CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

for everything they need, they have an

incentive which we cannot prevent so

long as we practically force them to do

that.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Why did the people of Poznan revolt? It was because

they were hungry. What were they

shouting when they marched arm in arm

against the Soviet tanks? They were

shouting "bread, bread."

Mr. AIKEN. They were desperate.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is another

reason why we should ship surplus wheat

to those afflicted countries.

Mr. AIKEN. There is no reason why

we should not trade in nonstrategic materials with some of those countries. We

might, eventually, get them out from

under Communist domination. In fact,

Canada is endeavoring to do that. She

has already entered into an agreement

to sell wheat to Poland. That will help

to reduce our surplus, too.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I

yield the floor.

TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR

THE FISCAL YEAR 1957

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I ask

that the Chair lay before the Senate

House Joint Resolution 671.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair lays before the Senate a joint

resolution coming over from the House

of Representatives, which will be stated

by title for the information of the

Senate.

The joint resolution (H. J. Res. 671)

making temporary appropriations for the

fiscal year 1957, and for other purposes

was read twice by its title.

Mr. HAYDEN. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the

joint resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the immediate consideration

of the joint resolution.

There being no objection, the Senate

proceeded to consider the joint resolution.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, this

joint resolution provides appropriations

for those activities which have not been

taken care of by either House in the

regular appropriation bills. The 2

Houses have passed the 12 regular appropriation bills. The latest information

I have is that the President has signed

all of these regular bills.

This resolution provides for the

mutual-security program and those regular activities which will be included

in the supplemental bill.

The amount of money in this resolution for the mutual-security program

is limited to $200 million. The other

items relate to the President's special

international program, the Atomic Energy Commission, the export control

functions of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense military construction program, the International Fisheries Commission, and the

Export-Import Bank which will all be

taken care of in the supplemental appropriation bill to be approved shortly.

The House committee expects to report

the Mutual Security appropriation bill

the end of this week and the supplemontal appropriation bill next week.

Mr. CLEMENTS. Mr. President, will

the Senator from Arizona yield?

Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I do not wish to

delay the action on the pending joint

resolution, but I would not want this

opportunity to pass without commending

the chairman of the Appropriations

Committee and the committee itself for

the speedy action which has been taken

this year on appropriation bills. There

have been few times in congressional

history that appropriation bills have

moved so rapidly through the Congress

as they have in 1956.

Mr. HAYDEN. It could not have been

done except for the fact that I had some

old hands on the Committee on Appropriations who knew how to do the job.

It was impossible for me to do it by myself, and I received excellent cooperation from every member of the committee on both sides of the table.

Mr. CLEMENTS. I should like to ask

the distinguished chairman of the com- mittee if it is not a fact that this joint

resolution provides for a period of only

a few days.

Mr. HAYDEN. That is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on the third reading of the

joint resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered to a

third reading, read the third time, and

passed.

SUSIE LEE SPENCER-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 134)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

SCOTT in the chair) laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which was

read, and, with the accompanying bill,

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith without my approval

S. 2152, "for the relief of the estate of

Susie Lee Spencer."

The enrolled bill would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay $7,500 to

the estate of Mrs. Spencer in full settlement of all claims against the United

States for her death, sustained in an accident at the Norfolk Navy- Yard on

December 11, 1943.

Mrs. Spencer was employed by the

Navy Department as a civilian truckdriver at the Norfolk Navy Yard, Norfolk, Va. On December 11, 1943, she

was assigned to deliver a truckload of

material to building 384 at the navy

yard. She approached her destination

at approximately 1:30 a. m. on that date

and in order to obtain assistance in unloading the truck she had to locate the

supervisor of the warehouse crew. She

and her helper were driving slowly

through the area when they saw a man

they thought was the person they were

seeking and Mrs. Spencer stopped her

truck. At this point the vehicle was directly across the spur line of the railroad system of the Norfolk Navy Yard.

Simultaneously, a locomotive of the

shipyard assigned to remove cars from

the rear of building 384 began backing

along the spur. There was a sharp curve

in the track as the spur cut from the

main line alongside the warehouse building. The normal procedure was for a

member of the train crew to station

himself at the crossing to warn traffic

and to signal the train if there were

danger of a collision, but it was not followed in this case.

Mrs. Spencer was seriously injured

when the train rammed her truck. Despite emergency surgery, she died in the

Norfolk Navy Hospital at 9:55 p. m. on December 11, 1943.

The deceased was survived by a husband but by no children or other dependent relatives. Her husband made application for compensation under the

Federal Employees' Compensation Act

(39 Stat. 742, as amended) on account

of the death of his wife. By the terms of

the act, however, compensation for death,

except burial allowance, is payable only

to certain classes of dependents. As

there was no showing of dependency

upon his wife, Mr. Spencer's claim was denied. The specified burial allowance

of $200, however, was paid in this case. The provisions of S. 2152 are identical

to those of H. R. 1026, 81st Congress, and

S. 1045, 82d Congress, which were returned to the Congress without approval.

I am compelled to withhold my approval of this measure.

Although I can appreciate the motives

of equity and fairness which prompted

Congress to seek to make amends for

the negligence of a Government em- ployee by private bill, I believe that sympathy and equity must be subordinated

to the overriding considerations of sound

public policy and equality before the law.

S. 2152 is inconsistent with the principles

of dependency requirements and the

exclusive remedy provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.

When Congress passed the 1949 amendments to the act, those provisions of the

act which limit the right of a surviving

husband to compensation were reaffirmed. This general policy should not

now be weakened by singling out a particular individual for special treatment

not accorded to others similarly situated.

If Congress is of the view that there are

sound and justifiable reasons for departing from the policy of this act, to

permit payment of death compensation

to a nondependent husband of a Federal

employee, it should do so through general

legislation rather than by making individual exceptions through the enactment of private relief measures which are discriminatory against the general class

of persons subject to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.

In this connection, I have been informed that, on the average, 200 claims

for death compensation are filed each

year under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Of these, some 15 percent are denied on grounds of nondependency. In my judgment, it would be

inequitable in the face of such statistics

to approve a bill for a single beneficiary.

In disapproving this bill, I am aware

that the Congress has treated it as action

upon a petition for redress of grievance

rather than as an exception to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.

There are many circumstances in which

this approach is wise. It has resulted,

in words of the Judiciary Committee, in

111552 July 2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

passage by the Congress of "private bills

almost without number in recognition of

meritorious claims." It seems to me,

however, that where the Congress has

enacted general legislation of broad applicability, consideration should first be

given to amendment of that legislation

before resorting to the private bill procedure. A private bill frequently establishes a precedent that makes consideration of amendment of general law increasingly difficult with each similar enactment.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 2, 1956.

CLAIM OF WILLIAM E. STONE-VETO

MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 135)

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before

the Senate the following message from

the President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying

bill, referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary, and ordered to be printed:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval, S. 2582, a bill "to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear,

determine, and render judgment upon

the claim of William E. Stone for disability retirement as a Reserve officer or

Army of the United States officer under

the provisions of the act of April 3, 1939,

as amended."

The enrolled bill would confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims, notwithstanding any limitation on its jurisdiction, to adjudicate the claim of Capt.

William E. Stone arising out of the

failure of the then War Department to

retire him for physical disability.

The beneficiary of this measure sustained injuries to his neck and shoulders

when he parachuted over enemy territory in 1944. Following this jump, he

was held as a prisoner of war by the

Germans until his liberation in 1945.

He was subsequently examined in the

same year by 3 medical officers who

found no evidence of any incapacitating

disability. The beneficiary was relieved

from active duty for reasons other than

physical disability in 1946, after affirmatively indicating he had suffered no serv- ice-incurred injuries.

During a period of Reserve training

duty in 1951, the beneficiary was examined by the Air Force and found

physically fit to perform flying duty.

However, in the following year, he applied for and was awarded service-connected disability compensation by the

Veterans' Administration, which cur- rently considers him to be 40 percent

disabled.

Upon review of his case in 1953, the

Office of the Surgeon General of the Air

Force determined that the beneficiary

had not been permanently incapacitated

for the performance of active duty at the

time he was relieved from such duty in

1946. This decision was twice reviewed,

in 1954 and in 1955, by the Air Force

Board for the Correction of Military

Records acting under statutory authority empowering it to amend military

records when such action is necessary

in order "to correct an error or to remove

an injustice." Acting under this broad

standard, the Board upheld, with the

approval of the Secretary of the Air

Force, the prior decision of the Surgeon

General's Office. The present measure

would permit review of these administrative decisions by the Court of Claims.

To avoid confusion, there is one thing

which I think should be made clear at

the outset. This is the difference between the basis for awarding disability

retirement pay administered by the military departments and that for awarding

disability compensation administered by

the Veterans' Administration. The basis

for the former is whether or not the

individual sustained an injury or disease

in the service which permanently incapacitated him for the performance of

active duty at the time he was relieved

from such duty. Awards of disability

compensation, however, are based on findings that the former serviceman has

a compensable service-connected condition. As a result of this difference, it

is obvious that many individuals, particularly those with latent injuries such

as the beneficiary sustained, will be able

to qualify for disability compensation

but cannot qualify for the receipt of disability retirement pay.

Traditionally, eligibility for retirement

on account of physical disability has

been determined by the military service

in accordance with general provisions of

law. More recently, appellate review of

these decisions has been provided within

the executive branch by neans of statutory boards such as the several Boards

for the Correction of Military and Naval

Records established by the Legislative

Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended.

On at least two occasions within the

past year, the Court of Claims has been

petitioned to award disability retirement

pay to individuals who had been found

not entitled to such pay by the Secretary of the military service concerned.

In denying these petitions, the court has

stated, in effect, that under the statutory procedures for determining and reviewing entitlement to retirement, it has

jurisdiction only in cases where it can

be shown that the cognizant military

Secretary has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law.

I believe that this rule which the

Court of Claims adopted is a sound one. It conforms to an important principle

underlining judicial review of administrative decisions, namely, that the courts

will not substitute their judgment for

that of the experienced officials who have

been given adjudicative responsibility by

law. For this reason and since there is

no evidence in this case that the Secretary of the Air Force acted arbitrarily,

capriciously, or contrary to law, I can see no justification for special legislation

which would require the Court of Claims

to grant the beneficiary a de novo hearing.

Approval of this bill would discriminate against the many hundreds of individuals who have had their claims for

disability retirement denied without

benefit of judicial review. It would also

establish an undesirable precedent leading to other exceptions to the orderly

procedure which is now provided for

under general law and which currently

governs the hundreds of similar cases

that are adjudicated each year.

Accordingly, I am compelled to withhold my approval from S. 2582.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 2,1956.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its

clerks, announced that the House had

passed without amendment, the following bills and joint resolutions of the

Senate:

S. 584. An act to amend title 28, United

States Code, relating to the Customs Court;

S.977. An act to amend title 28, United

States Code, with respect to duties of judges

of the United States Court of Claims;

S. 997. An act to provide punishment for

certain confidence game swindles;

S. 1542. An act to authorize an allow- ance for civilian officers and employees of

the Government who are notaries public; S. 1688. An act to amend the Federal Seed

Act;

S. 1961. An act to provide for the con- veyance of part of Ethan Allen Air Force

Base, Colchester, Vt., to the State of Vermont, and for other purposes;

S. 2091. An act authorizing the recon- struction, enlargement, and extension of the

bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Rock Island, Ill.;

S. 2210. An act to modify the project for

the St. Marys River, Mich., South Canal, in

order to repeal the authorization for the

alteration of the International Bridge as part

of such project, and to authorize the Secretary of the Army to accomplish such

alteration;

S. 2712. An act to authorize the charging

of tolls for transit over the Manette Bridge

in Bremerton, Wash.;

S. 3214. An act to authorize adjustment, in

the public interest, of rentals under leases

entered into for the provision of commer- cial recreational facilities at the Clark Hill

Reservoir;

S. 3307. An act to amend section 9 (d)

of the Universal Military Training and Service Act to authorize jurisdiction in the Federal courts in certain reemployment cases;

S. 3527. An act authorizing the State Highway Commission of the State of Maine to

construct, maintain, and operate a free

highway bridge between Lubec, Maine, and

Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada;

S. 3547. An act to amend section 1 of the

act of August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 555), authorizing the sale of certain land by the Pueblos

of San Lorenzo and Pojoaque;

S. 3674. An act to amend section 1343 of

title 18, United States Code, relating to

fraud by wire, radio, or television;

S. 3723. An act to authorize the Secretary

of the Navy to convey certain land in the

county of Alameda, Calif., and to accept

other land in exchange therefor;

S. 3866. An act to facilitate the making

of lease-purchase agreements by the Administrator of General Services under the Public Buildings Act of 1919, as amended,

and by the Postmaster General under the

Post Office Department Property Act of 1954,

and for other purposes; S. J. Res. 110. Joint resolution directing

the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study and investigation of Indian education

in the United States; and

S. J. Res. 178. Joint resolution to authorize an appropriation to provide for certain costs of United States participation in the

International Bureau for the Publication

of Customs Tariffs.

The message also announced that the

House had agreed to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 77) authorizing the

1956 11553