. munities of our country, such as my own before our committee and testified in

I recognize the possibility of such dis- where the wage scale is very high. There are favor of this proposal. tortion if-as in the past-there is com- other areas where it is comparatively low. Mr. JOHANSEN. I recognize that

h I understand tha t you have also considered f t I · t · · th t• plete reliance upon this approac over fn the ·past the inClusion of a pay differential a,c . am JUS ra1smg e ques 10n as a period of years and in terms of a series- according to · area. This is, of course, bas- to whether you are creating a morale of pay increases. ically the. Davis-Bacon. or prevailing wage- problem with respect to employees who

I do not believe tr.at is true of a single clause. I see nO' reason why this provision have 2 or 3 years of service when new increase of this type at-this time. ·And I which has been generally accepted by ·blue- employees come in at the level that they de not know how the two main objec- collar wage earners should not be accepted had to wait 2 or 3 years to achieve. tives of a badly needed and adequate in- by the _cJassified Government employee Mr. REES of Kansas. · -I do not think crease in starting pay, and a needed and unions as well: ... so. Not as much, in my opinion, as the adequate increase in pay in the levels in I do not offer this proposal as a pana- morale problem as may be created by which the-bulk of the personnel is found; cea. I -recognize strong opposition in the adoption of the amended committee can be achieved except by this across- many quarters. But I ·believe ·that ·it.. bill. the-board approach: The only alterna- offers an approach to both the area dif- Mr. · LESINSKI.- Mr. Chairman, -I tive, it seems to me, would be an· un- ferential and· the cost-of-living factors move to strike out the last word. justifiably high dollar increase for the of equitable and realistic pay adjustment · Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want higher levels, with substantial increase which -deserves fuller exploration by-the to say that I respect the ranking Mern-in total cost. committee and the Congress. Certainly I bers both on the majority and the minor- .

Now I want to speak of a proposal share the conviction so ably voiced by ity side of the Post Office and Civil Servoffered by the Postmaster · General-· Mr. BENTLEY that the Congress and the ice Committee. We come from different which I understand will be incorporated rank and file of the postal workers desire parts of ·the -country and I think we in a percentage increase substitute. ·. r- some pay legislation that would ·provide must recognize the fact tn:at .. each one · refer to the suggestion that authority a solution for longer tha.n ·a year or two. represents his area. Anyone who does be granted the ·Post Office Department IV£r. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, wilt not represent his respective area should to adjust starting· levels in ·critical areas the gentleman yield? · not be considered as a Member of this. where there is labor shortage or exces- · Mr, JOIIANSEN: I yield. - House. " Therefore, in ·my opposition to· sively high rates of pay ·in comparison Mr·. HALLECK. When that ·discharge the chairman·-- and ranking minority to postal pay. · petition was filed and many of the postal . Member, I respect their being representa. Under such .a plan, for example, start- employees came here, and as always we · tives of ·their people: · I believe the . ing pay_ might be set at a step 4 of the are· glad to see them, does the gentleman amendment which the gentleman from· given pay· level. It seems to me that this have any information as to what they Kansas [Mr. REES] has proposed speaks involveS" a pay distortion fully as serious, were seeking at that tinie? Was · it the· its own defeat, for two reasons. First, if not more serious, as that involved in a original bill ·as introduced? · · the point that the lady from New York single across-the-board pay increase. ·It Mr. JOHANSEN. Of ·course, hope [Mrs. ST. GEORGE] raised, the escalator would mean..:..-if I correctly understand springs eternal I will say to my distill-· clause which I introduced in 1951 shows the workings of this proposal-that in a guished minority leader, but I suspect that the salaries are not in keeping with given- post office where a step 4 hiring that some of them by that time realized the cost of living at present. Second, rate was authorized, all previously hired . it was utterly impractical to expect the· the amendment· proposes a 5~·percent inemployees receiving step 1,. 2, or · 3 ·pay sort of increases proposed 'in H. R. 2474: crease while most of the employees are would have their pay increased to step 4; That is not to say that some of them in grade 4, $3,660, and the gentleman At the same time, step 4 employees would did not hope. That is a hope, of course; proposes to eliminate the first two steps, not have their pay increased nor would that I never shared and t would not meaning that 80 percent· of the employemployees in the higher steps, despite have supported it in any way, shape or ees of the Post Office Department get a their length of. service. This, -it seems to manner. 1 • • · · salary similar to, but less than, the pres-me, represents a serious distortion and · Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. ·chairman, ent bill as it stands. Therefore you ad-inequity~ will the gentleman yield? , · mit that the bill is fair in its entirety,

Moreover; I think there ·would be a · ' Mr. · JOHANSEN. I 'yl.eld. but •you are asking that 20 percent or . serious· problem of pressure-from with- ]}Ar. REES of ~arisas. T:qe gentleman the rural people should be kept down. · fn· the postal service and even conceiv- understands, I believe, that this proposal There may be some merit to your ably through the Meml;>ers of Congress- is similar to a proposal provided in ,leg- thought but it should first be considered for bestowing this favored higher start- islation approved by our co.mmittee, and by the committee. That is the basis of ing<-rate status upon innumerable post by the 83d Congress granting classified your argument; that we in the high cost

· area would get less by, roughly, $100, ac-offices. workers, through the authority of the cording to the present bill. On the other

Third. Now one final observation: As Civil Service Commission the opportun-I said at the outset: I am becoming in- ity to adJ·ust starting levels wh. ere .it j.s hand, by your amendment alone you · admit the fact that we are underpaid in creasingly suspicious that there is no deemed proper. The Postmaster Gen- places like Detroit, Philadelphia, and so

. ideal solution of the perennial postal pay eral had recommended such. proposal. . forth. problem. But I believe there are some Mr. JOHANSEN. I recognized· that, I would like to ask the gentleman from areas of- further review and exploration I will say to my distinguished leader Kansas one question. The gentleman which might serve to moderate the prob- in the committee. admits that his proposal is similar to lem both in the interests of more equi· Mr. REES of Kansas. I have yet to that of Federal employees. I believe the table pay adjustments and in the inter· have anybody call my attenti'On to any gentleman · meant the so-called bluet:.tts of minimizing the, politics, in Con- mistakes or misunderstandings about it. collar workers.

1957 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12365 Mr. REES of Kansas. Oh, no. Mr. LESINSKI. You do not have an

area proposal? Mr. REES of Kansas. 1 ·am sure the

gentleman has read the substitute that I proposed.

Mr. LESINSKI. Yes. Mr. REES of Kansas. I have followed

the language of the Postmaster General as is now provided by the Civil Service Commission, for those in the classified service.

Mr. LESINSKI. But the blue-collar worker get only the area rates.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Oh, no. Mr. LESINSKI. Presently the classi

fied employees _are paid on a classified scale and the blue-collar workers on the wage scale. Also the blue-collar workers are paid more than the classified people are. The only people that might be affected are the engineers and scientific workers.

Mr. REES of Kansas. We are not talking about a wage scale. We are talking about the authority that is granted in my propos.al to the Postmaster General. I think the gentleman will favor it if he examines it. He did not object to it in the committee in the 83d Congress. I thought he would favor this particular proposal in my substitute, because it fits right in the area the gentleman reoresents in the city of Detroit.

Mr. LESINSKI. The gentleman's proposal will be below wllat the present bill will give.

Mr. REES of Kansas. The gentleman will agree that it is equitable.

I do not think it has been explained from what source the figure of $546 was obtained.

Mr. LESINSKI. If the Committee goes into· the facts and sees that the postal employees are brought up to par, yes. At the present time, no, because they are not up to par.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I rise· in ·support of the substitute: · .. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the postal pay raise bill -reported by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has any chance of final passage. It is very clear from the President's letter, dated June 14, 1957, to Hon. TOM MURRAY, that he will veto this bill. There are certain facts about this bill which we should keep in mind. It provides an . across-the-board increase for postal employees of $546. This amounts to a direct cost of 26.25 cents per hour per employee in the postal field service plus 2.5 cents per hour of fringe benefits.

As stated in the minority report filed by Hon. TOM MURRAY:

This involves some 518,000 employees and an estimated increase in annual costs to the Post Office Department of $317,500,000.

We must keep in mind that if we vote this increase we must grant a similar increase for the 1 million other employees whose salaries are authorized by Congress. We will also be compelled to give an increase to the uniformed personnei of the Department of Defense. The to-

tal increase for these 4,600,000 individuals will exceed $3 billion annually. This will mean that we must return to deficit financing and that there will be no hope of reducing taxes or making any payment upon our staggering national debt. It will also mean that we will be adding fuel to the fire of inflation which is threatening to consume us.

With the exception of the month of February, the dollar dropped in purchasing power every month during the year 1956. In every month of 1957 our dollar has dropped further in purchasing power. This means that the millions of Americans who must depend upon fixed incomes from wages, salaries, pensions, retirements, annuities, social security, and ~o forth, are being seriously hurt. Most of these people are unable to increase their income to keep up with advancing inflation. There are a few people in our country who, through their unions, are able to obtain increases to offset their loss of purchasing power. There are a few who can profit enormously from inflation through the ownership of equities, but the vast majority have no means of such protection and they are very gravely threatened.

While economists differ on all the causes of inflation, most of them agree that deficit financing and huge Government spending are major contributing causes. No one will dispute that an increase of ·$3 billion in Government expendftures will speed up inflation, and will help no one, but will seriously hurt our country. Tlie beneficiaries of the salary increases will be temporarily benefited but it will take only a few months for their increase to be wiped out by inflation. For instance, on March 1, 1955, the Government employees received a 6-percent salary increase. Five percent of that increase has been wiped out by inflation. Furthermore, many Federal employees are retiring every year. It is imperative to them that the pur-

, chasing power of their retirements be stabilized. -We cannot stabilize the American dollar by piling up more debt and deficit, and by increasing the expenditures of Government.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that at this time we should limit the salary increase to about 5 percent and not more than 7 % percent, which is the pe:i;centage of the increase in the cost of Uving s.ince March 1, 1955, when _we passed the last salary raise bill.

I know that this will not satisfy all the employees but they must keep in mind the plight of the majority of Americans who have no way of off setting the increase in the cost of living. These Americans have had their income reduced 5 percent. Furthermore, the Federal employees should keep in mind the serious plight of our Government, which owes more money than all the nations put together. They must remember that our taxpayers are clamoring for some relief as early as possible and that we cannot grant this needed relief until we reduce substantially the expenditures of Government.

At this point I wish to quote from the minority report filed by Chairman ToM MURRAY:

It will be noted that there has been a 115.3-percent increase in the entrance salary for these employees. It will also be noted that the employee with a $1,700 salary in 1945 is today in the top step of the salary range and is receiving a salary which is 165.3 percent higher. Those employees who were in the top grade of the salary range in 1944 are today either retired or are receiving some 103-percent increase in their basic salary. In addition to the salary increases, there has been an increase in fringe benefit of some 15 percent of salary. The Congress has granted to these employees 5 increases since 1945, the last one less than 20 months ago. These increases have approximated, and in some cases exceeded, that of the cost of living.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I do not think there is any chance for final passage of the committee's bill. I think n will be an idle gesture which will vainly raise the expectations of Federal employees and, at the same time, frighten our taxpayers. On the other hand, a more modest increase to take care of the cost-of-living increase for the time being can be passed and will, in my opinion, meet with the President's approval. As soon as we are able to halt inflation and put our Federal house in order, we can and we should review the whole question of salaries because I believe that our Federal employees should receive compensation commensurate with that paid by the big industries and businesses of America. ·

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so-called Rees amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the brief time at my disposal, I will try tO make several points. In the first place, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIEs], I believe inadvertently, used the wrong figures when he said this would cost $3 billion if it were added to the Federal classification raise. As a matter of fact, the postal pay raise will cost the Government $279 million, and an 11-percent increase in the classified pay bill which the committee has also voted out and which I assume will be the order of business soon, would cost $490

. million. That means a total of $769 million additional cost to the Government if both bills are passed and that would, of course, include about a million and a half Federal employees.

Having corrected that point, I would like to address my remarks to the percentages that the gentleman from Texas quoted, and I do not quarrel with the percentages of the gentleman from Texas as he used the base year of 1945. But I go back to 1939. I have a list of percentages here which I will place in the RECORD at the proper time when I get unanimous consent, furnished from the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, the Veterans' Administration, the National Educational Association and Moody's Investors' Service. These were published last year in the U.S. News & World Report.

Here are some of the percentages: Farm laborers since 1939 have been increased in their real wages-not dollar

12366 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-. HOUSE July 22

wages-89 percent. Steel, copper, and California cities and their percentages aluminum workers have had their real of labor turnover: wages increased 56 percent. School- Person nel turnover in Cali fornia post offices teachers, whom we are greatly concerned Percen t about, and these are national figures, not local figures, have had an increase of 36 Arlington_ __________________________ 30 percent in real wages since 1939. I have Bakersfield-------- - -------- - -------- 30

Beverly Hills----------- - ---- -------- 35 many others here, all in varying degrees Burlingame_________________________ 28 up to 100-percent increase in real wages Downey __________________ ____________ 100 of the coal miners. El Monte________ ______________ ______ 37

When we get to the Federal Govern- Fullerton_________________ ___ _____ __ 47. 7 ment workers, since 1939 they have had Glenda le_________ ___________________ 22 their real wages increased 14 percent, Hawthorne_______________ __ _______ __ 46 the next to the lowest on the list. The Hayward________________ __ ______ ____ 39

La Crescenta _____________ ____ _______ 30 lowest on the list is veterans' compensa- Lakewood---- - ----------------- - ---- 25 tion who have only had theirs increased Lancaster__ ________ ___ _____ __ _______ 70 4 percent. That is a shameful fact for La Verne______________________ _____ 25 the Congress to consider, that we have Los Angeles_________________________ 25 not increased veterans' disability com- Maywood------- - - - - ------ - --------- 39 pensation more than 4 percent. Those Merced___________________________ __ 25 :figures will stand up. Monrovia------------ -:------ - ------- 33 Montrose____________ _____ ___________ 30

We are not· only concerned with an North Hollywood_______ ___ ________ ___ 47 increase in living cost in this bill of $546 Ontario____ ________ _________________ 31 spread over the 26 pay periods, we are P acific Palisades_______ ___ __ _______ __ 31 interested in the morale and the reten- Pacoima _____ ______________ __________ 32 tion of skilled employees in the Post Of- Palos Verdes Estates_______ ___________ 78 :flee Department. Redding__ _________ _________ _________ 22

I n flation r ace-w ho's ahead, w h o's behindCon tinued

Per cent change f r om 1939

Investors in stocks 1----------------UP 63 Furniture makers ___________________ up 59 Metal m iners ___________ ____________ up 59 Chemical workers _________________ __ up 58 Steel, copper, aluminum workers _____ up 56 Metal-product workers _______ ______ _ up 56 Canaery workers, others in food

processing _____ ___ ____ _______ ____ _ up 51 Machinery makers (nonelectrical) ___ up 48 Shoe-factory workers _________ ___ ___ up 48 Meatpacking workers ________________ up 47 Fa rmers ________ _________ ______ _____ up 46 Petroleum-refinery workers __________ up 43 Machinery makers (electrical) __ _____ up 41 Tire-factory workers _____ ___________ up 40 Aircraft-factory workers _______ __ ___ up 39 Oil- and gas-field workers ___________ up 36 Schoolteachers ------------ - -------UP 36 Printing, publishing employees ______ up 32 Garment workers ___________________ up 31 Cleaning, dyeing workers ____________ up 28 Retail clerks __________________ ______ up 24

· Electric, gas-company employees ____ -.ip 24 Railroad workers-------------------UP 24 Laundry workers ___________________ up 23 Coal miners (anthracite) ____________ up 22 Auto workers ______ _______ ____ ______ up 20 Telephone . employees _______________ up 1.6 Federa l Government workers ___ _____ up 14 Veterans on compensation ~---------UP 4

THESE GROUPS ARE GETTING SMALLER REAL INCOME

I have here in my hand a report from Redwood CitY---- - - - ------- - ·-------- 51 37 cities in California, ranging from a Reseda__________ ___________ _________ 58 .city the size of Los ' Angeles with several Rialto___ ____ _____________ ___________ 54 . million, to cities of 10,000, 15,0-00, or San Bernardino____________ ___ _____ __ 51 20,000 .people. -The -peTSonnel turnover San Fernando__ _____ ___ _____________ 62 per annum in Los Angeles, for instance, San GabrieL_____________ __ __ __ ___ __ 45 is 25 percent,- in Whittier, a town near San Mateo-------- - ------ - --·-------- 45 my district of about 50,000 people, it is San RafaeL-----------------·-------- 43 Percen t chan ge 23 percent. In Downey, in the district Santa Monica_____________ _______ ____ 25 f r om1939 represented by the gentleman from Ca.Ii- -Sunland_____ ____________ ____________ 80 .Bondholders 1 --- ----------------down 49 fornia [Mr. DOYLE], there· is a 100- Upland------------ - ,-------------- - -- 30 Retired Federal Government

percent turnover in 1 year. In North ~~~!~:~=====================~=~=~::: ;; . workers _______________________ ._down 13 Hollywood it is 47 percent. In San 1 Average return on securities bought in Fernando it is 62 percent and in San . Also, Mr. Chairman, a list which gives 1939 and held to date.

th t -f · · f · 2 Married veteran with no dependents. Bernardino, a city of from 6-0,000 to · · e percen ages o mcrease 1I1 wages o · k l "fi t' · 193g Basic .data: Department of Labor; Depart-70,0-00, 51 percent. These are the turn·- - · various war er c assi ca ions since : men·~ of A,griculture; Veterans' Administra-overs. The gentleman from Missouri People who really have prospered in 17 tion; National Education Association; CMr. JONES ] spoke about the · wage rate boom years after allowing for taxes and for Moody's Investor Service.

l·n his a1·ea. I know h1's area w_ell. My changes in the value of the dollar. M C'"C'DERBER - r. x.. . G. ,Mr. Chairman, I wife was .born in -his .district.and I have .Inflati on race-who's ahea.d , . who'.~ ,be_hind offer an amendment to the substitute. many relatives there. . Hi-s district is a .THESE GRouPs ARE GETTING BIGGER REAL INCOME . The Clerk read as follows: .country district, .and there .is .no doubt Percent chang_e Amendment offered by Mr. CEDERBERG to but that the-employees in the post office froml939 the substitute offered by Mr. REES of Kan-are well paid in comparison to other em- Coal miners. (bituminous) __________ _ up 107 sas: Strike out all after the word "follow-ployees in the general area. But, most Farm laborers ___ ___ _____ ___ ________ up 89 ing" and insert tht: following: That (a) the

of the clerks and carriers are empfoyed ~~~~~i;e~~~:~~!--~~~~~~~========== =~~ ~: . ~~~~~~ Fi~~d (~~r~fceth~c~~~!~ ~~:i~ai~::Vi~~ in the large cities of the Nation, and it Paper-mill workers ___ ___ _____ _______ up 65 Compensation Act of 1955 (39 u. s. c. 971 is the overall national problem .that-we .Textile workers ______ ______ __ ___ ____ up 64 (a)) is amended: to read as follows:

have to solve here. It is not in the little towns or exactly in the rural areas, although they are important, but it is im-portant in the overall analysis that we treat the majority of the employees of the Federal Government right.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a fair compromi~e bill, $546 a year to be spread over 26 pay periods or $21 apiece. Why, the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kansas, which I spoke against, would only increase the employee's salary 5 cents an hour. That small raise is ridiculous.

We must at this time, however, pass the bill which provides a 12%-percent raise. if we are to do justice to the lag in i·eal wages, which we are trying to do in passing the Morrison bill.

Under unanimous consent granted today, I append to my remarks a list of

"POST AL F I E LD SER VI CE SCHEDU LE

Levo!

1 _ --- - - -- - - - - - - - - ------ - - --- - - --- - - - - - - - -2 __ - - - - -- - - - - - -·- - - - - --- - - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - -3. - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - - ---- - -- ---- - - - -- - - - - -4_ - - ----- - - - ---- - - - - -- - - - - ----- - -- ---- - - -5. - - --- - --- - - - -- - - -- -- -- - --- - - - - --- ---- - -6_ - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - ----- - - - - -7 - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - --- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- -8_ - ---- -- - - - - - - --- -- -- - --- -- - - -~----- - - - -9_ -- -- - - - --- - - -- -- - - ------ - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -10_ - - - ----- - -- ---- - - ----- - - - - ---- - - - -- - - -l L _ -- -- . ___ --- ___ ----- - _. __ . ______ __ . __ . 12 .

13= = == ==== ===== = ==== = = = = == ====== ==== == === 14_ - - -- --- - -- - - --- - _ .. - -- - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -15_ - -- -- -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - ------ ---- - - - - -- -16_ - ---- -- - ---- - - - -- - - - - -- --- --- · - - - - - - - -17 _________ ___ , _______ - - -- - · - - ----- - - -- ---

18 - - - - - ----- - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - ------ - - - --19_ ----- ___ _ .:_ - - - ----- -- --- ---- -- --- -- -- -.20 __ __ - - - --- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- -

$3,096 3,322 3,580 3,936 4, 170 4,504 4,870 5 256 5:676 6,235 6,860 7, 546 8, 310 9, 138

10, 052 11, 072 12, 255 13, 760 14, 840 16,000

Per annum r.ates and steps

2 3 5

$3, 203 $3, 310 $3, 417 $3, 524 $3, 631 $3, 738 3, 435 3, 548· 3, .661 3, 744 3, 887 4, 000 3, 704 3, 828 3, 952 4, 076 4, 200 4, 324 ~~ ~& ~- ~m ~~ ~~ ~e ~~ ~m ~m ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~m ~~ ~& ~m ~~ ~~ ~m 5, 439 5, 622 5, 805 ~, 988 6, 171 ti, 354 5,-875 6, 074 6, 273 6, 472 6, 671 6, 870 6, 450 6, 665 6, 880 7, 095 7, 310 7, 525 t~ ~m t n ~~ ~~ ~m ~~ ~~ ~~ ~m &D ~~ 8, 590 8, 870 9, 150 9, 430 9, 710 9, 990 9, 439 9, 740 10. 041 10, 342 10, 643 10, 94-t

10, 375 10, 698 11. 021 11, 344. 11, 667 11, 990 11, 395 11, 718 12, 041 12, 364 12, 687 13, 010 12, 578 12, 901 13, 224 13, 547 13, 870 14, ]!)3 ~~ ~R ~~ ~~ ~W ~~

-- -~~~~~~- ---~~~~:~- ---~~·-~~- - --~~~~~- =::::::::: :::::_·_-_-_-,;

".

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12367 Strike out all of (b) and insert: "(b) (1) Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. C. 972

The Rural Carrier Schedule contained in (a)) is amended to read as follows: section 302 (a) of the Postal Field Service

! ~ 1R URAL CARRIER SCHEDULE


2 3 4 6 ______________ , ____ , ____ ---------------------Carriers in rural delivery service:

Fixed compensation per annum ... $1, 6G7. 00 Compensation per mile per an-

$1, 717. 00 $1, 767. 00 $1, 817. 00 $1, 867. ()(} $1, 917. ()(} $1, 967. ()(}

num for each mile up to 30 miles of route... . .................. . .. 71. 00

For each mile of route over 30 miles. 23. 60 73.00 2'!.00

75.00 23.00

77.00 23. 60

7!1.00 23.00

81. 00 23. GO

83.00 23.00

Temporary carriers in rural delivery i'ervice on routes to which no regular carrier is assigned:

Fixed compensation per annum ... 1, 667. 00 Compensaf;ion per mile per an-

num for each mile up to 30 miles of route .•.....•.............. ___ 71. 00

For each mile of route over 30 miles. 23. 50 T emporary carriers in rural delivery

service on routes having re1mlar carriers absent without pay or on mili-tary leave____ ___ __ __ _____________ ___ (')

Snbstitute carriers in rural deli very service on routes having caniers ab-sent with pay______ __ _______________ (')

(1)

(1)


" ( 2) Section 302 ( c) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. s. C. 972 (c)), relating to additional compensation for rural carriers serving heavily patron-· ized routes, is amended by striking out

(I) (1) (1) (I)

(l) (1) (I) (1) (1)

'$4,700' and inserting in lieu thereof '$5,040.' "(c) The Fourth-Class Office Schedule con

tained in section 303 (a) of the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 (39 U. S. c. 973 (a)) is amended to read as follows;

~·'FOURTH-CLASS OFFICE SCHEDULE

rer annum rates and steps Gross receipts

2 3 4 6 _______________ .;.__ ---------------------

:~~ot$1~~~99~_':===: ::::::::::::.:::::: $000 to $899.99 .•.• ------ ------ ----------~ $350 to $599.99 ___ _______________________ _

$250 to $349.99 . • ----------------------- --

$2, 703 2, 476 2,027 1, 577 1, 127

$2, 793 2,559 2,095 1 630 1: 165

$2, 883 2,Ci42 2,1Ci3 1, 683 1, 203

$2, 973 2, 725 2, 231 ), 736 1, 241

$3, 063, 2,808 2,299 1, 789 1, 279 1,021

$3,1.53 2,891 2,3fi7 1. 842 1, 317 1,051

$3, 243 2, 974 2,435 1, 895 1, 355 1, 081 200 to $249.99 __________________________ _

$100 to $199.99.--------------------------Under $100 •••••••• ••••• ------ ___ ••• ____ _

901 812 450

Mr. CEDERBERG (interrupting the reading of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

There was no objection. Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman,

my amendment increases the amount proposed by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] from 5 percent to 7.5 percent. It is the amendment that I spoke of when we were in general debate.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ·state that I find myself somewhat in the middle here today between the gentleman 'from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES] and I submit that that might be a pretty good place to be, because I find we are faced with this situation: On the one hand we i·ecognize that to overspend in this area. it is going to cause a degree of inflation; yet, on the other hand, if we do not do something, we are neglecting some of our very fine civil servants who are entitled to an increase. And, I have never participated in or known of a labor negotiation yet that did not result in some kind of a compromise, and I am trying to present some kind of a com-

931 835 465

9Cil 8.'i8 480

991 881 495

904 510

927 525

950 540',,

promise of 7 .5 percent, which I thipk is legitimate. We talk about the salaries being paid in various places. We have had the problem in the Post Office Department of legislating salaries on a nationwide basis, and now we recognize that in some areas we have inequities, and in other areas our postal employees are some of the best paid people in the Nation. If .we take the national average of what we pay the schoolteachers with a bachelor.' of arts degree, we find it is $4,220 a year, and if we .take the average for the national salary we pay post office employees at the present time, it is $4,390. But, that does not do away with the fact that our employees are entitled to some kind of a salary increase.

What are the practical facts? As I said before, I have no assurance that the 7.5 provision will become law, but I believe if it is accompanied by a proper rate bill, it will have a pretty good chance to become law. Now, we can stay here as long as we want, but I say to you that I do not believe that this $546 across-the-board increase has any chance of becoming law. Are we going to go through the same thing that we went through 2 years ago, the same experience? It could very well happen that the matter could be disposed of as

·far as the legislative branch is concerned;

it will go to the Executive, it will be vetoed, and we will all be home and congratulating ourselves that we do not have to vote on the question of whether or not to override the· veto.

Here is my position and I want to make it strictly cle~,r. I intend to support, of course, my 7 %-percent amendment. But I will not support the $546 acrossthe-board proposal just on the political pretext that we are going to try to show the postal employees that we are for them, but yet not be able to produce anything as far as their pay envelope is concerned.

I wish that you would give serious consideration to this 7%'-percent amendment. I might say that it also carries the same provision as in the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] whereby the Postmaster General, in areas where it is deemed necessary, may start employees not at the first step but at the second or third or fourth. If that provision goes in the bill, there are areas, extremely high cost of living areas where they have all of these problems, where the postal employees could receive an increase of $678 a year more than the starting salary at the present time. That is under the 7%-percent proposal that I have here.

I hope that you will give some consideration to this amendment and that we can reach a reasonable compromise that will have an opportunity to become law. But I still want tcJ say this, that if· we have a rate bill, ·it may be possible that

. a reasonable pay bill can · be approved. I think that the rate bill as reported out of the committee should be increased. We ought to go further than we have with rates, in view of the fact that we have had a supplemental appropriation of well over $100 million, and this bill will cost around $200 million, and the $546 bill will cost $300 million, making our postal deficit about $1.1 billion, while the rate bill will be only $450 millionthat should cause us as responsible Members of this body some genuine concern. We ought to forget politics io this issue. We ought to do what is best for our employees and we ought to do what is best for our constituents.

I hope that you will give serious consideration to the amendment that I have offered here.

Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendinent.

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

Mr. SANTANGELO. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Morrison amendment to H. R. 2474.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the bill will be amended as proposed by the gentleman from Louisiana, Congressman MORRISON, and that it will receive the favorable action of the membership in the House.

The proposition that postal workers of this Nation are entitled to a reasonable pay increase appeals to me tremendously.

The increased cost of living confront~ ing all of us has been particularly keenly

12368 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22 felt by the loyal men and women in our postal service. They are facing personal financial problems which cannot be met without the aid of those of us who believe that their service is worthy of a living wage.

The language of H. R. 2474 as originally introduced brought about great objection from the Eisenhower administration. I am told that even the Morrison amendment is receiving the opposition of President Eisenhower, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Postmaster General. It is my hope that this opposition on the part of the Republican leadership will dissipate itself if the Morrison amendment is adopted. The President should cooperate in giving to these faithful employees of the Federal service this reasonable pay increase.

Quite a few of the Members of the House have signed the discharge petition seeking to have this bill handled in a way which would circumvent the usual committee system practiced in the House. I have not been one of those who concurred in that approach. I do not feel that any legislation should be brought to the fioor of the House except after full and complete hearings and affirmative action by the appropriate committee. To do otherwise than follow the usual legislative procedure would, in my opinion, result ultimately in much bad legislation reaching the fioor and, perhaps, being enacted into law.

In making this statement I do not condemn or criticize those who did sign the discharge petition. That is a matter of individual opinion. My conviction is that I should not at any time, now or in the future, be a signatory to such a petition. It is my present plan to desist from signing discharge petitions so long as I am privileged to serve in the House.

The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has fully studied H. R. 2474. By an overwhelming majority of affirmative votes it has reported the bill favorably with the understanding that the Morrison amendment would be submitted.

I believe that this is proper legislative procedure. We now have a bill which should appeal to all of us as being fair, reasonable, and worthy of support. The Morrison amendment should remove any objection that Members have had to any of the proposals in the bill as originally written.

I earnestly urge that my colleagues assist in preserving the high type of service which the American public has been receiving from the faithful and loyal postal workers of this Nation. This legislation will aid materially in that cause.

I know personaliy a great majority of these fine citizens who go to their jobs daily and handle the postal affairs of the various communities in the 11th Congressional District of North Carolina. They are fine, loyal Americans in every respect. It is for them that I particularly raise my voice with the plea that we not let them down. We now have this opportunity to give to them a well-deserved pay increase. That the recognition of their needs at this time is vitally necessary should not be questioned.

My vote will be for this pay increase for them.

Mr. SANTANGELO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG] as I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES]. These amendments give too little and are too late. I was one of the members of the committee who advocated a higher increase than $546. But after conference with some of the Members it was felt , in view of the tight economy as weighed against the need and the desire of the postal employees to get an increase, that we should agree to the figure of $546 across the board. I am interested in a fiat increase across the board because I believe that we must help those who are on the bottom of the totem pole. Therefore, I was not in favor of a percentage increase which would have benefited those in the upper brackets to the detriment of those in the lower brackets.

Let us look at the record of the last 6 years. In the last 6 years 2 increases were granted the postal employees. One was in 1951, and followed a sharp increase in the cost of living during the Korean war period. The increase in 1951 barely compensated for the rise in the cost of living that followed the Korean attack.

After 4 long years, postal employees got another increase of 6 percent, with an additional average of 2.4 percent to eliminate wage and salary inequities that existed within the postal pay scale. Thus, since July of 1951 postal employees have received only 1 wage increase of 6 percent across the board.

But what has happened in the meanwhile? The Postmaster General, when he appeared before the committee, acknowledged that the average productivity of postal employees has been increasing at the rate of almost 3 percent per year. Data presented by the Bureau of the Budget amply supports the claim of the Postmaster General. In other words, during the past 6 years while postal employees have received only 1 wage increase, the average productivity per employe has increased about 17 percent. In addition, the cost of living has risen since the last increase of 2 years ago by about 4 percent. This means that if we would actually reward the postal employees for their increase in productivity, as they do in private industry, and if we would just give them enough to meet the increased cost of living, then the wage increase would not be 12 percent but nearly twice as much.

There is another point which the Postmaster General admitted under my questioning in the committee. He stated that the cost of living kept pace with the wages which the postal employees had received but, as you know, wages are subject to income taxes, whereas the cost of living is not subject to income taxes. The _ ercentage of income tax in the $4,000 bracket is about 26 percent. There is no relief when there is a cost-of-living increase because it comes out of the hide and the pocket of the postal employee, who has nowhere to get additional income except by taking another job at night or sending his wife out to find employment. That is why I advocate and

favor the committee amendment of an increase of $546 across the board and oppose the amendments offered by the gentleman from Kansas and the gentleman from Michigan.

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

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

Mr. ZELENKO. I wish to associate myself with the remarks· of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SANTANGELO. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the Morrison amendment is sound and fair. The need for basic salary increase for postal employees has existed for too long, and I commend the bill under consideration for its admirable purpose in recognizing that need. The facts and figures have previously been given.

However, I urge the Congress to take note of the situation created by the proposed pay schedule to rural carriers. As the bill stands, · the rural carriers pay raise is limited by a ceiling of $546, which is the across-the-board raise figure proposed for Postal Field Service employees. Under the separate 12 percent increase plan, actual pay raises to rural carriers ·fall short of that figure in many cases.

This obvious inequity must be corrected. Rural carriers undeniably deserve the same consideration due the other categories of postal workers. An amendment to the bill which would eliminate the percentage increase, and substitute a fiat dollar raise identical to that proposed for field-service employees is necessary to bring all the categories into equitable alinement. In addition, .such an amendment would greatly simplify the administration of the bill. The substitute amendments of the gentlemen from Kansas and Michigan are a screen which gives a little but not enough and would establish all the evils we need to eliminate.

I sincerely urge support of the body as a whole for the bill, with this needed correction.

I have heard it said that this legislation ought not be passed, because the President will veto it. I would like to take this opportunity to point out the fallaciousness of this argument. The bill under consideration is a good bill and a necessary one. If this Congress based its deliberations on the assumed reaction of the President to its action, the effect would be to extinguish Congress as a deliberative body, and for it, substitute a rubberstamp for the supposed wishes of the President. Each piece of legislation must be considered on its merit, and on that basis alone.

There is great merit in the bill before you, and I feel sure that if it should be vetoed, there are enough favorable votes in this House to override a veto. This is the procedure that is democratic, and the only procedure that this Congress can reasonably follow.

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have beeri told that this proposed increase would wreak havoc on the economy of this Nation.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD - HOUSE 12369 I say if we are so precariously poised that an increase granting an equitable salary to the Federal employee would wreck the economy then the chance for saving it has long since passed by.

We have had two fa-ctors within the past 2 weeks which would add materially to the infiation in this Nation. We had a major increase in the price of steel. The full imp a.ct will not be felt for many months, but gradually it will feed down to every . consumer in the Nation who buys a product containing steel.

We have had within the last week the announcement by th-e Secretary of the Treasury, in the name of fighting inflation, that we are going to further outprioe money, the basic Treasury rate on a new offering going to 4 percent.

We have a great many other daily signals of the dangers of inflation, and that I would not deny, but here we are facing a proNem of Federal management whicll is not the purchase of a commodity or extension · of a service, the handling of things which can be conveniently controlled or postponed. We are speaking here of the salaries we pay in our role as an employer of labor on ..an open market. We should l>aY a going rate, a rate which will encourage into Government the very be.st talent possible on a eareer basis, because only through that type. of high-caliber per.sonuel can we have an etfective and economically operated Government.

We are paying the penalty today for substandard wages. Clearly inherent in the amendments offered by the gentleman from Miehigan and the gentleman from Kansas is the recognition of the simple fact that we cannot in a great many areas of this Nation successfully eompete -0n the labor market. They propose an expedient. They propose to give to . the Postmaster General, when the pressure becomes so overwhelming'ly apparent, the right to recruit at levels above those set in the salary schedule itself. They recognize that they are going to have to do something to attract workers to Government jobs. We not ,only have to recruit new employees into the service, we have to retain those men and women who already are in the service on a career basis. Every time we have a turnover in the Post Office Department or any other agency of government, the efficiency of government is impaired. The cost of operation, the rnal doUar cost -Of secw·ing effective operation goes up. There is no more economy in cut-price labor than there is in buying the cheapest or the shoddiest community, whatever it might be. Let us take the statement of thl? gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] that the cost of living has gone up but 4.6 percent since the enactment of the last salary increase. Let me point out that in each instance where the cost of living has gone up, following a Federal pay increase, we have had a lag period extending from 4 or 5 years down to the immediate 2-year period since the last · enactment. We have never adjusted the salaries on a basis that compensates for the loss of earnings and the debt which has been built up by the employee in these periods when his salary is lag-

ging beyand an-y rea.sonable figure. This bill with $546 will not recognize the lag period. It will be the minimum for equitable treatment, and I sincerely hope that the amendments offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG] and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. .REES] a.re defeated.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and rise in opposition to both amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering about my good friend, the gentleman from Kansas, who was so worried about my sup:,:>orting or giving testimony about the original bill which I had introduced. ::r am just wondering why he did not give testimony in behalf of his amendment before the committee, which he did not do. But Tather than worry about what 1 did or worry about what he did, I think we ought to get down to the merits of the case. Here is what the 5 percent in the so-called Rees substitute does. It gives exactly .an average of $3 .. SU per week. That.is '70 cents a day. That will not buy 4 quarts of milk. What is a postal employee in a metropolitan city or even in the rural districts going to do with 7-0 cents? And it is not even $3.SQ a week, because the increase in his take-home pay after his tax withholding, retirement deductions, and other deduetions amounts to only $2.45 a week and the increase in his take-home pay is exactly 49 cents a day. What is the postal worker going to do with 49 cents?

These are the figures on the lowest salary rate for level 4, that is, the fellow who .starts at the bottom. But under the Rees 5 percent amendment even some of the highest paid employees in level 4 would get an increase of only $4.35 per week or 87 cents per day-10 cents per hour-less deductions. That is in level 4, where over 70 percent of the 51'8,000 postal workers are.

Now, let us take the so-called 7% percent provision, or the Cederberg amendment. That gives an average, we will say, in level 4, where '70 percent of the empk>yees are (and most of them are in the metropolitan cities), of $6.02 increase per week-$1.20 per day, or 15 .cents per hour-less deductions. But that is not the lowest paid. Let us see what the lowest paid employee in level 4 gets. The lowest paid employee gets .only $5.27 per week, or 13 cents per hour. He even gets less than that under the Cederberg amendment. The lowest paid person in the postal service, and there are plenty of them-and remember, most money for bread and shoes and living necessities is spent right there-has to pa.y just as much for commodities as does the highest paid person in the service. But under the Cederberg amendment of "7 % percent the employee in the lowest bracket in the postal service gets only $3.69 to take home. What is he going to do with $3.69, which is approximately 74 cents a day? As I said, that will n-0t buy 4 quarts of milk.

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

Mr. ·MORRISON. As soon as I finish. I would also like to state that I have a

letter from the National Association -Of

Letter Carriers opposing the 7 %-percent amendment. The peTtinent part of this letter ls as follows:

JULY 19, 1957. Hon. JAMES J. MORRISON,

House of R-epresentatives, W.asliington, D. C.

DEAR CDNGRESSMAN MORRISON: I under.stand thai; there is a proposal being discussed among some Members of the H~use of R~presentatives to offer an amendment to H. R. 2474 to reduce the amount of the pay increase from -$546 to 77'2 percent.

The members of the National Association of Letter carriers are &trongly oppoaecl to this proposal. We believe that the $546 amount is the absolute minimum necessary at tbls time, and urge you to oppose any reduct1ou. below that amount.

We are deeply appreciative of the ~onelderation we have received :rrom you and. tae .members of 1Jle com:mittee. The aln.i)unt decided upon by the committee was e&Te

.fully .arrived at after extended. hearin~, and we sincerely hope that the House of Representatives wlll .sustain the recommendation of the committee.

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

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chaimian, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I

object. Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman.

the gentleman from Louisiana has just asked whY the gentleman from Kansas did not offer his amendment in 'executive session. Since he has raised the question, I believe an .explanation is in order~ The distinguished gentleman from Loui'Siana told us earlier today he proposed the present amendment to his own bill. He knows another Member on his side of the committee 01Ie11ed a ·1ilfferent figure. The gentleman from LouiBiana knows he agreed to the amendment of $546 all without debate. H.e knows quite well that other Members asked to be 1·ecognized for amendments, but were barred because a parliamentary situation <iid not permit. There was no opportunity for offering amendments. That is the answer, as the gentleman well knows. I do not charge any violation of rules. He handled the matter with little discussion or explanation. He did not even explain how he arrived at the figure of $546.

Mr. MORRISON. Who started talking about what happened in the committee?

Mr. REES of Kansas. The gentl~man from Louisiana, of cow·se. He asked why certain amendments were not offered in the committee. He knows the answer. Since he made the straight inquiry, I thought we should keep the i·ecord straight in that respect.

Mr. MORRISON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REES of Kansas. Not at this time.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand the .regular order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will proceed in order.

Mr. REES of Kansas. It is just a simp1e matter. It does not make any ditrerence now, except the gent1eman seems worried about it. The g-entleman himself says he submitted a proposal to


reduce the amount in his bill. Another Member proposed $546, and the gentleman accepted it. The merits of the pro-11osal were not discussed. It was handled expeditiously.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REES of Kansas. I yield. Mr. CEDERBERG. We were faced

with a practical situation. I do not know why we cannot act like practical men. But the representative of the postal employees said they did not want anything less than $546. I can understand their position. If I were representing the em!>loyees, I would not want anything less. Now the administration says they do not want anything. Why can we not reach a comprom:lse? The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] has a 5-percent compromise, and I have one for 7% percent. But, as a practical matter, unless we use some commonsense, there is not going to be any increase, and all this discussion in· the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD will not buy a loaf of bread for a postal employee.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can reach an agreement on limitation of debate. I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment close in 15 minutes.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I hate to disagree with the gentleman from Louisiana, but I wili have to object to that.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on all amendments pending to the com.:. mittee amendment close in 30 minutes.

Mr. BASS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, will the Chair advise us how many Members are standing and how much time that will allow to each Member?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair observes 19 Members standing.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Would it be proper at this time to offer an amendment to the substitute?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman could not offer an amendment to the substitute at this time; there are four amendments pending.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendments close in 45 minutes, the last 5 to be reserved to the committee.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I object to anything less than 1 hour.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Dakota objects.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the pending amendments close in 45 minutes, the last 5 to be reserved to the committee.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the reservation of time.

The CHAIRMAN. That cannot be included in the gentleman's motion.

The gentleman from Louisiana moves that all debate on the pending amendments close in 45 minutes.

The question is on the motion.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. HOFFMAN) . there were-ayes 125, noes 31.

So the motion was agreed to. (By unanimous consent, Mr. KEATING

and Mr. HOFFMAN yielded their time to Mr. BURDICK.)

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. BURDICK] is recognized for 6 minutes.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I never imagined when I asked for time that I would get it.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one thing that I want to say and it will not take me very long. I had supposed we are in Congress from looking around here, but from the arguments made by some Members we are in the primary grade of a country school, because the President has come in here and said, "If you pass this bill I will veto it." So the bogyman has come along and says "Boo" and we are all supposed to run.

I have been shot at before. I do not think it is within the province of the President to come in and try to influence legislation in that way. I do not believe the President ever said that. That is an argument that has been put up here. The President has a perfect right to veto any bill he wants to, but he has no right to have a threat made on the floor and say, "If you pass the Morrison bill it will be vetoed." That is going a little bit too far. I am not only prepared to vote for the Morrison bill, but I am prepared to vote against a veto. That is about the way I stand. I am not afraid of any.;. thing; If the President or anybody else says "Boo," let them boo, that is all. ~ - We are giving $317 million to a lot of workers in this country, 559,000 of them. I do not come over from the office to vote here on foreign appropriations un.:. less the amount is a billion dollars or more. All those small amounts I just forget. Since we started· this excursion around the world in 1917, we have spent over $800 billion and we are no nearer to peace than we were then. When we come to starving our employees, you will remember that we do not have very many of them in North Dakota, but I am not goiilg to sit here in this Congress and vote against these people who want the right to live, without sending their wives out to work, or go out themselves and work at night. That is the situation they are in.

It is a disgrace for this Nation, as big as we think we are, to treat its employees here at home in that manner.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. COAD].

Mr. COAD. Mr. Chairman, I was one of the 218 Members of this House who signed the discharge petition which brings this bill, H. R. 2474 to this floor today. I signed that discharge petition and I support the bill now because I am convinced that there is a demoralized condition which exists in the post offices of this land which has been brought about because of the lack of an equitable pay scale.

This bill calls for a pay increase of $546 across the board and an amendment has now been offered to extend this same increase to the rural carriers. I am in

favor of this increase. I am against those who would amend this bill so that the pay increases would be no more than a token adjustment.

During this session of the Congress I have heard the threat of a Presidential veto mentioned several times and every time it has been mentioned has been concerning a domestic program which would be beneficial to our people here at home. Today, we have heard again those who cry, "Veto." The threat of a Presidential veto was made when the farm bill was up for consideration; the veto was flouted when the food-stamp plan was discussed; we have heard it regarding public-powu legislation; and now on the postal pay raise.

But, Mr. Chairman, we never heard one word said about the possibility of a Presidential veto when the foreign-aid bill was brought up last week and the administration wanted more money not less. I voted for the Mutual Security Act with great misgivings for I am certain that there is a more businesslike approach to helping our foreign friends than called for in the bill passed. I think that there are plans which can be used to better the economies of all the world with less cost than called for in the foreign-aid bill which the administration requested.

·The foreign-aid bill included aid to democracies, to socialistic governments, to dictatorships, and to soft communistic countries. But for them the President wanted more money, not less, and we never heard a word about inflation or the threat of a veto. Those funds fo1• .foreign uations aTe to go for public power, for farm plans, for pay to personnel, to support their currencies, and for nearly everything else which you can think of under the sun. - But here we are talking about a pay raise for our postal employees and we hear all about ·inflation, taxes, and the threat of a Presidential veto. I am concerned about inflation. I think definite measures should be taken to stop inflation. But I do not think the fell ow who works for a living should be the one who pays all the costs of stopping inflation.

Postal employees are our public servants who stand on the firing line. We are talking about the people we see every day. They walk by our homes. We are all well acquainted with the service they perform for all the American public. We are not talking about Postmaster General Summerfield. We are not talking about the '"brass" of the Post Office Department. We are talking about those who perform a public service and who deserve the full $546 figure. And I will vote for the full $546 amount not only now but also to override any veto if it comes up.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE].

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I take this time merely to say that I still intend to offer my amendment when the present amendments, which I am opposed to, have been disPQsed of. It is my belief-and I may be mistaken-that neither one of these amendments; that is, the amendment, the substitute, and

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12371

the amendment to the substitute, will pass this House at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Dlinois [Mr. SHEEHAN].

Mr. SHEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee recommendation for a postal salary increase of $546 across the board for empl-0yees of the Post Office Department.

I .am happy to note that many Members of Congress, including the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG], have brought to the attention of the House that there is a recognition of the need of postal empl-0yees in metr-0politan cities and in are.as which have a higher costQf living than the rest of the country, that such metropolitan areas and high cost of living areas be given consideration for additional higher salaries. I had introduced a bill, H. R. 6453, as follows:

That as a salary adjustment for postal employees in those localities having high costs of living, each employee in the postal field service resident or working in any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or other metropolitan area or locality, having a population of 500,000 or more, as disclosed by the 1950 decennial census, shall receive an increase in his existing rate of basic compensation of 20 percent per annum; except that .employees paid on an hourly or part-time basis shall receive additional compensation at an equivalent additional hourly rate.

The committee was gracious enough to -allow me to testify on this bill and, although it did not accept the principle~ I am very conscious of the fact that the memberBhiP ot the committee ~nd of the House know of the need for increased wages by the postal workers living in metmpalitan areas.

In my own city of Chicago, the cost .of living is certainly higher for the postal worke1'S than in the greatest number of .the rural eommunities~ It is imPossible to build '& 4-room home in Chica.go city limits for less than $1'1;000. Local transportati'0.11'.l costs-just recently hiked-real-estate taxes, and practically every otber it1lm which th~ city postal worker has to pay for costs more than in the rural communities.. Yet the city worker is on the same basis as the wo:rker in the smaller community.

One of these days the Congress will have to face up realistically to this disparity in the cost of living between the city and the rural postal w.orker.

Therefore, although I am supporting the present :fiat rate of $546, I sincerely hope that the Post omee and Civll Service Committee will give every consideration to legislating for a differential for the metropolitan and city area pootal workers.

The union-labor movement recognizes this principle in practically all of their bargaining contra,ets, and if we are to obtain and retain postal workers and make for an efficient postal force in the Chicago metropolitan area, the Congress will have to face up to its responsibility .and spell out a ditlerential to compensate city workers for the additional living costs they face.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. [Mr. BALDWIN].

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee amendment

and in opposition to the two amendments .offered by the gentleman from Kansas and the gentleman from Michigan. Last week I wired the postmaster in the largest city in the district which I represent in california, the city of Richmond, and asked him for the rate of turnover .in that post office. The rate is 24.3 percent. I wou1d like to read the letter he sent to me in answer:

In reference to your telegram of this date, kindly be advised. that we now have 271 employees at this office. During the fiscal year just ended, 66 employees left their positions. Five of these were retirements and 90 percent of the remaining 61 employees 2eft to accept employment in industry with higher pay.

On this day we invited three eligibles !rom the civil service register to come in and be interviewed for a clerk vacaney. Not one of the three appeared. This might give you some idea of how difficult it is to induce qualified people to enter the postal service.

I am convinced from these facts that the amount of increase in the committee. amendment is necessary in many areas of this country, including the San Francisco Bay area of northern Calif ornia, if we actually are g-0ing to eome up with a pay postal system that is eompetitive with private industry at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS].

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the percentage increase amendments offered by the gentieman from Michigan [Mr. Cl:DERBERG], and the gentleman from Kansas fMr. RnsJ. I am opposed to them because, in my opinion, they do not do the job for those who need it the most.. those in the low~t brackets.

So far as we are concerned, here in the House of Representatives, this is not a question of what the President may or may not do, whether he will or will not veto tbe bill reported by the oommittee. It is a question of whether we think a pay increase for postal workers is justified and, if so. in what amount. If the President wants to veto it, well and good; let him veto it. I would vote to pass the committee bill over his veto, if that became necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I support the .committee bill and am opposed to the amendments for the reason as I have previously stated that a percentage increase would serve to fat ten those at the top of the pay ladder while penalizing at the bottom of the ladder those whose need is the .greatest.

Mr. Chairman, let me make one more observation. Only last Friday, the H-0use approved a bill authoxizing the expenditure of several billions of dollars for the support-0f foreign governments. Directly or indirectly this vast spending will support all the o~erations and functions of those governments, inclumng their postal services and those employed in those services.

If there is money for this purpose in behalf of foreigners then it follows that an American postal worker, beginning a career in the service at only a little more than $3,-000 a. year in take-home pay, ought to be given some consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN].

Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that the gentleman from Louisi .. ana [Mr. MORRISON] offered his amendment to include the rural carriers. I cannot see any reason why we should increase the salaries of postal employees without including the rural carriers if we are <>ffering this proposed increase because of the increase in living expenses.

Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that it was necessary to bring this bill to the fioor of the House tbraugh a discharge petition. I do not believe in that manner of legislating or of bringing a. bill to the ftoor of the House. I hap:pen to be chairman of a committee and I eannot see any sound reason for our having committees if we are going ro report l>ills ~ way of a discharge petition.

Mr. Chairman, I am a little disturbed .about h-0w we will explain to the people in the rural areas how we can continually increase the salaries of postal and civil service employees while we are doing nothing for the farmer and doi:ng nothing for the clerks in tbe retail stores and other people in private industry. I realize that Members who come from metropolitan areas and have large airplane factories in those districts. or other large industries, that are receiving .large contracts from the Government, cannot .refuse to vote for a bill of this nature. but we peQPle from the l'\ll'8.l areas are gotng to find it rather di1ficult to explain to our people how w~ suppart this bill While we do nothing for the .farmer or an.ymle who is out trying to make a living on his QWn initiative.

Of course, I have .some good friends 1n the ~t.al service and I have voied for 7 pay raises since I have been a Member <>f Congress, amounting practically to 103 percent. I do not know-Of any other class {)f people that have receiftd that much salary increase in the past 28 years. I hope the amendment to include rural carriers is included.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from -New York {Mr. W AINWRIGHl'J.

· Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I would merely like to call the attentiDn of the House again to the statement made by the gentleman fr.om North Dakota [Mr. BuamcxJ when he said what was .in all our minds; that, in effect, we are not acting like Congressmen, but more like children in a kindergarten. The only difference between the views of the gentleman from North Dakota and my own are that we come to <>PPogite eonclusions, because what he said was that we were scared of a Presidential veto and that we should oot be scared; we sh<mld stand up to it. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. R!:Es] who has offered the amendment which I shall support, knows, and I ltnow, or believe that I know, th.at .a large pay raise will be vetoed. Tb.ere! ore, why not face the political facts of life, and .accept the Rees amendment, which is .the only fair chance that the post-office workers have of getting a raise? Let us stop kidding ourselves.

12372 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·- -HOUSE July 22 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog

nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. AYRES].

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMILLAN] pinpointed the real problem .that we have in this legislation. Personally I think it takes a much more intelligent and much more sensible and much smarter individual to be a union leader of postal employees than it does to be a union leader in private industry. The union leader in private industry, of course, has the strike weapon. He can always threaten to strike, when he is at the bargaining table, and management can decide, prior to making a satisfactory agreement with the organizers of the labor movement, whether they want to take a chance on a strike. · In the postal workers' case the strike weapon is reversed. It is the veto power. There I think the union leaders for the postal workers should recognize that they are going to have to use a different type of approach if they are· to be fair to all the postal workers, and that different approach is going to have to be what the gentleman from South Carolina recognized and what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SHEEHAN] mentioned in his bill, that the postal workers in the city areas are going to have to have a different pay scale than the postal workers in the low-cost or rural areas . . . Until such time as we can arrive at an agreement that makes it possible for the postal workers in the high-cost-ofliving areas to receive more pay than those .in the lower-cost-of-loving areas, we are going to be faced with this problem.

I think the union leaders should be realistic. I think they sho"uld recognize that a compromise is going to have to be made, that the strike in reverse, the veto, is going to be used and this House will not override that veto.

Therefore I hope that either the .amendment offered by the gentleman ;from Kansas [Mr. REES] or that offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG J will be adopted. In the event ·it is not, tnose of us who represent areas where the postal · workers are definitely underpaid are going to be forced to support the Morrison amendment, although in our hearts we honestly believe it will never become law.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLERJ.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of the Morrison amendment. I think $546 is too low and it should be higher. However, like the gentleman who preceded me, I am willing to be realistic and accept it as a compromise. To be consistent, I therefore oppose the Rees and Cederberg amendments.

We have never brought the cost of living and postal salaries into balance. We let them go and then pass an increase that never quite closes the gap, and then sit back for 2 years and let that gap widen. It is a mockery on our American system and our American way of life. We boast of that American way of life, yet the people who work for us, the Federal Government, we deny the

opportunity to enjoy it. They cannot set aside money for luxuries, they can merely eke out an existence in many cases only by holding two jobs. And who is the loser on the dual-job proposition? The Government is the loser. These workers can only make both ends meet by having their wives employed. It is a sad commentary that over 75 percent of the postal workers have to have a supplemental income in order to live, and then not in accordance with the proud American standards of which we so often boast.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MASON].

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, I have already notified all of my postal employees that in my opinion there will be no postal raise for them this year unless there is a postal rate increase, and I firmly believe that. So, in my opinion, for what it is worth, every Member of this House that signed the petition for a postal pay increase must conscientiously, if he really means it 'and believes it, sign another petition to bring out the postal rate increase and pass that. ·· Now that is logic. That is a simple statement of facts and we cannot get around it. I do not know about the logic that has been presented today. They say. the 5-percent increase in pay does not mean anything; it is giving them a stone instead of bread; it is only so many cents a day; it is nothing. But: they say the 4.6 percent increase in the cost of living-why that is tremendous, .why .that is awful and we just got to take care of that. From . my standpoint 4.6 percent is balanced by 5 percent, and I cannot see why there is such a great difference. - ' The CHAIRMAN. The ·Chair recogpizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT].

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if· the gentleman ·from Illinois would advise us as to the approximate date that he would . lay down such a petition on the rate bill. I would be happy to be one of the early signers, or if he might try to persuade his friend who is chairman of the committee, to bring out the rate bill here so that we can pass it. . Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CORBETT. I yield. Mr. ·MASON. The gentleman from

Illinois did not sign that · petition and would not sign that petition and said he would not sign that petition. The ones who initiated it should be the ones to initiate the other one. . Mr. CORBETT. All right, I thought in view of the gentleman's remarks that he might help accelerate the matter a little bit. However, we have had quite a little chat here about compromises and I also heard the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] being criticized because he was not defending the bill which provided an increase from $1,500 to $1,800. We have already compromised time after time. I have· amendments back there that I would have liked to introduce to raise this amount above $546 and I know other gentlemen would have liked it higher. We have

also been lectured about the practical situation. Well, there is another practical situation. After all the compromises that have been happening, we come out here with $546. We are still going to have to meet with the other body in conference and -there is going to be more compromises made there. In fact, that is the way democracy functions. We arrive at the best possible answer by compromises. I hope very definitely that most of the members of this committee will agree with the majority of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service that our long work and effort in grinding this thing out at $546 is about the best the House can do at this time and I hope these two other amendments are defeated and the Morrison amendment prevails.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES].

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG]. . Mr. CEDERBERG. I just want.to say in regard to the talk of compromise if I recall correctly, the subcommittee of the other body recognized the necessity of compromise and, I believe, the subcommittee of the other body handling these matters passed out a bill of some five hundred and some odd dollars, and took it back to .the subcommittee and .they came out with a 7%-percent basic increase for postal employees and for civil-service employees. In addition to that, the added $240 temporary increase, you have the basic increase which was ::I .% percent. That .seems to be what the -subcommittee of the .other body. thought was reasonable and just and something th&t could possibly have a chance of becom.ing law. That is the only appeal I ..want to make.her.e today rather than go-ing through motions and not getting anywhere, that we .try to reach a reasonable and sensible comprbmise.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BROOKS].

Mr .. BROOKS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield my time to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON]. - The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

There was no objection . The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog

nizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LONG]. - . Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield my time to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON].

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog

nizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY]. .

Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I prefer the substitute introduced by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG J and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON].

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has been an increase in the cost of living of 4.45 percent, less than

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12373 4% percent. The substitute amendment I want to explain one thing. The sooffered by the gentleman from Kansas called Morrison amendment, or the CMr. REES], provides for a 5-percent in- amendment that was brought out by the crease. I hope that it will be approved, committee for $546 increase straight but I a.m still going to vote ag·ainst the across the board, was adopted by an bill. overwhelming majority of the Commit-

In regard to the increases given the tee on Post Office and Civil Service after postal employees since 1945, let us see full and complete hearings. Everybody what has happened. On July 1, 1945, a who wanted to appear either in support $400 increase. of or against it was given the opportu-

January 1, 1946, $400 increase across nity. Ninety-two Members of Congress the board. either personally or by statement sup-

June 1, 1948, $450 increase. ported it. Everyone who was for it had June 1, 1949, $420 increase. an opportunity to be heard; and, on the July 1, 1953, $400 increase. other hand, everybody who was against March 1, 1955, a 6 percent basic sal- it had an opportunity to be heard.

ary increase plus 2% percent upon re- The only people who opposed it were classification. the Postmaster General and his staff and

These postal employees have done the representative of the . Bureau of the pretty well. Budget. I asked the representative of

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- the Bureau of the Budget: "Suppose the nizes the gentleman from Louisiana CMr. President had said he favored this legisMoRRISONJ for 8 minutes to close debate. lation, what would your attitude be?"

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, He said: "Then I would be for this legis-will the gentleman yield? lation." In other words, his position

Mr. MORRISON. I yield. would have been exactly the opposite to Mr. McCORMACK. I congratulate what it was, before the committee. That

the gentleman from Louisiana and his is the committee bill as amended and recolleagues on the committee for report- ported. Of course, the amendment I ing out the substitute bill. It seems to have offered to that amendment is more me to be a very fair one. We must keep or less of a technical amendment to bring in mind that those who are supporting the increase for all the rural carriers up the Rees amendment are, in fact, op- to $546 per year, the amount of increase posed to any pay increase. The Rees provided for other carriers and other amendment is an admission · that there postal workers. In other words, it is a is justification for an increase, although committee bill amending my original we are aware of the fact that they are bill, you might say, adopted by an overopposed to any increase at all. whelming majority of the commiftee,

Reference has been madP to the postal with my amendment, now pending, rate in~rease bill. I said weeks ago that which is more or less a technical adas soon as possible, after the Rules Com- justment to give all the rural carriers fair. mittee reported out a rule, I would pro- treatment. In all honesty, I assure you gram it for the consideration of the my amendment repr:esents only fairness House. ·That statement still stands. I and justice to them. would like to see the Rules Committee After that you have the 5 percent Rees report out a rule as quickly as possible substitute amendment, which gives the and for the chairman of the committee majority of the employees only $4.35 a to cooperate in getting a rule out of the week, or 10 cents per hour, before payRules Committee. That statement I roll deductions, so it is even less than have made ought to -remove any doubt that. The lowest paid worker gets only from the mind of any Member who has $2.45 take-home pay under the Rees 5-in mind a postal rate increase bill the percent amendment. · fact that it has not been brought up as 'Then you have the Cederberg 7%-pera reason for voting against the Morrison cent amendment, which gives the postal amendment. As soon as that bill is workers in level 4-where the majority reported out I shall program it for the of them are-$6.02 per week, or 15 consideration of the House. I certainly cents per hour, before payroll deductions. hope that the two substitutes will be I want to bring this out also. As I told defeated and that the Morrison substi- you a few minutes ago, I received a let-

. tute will be adopted. ter from the National Association of Let-Mr. MORRISON. I thank the gentle- ter Carriers saying that they were abso-

man for his contribution. . lutely against the 7%-percent increase, Mr. CRETELLA. Mr. Chairman, will so that makes them against the Ceder-

the gentleman yield? berg substitute amendment. There-Mr. MORRISON. I yield. fore, they are also against the 5-percent Mr. CRETELLA. In the interest of amendment offered by the gentleman

time, I want to announce that I am from Kansas, since it provides only twosupporting the Morrison bill and I am · thirds as large an increase as does the against the other amendments. How- Cederberg amendment. ever, in answer to the comments made I have a letter here from the National by the majority leader that he would Postal Transport Association which support a rule when it came out, I wish reads as fallows: he would use his influence with the NATIONAL PosTAL chairman of the committee in bringing TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, out the rule for action. The committee Washington, D. c., July 19, 1957. worked for weeks on the bill and we Hon. JAMEs H. MoaRisoN, would like to see the gentleman use his House of Representatives,

Washington, D . C. influence in bringing that bill up now. DEAR MR. MORRISON: In the opinion of the

Mr. MORRISON. I thank the gentle- National Postal Transport Association the man. I do not yield further at this amendment which has been discussed which time. would provide a 7Y2 -percent increase to

postal employees is hopelessly inadequate. The 7V:i-percent proposal presupposes that

other factors have been stabilized in the pattern of postal employment.

Further, we oppose the recommendation which has been discussed which would grant to the Postmaster General the authority to hire at steps other than the beginning step of a given level.

The postal service is a career occupation in spite of the recent falling away of people who can no longer afford the financial sacrifice necessary. The ci vie pride of Federal employment is · less than adequate to offset the economic emergencies faced by tha families of postal employees.

Accordingly, we earnestly ask your assistance in preventing the adoption of this type of amendment to H. R. 2472.

Sincerely yours, PAUL A. NAG E,

President.

Also we have a letter from the National Federation of Post Office Clerks, signed by E. C. Hallbeck, legislative director, likewise opposing the 5-percent amendment. I will not take the time to read this letter.

In other words, the gentleman from Pennsylvania CMr. CORBETT] stated the situation exactly. The Rees amendment is not a compromise. Nor is the Cederberg amendment a compromise. ·we compromised in the committee. This bill that comes here to you for the flat $546 increase is the real compromise.

Many members of the committee wanted the amount higher, and they have so stated in the committee and on the floor of the House. This is a true and reasonable compromise. We have done a , good job in committee. I ask you to vote down the Rees amendment and the Cederberg amendment and to vote for the amendment which I have offered to the committee amendment. •

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana CMr. MORRISON] to the committee amendment.

The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG] to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES].

The amendment to the substitute was rejected.

The· CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] to the committee· amendment.

The question was taken ; and on a division (demanded by Mr. REES of Kansas) there were-ayes 43, noes 145.

So the substitute was rejected. Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I

offer a substitute for the committee amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. ST. GEORGE to

the committee amendment: Strike out beginning with line 5 on page 4 and all that follows down through line 14 on page 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SECTION 1. Subject to subsection (2) of this section-

" ( 1) each employee whose rate of basic compensation is established ·in the manner provided by the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955, as amended, shall receive additional compensation at the rate of $400 per annum,


"~2) each postmaster at -a post office of she fourth-class whose rate of compensation is established in the manner provided by the Postal Field Service Compensation Act of 1955 shall receive additional compensa.: tion at the rate of a i;;um per annum equal t.o 20 percent of such rate of compensation.

"SEC. 2. The appropriate authorities designated by the President are authorized and directed to investigate, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President, the !.acts relating to the cost of living in the continental United States during the 6-month period ending September l, 1957, &nd during each 6-month period following September 1, 1957, to establish the measure thereof in terms of the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, on a monthly basis (which measure hereafter shall be referred to as the Basic Consumer Price Index), and to establish an average Basic Consumer Price Index for each such period of 6 months.

"SEc. 3. For each point, or major fraction of a point, by which the average Basic Consumer Price Index established for .any 6-month period fc;>llowing September 1, 1957, in the manner provided by section 2 of this act, shall vary from the average Basic Consumer Price Index for the 6-month period ending September 1, 1957, the compensation of-• " ( 1) • eaeh employee· within the purview of: paragraph ( 1) of section 1 of this act shall be increased or reduced by $50 per annum, and each postmaster witbin the purview of paragraph (2) of such section shall be in-: creased or reduced by 2¥2 percent in accordance with the increase or decrease in such average Basic Consumer Price Index, effective on the first day of tbe first pay period which begins on OF after the -last ·day of such 6-month period fol'lowing September 1, 1957. No rate of compensation within the purview of this act shall be reduced, by reason of this section, to a . rate less than the aggregate rate of compensation provided by section 1

• of this act. "SEC. 4. For purposes of paragraphs ( 1)

and (2) of section 1 of this act, the term "employed" shall have the same meaning as when. used in. .the...P.,oia"tal Field Service Com .. pensation Act of 1955.

"SEC. 5 .. ~d<ii'tlonal : compensation prov.ided for in section 1 of this act shall be ,effective on the fiN!t - clay of the first pay

-- · period-which begins after. Sept~mber 1, 1957."

Mrs. ST .. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I shall not take much time to explain .the amendment which has been read, because· I have .ah·eady spoken about it in general debate.

Mr. Chairman, as: you will note, the heart of this amendment is the escalator elause. I r.eiterate again that I do not think we wm ever have a· satisfactory

-p1:ogram until -we have .an- escalator .clause tha:moves.instantly or almost instantly -with the cost of living. Even if w~ pass the bill presented by the gentleman from Louisiana giving a $54-6 pay .l'aise, we still. in another year, will be in just the same difficulty as we are today. If my fiat floor and-0eiling -of·$400 is unacceptable., J: d-0 hope that. the gentleman from Louisiana will see fit to -add the escalator clause to his own bill. .namely, the $546 pay raise.

Prices change very rapidly and as I said befor~. we have· never yet been able to meet the cost of living index in a satisfactory manner. It has been met in }lrivate industry and it has been met satisfactorily. I feel that the House should give very careful thought to the possibility of incorporating such a clause not

onlY in this bill but in all pay raise bills so that the employees would know that they would not be left lagging, as has been very well said on the floor of this House. 1 year behind and many times 2 years behind. I have seen many pay raises since I have been in the CongJ:ess. I have never seen one yet that was entirely satisfactory. The gap always remains. And. again I must say that all these raises have invariably been too little and too late. Unless they can be adjusted and taken care of more or less automatically, we are never going to have a satisfactory pay raise for our employees both in the postal service and in the Civil Service of the United States. We all want to see these people properly taken care of. We want them to be properly compensated, · and we know perfectly well that the dollar is not worth any more than the dollar can purchase. While we are in this inflationary spiral, we must be prepared to change with the cost of living index, otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we are doing no service to the employees and we are doing no service to the Government of the United States. , Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate. on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? . Mr. GUBSER. I object Mr. Chairman. , Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, . I

·move that ·all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.

The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Chail' recog

nizes the gentleman from California {Mr. GUBSER].

Mr. GUBSER . . Mr. Chairman, J: rise in _ support of Jihe. amendment .offered by the gentlew.oman from New York fMrs. ST. GEORGE1. A great deal has been said' here today .about -the . low morale of our .postal employees. In my opinion, the St. George amendment affords this Committee a rare opportunity to do something lasting which will improve :mor.ale of the postal service. · Here is.the situation-with which employees are faced today. Their morale is low because their sala1~y is too low, but they also experience a sense of frustration at the system which they are forced to contend with in order to get a much-

·".needed salary raise. Postal employees, .already underpaid, dig down inoo their pockets to provide expensive representation in Washington, representation that is paid, in some cases, as high as $20,000 a year, with large expense accounts; who build expensive buildings and memorials ·here in this city, al-1 coming out of the -pock~t of the postal employee because he must put up with a -legislative system which we know grinds very, very slowly.

Mr. Chairman, here is a chance to do away with the necessity o( the post office employee putting ·up with this system which is so· slow and which has failed to give him what he needs. In the State legislature I can remember a man who had been lobbying f.or a certain bill for about 12 years, :finally :got

it passed -and, as it was passed, he said: "Well, this is a sad day for me, because I have got to look for a new account next year."

Here is our chance to do away with this constant carping and pressure . which the post office employee must exert against Members, because once and for all, with this one amendment, you will solve the problem of the post office employee forever. He will get what he is entitled to, without the necessity of hiring expensive lobbyists. He will not be forced to come on bended knee, to beg for what he rightfully deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that this Committee will put an end to this problem for -all time and support the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman · from Michigan [Mr. LESINSKI].

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, l initiated this legislation in · the 82d Congress, and I have supported it .at that time for -very sound reasons. I commend the gentlewoman from New York on her position. On the other hand, the only wa-y it can be used fairly is to establish a sound base and to proceed accordingly. From there on in we are on sound grounu.

.Presently the amendment should be defeated because the base has not been properly established. There have been arguments on the floor, pro and con an the way thr.ough, and the committee is divided as to basic cGmpensation. If and when the base is soundly establihed, then this .amendment .should be adopted .

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the g.entleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON]. - ~ The CHAIRMAN. The Chair'- recog...: nizes the gentleman from Louisiana -[Mr. MORRISON]. .

Mr~ MORRISON. Mr. ~hairman, this is not the first time that the word escafator has come up in a postal-payraise bill or in a dassified-employeespay-raise bill. The distinguished lady from. New York had been a member of our eommittee for ..several years. It was not only in the ccmsideration of this pay-raise legislati-0n, but also legistation prevfousiy recemmended by the committee and brought to the floor Qf the House e.nd later enacted into law, that the lady offered an amendment 45everal years ago te provide an -escalator clause. The lady from New York was a member ~f the CQmmittee. She explained it thoroughly. She urged her point, and I assure the members of this .committee that she did .a marvelous job. -I have never seen anybody ·maintain a point so ably as the.lady-f:rom New York did ior .her escalator clanse several years ago. However, the committee did not see fit to report out a pay-raise bill with ·her escalator clause in it.

The same thing happened before the committee this time. Of course, we are .all very sorry that she is no longer a member of our committee. · We certainly miss her. But the lady appeared ".before O'.ll' committee and llrg.ed approval of her proposal to provide the escalator

'•.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12375 clause. She explained it thoroughly. She again did a magnificent job, and again the committee did not see fit to bring forth the escalator clause or put it in this committee amendment.

I assure the Members of the House that such an escalator clause is very, very complicated. It is absolutely impossible at this time or any other time before this committee to explain properly the ramifications of an escalator clause, unless you take up hour after hour after hour. What you would be doing, should you vote for this amendment, would be adding a tremendous amount of confusion to this bill and make it, as far as the majority of the committee thinks, unworkable.

All three of the major postal organizations are against it. The National Federation of Post Office Clerks oppose the escalator clause. The National Association of Letter Carriers have sent me a letter against it. The National Postal Transport Association also opposes the escalator clause. These organizations represent 85 or 90 percent of all the postal workers in the country.

I assure this committee that all this amendment will do will be to add confusion.

I will not take up any more time except to say once again that the postal organizations are against it, and that the House Post Office and Civil Service . .Committee has taken it up time and time again, but each time refused or did not see fit to bring it to the floor of the

·House. i: ask you to vote down this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mrs. ST. GEORGE) there were--ayes 80, noes 119. . So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am for a reasonable pay increase for postal employees, but there is another matter affecting postal employees I should like to call to the attention of the House. . It is amazing to me, hearing the discussion and seeing the interest being shown in the postal employees' salaries, to note the lack of interest being shown

.in their working conditions, the lack of interest in providing adequate facilities for them, the lack of interest now that a .pay raise is apparently imminent, at least as far as .this House is concerned, in permitting them to render adequate .service by giving them adequate space in which to work, the lack of interest not only in the cases of some 500,000 postal ·employees but in the millions of patrons ·of the Post Office Department who need Federal building facilities throughout this country, and the lack of interest in 'the fact that this Federal building and post office facilities program is where the people get their first and closest contact in this Nation with the Federal Government.

The lack of interest in this progra.m is ·manifest because tonight, at midnight, July 22, the Lease-Purchase Act of 1954, Public Law 519, expires. Upon its ex-

piration there will be put in jeopardy man from California is speaking is not some 149 projects to be built by this ad- germane to the issue presently before the ministration under the lease-purchase ·committee. I, too, would like to talk program. about everything I would like to do for

Two hundred additional projects tbat my postal employees. have been under consideration and The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman likely would . be approved by the Public from Florida as well as gentlemen to Works Committee including one in my whom he may yield must also confine district, Tampa, Fla., which will be their remarks to the issue presently becompletely out the window. You will ·fore the Committee. find , and I call the attention ot the Mr. CRAMER. I would suggest, Mr. Members of this House to the list of Chairman, I would have thought the these projects, which was contained gentleman from Louisiana was as interadmittedly at a late hour, at about ested as I am in providing adequate fa-8:30 or 9 o'clock on Friday in the cilities along with adequate pay--RECORD, you will find at page 12248 Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Yes. this list which merits your attention. at the proper time, however. I say to you that the lease-purchase Mr. CRAMER. I was sure the genprograni is one that recognizes private tleman was as interested as I am in proenterprise. It is a program that earns viding adequate facilities along with its own . way by providing additional adequate pay increases, and I certainly facilities that Tesult in additional use on would suggest that it is relevant to disthe part of the patrons and then addi- cuss adequate working quarters when we tional income with which to pay amor- are discussing adequate salaries in order tization or increased lease payments. to see that a proper job is done. I hope we will have an opportunity, if Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the genthe bill comes befor·e the House to sub- .tleman from Ohio in ord'er that he stitute the Senate bill, S. 2661 , which may speak on that subject. passed the United States Senate unan- Mr. McGREGOR. Further in regard imously and so far as I know without to the subject under discussion by the 1 dissenting voice and, of certainty, gentleman from Florida. I am sure we without 1 dissenting vote, and yet it all recognize that we want to give the sat here in the Public Works Committee .postal employees every consideration, in the House of Representatives-it sat both financial and physically, and that here for weeks and weeks. The Public being the case, I congratulate the genWorks Committee instead of voting out ·tleman 'from Florida on his very timely the Senate bill or a similar bill, one ·remarks. which incidentally I had the privilege Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield of introducing along with the ranking -to the gentleman from California on the minority member of our committee, let ··subject of the welfare of the postal emit sit there. Instead 'of votin'g out a bill ployees in connection with their salwhich would continue ·this program the aries. bill voted out was the Jones bill, H. R. Mr. JACKSON. Obviously, I would 4460 which was also before the com- only speak on that point. I wish to asso

.mitt~e and which specifically vetoes the .ciate myself with the remarks that the program outside the District of co- gentleman has made and say •that none lumbia. of these matters can be taken out of

Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana. Mr. context, they are all tied together. I Chairman, I make the point of order congratulate th~ gentlemai: on h~s statethat the gentleman is not speaking on ment to the pomt of the d1scuss1on and the matter presently before the commit- associate myself with them. tee. It is not germane. Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman and I now yield to the gentleman from will confine his remarks to 'the Commit- Iowa [Mr. JENSEN]. tee amendment or to. the bill. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too,

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the Chairman. wish to congratulate the gentleman I am discussing the welfare of postal em- from Florida. I know he is interested in ployees which I think is a matter in -the welfare of postal employees. As the ·issue before this House. . gentleman knows and most Mempers of

The CHAIRMAN. T.he . gentleman Congress know. the .conditions at Council may speak to the issue presently before Bluffs, Iowa, where We have not had a the Committee. .. decent post office for · years and years is

Mr. CRAMER . . I would be delighted .very bad. It is a bad ~ituation for the to do so, Mr. Chairm&n, and on that is- post office employees and a pad situation ·sue I will be glad to yield to ,the gen- , for the people. 'tleman from California [Mr. BALDWINJ. Mrs. BLITCH. Mr. Chairman, I move

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I to strike out the last word. would like to congratulate the gentle- It will take me only a few minutes to man on bringing to the House this say what I want to say, and that is to 'problem and I would like to join in the point out the fact that under the proconcern he has expressed. Authoriza- gram that the gentleman from Florida ·tions for three important buildings in [Mr. CRAMER], and his colleagues on his the State of California will expire at side of the aisle seemed to bleed so pitimidnight tonight; including a new court- fully for because of the lack of Federal house and Feder~l building in San Fran- buildings, including post offices in all of cisco and Sacramento, and a new cus- the United States, only one building has tomhouse and Federal building at Los been built to provide better working faAngeles. cilities for postal employees. Also, I

Mr. THOMPSON .of Louisiana. Mr. would like to add that when this program · Chaiirman, I must renew my point of which was started during a Republican order. The matter on which the gentle- Congress comes to an end at midnight,


tonight, it is to be hoped that the great need for new and better post offices and Federal buildings will be met by this Congress by way of appropriations.

Let me further say, that although the Public Works Committees of both Houses have approved a large number of buildings for the General Services Administration, local financial institutions have not been willing to underwrite them because, in the long run, under the program my Republican colleagues have taken this inappropriate moment to cry about the buildings would cost the United States Government far more in interest and local taxes than the buildings would cost to be constructed.

The General Services Administration's method of building Government buildings under the lease-purchase plan has proved to be a complete dud. For the benefit of my Republican colleagues, however, let me say that their crocodile t~ars are consistent with other fiscal policies of this administration-fiscal policies meant to enrich a small segment of the population and be of little benefit but great cost to the rest of us.

They just did not make this program quite generous enough to the financial institutions of this country to get any takers. Having slipped up on that point either unconsciously or consciously, they have deprived the communities all across our great country of post offices that they had always received, when certain conditions were met, by direct appropriation. · To me, Mr. Chairman, this is just an

.other failure in the many false Republican promises when they said, "What the Democrats have done, we can do it bettei·."

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment as amended.

The committee amendment as amended was agree l to.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the Committee will rise.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. MILLS, 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. 2474) to increase the rates of basic ~ompensation of officers and employees m the field service of the Post Office Department, pursuant to House Resolution 249, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the preYious question is ordered.

The question is on the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was -agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third readino- of the bill. b

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

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the bill be postponed until tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? '.There was no objection.

ADDITIONAL CIVIL DEFENSE PLANNING A MUST

Mr. HUDDLESTON. 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 gentleman from Alabama?

There was no objection. Mr. HUD~LESTON. MT. Speaker, as

a peace-lovmg and God-fearing people., we shudder at the very thought of the horrors of war. Conflict between nations is, of course, absolutely repugnant to us and we traditionally make every conceivable effort to keep the peace. We give up our loved ones and empty our pocketbooks to provide a strong military in the axiomatic belief that preparedness is oui- best defense.

America is thus relying on the threat of massive retaliation to scare off any would-be enemy. To threaten retaliation without adequate defenses is to invite attack. That is an undisputed p1inciple of warfare. In basing our national defense on this age-old toothf or-a-tooth tactic, it naturally is to be assumed that we have proper and sufficient military def ens es.

This concept of defense has been changed, however, with the development of atomic and hydrogen weapons. Civil defense is now just as important and just as essential as military defense. No longer can the civilian defense be completely neglected or relegated to secondary importance. Nuclear warfare has put civil defense on a par with military defense. Indeed, our civil defense is an integral part 'Of the defense of our Nation as a whole.

If there is war, the victor will undoubtedly be the nation which can outsurvive-not outbomb.

The neglect of our civil defense planning is putting the United States in great peril. With our appalling lack of preparations, a nuclear attack would be utterly catastrophic. In my sincere opinion, an advance warning would not result in the· saving of many lives in atomic war. Even in the event of an immediate massive retaliation, our side's attack could not hope to be nearly as effective. The enemy, in launching its raid, presumably would have prealerted its defenses and also preevac·uated its people from critical areas. In all likelihood, the enemy

. would be fully prepared to rain blow after blow of destruction upon us.

The helplessness ·.of our home cities ~nd target areas would serve to jeopard-1ze our Armed Forces. Nothing can paralyze the combat forces to a gr.eater degree than a behind-the-lines breakdown. The collape and disintegration of civil 1ife, cutting off its contributions to the military, would offset any battle victories. The destruction of the critical t~rget areas 'in this country appears entrr~ly feasible in an all-out enemy attack. It is also quite reasonable to assume that not one of these areas is prepared to sustain such an attack.

. ~he price we must pay if we neglect cw1l defense, therefore, is military defeat.

. It is im.Perative for our national secunty that the United States adopt a more

vigor-OUs civil defense program on a national level. There are many effective defenses against atomic attack and it is imperative that we pay more heed while there is time for _positive concern. We .also have an indirect objective in that we mus~ dispel the passive do-nothingness w.hich has resulted in a dangerously .shortsighted pattern of civilian defense.

Mr. Speaker, an atomic attack poses a tJ::ireef old immediate danger-first, the air blast and -ground shock, which may be expected to level aboveground structur:es; second, thermal radiation, a ftasb. of mtense heat which will set fire to the debris and severely burn anyone who is ex,posed; and, third, nuclear radiation ~I?-d fallout, which can cause slow, agon-1zmg death. -Only recently have the American people realized the danger of iallout. In tlle case of a mass attack it i~ conceivable that almost the entfre Nation would !'eceive lethal doses af fallout. In Atomic Energy Commission tests we have learned that it is often just as hazardous as far as 200 miles downwind from ground zero as it is up close. Furthermore, the fallout area remains contaminated for days or weeks. This fact ~ecessitates that persons in ar.eas receiving heavy fallout remain in safe quarters for ~ong periods of time if they are to survive.

A survival plan should, by all means, be worked out as soon as possible. Our s?ientists tell us that an effective national defense against a nuclear attack is entirely practicable. Such a defense W<>Uld have three phases-the emergency, when human survival would be all in:i-portant; the operational recovery, with the stress on decontamination -and reclamation, and the final recovery which might continue for years becau~ of the numerous biological and medical effects of a thermonuclear attack. In the emergency stage, probably the most important countermeasure is the protec-tive shelter. ·

The simplest of the protective shelters would be earth covered to protect only against radiological fallout. More elaborate shelters could provide for a fresh air supply to protect against fires, and superstrength to withstand blasts. Because of the extenqed area where fallout might logically be expected in event of an enemy attack, shelters should not be constructed only in the so-called eritical areas. It is essential that shelters be planned for our entire civi1ian population.

It has been suggested that evacuation would take the place of a shelter system. In this connection, the United States Bureau of Public Roads has made an extensive investigation of highway needs for civil defense. The suryey showed that only a portion of the persons living in the 185 United States tru:get areas couid expect to get out of town even if given as long as 1 % hour.s' notice. The present highways simply could not carry the traffic load. To permit the evacuation of the target area populations to a distance of 10 miles within the al .. lotted time would require additional con:. struction estimated to cost $10 billionmuch more than a nationwide shelter system . .c:;hould .cost.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12377

The cost of civil defense is high in dollars, hut if it saved our country from war or our citizens from death, it would be the cheapest insurance ever purchased.

This, of course, is a long-range program and careful studies shoulc_ be made before any such extensive program as a nationwide system of protective shelters is launched. The need for action is urgent, however. In addition to shelters, our national officials'5hould fully investigate the feasibility of underground hospitals, emergency food stockpiles in strategic locations, escape tunnels in cities, and the dispersal of industry.

Mr. Speaker, civil defense is a national responsibility. It requires the cooperation of every citizen as well as the Federal Government. In my own district, Birmingham and Jefferson County has one of the best civil defense set-ups in the entire Nation. However, it is my firm conviction that more intensive planning is a must in order for our Nation to offer a realistic defense to atomic attack.

If America can spend billions -each year on missiles and atomic weapons, it should not balk at the price of civil defense. By developing an eff-ective civil defense program, we would be bettering our relative position in the cold war without adding impetus to the international arms race. In this respect, civil defense becomes our cheapest and surest defense. Against an enemy who knows we are prepared to take care of ourselves in an atomic attack:, civil defense will deter war more effectively than airplanes or bombs.

THE EXPANSION OF TEACHING AND RESEARCH IN THE EDUCATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN Mr. RODINO. 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 New Jersey?

There was no objection. Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, recently

I introduced a bill, H. R. 397, to provide help for the mentally retarded children of America. Through this legislation the Commissioner of Education would be authorized to make grants to public or other nonprofit institutions to assist them in doing two things for the education of the mentally retarded:

First, these grants would assist these institutions in providing training of professional personnel to conduct research in fields related to the education of mentally retarded children, and

Second, these grants would assist institutions to enlarge their teacher preparation courses or to establish such courses so that we may have a greater number of teachers for our mentally retarded children in America.

There is nothing more American than going to scnool, and in these United States free public education for all children admits of no exceptions. OUT concept of education applies to every child who is capable of profiting by instruction, even to a limited extent. This is his birthright, his privilege, something

CIII--7'78

which, under the law, cannot be with .. held from an American boy or girl.

Yet, for all of our educational provisions, there are many thousands of American children who have been denied the kind of education to which their birthright entitles them. These are our exceptional children, those born into the world with a body or mind not fully perfected. They cannot benefit from our regular school program simply because it is not specifically adapted to their par- · ticular needs.

The American definition of free public education is embodied in the idea that education must be suited to the needs . of the individual, and that the teacher must be suitably trained to achieve this kind of education. We cannot educate a partially seeing or blind child in the same class with those whose vision is normal. To expect a totally deaf child to attend an ordinary public school is an impossible idea. To place a mentally retarded child in the same schoolroom with normal .children would only contribute to his confusion and despair.

This special group of exceptional children, _although a small proportion of the total number of school children, presents a wide variety of abilities as well as defects and deficiencies. There are those who are ·intellectually gifted or intellectually retarded; those with cardiac or orthopedic handicaps; children who suffer from chronic diseases, speech defects, deafness; children who are affected by serious emotional problems; those who are in institutions for the dependent and neglected; those who are homebound but can profit from an education if it be brought to them. If special provisions are not made for them, we deny them their rightful heritage of an education. Furthermore, their dignity as a human individual, and values as members of society are lessened to the point where they can only become personally degraded and social outcasts. They become the forgotten ones of society.

At a time when present school facilities and available funds are barely sufficient to provide educational programs for average children, it is hard to conceive of the means of providing for exceptional children. No complete census has ever been made of the number of exceptional children in the United States. The Bureau of the Census, according to the 1952 figures, estimated that there were 4,318.000 exceptional children in the United States at that time. At present the total figure is at least 5 million.

The greatest problem facing us in the education of exceptional children seems to be the teacher shortage. The latest survey on teacher needs in this respect was published in 1954 by the United States Office of Education, Division for Exceptional Children and Youth. In this report it was estimated that there were 25,000 special teachers in the Nation's schools. Of this number, there were 3,000 teachers working in residential schools for the deaf, the blind, and the mentally retarded, and at least 2,500 teachers giving hospital or home instruction. There were approximately 14,316 spec.ial-educat.ion teachers in the city

.school systems. Still others, not reported in the survey, are employed in nur'1" sery schools and private schools, bringing the total to approximately 25,000 teachers. However, it was reported that this is only one-fourth of the actual number needed to adequately meet the needs in special day classes, hospitals, convalescent homes, residential schools, and other special services.

But the greatest demand for teachers of exceptional children exists in the area. of the mentally i·etarded. An estimated shortage of 40,000 teachers is to be found in this field. The next four, ranking in greatest demand, are the speech-handicapped, the deaf, the hard of hearing, and the crippled.

Approximately 120,000 mentally re .. tarded children are born each year in the United States. The classes for such children must be kept at a minimum of 18, if effective work is to be accomplished. It is easy to understand why the teacher shortage is so acute.

In 1954 here were 70r.,OGO school age boys and girls with mental limitations so marked that they are in need of a special education curriculum. However, it has been estimated that not more than 25 percent of these children have the specialized programs suited to their needs.

The colleges and universitier; have recognized the need of providinb teachers for the exceptional child, but the demands now far exceed the supply. There is also the necessity of research programs to study the exceptional child, to explore all possible aspects of his afflictions, to discover the best means of improving his training.

For instance, in 1954 there were 40 colleges and universities reporting a sequence of courses in teacher preparation for . the retarded child. These schools are located in 18 States, the majority being east of the Mississippi. New York: State leads with 7 colleges offering such courses. Next are Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, and Texas with 6, 4, 3 and 3 centers, respectively. The StatesFlorida, Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio have two institutions each. The 9 remaining States-Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin have 1 center each. The facts to be drawn from this stand out: 30 out of the 48 States have no provisions, that we know of, to train teachers for the men·tally retarded. We are a long way from providing the means to alleviate the 40,000 teacher shortage that existed even in 1954.

Let us consider the enrollments of students in courses for the mentally retarded. The latest figures available ate for the school year of 1953-54. Of the 4,601 students majoring in special education, the largest group 2,330 were studying speech correction. Only 805 of the tota.I number were majoring in education for the mentally retarded. Of these, one-half was pursuing graduate study, 365 at the master's level and 44 for the doctorate. The remaining 396 were undergraduates. Those taking single cow·ses in special education numbered 5,712 and again over half of these

12378 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOU-SE July 22

were studying speech correction. Students taking· single courses in education tor the mentally retarded numbered 624, with 513 enrolled at the graduate level and 111 at the undergraduate level. Altogether, there were but 1,429 students in the whole United States who were enrolled in education for the mentally retarded for the school year of 1953-54. We may have had an increase since that time, but certainly not enough to make a sizable contribution. The scarcity of graduates makes the establishment of graduate programs even harder, for the college staffs will have to come largely from trained personnel in this field.

Research projects in education for the mentally retarded are in progress in various colleges and universities in the United States. On March 21, 1957, the Commissioner of Education, Lawrence G. Derthrick, announced that of the 20 agreements for cooperative educational research to be conducted by the colleges, universities, and State departments of education, 11 of these concern education of the mentally retarded. Since this program of cooperative educational research was launched in September of 1956, a total of 32 research programs concerning the education of the mentally

. retarded are now in progress. But in the face of the problem before us, 41 research programs . in the whole United States are not sufficient to provide for the needs of thousands of educatable mentally reta-rded boys and girls. ·

I believe, therefore, that the provisions of my bill will do much to alleviate the

·situation where the education of the mentally retarded is concerned. It is time that we come to the aid of these children so that tney can also be the true heirs of their mother country. We cannot deny them their birthright of an education.

FOLK MUSIC Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan

imous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, we, as

Americans, have always been proud of our historical and cultural background in the fight for freedoms of all kinds.

. Yet, we find those who step by step are seeking to regiment us into a formless, faceless mass in which no individual will dare to think in new and creative terms. Even in such a wholesome and pleasant

. field as folk music are we being asked to conform to a norm which for bids freedom of expression.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure no onP. will . deny that folk music has been responsible for preserving in considerable degree the history of our country and the way of

. life in days gone by. In connection with this, I would like to read a news release from the Stephen Foster Memorial Commission, a Florida State commission that has spent thousands of dollars to preserve the beautiful music of this great composer. Music that has, for years, been symbolic of the great love of the South and the interest in the human

aspects of the people who surrounded Stephen Foster:

FROM STEPHEN FOSTER MEMORIAL, WHITE SPRINGS, FLA,

WHITE SPRINGS, FLA., July.-Florida's St ate song, Way Down Upon the Swanee River, and many other Stephen Foster classics can no lon ger be sung in their original versions on the major broadcasting and television networks because of newly imposed censorship regulations, Foster L. Barnes, superintendent of the State of Florida's Stephen Foster Memorial, disclosed here today.

"Our first hint of the ban came in a recent Broadway column written by Dorothy · Kilgallen," Barnes said. "We have checked with network officials and have found that references to darkies, massa, mammy, colored · man, and Old Black Joe are now t aboo. This means that Florida's State song, Swanee River, Kentucky 's State song, My Old Kentucky Home, and many ot her familiar compositions by Stephen Foster and other noted musicians have been censored and must be revised before they can be sung on any of the three big networks. "

The superintendent of the State memorial on the Suwannee River said Jie learned that "The networks maintain a file of all songs which must conform to network policy on lyrics, with indicated changes and words to be substituted."

"It is my understanding," Barnes said, "that the networks were forced by minority group pressure to set up an 'authorized version' of edited lyrics on certain Stephen Foster songs, substituting words for those deemed obj~ctioriable to particular racial groups.

"S t ephen Foster's songs are full of love and regard for the Negro, individually and as a race," Barnes said. · "It is ironical that the networks should find it necessary after all these years to censor some of his immortal songs. · "As /1mericans we deplore t he very idea of book burning, but is it any better to mutilate musical classics which bespeak good will in every line?"

In Deland, Earl W. Brown, chairman of the Stephen Foster Memorial Commission, a Sta te agency, said he would ask the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the circumstances of the censorship move.

"If pressure can cause censorship of Stephen Fosters' compositions, could pressure also bring about censorship of news?" Brown asked.

"None of Foster's compositions in any way say anything detrimental to any race, creed, or color," Brown said. "His works constitute the greatest collection of American folklore

· music and it was on the basis of this music, as written by Foster and not changed by anyone, that he was elected .to th.e Hall of Fame, an honor not awarded to any other composer. Now this attempted dictatorship would destroy the essence of these songs, so they would no longer represent Foster's era.

"We can only hope' that this ill-advised move by the networks, apparently taken under pressure, . will be rescinded when all the implications of this unwarranted censorship become apparent."

Mr. Speaker, I have contacted the networks in question and found that this

. censorship is true. In a great country like America where censorship of every kind is deplored, this action on the part of the networks is in my opinion abso-

. lutely inexcusable. In the original form, the works of Ste

phen Foster . were considered great enough to cause him to be elected to. the Hall of Fame, an honor not awarded to

· any other composer. If this trend of censorship continues,

the major networks could force com-

posers to write songs that no longer have the folklore quality. I would like to point out that among these songs are Way Down Upon the Swanee River, the official Florida State song, and My Old Kentucky Home, the official Kentucky State song.

I am asking that the Members of this disting·uished body of elected officials, who I am sure have sung Foster's great songs on many occasions, exert every action necessary to cause this disgraceful censorship on the part of the networks ·concerned to be rescinded immediately.

NATIONAL FAMILY DAY Mr. MEADER. 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 Michigan?

There was no objection. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Speaker, I intro

duced today a House joint resolution calling on the President to proclaim the first Sunday of August every year National Family Day.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, if enacted, for the first time in our country's history, will memorialize an important unit of our society, the American family.

Too often, Mr. Speaker, in our highspeed daily living members of families tend to drift apart, overlooking the fam- · _ily's unique contribution to the advancement of American civilization.

Even the :::;eparate observances of Mother's Day and Father's Day, although fitting and proper, tend to isolate respective parents from the identity of the family unit.

I think annual observance of Family Day, working together and playing together as a family group, may well lead to increased appreciation of this fre·quently overlooked social institution and thus to the increased happiness and goodwill of the American people.

KNOW THE ENEMY Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute and to revise· and extend my remarks

· and include an editorial and a resolution. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

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

read an editorial from the Washington Daily News which advocates that the truth about the subject of communism be taught in our public schools, especially

· in high schools, a position which I have also supported and advocated as reflected in legislation which I have introduced in the present Congress, House Joint Resolution 359 .

The editorial and the resolution are as follows:

[From the Washington Daily News of July 19, 1957)

KNOW THE ENEMY

During the 40 years of Bolshevik rule of Russia, the American people have alternately been taken in by Soviet "peace offensives"

1957 .CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD - HOUSE 12379 or panicked by Soviet belligerency. Rarely has the pendulum rested in the middle.

The Soviets plan it that way. And their greatest ally is general ignorance of the non-Communist world about the true nature of communism.

Americans taken prisoner of war in Korea were woefully unprepared to resist Communist br.ainwashing. Studies show they were unable to match the dialectics of the Reds-unable to defend their own democratic system. President Eisenhower himself has admitted difficulties he had in doing this with Marshal Zhukov-and the President then wore five stars.

American edu-0ators have been meeting at .Harvard University to study this problem and two speakers have talked good common sense in urging that the truth about com.niunism be taught in our public schoolsespecially in high school.

"Communism need not be feared if understood," said John H . Fischer, sup.erintendent of the public schools of Baltimore.

Another speaker, George S. Counts of Columbia, long a student of t he Soviet educational system, put it this way:

"Most of our trouble stems from the fact that the American people, including the teachers, have been and are still abysmally ignorant of the true nature of communism as practiced in the Soviet Union."

The 1irst 'Step calls for teaching the teachers about communism-and then making certain that ~ur young people are provided the opportunity to learn about civilized man's major enemy. Then the American people will be prepared to face communism with faith and not fear-with faith and ability to defend the democratic system against the

, brutal totalitarianism practiced by the Bol-sheviks. ,

House Joint Resolution 359 Joint resolution to provide for a commission

to n'lake available information as -to the basic differences between the theories and practices of the American way of life and the theories and practices of atheistic communism Resolved, etc .•.

ESTABL,ISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION SECTION 1. 'ca) There is hereby· established

a commission to be known as the Commission To Make Available Information as to the Basic Differences Between the Theories and Practices of the American Way of Life and the Theories and Practices of Atheistic Communism (in this joint resolution referred to as the "Commission") '.

(b) The Commission shall be composed of eleven members as follows:

(1) Two members from the Senate of the United States, appointed by the Presl-dent of the Senate; ,

(2) Two members from the House of Representatives, appointed by the Speaker of the House;

(3) Three members appointed by the President from among individuals each of whom is a member of the Standing Com,mittee on American Citizenship of the American B ar Association, and who have been nominated by the Board of Governors of the American Bar Associ?-tion;

· (4) Three , members appointed by the President from among individuals each of whom is a member of the Association of American Colleges or the American Council of Education, and who have been noininated by the respective governing boards of those organizations; and

( 5) One member appointed by the President from private life, to be Chairman of the Commission.

( c) Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filed in the same manner in which the original appoint'ment was made.

DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION SEC. 2. The Commission-( 1) shall make a study of the testimony

.relating to the theories .and practices of atheistic communism which, since the end of World War II, has been taken under oath

, by the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee .. the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the House Select Committee To Conduct an Investigation of the Facts, Evidence, and Circumstances of the Katyn Forest Massacre, the House Select Cominittee To Investigate Communist Aggression and the Forced Incorporation of the Baltic States Into the U. S. S. R., and by any other standing committee of the Senate or House of Representatives, and by any agency In the executive branch of the United States Government; and on the basis of its study, shall prepare material for a book, incorporating only testimony taken under oath by the committees and agencies referred to above, selected so as to give the fullest possible information as to the theories and practices of atheistic communism; and

(2) shall prepare suggested curriculums of studies, suitable for use in the teaching of <:ourses in schools, colleges, and universities, which will make clear the basic differences between the theories and practices of the American way of life and the theories and practices of atheistic communism, and for this purpose it shall be the duty of the Commission to review all pertinent data

-available to it.

REPOR'rS SEC. 9. Upon completion of its work, but

not later than December 31, 1955, the Commission shall submit to the President a report containing the textbook and curriculum of studies referred to in section 2. Not later than March 1, 1956, the President shall submit the Comml"SSion's report to the Congress, together ·with such comments and recommendations as l'le deems advisable.

'TERMINATION OF COMMISSION SEC. 10. The Commission shall -0ease to ex

ist on the 30th day following the date on which the President submits the Commission's report to the Congress.

AMENDING THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT OF 1921

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this polnt in the RECORD and include a speech by Senator WATKINS.

Tile SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to invite the attention of this body to legislation which I have introduced ,and ta a speech and press release of Sen-atar WATKINS, of Utah, directed to identical legislation.

-QuoRuM I refer to my bill, H. R. 8721, amending SEc. 3. Six members of the Commission the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921,

shall constitute a quorum. which is a companion bill to legislation COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE proposed by Senators O'MAHONEY and

COMMISSI-ON WATKINS and my distinguished colleague, ·SEc. 4. (a) Members of Congress who are -Congressman DIXON. I became inter

members of the Commission shall serve with- ested greatly in this legislation during out compensation in addition to that re- the course of House Agriculture Comceived for their services as Members of Con- mittee hearings on the question of the gxess; but they shall be reimbursed for t travel , subsistence, and other necessary ex- necessi Y of making the meatpacking penses incurred by them in the performance industTY subject to the jurisdiction of of the duties vested in the Commission. the Federal Trade Commission. Cur-

(b) The members from private life shall · rently they, the packers, are under the each receive $50 per diem when engaged in jurisdiction of the Department of Ag

. t~ -actual performance of duties vested In -, riculture but that-agency has tradition

. the Comm~ssion., -plus . reimbur.seme:p,t for 'ally· neglected to police their monopolis

. travel, subsistence, and ~ther ·necessary ex- tic · and unfah· trade practices. Much _penses incu~red by them m the performan~e -- testimony was heard demonstrating the of such duties. · .necessity for·-etfective FTC jurisdiction

STAFF OF THE COMMI;SSION but the shift of jurisdiction in question SEc. 5. The Commission shall have power is adequately justified by one stipulated

to appoint and fix the compensation of such . fact. I present this stipulated evidence personnel as it deems advisable, without regard to the provisions of the civil-service to you. laws and the Classification Act of 1949, as - . ~ Businesses which are not packers such amenped. as grocery chains, dairy products proc-

essors and others have been seeking to avoid FTC regulation by qualifying as packers through the process of acquiring interests in packing houses. The managers of these corporate enterprises are·-presumably intelligent -men imbued with the desire to push their businesses over their competitors in the best possible way from the sole standpoint of volume and profit. The fact that they seek regulation by the United States Department of Agriculture rather than the FTC, therefore, becomes significant. It means that the United States Department of Agriculture is less regulatory and if one believes in regulation of monopoly and unfair trade practices it means that the public interest is suffering at the hands of the United States Department of Agriculture. It means further that the loose bonds of the United States Department of Agriculture in the field of regulation of packers should be exchanged for the tighter

EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION SEC. 6. There is hereby authorized to be

appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, so much as may be necessary to carry out the provisions· of this joint resolution.

AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS AND DATA SEC. 7. To the extent necessary in order to

enable the Commission to carry out the purposes of this joint resolution, the Commission shall be permitted to have access to the records and data of -committees and agencies referred to in section 2.

APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LAWS SEC. 8. Service of an individual as a mem

ber of the Commission or employment of an individual by the Commission as an attorney or expert in any business or professional field , on a part-time or full-time basis, with or without compensation •. shall not be considered as service or employment bringing such individual within the provisions of section 281 , 283, 284, 434, or 1914 of title 18 of the United States Code, or section 190 of the Revised Statutes (5 U. S. C; 99).

12380 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22 bonds of the FrC. It is worse than useless to propose that our concern should be to prevent Food Fair and other nonpacker type enterprises from getting the same kind of nonregulation the packers have been receiving. The only rational answer is to make all of these businesses, including the packers, subject to equal treatment by the FTC.

It is true that the Sherman Act possibly still applies to the packers but this is no sufficient answer. The FTC Act, the Clayton Act, and the Robinson-Patman Act were additions to our statutes because of the inadequacies of the Sherman Act. They added something· to the law of monopoly and unfair trade prac-. tices. The Justice Department has only passing interest in these statutes. They are the province of the FTC and if the FTC cannot apply them they are not applied. The necessity of giving the FTC jurisdiction of the packers is vital be

·cause these statutes . supplementary to the Sherman Act constitute the real Magna Carta of small business. They give small business immediate protection from encroaching and even incipient monopoly.

The statement of the Senator from Utah before the House Agriculture Committee and his press release with respect thereto read as follows: COMPETITIVE BIDDING MEA.NS BETTER LIVESTOCK

PRICES

(Statement before House Agriculture Committee in support of H. R. 8536, a bill conferring jurisdiction upon the FTC to prevent unfair trade practices in the meatpacking industry) Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the oppor

tunity of testifying in support of H. R. 8536, introduced by Congressman DIXON, which is a companion bill to S. 1356 sponsored in the Senate by Senator O'MAHONEY and _myself. As you perhaps are aware, the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly reported S. 1356 to the Judiciary Committee 2 weeks ago. On Monday of this week by a vote of 6 to 3 the Judiciary Committee rejected the so-called Dirksen amendments to S. 1356. Those amendments were identical to the provisions of H. R. 7743, which also is before this committee.

In a free enterprise economy, the most effective regulator of economic activity is competition. Operating through the market forces of supply and demand, price competition is the best and most effective device for r.llocating resources to the production and subsequent sale of those goods or products for which demand is greatest. Also, such competition in the market for consumer preference is the best guarantee for improving product quality and maintaining prices which are fair to both producer and consumer.

As the economy has become more and more complex, so has the nature of competition. In some industries a relatively small number of firms has come to dominate economic activity. In some cases this has been due to superior management and business skill. In other cases it appears to have been the result of competitive practices which are not commensurate with the public interest. Price manipulation and unfair trade practices have been used to· eliminate competition and to render neutral the forces of supply and demand.

The public has come to expect and demand that government reinstate, where possible, and maintain by law as much price and other competition as the public interest necessitates in those areas _of the economy in which it works badly 01· where little of it exists.

This public concern is reflected in the platforms of both political parties. It is a mat. ter of bipa.rtisan concern.

Although H. R. 8536 repeals the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture over packers, as authorized in . title II of the Packers and Stockyards Act, it leaves undisturbed the jurisdiction of the USDA over the operation of stockyards, which is contained in title III of that act. In regard to

· title III, I want to point out that the Department of Agriculture has been and is doing a commendable job: This_ i? ~tte~ted to by the description of its activities m this connection which are found in its Report

· on Current Activities and Problems Under · the Packers and Stockyards Act issued April 4, 1957.

At the outset, I want to make it plain that no packer, large or small, or other busin.ess firm engaged in slaughtering or processing meat products has anything to fear from the return of title II authority to the FTC, provided their business behavior an~ tra~e practices conform to th~ norms outlmed m the antitrust laws, which are designed to maintain and foster price as well as product competition.

Likewise, support of H. R. 8536 and S. 1356 should not be construed as an attack upon big business. Bigness per se is not to be condemned. In fact, much of the comforts of everyday living which we all en?oy is made possible by economies of produc_t10n which only large-sized :firms can achie~e. Only when big business uses its superior bargaining power and economic resourc~s in a manner not consistent with the public interest is it to be condemned.

By the same token, in co-sponsoring S. 1356, and testifying here in support of H. R. 8536, I personally do not intend to cast :eftection upon any particular firm now domg business in the slaughtering or meat processing industry. Rather, I have been prompted to support this, legislation for t;wo major reasons: First, in .light of t~e poor economic position in which most llvestock producers find themselves, a_nd the tr_eme~dous increase in direct buymg, I belleve it is imperative that proper scrutiny be maintained over the trade practices of firms slaughtering l'ivestock and processing and distributing meat products so as to permit the existence of as many marketing alternatives for producers as the nature ?f. the ~ndustry will permit. Fair com~etitive '?1dding should give producers higher prices than otherwise would be the case. And such competition can exist only where producers have several marketing alternatives. Second, I believe it is in the public interest that FTC control be extended over packers which enter into other sideline businessesbusinesses which now escape such control because of USDA inaction, but whose competitors are subject to FTC control. The same need for public control applies to food firms, especially food chains, which n~w ~an acquire packing plants, or a substanti~l mterest in one, or just process carcass animals for retail sale, and thus escape FTC supervision over their entire operations.

Mr. Chairman, several million farmers, ranchers, and stockmen produce meat animals for market. With respect to cattle, the bulk of such animals are marketed during a period of a few weeks each fall. Most producers, especially in the great western range States, must market their animals at that time regardless of the prices offered, because they ·either do not raise enough feed to carry the stock until prices are more to their liking, or they cannot afford to buy feed for that purpose. A great number-essentially the smaller operators-must sell at that time in order to meet pressing financial obligations. As you know, most ranchers operate on a basis of "borrow it in the spring and pay it back in the fall." Still others must sell during the fall marketing

season in order to meet the costs of daily _living.

In recent years, these forced fall marketings have been even heavier than normal, because of the effects of drought and the cost-price squeeze. These factors combined have served to virtually eliminate any bargaining power which producers might have had under more normal conditions.

Especially is this true in light of the increase in direct buying from livestock producers over the past 10 years. For example, whereas in 1946 the largest overall packer purchased directly from producers 20 percent of the cattle it slaughtered, this figure had increased to 32.7 percent by 1956. Whereas the same firm purchased directly 37.1 percent of the calves it slaughtered in -1946; in 1955 it purchased directly from producers

-52.1 percent. There also has been a marked upward trend in direct buying by the next

·nine largest overall packers during the past -10 years.

Producer organizations are very concerned ·about this upward trend in direct buying and the effect it has upon the prices their members receive in light of their weak bargaining positions. An example of this concern is provided by the following resolution adopted by the Utah Cattlemen's Association at its 38th annual convention held at Salt Lake City on December 7 and 8, 1956. The resolution in part reads as follows:

"DIRECT SELLING

"Whereas we strongly recommend that the Utah Cattle Association members refrain from consignment selling of livestock direct to packers for slaughter; and

"Whereas consignment slaughter shortchanges the livestock producer and robs-him of his rights as a - seller. Consignment slaughtering thrives on a glutted market. It takes all of the gamble out_ of buying .~nd gives the packer an ·assured profit with no investment and accomplishes nothing for the grower except to get rid of his stock and stop his feed bills. This is not buying, and it is not selling. We, therefore, condemn an three forms of consignment selling; namely, •grade and yield,' 'price on grade,' and 'price on rail' * * *.

"Whereas packers also often trim carcasses before weighing and take advantage of shrink "for hot weight. Direct selling to packers reduces livestock prices. A' high percent of the better quality cattle move direct to packers leaving cattle of lower quality to move through markets and determine prices in the major markets of the West. In turn, these unrealistic low prices serve as the basis for pricing more directto-packer sales. Packers are also eliminated as potential buyers at our markets by these direct shipments-this reduces competition and prices at the markets: Therefore be it

"Resolved, That we must return to competitive bidding on cattle if producers are to get full market value for their cattle."

Many livestock producers have told me that in their opinion packers have resorted to direct buying as a means of deliberately depressing livestock prices at terminal market centers. If this is true, it is an unfair trade practice and ought to be stopped. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN INADEQUATE

Now, the major objection the United States Department of Agriculture had to S. 1356 was that it, as does H. R. 8536, gives exclusive jurisdiction to the FTC over the buying and selling of livestock away from stockyards. This is true, and there appears to be good reason for it. In 36 years the United States Department of Agriculture has issued only 7 cease-and-desist orders for refusal to pay for livestock purchased at places away from posted stockyards. Five of these, however, were issued in 1938--19 years ago; 2 in 1937-20 years ago. In only 2 out of 36 years of juri~diction, there-

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12381 fore, has the United St.ates Department of Agriculture issued such orders which involve the offyard buying and selling of livestock.

Additional reason for giving exclusive jurisdiction to FTC over packer buying and selling of livestock away from stockyards is found in the United States Department of .Agriculture testimony before the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Roy D. Lennartson, Deputy Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, told the House Appropriations Committee on February 8, 1956, that the United States Department of Agriculture wanted $178,000 to post 150 additional stockyards, which then would bring the number of eligible yards posted up to 94 percent. He then continued: _ "Although we have been cdticized recently for not devoting some of the funds under this act to explorations into trade practices on the part of packers and others outside the yards, I think our policy has been sound in attempting first to use our funds to bring the impact or the benefits of this act down closest to where the producer can obtain them.

.. In addition to the posting of the 150 yards next year, we are hopeful that some _o~ the funds requested would be available to begin some investigations into the buying practices of packers off the yards; in other words, into the feed lots, into the direct-buying areas, and so on, in the concentrated areas of livestock production" (hearings, pt. 2, pp. 946-947).

Not being able to post even all the eligible stockyards, this appears to mean that during the 1958 fiscal year, if it had been given this money, the USDA would have been only hopeful that it could begin looking into off-yard pack.er-buying activities. USDA's concern about country buying .seems indeed to be a potential and anticipatory one, rather ·than one which ·wm result in immediate administrative action.

Based upon these facts, I have reservations as to why the USDA, after little concern for 36 years about off-yard buying and selling· activities, should be permitted to

. keep such jurisdiction. In addition, con·sider these. facts: In the last 36 years the :USDA h~s issued only six cease and .des.ist orders involving weight and grade frauds in the buying and selling of livestock, three of which were issued to packers operating at a stockyard. Now, under the provisions of H. R. 8536, the USDA can still issue such orders against packers. Its exclusive jurisdiction 0-ver packer activities at stockyards under title III is not impaired by this bill or S. 1356. But what is its off-stockyards record where weight and grade frauds are involved? It has issued only three sucli orders since 1921 and not one in the' last 20 years.

So why, in light of this and of the foregoing facts, should the USDA complain that to give FTC jurisdiction over off-yard buying and selling by packers would impair its effectiveness? It seems to me that it has a poor record upon which to base this contention. ·

Only eight cease and desist orders have been issued since 1921 which involved restraints, preferences, price fixing, and discriminations. Of the eight, the USDA has not issued one against a packer at a posted stockyard involving the buying and selling of livestock. It did issue one against Armour and Co. in 1922 in the conduct of a nonposted yard which gave certain privi-1eges to a few shippers. In the correct sense bf the term, it has never issued such an order against a packer for such unfair trade practices off-yards. Why, therefore, should it complain that H. '.e.. 8536 and S. 1356 deprive it of needed authority to regulate

. off-yard buying and selling of livestock. - Producers also are disturbed about the refusal of the Department of Agriculture at the policy level to take action against a packer even when the Packers and Stock-

yards Branch's trade practice section has developed adequate information to warrant full-scale investigation and perhaps formal charges. Such a recent case involved alleged unfair trade practices prohibited by title II of the Packers and Stockyards Act on the part of Safeway Stores, in operating feed yards which, if sustained, would be violations of that act. The following counsel, between the Senate subcommittee counsel, Mr. McHugh; Mr. Pettus, director of the Livestock Division, AMS; and Mr. Lee D. Sinclair, Chief, Packers and Stockyards Branch, clearly develops this fact. Mr. Sinclair recommended to his superiors that "the case * "' "' be fully investigated and that we attempt to get sufficient funds to carry out that investigation." The colloquy continued as follows:

"Mr. McHuGH. You were overruled in this recommendation?

"Mr. SINCLAIR. In effect there was an overruling, yes.

"Mr. McHUGH. Was the matter considered again after it w~s returned tq you with this notation for conducting a study?_

"Mr. SINCLAIR. Well, I brought it up again about January of this year with Mr. Reed, the director of the Livestock Branch * * *, Mr. Reed told me later that he had taken it up again and that * * * we should not investigate it.

"Mr. McHuGH. Well, what did that mean _to y9~? Wi~h who~?

"Mr. SINCLAIR. Well, I understand it to mean his superiors: who would be Mr. Len_nartson, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Butz.

"Mr. MCHUGH. After that, did you concur in the decision that was made not to go forward with this investigation, but to conduct this. research study?

"Mr. SINCLAIR. Well, we were not asked .about that * * *.

"Mr. McHuGH. Did your opinion as to the best manner of handling 1fhis· problem change any? · . "Mr. SINCLAIR. No."

Now, I am not · critical of the decision to undertake a broad economic study of the J>ractice involved in the Safeway case. However, I am critical of the lack of action to even investigate· such alleged u11fair trade practice when . preliminary investigation by the Trade Practice Section seemed to indicate a violation of title II. Both actions could and should have been undertaken.

BIG PACKER MARKET DOMINATION GROWING By contrast with several million livestock

producers on the sellers side of the market, we find on the buyers side only a few ' hun:. dred meat packers .. operating in interstate commerce and thus subject to Federal meat inspection.

But, whatever implied favorable implicatiops the existence of a few hundred such packers has of competitive bidding, they are considerably reduced and brought . into proper perspective by this · fact: 10 natlonal packers slaughter approximately 50 percent of the cattle, 66 percent of the calves, 70 percent of the hogs, and 77 percent of the sheep and lambs coming under Federal meat inspection.

Even when total commercial slaughter. figures are used, it is evident that a few firms are developing stronger market dominance. Contrary to the data contained in the April 4, 1957, report of the USDA on the administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, the percent of total commercial slaughter of several species by the Big Four and Fifteen packers is on the increase. Information supplied me under date of April 15, 1957, by Assistant Secretary Butz, supplemental to this report, indicates that the percent of total commercial of hogs, which provide farmers 10 percent of their incomes, by the Big Four overall packers increased 2 percent from 1953 to 1955. In 1953 they slaughtered 39 percent of the hogs; in 1955, 41 percent, although the table on page 11 of that report

had indicated a decline of 1 percent during the period 1953-55.

And instead of the Big Four slaughtering 58 percent of the sheep and lambs in 1955 as shown in the table on page 11 also, this letter from Secretary Butz reveals that they actually slaughtered 59 percent-a 1 percent increase over that indicated in the table. The table on page 12 of this report indicates that the biggest 15 firms slaughtered a larger percentage of the total commercial slaughter of calves and hogs in 1955 than they did in 1950.

So whether we view it from the standpoint of federally inspected slaughter or total commercial slaughter, it seems that at least for some major species, market domination by a few firms continues to grow.

In an industry where the buyers are few in number and the sellers are great in number, it is evident that the buyers are in a position to set the prices they will pay and the sellers have only the option of "taking it or leaving it." Where all the dictating as to price is done by the buyers, it behooves us to maintain as many market outlets as possible for livestock producers, who obviously under these circumstances at best, have a very poor bargaining position. Also~ in an industry where the buyers' side of the market is dominated by a few nationaloperative concerns, this is not an easy task. Because of these facts, I cannot· agree with the remarks made by Assistant Secretary Butz to the House Subcommittees on Antitrust and Commerce and Finance to the effect that "our studies at Purdue University showed that we, perhaps, have too many buyers of livestock" .<PP· 399-400). PRODUCER GROUPS SUPPORT S. 1356 AND H. R.

s53a This _ view, I also appear to. share with

many producer groups. The National Wool Growers Association told the Senate in testifying in favor of S. 1356 that "with over half the lamb production ·of the United States purchased by only four packers and almost three-fourths of the production purchased by eight packers, we feel there is at least opportunity for price manipulation and market control."

Other producer organizations at the grass-. roots level in increasing numbers are expressing concern about this possibility. For example, at the Utah Cattlemen's Association convention mentioned above, the following resolution was also adopted:

"Whereas this year has probably been the worst for cattlemen since the early 1930's, yet packer and retail profits are at an all-time high; and

"Whereas we feel our problems have been increased by the large spread between live cattle and retail prices; and

"Whereas chainstores and retail organiza-: tions have become so big that they can, undoubtedly, influence our markets: There~ fore, be it

"Resolved, That we commend the investigation being made by Senator JosEPH C. O'MAHONEY, of Wyoming into the possible

· manipulation of bur markets by the large retailers and producers."

At its 50th annual convention held January 8-9, 1957, also in Salt Lake City, the Utah Wool Growers Association adopted this resolution:

"Utah woolgrowers desire to offer complete cooperation with the O'MAHONEY subcommittee of the Senate in its hearing relating to the apparent collusion between packers and chainstores in the processing, sale and merchandising of our meat products and we lend every effort to make these hearings complete and informative."

Specific charges of unfair trade practices made by witnesses before the Senate subcommittee to the USDA about which it did nothing include the following:

1. Selling meat products below cost in order to eliminate independent packers.


2. Furnishing meat display cases to Tetail stores to induce their changing suppliers.

3. Operation of feed yards in such a manner as to deliberately depress livestock prices at central markets.

4. Collusion in rigging market prices so as to eliminate independent packer competitors.

5. Discriminating in price between competing buyers.

6. Giving kickbacks to supervisors of a retail distributing company.

7. Favoring some retailers under the guise of advertising and promotional allowances and even selling to them at prices cheaper than to the whol€sal€r.

8. Selling to some retail buyers from branch houses below wholesale prices temporarily, to make up monthly branch house tonnage quota.

9. Packer salesmen telling wholesale grocers' retail customers the prices they have charged the wholesaler for purchase of packer merchandise, and in some cases, telling the retailer to buy up the wholesaler's stock of an item on which the price has advanced before the wholesaler learns of the advance,

10. Packer representatives serve in retail stores for the purpose of diverting the purchase of those stores to the packer they represent. -

11. Packaging of meat products in such a manner as to give customer the impression that the product had been federally in-spected. ·

In the present situation is it not in the public interest--which 1s commensurate with that of the livestock producer, the consumer, and the small independent packer-to insure that unfair trade practices do not lead to greater concentration by elimination of competition? Enactment of H. R. &53.6 1ntroduced by Congressman DIXON, and S. 1356 will clearly facilitate more adequate enforcement which, in my opinion, is now lacking a.s fa.r as prevention of unfair trade practices is concerned in the meatpacking and processing industry.

USDA HAS NOT -S(J)UGHT ADEQUATE APPROPRIATIONS

On July 6, 1956, I introduced S. 4177 in the Senate. The Senate Agriculture Committee to which it was referred requested ~ report from the USDA on July 10, 1956. In the meantime, the USDA's 1958 fiscal year budget request went to the Bureau of th-e Budget. Its request for new obUgatory authority amounted to $4.7 billion. Of this request, $178,000 was for the purpose of posting additional stockyards under title III of the Pack«s and Stockyards Act. Not $1 of new obligatory authority was requested by the USDA for expansion of its enforcement activities under title IT of that act for the 1958 fiscal year.

Did the Packers and Stockyards Branch request additional new funds for title II enforcement? If so, what happened to that request? The answers to these questions were given to the Senate subcommittee during the hearings on S. 1356, a companion bill to H. R. 8536, a few weeks ago by one witness who stated:

.. It was reported the Packers and Stockyards Branch requested $200,-000 be placed 1n the USDA budget to employ personnel to start enforcing the meatpacker provisions of the act. The entire amount requested by the Branch was knocked out of the budget by the Department itself" (transcript, May 2, 1957).

Notwithstanding this background the USDA on December 21, after the Department's 1958 fiscal year request had .gone to the Bureau of the .Budget, rendered a report recommending against enactment of S . 4177. In spite of this negative report on a bill to transfer title II authority back to the FTCJ and in spite of the Senate subcommittee's hearings on the meat Industry of a year ago, the testimony of the USDA before the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations makes it plain that the Depart-

ment did not, until S. 1356 was introduced, intend to pay more proper attention to the enforcement of title II.

On February 7, Mr. Roy D. Lennartson. Deputy Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, told the House Appropriations Subcommittee:

"We are asking for $178,000 to provide for additional posting and supervisory activ.ities under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

"By the end of this fiscal year, we are hoping we will have something like 70 percent of the eligible yards posted. Granted tbis increase at the end of the fiscal year 1958, we will have about 94 percent of all the eligible yards posted.

"The reason we have directed our attention at the yards, is because it is essentially down at this level where the impact is -greatest on the producer. The act requires of the yards posted under the act, that the market agencles be bonded, that the yards provide adequate facilities, that their rates be reasonable, that their scales be checked, and that their trade practices be reviewed constantly.

"Although we have been critidzed recently for not devoting some of the fund'S under this act to explorations into trade practices on the part <>f packers and others outslde the yards, I think our policy has been sound in attempting first to use our funds to bring the impact or benefits of this act down closest to where the producer can obtain them" (hearings, pt. 2, p. 946).

The Department, of course, is to be commended for having concern and determination to effectively enforce title III. This is recognized by H. R. 8536 and S. 1356, since they leave undisturbed the USDA's responsibility in the area whieh, as Mr. Lennartson pointed out, most ooneerns the livestock producers-namely the regulation of all activities at stockyards including the buying and selling of livestock, rates paid for stockyard services, et cetera.

But, concern about title III activities is not an acceptable substitute for lack of effective enforcement of the untair trade practice provisions of t1tle U relating to mea'tpaekers.

Assistant Secretary Butz, before the Senate subcommittee on Me.y 22, 195'7, indicated. that tbe USDA recentiy had "redirected an ;additional -$20,000 of Department funds for Packers and Srockya~ Act enfor-cement during the last part -Of this fiscal year" (transcript, p. 675), and that "we have made tentative provlsion to tr~nsfer some $75,000. 'if we can find the competent personnel to strengthen the work next fiscal year" (trnnscript, p. 676).

Should tbls tentative provision even see reality, these funds transferred would be $125,000 less than the Pa.ckers and Stock-yards Branch requested for title II enforcement but which the Department itself denied. Yet Mr. Butz also told the subcommittee that the Department would not make a supplemental request for title II funds, but that "we ant1cipate requesting from Congress additional funds for a<1m.1nlster1ng the act, particularly title II, in our next budget request" (formal statement). - These facts concerning the appropriations history of title II enforcement make it plain that USDA plans for more vigorous enf-orcement continue to be merely tentative and anticipatory, as they have been for 30 years. The USDA admitted to the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee that although the Packers and Stockyards- Act was an integrated act, title II had not been adequately enforced. Consider the following eolioquy 'between the Director of the Livestock Division, Mr. D. M. PettusJ Assistant Secretary BUTZ, and myself:

"Senator WATKINS. I recognize you are spread thin, and that is our complaint--that you do not have enough force to do the job in title II. ·

"Mr. PETTtTs. We agree with you, and I think that is pointed out.

''Senator WATKINS. You have not had for nearly 36 years.

"Mr. PETTUS. I agree with you, sir. "Senator WATKINS. We think that is a long

enough trial period. • • • With all the -problems that have been handed to Agriculture, we thought we would certainly find someone who would be glad to get rid of this matter of law enforcement in the field in which the FTC has a special inter~t by reason of the act of Congress creating it as an independent regulatory agency-a special -arm of the Congress.

••Mr. BuTz. It is quite true for 26 years tthat] it has not been adequately enforced, but .don't you think wben the sinner confesses and resolves to do better he should be given a chance?'J (Transcript, pp. 697-69'8).

In a few words, the Department ruimits that title II has not received adequate enforcement; yet, par&doxically, it has not asked for, and apparently will not ask for, adequate appropriations. Under tbese .cir.cumstances, what reasonably prudent person would not conclude tha.t responsibillty for prevention of unfair trade practices involving meatpackers sbould be returned to the Federal Trade Commission, where it was before passage of the Packers and St<:ickyards A-et <0! 1921? Is not 25 or 30 years of inadequate enforcement a long en<>ugh trial period?

It is this situation which has led many grassroots producer organizations to support the return to FTC of the authority to prevent unfair trade practices in the meatpack-1ng industry. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I should li'ke to read the following letter to me from Mr. Edward S. Crawf<:ird, -executive secretary of the Utah Cattlemen"s Association, dated April 10, 1957. The letter reads -as· follows:

"Thi.s· letter is to advise you that on A-prU 6, 1957, the executive committee of tM "Utah cattlemen's Association met and adopted a resolution favwing the transfer of the tra-de practices section pf the Packers and Stockyards Act to the .Ped-era! Trade Commission, -as proposed 1n S. 1356 and H. R. 528~."

At its 50th convention in January of this year, the Utah Wool Growers Association adopted ·the following resolution:

"We are in accord with the proposal to place the administratkm of the Packers and Stockyards Act in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission. We f-eel that there will be a more direct contact between the administrative authorities and the packers an4 stockyards.'•

In .an explanatory 1~tter dated March 13, 1957, Mr. James A. Hooper, secretary-treasurer of the Utah Wool Growers, informed me as follows:

"We received your letter o! March 1, 1957, which enclosed S. 1356 togetber witb a statement you made at the time of the introduction of the bill. • • • Your statement is very well put, and we concur with your bill s. 1356."

I am sure the subcommittee has received similar expressions from producer groups at the grassroots level in other States. ,

The Packer.s e..nd Stockyards Act vests the ,Secretary of Agriculture with authority to issue cease and •desist orders with respect 'to packers who engage in unfa~r trade practices under titil.e ll. While a small m.µnber l)f such cease iand desist orders, in a.nd of itself, .obv.iously is not a good indicator of whether title II has been and is -being enforced, a small number of -cease and desist orders under title II, howeve-r, do indicate nonenforcement in my judgment, when coupled with these facts: (1) USDA has never asked for sutncient funds to enf.arce the .a.ct; ( 2) th€ Packers and Stockyards Branch, since the early 1920's, has been understaffed and spread too thin to <lo the job title 11 requires; and (3) the growing volume of complaints of unfair trade practices by packers which, due to look of desire and facilities, the USDA has done little or noth-ing about. - · -

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12383 No, to say the least, it is unlikely that the

small number of cease and desist orders-32 since 1921-is attributed to any other fact than noninterest and concern on the part of the USDA ever since the early 1930's.

H. R. 8536 PREFERABLE TO H. R. 7743

The USDA's reports on S. 1356 and H. R. 7743, another bill before this commit~ee, suggest amendments which would, if accepted, take the very heart out of S. 1356 and H. R. 8536. The heart of these bills is to place meatpackers under effective enforc~ment by giving back to the FTC-where it was before 1921-the authority contained in title II of the Packers and Stockyards Act to prevent unfair trade practices by packers. With respect to preventing unfair trade practices by meatpackers in the buying and selling of livestock at stockyards, the USDA, under these latter bills, would keep its present jurisdiction. Exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the prevention of unfair trade practices by packers in the wholesaling and ret~iling of meat, nonmeat food products and nonfood products is given to the FTC, which now has such authority with respect to all other firms in the food industry.

Among the reasons which caused Senator O'MAHONEY and me to introduce S. 1356 and Congressman DIXON to introduce H. R. 8536 is a need to prevent food firms and other firms from buying an interest in a meatpacking plant, and/ or acquiring facilities to merely process carcass animals for retail sale, and thereby escape the jurisdiction of the FTC as to its trade practices.

Recent cases of this nature include petitions by Food Fair Stores, Inc., and the Giant Food Stores asking the FTC to dismiss complaints against them on the grounds that they are meatpackers and thus not subject to FTC jurisdiction, although Food Fair owns only a small packing plant and Giant 'Food Stores only facilities for cuttiI).g up carcass animals. Well, the stampedE: seenis to be on. It is not too farfetched to expect that every restaurant chain in America could escape FTC jurisdiction over its trade practices by this route. Likewise, it appears that any corporation which buys carcass animals and retails this meat through cafeterias or restaurants to its employees, or the public, could qualify as a packer under the present law. ·- · · · · · ·

Why have. Food Fair Stores, Inc., and now the Giant Food Stores sought to cloak themselves with immunity from FTC jurisdiction by such legal maneuvers? The only answer can be that since S. 1356 was introduced on February 25, 1957, as a bipartisan attempt by Senator O'MAHONEY and myself to correct this situation, these firms have learned that the virtual nonenforcement of the packer provision of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by the United States Department of Agriculture is preferable to .the effective regulation of the FTC. What facts are available to support this statement? Namely, these:

First: The United States Department o! Agriculture has never issued a cease and desist order involving preferences, restraints, price fixing, and discriminations against a packer, as defined by the Packers and Stockyards Act, which related to the wholesaling or retailing of nonmeat food products or nonfood products. Is it any wonder, then, that food chains which sell hundreds of food and nonfood products in their supermarkets prefer USDA to FTC jurisdiction?

Second: The United States Department of Agriculture has not issued a cease and desist order involving similar unfair trade practices against a packer which relates to the wholesaling or retailing of a meat product in the past 18 years.

Passage of S. 1356 and the House companion bill, H. R . 8536, before this committee will remedy this situation by giving to the FTC authority to prevent unfair trade practices in the wholesaling and retailing of

meat, nonmeat food and nonfood products. This was the situation before passage of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.

However, proposals made to the Senate subcommittee by the American Meat Institute lobbyist for the big national packers who' oppose S. 1356, and the USDA which are embodied in H. R. 7743 wc;mld give to the FTC jurisdiction only over the wholesaling and retailing activities of a firm not principally engaged in meatpacking or processing, whatever principally engaged means.

On the other hand, the great majority of the groups which testified before the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee or filed statements with the subcom:i;nittee urged the Senate to give the FTC such authority over the wholesaling and retailing activities of all firms, as provided for in S. 1356 and H. R. 8536. Why? Because the firms these spokesmen represent must compete with the packers in the wholesaling and retailing of meat, of nonmeat food products and of nonfood products. Yet, I am sure they will point out to this committee as they did to the Senate subcommittee that while they are subject to the effective enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as were the big five packers before 1921, these packers and others as well are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, under title II of which, the USDA has not issued a cease and desist order involving the wholesaling and retailing of meat in the last 18 years. Under this same authority also, the USDA has never issued a cease and desist order against a packer in the wholesaling or retailing of a nonmeat food or nonfood product. The AMI and the USDA proposals as embodied in H. R. 7743, thus would continue the present system of two sets of trade practice rules: one for the big packers which is not effectively enforced by the USDA, and one set for their competitors which is effectively enforced by the FTC. ,

These witnesses and the firms they repre·sent are concerned in light of this situation, because three of the biggest packers, represented by the AMI, were 1920 consent decre.e signers who recently have petitioned the courts to set aside those portions of that order which would permit these packers to process and sell 140 food __ and nonfood proaucts, own ·and operate retail meat markets, sell fresh milk and cream and operate distribution facilities for handling these products in direct competition with wholesale and retail food stores.

Should this petition be granted, these firms fear, and rightly so, the ramifications continued USDA noninterest in the enforcement of the unfair trade practices of title II would have upon their businesses, since to all intent and purpose those 3 of the biggest 10 packers would be free, as other packers now are, to expand into every segment of the food industry, and nonfood industries as well. ·

But whether the consent decree modification is granted or not , the activities of these packers outside the area prohibited by the consent decree are so extensive that their compet itors-food firms, nonfood firms, and small packers-are likely to be hurt unless the big national packers are required to operate under the same set of trade-practice rules which they are required to operate under. In this respect, it should be noted that in 1950, one or more of the four largest packers shipped 21 classes of food products in interstate commerce, and 58 classes of nonfood products. Nonmeat food products comprised 6.6 percent of their total shipments. Nonfood products, exclusive of the byproducts of their meat operations, constituted 6.7 percent of their total shipments in interstate commerce, and nonfood byproducts shipped accounted for an additional 4.9 percent. Thus, 18.2 percent of th-eir total shipn1.ents comprised nonmeat food and nonfood products.

Yet, the packer-owned operations now are not subject to the FTC, but their competitors are subject to the jurisdiction of that effective agency. Nor under the provisions of H. R. 7743 would these big packers be subject to the FTC, although they would be if H. R. 8536 is enacted. The present situation without doubt gives, and H. R. 7743 would continue to give in the future, an unfair competitive advantage to packer-owned enterprises. Under these circumstances who, as a competitior of Swift & Co., wouldn't -be concerned about this situation when in 1955, that firm alone produced 4 percent of the Nation's butter; 8 percent of the cheese; 9 percent of the margarine; 19 percent of the salad and cooking oil; and 15 percent of the shortening?

Why, these witnesses ask, and rightly so in my opinion, should the trade practices of a firm like Wilson Sporting Goods, selling nonfood products, be under USDA, while its competitors like Spaulding, as it would under H. R . 7743, continue to be subject to the FTC? Why, they ask, should Swift and Armour in the wholesaling of nonmeat food products, such as cheese, canned milk, eggs, soups, etc., be under the USDA and their competitors like Campbell Soup Co. and Safeway Stores continue to be under the FTC, as is provided for by H. R. 7743? Why, they ask, should Swift, Armour, Hormel, and Raths in the wholesaling of meat products be under the USDA, as is provided for by H. R. 7743, while their competitors, such as Food Fair Stores would be subject to FTC jurisdiction?

Enactment of H. R. 8536 and rejection of the provisions of H. R. 7743, as the Senate committee did in defeating the Dirksen amendments to S. -1356, in a large measure will remedy this situation by putting all food firms-meatpackers as well as all others, under one set of rules.

O'MAHONEY-WATKINS PACKERS BILL GOES TO FLOOR

(Release from the Office of Senator ARTHUR v. WATKINS, Republican, of Utah, July 18, 1957) The O'Mahoney-Watkins bill to place the

Nation's meatpackers under fair-trade-prac·tice regulations of the Federal Trade Commission, rather than those of the Depa,rtment of Agriculture, today was reported favorably to the Senate by a 6-3 Judiciary Cammi ttee vote.

"Senator JosEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Democrat, of Wyoming, and I intend to move for immediate action in the Senate as soon as the civil-rights legislation is out of the way," Senator ARTHUR v. WATKINS, Republican, of Utah, said, following announcement of the committee vote.

A similar bill introduced by Congressmen HENRY ALDOUS DIXON, Republican, of Utah, and EMANUEL CELLER, Democrat, of New York, is currently a subject of House hearings in the Agriculture Committee. Sena-tors w ATKINS and O'MAHONEY both testified before the House group in support of H. R. 8536, introduced by Congressman DIXON.

Both of the Senators stressed that these · bills have bipartisan support in both branches of Congress. Further bipartisan support of this effort to return the packers to the jurisdiction of FTC is evidenced by the introduction of a similar bill by Congressman HARLAN HAGEN, Democrat, of California, who is a member of the House Agriculture Committee.

The House Judiciary and Commerce subcommittees will conclude hearings Monday on the companion House bills introduced by DIXON and CELLER, E. Y. BERRY, Republican, of South Dakota, and LEE METCALF, Democrat, of Montana.

Congressman W. R. POAGE, Democrat, of Texas, chairman of the House Livestock Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee, has indicated early executive action will be taken

12384 CONGRESSIONAI.. RECORD -HOUSE July 22 -0n the Dixon and Ha~n bill£ referred Mond ay to that subcommittee '8.t the eonclusion .of the Agriculture COmmittee hearings.

Senator WATKINS said that it may be possible for the House to conclude action on these bills by the time the Senate disposes of the civil-right legislation.

The Senator also was optimistic that S. 1356 would pass the Senate this session and that the President wouid eign the resulting measure before Congress adjQurns.

NUCLEAR NAVY PACES UNITED STATES ATOMIC INDUSTRY

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous -consent to extend my remarks at this point and include .an article from Nucleonics magazine, together with a table.

The SPEAKER. Is there objectwn to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objeetion. Mr. HOSMER. MT. Speaker, in 1954

and again in 1956 I have made extensive reports to the House on the peacetime developments in atomic energy, both a •t home and abroad. I intend to make another such report early in 1958. Meanwhile Mr. John E. Kenton, able news editor of Nucleonics magazine, has done a monumental job of recapitulating past, and projecting future, nuclear developments by the United States Navy.

I believe Kenton's work is of such high caliber, so thorough, .and of such widespread interest that it deserves both the widespread distribution and the permanency that this RECORD can give it.

Mr. Kenton's artfole, entitled "Nuclear Navy Paces United States Atomic Industry," appeared in the July issue of Nucleonics and with its accompanying table entitled u A Progress Report on the Nuclear Navy" reads as follows: NUCLEAR NAVY PACES UNITED STATES ATOMIC

INDUSTRY-75-100 REACTORS 0VE11 NEXT ~ YEARS LEADS INDUSTRY IN HlSTOltY'S BIGGEST RECONVEllSION PROGRAM

(By John E. Kenton) In the spacious, memento-filled Pentagon

omce of the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Arleigh A. Burke keeps on a large table next to b.ls desk a huge flat book. In it are outlined the two master plans for the Navy's long-range future fieet effective. One, revised each year, .covers the shipbuilding programs of the next 5 years. The other, less firmly 1ixed, extends 25 years (average life of a ship is 20-'25) and tries to cope with the question, Where is the Navy going? Right now the book contains the blueprint and the timetable f'or what is surely the most gigantic technical revolution ever <Carried out by deliberate plan over so short a period. of time: The .complete conversion .o'f the United States combat 1leet. to nuclear propulsion. A-s Admiral Burke likes to point out, it took 400 years for navies to 'Shift from spears to gunpowder, 75 years from sail to steam, but less than 12 years from the unlocking of the atom to nuclear power. It now looks as though the actual transformation o,f the :fleet may be close to being half carried out in a mere 18 years.1 It is

1 From April 1948, when the submarine r,eactor project was formally established at Argonne National Laboratory, to 1966, when the Navy hopes to 'commission its sixth nuclear aircraft carrier. By that year, other nuclear naval vessels may include, according to Nucleonics straightline projections, some 45 submarines, half a dozen guided-missile cruisers, and the beginning of a :flotilla of destroyers.

.already '8. -year 'Since the Navy laid down its cif BuShips Chief for nuclear enet"gy r.t the last nonnuclea:r submarine and "the sixth Navy. 'Under .him in NRB r .re about 100 proForrestaZ class superearrier will be, if Oon- :!essional and 85 clerical .stair • gregs approves Navy plans, the last oil-burning United States 4.attnp.

This has not yet ~egister.ed in the minds of people not 1mmecliately concerned. with the program nearly as widely as have the stories o! Na:ui:lilf£S and her sensational .suc-cess. Nor is 1t genet"ally appreciated that the Navy has already made the epoch-making 'decision to convert to nuelear power for au fighting ships. surface as well as submersible.

Wha't such a vast program means to a -civilian atomic energy equlJ>ment industry -struggling to be born is little 'Sh-Ort of stag--gering, pal'ticula.rly with attention having 'been primarily foe.used during the past 2 years on the -great Gore bill debate and the question of eiv1lian Teactor acceleration. M('!SnwhUe, the massive part of the present Navy program has, in a manner of speaking, sneaked up Ol'l. the seen1'. The present Navy -program, including the fiscal 1958 shipbuilding program now before Congress, involves ~O seagoing reactors plus 6 land-based -prototypes, au to be completed and operating by 1961; and no less than 40 more reactors are contemplated for carriers alone over the succeeding 5 years to 1966. And this is without counting the spare reactor vessels, spare vessel closure heads, spare canned rotor pumps-spares of all items of hardware, no matter how costly, that might require replacement. For nuclear propulsion is no exception to the Navy's standard operating procedure of providing spare parts of everything at dockside. It would be inconceivable for a N.avy unit to be immobilized in port for the 2 years that it takes to fabricate, for example, a replacement .reactor vessel. The volume of work on N.avy contracts is indeed so great that, far from a dearth of buSlness, some industry people see some danger of confl.lct between naval and civilian orders for the still-limited manufacturing facilities.

From the inception of the naval propulsion program through June 30, 1956, AEC .alone-exclusive of the Navy-,,-has spent $273.3 million on it, $182.5 million on research and development, $90.8 million on construction. The fiscal 1956 outlay of $50.7 million was a 28 percent increa.se over the $39.7 million spent in fiscal 1955~ The carrier program alone will raise this to a $350 mlllion a year business by 1958 or 1959 for a total of at least $500 million. The Navy far its part has spent a cool $1.5 billion for nuclear ships from Nautilus through the 1958 program.

Over and .above this rlirect contribution the naval program is making to the atomic industry are even greater indirect contributions. It was the Navy program, for ex.ample, that crash-developed the technology o! zirconium. and made it a usable material for civilian reactors. How many other examples might be cited will probably not be known as long as Na:utilus remains classified. And it should not be forgotten that Nautilus and. her Idaho prototype contain the first reactors in the world to produce power in usable quantities. Indeed, the first large United States civilian power station, PWR. originated as the CVR project (carrier vessel reactor) started by Westinghouse for the Navy .in 1952 and deferred by the latter in 1953.

Today's vast program 1s being carried out by a joint Navy-Atomic Energy Commission team. The word "joint" does not perhaps indicate sufficiently how close is the collaboration, for the hard core of key omcials wear two hats. They belong both to AEC's Naval Reactors Branch and to the Navy's Code 1500, the Bureau of Ships section for nuclear propulsion. This avoids duplication of staifing and redtape. It goes right to the top, with Rear Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, builder of Nautilus and the high priest of nuclear naval propulsion, holding both the titles of Chief of NRB at AEC and Deput y

OBJECTIVES

Primary purpose of the naval reactors program is to develop a group of propulsion plants in a wide range or power ratings. At the present time, the program encompasses a fa.mlly of five reactors, 'Of approxlmately the following sizes: 1,SOO shaft horsepower; '3,000-4:,000; 6,000-7,000; 15,000-1"7,000; and. '30,00o-40;-000 shaft horsepower. The figures are approXimate if only because the development -Of nuclear propulsion is advancing so -rapidly that a. project starting out to design, for example, a 4,000 'Shaft b-orsepower -plant may end up with one of 7,000 shaft horsepow,er. The intent is that these units be usable in any combination-two small or one large, depending -on hull characteris'ties -and other external factors. Another specification is to maximize the common features in each reactor size, to 'Simplify the problem of personnel training. This helps -explain the Navy's readiness to announce abandonment of sodium-cooled reactors following the initial tr.oubles with Seawolf .. and to concentrate on pressurized water cooling.

(Another reason was the weight advantage of water-cooled reactors .. which require less shielding than any other type we know at the present time, because water absorbs less radioactivity thah any of the other coolants," e:iqJlains BUShips Chief Rear Adm. Albert G. Mumma. "Though 1nit1a1ly it was felt th.at the reactor in the Seawo!f would promise a considerable amount of 1mprovement over the reactor ln the 'Nautilus, the additional shielding that was required as t.b.e state of the art developed negated to a large degree that advantage. • • • The improvement (in .shielding weight) since we .:first started the i shielding research) program may be a factor of two."

Three companies-Westinghouse. General Electric, and Combustion Engineering-are acting as designers, developers and prlme contractor.s on naval propulsion unlts, and the work is being carried out at three major development centers: Bettis atomic power division of Westinghouse, Pittsburgh; 'Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory .of GE at Schenectady, N. Y.; and Combustion's Nuclear Development Center, at Windsor. Conn.

THE. A-FLEET TODAY

The nuclear fleet built, bullding or authorized as of today-assuming Congr~s approves the 1958 shipbuilding program--comprlses ~9 submarines, 1 cruiser and 1 carrier plus a development project for a destroyer-size reactor. Beyond the 1958 building program, the -0nly thing definitely known is that the Navy intends to ask five further carriers, one a year through 1963. In addition, the Navy is working to develop an aircraft reactor for seaplanes, but this 1s being conducted administratively through AEC'S Aircraft Reactors Branch rather than through NRB.

The submarines are of seven types: Nautilus, Seawolf, :fleet-type attack, l'ad.ar-picket, hunter-killer, guided-missile-launcher, and high-speed attack.

Operational experience with the first two, already in service, is diooussed below; the Navy's plans and hopes for the others, and what they will demand by way of reactors, are covered above. A full nucl~ar task force of such ships is expected to be at sea by 1968.

"NAUTILUS" The story of Nautilus' spectacular success

is already well-known. After having steamed 69,138 statute miles during 5,393 hours underway in 26 months (39,738 of them during 3,065 hours submerged on 859 dives), the pioneer A-sub had her first core removed at her builders', the electric boat division of General Dynamics at Groton, Conn. She Js now cruising the Pacific on a new core which Westinghouse says is even more efficient than the first and represents a significant advance.

1957. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12385 It is said to have cost $2.2 million. Although the Navy has published reams about her reactor-powered galley, washing machines, jukebox, TV and movies (all but the galley unprecedented in a sub), her speed, horsepower and reactor details are of course military secrets. The Navy has said only that she can do over 20 knots submerged, and that she has averaged 20 knots on a submerged. run from Key West to New London, Conn. Occasional driblets of technical data filter through, as when Admiral Burke told Congress the temperature rise across Nautilus' reactor is 33° F. But probably quite a few more years will pass, and Nautilus' reactor will be obsolete, before a complete, technical description is available.

Nautilus' land-based prototype, the veteran STR Mark I in the Idaho desert at AEC's National Reactor Testing Station, has fulfilled its original functions; to prove nuclear power feasible for naval vessels, to find and eliminate design deficiencies in Nautilus' plant, and to train her crew. Now redesigned NRF for naval reactor facility, the unit is being used as a test facility to study new developments in the technology, design and operation of improved pressurized-water plants. It also got a new core after the first had operated 2Y:! years. The new core gave a stunning demonstration of the endurance of nuclear-powered ships by running nonstop for 66 days, long enough to have gone twice around the world.

Although most celebrated for her endurance, Nautilus has performed brilliantly on maneuvers and is forcing, and helping, Navy tacticians to rewrite the book. "Perhaps the most significant aspect of the performance of Nautilus has been her reliability," former Navy secretary Charles S. Thomas has said. "In 50,000 miles her engineering plant has not experienced a single disabling casualty."

Nautilus' cost may be harder to determine than her speed, even the Navy itself admits it may never know just how much the big sub cost; $55 million was the figure used in the press when she first went to sea January 17, 1955. But since, Secretary Thomas has told Congress the original cost was about $90 million. What makes it difficult is that one must distinguish whether one is counting total amount spent from start of a project to commissioning of a ship, including land prototype, metallurgical research, etc., or whether one is just totaling price tags on each tangible item in a ship.

What is certain is that costs are already slowly starting downward. Admiral Rickover thinks they will continue to fall until an A-sub costs only $10 million more than a diesel boat. Admiral Mumma told Congress this year that "the intensive developments of nuclear power for ships has cut the price of their atomic power mQre than in half • • *. Comparatively it costs about three times as much now for nuclear power, fuel, than it does for ordinary fuel, on a straight mileper-mile basis. The reason ls, first, this is a brandnew technology; it is not fully developed. We also have the necessity for very careful single-time processing instead of mass production techniques. So that we expect in a few years we will have the fuel costs where they are exactly identical. We hope as a matter of fact that in 10 years nuclear power will be cheaper."

"SEA WOLF"

The Navy's second nuclear sub has been at sea almost 6 months after long delays due to corrosion leakage in the steam genera tors and superheaters caused by high gamma activity from the primary coolant, sodium.

Admiral Burke told Congress that with her superheaters bypassed, Seawolf is operational but limited to 80 percent of designed horsepower rating and 90 percent of designed maximum speed. Admiral Rickover has said "it is probable that Seawolf's sodiumcooled plant will have to be replaced with a Nautilus-type pressurized water plant."

However, Navy spokesmen say no final decision has been reached, and in any case it is unlikely that such a change would be made until Seawolf has exhausted her present core. "Even in its damaged state," says Admiral Mumma, "Seawolf is a better submarine than any of our conventioDalpowered submarines."

AEC and Navy officials have i·epeatedly pointed out that when the first two A-subs' plant designs were first considered, sodium appeared to offer several advantages over water as a coolant including the promise of reducing weight and improving plant efficiency; and that the two plants were undertaken simultaneously because the need to develop a nuclear-powered submarine was great and it was not known then that either type would work. However, "even with satisfactory heat exchangers, the liquid sodium system does not prove to have the weight and performance advantages for shipboard use that were originally hope~ for it," said AEC Commissioner W. F. Libby. "The reason lies in the high gamma ray intensities of the liquid sodium coolant and the difficulties which result from even minor leakage." So the Navy has abandoned sodium cooling for shipboard us~, at the same time pointing out that the ~roJect has already paid off in data ob~a.ii:ed applicable to aircraft nuclear and civilian power.

Seawolf's own prototype plant was also subject to corrosion leak trouble, and has now been deactivated.

NEUTRONS IN THE NAVY

some of the greatest advantages of nuclear power are sometimes overlooked, peri::a~s because of their very obviousness. Thus it is not merely the great .endurance that nuclear power confers on a vessel that is the c~use for rejoicing among the Navy's ~trategi~ts. Even more important is the fact--mconc~ivable before Fermi-that a ship's cruisu~g speed equals her top speed. Where a ship used to operate at full power from 20 percent to as little as 1 percent of the time (because fossil fuel consumption increases as the cube of the speed), a reactor-powered ship can operate at full power 80 or 85 or 90 percent of the time. Submerged speed of a conventional World War II sub was 2-3 knots under ordinary conditions, and it could travel for only 1 hour at full speed of 8-9 knots. A conventional steam plant in a surface ship rarely ever ran more than 12 _hours cons~cu: tively at full speed in wartime. Nautilus Idaho prototype ran 1,600 hours nonstop ~t full speed. All the implications of what this will mean to fleet operations take an effort of the imagination to grasp.

But it also imposes a new condition. If ships are to operate at top power 90 percent instead of 20 percent of the time, obviously conventional components-not o~ly in nonnuclear portions of the propulsipn plant, but throughout the entire ship---:must be able to meet the new burden. Filters, strainers, burners, pumps, valves, bearingsall w111 have to be improved if they are to stand the strain. This is one of the greatest challenges !acing industry. Admiral Rickover has already pointed out that the reliability of conventional components in reactor plants is one of the softest spots in the development of nuclear propulsion.

Besides the full utilization of top speed, nuclear power holds out other technicaI and economic advantages to the Navy. As Admiral Mumma listed them for Nucleonics, atomic energy cuts forever the apron strings that tied a ship to within a specified dista.nce of a specified point-its fuel depot. It clears ships' topside of the clutter of uptakes and intakes, space that can now be properly utilized for improved radar and weapon equipment, giving the ship greater resistance to atomic warfare. It also makes better internal disposition possible. Elimination of fuel bunkers means a major reduction of

fire hazard. Vulnerability below the waterline is reduced, ability to resist battle damage of all kinds is heightened; the new machinery is more self-contained. Reactor shielding helps act as armorplate against actual physically inflicted damage, so that a reactor is "a pretty damn rugged, robust piece of equipment"; and furthermore, its vitals are farther in from the ship's skin.

"All these things are now sufficient, we consider," Admiral Mumma concludes, "to warrant going ahead with nuclear power in spite of the fact it weighs a little more and costs a little more. Weight will soon be competitive, I feel. We think we're damn lucky getting it for a few cents per kilowatthour."

THE NAVY BUILDERS

Nuclear shipbuilding poses new problems as well as great opportunities.

For one thing, there is the problem of plant capacity. There are not very many companies equipped to fabricate reactor pressure vessels of 8-inch steel plate; until now Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, and Foster Wheeler have been just about the only ones. Some industry observers have raised the question whether the immense machine tools needed for such work may not already have been conflictingly scheduled in advance to work on different vessels at the same time. However, some help is on the way with the entry of New York Shipbuilding Co. into the pressure-vessel fabricating field, and others may be expected to follow.

What impact atomic energy has on a shipyard is well told by Carleton Shugg, a former deputy general manager of AEC and since 1950 general manager of Electric Boat, builders of all of the first five prototype A-subs. The primary effect, as he sees it, is on personnel. During World War II Electric Boat had 9,000 employees at its main plant including less than a dozen graduate engineers. Today it has 5,800 employees and 350 engineers. Leadership has shifted to younger men-from men over 50 to men under 50 or a good deal younger still.

Certain special technical groups, such as shielding engineers and system control men, have had to be added to those usually found in a shipyard design force. "The problem of building up increased technical capacity and effectiveness has applied particularly to the groups engaged on systems engineering, systems control shielding, and stress calculations including special attention to transient conditions," Shugg explains. As an example he cites a pipe stress calculation group of 25 headed by a doctor of science for methods and a doctor of science for programing, working on a 2-shift operation, in conjunction with 2 IBM-650 computers.

Full-scale wooden mockups have to be used to a much greater extent, especially to prove out accessibility for maintenance purposes. "Since nuclear plants are capable of really continuous operation, a much greater degree of self-:supporting maintenance at sea must be possible fully to exploit continued operations," he points out.

"Purchasing personnel must work hand ln hand with engineering personnel concerning the specifications of unusual components, selection of source, and followup of progress," Shugg says. "We have learned the hard way that normal or routine field inspection and in-yard receipt inspection cannot be relied upon." Electric Boat has added much new test gear, metallurgical and other.

There are other special problems besetting the purchasing agent engaged in nuclear power work, according to Harlan Turner Jr., assistant chief naval architect at Electric Boat. An atomic purchasing agent has to deal with small quantities and can give no assurance to the supplier regarding repeat orders, since there are so few repeat


orders in this periOd of research and development-of rapid change. As a counter to this, however, is an inducement; the prospect of rapid expansion of the industry that may ultimately lead to large quantities.

Another trouble is that items often are called for that require development work. Unless they are very large, there is not likely to be any contract to encourage the supplier to carry out the development work, nor-often-even any assurance that he will

Project designation

Ship

Dcsi!!;na- Name ti on

YC'ar auLhor

izc<l

get the order if he does do the developing, because in so many cases the job is Government-sponsored and subject to the law requiring competitive bidding. This has been a frequent source of bitterness and disenchantment.

Electric Boat now has a staff of full-time expediters who do nothing but stay on the telephone or out on the road working with suppliers on nuclear submarine components-a new activity, since before everything

A progress report on the nuclear Navy

SUBMARINE

was bought off the shelf. The expediters use only friendly persuasion-"no clobbering"-and in fact much of their attention is directed inward: they find out what information the supplier is missing from Electric Boat, then turn their efforts inward to get the answers. Design of a component is ordered before t"abrication, and expediters must first see that the supplier furnishes plans on time, then expedite internally to get the plans approved for fabrication.

Shipbuiluer

SuppliC'r

'1~~t~ J t~~~1~-·2 PJ~~e 1-----,---,,.--------,.-----,----I ~qt tractor. L·zPe1d·esvc'~~:1 Core Pressurizer Steam 'I'ur- lions)

• ..,,, genera Lor bine ,

SlW (STR-1) • . Land prototype.

Arco, Idaho ___ __ -- ----- -- --------- -- ---- -- ------- -- ------- ------------ -- WcsL B&W ___ West__ B&W _____ FW _______ -- ------ - - - - --

9/30/5L ___ WesL B&W ___ We. L B&W ___ __ F "W ______ _ ·west.. S2W (STR-II). SSN-5iL . Nautilus ___ ____ _ 1952 Electric Bo;it, Groton, 3, 180 Conn. 319

SJG (SIR-A) •.. Land pro- W. Milton, NY.-------- --- - -- ---- -- --------- ----- ---------- --- - -------- GE .• . CE _____ GE . •• B&'.Y ___ __ ------- - - -----totype.

S2G (SIR-B) ___ SSN-5i5... Secnvolf__________ 1953 Electric Boat ____ _______ _

S3W (SFR) •••. SS r.578 ___ Skate ___________ _ 1955

S4W (SFR) •••. SSN-579 ___ Swordfish _______ _ 1955

S3W (SFR) ____ SSN-583 .. Sargo ____ _______ _ 1956

_S4W (SFR) ____ SSN- 584 . . Seadragon ______ _ 1956

S5W __ --------- SSN-585. . Skipjack ________ _ 195(i

__ •.. do . . -------------- -- -

Portsmouth, . N. H., Navy Y!lrd.

Mare Island, Calif., N avy Yard.

Portsmouth _____ ------- -

Electric Boat. __ --------

3,260 3/30/57.. . . . GE ___ CE .•••. GE __ _ B&W (2) _ GE ... 330

2, 100 257

2,J90 257

2, 190 2.57

2, 190 257

Jan. 1058 __ WcsL West_ __ _ West.. CE _______ West_ _____ West __ 44-45

Oct. 1958.-_ \Vest.. West.. .. WesL CE ______ _ West ______ WesL 44- 45

Oct. 1958 . . West.. B&W ___ WesL CE .••• •. . CE ___ ___ _ WesL 44- 45

Jan.19.59 __ West.. B&W __ _ We L CE ______ _ West__ ____ WesL 41-45

2, 700 Aug.19.'J9 __ West .. B&W .•. West . . FW _______ B&W (2) •• - ------- 59. 9 252

830 (SAR) _____ Land pro- West Milton, -------- -------------- - ----------- --------- - - ----------- GE ___ CE _____ M&C. B&vV ____ _ CE (2) ____ - ------- - ---~-totpye . N. Y.

S4G (SAR) _____ SSRN-58U. Triton ______ ____ _ 19511 19.'\fi 1957

ElcC'tric Ror,t____ ______ _ 5, 450 Oct. l!l59 . . GE . .. CE (2) __ M&C_ B&W ____ _ CE (4)_ ___ ------- - 91i GI. I <oG .

S3W ___________ SSGN- 587. Ifctlibut. _______ _ l\lfare Island ______ ______ --- ------- July 1959 __ West.. B&W ___ - --- - -- - CE ___ ____ Wet ____ __ West.. S5W. ---------- SSN-588. _ Scarnp. _ ------- - ____ _ <lo______ ______ ______ 2, 700 1960 _______ West __ B&W ___ ------- - FW ______ _ FW (2) ___ OE __ _

S5W __ _______ __ SSN-589 .. Scorpion ______ __ . 1957

S5W __ --------- SSN-590. _ Sculvin , . ! ----- -S5W •••••••••••. SSN-591.. Sharie __________ _

S5W ____________ SS!\-592. _ Snool:. -------- --

S5W •••.•• :..... SSN-593. - (?)--- - -- 7 -----~ -sic ___________ _ Land pro- Windsor, Conn

to type. s2c_ ----------- SSN-? __ __ - ------ -- -------- -85 w ___________ _ SSGN- ? __ -- --- - ---- ------- -s5w ___________ _

SSGN-'? __ -- ------- -- - - - ----85'.-V ___________ _ SSGN-?. _ --- ---- ------ - -- --

1957

1957

1957

1957

1958 HJ58 19f>8 1958

Electric Boat_ _____ : ___ _

In!!alls Shlpbnilcling; .Pascagoula, l\lfiss. ewport Npws (Va.)

· Shipbuilding & Drydock.

In gulls .. _ --- ------- ----r

252 2, 700

252 2, 700

252 2, 700

252

2, 700 252

2,sao 265

1960 ______ _ We~L ii&w __ _ ~ ------ - FW _______ FW (2) ___ GE __ _ <59

·lGGO ..• : •.. Wost__ ·B&W .. ~ - --~:~- - FW _______ FW (2) ___ GE .•.

1900 _______ West.. B&W ... ------- - FW ______ _ F'.Y (2)_;_ GE •••

1900 _______ WcsL B&W ___ ------- - :J)'W ______ _ FW (2) ___ a°E __ _

l!)(iO ______ _ WesL B&W ___ - ------- 1nv _______ FW 02) ___ -------- - - - -~-

m~: mt = ~~=-=~~ ===·======= ======= = ========== == == ========= = ======== ==== == Dec. 1961-. -------- ---------- ------- - ---- - - - - - - -- ----------- - ------- - _____ _

CRUISER

Fl'Y-----------1 CLGN-LI Long Beach ______ l 1957 I Bethlel1em Steel, Fore I River, Mass.

14,~ I Oct. moo __ , WesLI CE (2)+------+--------- --1 FW (8)--+-------1 87. 5

CARRIER

AlW (LSR) .••• Land1)ro- Arco, Idaho _____ ---------- ~ ------------·-------------------- Mid-l!l58 •. West.. FW (1). West.. B&W (2). West. (2) •. ------·- 30 totypc.

8 CE (IL . , l!~w (2) __ ~- . .

31,

A2W ___________ CV AN-L. (?)------ • ------- 1958 6 -------------------------- 5, {)()() . 196L______ West.. I•'W (4). '.fost .. ------------ West. (161 • West.. ... CE (4).. . . FW (lG) __ _

DESTROYER

DlG. -··---·· ·- Land West l\Iilton, proto- N. Y. ------~- --... ----- .. ·-------------~-- ---------- --·--------- GE ___ - --~--- ~----------- ---~-----------------------~---- -----type.

D2G ___________ DDN-1 ••• - ----------------- (?)

1 Upper figure opposite each entry shows displacement tonnage, lower shows length in foet.

2 Date of commissioning for Nautilns and Seawolf; target dates for complC'tion of others. Nautilm was commissioned before starting sea trials ou Jan. 7, 1955, but was not taken over by Navy until Apr. 22, 1955.

. .

3 Best estimate of total cost including Navy's cost for ship ::md AEC's cost fo.1 reactor. -

•No pressurizers in sodium-cooled syste.m. '5 more carriers sought by Navy, 1 each succeeding year, for total of Gin service

by 1966. HOW TO Rl~AD NUCLEAR NAVY AI.f'HA13ET SOUP

STR-Submarine T11ermal Reactor SIR-Submarine Intermediate Ueactor BAR-Submarine Advanced Reactor SFR-Submarine Fleet Reactor SRS-Submarlne Reactor, Small LSR-Large Ship Reactor

In late 1955, a new nomenclature was adopted, consisting of one letter indicating the type of vessel (S for submarine, A for aircraft carrier, F for frigate, D for destroyer); one number indicating the order of construction by the manuiactmer of tho reactor type; and one lotter for the initial of the manufacturer's name (W for \Vestinghouse, G for General Electric, C for Combustion Engineering). 'l'he new reactor designations are shown in the table. Navy vessel designations include:

SSN-Submarine, Nuclear SSRN-Submarino, Radar, Nuclear SSGN-Submarine, Guided-missile, Nuclear CLGN-Cruiscr, Light, Guided-missile, Nuclear CV AN-Carrier Vessel, Attack, Nuclcat·

Company abbreviations in the table are: West.-W ostinghouse B&W-Babcock & Wilcox CE-Combustion Engineering GE-General Electric FW-Foster Wheeler . M&C-1\Ictals & Controls

1957 CONGRESSIONAL · RECORD - HOUSE 12387 Mr. Kenton accompanied his article

with a pertinent description of the vari· ous elements of the task force of the future which is also of special interest. His description follows:

TASK FORCE OF THE FUTURE

Fleet-type sub: These are the first unglamorous, workaday production models of nuclear submarines. Skate, first of her class, was launched in May and is to be ready to go to sea in January. Swordfish is to be launched this month at Portsmouth, N. H., Naval Shipyard, where Seadragon is also building; and Mare Island Naval Shipyard near San Francisco is building Sargo. Cost of a Skate class submarine is plaeed at about 44 to 45 million dollars, half Nautilus' estimated cost.

Nautilus and Seawolf are both considerably larger than conventional subs, at 3,180 and 3,400 tons surface displace~ent respectively, they compare with the 1,600-1,900 tons the typical World War II subs displaced. It was to move back in the direction of a more compact-hence more difficult to detect--undersea fighting unit, once the principle of nuclear propulsion had been pr0ven, that Westinghouse was asked to develop a smaller, fl-eet--sub size reactor (SFR). The medium-size Skate-class boats, at 2,190 tons, are not as small as ·the · wartime subs, but are about 25 percent smaller than Nauti-

: lus, which · they resemble in silhouette. ··Their reactol's are about half ,the size of Nautilus' and have only about.half the output; there have been conflicting statements as to whether or not they will do 20 knots, but they will certainly be · slower than Nautilus. However the Navy points out they are intended to be an advance over the diesel Guppy-type attack sub and an im-

r provement on .conventional submarine technology-not an advance over the ·bigger.

·Nautilus. 1 The difI-erenees in S3W reactor plan ts

_going into· Skate -and Sargo and· ·the S4W type to equip Swordfish and Seadragon apparently involve only . differences in the shielding. It is understood that one ·has a conventional sl-eeve-type .shield around the

Guided-missile subs: Two conventionallydriven subs, Tunny and Barbero, have already demonstrated successfully that undersea craft can carry a guided missile (in this case Regulus), and in a matter of minutes surface, bring it out on deck, fire, and disappear below the surface again. Combination qf~ this ability with nuclear endurance creates a weapon that some military men consider the ultimate.

Accordingly, Halibut, a conventional diesel submarine designed specifically to carry guided missiles, was converted before keellaying to nuclear power. She is now building at Mare Island, and will have an S3W reactor plant. She will cost $61.1 million to build. The Navy, of course, cannot say how many missiles she will accommodate; however, where Barbero carried· one Regulus in an improvised tank-like hangar on deck, Halibut will store hers below decks in a missile-hangar Secretary Thomas described as "nearly as large as that of an entire submarine of World War I vintage."

So enthusiastic about this type is the Navy that 3 out of 4 subs in the 1958 shipbuilding program will be an improved, faster Halibuttype.

High-speed attack sub: This is in many way~ the most fantastic vessel in the Navy's whole fleet of_ fantastic new craft. This is a flying submarine that soars underwater as a plane flies through the air, a sub that -<>utmaneuvers destroyers, a boat that travels submerged at speeds that may reach 52 k.nots-60 miles per hour-according to authoritative speculations.

The project had its inception in the experimental submarine Albacore, built to test a new hull design resembling a whale rather than the usual cigar-shaped sub. Every

· projection has been eliminated .save the conning tower, thin like a dorsal fin; virtually no 1lat deck remains on her rounded back. Power is exerted through a si:ngle five-bladed screw (con-ventional subs as well as Nautilus, Seawolf, Skate are ·twin.,.screw); thii; permit~ smooth fairing of hull surfaces aft to reduce drag. Albacore's ·i;peed, like Nautilus' has '·B.~ver been diselosed other than by t~e cryptic ·phrase "over 20 knots"; but the Navy has admitted that despite her diesel-

Cruiser: U. S. S. Long Beach, the world's fi'rst nuclear-propelled surface ship, will be a guided-missile-armed light cruiser, although the designation of her twin reactors, FlW, .recalls the fact that she is the upgraded result of a project that began as a frigate (oversize destroyer). The twin-screw ship will boast no land-based prototype of her own, since she will use the same basic ·reactor as the carrier-the large ship reactor; so she will share the carrier's Idaho prototype for data needed. The LSR will be adaptable to large naval vessels in either single or multiple installations.

Total cost of the ship is set at $87.5 million. 'rhe Fore River yard of Bethlehem Steel's shipbuilding division at Quincy, Mass., will build Long Beach. Keel is to be laid next March. Although she is described as a 31-knot ship, Admiral Burke told Nucleonics a speed Of 40 knots is not inconceivable.

Carriers: Those who think the 60,000-ton supercarriers Forrestal and Saratoga are big may well boggle before the 85,000-ton atomic carrier the Navy has just received Congressional approval. for. This monster will be driven at 33 knots by a propulsion plant containing 8 reactors and 32 heat exchangers powering 4 screws. Like Nautilus, she will have _a range of _some 75,000 miles between core loadings. She will be the first vessel in which -there will be two reactors in tandem

· driving one propeller shaft. That is why not · one but two prototype reactors are being in

stalled in -the land-based hull section at t11e Idaho testing station. The $30 million facility will include all the machinery for one shaft of the carrier, to permit studies on the dynamics of two reactors on one screw. Con-

-struction began in April 1956. Last year Congress authorized expenditure

. reactor, while in the other it is largely the

. crew~tlmt is «shi-elded from ·the. :reactor; ·With · a.·lead-li~d -tunnel -for . passage- .;past .the re, actor compartment (similar to the crew tun-

. and-battery propulsion,. Albacore }.s "tJ;ie

. faster .sub, so etrect)v~ i~ ;tier teardrop huU

. design. .Her pilot and copilot are strapped into bucket seats and use airplane-type wheel-and-stick controls to command her ·movements, which they call hy.drobatics. Leather loops like those in subways . hang overhea-d for the benefit of crew· members. ·who perforce become straphangers when spe goes into a high-speed turn with a 30-degree bank.

· under · the - -1957 .Navy ·building ·· pregram of $22 million for advance procurement of long lead-time items. Westinghouse got a $13,,. 157,000 contract to design and furnish resic.tor . compartment components for the carrier-a figure leading to the belief that it covers only _a . reactor pressure vessels, not 8 complete reactors. Newport News ShipBuilding & Dry Dock Co., as subcontractor to Westinghouse, is working on application of this reactor plant to a carrier hull. This y.ear Con·gress is appropriating funds for the ship itsei.f. It may be an indication that nuclear power is aiready becoming conventional in the Navy that Admiral Mumma now sets the cost of the carrier at $314 million, as against the original estimate of $400 million. Of course, against this must be set the cost of the first four Forrestals, 175 to 212 million dollars each.

nel ·in the ·waist of a B-29) . . Radar-picket · sub: Only one of this type

has been authorized so far, but this electronic watchdog will be by far the world's biggest submarine· ever, and the 0nly tworeactor A-sub. · Triton, now ··already · well along in co:nstruction _ _jit El-ectric Boat, wHl displace a whopping 5,450 tons. She is designed to be fast enough to 'operat~ with a fast carrier task force and provide it · with radar information. Because of the advanced nature of her rea<:tors (GE's first pressurized water reactor job), a single prototype is being set up at West .Milton, adjacent to the Seawolf prototype site.

Hunter-kill.er sub: .. This.-m.idget .. submar.ine type will be an antisU.Q sub. When the Navy sought a third major contractor to enter the naval reactor program, Combustion Engineering Co. was given the assignment in July 1955 of developing the smallest reactor that could be used in a propulsion plant. This will be ·the smailest of the Navy's -five-

, reactor family, but Hke the others a pres- , surized water type. A prototype is to be built at GE's new $15 million nuclear engineering and development center at Windsor, Conn.

These hunter-killers are to be relatively inexpensive, so that they may be produced in quantity. Their small reactors will not · give them great speed, but this will not be · a disadvantage as their function will be to lie in wait for enemy attack submarines. The first submarine to be powered by so small a reactor was included in the 1958 shipbuilding program now before Congress.

The idea of marrying this "perfect" hull shape with a nuclear engine has had naval architects awestruck for the past two to three years. The marriage is already being consummated. Skipjack, first of the Albacorehulled A-subs, is ·rapidly taking shape on the ways at Electric Boat, alongside Triton. An six more like her have been authorized.:

Five have been contracted for. The sixth-the still-unnamed SSN-593-is being held back to permit further refinements to ·· be made in her hull design and her engineering plant; she is to be assigned to a navy yard in August.

Skipjack's S5W reactor, about the size of Nautilus', is a natural. evolutiQn of that pioneer · engine, and embodies major improvements in design simplification; in particular, core-changing is expected to be tremendously simplified. Westinghouse designers feel S5W incorporates the best features of STR and SFR, will be the simplest .naval reactor yet designed.

Skipjack wlll cost the Navy $59.9 million, her first five identical sisters less. When she sets out on her trials, it will mark a new epoch in man's going down into the sea in ships.

Top Navy strategists are excited about the potentialities of this_ ship. · Among the improvements in carrier construction that nuclear power will permit is emancipation from boiler uptakes and stacks, with consequent freedom to place the "island" anywhere on the·ffight ·deck, and to install in it·new highperform-ance radar.

In February, Admiral Burke presented to Congress a plan for rejuvenating the Navy's attack carri-er fleet. Burke would have one new nuclear flattop enter service each year from 1961 through 1966.

The jet age makes the larger carriers vital, Burke·holds; in addition, the nuclear carrier,

· having no bunker oil needs, will ship nearly twice the aviation fuel supply of Forrestal, doubling the time it can conduct air operations without replenishing avgas. It will have 4,000 square feet more flight-deck space and 2,000 square feet more hangar-deck space than Forrestal. Burke also points out that a nuclear parrier will save $80 million during a ship's 20-year life in fuel oil not burned..

Destroyers: The detroyer project is siiill furthest from realization because it is the

12388 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July-22 most difficult to achieve-for the same reason as aircraft nuclear propulsion is difficult: weight-to-power ratio must be so low. Destroyers have the most highly developed powerplants in the Navy as far as compactness and light weight are concerned, even more so than submarines. Destroyers• present ratio that nuclear propulsion must try to match is only 60 to 65 pounds per shaft horsepower. dry. Consequently some kind of technical breakthrough in weight reduction or in shielding may be necessary. This is the job that General Electric has taken on at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory with its DIG project. Depending on progress, a prototype may be budgeted in fiscal 1959 .or 1960. "In perhaps 1 or 2 years scientists might be able to get the pounds per horsepower of nuclear propulsion down .to where it can be put on the smaller ships-that's where it would do the most good," Admiral Burke told Nucleonics. "They're getting a. few pounds off each year. I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years it will be feasible to build plants on the same pounds-per-horsepower ratio as present engines." .

For the Navy, the stakes are great. Conventional destroyers must refuel at sea every 5 to 10 days, consequently are also quite weather-dependent. A destroyer reactor will therefore mean a tremendous gain both in operational :flexibility and in naval housekeeping. "The destroyer is where we need it [nuclear power) most," Navy Secretary Thomas S. Gates told Nucleonics. "That's the real workhorse of the Navy. We'd h a ve put it in there first if we could have."

BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill" <H. R. 192) to provide that members of the Board of · Education of the District of Columbia may be removed for cause, with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend

ment as follows: Strike out lines' 7 to 12, inclusive, and in

sert: "is amended by inserting ' (a) ' immediately after 'SEC. 2.' and by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: ' ( b) The judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have power to remove any member of the Board of Education at any time for adequate cause affecting his character and efficiency as a member, after a public hearing on a verified complaint filed by the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, or one of his assistants, and on issues framed by a verified answer. The United States District Court of the District of Columbia is empowered to promulgate rules, to carry out the purpose of this subsection.'"

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask if the gentleman has cleared this with the ranking minority member?

Mr. McMTI.,LAN. I spoke to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MARTIN] about it, and he said it was all right.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

There was no ·objection. The Senate amendment was concurred

in. A motion to reconsider was !aid on the

table.

LEST THE COCK CROW Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. PORTER] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, Jesus

told Peter, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.'' Faithful, solid Peter did indeed deny his Lord thrice in the hour of His peril and great was Peter's remorse when the crowing of the cock reminded him of the prediction and his three failures to acknowledge Jesus, Jesus in whom he believed and for whom he worked so devotedly.

If we citizens of the United States through our State Department deny democracy, in which we believe as the kind of government most in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, do we not face a similar painful awakening?

Lest the cock crow, I recommend we chang·e our present neutralistic policy toward Latin American nations and publicly discriminate between the democratic and despotic nations.

In.an attempt to bring this matter before this body, the State Department, and the public, I introduced two amendments to the Mutual Security Act last Friday. One provided that we give priority on the $5.00 million development loan fund for Latin American democracies in need. The other would have cut off all direct economic and military aid to· Latin

· American nation~ which the State Department determined to be dictatorships.

As I expected, they were defeated, the first one by 171 to 4; the second, 168 to 7. The House has 435 Members. Many of my friends have told me they refrained from voting or voted against the amendments because they felt they should have been considered previously by the Foreign Affairs Committee, something that had not been possible because I conceived them too late for the hearings.

Before I comment on the debate of these amendments and on the remarks of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. REECE] inserted in the same RECORD, let me say that Trujillo's $160,000 plus investigation of the Galindez case strikes me as useless and unnecessary, although I do admit I am pleased to see that Generalissimo Trujillo apparently is concerned about the consequences of the case.

It is useless because how can the findings of any such ip.vestigation be accepted by public opinion when the der'endant is paying substantial fees to the persons acting as both investigators and judges?

by me many times, has refused to invoke this treaty. Trujillo could save his money if he would invoke this treaty.

My constituent, Gerry Murphy, disappeared in the so-called Dominican Republic last December. The Dominicans

·gave us an official explanation of his murder and, after careful investigation, we officially rejected the explanation. We twice formally asked that one of their leading ministers make himself available for questioning and trial. Trujillo refused. This is a deadlock and the appropriate moment for the invocation of the Gondra Treaty.

Now, I should like to clarify and correct several matters appearing in Friday's RECORD.

First, the gentleman from California [Mr. JACKSON] failed to grasp the distinction I drew between giving aid to Tito and giving aid to Trujillo. The distinction is in terms of our security: If there is an observable military advantage in our doing business with a dictator, then I say ' we hold our nose and make the deal. Tito has something to off er for our aid; Trujillo does not.

The gentleman from California [Mr. JACKSON] after recognizing my point that the Organization of American States formally and emphatically approved the fostering of the "effective exercise of representative democracy," went on to cite article 15 of the OAS charter which defines ·intervention as ."any form of inter! erence or attempted threat against the personality of the state or against its political, economic and cultural elements."

The· gentleman from California then stated that my amendment to give "special consideration" to Latin American

· democracies in need would be a violation of the letter and spirit of the charter.

I cannot agree. It would conform exactly with article 5 (d) and with a provision in the preamble. I do grant that the language in article 15 is broad and reasonably susceptible of the interpretation made by the gentleman.

However, I refuse to accept his opinion that it would be intervention for us to use our development loan fund so as to give "special consideration" to democracies in need, or, as provided in my second amendment, for us to cut off all economic and military aid to the Latin American dictatorships.

How absurd and impractical the broad interpretation is becomes clearer upon reflection. The President has never publicly praised Colombia upon its overthrow on May 10, 1957, of dictatorship after 8 years. Why? Because the Venezuelan despot would take offense and this would be intervention.

It is unnecessary because the Gondra Treaty, 34 years old and to which both the United States and the so-called Dominican Republic are signatories, pro- . vides for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate controversies like this one.

The State Department will not officially designate any country as a dictatorship or a democracy . . They have written to me that this would be intervention.

I think we ought to stand up and publicly declare ourselves to be in sympathy with the democracies and against the despotisms. This seems to be the heart of the matter, saying out loud for all the world to hear that which we deeply believe.

Two experts of unassailable qualifications have advised me that the MurphyGalindez case should be so ref erred. Our State Department, although requested

This issue has enough complexities on the merits without bringing in false

-1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12389 issues connected with inaccuracies and personalities.

One inaccuracy, which I am sure the gentleman will· wish to correct, is the contention made in a letter written to my distinguished friend; Mr. ANFuso, of New York, saying that I had criticized the president of the Puerto Rican Bar Association. · · Let the record be set straight. I never have said or written anything, one way or the other, about this man or his as·sociation. I never knew his name until I read it in Mr. ANFuso's remarks. My main speech in Puerto·Rico was given at the University of Puerto Rico. I had no ground for complaints and I have made none. .

Mr. ANFuso's objection to my suggested change in our Latin American policy is that this speaking out would "sever us from friendly nations who are joined with us in the struggle against communism."

I have much respect and-affection for the able gentleman from New York. However, I dissent on these grounds:

First, the so-called Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua .would still be bound by treaties to co.:. operate in mutual defense. I am advocating no violations of treaties. If we wound their egos by forthrightly declaring what the American people have .always believed, then it is possible, but not probable, that the dictator would refuse to abide by these treaties or to renew them.

The basic . fact, understood by Milton Eisenhower and others ,who have looked into the situation, is that . a military attack on any _portion of the .Wes~ern Hemisphere will be met by United States -forces, planes, submarines, and troops, not those of any Latin American nation.

Another elementary, truth is that our present policy results .in our being identified with oppressors, not the oppressed .who then have reason· to turn to ·international communism for help against the tyrants: .

Experts agree . that. the danger from communism in Latin ·America is from subversion, not invasion. Therefore, we ought to fight. in the eco_nomic and psychological area.15 and recognize that the military defense is solely our responsi

: bility. The dictators by their existence en

.courage communism. Moreover, evi

.dence is clear that the very dictators who claim to be such strong supporters of the Un°ited States and allies in the struggle against communism have at .one . time or another made deals with the . Communists . to improve their own ,posi-tions.

Read Communism in Latin America, by Robert J. Alexander, just published

, by the Rutgers University Press, for the · authenticated details in this respect. Read how Trujillo brought the Communists back to his country so he would have a scapegoat h~ could view with alarm. He still has many Americans, some prominent, fooled on this score.

Another inaccuracy in Mr. ANFuso's remarks needs correction here. I do not feel it is right to support any dictator,

· Communist or anti-Communist, although I recognize it may be· expedient

in terms of our defense needs. I want to point out that I have not criticized our defense programs in Spain and Portugal, which my friend from New York lists with the so-called Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, as the nations I say we should no longer aid because their contribution to hemisphere defense is negligible and very likely would be given even if we did treat them as I recommend.

My views · are set forth in some detail in remarks I inserted in the body of the RECORD a week ago.

With respect to the opinions expressed in the debate by my able and good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCKI], I agree that the House had been in session, and working hard, for much too long a time when my amendment was introduced for anyone to expect "a major foreign policy discussion," which to my mind is needed in the area of Latin American affairs.

I join with the gentleman in believing it unfortunate "we have some who advocate softness and comradeship· with the butchers." - My ·· affable arid respected friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr·. MuLTER], stated without his usual precision of language that I "favored" Communist dictators while opposir:g Latin American dictators. My point, which · has already, been expressed in these -remarks, was in terms of · the defense of the Free World. from commu.:. nistic aggression, not in terms of favoritism or partiality for any dictator. - Mr. MULTER is mistaken that I ever -"belittled the fact that the Dominican Republic has b~ep and still is a place of refuge for persecuted Jews.'-' I am glad that 600 Jews have found haven there and that many others escaped through there from Nazi Germany. I do sug'gest that Trujillo's actual motive in helping the Jews, just as in seeming to be an anti-Communist and a good Catholic, is the consolidation of his own absolute power.

_Another very able and respected friend of mine. the keen and hard-hitting gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. FLoo:D,

-repeated Friday on the floor objections ·he had made to me in our personal discussions. He raised the questions of constitutionality and manners.

I know that under our Constitution the President and his Secretary of State have responsibility for our foreign policy. I ·know also that the Congress has the responsibility for representing the people and, in particular, the House of Representatives authorizes the spending of and appropriates the taxpayers' money.

All that my amendments would have done is told the President to give special consideration to Latin American democracies facing crises and not to give any of these funds to Latin American nations which the State Department, not • I or the House of Representatives or anybody else, determined to be dictatorships.

I am confident that my friend from Pennsylvania recognizes the responsibility of Members of Congress to speak out against administration policies which they believe detrimental.

As for the gentleman's contention that it would be bad manners to deal at

arm's length with our sister republics, I have only proposed that we do so with the dictatorships, and I stand by this, uncouth or not.

I agree with him that introducing a clean bill and having hearings is the proper way to deal with a matter of this importance. I shall do this in due course. However, under the circumstances, this seemed to me to be the best available way to launch the proposals.

Now, finally, turning to the second set of remarks on this subject inserted in the RECORD by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. REECE], I do appreciate his interest in these issues and assure him I am grateful for advice even when it is in the form of criticism. After all, we are a deliberative. body and this is a crucial area of policy.

I would, however, have preferred that the gentleman had written these remarks after having considered the remarks I inserted in the RECORD last Monday and Tuesday. For any Member or other person seeking to follow this exchange, and I hope and trust all our fragrance is not wasted on the desert air, it would be more enlightening to have subsequent remarks take into account what has been stated previously.

With this in mind I am not going to answer all the matters raised in this second set of remarks, but -I do ref er the gentleman to my previous -statements and express my hope that he will read ~em. ·

The gentleman insists that my "fomenting revolution" includes my active·, personal participation and insists he has ·been guilty of no "palpable distortion'~ in so stating. Even if my wife -would permit this, and she will not, I am not · inclined to take on thesE. fights, although I certainly · sympathize with any group which wants to replace a dictator with a democracy. And I have said so on many occasions- and will say so again and again, regardless of how many exiles or displaced persons may be in my audiences.

The gentleman throws the dictionary at me in connection with my statement that "my fight is against all L.atin Amer:. ican dictatorships." Indeed, it is against all dictatorships. He says "fight" means a violent physical struggle for victory. That proves, he asserts, I am not confining· my activities to expressions of disdain. · I think not.

One might say with some reason that Mr. REECE and I are "fighting," yet to date I know of no violent physical strug:.. . gle between us nor do I anticipate any such encounter. When I introduced myself to the gentleman on the floor Friday, we shook hands and had a brief but friendly conversation.

I say it is a "palpable distortion" for anyone to say I am "fomenting revolution" in the sense of ·"fight" as Mr. REECE'S · dictionary defines the word, seemingly to the exclusion of alternative definitions.

'!;'he gentleman and I can certainly agree on one statement he made. It goes pretty much to the crux of our debate.

He writes ·: ·"We can counsel and ·we can encourage other peoples to govern themselves similarly but may the day


never come when the United States can be called to task for active meddling and intervention into the internal affairs of other countries."

We probably part company on my contention that with respect to mutual security funds we should favor democrncies in need and d~ny Latin American dictatorships help. I do not call this "active meddling and intervention."

The gentleman's remarks about the Library of Congress employee who accompanied my group to Costa Rica and Colombia are unfounded, and, I feel, rather unfair. He must know that the Director of the Legislative Reference Service made his decision on the basis of 8 years of precedents and with full knowledge of the source of the expenses. I think it is rather unfair to a faithful civil servant doing her duty to call her my collaborator. The employee has helped me on several occasions in gathering material for some of my speeches, as I am told she has helped many other Congressmen on both sides of this and other issues. It was a Latin American newspaper that referred to the Library employee as my collaborator, and I think the gentleman from Tennessee's remarks about the Post editorial indicate that he would agree that we must not always accept a newspaper's judgment.

This newspaper also implies that the employee said that in carrying out my fight against dictators I was losing time as far as taking care of my Oregon voters is concerned. If this was said, I did not know it. To my knowledge, the employee was meticulous in refraining from making any remarks of her own at all. In any event, the statement is not accurate. I regard my concern in this area as directly related to the work I was sent to Congress to do. On the basis of my mail anq long-distance conversations, I am convinced my constituents are overwhelmingly in favor of my efforts which began because one of these constituents was murdered apparently at the command of a dictator.

The third member of our group on the trip to Colombia, the expenses for which were paid by El Tiempo, the great democratic newspaper in Bogota, was the Washington correspondent for the Po1·tland Oregonian and for three of the leading dailies in my congressional district. Perhaps the gentleman from Tennessee will concede that my arranging for his presence on the trip seems to show that I was very willing indeed that the voters in Oregon should be informed specifically as to what I was doing on these weekend excursions. Perhaps the gentleman from Tennessee will consent to go with me on my next visit to Latin America.

What about the Foreign Agents Registration Act? Mr. REECE believes it applies and that I, the Library of Congress employee, the newspaperman, and my administrative assistant who went with me to Puerto Rico should have registered under its provisions.

I suppose that means every Congressman who has stayed as Gov. MufiozMarin's guest . in his official residence, La Fortaleza, as I did, is also within the act, along with every Congressman and his aids who have visited the so-called

Dominican Republic or any other nation as a guest of the Govermnent.

I want to make it clear none of us received any money. Our tickets were bought, our hotel bills paid, and local transportation provided.

The question, so far as I know, has never been raised in these circumstances and certainly the Library of Congress authorities never mentioned anything of this sort.

I am taking steps to inquire as to the possible application of the act, since the gentleman has raised the question. To say, as the gentleman chose to say, that my not taking this into account earlier indicates my lack of respect for our laws is preposterous.

It is good to hear that my colleague holds no rancor for me. I certainly have none for him. I am delighted to discuss these policies on their merits, but I regret that he saw fit to bring in matters which appear irrelevant, unfair and ridiculous, and, with regard to the employee who can hardly make a defense under these circumstances, outrageous and scurrilm:._.

Certainly the gentleman well understands that anyone who chooses to attempt to change an established policy lays himself wide open for all kinds of attacks. I noted in the June issue of Gerald L. K. Smith's magazine, The Cross and the Flag, an editor's note to an article by the gentleman from Tennessee, stating that he is "one of the noble patriots of the Nation. He is a man of character and courage and has endured much persecution and abuse because of his deep devotion to American principle."

I am also aware of the gentleman's outstanding combat record in World War I. We may disagree on policies for Latin America and techniques of argument, but we certainly can agree as to our duty to .fight for that in which we believe regardless of the ensuing persecution and abuse, whatever their nature and however scurrilous and disgusting they maybe.

In closing let me remind the gentleman of the fourth fundamental standard of the Organization of American States that has emerged with the experience of years of growth and has helped guide the American states in their relationships, namely, "Lasting peace and well-being and prosperity of the American peoples are based on political democracy, rights of the individual without distinction as to race, nationality, creed or sex; and on concepts of social justice, social security, economic welfare and respect for the cultural values of the American countries."

The Charter of the OAS calls for cooperation among the American states for the achievement of these aims and for the ·education of all their peoples toward justice, freedom and peace.

Aims of this sort are not for neglect and cold storage in a treaty. They are the living goals for our policies. Our adherence to them should be shouted from the housetops, not compromised and soft-pedaled.

We favor the democracies and we hate the dictatorships. Lest the cock crow, and we be remorseful like Peter but un-

like Peter without a forgiving Master, let us now proclaim and acknowledge our faith in democracy for Latin America and all the world to hear.

FHA DOWNPAYMENTS Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. JARMAN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There · was no objection. Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has

been reported that the administration will not place into effect lower downpayment on FHA-insured loans approved in the new Housing Act. The Congress, in enacting this bill, gave the administration the authority to reduce downpayment requirements. This legislation was Clear recognition by the Congress of the urgent need for making housing more readily available to those unable· to meet the present downpayment requirements. There is now a great demand for homes, especially in the low-cost field, caused by the Nation's continuing population growth. The administration's refusal to enact the new low downpayment schedule has saddled the American home buying public and the home-building in<lustry with restrictive measures, such as the new discount-control features, while at the same time denying both the American buying public and the industry itself the benefits of the major reason for enacting any new housing legislation to aid lowering of downpayments. The administration is adhering to its tightmoney policy in an area where the most damage to citizens can be done-in the low and middle price bracket where they can best afford to buy.

My district, where all cities are experiencing great growth and rapid development, is bound to suffer from this shortsighted policy. It is reliably reported that there will be a shortage of housing by the first of the year if the intent of Congress is not carried out and FHA downpayment requirements lowered. In the Oklahoma City area alone, where Bureau of the Census figures indicated a tremendous growth in population last year, it is reported that housing construction declined in 1956 38 percent from the 1955 building. Surveys showing a 33-percent building decline in this area in the first 5 months of this year over the same period in 1956 indicate the increasing seriousness of an already drastic situation.

The administration, in following this reasoning, totally ignores . the mandate of the national legislature charged with the best interests of the public welfare and may well destroy the home-building industry which must satisfy the housing needs of this country, already becoming disgracefully inadequate. A comparison of the rate of home building with respect to our population growth shows that this country is not even maintaining the rate of home building which was in effect during the early days of the depression.

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12391 The administration must soon act to

rectify the plight of millions of Amer.:. icans, in need of housing and unable to buy at present rates, and the tragic condition of the home-building industry, or bear the responsibility for great damage to a vital segment of the American economy.

THE MURPHY HOSPITAL Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. 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 gentlewoman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.

Cpeaker, I was in Massachusetts on Saturday and again petit.ions and requests from all over the State were pouring in that the Murphy Army Hospital be kept open. They cannot understand why the other body was willing · to keep the hospital in Arkansas, which I heartily_ approve, yet be against the Murphy Hospital. They are very indignant and very urgent that something be done. It is greatly needed by our service men and women and their dependents and it is a great asset to our Commonwealth.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent leave of absence

was granted to: · Mr. WIDNALL, for an indefinite period· on account · of serious illness of his mother.

Mr. AVERY (at the request of Mr MARTIN), for 1 week on account of official business.

Mr. THOMPSON _of New Jersey <at the request of Mr. CHUDOFF) for the balance of the week on account of personal illness.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission to

address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

Mr. BAILEY for 30 minutes on Monday next.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS .By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to:

Mr. ALGER. Mr. BRAY. Mr. BURDICK and include extraneous

matter. Mr. MOULDER and include an article

and an editorial from the New York Times.

Mr. WALTER. Mr. HosMER in two instances, in each

to include extraneous matter. Mr. HOLIFIELD the remarks he made in

Committee of the Whole and include extraneous material.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

-move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 29 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 23, 1957, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive

communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as fallows:

1052. A letter from the Administrator, Veterans' Administration, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to make available to the Veterans' Administration additional sources for securing hospital, medical, and other key personnel"; to the Committee on Armed Services.

1053. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, relative to the case of John Koo Lee, A-2-201853, involving the pro-. visions of section, 6 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, as amended, and requesting that it be withdrawn from those before the congress and returned to the jurisdiction of this Service; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1054. A letter from President, Board of Commissioners, District of Columbia, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation entitled "A bill to amend the act regulating the bringing of actions for damages against the District of Columbia, approved February 28, 1933"; to the Committee on t he District of Columbia.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILL.3 AND RESOLUTIONS ,

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. COOPER: Committee on Ways -and Means. H. R. 8560. A bill to amend section 4141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for the purpose of repealing the manufacturers excise tax on children's phonograph records retailing for 25 cents or less; without amendment (Rept. No. 838). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. - Mr. DAWSON of Illinois: committee on Government Operations. Report on status of civil-defense legislation; without amendment (Rept. No. 839). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. DAWSON of Illinois: Committee on Government Operations. Report on operations of the Virgin Islands Government and the Virgin Islands Corporation; without amendment (Rept. No. 840). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. McFALL: H. R. 8845. A bill to amend section Se of

the Agricultural Adjustment Act (of 1933) , as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide for the extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by such section to all imported citrus fruits, and to sliced figs, dried figs, fig paste, and shelled walnuts; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. ROBERTS: H. R. 8846. A bill to amend the Civil Serv

ice Retirement Act to provide that benefits payable thereunder shall not be considered as income in determining eligibility of veterans for non-service-connected disability pensions; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

H. R. 8847. A bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 to provide that benefits payable under such act or the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 shall not be considered as income in determining eligibility of veterans for non-service-connected disability pensions; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

H. R . 8848. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide that benefits payable thereunder shall not be considered as income in determining eligibility of veterans for non-service-connected disability pensions; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. SIKES: H . R. 8849. A bill to provide scholarships

for veterans for study in the field of science and engineering and for other purposes; tq the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. VINSON: H. R . 8850. A bill to amend the Universal

Military Training and Service Act to authorize additional deferments in certain cases; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. ALLEN of California: H. R. 8851. A bill to amend the Civil Serv

ice Retirement Act with respect to annuities of Panama Canal ship pilots; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. METCALF: H. R. 8852. A bill to authorize the Secre

tary of Agriculture to conduct a compreheneive program of forest-fire research and to establish laboratories for research relating to forest fires, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. THOMPSON of Texas: H. R. 8853. A bill to direct the· Secretary

of the Army or his designee to convey a 7.4569 acre tract of land out of Fort CrockettMilitary Reservation, situated within the city of Galv.eston, county of Galveston, Tex., to the State of Texas; to the Committee on Armed Services.

.. By Mr. MEADER-: H. J : Res. 416. Joint resolution to author

ize the President to proclaim the first Sunday of August each year as National Family Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RAYBURN: H. Con. Res. 216. Concurrent resolution ex

pressing the gratitude of the Congress and the_ ~mer~c~n pe_c>_pl~ to. pr. _T~m p. Spies; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. CARNAHAN: H. Con. Res. 217. Concurrent resolution au

thorizing the printing as a House document of the brochure entitled "American Congressional Procedure"; to the Committee on House Administration.

MEMORIALS Under clause 4 9f rule XXII, memorials

were presented and referred as follows: By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legisla

ture of the State of Alabama, memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 46 of the State of Alabama, and requesting that an amendment be proposed to the Constitution of the United States requiring the election of all Federal judges and the limitation of the term of office; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. CLARK: H. R. 8854. A bill for the relief of Philip

Elias Hays; to the Committee on the Judi· ciary.

By Mr. EVINS: H. R. 8855. A bill to amend Private Law 498,

83d Congress (68 Stat. Al08), so as to permit

12392' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22 the payment of an attorney's fee; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HAGEN: H-:-R. 8856. A bill for the relief of Mrs.

Emilia Mantijo de Mendez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

. H. R. 8857. A bill for the relief of Francisco Gomez-Ramirez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. R. 8858. A bill for the relief of Enrique Rodriguez Garcia.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SCUDDER: H. R. 8859. A bill to quiet title and posses

sion with respect to certain real property in the <iounty of Humboldt, State of California; to the Committee on Government Operations.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

Small .Business-Testimony by George J. Burger, National Federation of Independent Business

EXTENSION OF RE.MARKS OF

HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Monday, July 22, 1957

Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, recently Mr. George J. Burger, vice president of the National Federation of Inde-" pendent Business, appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency to testify with reference to proposed legislation affecting the Small Business Administration. During his testimony, I engaged in a colloquy with him. I Mk that a partion of the colloquy be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

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

EXCERPTS FROM OPE~ HEARING ON SMALL• BUSINESS LEGISLATION, JUNE 3, 1957 .

Senator CAPEHART. Will the gentleman yield?

There is not any question that you and. your organization did a lot in .the early days of the Small Business Administration to help in formulating policies and programs, because the whole thing was new, and the Korean war was going on, and someone had to do it. · You and your organization did a splendid job in assisting. But once they started to stretch their legs and got the process working out, has it not worked well since then?

J: agree with you it should be on a permanent basis. Either that, or we should extend it for 5 years, or something of that sort. I do not like this year-to-year extension, or every 2 years. I agree with you on the policy. At least it should be every 5 years, or every 10 years. I have nothing against the policy, but do you not think it has been working fairly well?

Mr. BURGER. Senator CAPEHART, let me answer both your question and Senator CLARK'S. There was a statement made very recently, within the past 30 days, quoted in the press, by the Under Secretary of Commerce, or the Assistant Secretary of Commerce. He charged or stated, as it was told in the press, that . one of the contributing reasons for the failure of small business was the lack of managerial experience. We have heard that and we are wondering whether that theme or that thought goes down to the policy board in setting the overall policy.

Senator CAPEHART. It does not follow because some employee of the Department of Commerce, which has thousands and thousands of employees, made that statement, that that is the policy which they follow:

Mr. BURGER. But I believe that same gentleman acts as the Secretary of Commerce's alternate. I think in your counterpart committee, the House Banking and Currency Committee, just as a matter of information-

and maybe you members of the committee are aware of it--there have been recommendations made by other witnesses, and even by some of the members of the committee of an advisory board bringing in the Secretary of Commerce or his alternate, and a small-business man. We d1d not make the recommendation.

Senator CAPEHART. If I were going to make any recommendation on this subject it seems to me tha.t it might well be to keep the setup as it is, but have an advisory group of 25 men by regions in the United States, which would meet every quarter, or twice a year. Then they would make a report to the Co.ngress and to the President as to the general policies adopted by this group as to the operation of the Small Business Administration.

I would favor something like that, which I think might well be helpful, but I cannot agree with you on a one-man operation. I am not particularly wedded to having the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Commerce, but I think you would have· to have some group or board of directors in there to take their place, because you have it in your own business. Your small-business agency has a board of directors.

Mr. BURGER. Exactly. Senator CAPEHART. And they make the

policies. . Mr. BURGER. Not as far as legislative or economic programs are concerned. The members do.

Senator CAPEHART. But they make the general policies. They elect officers. We are here to listen to the witnesses and get their ideas and suggestions on what we are doing, but I do want to say this-and I want the record again to show it--that you were a great help, in my opinion, to the organization of this agency from its beginning. As you know, I was chairman of this committee when the bill was passed.

Mr. BURGER. That is right. Senator CAPEHART. You remember the big

debate we had on the floor of the Senate and the great interest there was in it. Then, after it was set up, you remember it took some little time to get it going, and going properly. We had a couple of directors. Mr. Barnes was the second director, was he not?

Mr. BURGER. That is right. He was acting counsel and moved in as director.

Senator CAPEHART. Yes. But I remember the great help you were to the committee, not only in writing the bill but also in getting it going well. I am under the impression it is doing exceptionally well. Am I right or wrong about that?

Mr. BURGER. It is. It is. Senator CAPEHART. I think if we make it

permanent, or extend it for 5-year periods, just like we do the Export-Import Bank, that would accomplish the purpose. I do not believe we should increase the amount that they can lend to any one concern. We should keep it a little-business organization.

Mr. BURGER. As to the ceiling on the loans_, we have some recommendations on that.

Senator CAPEHART. But I wish you could help us to get a graduated income tax for business.

Mr. BURGER. We are working on that, Senator CAPEHART.

Senator CAPEHART. And also a permanent amortization for the facilities that they buy.

Mr. BURGER. Our position on that is with you. We have been before the Senate Finance Committee.

Senator CAPEHART. I know you have been advocating both of those things. They will do more good than any two things or any dozen things we can do to help little business.

Mr. BURGER. The Senate Small Business Conunittee has recommended that the Administration be made a permanent agency, and since that time bills have been introduced by both Senators SPARKMAN and THYE providing that the agency be made a permanent a~ency of the Government.

I want to pay particular credit to the line of questioning put to me during my appearance before the Senate Small Business Committee by both Senators SPARKMAN and THYE as to the overall operation of the Small Business Administration during the life of the agency, but it would be my opi~ion that· they would concur in our recommendations: . Senator CLARK. This is again the Select Committee on Small Business you are referring to.

Mr. BURGER. I would like to see the day come that I have been fighting for for the l~st 6 years when we will have that a standing committee.

Senator p!:.APJC. Yes, but the only point I want to make is that it "is not this committee.

Mr. BURGER. I know it is not this committee.

Senator CAPEHART. You would not want to take that jurisdiction away from us?

Mr. BURGER. You know, Senator CAPEHART, the fight we made on that thing, and only a year ago last July I was able to get 72 Senators to go along with that.

Senator CAPEHART. I used to be en that Select Committee on Small Business myself.

Mr. BURGER. I will make that correction then.

Shortly after the agency was created in the summer of 1953, and continuing right up to the present moment, we have made it our personal interest to check at the top and the local levels into the operations of the Small Business Administration to make certain that the will of Congress is being carried out. To a degree, we feel satisfied that our action in this respect has been helpful to the agency itself and to small business which we represent.

In July 1956, speaking for the federation, in a conference with Dr. Arthur Burns, the then Economic Adviser to the President and chairman of the President's Cabinet Committee on Small Business, we made seven specific recommendations on small business to be considered by this group, and one of the principal recommendations was that the Small Business Administration be made a permanent agency and that full control be vested in the Administrator in setting the policy.

In our appearances, by invitation, before the. platform committees of both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in Chicago and San Francisco, again one of the prillcipal recommendations we .made before those groups was that the Small Business Administration be made a permanent agency, with control vested exclusively in the hands of the Administrator. There were no outward comments from members of the platform committees of bot h parties as to

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12393 any objections, and in this respect we are glad to note that after my appearance before the Small Business Committees of both the Senate and the House, Mr. Barnes, the Administrator, announced the Administration would favor the agency being made a pennanent agency.

There are bills presently before your committee which embody the recommendations of the membership of the National Federation of Independent Business, and in each instance the vote has been overwhelmingly in favor of adoption of these bills.

In our appearances before the Small Business Committees of the Congress we have made our recommendations as to the overall policy which should be used in a continuing agency which would be as Congress expected it to be, as a real help to efficient, progressive, independent business of all descriptions.

In my appearance before the House Banking Committee under date of May 15, it will be found, to the credit of that committee, their interrogation during the time I was on the stand was most complete as to the overall problem facing small business.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we know of no other agency in the Federal Government that is subject to policymaking in conjunction with any other Government agency. We do not believe that the Treasury Department has a full understanding of the problems of small business, and we hold the same view as it relates to the Department of Commerce. Both of these Departments have their rightful place in our Government, but they do not belong in any' direct action that will be helpful to small business.

Ernest Roedel, 1957 Driver of the Year

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. MORGAN M. MOULDER OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Speaker, each year the trucking industry honors a driver of the year for outstanding safety record and acts of heroism.

It is my pride and pleasure to congratulate Mr. Ernest Roedel, of New Franklin, Mo., the man who so rightly merits the title of "1957 Driver of the Year." The people of Missouri and the 11th Congressional District are proud of Ernest Roedel. He was chosen from approximately 7 million truckdrivers whose tremendous task is that of transporting the necessities of life to and from every part of our great country. Ernest Roedel has operated a big carrier truck over half a million miles without accident. His father, who also drives for a trucking firm, Freight Ways, has been driving a truck over the highways of America since 1940 without a single accident-like father, like son. The Roedels are out:standing citizens of Howard and Cooper Cow1ties of Missouri; the kind of citizens who make America great and strong.

This year, when the judges considered the fine records of truckdrivers nationwide, they were impressed with the heroism and quick thinking of Ernest Roedel, who is credited with saving the life of a small child.

The particular incident I ref er to happened last September on Highway 40,

CIII--779

near Boonville, Mo. Ernest saw a station wagon go out of control and plunge over a 75-foot embankment. He stopped his truck, sent a passing motorist for help, and then ran to the assistance of the victims.

The driver was dead. Two children were in a drainage ditch. Ernest Roedel pulled them from the water and danger of drowning. His prompt action is credited with saving the life of the 3-monthold child. The other child was severely injured and our driver administered first aid and kept her quiet, preventing further injury. The mother of the two children died before she could be taken to the hospital.

I want to spare you further details of this horrible accident-but it is men like Ernest whom we are so proud of-truckdrivers who consider safety and rendering aid on the highways as part of their job.

Indian Lands, Indian Rights, and the Stockgrower


HON. FRANCIS CASE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

IN THE SENATE OF .THE UNITED STATES


Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an article by me in the July 1957 issue of the South Dakota Stockgrower.

An explanation in part of S. 2446, the article points up some of the problems facing Indian and white alike in fractionated heirship lands.


INDIAN LANDS, INDIAN RIGHTS, AND THE STOCKGROWER

(By United States Senator FRANCIS CASE) We have all heard of the $64 question.

And of a $64,000 question. But not until I was reading a report by the Comptroller of the United States dealing with a land problem in South Dakota did I ever hear of a 'question divided into 54 trillion parts.

The report is entitled "Administration of Indian Lands by Bureau of Indian Affairs." ·The 54 trillions comes in as the lowest common denominator for the varying amounts of interest held by 99 heirs to a tract of 116 .acres of land taken by the Army engineers for Fort Randall Reservoir.

"Arrows Sticks in Him" (or Walking Many Arrows) was determined to have the right to 4 trillion, 199 billion, 168 million, 842 thousand, 4 hundred/54 trillionths of the 116 acres. The value of that lnterst was computed at $585.67. . On the other hand, Francis Hairy Chin was determined to have only 2 billion, 887 mil.lion, 967 thousand, 628/54 trillionths of an interest worth exactly 37 cents.

Only one other Indian heir had as many 54 trillionths of interest as had Walking Many

·Arrows. Four other Indians had the 37-cent interest. Three had a 43-cent interest.

Some ninety other Indians had interests . rang_ing from 64 cents to $384-all expressed in numbers of the 54 trillionths of an interest. I have been using 54 trillion as a round number. Actually, the fractional interests

were in terms o! a 54,268,714,886,400th share of the 116 acres.

ONLY HALF SINGLY OWNED The Comptroller General's report says

that as of June 30, 1954, out of 103,774 India'h allotments, only one-half were held by single owners whereas 28,576 were held by from 2 to 5 owners and 20,480 were held by 6 or more owners.

At the Billings area office, one allotment of 160 acres was owned by 78 heirs, another by 73 heirs. Those :figures were for February 1955.

In the 2 years that have elapsed-how many of those heirs have died and their interests passed on to others, with further fractionating of interests? Who knows?

The Comptroller General discovered: 1. Indian heirs ordinarily do not have the

facilities or cash to settle estates. 2. No economic incentive exists for the In

dians to simplify the status of heirship lands. 3. Indian family relationships are compli

cated. Marriage and divorce may follow tribal custom rather than State law.

COMPTROLLER RECOMMENDS ACTIO~ So, the Comptroller has now formally rec

ommended that "Congress consider legislation to authorize the Secretary o! the Interior to sell or partition inherited lands held under trust patent, without requiring the consent _of all competent owners and without limiting that authority, as at the present time, to cases where one or more of the heirs is determined to be incompetent."

I think the Comptroller simply threw up his hands as the Army engineers must have when they found that this mounting fractionating of interests required denominators of millionths, billionths, and trillionths to reach a common factor that could express the size of an heir's interest.

If that was the fix of the Comptroller Gen-. eral of the Army engineers in making a settlement for lands acquired once and for all, what is, or has been, the plight of the stockgrower who wanted to rent one of these tracts of land from Indian owners?

Or, of the Indian who finds himself with an interest in land that he cannot use, rent, or sell?

MANY COUNTIES ARE INVOLVED In Roberts County, S. Dak., thousands of

acres lie idle and produce weed seeds that wash down to fertile croplands because of the .practical impossibility of fixing responsi'bility and ability to manage the land. , In other counties with Indian lands, the problem is similar. And that goes for a very large number of counties in South Dakota.

Fractionated heirship Indian lands tantalize the Indian owners and torment the stockman who tries to use them.

Leasing through the agency offices brings a round of bookwork, frayed tempers, and frustration.

And, when heirship interest can be deter,mined, some Indians find themselves like the young r~turned soldier Sioux did in Denver, a few months back. He got a check for 7 cents as his share of a lease fee. It would cost him 10 cents to cash it.

How much it cost the Government to lease the land, determine the interests and mail the checks, you guess.

PROVISIONS OF S. 2446

So-once again I pave _introduced a bill to meet this problem. It is S. 2446 and I have put into it certain ideas developed through correspondence and conversation with many people, white and Indian.

This bill (S. 2446) specifically does these things:

1. Permits any Indian holding an undivided interest in trust land to petition in State court for partition o! interest, with a grant of fee title to result.

2. Reqµires the court to cause the lands to be sold at not less than appraised value


when partitioning of the land is not practicable and the proceeds distributed according to interests.

3. Permits the tribe of the reservation where the land is located to meet the high bid or appraised value and buy within 30 days-or, any member of the tribe within 20 days after the tribe's right expires.

4. Continues the land in trust for Indian heirs or purchasers not determined to be competent, but requires the Secretary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Indians determined to be competent or individuals who are not members of a tribe.

5. Permits a ny Indian to apply to any court with naturalization jurisdiction for a determination of free and unrestricted status if (a) honorably discharged from 2 years of peacetime or 90-day wartime military service, or (b) graduated from high school or equivalent, or (c) found to meet the requirements for a certificate of naturalization.

6. Authorizes the Secretary of Interior to issue an "interim trust patent" to any Indian who has a certificate of free and unrestricted status which "will keep such lands and property in a trust status and not subject to taxes until disposed of by him and title is transferred to another person."

HELPS BOTH INDIANS AND STOCKMEN The provisions of this bill will, in my

opinion, provide a fair answer to the mounting fract ionating of interests in Indian lands and contribute toward solving our so-called Indian problems in South Dakota.

The sole-owner Indian who wants to be on his own can seek a certificate in the circuit court that will give him fuil ·management of his property. And, if he wants to sell a tract of land and use the proceeds to buy a home where he has a job, he will be free to do so.

Until then, he can retain his presentlyowned land in a tax-exempt status. This is necessary for the protection o'f the Indian who does not have the resources as yet to operate his lands in the tax world. But if he sells- the lands, the buyer gets a fee patent and the lands go on the tax rolls.

The Indian boy or girl who has served in the Armed Forces the period of time which

· is recognized for veterans' benefits, or who has graduated · from high school ·or who meets the tests for naturalized aliens is clei>rly as entitled to free and unrestricted citizenship as the alien who joins the Foreign Legion or who goes through naturalization proceedings.

The stockman who wants to rent from the owners of Indian lands will know there is a procedure for the untangling of lands in probate and the establishing of rights and interests that are clear and unmistakable and fair to all concerned-with protection for the Indian or tribe who wants to exercise Indian preference. We will be glad to receive suggestions and comments. Ask for a copy of the bill if you want one by dropping me a card-FRANCIS CASE, 325 Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C.

Facts and Figures on the Need for a Naval Hospital in the Long Beach-Los Angeles Area


HON. CRAIG HOSMER OF CALIFORNIA


Monday, July 22, 1957 Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, the

United States Naval Hospital, Corona, located 46 miles from Pine and Ocean

Avenues, Long Beach, is the only major military hospital between Camp Pendleton and Fort Ord near Monterey. The mission of the hospital is to treat sick and injured military personnel with the object of expeditious return to duty, and to treat the dependents of active duty and retired military personnel when space and facilities are available. It has been ordered closed by the Navy Department.

The averages for the hospital for the first 6 months of 1957 are: (a) Beds available, 725; (b) bed patient load, 605.9 per day; (c) in-patient dependents, 92.9 per day, included in (b); (d) outpatient dependents, 146.4 per day; (e) baby deliveries, 3.48 per day.

Personnel served include members of all of the Armed Forces-active and retired. In the event of a disaster or emergency, Corona could be expanded to 1,-741 beds. · The numbers of personnel in the greater Los Angeles-Long BeachOrange County area eligible for care in the Naval Hospital, Corona are: (a) Navy active duty afioat _________ _ (b) Navy active duty ashore _______ _ (c) Active duty marines (El Toro and Santa Ana) _____________ _ (d) Retired/ Fleet Reserve __________ _ (e) Army active duty ______________ _ (f) Army retired __________________ _ (g) Air Force active duty ___ __ _____ _ (h) Air Force retired ___________ ____ _ {i) Coast Guard active duty ________ _

37,756 3,373

9 , 558 8,741 4,500

15, 000 1, 488 . 3, 100

500

TotaL---------------------.-- 84, 016

All of the above are by law entitled to hospitalization. (j) Dependents of active or retired

members. When space and facilities permit, hospitalization for these people is authorized (be sed on 1.5 per a.cti ve and 1.0 per retired mem-

. ber)------------------------ 112, 603 (a) to (i) above-----------------~- · s4,0l6

Grand totaL ________________ 196, 619

The Naval hospital in Haven at Long Beach Naval Shipyard has a bed capacity of 150 with an average of 97 per day utilized. This could be expanded to approximately 500 beds with modification to facilities and considerable increase in staff. The primary mission is service to forces afloat. Hospital berths are double-decked and environment cannot be of shore facility quality.

Camp Pendleton, 70 miles from Long Beach, has a bed capacity of 900, with between 600 and 900 in use each day.

The Naval station dispensary has a capacity of 15 beds with an average of 4.9 in use daily. The dispensary handles approximately 275 outpatients per day.

The Long Beach Veterans' Administration Memorial Hospital has a capacity of 1,380 beds, and is reportedly operating at capacity.

The Fort MacArthur station hospital has a bed capacity of 70 beds, which is being reduced to 60 beds, and has an average of between 27 and 30 beds utilized per day. Fort MacArthur has about 88 outpatients per day and serves all active duty Army personnel within a 70-mile radius.

City of Long Beach and incorporated Lakewood have a population of 373,807

which requires approximately 2,418 beds in normal times. At present, there is a total of 1,227 beds available with an urgent need for 1,191 additional b_eds. With the loss of 725 beds at Corona, the increase in patients to be handled~could not be absorbed by present civilian and/ or military hospitals now in existence.

This information is from studies made by the Community Welfare Council of Long Beach in October 1955. A survey Tuesday, October 18, 1955, at 5 p. m., showed not one hospital bed was available in St. Mary's, Community, or Seaside hospitals. This is a frequent occurrence and with the increase in population of approximately 2,500 per month this condition is not likely to improve until completion of additional hospital facilities authorized by Long Beach voters in November 1956. The estimated date of readiness of these facilities is January 1960.

The real and pressing need for a Naval hospital in the Long Beach-Los Angeles area is thus clear. Such a hospital was authorized by Congress in 1950. It is apparent that the Bureau of Medi.cine and Surgery and the Navy Department should include this item in the next budget. There is both a humane need and a more practical need from the exigencies of naval operations.

Is the Attorney General Trying To Imitate Sam Slick?


HON. USHER L: BURDICK OF NORTH DAKOTA



- Mr . . BURDICK. Mr. Speaker, when the civil-rights bill was before the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, nothing was said or intimated that this present bill, now before the Senate, contained provisions to enable the Federal Government to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court banning s'egregation.

The Attorney General this morning is quoted in the Washington Post as saying that one of the purposes of the bill is to give the Federal Governrn&nt more power than it now has to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court. Senator RussELL has been saying this right along, but I was sure that no such purpose ·was intended.

If this is the situation, then there was an undisclosed purpose behind the bill, and if it means what the Attorney General now says it means, I would not have voted for the bill. Not a word was said about this purpose by the Attorney General when he testified before the committee. Congressman KEATING, of New York, in charge of the bill, never inti·mated in any of his frequent statements that this was the purpose, or at least one of the purposes, of the bill.

Somebody has failed to disclose that which should have been disclosed, and it looks very much like the Judiciary Committee has been deceived. I don't believe

J

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12395 this hidden purpose was disclosed to Congressman KEATING. If he had known

. it, I am certain he would have disclosed it. Narrowing the investigation down as far as I can go, the conclusion is unescapable that there was a Sam Slick working on the matter, and who Sam Slick is, appears now to be the Attorney General.

Address by Hon. Chapman Revercomb, of West Virginia, Before the State Con· vention of the Sons of Italy


HON. CHAPMAN REVERCOMB OF WEST VIRGINIA



Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an address delivered by me before the State convention of the Sons of Italy, at Logan, W. Va., on July 15, 1957.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printeu. in the RECORD, as follows: ADDRESS BY SENATOR CHAPMAN REVERCOMB

BEFORE THE STATE CONVENTION OF THE SONS OF ITALY AT LOGAN, W. VA., JULY 15, 1957.

It is a great pleasure for m3 to meet with you here this evening on the occasion of your State convention and I want you to know that I feel highly honored to be your speaker.

I am acquainted with many of you personally and am proud to number among my friends and acquaintances hundreds of men and women throughout our State and Nation who are of Italian descent. I know from personal association with them that no more patriotic group of citizens is to be found in our land than those whose family descent is from Italy.

It can truly be said that you have helped make America the wonderful Nation that it is today. I congratulate each of you on the splendid contribution you have made to our State, and I want to take this opportunity to commend the Sons of Italy Lodges throughout the Nation. The good works of your organization stands out in countless communities throughout the land.

Few nations have contributed so much to civilization as the land to which you owe your origin. The culture your forebears bequeathed to the world through the centuries has enriched the lives of civilized men everywhere. The testimony to this contribution is to be found in the marvelous buildings they erected, in the great works of art they produced, in the new movements they originated for the betterment of mankind. The works of your painters, sculptors, musicians, writers and scientists are known and appr"eciated in every land. The contributions your patriots have made to the cause of human freedom likewise looms large in the annals of history.

Few nations experienced greater travail in emerging a free and united nation than did Italy. For centuries European armies fought their battles on her plains for continental supremacy. The Po Valley provided France and Austria for many decades with arena in which to wage war. From the downfall of the Roman Empire to the middle of the last century virtually every major power endeavored to establish a foothold on Italian

soil. They did not succeed. But political unification was long retarded.

Through the centuries of division and subjugation, independence and liberty was ever the dream of your people. That dream was to become a reality through the bold and daring action of men like Mazzini, Cavour, and Garibaldi, each of whom holds a distinct place in the history of Italy. Each of these great leaders knew how to channel in to the service of the Italian ca use those sovereign principles of liberty and nationality.

No more inspiring hope for mankind has been expressed than that voiced by Mazzini when he said:

"I raise my vision to the future and foresee the people arising in their majesty, brothers in the same faith, with a sole bond of equality and love and an ideal of civic virtue which daily increases in beauty and power. I foresee the people of the future who have not been spoiled by luxury, who have not been driven by misery, conscious of their rights and duties."

Permit me to dwell briefly on the great issues that face us in this era. The age-old aspiration of man to be free is more dominant everywhere in the world today than at any previous time in history. It warns us that the freedom we enjoy here in America is the most priceless heritage we possess. A1; the same time, it makes us aware that freedom once won is not eternal; it has to be jealously guarded against the recurring disease of tyranny.

It is significant to note that in our lifetime most of the world's people have changed their forms of government. Since the end of World War II, no less than 19 countries have won their independenceand during the same brief span of time, several hundred million other people have become enslaved by dictatorial Communist regimes.

Communism, which now has inflicted the disease of tyranny on nearly a billion people, is inflamed with fevers as freedom struggles to reassert itself in nations like Poland and Hungary. And who can tell whether the pressure of this struggle for freedom may not burst the seams of the Iron Curtain and involve the FTee World in military action?

Elsewhere in the world, tensions are equally great. A militant nationalism possesses the former colonial areas of the world as they struggle for independence. Great empires, such as Britain and France, are shrinking as their former possessions and power fall away.

We are living in a revolutionary age-perhaps the most revolutionary age in recorded history. The world has changed more in the last 40 years than in the previous 400, much more in the last decade than in the last half century.

Science spawns new and terrible weapo~, such as the H-bomb, the jet plane, and guided missiles, which are capable of unbelievable destruction.

Against this background, ready to exploit every weakness, every difficulty in nations not yet under domination, we have the specter of an evil force that would destroy the way of life enjoyed by the people of this country and free men everywhere.

Even if we in this country had the assurance that communism did not include the destruction of the United States-and our assurances are all to the contrary-we would have sufficient reason to oppose it. We know from experience that man and his immortal destiny will always seek freedom and that freedom long denied builds up irrepressible pressures. A world in which almost one-half is held in subjugation is a world in which the tensions are such that no one can live in complete peace and security. In addition, the very principles of communism fly in the face of man's timeless quest for self-betterment.

Communism rejects every value man holds sacred-the dignity of man, the inde-

pendence of nations, free governments, freedom of enterprise, religion, and of the press, the right to private property, and the precepts of morality and humanitarianism. Communism openly sows hostility. It employs duplicity, conspiracy, betrayal, subversion, aggression, and revolution.

Therefore, our first concern must be for the security of our Nation and our people.

We know that conditions are such in the world that we must maintain a defense force capable of deterring aggression in every area of the world vital to our own security.

How best to provide such a defense force is a question that looms more and more important in this age of revolutionary changes. Scientific developments are taking place so rapidly that our whole concept of defense has changed radically in the last few years.

For example, the modern B-52 atomic jet bomber can place :::nore explosive force over a target on a single mission than all the thousands of planes that flew many thousands of missions in World War II. Just last week it was announced that a new jet bomber, far more powerful than the B-52, has been completed and tested. Thus, each new scientific development inevitably produces revolutionary changes in our defense program.

Under these circumstances, I am convinced that if we are to maintain a defense force adequate to meet our changing needs, we must rely more and more on a professional Army, Navy, ,and Air Force made up of volunteers.

I am convinced that the present policy of using the draft to replenish our military forces is not only more expensive but also gives the Nation less security than would a smaller, highly trained professional army.

Men who are drafted today are out in 2 years. New methods and machines are being developed so rapidly that the training a man receives today may be entirely outmoded within a year or two.

What we need ls a highly trained volunteer Army and National Guard equipped with the most modern weapons available. In my judgment, this would give us greater security at less cost than the present draft system.

Next to providing for the Nation's security, our second major concern in this age of revolutionary changes mu3t be to foster a sound and strong economy here at home for the benefit of all our people.

From the Nation's beginning to the present time, America has undergone vast changes. Its growth and development have been fabulous, certainly far beyond the dreams of any of its founders.

The most significant thing about this remarkable growth, in my judgment, is the fact that it has been achieved under conditions of freedom which permit every individual the opportunity to make of his life what he will.

We have grown from a nation of 3 million people with a gross national income of less than $1 billion to a nation of 170 million and a gross national income of more than $400 billion. Our people are better fed, better clothed, better housed, and enjoy better health than any other people anywhere else in the world. We have reached the highest standard of living enjoyed by any people in all history. Today there are gainfully employed more than 65 million persons and our economy continues to expand.

This is not to say there are no serious problems facing us here at home. However, it is my conviction that if we do not sacrifice the priceless principles of freedom and liberty which have made America a great, good, and united nation of people, we shall retain · the strength to triumph over any adversity.

I am reminded at this point of a statement made by Benjamin Franklin when he emerged from Philadelphia's Independence Hall to announce to the waiting throng that a Constitution had at least been adopted for

12396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE July 22 the new Nation. A woman rushed up to him and cried:

"Pray tell us, Mr. Franklin, what kind of a government have you given us?"

He replied: "A republic-if you can keep it."

A free form of government we still have today, but the challenge to keep it is as great today as it was in 1787.

And as we fervently seek the pathway of peace and labor together to maintain a strong economy, and to improve the living standards of all our people, let us not forget the words of a great American spoken nearly a century ago. He said:

"The primary cause of our great prosperity is the principle of liberty for all-the principle that clears the path for all-gives hope to all-and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all."

Address by Hon. Earl Wilson Before the Convention of Indiana Veterans of World War I, lndianapotis, Ind., _July 20, 1957 '


HON. WILLIAM G. BRAY OF INDIANA


Monday, July 22, 1957 Mr. BRAY. Mr. Speaker, under lea~e

to extend my-remarks, I "include the fol. lowing text of a speech made . b.y our · colleague, ·Representative EARL WILSON, · of the Ninth Indiana Congressional District, before the convention of Indiana Veterans of World War I in Indianapolis

. on July 20. Mr. WILSON quotes some statistical material relative to tnese veterans which I deem most worthy of note: ADDRESS OF HON. EARL WILSON BEFORE VET

ERANS OF WORLD WAR I AT INDIANAPOLIS, IND., ON JULY 20, 1957 My friends, it is indeed a great honor to

be invited to appear today before this gathering of Indiana veterans of our first great world war. , ,

They called you doughboys back there in - 1917 and 1918, when you were at the peak of your glory-in the very prime of vigorous young manhood. There were nearly 5 million of you in uniform.

When old Kaiser Wilhelm officially threw in the sponge on that memorable day of November 11, 1918, you fellows were .heroes throughout the world. You came marching home-victorious, happy, and singing lusty French songs. You were paraded, wined, and dined in every city and town across the land. You marched behind thousands of bands playing grand old tunes like Beauti-

. ful Katie, Four Leaf Clover, Over There, How You Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farmand the many other catchy and never-tobe-forgotten melodies of that wonderful period.

It brings a lump to the throat to think back over those good old days-the days when the world and our own beloved country seemed · on the threshold of a bright new life. Those were the days before the

·H-bomb-and before planes and guided missiles which travel faster than sight or sound.

It was. co.mmon, in those days, ~ speak of the world sitting ·on a powder keg when we referred to ticklish international situations which might ·1ead to war. Today the

world literally sits on the very brink of eternity, faced with forces of destruction

. which can-if loosened by irresponsible men or governments-wipe out all civilization, the world over, in a matter of hours cir days. This is indeed a period of great anxiety.

However, I believe we can be certain of these comforting facts:

That all of our wars, all our scientific and other discoveries, all our pa.rticipation in world affairs-are distinct parts of the great pattern of human progress.

Certainly you doughboys of World War I played important parts. You made everlast-

. ing contributions to the advancement of America and of the world. You saved the world for democracy. You gave this country the strength and the necessary breathing time to get set for later onslaughts by enemies of the Free World.

I am absolutely certain-and I know this belief is shared by millions of other Americans-that ours might well be an enslaved or a second-rate nation today were it not for the victories you achieved nearly 40 years ago.

Forty years is not a long time, as history records the progress of nations and of civilizations.

Yet, it is a very long time when measured against the life expectancy of mortal man. The 3 score and 10 years as mentioned in the Bible still is accepted as the. normal limit of human life. Beyond that, a. man is

. considered to be living on borrowed time. Thanks to advances in science and medicine, howeve~·. more and more of our people are living-hale, hearty, and happy-long past their 70th birthdays.

There are very few doughboys who are not · crowding 69 years. Some are a bit youngerbut many more are .older. In fact, the average age of World War I veterans on last De

. cember 31 was 62.8 years. That was 7 months

. ago, so we can assume that the average age right now is more than 63 years.

Before leaving Washington yesterday I did some researching at the Veterans' Administration. I found some very interesting

· material. · I found there were 4,744,000 men in uni

form in World War I-Army, Navy, and Marines. On May 31, 1956, there were 3,090,000 of these men still living. OU' May 31, 1957, there were 2,980,000 still living. This means, then, that up to now nearly

· 2 million of your buddies of that war have gone on to the Great Beyond.

The rate of death of World War I vetera~s now is figured by the Veterans' Administration to be about 7,500 per month. For the next several years the ·deaths will average about 8,500 a month. After that, the average will be much higher.

In Indiana, we had 80,000 ·world War I · veterans on September 30, 1956. Six months later, o:n March 31, 1957, the number had fallen to 79,000. This means that Hoosier veterans are dying at the rate of 2,000 a year.

In VA hospitals throughout America there are about 44,000 World War I veterans. They represent about 40 percent of all the VA hospital load. The other 60 percent represents

· veterans of later conflicts and of the Spanish-American War.

On May 31, 1957, there were 216,395 of your comrades drawing disabi~ity compensation, which means compensation for dis

. abilities suffered while they were in uniform. Their average payments amount to $955.99

. per year, or $79.67 a month. · · On the same date there were 593,348 World

War I veterans drawing disability pensions averaging $898 per year, or $74.84 a month. To draw this pension, a veteran must, among other things, suffer total disability from nonservice causes, and his income must be below $).,400 a year if he is unmarried, and $2,700. a year if he has dependents. ·

In Indiana we have about 6,000 buddies drawing disability c.ompensations, and about 14,000 drawing disability pensions.

All these figures mean that we now have something more than 2 million \Yorld war I veterans-averaging over 63 years in agewho draw no compensation from their Government.

I have been an Indiana Congressman for 17 consecutive years. When Congress reassembles next January, I will be entering my 18th year.

I am the direct representative of many of you who are here tonight--you who are from any of the 14 counties comprising my Congressional district. But I want to emphasize that I regard myself as the representative-as a champion in Congress-of all veterans of World War I, regardless of where they happen to live, what color they happen to be, or what religion they. happen to pro-· fess.

I feel a similar obligation to veterans of all Amerlcan wars.

My friends, I have been in Flanders field. I have looked upon the row on row of crosses marking the graves of doughboys, as far as the eye can see. I have been in Arlington National Cemetery. I have stood before vast fields of American soldier graves in other parts of the world.

Many of you here right now were actual witnesses to the deaths of your comrades. Perhaps you helped to carry their lifeless and torn bodies back from the front lines .

I say to you now that--but -for the grace of God-any of you here tonight could be lying in those graves, under the little white crosses in Flanders field or in some other corner of the world.

You took the risk. You put up your lives. so that America might continue · to be the

· land of the free, ·and the home of the brave . ; You demanded nothing from your Government when you were taking that supreme risk.

The· fact that you survived-that you were not killed or -maimed-does not lessen the gratitude and . the obligation due to you from your country.

At the close of 'World War I you veterans · formed some wonderful, effective and helpful organizations which represented you and .fought for your rights in many places. These were organizations such as the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars-and others.

As America went into World War II, the Korean war and lesser conflicts, the scope and membership of these organizations, which you had formed, expanded to take in the younger veterans. This is well and good, for these younger veterans certainly deserved recognition and help.

However, it is unfortunate that you heroes and veterans of World War I were edged into

. the background as these younger veterans of later. wars came to the forefront.

Seeing these conditions developing, you . older veterans felt the necessity of forming a new organization devoted entirely to your

. own particular problems. You organized as

. the Veterans of World war I, and that is why you are here tonight .

I am most happy to note that the Indiana department of your organization is one of

_the most active and effective in the setup. You are fortunate in having officials like Denton Opp, Cap Armstrong, Wilbur Cochran, and others. They are hard-hitters, always on the ball.

I regard your World War I organization as very definitely necessary. Your problems are unlike· those of the younger veterans, and you must work to present your case before the Nation.

Your present objective of getting a charter, through an act of Congress, which would give your organizat~on the same standing as that enjoyed by the three other major organizations, is · a most worthy one. It is

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12397 essential that you be duly recognized as a properly instituted body by the Veterans' Administration.

Your other major objectives-a monthly pension of $100 for every honorably discharged World War I veteran with the required length of service-is one with which I am honored to be identified in the House.

As most of you know, my bill-known as H. R. 2201-would grant $100 per month as a pension to all qualified World War I veterans of 60 years or older, if they apply for it. This bill now is before the House Commitee on Veterans' Affairs.

An accomplishment such as is sought in my pension bill is indeed a difficult oneparticularly during this period of pressure against Federal spending. I am sure, however, that I am making progress in getting new support from my_ colleagues in Congress. This will take time. Proposals involving new expenditures of Federal money always do.

I urge that you veterans do not become discouraged, and that you do your best to enlist new support for the pension measure.

Before closing, I would like to leave one more thought with you-and I regard it as being of life-and-death importance.

Your country today. is face to face with the most deadly enemy in its history. The combined effort of all Americans-of all ages, races, and creeds-is necessary if America is to emerge victorious.

I refer, my friends, to the threat of Red Russian communism.

This is the kind of enemy we have never .before faced. This enemy confidently expects to conquer America without firing a shot. He would gain victory by pitting class against class, race against race, by plunging us into bitter internal strife which he hopes would mean actual armed civil war and bloodshed of Americans on American soil. He would have us financially and morally bankrupt through oppressive taxation, an overload of spending, a steadily rising inflation, constantly plunging the · value of American dollars to lower and lower levels. He would have us assume terrific obligations in all corners of the world, spreading our dollars, our resources, our manpower so thin as to leave no reserve for our national protection. He would encourage us into complacency, into a false feeling of security that would cause us to fall quickly before a sudden knockout punch which he could administer at his own will.

Millions of American patriots today are . worried-greatly worried.

They fear that we, as a nation, are falling into the Kremlin trap-wasting our resources and loading intolerable burdens on our industries, our people and our future generations. Millions are horrified by our failure to reduce the great national debt in this era of unmatched production, income and employment. They are worried about our $37 billion defense budget, about the extent and the cost of our so-called foreign aid.

They are heartsick about many other things which, to them, do not indicate a healthy state of affairs for the Nation they are trying to build for their children.

I will not attempt here to discuss the state of our Federal finances, or our world policies. I will say, however, that I am worried.

This is a time for every American-regardless of age, color, sex, or religion-to take a long and thoughtful look at qonditions. Then he should let his convictions be known-particularly to the people he has in public office.

I said it a minute ago-and I'd like to emphasize it now: We are in a new kind of war-in it up to our necks. The call to arms must be heard and answered by all our people, from one end of this great land to the other.

Address by Hon. Herman Talmadge, of Georgia, Before Annual Department Convention, American Legion of Georgia ·


HON. HERMAN E. TALMADGE OF GEORGIA



Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the text of the address which I delivered on Saturday, July 20, 1957, before the annual department convention of the American Legion of Georgia, which was held at the Bon Air Hotel, in Augusta, Ga.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD· as follows: ADDRESS BY SENATOR HERMAN E. TALMADGE BE

FORE THE ANNUAL DEPARTMENT CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION OF GEORGIA HELD AT THE BON AIR HOTEL IN AUGUSTA, AT THE GEORGIAN DINNER ATI'ENDED BY SOME 850 LEGIONNAIRES, THEIR WIVES, AND MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN LEGION AUXILIARY-THE SENATOR WAS INVITED To SPEAK BY DEPARTMENT COMMANDER GEORGE OSBORNE OF MARIETl"A -

Commander Osborne, Mrs. Hodgson, distinguished guests, ladies of the American Legion Auxiliary, and my fellow Legionnaires, it is gratifying to me that events in Washington were such that it was possible for me to get away these few hours to be with you on this memorable and traditional occasion.

I recall with fond memories other occasions in years past when I have had the privilege of meeting with you, discussing our mutual hopes for Georgia and exchanging ideas for the advancement of our State and region.· .. I feel a close attachment for this organization.

I stand with you in your ranks and join you in supporting. the imperishable principles for which you stand.

Our common bond as members of the American Legion and former comrades in arms is an enduring one.

I value my membership in the American Legion.

I know that this is one organization which is working 24 hours a day, every day, for our American way of life.

When I think of the Legion and of all for which it stands, there comes to mind the pages of our history that record this land's greatest triumphs and deeds of Americans far beyond the usual . standard of loyalty, patriotism, bravery, and sacrifice.

I think of San Juan Hill, the Marne, Flanders, Belleau Wood, Chateau-Thierry, the Argonne Forest, North Africa, Sicily, Mount Cassino, Tokyo, Ploesti, Schweinfort, Bremerhaven, Normady, the Bulge, Bataan, Corregidor, Midway, Guam, Guadalcanal, Inchon, and Heartbreak Ridge. I think of all those other sanguinary battles which have been waged in the annals of our Republic-battles which have been fought at so great cost in lives and material substance.

The American Legion has not forgotten. On no occasion has the American Legion

ever failed to stand up and speak out vigorously in defense of our institutions and ideals and for maintenance of our guaranties of liberty and freedom. It has done so courageously, sometimes in face of severe

hostility and at actual peril to the organization itself.

The undeviating record of the Legion, therefore, has been, and ever will be, to keep faith with those Americans who have gone on before, many of whom made the supreme sacrifice for the cause of freedom.

My friends, with that past record of the Legion behind us, and with solemn dedication to the future, I want to take this opportunity of discussi.ng with you the most deadly peril ever to confront us as a Nation.

That threat is the sustained and vicious attacks now being waged on two broad fronts, the objective of which is the utter annihilation of our system of representative constitutional government in this country.

These attacks, clever and calculated in design, are twofold.

One is aimed at destroying constitutional processes and the protective safeguards of freedom they afford.

The other is aimed at destroying the Nation through internal bankruptcy.

Should either succeed, it will succeed with finality. . The attack on constitutional government

goes to the very heart of our existence as a nation.

That is true because once we lose our precious rights under that instrument, we cannot defend ourselves against any other threats, either from within or from without.

What threats have been posed to constitutional government in the last few years?

We have seen the United States Supreme Court, in a series of partisan political decisions, deliberately ignore the Constitution of the United States and substitute impractical and unproved theories for established law and precedent as the basis for its rulings.

We have seen the Federal judiciary invade and seek to obliterate the reserved

·· rights of the States in many fields of their internal activivty.

All of these decisions are flagrantly unconsti tu ti on al.

They are not the "law of the land," as · some falsely insist:

They are the judge-made law of force and force alone.

It ~s not the people of the South who defy the Constitution; rather, it is we who uphold it.

We will never submit to this unlawful and unconstitutional judicial tryanny.

We will resist its imposition with all the strength at our command.

We are not going to sit idly by while an unconsititutional, arbitrary, and illegal e:Jl'.tension of Federal judicial power is attempted.

This is not only an attack on the rights of the States to govern their own affairs but also is a gross abuse of judicial processes imperiling the civil liberties of every American citizen.

Equally dangerous to the liberties of all the people of the whole United States is the misnamed Brownell civil rights bill now being debated in the Senate.

This diabolical 6-point program is a grave threat to our traditional concept of constitutional government.

If it is enacted, any army of Federal agents will swarm over every State, harassing and intimidating the people and usurping the functions of local law enforcement authorities.

Under this measure the full might of the United States Army, the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps could be used to enforce with bayonets and bombs the provisions it is proposed that Congress enact in to law.

And by the very vagueness and general terms of the language of the present law which the administration wants to amend, the bill now being debated would extend the authority of the Attorney General of the

12398 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD- HOUSE July -22

United States over the entire field of civil rights.

The law, as it now reads, prohibits any in·terference with or denial of "the equal protection of the laws" or "any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States."

That language covers an area as broad as the imagination of mankind and as fathomless as the minds of some individuals who may transiently enforce its provisions.

Who is to say what constitutes equal protection of the laws?

Who is to enumerate the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States?

Under the authority of that loose language the Attorney General could initiate injunctive proceedings affecting not only the full range of laws governing relationships between individuals, groups, and races, but also such totally unrelated fields as taxation and the location of roads by Federal and State agencies.

He could take the position that failure to employ a person because of race, creed, color, national origin of any other factor constitutes a denial of the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States and thereby set himself up as a one-man FEPC with authority to use the military might of the United States to regiment- the industry and business of the Nation.

There is not an area of human thought or conduct which the language of the bill now before the Senate does not cover. It runs the gamut from sowing to reaping, from sleeping to waking, from thought to action and from the crac1le to the grave. ·

The Attorney General, through clever manipulation of the amendment process, would subvert the language o! the present law under which trial by jury is inherent and limits of punishment specified into a cloak for actions in the name of the United States under which trial by jury is denied and the extent of punishment left to the unbridled discretion of the presiding judge.

If enacted, this so-called civil rights bill would change private action to Government action.

It would interfere with the right of Americans to pursue their equitable remedies.

It would deny Americans the right of indictment.

It would deny Americans the right to confront and cross..,examine their accusers. · It would deny Americans the right of trial by jury-a right now guaranteed by law to even rapists, murderers, and traitor·s.

It would have the net effect of completely changing our form of Government from one under which rights are inalienable with the individual to one under which rights are arbitrarily determined by the Attorney General of the United States.

It does not confer upon a single American a single additional i·ight. The only person to whom it grants any new rights is the Attorney General of the United States, on whom it confers the arbitrary and unrestricted power to use the Federal judiciary as an instrument of his political caprices to deny civil rights.

It would make of the Attorney General a czar of civU rights superi0r even to the Constitution of the United States.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the serious nature and far-reaching implications of this proposal for evil results.

To me, it is regrettable that we are called upon to establish an American inquisition to smear the name of our generation on the pages of history. · To me, it is regrettable that we are called upon to usher in another age of hate, similar to reconstruction days, to blight an otherwise peaceful Nation and destroy the unity which exists among our citizens.

To me, it is regrettable that we are called upon to force on an unsuspecting populace legislation which had it~ inspiration in the dark ages.

To me, it is regrettable that the Congress is wasting its valuable time and energies on such a worthless measure.

The same effort applied along construc. tive lines to develop the human and natural resources of this great country; to stimulate new job opportunities; and to provide decent housing and more etrective governmental

. services for the masses of our people-would result in the advancement of real civil rights and human security for minorities and majorities alike.

My friends, I assure you, that as long as this bill is pending before the Senate, all of my strength and energies will be devoted to exposing its iniquity and in laying bare is tyranny before the Nation.

I am proud to take my stand under the inspired generalship of my able and distinguished colleague, Senator RICHARD B. RusSELL, of Georgia, who has done a masterful job in this fight, in defense of the rights and liberties of the American people and the sacred Constitution of the American Republic.

A situation of grave concern to me is that brought on by the so-called status-of-forces treaties and related bilateral agreements. Under them American service personnel and their families stationed in foreign lands have been placed at the mercy of foreign governments and courts.

Our State Department has negotiated these treaties and executive agreements with some 50 foreign countries in which hundreds of thousands of our military personnel are located.

These treaties do nothing less than abrogate the basic constitutional rights of the American soldier who serves abroad and any dependents who might be with him on foreign soil.

While the language of these agreements is complex and seeks to cover every possible situation, interpretation is left largely to foreign governments. This is true, particularly, where the foreign government is the first to get custody of the soldier after the complained-of offense is committed.

The wording of these treaties and agreements completely ignores the provisions of our sacred Bill of Rights.

Foreign courts, under the status-of-forces agreements, do not have to afford our ser:v.,.. icemen or their families even the minimum procedural safeguards to which they would be entitled as a matter of right as United States citizens pursuant to the Constitution in our own courts.

The American soldier and his family, thus, are subjected to the laws and procedures of the host country which in many cases are completely repugnant to our own.

It is unthinkable ~that the United States should draft its sons to proted its freedoms and then rob them of those same freedoms while they wear the uniform of their country.

If an American serviceman or one of his dependents commits a crime while abroad, he, by all means, must be punished. However, the punishment should be imposed by an American tribunal operating under American law and in accordance with the guaranties of the United States Constitution.

Prior to the negotiation of the Status of Fore.es Treaty and related agreements, the United States undeviatingly followed the policy laid down by Chief Justice John Marshall during the early days of the Republic that the Constitution follows the flag.

This treaty and related agreements should be repudiated and the Marshall tenet once more reestablished as the policy of this Nation.

If the United States, as the strongest nation on earth, cannot protect the rights of ~ts servicemen and their families in foreign countries, then it should bring them home.

So, we have seen, that through unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Federal courts·, through proposed force bill legisla-

tion, through surrender of our service personnel to foreign courts and through a myriad o! similar devices, our system of government, as wrought by the Founding Fathers, is under sustained attack .

Not being able to carry their point under the system, its enemies have set out to destroy the system itself.

Of course, you and I know that if they succeed, they would not only destroy the greatest country on earth, but themselves in the process.

I am convinced, too, that irresponsible fiscal policies now being followed by our Go-vernment constitute a threat to our national existence.

Being such a threat, there is always the danger that some of the clamor for increased spending may be prompted, without full justification, by those who would hasten the day of our insolvency.

The President's promise to stabilize the cost of living has fallen by the wayside.

The dread specter of runaway . inflation threatens every institution in American life today-the home, the church, the school, and the business.

Proposed Federal spending contained in the budget for the current 1957-58 fiscal year is $7.1 billion more than it was 2 years ago.

During the current fiscal year the Federal Government expects to collect out of the United States taxpayers the stupendous total of $75.8 billion. ·

Today, roughly one-siXth of the gross national product of this country is being paid in Federal taxes.

One wonders how long this Nation wUl survive such a drain on its economy.

It is completely inconsistent to give lipservice to controlling inflation while feeding it at the same time with profligate spending.

Our Government has grown so large and its activities become so extensive that no one disputes the fact that there is much waste in its operations.

Tremendous defense and other savings could be realized through a continuing congressional review of all unexpended appropriations to determine their validity in the light of present conditions.

As far as the armed services themselves are concerned, appropriations to them should be determined in light of the latest technological advances as well as through a concerted effort to eliminate duplication and to reduce manpower through full utilization of latest developments and ideas in weapons and tactics.

In the field of foreign spending, the time has come for elimination from the budget of purely foreign economic aid and for a thorough and searching examination of each and every military assistance project, to insure that the American taxpayer is getting his money's worth in national security.

The American taxpayer has a right to demand that this Nation cease doing for people in other countries what it either is unable or unwilling to do for our own citizens here at home.

In conclusion, I make this observation. Sometimes we may be justified in feeling

frustrated with the policies of our Government.

But we must never sell America short nor should we discount the loyalty, courage, honesty, ability, and sincerity of purpose of the American people.

They have demonstrated again and again their intense determination to meet and to overcome whatever challenges may confront them.

Because of this, I am confident that this Nation will survive in spite of all the mistakes its governmental leaders may make.

I put my faith in the good sense of the American people to save us from ourselves.

We must not be deceived by the cries of those who would <lestro.y us. A return to fundamentals is the key to survival .in this

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12399 day and age even more than was the case in all the other periods of great stress and strain that have marked the life of our Nation.

Washington needs to pause for reflection and for a reevaluation to realize fully once again from whence comes all freedom, all equality, all strength, all integrity, all security, and all those other precious attributes identified with our growth as a nation.

There must be a renewed respect for the true meaning of the Constitution and a respect for law as it is written.

There must be an instillment of sound business practices into the Government.

There must be a solid determination on the part of all public servants to keep faith with the people.

Americans must be freed of the attendant evils of bureaucracy, redtape, intimidation, and tyranny so that our people may once again be masters of their own destiny.

And we must not lose sight of the unchallenged fact that a militarily impregnable and economically invincible America is t.tle world's best and only hope for peace.

We, of the American Legion, look forward to the future with confidence.

We do so in kindred spirit and with renewed dedication.

As legionnaires, we share an unwavering conviction that the welfare of the American people and the solvency, safety, security, and sovereignty of our own Nation must be our primary concern.

To that precept, we are solemnly pledged. It is with a prayer to a divine providence

for guidance that we give to our common country our enduring love, our heartfelt patriotism, and our boundless devotion.

Washington Report by Congressman Bruce Alger


HON. BRUCE ALGER OF TEXAS



Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include my weekly newsletter of July 20: WASHINGTON REPORT BY CONGRESSMAN BRUCE

ALGER, FIFTH DISTRICT, TEXAS JULY 20, 1957.

The Veterans Beneficiaries Act (amending World War Veterans Act, 1924) (H. R. 72), is remembered by some of us as an example of the frequent "painful responsibility" versus "political demagogic" legislative choice in the job of being a Congressman. This act is a credit to the Veterans' Affairs Committee since their majority vote brought before the House this bill to get approximately $200,-000 back to the Federal Treasury. The bill provided that Federal payments of gratuities to guardians of veterans who have legal disability (mental incompetence) shall revert to the United States Treasury if the veteran dies leaving no spouse, child or dependent parent. Gratuities are defined as: (1) Compensation for service-connected disability or death; (2) pension for non-service-connected disability or death; (3) emergency officers retirement pay; (4) serviceman's indemnity; and (5) retirement pay-these as distinguished from United States Government life insurance or national service life insurance. Further, the money would revert only after payment of debts and satisfaction to all creditors including expense of death and administering the estate. It was never the intent

of Congress that veterans' benefits should be accumulated for the enrichment of uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins, and other distant relatives who had little, if any, to do with the veteran. By intention, no provision of the bill would have affected any veteran adversely. Could we pass this eminently responsible piece of legislation? No; it was defeated 191-161 and left some Members wit11 a feeling of "What's the use of being fically responsible anyway?" Here's another example of legislation which would become law if the people know the facts and kept the pressure for economy on Senators and Representatives. It also is additional proof that, except for political speeches, the "cut the budget" effort in Congress is almost forgotten. The people, if enough were vocal, could change this by demanding economybut won't. And so we drift on into bigger Government expenditure and control.

The Mutual Security Act of 1954 amendment, known as foreign-aid authorization for 1958, came to us as a bill of 33 pages, accompanied by a 108-page report, based on 7 volumes of hearings, explaining the need for $3,242 billion financial aid to 59 countries. Ten countries get military as~istance, 28 get military and economic aid, 21 get economic aid only. This continues the program under which, between 1945 and 1956, $69 billion have been given away (an amount equivalent to all real and personal property of our 1 7 largest cities, including Dallas) . Argument for: To keep peace through military strengthening of our allies and through helping backward areas develop economically. Has it succeeded? There's the debate. Some say the proof is.that "we are not fighting" and "communism ·s spread has been de-

. celerated." Hence, it is successful. This is a powerful argument, not to be dismissed lightly. Others hold the program is selfdefeating, wasteful, mismanaged, even unconstitutional.

As for me, I have opposed foreign aid repeatedly and have clearly stated why, for any and all to hear. In this and every legislative matter, an open mind is a must. Facts and principles, not blind prejudice, should hold. I have tried to be objective, but some criticisms of the program are so. damaging that my opposition has been strengthened. They include: ( 1) Congress (the taxpayers' representatives) is now asked to surrender control in blankcheck fashion (henceforth the military will control all defense expenses, the executive the revolving loan program); (2) too much money-there is now $6.2 billion appropriated but unspent, plus $2 billion of agri-

_cultu_ral surplus gifts (Newsletter, June 22) and now $3.2 billion which totals $11.4 billion (plus $1.275 billion for 1959 and 1960); (3) better correlation and efficient planning of various programs is needed (military, economic, food disposal, etc.); (4) the national debt may be increased by the new loan fund, particularly dangerous since no loan plan has been developed and presented; (5) six nations have paid down their public debt with United States money.

Basically, we have failed t-0 convey American belief and ideals because of contradictions and inconsistencies. We are a paradox to others, defeating our purpose "to win friends and influence." We attempt by dollars, strict materialism, to help others, contradicting our own historical development, a Christian society which succeeded because of individual effort based on private enterprise, individual freedom under a Declaration of Independence which guaranteed nothing but the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now we try to support and secure for others a higher standard of livi'ng which can happen, not by our gifts, but only if and when others want to work for it, as did and do United States citizens. Indeed, we are supporting communism (Yugoslavia) and socialism (in India, Italy, France, and even England),

ideologies denying people the freedom from which resulted the United States wealth. We are subsidizing alien philosophies at a time when the world is locked in a deadly struggle testing which philosophy will win.

Address of Representative Francis E. Walter, Democrat, Pennsylvania, at the Commanders Banquet, 13th Annual Department Convention of AMVETS, Hotel Easton, Easton, Pa., July 20, 1957


HON. FRANCIS E. WALTER OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following address: ADDRESS OF REPRESENTATIVE FRANCIS E.

WALTER, DEMOCRAT, PENNSYLVANIA, AT THE COMMANDERS BANQUET, 13TH ANNUAL DEPARTMENT CONVENTION OF AMVETS, HOTEL EASTON, EASTON, PA., JULY 20, 1957 It is a distinct pleasure to be here with

you this evening. As one of the godparents, so to speak, of your organization, I have always been keenly interested in your affairs and I have felt a personal pride in watching the AMVETS grow into an important national enterprise.

It was just 10 years ago, on July 23, 1947, that the United States Congress issued a charter for the AMVETS. I can still remember-and I am sure that you can, tocr-the great hopes and prospects which moved us after World War II as we looked forwardsoberly and without delusions, we thoughtto a new era of international accord; to the establishment of an ideal way of life for all mankind, to the flowering of the traditions and institutions of our own country, which we had purchased anew at such great cost in battle.

I would like to read the preamble to the AMVETS constitution. It expresses eloquently our thoughts of that time:

"We, the American Veterans of World War II, fully realizing our responsibility to our community, to our State, and to our Nation, associate ourselves for the following purposes: To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States; to safeguard the principles of freedom, liberty, and justice for all; to promote the cause of peace and good will among nations; to maintain inviolate the freedom of our country; to preserve the fundamentals of democracy; to perpetuate the friendship and associations of the Second World War; and to dedicate ourselves to the cause of mutual assistance, this by the grace of God."

The values and the objectives that were set forth in the preamble seemed capable of clear definition then: The Constitution, principles of freedom and liberty, the cause of peace and good will among nations-all of these were concepts toward which every one of us could proceed, sure of our course and our direction.

When we look at these words again today, however, they seem to emphasize the momentous crises which confront us. The very words around which we rallied have now become sources of division instead of unity.

The great problem of our time, of course, is the Soviet Union and its vehicle of con. quest--international communism. We have tried to deal with this problem by a variety of means: We have entered into far-reaching international security alinements; we

12400 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22 have poured vast sums of money into potential Communist target areas; we have met force with tentative force in at least one place.; -we have participated in endless conferences and negotiations with our adversaries. We have even tried to wish away the specter of communism and the Kremlinto delude ourselves into thinking that they represent a passing threat which will disappear without struggle on our part.

It must be obvious that none of these efforts have won any substantial degree of success. In the span of time since the AMVETS were founded, the banners of communism have been carried into the satellite nations of Eastern Europe and to China. Nearly half the people of the world now are slaves of Communist regimes; and a host of so-called neutral nations eagerly curry the favor of Soviet Russia.

Here, in the United States, we have made attempts to repress the Communist movement. But while the Communist Party has lGSt some of its membership, its influence has spread far beyond what its founders ·ever dared contemplate.

It would be tragic enough if we had to blame this situation upon the superior might of the enemy, if the legions of the Soviet Union camped upon our borders and compelled our submissiveness. By the same token, such .circumstances might be easier to meet, for throughout our history we have been able to rise up almost miraculously when threatened directly. We did this after Pearl Harbor and we m ay hope to do it again if .the ·occasion presents itself.

The .danger does not derive from superior force, it derives from 'the fact that we are basically uncertain who the_ enemy is.

I say frankly that the developments which J: observe from day to day in Washington are frightening. I do not think there is danger of a Communist revolution, or of the Communist Party as such, suddenly stepping into positions of power, but if the present trend of events continues we may find our status as a free nation .extinguished even without such extreme developments.

We are -progressing toward the time when our scientists assure us we shall have the latest rockets and guided missiles and the most adva-nced weapons that modern technology .can produce and yet we may find them without value. We may not even get to use them in our defense.

Several months ago, Archibald Roosevelt, whose father, Theodore, was one of the country's grea:t --Presi-dents, testified before the Committee on Un-American Activities in the course. of its inves.tigation of Communist political subversion. Mr. Roosevelt has spent a lifetime in studying the menace of communism in the United States, a-nd in trying to awaken the American people to an awareness of that menace. "Most people," he declared, "do not realize that the Kremlin has already invaded America." Let me continue his words for a moment:

"The reason that .most Ameri.cans are not conscious of this invasion is due to the fact that it has been going on gradually for 39 years. The Soviet leaders have moved entire divisions of their political army into our country unnoticed by all except a few securtty..:minded citizens. These Red forces R!Jl a political army which is civilian in appearance and walks the streets of America indistinguishable from the rest of the population. Their weapons of war consist of infiltration into Government, education, finance, and communication by subversion, disruption, poisonous propaganda, and espionage. They are largely an invisible enemy acting behind fronts and, therefore, difficult to pinpoint. Operating as a disciplined and -dedicated force they insinuate themselves into various sensitive and key areas of our society."

As chairman of the Committee on UnAmerica.n Activities and the SUbcommittee

on Immigration and Nationality, I am acutely conscious of the eventualities that lie in store. If the present trend continues, it will be impossible to e-xpose and punish members of the Communist conspiracy who are working day and night for our destruction; it will be impossible to keep Soviet agents outside our borders an.ct it will be impossible to get rid of those that we uncover.

Let me emphasize this point again: These things will happen not because Khrushchev or Bulganin are able to impose their wills upon us, but because we, through confusion and indifference, are steadily robbing ourselves of our internal defenses.

In just the past few weeks, the United States Supreme Court has conferred a virtual immunity upon treason. Conspiracy has been decreed an acceptable mode of political life, and those who seek to combat it are themselves stigmatized. Foreign-born who come to our shores are fr.ee to abuse our hospitality, and work for the annihilation of our Government, and every day it becomes more and more difficult to take any counteraction whatsoever.

These recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with so-called individual rights have provoked a nationwide controversy. I do not want to go into the legal arguments which demonstrate how they violate the constitutional separation of powers of the various branches of the Government. I would just like to put the issue on the basis of commonsense. I do not see how anyone could consider it commonsense to tie our hands so that we cannot bring into public

· scrutiny persons who are in the service of · a forei'gn power dedicated fo the conquest of the United States.

No one has more concern for individual rights than I have. No one is more opposed to tyrannical excesses of government than I am. But let me say this: I have presided at many hearings of the Committee on UnAmerican Activities and I have had ample opportunity to observe the type of persons who have been summoned before the committee in its investigation of subversion. These -people are not innocent men and women, who have been seized from their homes and jobs and subjected to an invasion of their private lives without reason. Every one of them has been a part of the Communist conspiracy and ·in defying the committee they have chosen to side with that conspiracy rather than with the people of the United States.

I am at a loss to see how they merit any sympathy, yet by bringing them forward in the hope that we may obtain information about their activities, it is we who stand accused .of . ·trespassing . against their constitutional freedom.

Last fall, the Committee on Un-Amel'ican Activities held hearings in Los Angeles, as part of a nationwide inquiry· into Communist political .subversion, namely, the attempts of the Communists to destroy our entire secmity system. Several of the lawyers who represented witnesses before the committee had to be ejected from the hearing room because of their conduct. They had been permitted to appear with their clients as a privilege extended to them under the rules of the Congress-a privilege, let me remind you, not a right. It became apparent, however, that their real function there was not to aid their clients but to disrupt the hearings. The california Bar Association severely criticized the committee for having these lawyers removed from the hearing room. One of the most vehement of the group was a secret member of the Communist Party and was identified as the Party's legal advisor in Southern California. Now by any rule of commonsense-, who should have been rebuked by the California Bar Association--the Committee on Un-American Activities or the Communist Party lawyers.

The No. 1 -Communist target today is the Immigration and Nationality Act of which I am proud to have been a cosponsor. At its national convention in February, the

· Communist Party assigned the highest priority to a nationwide campaign to smash the law.

Now, the Communists by themselves, member for member, would not be able to bring about the destruction of the Immigration Act; but they have been gaining a great · number of allies, some of them deluded by the fraudulent propaganda appeals of the Communists, others who find it expedient to espouse the same objectives as the Communists.

At this moment in Washington, a new assault upon the immigration system is taking shape. It is led by the professiona l panderers of the minority interests, who are willing to sell the national welfare for .a vote for themselves. If this attack is successful, it will mean the end of our last barrier to an influx of subversives from

_abroad. If this happens, the greatest jubilation

will be heard in the ranks of the comrades. The Communists have good reasons for wanting to destroy the immigration system. There are no humanitarian impulses involved, let me assure you. The Communist efforts are directed solely at enabling the Kremlin to move its army of spies and saboteurs into the United States and to keep them here after they have been exposed.

It is .amazing how many citizens accept the Communist claim that action against Communists ls an attack upon the rights of all Americans. When pro-Nazis were ordered .out of the country, there was no outcry that the deportation of these totalitarians represented a blow against liberty. When Italian Fascists were expelled, no one seriously argued that America would suffer because of it. Under the Walter-McCarran Act many dangerous criminals have been deported, and no one ventured to say that

- this threatened our 14 ·million foreign-born. Curiously, it is only the deportation of Comm.unists that excited alarm about the rights of noncitizens.

It is equally curious that no one ever mentions the generosity of the Unit.ed States in providing a ~ new home for millions of disp!aced and dispossessed persons. I, my11elf, have worked aetively for the legislation which has brought many of the homeless Europeans to these shores and given them the opportunity of a new life. _ _

The Immigration and Nationality Act, as a matter of fact, has enlarged the quotas for immigration and removed the la.st racial tests which had discriminated against prospective immigrants because of color or origin. But when ·we ·seek to remove persons who have come here fraudulently in order to-work in the interests of the CoIIIIllunist conspiracy, we are accused of inhumanity.

Of course, anyone who has studied the Communist program knows that they don't really care ·about minority rights. Some of the most brutal programs the world has ever known have been carried out by the Kremlin against minority groups. Millions of Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Jews, and other nationality groups in the Soviet Union have been deliberately slaughtered to implement official state policy.

The hypocrisy of the Communist concern of minority and national rights was brought out vividly in the hearings on political subversion that I referred to a few minutes ago. A number of the witnesses, who had been active in the Communist Party nationality work, were asked how they felt about the fate of the Hungarian freedom fighters when the Russians marched back into that country. Not a single one of them voiced a protest against the brutality of the Red army and the wave of terror and executions and mass a·rrests that followed the suppression of the revolution there. On the contrary, it

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 12401 was the Government of the United States Which these collaborators condemned for its efforts to rid the country of undesirable subversives.

A few weeks ago, we had as a witness before the Committee on Un-American Activities. Dr. Frederick Schwarz, an Australian physician and psychiatrist, who has spent many years in research into the basic philosophy of communism. Dr. Schwartz is also executive director of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, a worldwide movement dedicated to the exposure of the ideology of communism. The first step of Communist conquest, Dr. Schwarz warned, is the conquest of the mind. If the Communists can succeed in capturing the minds of the free people of the world, then, he said, the Kremlin will be able to achieve its goal of world rule without another war.

It is this battle which we are losing, and the Communists know it better than anyone else. If you want confirmation, just ask Abner Green. Green is one of the chief Communist agents in the United States, and is head of the notorious American Committee for the Protection of Foreign-Born, the Communist Party's action organization in immigration and minority affairs.

At a recent national convention of the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign-Born, Green boasted that the Communists were becoming increasingly successful in creating what he described as a new atmosphere in which the Communist program could thrive and in which an effective anti-Communist action would wither.

It is easy to see this new atmosphere: Tolerance of communism has become the mark of the reasoning man free of emotion and prejudice. Communism itself, which the Supreme Court once denounced as a foreign-controlled conspiracy, has now become, in the current view of the Court, merely a political belief. We deal with the gangsters of international communism as if they were men of good faith and sit by as th~ Hungarian people plead in vain for our help. Communist sympathizers are returned to their jobs in the Government and Communist authors and directors, once banned from Hollywood are again introducing their poison into the motion pictures and into stage plays and television programs.

The new atmosphere extends to the highest levels of leadership; for years we were under the impression that Poland was a Communist satellite. Now we learn from the Secretary of State, in a letter dated December 28, 1956, that, and I quote, "Poland is not now dominated or controlled by the U. S. S. R." At that very moment the leader of Poland, Gomulka, was in Moscow pledging his solidarity with the Soviet Union. On October 15 of last year, President Eisenhower said, and I again quote, "that Yugoslavia does not participate in the world Communist movement led by the Soviet Union." And as he said this, Tito was busy as one of the Kremlin's chief emissaries, wooing neutralist nations into the Communist CP.mp.

In a similar vein, we are told that communism in Red China is just a passing phase; and in London we find our representatives earnestly negotiating a disarmament agreement, although we know that the Soviets have violated every single treaty tl1ey have ever entered into.

Throughout our history, we have been exceedingly fortunate; we have never been defeated in war. We have been separated from foreign conflicts by almost impassable distances, and we have been imbued with a buoyant optimism which holds that we can never suffer serious reversal. It is well to remember that no nation has a guaranty of its survival. Other civilizations, as stalwart in their time as ours is today, have crumbled and vanished. We cannot dissipate our strength; we cannot spend away every prin-

ciple that has made us great, and still expect to keep our freedom.

If we cast away our heritage, future generations will place the blame not upon the leaders of the Kremlin, but on us.

Corona Naval Hospital Closing Calls for Bureau of Medidne and Surgery Initiative Toward Obtaining Authorized Naval Hospital in Los Angeles-Long Beach Naval Area

EXTENSION OF REM:ARKS OF

HON. CRAIG HOSMER OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, since 1950 there has been an authorization for a naval hospital in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area to serve large numbers of naval personnel, active and retired, together with their dependents. The Naval Vessel Register indicates that 14.15 percent of the entire United States fleet operates from the port of Long Beach. This amounts to 30 percent of the Pacific Fleet. In short, 1 out of every 7 families of our considerable Naval Establishment live in Long Beach or nearby cities. It is reasonable to expect that almost 1 out of every 7 retired naval men and their families also live in this area.

They were poorly provided for indeed by Corona Naval Hospital, which required a round trip of some 80 or 90 miles for medical care. With Corona Hospital closed, the nearest naval hospital facility will be Camp Pendleton, i·equiring a round trip of some 140 miles for medical care.

Now in these days of difficulty in keeping personnel in the naval service, it seems to me that the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery will not be doing its share of the job unless and until it vigorously carries to success an all-out campaign for construction of the hospital authorized in 1950. This hospital would be located at the area where it is needed, repeat, at the area where it is needed. Aside from purely humane considerations, it would do much to make the naval service an attractive career, repeat, much to make the naval service an attractive career, not only for the 1 in 7 stationed there now, but for all naval personnel, because during a career every naval man would normally be stationed in that area for at least 1 tour of duty and possibly several.

The time for equivocation and timidity by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery on the issue of building this hospital is long past, if in fact it ever was. I believe the Bureau has a clear duty to make the proper recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy and his budget staff for the inclusion of this construction in its next budget. I say this duty is upon the Bureau of Medicine and sw·gery because whatever that Bureau does is to some extent wrapped up in the technical mys-

teries of the medical profession. Generally, its decisions are not competently evaluable by nonprofessionals. But this is one case where they are and where it is apparent that the.Bureau should exercise a strong initiative.

For the RECORD I submit an exchange of correspondence between myself and the Navy Department on the matter of Corona's closing:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY,

' Washington, D. C., July 16, 1957. Hon. CRAIG HOSMER,

House of Representatives, ·washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. HOSMER: The Secretary 01' the Navy has referred your letter of July 9, 1957, to me for direct reply. The following information is provided on the reasoning bel1ind the Navy's decision to inactivate the United States Naval Hospital, Corona, Calif. The Department of the Navy has been concerned for some time with the problem of maintaining high standards of medical care in an adequate hospital system as a result of increasing budgetary limitation and rising costs.

Inadequate funding during 1957 had to be compensated for by drastically reducing the program for equipment replacement and for repairs to the physical plant of naval hospitals. As a result, a backlog of ov.er $1,500,000 in equipment and approximately $3,150,000 in work requests accumula-ted. This Bureau originally requested new obligation authority of the Congress in the amount of $87,200,000 for fiscal year 19.68. This amount was reduced by House action to $85,200,000 which latter amount is now proposed to be reduced by an additional $1,700,000.

The above reductions in expenditure and obligations will result in the following effects:

1. Funds for hospitals in 1958 will be less than those for fiscal year 1957 when taking into consideration the add~tional cost during 1958 of wage board increases and civil service retirement fund contributions.

2. In addition to the foregoing require.: ments, this Bureau is faced with the unbudgeted requirement of $775,500 for a new influenza vaccine to combat the threat of the spreading influenza epidemic from the Far East and an additional $300,000 to provide for directed financing of the Navy's share of the cost of operation of the Armed Forces Examining Station. Other antici· pated but unbudgeted requirements, including wage board and price increases, must be considered which cannot be estimated at this time.

The planned military strength reduction of 18,500 man-years was considered in the foregoing plan of reducing obligations by $1,700,000. In effect, this planned m111tary strength reduction accounts for an average decrease of approximately 7 patients per hospital which would not constitute any significant fund saving in individual facilities.

As a result of the foregoing action, the Navy considered all possible alternative means of satisfying the prescribed cut in Medical Department funds. As a result of these considerations, several basic conclusions were reached with respect to Medical Department financing during the coming fiscal year. First, it was determined that none of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery programs or functions could be feasibly eliminated in order to satisfy the budgetary cut.

The compound effect of the present reduction together with the fundamental stringency of the 1958 budget and the impact of heavy unbudgeted requirements :necessitated serious action. Accordingly, the Department of the Navy proposed closure of 'the nava.1 hospitals at Corona, Calif., and Mare Island, Calif., as the only f.easible method by which

12402 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 22 the accumulative financial problem facing the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery can be alleviated and an effective, efficient medical care program be conducted throughout the rest of the Navy.

This proposal also permits a directed reduction of 340 naval personnel and 387 civilian personnel in naval hos~itals.

In regard to the closure of the United States Naval Hospital, Long Beach, Calif., in June 1950, it may be restated that this hospital was not closed and trans! erred to the Veterans' Administration at the Navy's request or with the concurrence of tp.e Navy. It is agreed that there has been great inconvenience and difficulty in providing adequate treatment and hospitalization to military personnel, their dependents and retired personnel since closure of the hospital because of the relative remoteness of another Navy hospital. Considerable correspondence has accumulated on the difficulties of providing adequate medical care in this area. since 1950.

It may be recalled that incident to the Korean fighting, the construction of a new temporary hospital was projected at Long Beach. This hospital was planned and approved as part of a triservice hospital expansion program in 1950-51 based on anticipated military patient loads incident to the Korean fighting; that is, on the basis for active service military personnel. At that time, reviewing authorities would approve inclusion of only 10 percent beds for dependents. On May 8, 1952, this hospital project was deferred by the Secretary of Defense "until planned strengths and hospital expansion indicated a positive need for these beds." This statement effectively stopped all Navy plans for construction of this hospital as it was impossible to project a further -military buildup or resumption of severe fighting in Korea. The Navy never receded -from its stand that a naval hospital was and .is needed in this area. It is believed the record clearly shows that the Navy pushed tts plans for construction of a hospital in this area as vigorously as the other hospitals involved in the hospitai expansion program. ·

The project for n·~w construction at San Diego was approved essentially on the basis of relieving the extremely overcrowded patient conditions by permitting as many beds as possible to be placed on 8-foot centers i·ather than 6-foot centers · with doubledecking in some areas, and also to provide a modern surgical suite. This construction did not detract from the need for beds in other areas. As the postwar condition settles down, the new building will permit the placing of patients in permanent construction and the inactivation of the deteriorated, obsolete, temporary buildings constructed from 1922 through World War II. These temporary buildings have proved to be expensive in upkeep and maintenance. In addition, this new construction permits the consolidation of existing widely dispersed laboratory and clinical facilities. · In connection with the provision of inpatient dependent care iri this area, the Navy found it essential due to budgetary limitations to Close the family hospital on North Island to inpatient dependent care in April 1957.

The dispensary at the United States naval station was never designed to carry out its -current mission which· overtaxes the capabU:ity of the facility. The location of this facility within the station does not readily lencl itself to expansion. In addition, the Navy does not deem it advisable to exp_end any large sums of funds for expansion of the dispensary as any alterations or expansions that could be accomplished would not solve the long-range needs of the service in this area.

Although the justification for a United States naval hospital in the Long Beach area still exists, the limited funds and personnel made available to the Bureau of Medicine

and Surgery for operation of naval hospitals require that priority be given to retention of those hospitals that more directly support the operating forces.

The utilization of the hospital ship at Long Beach has served a very practical purpose. A large number of military patients, requiring specialty treatment, have been saved a round trip to Corona; and secondarily, this arrangement has permitted a greater utilization of the overcrowded United States naval station dispensary for outpatient care. This is important as outpatient care for dependents is not currently authorized in civilian institutions at Government expense. -When the United States Naval Hospital, Corona, is inactivated a greater utilization of the hospital ship for military personnel is anticipated. Although the details have not been worked out, additional provisions will also be made for expanded outpatient dependent care at either or both the United States naval station dispensary aI_ld the hospital ship. -Some provision for strictly emergency inpatient dependent care will be Ji>rovided at the dispensary or hospital ship. The Corona hospital patient load will be distributed to the United States Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton, San Diego, and the U. S. S. Haven, Long Beach. ·

The inactivation of the United States Naval Hospital, Corona, does not mean that all buildings will stand idle. Approximately one-third of the buildings are currently in use by the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. It may be that the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, upon inactivation of the hospital, will request the use of additional buildings.

In summary and in reply to your two requests, the planned inactivation of the United States Naval Hospital, Corona, has been carefully reviewed and studied; and it has been determined that this hospi_tal must be closed if we are to meet budgetary and personnel reductions. In reply to your second request, plans are being compfoted to meet needed hospital · facilities in the area through greater utilization of the U. S. S. Haven as a temporary measure. The Navy has not receded from its stand for the requirement of a United States naval hospital at Long Beach and the requirement for a new hospital in this area will be reintroduced into a long-range construction program at such time as the Navy will be reasonably assured that ·such a program will be approved by reviewing authorities.

Your great interest and understanding in the Navy's problems in this area are appreciated and it is with an earnest hope that the foregoing information will be of assistance to you.

I will be happy to provide any additional information you may require.

Sincerely yours, B. E. BRADLEY,

Rear Admiral, MC, USN, Acting SiLrgeon General.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D. C., Juiy 9, 1957. Re proposed Corona Naval Hospital closing. Hon. THOMAS s. GATES,

Secretary of t1!-e Navy, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: You are' familiar with the above-captioned proposal announced by Senator DouGLAS during a speech on July 1, and amplified by your July 2 press release. Subsequently, estimates have been furnished to the effect that several hundred thousand dollars annually would be saved by the move, which money the Navy deems vitally needed to help support its minimum basic overseas missions now in danger of being constricted by rising costs and decreasing appropriations to a point below that essential for the public defense.

If this cost-appropriations squeeze is so severe as to dictate this move for the purpose stated, then there is a patriotic obligation for citizens affected to accept it without complaint.

My first request is that the planned deactivation of the hospital be reviewed carefully by you to determine with certainty if conditions of such severity do, in fact, exist.

My second request, in the event you are certain deactivation is dictated by such necessity, concerns alleviating the hardships that will ensue. It is necessary to relate background information in order to state it.

Early in World War II a ~.600-bed naval hospital was constructed at Long Beach, Calif., to provide for the wartime needs of the service. These needs persisted in the postwar period and the hospital continued in operation until 1949. In that year the then Defense Secretary, during an energetic but apparently planless economy drive, swung a meat ax around the Defense Establishment. One of the places hit was the Long Beach Naval Hospital. It was closed and promptly transferred to the Veterans' Administration.

During the hospital's operation by the Navy a very large number of retired naval personnel located in the Los Angeles-Long Beach · II_letropolitan area because of the availability of the hospital. At the same time, other substantial numbers of dependents of naval and Marine Corps officer and enlisted personnel, both shorebased arid shipbased, located in the area because of the availability of the hospital.

Its 1949 closing worked a very real hard· ship not only on these satellite naval groups, but upon active duty personnel as well. Several deaths occurred white atfiicted persons were on the highway making the long trip to Camp Pendleton Hospital or the Sari Diego Naval Hospital. Numerous babies were born in automobiles on the way to these hospitals.

Of course, it can be said that insofar as dependents ·and retired personnel are concerned, their access to naval medical treat~ent is not' a matter of _right, but only of privilege on. a space-available basis . . As a practical matter, however, whenever it has not been deemed a right, serious morale and other problems have followed, which eventually forced a return to the matter of right concept for the best interests of the service.

The wisdom of taking steps to obviate such problems before, rather than after, they occur is evident.

At the inception of the Korean war, the problem was to some extent relieved in the locality under consideration by the reopening of Corona Naval_ Hospital. I say "somewhat'' because Corona is only somewhat less remote from the homes of these people entitled to medical attention than Pendleton and San Diego; and also because both Corona's reopening and subsequent operations have been costly and otherwise ill located. There has never been. a . moment since the Long Beach Naval Hospital was closed in 1949 that the·needs of the service for a naval hospital in the Long Beach area has not been strikingly apparent. Recognizing this, Con-

. gress in 1950 authorized construction of a new naval hospital in the area. However, the Navy Department has lacked aggressiveness in requesting appropriations for its construction.

My own opinion as to the reason for this is that Bureau of Medicine and Surgery planners persistently have had in mind a grandiose plan for a super medical center at San Diego dedicated as much to medical research as medical treatment. In implementation of that plan they have recommended requests for funds to enlarge San Diego rather than build at Long Beach. These ambitions for San Diego have caused a neglect of both

1957 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12403 the advantages of dispersal and the growing humane need for hospital facilities in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area.

The last-mentioned need, of course, has grown because the requirements of national defense, which do not appear in the foreseeable future to be abating, have concentrated many naval and Marine Corps activities in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area. At the present time the Naval Vessel Register indicates 14.15 percent of the United States Fleet (30 percent of the Pacific Fleet) operates in and out of the Long Beach Harbor area. Estimated hospital needs of the area are for 25,000 naval and Marine Corps active duty and retired personnel and dependents. Corona is the only naval hospital facility even reasonably accessible to these people.

Recognizing the utter inadequacy of medical facilities in this area, naval authorities

SENATE TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1957

<Legislative day of Monday, July 8, 1957)

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

Rev. Robert N. Oerter, Jr., D. D., Sixth Presbyterian Church, Washington D. C., offered the following prayer:

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, we thank Thee that this time of prayer is not a casual gesture of custom, but is a deep recognition that we need Thy help and guidance to perform our responsibilities aright.

Increase, through worship and the study of Thy Word, our knowledge of Thy will and ways, so that we may act . .firmly according to the right. Deliver us from the presumption of planning without seeking Thy divine viewpoint. Forgive us for seeking familiar and easy paths when Thy will is for a new road of action. Forbid that we should uncritically reaffirm long-held judgments when our times cry out for fresh examination. Teach us the art of asking the question-"Lord, what is right from Your viewpoint?" Ultimately, Thou shalt measure the lives of each of us, and we ask that that eternal fact may help govern our daily choices.

In the midst of diverse claims, shortness of time, and complex issues, help these, Thy servants, to penetrate quickly to the heart of each proposition set before them, and give them courage and wisdom to act with the awareness of Thy purposes for all our citizens.

May our beloved land measure up to its divine possibilities for growth and usefulness. Strengthen our people in righteousness, justice, and integrity; teach us to love Thee and each other as our Saviour commanded; grant that as a nation we may honor Thee. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. JOHNSON of Texas,

and by unanimous consent, the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, July 22, 1957, was approved, and its reading was dispensed with.

have maintained the U.S. S. Haven in a noncommissioned but active status at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard w,hicb, together with the Los Angeles Naval Base Dispensary, provides a much overcrowded outpatient service.

Although the Haven has a capacity of 744 beds, it now is staffed with only sufficient personnel to serve 150 bed patients. These have been limited to active-duty personnel except in rare emergencies because the whole makeup of the ship would make it unsuitable for treating dependents, according to her officer in charge.

Nonetheless, if the effects of closing Corona are to be eased before they reach intolerable proportions, I believe that steps must be taken to provide beds for . activeduty and retired personnel dependents aboard the Haven until such time as a more aggressive approach to the matter of imple-

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the Presi

dent of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. 'l"ribbe, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED As in executive session, The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the

Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomination of John J. Gilhooley, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor, which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

WITHDRAWAL OF A TREATY-MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the Uhited States, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

To the Senate of the United States: It is desired to give further considera

tion to the treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation between the United States of America and the Republic of Haiti, which was signed at Port-au-Prince on March 3, 1955, and submitted to the Senate on June 22, 1955 (S. Ex. H, 84th Cong., 1st sess.).

I therefore desire to withdraw the aforementioned treaty from the Senate.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. 'TUE WHITE HOUSE, July 23, 1957.

THE CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi

dent, with each passing day it becomes increasingly apparent that the Senate will be standing on very uncertain ground if it tries to make the civil-rights bill more than a right-to-vote bill.

This point is illustrated perfectly by the current state of the debate on part Ill. The Senate has been debating part Ill continuously since the bill became the unfinished business. A considerable part of the debate in regard to having the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill was devoted ,to part Ill. In my opinion, the Senate is ready to vote;

menting the authorization for constructing a hospital shoreside has succeeded.

My second request, therefore, in the event you decide to go through with plans to close Corona, is to provide the basically needed hospital facilities in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area: ( 1) Temporarily through use of the Haven; and (2) permanently by veering the Navy Department's appropriations requests toward construction of the naval hospital now authorized for this area.

Your early reaction to my two requests is most earnestly desired as the Department's publicized Intentions with respect to Corona. have caused much distress in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area.

Very truly yours, CRAIG HOSMER,

Member of Congress, 18th District .. California.

but amendments seem to spring up like mushrooms after a warm rain.

Some of the amendments would preserve the substance, but would ch~e the form. Others would preserve the form, but would change the substance.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] submitted an amendment. He later withdrew the amendment. The Sena tor from Kentucky has announced that he will offer the amendment again, after it is printed. Of course that is his right.

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER] has an amendment pending. It has not been printed. As yet, it has not been withdrawn. I hope it will rome to an early vote. The amendment would preS6rve the powers in part III, but w-0uld place them in the hands of the President. It is my intention to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. I cannot see the point of having the Attorney General advise the President to direct the Attorney General to institute court suits. But that is what the socalled Bricker amendment purports to do.

The spectacle of a dog chasing its tail may be amusing, but it does not strike me as an adequate basis for legislative action.

Various hints have reached us in regard to other amendments and other substitutes which may be offered. I do not know what they can do other than postpone the time when the Senate will face up to the Anderson-Aiken-Case of South Dakota amendment.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate does not further confuse an already much confused issue. I do not believe the Senate can write anything meaningful on the floor of the Senate, insofar as part III is concerned, and still have confidence in what is done. We shall not impress the American people by meaningless compromises and by dashing around the corridors, each Senator with a new proposed compromise to be of~ fered.

As is stated in an editorial published this morning in the New York Times:

This measure is, and ought to be, primarily a right-to-vote bill.

Mr. President, I hope there will be a minimum of delay before the Senate reaches a vote on the Anderson-Aikencase of South Dakota amendment; and I

SENATE - Congress.gov

Documents

Transcript of SENATE - Congress.gov