CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

work of the whole committee, and not

of only one man. . Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, the

Senate should appreciate what the chairman of the committee did.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, will

the Senator from Massachusetts yield?

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I yield.

Mr. KEFAUVER. The Senator, as

chairman of the subcommittee, very

thoughtfully accepted an amendment to

authorize the continuation of rent controls for Oak Ridge, pending a time when

the property can be disposed of and the

people can own their own homes.

It has been suggested that plans are

being made for substantially increased

rents, which would upset the economy

there, and also that plans were in the

making to bring about a means of disposing of properties, so that people could

buy them. I hoped that the conference

committee would agree to meet this interim continuation of rent control, but

I see from the report that the Senate

conferees yielded on that issue. ' Mr. SALTONSTALL. I would say to

the Senator from Tennessee that we yielded for the reason that we received a

letter from the Atomic Energy Commission in which it was stated that this provision would, in substance, violate a certain budget circular, A-45, which, in substance, ordered an increase in the rents

in that area so-that the rents would be

self-supporting and they would not have

to come back on the appropriation for

the Atomic Energy Commission. That is

my understanding. For that reason, and

because the House had received the same information and felt very strongly about

It, we decided, after some discussion, that

it was better to eliminate that provision.

I was -glad to take the amendment

into the conference for the Senator, because it gave us a chance to understand

the problem.

Mr. KEFAUVER. In my opinion, the

substantial increase in rent as proposed

is not justified. But I am sure the Senator did the best he could.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I believe my

colleague from South Carolina will support me in the statement which I have

made.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, the

Senator from Massachusetts did everything he could. I think the Senator

from Alabama [Mr. HILL] will agree with me that he did everything he could for

TVA. I again say, Mr. President, that

the Senator from Massachusetts did a

remarkable job, considering the attitude

of the House.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the Senator

from Massachusetts exerted every effort

to have the amendment of the Senator

from Tennessee included in the bill. As

the Senator from Massachusetts has

stated, there was a letter from the

Atomic Energy Commission, and the

House simply would not yield.

I wish to join my distinguished colleague, the Senator from South Carolina,

in his words of commendation and praise

of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He was our chairman, and

was a most effective and fine captain

of the team.

Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank both

my colleagues.

FRED P;. HINES-VETO, MESSAGE -

(S. DOC. NO. 62)

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. 152, "An act for the relief of

Fred P. Hines."

The bill directs the Administrator of

Veterans' Affairs to pay to Mr. Fred P.

Hines the sum of $778.78, representing

the amount claimed as the cost of private hospital and medical expenses incurred in 1948 in treating a disability

not connected with his active military

service.

Mr. Hines served in the United States

Army during the Spanish-American War

and was honorably discharged on November 18,- 1898. He did not incur a

disability while in the military service

and he has not suffered any serviceincurred disability since then.

This veteran is eligible for medical

care and hospitalization in a Veterans'

Administration hospital for conditions

not of service origin, provided facilities

are available and he is unable to pay for

such care elsewhere. He has availed

himself of Veterans' Administration

treatment on numerous occasions. On

the occasion in question he chose not

to do so.

The record, I believe, reasonably supports the conclusion that this veteran

had personal knowledge of the limiting

rules and policy governing his case. He

was aware that they precluded the Federal Government from assuming responsibility for the costs of private care. In

1947, he requested the Veterans' Administration to pay a private hospital bill

which he incurred for a non-serviceconnected condition. By letter dated

February 21, 1947, Mr. Hines was advised by the Veterans' Administration of

the denial of his claim for the reason that the expenses were incurred for

treatment of non-service-connected

conditions.

Despite the legislative finding in the

bill, the record establishes that a medical emergency did not exist when Mr.

Hines first began to incur the private

medical and hospital expenses involved

in his claim. In my judgment, no question of professional or administrative

malfeasance is involved.

The extenuating factors advanced in

the committee reports for special legislation do not, I believe, present acceptable grounds for equitable relief for Mr.

Hines or the basis for exceptional and

preferred treatment.

The plight of this elderly veteran provokes a spontaneous desire to lighten his

burden. Were this an isolated case, I

would have no hesitancy in approving

this bill. But it is not. We have 20 million veterans who are eligible for hospital

care in Federal hospitals under varying

restrictive, conditions. The precedent

that would be established by approval

of this bill cannot be dismissed. Many,

many other cases have been denied similar relief; The Veterans' Administration

annually, by administrative action, disallows more than 500 similar claims of

Spanish-American War veterans alone

for reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses based on equally justifiable reasons. The Veterans' Administration estimates that the same kind of

claims filed annually by veterans of other wars aggregate several thousand an- nually.

I believe that in a Federal program as

large as the veterans' hospital program

it is particularly important to administer

the laws and regulations uniformly and

with special favor for none. Yielding

to compassion or special pleas would

eventually destroy the effectiveness of

the program. The end result would be

to set aside the sound and desirable

distinction between service-connected

and non-service-connected disability

cases. From every standpoint the choice

presented by this bill is the same. If

the bill were to be approved, it would

mean acceptance. of the premise that

any veteran should be given the right to

determine when and where and under

what circumstances he may commit the

Federal Government to the payment of

private medical and hospital expenses

for non-service-connected disabilities. I

believe that the establishment of such a policy would be unsound and indefensible.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 20, 1953.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED

RUBBER-PRODUCING FACILITIES

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2047) to amend the

Rubber Act of 1948, as amenddd, to provide for the sale of Government-owned

rubber-producing facilities, to repeal

and modify certain of its provisions affected thereby, and for other purposes.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I

send to the desk an amendment to S.

2047, the bill to amend the' Rubber Act

of 1948, as amended, which I ask to

have printed and lie on the table.

The amendment follows the law of

1944, when Congress disposed of alumi- num plants and other important items.

The amendment applies to the antitrust laws. It refers to the same law

that was in effect when Mr. Roosevelt was President and when Mr. Truman was President. I think there should be

such a law, so that monopolies cannot

exist.

CONSTRUCTION-C O S T A D J U S TMENTS WITH GREENFIELDS DIVISION, SUN RIVER IRRIGATION

PROJECT, MONTANA

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the un- finished business may be temporarily

laid aside, and that the Senate proceed

to the consideration of Calendar 525,

which is H. R. 1991. The bill was on the

Unanimous Consent Calendar on Saturday, but was objected to by the junior

Senator from Idaho [Mr. WELKER]. I

am informed that he has now withdrawn his objection, and the Senator

9230 July 20