1680 afternoon as the great trucks that serve the mail-order houses and others that make shipments of parcel post from Dallas lined up for blocks to unload their packages, At that time an average of 29 carloads of parcel post were leaving Dallas each day, with the people of this country paying a subsidy, as it were, for every package of it, since the postage charged was far less than the cost of transportation and handling. From time to time we have heard lots of criticism of the Post Office Depart- ment because of the deficit it incurs. I know of no more conscientious or able official of this Government than Post- master General Jesse Donaldson. 1 know how he has worked, and how much he wants to see that deficit brought down. But, how many of our Members have taken the time to reflect that the Post- master General controls less than 5 per- cent of anything down there that may affect it. Congress fixes the postal in- come by fixing postal rates. Congress fixes the outgo to a large extent by set- ting the salaries of the Department em- ployees. Not only that, but we subsidize railway mail service in the form of extra payment by the Department. We subsi- dize air mail by extra payment by the Department. We subsidize ocean-going mail in the same way. When I was a member of the committee we had up the question of subsidizing mail service to the Aleutian Islands in order to help a little steamship company to operate, a service that was absolutely essential to preserving our communications in the interest of national defense. The ship could not operate without the subsidy and operation of the ship was necessary to supply the small settlements through- out the area. Again, the Post Office Department maintains and is the custodian of the Federal buildings. It furnishes free space to field personnel of other depart- ments of the Government, even furnishes the equipment, in some instances the supplies they use, and heat, light, and other services, as well as to all of the agency representatives in those build- ings. That, too, is a charge to the Post Office Department. So it goes. Now, then, my colleagues, there is one other thought. It has to supply and does supply free mail service for the official mat) of every official in this Government, including the Congress. Some object that we ought to have the post office on a self-sustaining basis. My own idea about it is, and the Post- master General estimates, that about $150,000,000 a year in the form of sub- sidies, free services, and so forth, is in the interest of the general public, like those I have mentioned, and of the mail serv- ice of the departments of the Govern- ment. There is no use taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other. There are also subsidies in the form of cheap postage rates that we give to such things as newspapers, periodicals, and re- Ngious publications, in the interest of the dissemination of public knowledge, information, and culture. Those ought not to be paid for by the stamp-lickers, the mail users. That ought to be paid out of the Treasury and shared by all of the people. So if we could reduce the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE deficit of the Post Office Department through postage rates to the point where it would be down to $150,000,000 a year, it would be a good thing, and that is a good target to shoot at, since the mail users would then be paying the cost of the service received. I do not approve all the individual rates proposed in this bill. Perhaps if each one of us had been writing them all we would have changed them somewhat. On the whole, however, I want to com- pliment the committee on bringing out this bill. In any case, those who have seen fit to criticize Postmaster General Donaldson in the past because of the deficit in his Department should either vote to in- crease postal income or hereafter hold their peace on that subject. As I have said, I am not fuliy satisfied with it, but I feel the committee has done a con- scientious job in an effort to render a real public service. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, If move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The change in the bill pro- posed by the chairman does eliminate some of the objections to the bill. But get this interesting fact: Here, where an important part of the postal deficit comes from providing rural services, the group comes before us saying they want to cut the deficit somewhat, then they propose that you raise the weight limitations and the size limitations in the area where the loss through handling it is greater. It seems to me that when we are talk- ing about the pressure groups that we remember that we are penalizing the urban folks to provide more for the rural folks. We might just as well face it frankly. I wish the gentleman's amendment had gone all the way and simply brought the limitations back to where they now are in regard to size and weight. Certainly, if the idea is to get more revenue, why have they put a restriction on the size and weight? By their action they have defi- nitely eliminated business which does come to the post office. Of course, here we have another exam- ple. None of us are entirely familiar with this amendment and how it fits into the exact language of the bill. I believe in this very hurried last-minute concession we simply see more evidence of why the committee ought to return to its room and do this job over again. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado? There was no objection. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, I was much impressed by the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I had in my office the other day a committee who spoke to me about this bill. I inquired just how this bill would affect urban and rural areas regarding parcel post service. Therefore I ask the chairman of the committee, or some other member of the committee to give me information with respect to that very point. Whether or not the city people, the urban areas, FEBRUARY 8 would be bearing an undue proportion of the load. We know we are giving relief to rural areas. Personally I think they ought to have this relief because they do not have the transportation facilities to properly serve them. Now, if the chair- man will answer the question: How much of the parcel post, in the terms of 70 pounds, is being used by urban areas? Do we have any information on that? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. The Post Office Department has no break-down on that, but it does have statistics to show that just a litle over 1 percent of all the parcels mailed weigh over 50 pounds. Mr. CARROLL. I also was informed that many thousands of employees of the Railway Express Co. have been dropped from employment due to the fact that certain business groups are using the parcel post insteal of the railway ex- press service for the handling of packages which clearly ought to be carried as freight or express. That is to say, there is an increasing tendency on the part of businessmen to use parcel post rather than the railway express service. What is the reason for this? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I think the gentleman is entirely correct. I do not think it is intended that the Post Office Department should be in the ex- press business. But on account of the great disparity between the rates on parce] post and the express rates, the Post Office Department today is in the express business on a gigantic scale, and many of your large mail-order houses and merchants are using the Post Office Department for that purpose to send parcel post. I think we should cut down on the size and weight of parcels going to the cities which have express service. Mr. CARROLL. I was led to believe by this committee that the Postmaster General does want a restriction placed upon the size and weight of parcel post because he believes his Department was being used too much for freight busi- ness. Was there such evidence before your committee? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is correct. The Postmaster General said their facilities were being overtaxed by these parcels and that there should be a reduction in the weight and size of these parcels. Mr. CARROLL. Then the real pur- pose of the gentleman’s amendment is to give adequate relief to those in the rural areas who do not have railway express facilities? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is correct; and also in the small towns with fourth- and third-class post offices where they do not have express service. Mr. CARROLL. Is it your contention that those who Hve in the urban areas use this 70-pound linrit to the extent of only about 1 percent? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is correct. Mr. CARROLL. ‘What will your amendment do to those who live in the urban areas so far as the weight and siee of the packages are concerned? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. The dill provides for parcels sent to the first and second gones, that the limit shall be 40 pounds, and the size or girth 72 inches,
1950 For parcels going to the other zones, that is zone 3 to zone 8, the limit shall be 20 pounds and the length or size or girth 72 inches. Mr. CARROLL. Have you had any objection or resistance from small busi- ness groups in these urban areas to this provision by your amendment to the bill? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. None at all. The objection is all by the large mail-order houses. Mr. CORBETT. Today is the very first that we have heard of it. I would like to call the attention of the commit- tee, if I may, to the fact that at the time that the parcel post was established, it was decreed as part of the law that if the revenue fell below the cost of handling the Postmaster General should adjust the rates, and up until now he has failed to do so. One reason is, as he stated be- fore the committee, that he was not go- ing to take the responsibility for raising the rates in the rural regions which this bill does, regardless of what the bill does with reference to the size, and so forth, of the packages. Mr. CARROLL. May I ask the gentle- man from Pennsylvania this question: Is it true that the Postmaster General in his testimony before the committee was desirous of getting rid of the freight busi- ness tn the Post Office Department? Mr. CORBETT. I cannot answer that. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has expired. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Corsett] that this amendment ought to apply to all the postal service. I certainly agree with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Crawrorp] that it ought to apply to the people in the rural areas, I am in favor of extending rural mail routes and rural power lines to every farmhouse they can reach with the draft in time of war. You can go out and get that man’s son or that woman’s son with the draft. I have a letter from a widow lady this morning expressing her delight at get- ting electricity to her house. She said, “My son was in the war.” Yet it has taken years to get a power line to her house. If you can send out and get those boys to fight every war that is kicked up, or that we get into, surely we can provide them the facilities of modern civiliza- tion. The Post Office Department has one rule that ought to be amended, and so has the Rural Electrification Adminis- tration. They require three residents to the mile. Whenever you go to extend a rural route they want three houses to the mile, instead of averaging the entire route. That ought to be changed. If one man is entitled to his mail, they are al! entitled to it. Again, we have States, and I call par- ticular attention to such States as the Dakotas and Montana, and some others, where the houses are few and far be- tween, and because of that limitation many of them are denied the use of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE rural mails and also the use of rural electrification. It ought to be extended to all of them. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will. the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. Yes; I yield. Mr. CORBETT. The deficit in this class of mail is not nearly so great as the amount of money we have wasted on the potato crop. Mr. RANKIN. Oh, it would not cost half as much as you are getting ready to give Korea. It would not cost one one-hundredth or one one-thousandth as much as you have poured into the sink holes of for- eign countries, that is not appreciated by those people, and instead of bringing about recovery has caused many of them to sit down and wait to be fed out of the pockets of the American taxpayers. We had better look after the American people first. These people are all Amer- icans. J would like to see this service, as well as rural electrification, extended to every farmhouse, no matter what State or what section of the country it is in. That is what I have been strug- gling for in my battle for rural electrifi- cation. That is what I am struggling for in my battle to extend the rural mail service—take it to every house that you can reach with the draft in times of war, or that the tax collector can find in times of peace. Let us take it to them all. Then you will be rendering a real service to the American people, and not simply bleed- ing them to gct money to give somebody else. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. RANKIN. I yield. Mr. DONDERO. What you mean by pouring money into the sink holes of Europe is that we are supporting social- istic governments over there? Mr. RANKIN. Oh, I mean Europe, Asia, Africa, Israel, and Japan; the whole field. Israel, in my opinion, is a Soviet satellite country, and many of the other countries we have been financing have gone Socialist if not Communist. They have contempt for our form of government. Yet we have been financ- ing them at the expense of American taxpayers at a time when we owe more money than all of the rest of the nations of the earth put together. I say it is time for us to get back home and look out for the American people, who fight the Nation’s battles in times of war and sustain its institutions in times of peace. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this particular amendment close in 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, re- serving the right to object, is there any possibility that the gentleman may amend his amendment to provide this same weight and size limitation through- out the service, rather than just for a small portion? 1681 Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. No. That would kill the whole parcel-post amendment. Mr. CORBETT. In what way? The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ject. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 min- utes. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice deserves the gratitude of the House for its patient labors on this complex bill. The gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER] deserves special commendation for the clear and incisive majority re- port which accompanies the measure. With the bill and report before me, I want to raise some pertinent questions in regard to them, particularly in regard to second-, third-, and fourth-class mail, and in regard to this talk of deficits. I am getting a little tired of this talk of deficits. These are not deficits in the ordinary sense. Actually they are sub- sidies for million-dollar corporations. There should be no misunderstanding of my position. I think this bill should be approved as a careful step in the right direction. It will cut the anticipated $550,000,000 in subsidies by the Post Of- fice by $131,000,000 during the next fiscal year. If the bill were to be defeated or returned to committee, there is a strong likelihood the total subsidy would remain untouched for some time. I emphasize here, however, that I will support any effort, either here or in a House-Senate conference report, to go still further than the committee in par- ing subsidies, My reasoning is direct and plain. Iam a@ firm believer in the human welfare state. I am just as firmly opposed to the corporate welfare state, The pres- ent postal rate structure is part of a subrosa corporate welfare state for some of the people who spend most of their time fighting an open, democratic, hu- man welfare state. While the changes recommended by the committee make a beginning in slic- ing subsidies and financial aid to the rich, they do not go far enough. If in this session, we can do no more on postal rates than pass this bill, we will have done something. But this ought to be the first in a series of changes designed to put the Post Office back on a paying basis by taking powerful corporate entities off its charity lists. Let us look at this situation as it is now, as it would be under the bill before us and as it should be as soon as possible. Most first-class-letter mail provides adequate revenues to meet costs. The average citizen is paying his way. But it costs 2.6 cents to handle the average penny post card. And, note this, 90 percent of the 3,000,000,000 post cards mailed annually are those used by utili- ties, business concerns, and advertisers. An increase of post card cost from 1 cent to 2 cents, as proposed in this bill, will
1682 cut the post card deficit from $57,000,000 to $21,000,000. I do not advocate that the Government should lose even §21,- 000,000 @ year on a service primarily for . utilities and advertisers permanently, but, at least, we are moving in the right direction. Second-class mail provides some spec- tacularly interesting figures. Here is a real hand-out—a hand-out to the bitter- est critics of human welfare measures. The Post Office figures that it spent $200,000,000 more in 1949 in handling second-class mail than the second class mailers paid into the Department. The newspaper, magazine, and periodical in- dustry got a $200,000,000 gift from the Government. One of the largest chunks went to the Luce publishing empire. While Time, Life, and Fortune took pot shots at a wel- fare state almed at human well-being and abundance, their publisher got an estimated $11,000,000 subsidy from the Government, from the taxes of you and me and everybody else. The Luce magazines, together with the next top three magazine groups in order of circulation, profited by the princely total of $34,000,000 in subsidies. Because of the postal rate structure and the inequities in it which the Na- tion’s publishers have supported all these years, it cost the Post Office Department that much more to deliver the magazines than the publishers paid for the con- venience of having them delivered. Of the whole $200,000,000 deficit in the second-class mail group, this bill would wipe out only $15,000,000. That leaves $185,000,000 to go, and I think some of it ought to go—the more the better. Third-class mail presents a similar problem. Made up of miscellaneous printing, books, small catalogs, mer- chandise, seeds, cuttings, bulbs, roots, and plants, all weighing under 8 ounces, it accounted for a $101,000,000 deficit in 1949. Here only $23,600,000 has been cut, leaving for the future an unhealthy deficit of more than $75,000,000. Fourth-class mail splits into many subdivisions—parcel post, books, cata- logs, and advertising matter weighing between 8 ounces and 10 pounds, and others. I will note only in each group that a deficit now exists; that a substan- tial deficit will remain if this bill is passed. The total deficiencies, due almost en- tirely to subsidies of one kind or an- other, are $550,000,000, an important sum in this economy year. Opponents of the measure before you and of further rate increases have argued that the Hoover Commission recommendations on the post office will wipe out the deficiencies without resort- ing to rate increases. It should be noted that those who use this cry are those who receive the sub- sidies, the newspapers and magazines. As a matter of fact, this committee re- port refutes that claim out of hand. The Hoover Commission report on the post office makes some important con- tributions and the committee promises us they will develop legislation from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE them. But in case after case, the actual physical transportation costs alone are more than the postal rates. None of the other handling charges are even con- sidered. The changes suggested by the Commission will be useful, but they do not end the need for cutting subsidies. There is another major question here, the matter of the policy of this Congress toward small business as com- pared to big business. Just as our present postal-rate struc- ture gives huge subsidies to those who do not need them, so it often penalizes small firms which do not get equal sub- sidies and cannot compete with those who do. That requires illustration and there are many examples. Let us look at the daily and weekly newspaper situation in this country, for example. In the last 20 years the various pres- sures on small newspapers have cut the number of daily newspapers from 2,700 to 1,700. The number of weeklies has slumped from 12,500 to 10,000 in the same period. The total circulation of all newspapers is up, the number of news- papers down. Why? Because of the slow steady drive of the big newspapers. Take the Chicago Tribune, for instance, if you can stand it. With the help of the United States mails it sweeps out into a three-State area which it paternally refers to as Chicago- land. And it does it with a pay load of advertising that is matched only by the bulk of advertising in the Luce and Curtis magazines, Life, and the Saturday Evening Post. The Congress sets up postal rates to help disseminate worth- while reading matter and the American people end up by paying for the mailing of ads telling them they have halitosis. Because of bulk mailing rates, the large newspapers and magazines can blanket the territories of the smaller with a finished metropolitan product. The diversity of American publications, the right of every community to at least one spokesman, needs protection. In- stead, the Congress gives the monopo- lizers subsidies, giving the advantage to them rather than to those who are in need—small newspapers and magazines. I note with gratitude that the com- mittee has not increased rates for non- profit periodicals, weeklies of 5,000 or less paid circulation, and dailies of 10,000 or less. I would suggest that we assist these and newspapers of up to 50,000 circulation even more. The catalog situation is another case in point. Because the big catalog houses—Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck—have catalogs heavy enough to get into fourth-class mail, they pay rela- tively much less for mailing than do the smail catalog houses which put theirs into third-class mail. At the present time 5 pounds of small catalogs cost 50 cents to mail, while 5 pounds of large catalogs cost about 14 cente and 5 pounds of newspaper and magazine advertising costs about 742 cents. Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roe- buck, therefore took advantage of their position to mail 91 percent of the fourth- FEBRUARY 8 class catalogs sent out in 1948. They did a sales volume of $8,500,000,000, yet the Government subsidized them millions of dollars in postal rates. Make sense? Not much. Now, as I said before, the whole busi- ness of rate fixing is extremely complex. Suggestions that a quasi-judicial postal- rate-fixing body independent of the post office be established seem to have merit, But in the meantime, some of the Grosser inequities ought to be removed. Above all, we should stop paying “sub- sidies to the industries which are semi- monopolizing American business. When you consider the following list of adver- tising revenues for 1949, it would seem that the American taxpayer might be spared the necessity of paying its freight: Life. ..------------ +--+ 876,946, 727 Saturday Evening Post........ 59, 259, 119 Time ...--.-----------.-----.- 23, 771, 782 Ladies’ Home Journal__.-..-.-. 22, 743, 526 American Weekly.....-...-.-.. 18, 369, 671 Collier’s_....--.--.-..-------.. 17, 064, 959 Better Homes and Gardens..._- 16, 967, 118 This Week... ..-..---...----. 16, 780, 120 Look...-..----....---.---..---- 15, 064, 170 Good Housekeeping.._._-----_. 14, 883, 253 Woman's Home Companion.... 11, 267, 562 McCall's _-..---....----------- 10, 737, 228 Newsweek...........-.---.----. 9, 783, 560 Country Gentleman....-..22__. 8, 946, 640 Farm Journal_....-....-.--..- 7, 880, 746 American Home-._._.-.._.....- 6, 571, 360 I think this country can afford a hu- man-welfare state, but I do not think we can afford to go on financing a corporate- welfare state busy with monopolization of American industry, and I think now is the time to stop. Mr. O'TOOLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BIEMILLER. I am pleased to yield to my friend from New York. Mr. O’TOOLE. Does not the gentle- man feel that despite their protests against subsidies the newspapers of this country receive the greatest subsidies in the country as a result of existing postal rates? Mr. BIEMILLER. The newspapers Plus the magazines. The magazines are even bigger offenders, if you will. I re- peat what I said a moment ago, that the magazines, despite the tremendous vol- ume of advertising they carry, go through the mail at about 714 cents for 65 pounds. Mr. MILLER of California. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BIEMILLER. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from California. Mr. MILLER of California. I should like to read from an advertisement in- serted by Life magazine in the San Fran- cisco Chronicle of Friday, January 20, showing where Life had a total invest- ment by advertisers from January to December of 1049 of $76,364,727. The Saturday Evening Post, $50,259,119, and Time, $23,771,000. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired, Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr, Horrman of Michigan moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with the recommenda- tion that the enacting clause be stricken. Mr.
1950 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the oppo- sition of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BIEMILLER] to the Chicago Tribune. That paper has had a very prominent part in cleaning up some of the deplor- able conditions existing in years gone by in his State of Wisconsin, notably more recently the Communists in certain labor organizations. So it is no more than natural that he should not like that paper, and its policies. I do not, however, know what the gen- tleman’s complaint is about the use Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward make of the postal services in distrib- uting their catalogs. What if they do use that service. He is yelling all the time about the big fellows. About big business which provides employment for so many of his constituents. Who profits from Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck sales? Little boys, do they not? Little boys who want to buy 10 cents worth of this, that, or the other. Some farmer’s boy might want to buy a jJackknife. He has saved a little money. He sends to Sears or Ward and gets an article he otherwise could not buy. He can get it delivered to his home. Farmers by the million buy of either one of these corporations or perhaps of a chick hatchery or a nursery or a seed house. Is that what the gentleman is yelling about? Does he want to deprive the little fellow of his opportunity to purchase to the best advantage? He is always talking about the big fellow. If Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward and other catalog houses do not serve the little fellow, who does? And I do not happen to have any stock in either. I do not know whether the gentleman has. But enough of that. Mr Chairman, I am sorry the majority leader [Mr. McCormack] is not on the fioor. I looked all around for him, but I cannot find him. I want this bill re- committed to the committee, although I am not too optimistic about the vote on this motion. I wanted to discuss with the majority leader the restoration of our two-party government. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack! was saying the other day that he believed we ought to have a two-party government. So do I. But that is not what the majority is now permitting us to have. I want to say to the gentleman on this side of the aisle that is why I thought we should have been permitted to talk in our one- minute speeches about our attempt to reestablish a two-party government out there at Uline Arena the other day when more than 12,000 good citizens expressed their disapproval of the present admin- istration. All the little fellows were there. The big boys were over at the Shoreham meeting the Veep and his bride. There were so many there some 2,000 had to sit on the floor. The majority leader says, “Yes; let us have a two-party government.” But we do not get it in committee. Let me give you this example: The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments has 18 members on the majority side. The Republicans have 7 members, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Last year they gave us some committee assignments, and at that time, under the suggestion of the majority leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Mc- Cormack], the minority was permitted to name its own minority members of those subcommittees. We did. But what happened this session? Well, the chairman of that committee, the gentle- man from Illinois {[Mr. Dawson], comes along and he just reshuffles one of those committees. The Republicans had its members on five subcommittees and one minority member was by the minority placed on three subcommittees. I am not finding fault with that. Here is what I am finding fault with: I am a member of the minority. What does the chairman of the committee do to me? I am ranking minority member of the committee; I was ranking member on a subcommittee; and the first thing I learn this morning, after getting a no- tice from the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Harpy], to attend a subcommittce meet- ing this morning, is that Iam not on that committee any more. I spent some time getting ready for the subcommittee hearing, and I went up to the hearing room, but I find that I am not on that committee any more. The chairman re- moved me. It was not the minority who made that decision, nor do I believe the action was taken by the committee. I was the ranking man on that subcom- mittee on thc minority side. [Ap- plause.] I thank you gentlemen of the left for that applause on behalf of the left. More often I get the raspberry from some of you. You know, that is quite agreeable to me. It is encourag- ing to me that you have at last recog- nized the fact that there should be a two-party government and that the ma- jority will follow the long-established procedure in the selection of committee and subcommittee members. I am bringing this to the attention of the House, not with any hope for relief, because I am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts, the majority leader, will set the chairman of the committee right when he can ect to him, but, you see, when the gentleman talks about a two- party government I wish to be certain that the gentleman from Massachusetts LMr. McCormack! is made aware of the situation. Apparently what they are doing to us—you are doing it to us in this committee, anyway—is that you are giving us a two-party government but you are running both parties—selecting not only your committee members but naming the committee members for the minority. That is not two-party gov- ernment. The majority is telling the minority what to do and what places we can hold and who is to hold those places. Now, that is not two-party procedure. That is the practice of a dictator. Now I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw my motion. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. MURRAY of ‘Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the 1683 pending amendment to the committee amendment do now close. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee {Mr. Murray] to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Tennessee: Page 35, after line 12, insert the following new section: “Sec 14. (a) The Postmaster General is authorized to prescribe by regulation from time to time the fees which shall be charged by the postal service— “(1) for the registry of mail matter; “(2) for securing a signed receipt upon the delivery of registered mail matter and returning such receipt to sender; “(3) for the insurance of mail matter, or other indemnification of senders thereof for articles damaged or lost; “(4) for collect-on-delivery service; “(5) for special-delivery service; “(6) for special-handling service: “(7) for the issuance of money orders and for the issuance of postal notes: “(8) for notice to publishers of undeliv- erable second-class mail; “(9) for notice of change of address; and (10) for certificate of mailing. “(b) Regulations issued by the Postmas- ter General under subsection (a) shall, to the extent prescribed therein, supersede ex- Jsting laws, regulations, and orders govern- ing the fees for the services covered thereby.” Page 85, line 13, strike out “Src. 14” and insert in lieu thereof “Src. 15.” Page 35, line 16, strike out “Src. 15” and Insert in Meu thereof “Sec. 16” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there will be opposition to this amendment to the committee amendment, because the members of our committee who have been in opposition to this bill in filing their minority report said this: While the position of the minority is that the Postmaster General should be able to set the rates on special services himself— The minority endorse this amendment. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CORBETT. I think we can save time and expedite matters. I think it ought to be made clear to the Congress that in taking this particular procedure to turn over the rate-making power of the Congress on these special items to the Postmaster General, it is a new de- parture which a majority of the minority did approve, and I think with that one statement that some of us feel that this experiment will have to be watched care- fully. I think it is only necessary that we do emphasize that now the power of the Congress over these particular rates will be transferred to the Postmaster General. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I might say that this amendment is in line with the recommendation of the Hoover Com- mission on Reorganization of the Execu- tive Branch of the Government, and I am sure the amendment is pleasing to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown). Morray of
1684 In ali fairness, the Postmaster Gen- eral ought to set the rates for spectal services—like special delivery, money orders, postal notes, collect on delivery, and insured mail. Congress has no busi- ness to try to fix those rates. Let us continue to control the rates on first-, second-, third-, and fourth-class mail, but give the right to fix rates on special services which should be self-supporting to the Postmaster General, who is one of the finest officials I have ever known. I have known Jess Donaldson since 1933. ‘We were together in the Post Office De- partment from 1933 to 1942, He has been in the service over 40 years. Today we have, in my opinion, the most capabie, most versatile, and most accomplished Postmaster General we have ever had. He knows every angle of the postal serv- ice. We are fortunate to have a man like Jesse Donaldson as Postmaster General. I also want to pay tribute to his chief assistant, Deputy Postmaster General Vincent Burke, who has served in many capacities in the Post Office Department. He was formerly postmaster of the Dis- trict of Columbia. He has been in the postal service over 40 years. You can rest assured that as long as Sesse Donaldson as Postmaster General and Vincent C. Burke as Deputy Post- master General are at the head of the Department it is going to be run effi- ciently and economically. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield. Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman’s philosophy is adopted, then we can hold somebody responsible for these things—something that we cannot do now. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. The gentleman is entirely correct. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I expect to support this amendment because I believe it is a step m the right direction. I wish the great Committee on Post Office and Civil Service would put into effect the other Hoover Commission recommendations. It seems to me that, to boil down the problem before us, we have two or three questions we must pass upon in connec- tion with this legislation. First of all, do we want to vote a general rate increase measure before we attempt to put mto effect all of the recommendations and fimdings of the Hoover Commission to obtain real efficiency and economy in the operation of the Post Office Department. It is rather difficult for me to under- stand how anyone can tell what postal rates should be increased until we know what it actually costs to operate the Post Office Department. Then I think we also must pass upon the general question as to whether or not we want to make the Post Office Department entirely self-supporting, the only self-supporting agency in the Federal Government. Highty percent of the cost of the Department of Agri- culture, which is for the benefit of the farmers of this Nation, is paid out of the general revenue funds of the Nation; a similar situation exists as to the Libor Department, which aids labor, and the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Dopartment of Commerce, established to help business, and so forth, tn their de- partments and agencies of the Govern- ment. Finally we may have to try to decide what the postal rates should be, and whether we can place such rates at figures much higher without reaching the point of diminishing returns. I re- member when we raised the rates on air mail so high that instead of taking in more money from air-mail services we took in less. So we may find that re- gardless of what we want to do we cannot charge enough in the postal rates to make the Post Office Department self- supporting. However, I want to mention two or three other reasons why I think I will have to vote against this bill. I do not believe any individual in this House who is against discrimination can support this measure, because this is a discrim- inatory bill. It does not affect me and my newspapers; instead, ft discriminates in favor of my newspapers agninst the larger publishers. For instance, if a paper has more than 10,000 circulation ft has to pay a higher rate of postage than a paper that has 9,500 circulation. That just does not make sense. It discriminates in favor of air lines, ships, and other transportation agen- cies by giving them large subsidies. Then, it discriminates against private enterprise. It gives one postal rate to fraternal, religious, and other types of publications which are not for profit, and provides an entirely different rate on any exactly similar publication operated for profit. So it discriminates against private enterprise. It discriminates also against deficits. That is something I think we should pay attention to. Seemingly you say we must not have a deficit in the Post Office De- partment, but it is perfectly all right, and a splendid economic policy to have @ great deficit in the general operation of the Government of five or six billion dollars a year. So this is a discriminatory bill to my point of view. It discriminates against the farmer in many instances. It discriminates against the city man in other instances. As I read this bill, and ff you will take just one second to read the measure you will find out, almost every section of the bill discriminates against someone. I think I know why. It discriminates for the same reason that some of these amendments have been offered on the floor, and you who favor this bill, are trying to say, “Well, we will discriminate in favor of this particutar group of publishers, or in favor of this particular group of mail users in order to get their support, or in order to pacify their opposition, so that they will not have their Representative vote against the bill” In other words, this is practical poli- tics, gentlemen. This hill is being writ- ten and rewritten and changed on the floor so much that I am not sure many of us understand what is now in it in order to try to get enough votes to finally pass it. I think if we would follow in the House the same procedure that was followed in the other legislative body across the way and send this bill to the committee to work it over after the FEBRUARY 8 proper steps have been taken to put into effect all the efficiencies and economies recommended by the Hoover Commission for the Post Office Department, we might be able to support a measure such as this in the finality. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has warked assiduously to try to put into effect some of the rec- emmendations of the Hoover Commis- sion and has done a fairly good job. We have worked and put in recom- mendation No. 1, that the Postmaster General should remain a Cabinet officer appointed by the President. There has been put into effect No. 2, relative to the Director of Posts, only we call him the Deputy Postmaster General. We have gone through with other of these recom- mendations. We are presently working in this bill on recommendation No. 8. We have enacted a law at this session of Congress setting up the Division of Research and Development in the Post Office Department, something that is very badly needed, and carrying through with this particular bill we are following another recommendation of the commit- tee. Let me again cite to you that this is a complex prohlem and that these rec- ommendations of the Hoover Commis- sion, which are good, should be put into effect. But until the time that such recom- mendations can be put into effect, the task-force report on the Post Office of the Hoover Commission says: In the meantime, however, necessary revie sions of rates should not be postponed. This has never been said to be the final word on the revision of rates. It is the first step on the revision of rates and is in direct harmony and consonanca with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. KENNEDY. Recommendation No. 9 of the Hoover Commission, as it applied to the Post Office, would separate sub- sidies from compensation for carrying air mail. If this bill was reported out of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, it would mean a $60,000,000 difference in the deficit of the Post Office, where it does not belong, and place it in another part of the Government and the Hoover Cammission recommended that, I hope that committee will report the bill out. Mr. MILLER of California. That js right. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment close in 5 minutes, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.
1950 Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this time to propound a couple of questions to the chairman of the committee or some member of the committee. I was much impressed with the final remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown] about the lack of consider- ation which this measure has received. This is a very technical subject. It is almost as difficult to understand as the cotton or peanut program, when a Mem- ber has not had the benefit of study of the subject on a committee. I would like to know whether there were, in fact, hearings on this measure now before us, or were the hearings on the original H. R. 2945, which is quite different from the measure that is before us now? Could the chairman enlighten us on that ques- tion? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Hearings were held on postal-rate legislation as proposed by the Postmaster General for 4 months last year. Hundreds of wit- nesses appeared before the committee. As a result of those extensive hearings the committee reported out this bill. I have here two volumes of hearings that were held the past year. The year be- fore the committee held similar exten- sive hearings. In fact, I have been a member of that committee since 1943, and I have been working day and night on these matters. Mr. KEATING. Iam aware that there were hearings on a measure, and I ap- peared there to present views, some of which, I am happy to note, have been adopted by the committee, but my under- standing is that hearing was held on H.R. 2945, and was not on the bill that is before us today. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. H. R. 2945 is the bill upon which hearings were held, which bill was sponsored by the Postmaster General. This amendment is a committee amendment to that bill. Mr. KEATING. I appreciate it is in form a committee amendment, but it is an entirely new piece of legislation amounting to 16 pages on an extremely technical subject. It scems to me we ought to have this matter considered more thoroughly by the committee that is familiar with these details, rather than to thrash it out here on the floor of the House. I say that as one who favors at least a part of the provisions in this bill. Iam particularly impressed, as was the gentleman from Colorado, with the argument of the employees of the Ameri- can Railway Express Co., that they are being discriminated against and injured through the subsidy afforded a competi- tor of the company which employs them. I think they have a justifiable complaint. It is most unfortunate that relief for them is tied up in the same bill with other provisions which are certainly of a@ questionable character. The legisla- tive representative of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks in my district has presented to me a very convincing argu- ment on one phase of this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr, KraT1n@] has expired. Mr. LeCOMPTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, a number of amend- ments have been offered to this bill, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE others will be offered. I doubt if all of us fully understand what is in the meas- ure. It must be fixed up with respect to parcel post for the benefit of farmers and we must not paralyze small-town papers. It occurs to me that the pending amendment will very much improve this bill. If I understand the amendment that is before the House at the present time, if adopted, the rates governing the four basic classifications of service, the four classifications of mail, will be fixed by the Congress. But the incidental and technical services will be turned over to the Postmaster General in the matter of fixing rates. Such things as registered mail, special-delivery mail, the service for postal notes, incidental and techni- cal services of that kind, in line with the Hoover Commission recommendation, will be placed with the Postmaster Gen- eral for the fixing of rates of service. In my opinion, that is a long step forward. I do not believe that this Congress, with 435 Members, can intelligently come to an agreement on fixing rates for these small services, these important and tech- nical services rendered by the Post Office Department. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LECOMPTE. I yield. Mr. REES. Do I understand the gen- tleman that he would rather have the Post Office Department fix these rates and not submit them to the Congress, or would he not rather have the Post Office Department make recommendations and let the Congress pass on it? How does the gentleman feel with respect to that question? Mr. LECOMPTE. I would rather have the Congress write the rate, fix the rates for all of the four principal classifica- tions of mail. But there are, incidental- ly, services in connection with the Post Office Department that I believe can very well be delegated to the Postmaster Gen- eral, That is my feeling. I believe there are some services that the Postmaster General knows more about handling than do the Members of Congress. Mr, DONDERO. For example the fees that should be charged in the Postal Savings Division. Mr. LECOMPTE. That is one. Mr. DONDERO. Does the gentleman know what the deficit of the Postal Sav- ings Division runs to now? Mr. LECOMPTE. No; I donot. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired, all time on the amendment has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennes- see, The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Murray of Ten- nessee: On page 23, line 7, strike out begin- ning with the word “provided” through and including the colon in line 9. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is no objec- tion to this amendment; it merely pro- vides for a continuance of the present 1685 free-in-county rate for publications of that county. Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield. Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Chairman, that was the amendment I had intended of- fering. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee does not en- tirely do the job. He strikes out in line 7, on page 23, the words: Provided, however, That no copies shall be accepted free of postage when addressed for delivery by rural or star-route carriers. Is not that the gentleman’s amend- ment? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. that is my amendment. Mr. WITHROW. Further than that, in line 9, on page 23, you will have to strike out the word “further,” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. immaterial. Mr. WITHROW. I talked with coun- sel about it and he insisted upon it. Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield. Mr. GOLDEN. Is it the intent of the gentleman’s amendment to restore the right of the small newspaper to the priv- ileges he now has under existing law? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is correct. Mr. GOLDEN. And the gentleman be- lieves that his amendment will do that? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Unques- tionably so. Mr. GOLDEN. I believe the amend- ment is very important and I shall sup- port it. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the committee amend- ment. The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. man, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Georgia: In line 14, page 25, strike out the words and figures ‘14 cents” and insert in lieu thereof ‘1 cent.” Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Chair- man, not having used any of the time in general debate on this measure I desire to take this occasion to pay a word of tribute to the distinguished chairman of our committee both for the able and vigorous manner in which he presented this bill today on the floor and also for the fair and complete manner in which hearings were conducted on this bill be- fore the committee. My amendment is directed to the 1%- cent provision in line 14 on page 25 re- lating to third-class matter. The bill provides for an increase of 14-cent per piece over the existing rate, that is an increase of 50 percent in the bulk mailing rate per piece of third-class matter. Third-class matter is that mail matter which includes circulars, miscellaneous printed matter, catalogs and books of 24 pages or more. The various classes of mail and kinds of mail of which third- class matter consists is set out on pages 8 and 9 of the committee report. All of us are familiar with the fact that many small businesses use this class of Yes; That is Mr. Chair-
1686 matter to advertise and to bring in busi- ness of a mail-order nature. This bill here which increases this rate 50 percent is going to handicap many small busi- nesses very seriously; in fact, I believe it will put some of these small businesses entirely out of business. We ought to consider this particular amendment here and this particular increase very care- fully before adding it on. I intend to vote for the bill on final passage since the amendment was offered by the chairman of the commitee which changes the parcel post provision. But my amendment is a worthy one. Mr. Chairman, I desire to point out one or two things about the amendment. You have heard the chairman state here, and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. MILLER] and probably others, that there has been no increase in second-class mail matter since 1879. The gentleman from California in his speech a moment ago said also that this bill is the first step toward revision of rates and that there will be additional revisions from time to time. This is not the first step in revision of rates on third-class matter. This is the second step. I call attention to the fact that in January 1949 there was an in- crease in third-class matter which re- sulted in an increase in revenue to the Post Office Department of $17,000,000. You will find that in the report. I also call attention to the difference in dealing with forwarders of second- class mail in this bill and in dealing with forwarders of third-class mail. The sponsors have said there has been no in- crease in second-class rates since 1879. But there was an increase in third-class rates in January 1949, which brought in $17,000,000 additional. The rates that are proposed for second class this year do not bring in that much. They will bring in approximately $15,000,000, ac- cording to the figures set forth dealing with second-class matter. Why add a burden of $17,000,000 in 1 year on the small business people, then the next year add $23;000,000 more? I say that is not dealing with them on the same basis that the second-class mail users are dealt with. This committee report gives a very good explanation of the bill. You will find on page 8 that third-class mail con- sists annually of 553,000,000 pounds only and that second-class mail, which you will find set forth on page 5, consists of 2,107,000,000 pounds annually. The increase sought for third-class mail is certainly out of proportion when com- pared with the proposed second-class in- crease. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia {Mr. Davis]. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much time of the committee he- cause I hope we can soon get a vote on this very important bill. I must disagree with my good friend and colleague from Georgia, a member of our committee, about his amendment. We did not increase the per piece rate on this bulk mail last year; we only in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE creased the pound rate from 12 to 14 cents and we increased the individual mai] rate. That is where the $17,000,000 came from. Let us see what the position is today with respect to third-class mail, We have &@ deficit of over $129,000,000 on third- class mail, There are over nine and one- half million pieces of third-class mail sent out a year. Our offices are flooded with this propaganda about third-class mail only paying 1 cent. It is nothing but fair and right that the rate be raised to 114 cents. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WHITE of California. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment close in 5 minutes. Mr. GAVIN. I object, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment on the Speaker's desk which has a bearing on this amend- ment. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the pending amendment close in 5 minutes, The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN, The Chair under- stands that the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee applies only to the pend- ing amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is correct. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I with- draw my objection. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers on the motion. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s demand comes rather late, other busi- ness having intervened after the an- nouncement by the Chair that the mo- tion had been agreed to. Mr. CORBETT. Iwas on my feet, Mr. Chairman, seeking recognition. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman was not on his feet demanding tellers to the knowledge of the Chair. Mr. CORBETT. But I was on my feet seeking recognition. The CHAIRMAN. The from California will proceed. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chairman, I am only going to take 2 minutes, and I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chair- man, this morning’s Washington Post carries a picture of a cargo of potatoes which have been shipped into New Orleans from Canada by boat. Now the question immediately pops into the mind of the average American citizen: “Why import potatoes when we have a tre- mendous surplus ourselves?” These are not Government potatoes. They were brought in by private traders. The pres- ent law pegs the American potato price higher than the Canadtan price, so these potatoes have been shipped into this country to seek their highest market. gentleman FEBRUARY 8 We would not be importing potatoes now, Mr. Chairman, if the Republican and Farm Bureau dominated coalition in the Congress had not rejected last year the administration sponsored Pace bill which would have allowed the Brannan plan to operate on potatoes. The Bran- nan plan would have allowed American potatoes to seek their natural market level, and, in view of our big potato sur- plus, to fall low enough in price to keep the Canadian potatoes out of this country. The present law on potatoes which the Eightieth Congress wrote forces the Secretary of Agriculture to buy potatoes at the support price, and with no de- mand for the surplus he can only let them rot or otherwise dispose of them at a loss. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, if the price-support program is to be continued on potatoes, the Brannan plan should be enacted into law. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. All time has expired on the pending amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr, Davis]. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. Davis of Georgia) there were—ayes 35, noes 98. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were refused. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. McCarrry: On page 22, line 10, insert the following lan- age : me the case of any publication devoted to agriculture, and in the case of any religious, educational, or scientific publication de- signed specifically for use in school class- rooms, or in religious instruction classes (to which the rates prescribed by subsec. 4, pp. 21 and 22, are not applicable), the rates of postage shall remain the same as authorized by law existing immediately prior to enact- ment of this act. The publisher of any such publication before being entitled to such rate shall furnish proof of qualification to the Postmaster General at such times and under such conditions as the Pos‘master General may prescribe.” Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I am in general support of the bill which was reported by the committee. The question raised in this amendment was brought up before the committee and the division on it was rather close. Therefore, I am taking this occasion to present it to the House for consideration. By way of explanation, I think the House should know that religious and other publications of this kind, which are nonprofit, are exempted; there will be no change in the rates applicable to them. The effect of this amendment is to extend exemption to some maga- zines in the same category which are op- erated for profit, principally magazines devoted to agriculture and those maga- zines of religious, educational, and scien- tifle nature which are published exclu- sively for use in classroom instruction. Representatives of both of these types ef publications did appear before the
1950 committee. In the case of the represent- atives of the agricultural publications I think I can say they are the one group which was willing to make some sug- gestions as to how we might work out a satisfactory bill. Representatives of other publications—and this is in answer to the gentleman from New York—were heard on H. R. 2945 in its original form, but when we said to them, as we said to almost everyone, ‘‘What do you suggest if these rates are too high? What do you think would be a fair increase?” they had nothing to offer. The farm people said, “Let us sit down. We think maybe a 5-percent increase over a period of maybe five or more years would be quite acceptable.” There are one or two things in the picture which I believe you should con- sider. In the first place, the farm pub- lications are generally subscribed to for a period of about 5 years, so that a sud- den increase of about 40 percent, as is suggested in this bill, would throw a very great burden on them in the first year. In addition to this it is true that nearly all of the publications are sent out by mail and less than 1 percent is distrib- uted by other means. Whereas in the case of the big city publications, the Saturday Evening Post, and such publi- cations, the percentage that is distrib- uted through the newsstands is very high. So there is no such remedy for the farm publications. Most educational publications, of course, operate on a very narrow margin. We had testimony be- fore the committee which said that if this increase went into effect, many of them would be forced out of business. These publications are used in connec- tion with schoolroom instruction or in connection with Sunday school classes. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY I yield. Mr. KEATING. I think the gentle- man has presented to us a very desirable amendment. JI am particularly inter- ested in the dissemination of informa- tion through publications to be used in school classrooms or in religious instruc- tion classes. I will be very happy to sup- port the gentleman’s amendment, and I hope it will pass. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentle- man. I would like to make one more point. The publications which are the subject of my amendment are produced for profit and will not receive the same preference as nonprofit publications. They will pay the present rates on second-class mail which includes a graduated increase for the advertising section of these particu- Jar publications which are produced for profit. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- man, I want to express my support for the gentleman’s amendment on the ground that it represents a reasonable protection to these magazines and peri- cdicals of low price which usually have Jong subscription periods. I think this amendment will give them the protection CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE they need in the years immediately ahead. Mr. McCARTHY. That is the in- tention. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, McCARTHY. I yield. Mr.GROSS. Icompliment the gentle- man upon his amendment and for the statement that he has made. I intend to support the gentleman’s amendment. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentle- man. Mr. O'SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCARTHY. I yield. Mr. O'SULLIVAN., I shall support the gentleman’s amendment. His amend- ment is a very proper one. I have re- ceived a great many letters dealing with this particular subject. I think the gen- tleman’s amendment fully covers all of the objections I have received from many different sources. Mr. McCARTHY. man for his support. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This is a very meritorious amendment. I think it should be passed. I am hope- ful that perhaps the chairman of the committee will offer no objection to it. To give you an idea of the services that the farm publications render to this country, I just want to quote briefly from the hearings which of course you do not have before you but which appear in part I of the hearings on the bill. There was a representative from Iowa who spoke before our committee as fol- lows, in connection with the services of the agricultural press to the country at Jarge. This is his testimony: 1 believe that I should mention also that our two publications, the Farm Bureau Spokesman and the Iowa Wool News, have played a part, along with other agiicultural publications, in helping introduce new crop varietics, weed- and pest-control measures, labor-saving practices, and soil-conservation developments to Iowa farmers through gen- eral agricultural news stories sent us from the Iowa State College at Ames, Iowa. Dur- ing 1948 our publications also carried free of charge 5,200 inches of space devoted to the United States Savings Bond drive, the Ameri- can Red Cross, the Friendship Train, and many other patriotic and meritorious move- ments, That is just one example of little pub- lications in Iowa. It could be multiplied many thousands of times throughout the country. If any group of people is enti- tled to this new rate, they are the agri- cultural publications of the country. With reference to the remarks made about the big newspapers by the gentle- man from Wisconsin |[Mr. BIEMILLER]. He talks about the big papers and then pretends to be for this bill because it will hurt the big papers and help the little papers. Actually it is just the op- posite. If he is a friend of the little papers of this country, if he is a friend of the weekly press and the small dailies, then he will vote against this bill because this bill discriminates against the small dailies and weeklies. All of you know, he should know, and the fact is as has been stated here before that the Chicago Tribune, the Washington News and all I thank the gentle- 1687 of the big metropolitan papers of the country do not use the mails to any great extent. They are not big customers of Uncle Sam’s post office as far as the sending of their publications through the mails is concerned. Mr. HAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. HAND. Ihave a small newspaper which I operate. I am afraid of dis- crimination in favor of such newspapers. Does it not provide that a newspaper having a circulation of less than 5,000 will enjoy the same rates presently en- joyed and will not suffer any increase in rates? Mr. HAGEN. There is further dis- crimination against newspapers with a circulation over 5,000. Mr. HAND. It is discrimination in favor of them. Mr. HAGEN. This bill has many dis- criminations. That is why you should recommit the bill, so that we can adjust those discriminations. For instance, 1 percent or so of the Washington Star circulation goes through the mails. Some New York papers have less than 1 percent going through the mails. The Chicago Tribune has less than 1 percent of its Sunday papers going through the mails. So they are not materially affected by this increase. It is the weekly and the small daily newspapers in the Chicago area and all over the Nation which are most affected. If the postage rates are raised, then the large news- papers can come in and take the sub- scriptions away from the small town papers who would have to raise their subscription rates. I want to read to you the rercentage of incrcase in rates for some of the smaller daily newspaper's. The Chatta- nooga Times postal bill will be increased 49 percent. The Memphis Daily will be increased 55 percent. The Raleigh News and Observer, 58 percent. The big city newspapers, which have less than 2 percent or so of their papers going through the mail, will suffer a rela- tively minor increase in their total news- paper distribution costs, actually less than 1 percent in many instances. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. SUTTON. Does the gentleman subscribe to my amendment which exempts daily newspapers up to 150,000 circulation? Mr. HAGEN. Certainly. The Con- gress back in 1879 set up this law favor- ing low rates for the distribution of news- Papers and publications. For what rea- son? To get the country informed and keep the people advised, so that we can build a democracy and a republic and make it strong. Let the people be in- formed, was the watchword. More than at any time in our history the people should be fully informed these days. That is why we want to maintain these low rates, so that the people can afford to subscribe to these publications. The people cannot afford to take these newspapers and magazines if the cost is
1688 too high. Rates on second-class mail already have been made in the past. These increases should stop. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Hagen] has expired. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike out the last word, and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair- man, I hesitate to rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague on the committee, but we must draw the line some place. We are dealing with a deficit in the postal department. We are dealing with a plan to gradually wipe out this deficit. What we do here today in establishing certain standards which we hope will put into effect in the future, to bring about a more reasonable rate structure within the whole postal department. We have exempted religious, agricul- tural, scientific, educational, and other magazines and papers that are non- profit. We have even gone further than that. In the law presently, unless the profit can be traced to some individual, the papers also receive exemption. Where that profit is used for charitable purposes or eleemosynary purposes, it is exempt. This line must be drawn. Here is the place to draw it. I have great sympathy with the ob- jectives that the gentleman seeks to reach, but let me point out that such magazines as Country Gentleman, one of the biggest and best money-makers in the country, would be exempt under the provisions of the gentleman’s amend- ment. There are other papers in the same category that would come under that same exemption if the amendment prevails. The gentleman has also labored the point of certain educational] publications. Those are very desirable publications, but they are conducted for profit. When they are conducted for profit they should pay their proper cost of maintain- ing distribution through the mails. I therefore find myself in opposition to the amendment, and I hope it will be re- jected. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. BREHM. If this amendment should prevail, we might find some poor little individual with no profit being called upon, in the form of taxes, to pay a subsidy to a business which was operating at a profit. This would be most unjust. Mr. MILLER of California. The gen- tleman is right. Mr. YATES. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. YATES. The gentleman knows that the content of these magazines is exactly the same as the content of maga- zines that are exempt because they are nonprofit. Mr. MILLER of California. They are nonprofit and that is one of the wide fields that we have not taken into con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE sideration. That is made a charge against the Treasury on the theory that tt is a dissemination of information and for the eleemosynary purpose for which certain magazines are published. Mr. YATES. I think that historically, at least, there is justification for the gentleman’s amendment in the fact that educational and religious institutions have been exempted from taxation. I know of no such exemption for agricul- tural publications. What about maga- zines such as Popular Science or Popular Mechanics? Could not the claim be ad- vanced that they would be disseminated specifically for educational purposes and they receive an exemption under the amendment? Mr. MILLER of California. It would encourage the publishers of such maga- zines to take advantage of this subsidy. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make a special classification or exemp- tion for profit agricultural publications or magazines and would also apply to religious, educational, and _ scientific publications. Should you make an ex- emption in favor of a profit agricultural magazine or should you make it in favor of a profit scientific magazine and for this kind of trade magazines? Do you know that very few of these farm publi- cations that return a profit are owned by the farmers themselves, the Country Journal, the Farm Journal, and cattle publications? You will find that inter- ests well endowed own these publications, that the farmers do not own them. We do give a special preferential rate to the nonprofit agricultural publica- tions, religious, labor, scientific, and edu- cational publications; but we cannot give the same preferential rate to a profit-making publication, agricultural or any other; and I appeal to you to vote down this amendment. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Two amendments are pending at the desk at the present time. The gentleman’s amendment, therefore, would be an amendment in the third degree and is not in order at this time. Mr. CORBETT. Then, Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute, to strike out the first line of the pending amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s amendment is not in order; it is still an amendment in the third degree. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment close in 5 minutes. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, a par-~ liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HAGEN. Is the gentleman going to follow the policy of moving to close debate on these amendments immedi- ately after he has spoken? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Oh, no; we have had ample debate on this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Ten- nessee that all debate on this amend- ment close in 5 minutes, FEBRUARY 8 The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. Hagen) there were—ayes 106, noes 42. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were refused. So the motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from North Caro- lina [Mr. Cootry]. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, a pariia- mentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer and I have been on my feet a dozen times. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may say that the gentleman can offer his amendment after the pending amend- ment is disposed of. The gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet when the limitation of debate was adopted by the committee. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The will state it. Mr. CANFIELD. The Chair will re- call that I was on my feet before the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not observe the gentleman. Mr. CANFIELD. I am sorry to be so transparent. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN, The gentleman will state it. Mr. GASE of South Dakota. Has the committee closed debate on the pend- ing amendment and all amendments thereto? The CHAIRMAN. The action of the committee was to close debate on the McCarthy amendment. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Then gentlemen who have amendments to of- fer can still get time on their amend- ments? The CHAIRMAN. The amendments will be in order after the pending amend- ment is disposed of. May the Chair pro- pound an inquiry of the gentleman from New Jersey |Mr. CANFIELD]. Was the gentleman from New Jersey on his feet seeking recognition to speak under the 5-minute limitation of debate? Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet in an attempt to pro- mote an amendment I have on the Clerk’s desk. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will have that opportunity. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not commissioned by the House Com- mittee on Agriculture to speak in behalf of the pending amendment, but I ven- ture the assertion that every member of that eommittee is in favor of it. I have no authority to speak for the great farm organizations of the country, or for the farm leaders of America. I actually have no commission to speak even for the farmers themselves but I earnestly believe that both farm Jeaders and farm- ers are in favor of the adoption of this amendment, Chairman, ® gentleman
1950 From the very time that rural free delivery was established in this country, the RFD and farm magazines have gone hand in hand with the development of American agriculture and of rural life in America. The RFD made possible the delivery of magazines and news- papers to farm families and such maga- zines and papers have been more effec- tive than any other medium of informa- tion in bringing about the great effi- ciency and the abundant productivity of American agriculture. The pending bill, with its greatly in- creased rate, is well calculated to impair the efficiency of this medium of informa- tion and is likewise well calculated to destroy and to put out of business many of the leading farm magazines and pub- lications upon which the farm people of our Nation depend so heavily for perti- nent information which is vital to the business in which they are engaged. Reliable statistics show that approxi- mately 97 percent of the entire circula- tion of farm publications is delivered by mail and that farmers rely more upon these publications for farming informa- tion than they do upon any other source—even more than they rely upon their county agents or the official pub- heations of the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture. Reliable estimates indicate that the rates in this bill would increase the postage costs of farm maga- zines by as much as 50 percent. In the case of the Progressive Farmer, one of the greatest farm magazines now being published in this country, the rates pro- posed in this bill would more than con- sume the entire profits of the publishers of this very worth-while periodical and, in addition thereto, would be gereat enough to include all income taxes or pension arrangements and profit-sharing plans for the company’s employees and would probably force the company into bankruptcy within the short period of 2 or 3 years. Farm publications are traditionally sold on a long-term subscription basis. The average term of paid-up subscrip- tions to farm magazines is 27 months. The average paid-up term for all maga- zines, including the farm magazines, 1s only 18 months. This means that while the fiction magazines and all the others may be able to increase their revenues by raising their subscription rates and the price at which their magazines are sold at newsstands, this is virtually im- possible with farm magazines because they are, on the average, committed by a firm contract to deliver their maga- zines to subscribers at the present sub- scription rates for another 2 years and 3 months. Farm magazines are primarily a source of information to farmers and not of entertainment. They are the most effective means of education in new farming practices. A survey made in Iowa by the Iowa State College showed that seven times as many farmers find out things they want to know from farm magazines and publications as they do from the official bulletins of the State and national agri- cultural agencies. This survey asked farmers where they found out what they wanted to know about farming. It CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE found the major sources of information referred to as follows: Percent Farm papers and magazines__......__. 71 Radio_ oe eee eee 49 Newspapers ._.-..--- 2-2 - ne eee ee 36 Other farmers___...-..------.--------- 31 The Farm Bureau, the AAA, and Soil Conservation Service combined.-___-- 29 County agents_-__--------------.---...- 12 Department of Agriculture bulletins.... 10 A similar survey was conducted by the Department of Agriculture Extension Service in Vermont, and the results are very similar. When Vermont farmers were asked where they got their new agricultural information, they listed the following sources: Percent Farm newspapers and magazines__-..--- 48 County agents...----2 22 17 Other extension service activities and the Farm Bureau...-.---.-- .----..------ 12 Government booklets and letters___-.--- 6 Other Government programs, such as AAA, ACP, etc___--_-__-__----- +--+ ee 4 The Department of Agriculture itself relies heavily upon farm publications as a means of getting new agricultural in- formation to farmers. A glance at any farm magazine will demonstrate this be- yond question. It will show article after article written by authorities on various farm subjects in the Department of Agri- culture and in the State colleges and experiment stations. Farm publications are unlike any other general type of publication—they are almost entirely educational in character. Farmers rely more upon their farm mag- azines than upon any other source—in- cluding all the Government activities— as the direct source of information on modern farming. These magazines de- pend 97 percent upon the United States mails for their delivery. The postage rates proposed in this bill will put many, if not all, of our present farm publica- tions out of business. This would be a loss to the Nation far greater than any loss which may be sustained now by the Post Office Department in delivering these farm publications. The Nation and this Congress, interested as it is in sound economy, cannot afford to let this happen. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr, COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from New York. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would the gentle- man be in favor of including all maga- zines sent out by labor organizations? Mr. COOLEY. They are already exempt under the bill. Mr. ROOSEVELT. In this amend- ment, would the gentleman be in favor of including them? Mr. COOLEY. It is not necessary to put them in the amendment. The Dill itself exempts publications by nonprofit corporations or organizations such as labor organizations. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Tennessee. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. They are given preferential rates only as to non- profit publications. Mr, COOLEY. That is all. Chairman, 1689 Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Who owns the Country Gentleman? Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman knows who owns that publication. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. owns the Southern Agriculturist? Mr. COOLEY. I will not yield fur- ther. The gentleman knows who owns them. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Ohio. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Is no: the real question what kind of service these pub- lications furnish to the farmers of the Nation? Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman is exactly right. We heard a lot of talk about the death sentences being imposed upon the utilities years ago, but this bill is really a death sentence to publications serving American agriculture. I know that the Department of Agriculture de- pends largely upon the circulation of the magazines that go into rural sections to get across to them the results of the re- search programs and of all other activi- ties of the Department of Agriculture. You need only to look in one of these publications which I have herc before me. Here is the Progressive Farmer. One article is entitled “Planting Cotton,” an- other “Corn in Texas,” another “Green Grazing in January,” still another “West Texas Lands Are Prosperous,” and all the way through you will flnd one story after another pertaining to agriculture and written by agricultural experts, either working for the Federal or the State gov- ernments. Here is an article by an engi- neer connected with the A. and M. Col- lege in Texas concerning safety on thé farm. Here is an article by Mr. John A. Arey, of the extension service of North Carolina State College, one of the great- est dairy specialists of America, entitled “Clean Milk Pays Profits,” another re- garding irrigation systems, another about “What I Saw of Italian Farming,” an- other entitled “Insurance for Farm Fam- ilies,” and on and on and on. And the truth about it is that this publication, for instance, cost the farmer only $1 for 5 years, Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. No; I decline to yield. The gentlemen closed debate. I have no desire to delay unduly the final action on this bill, I regret very much that the gentleman ir. charge of the bill has limited this discussion to five brief min- utes when it affects the welfare of mil- lions of people. I regret very much that time will not permit a full and frank discussion of the matter under consid- eration. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. What did the gentleman say the cost of that pub- lication was? Mr. COOLEY. One dollar for 5 years. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Texas. Mr. POAGE. As a matter of fact, if you read the contents, it is almost exactly the same as a list of farm bulletins, is it not? Mr. CCOLEY. That is right. Who Mr. Chairman,
1690 Mr. POAGE. And the Government gives you and me the right to use the mails to frank out those bulletins? Mr. COOLEY. That is correct. Mr. POAGE. And the Government prints them. It is cheaper to let these people print the bulletins and send them out than to have the Government print them and for us to send them out. Mr. COOLEY. I think the gentleman is correct. One thing I want to say on behalf of the publishers of these maga- zines, as pointed out by the author of this amendment, they have not asked for preferential treatment. They only ask that a graduated rate be imposed upon them so that they might be able to stay in business and work out their own problems over a period of from 3 to 5 years. But, the effect of the pending bill is to put these magazines into liqui- dation. Some of these farm magazines and periodicals are devoted almost exclu- sively to the problems of the rural peo- ple of our Nation. I wish very much that it were possible for every Member of this House to examine closely these periodicals which I have here on the desk. If this were possible, I believe that the membership of the House could vote more intelligently upon the pend- ing amendment. The Government ac- tually saves money by using, free of charge, the pages of these many pub- lications in disseminating information which is vital to the welfare of our Na- tion. Just about every agency within the Department of Agriculture uses freely the farm magazines and periodicals in furthering our great farm program, in every part and parcel of it. If the pub- lishers of these magazines and period- icals could absorb the extra cost or could pass it on even to the farmers them- selves, or if they could increase adver- tising and thereby increase their profits, the situation would be quite different. At the moment they are able to do nei- ther, and consequently if the increased rates go into effect, we will be rendering a disservice not only to the publishers, not only to the farmers, but likewise to the Government and to all the people of the Nation. In conclusion, I desire to read a tele- gram from Dr. Clarence Poe, president and editor of the Progressive Farmer: RareicH, N. C., February 8, 1950. Hon. Haroip D. Coorry, Member of Congress: Tremendously appreciate your willingness to ask exemption of farm press from pro- posed confiscatory increase in second-class postage. United States Government spends many millions for research, and you know farm papers are more effective than official farm bulletins in promptly and continuously carrying and simplifying research findings to farmers. In times of peace such service justifies giving the exemption you ask, In case of another war the farm press could be eas valuable as an army in maintaining max- imum food and fiber production. Ciazencr Por, President and Editor, the Progressive Farmer, Dr. Pee has been associated with the Progressive Farmer for 50 years. He is held in high esteem by the farm peonle of America and by all who have had the privilege of knowing him. He is re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE garded as one of the greatest farm lead- ers of his day and generation, and I know that you can safely rely upon the statements he has made concerning the confiscatory character of the proposal now under consideration. I urge the adoption of the pending amendment and express the hope that it will be adopted by a substantial ma- jority. The CHAIRMAN. The question is cn the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. McCartHry]. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. Murray of Ten- nessee) there were—ayes 114, noes 70. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were refused. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the committee substitute and all amend- ments thereto close in 20 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. Sutron) there were—ayes 99, noes 76. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- man appointed as tellers Mr. Murray of Tennessee and Mr. CorRBETT. The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there were—ayes 133, noes 72. So the motion was agreed to. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, a par- Hamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. FULTON. Is a motion that the Committee do now rise in order at this time? The CHAIRMAN, would be in order. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. Fu.ton) there were—ayes 76, noes 125. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask for tellers. Tellers were refused. So the motion was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will an- nounce that Members who have amend- ments at the desk will be recognized for 1 minute in support of their amendment and the committee will be recognized for 1 minute in opposition to each amend- ment. Mr, CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, a par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CHURCH. Is it the opinion of the Chair that 1 minute is sufficient on these important amendments? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot answer that question. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gavin] is recognized to offer an amendment. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Gavi: On page 25, line 14, after “piece of”, strike out “14 cents” and insert “1144 cents.” Such a motion FEBRUARY 8 Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, the gen- tieman from Georgia offered an amend- ment to retain the present third-class rate of 1 cent. The bill calls for an increase of 50 percent, from 1 cent to 144 cents. This is an exorbitant increase for users of third-class mail to absorb. My amendment asks for an increase of one-quarter cent, a 25-percent increase, rather than a 50-percent increase at this time. The 60-percent increase would work a hardship on the users of third- class mail, throw hundreds out of em-~ ployment who are dependent upon the use of third-class mail, and if the 25- percent increase were adopted it would give the users an opportunity to adjust themselves to meet the increased de- mands that are being made upon them by these tncreased costs of operation. The House has been very patient today, at the same time it must be remembered many people are concerned, and we are making a change in the postal-rate structure that will affect hundreds, yes thousands, of people. We should have time to carefully debate this proposed legislation but we are not being given that opportunity. I hope my amendment will be adopted, which is a 25-percent increase rather than the committee’s proposal of a 50- percent increase. If my amendment of 25 percent is not adopted and the exces- sive increase of 50 percent, as proposed in the committee bill, is accepted, it will compel users of third-class mail to cur- tail drastically their volume of third-class mail—their one and only means of carry- ing on their business. And let me warn you, the result will be to destroy a large part of many busi- nesses and the employment and the tax revenues that depend upan them. The committee has rushed through this bill today. It is my prophecy that postal revenue will decrease rather than in- crease because of the unavoidable reduc- tions in mail volume that will occur be- cause of these increased rates in third- class mail. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment will be voted down. Practically the same amendment was offered just a few min- utes ago. By the vote on that amend- ment the committee decided to keep the committee rate of 1% cents. There are over 9,000,000 pieces of this propaganda matter deposited in the mails. The Post Office Department has no 1%-cent stamp; the postal meters have no 1%-cent designation. I appeal to you to stand by the 1%- cent rate that is now in the bill, The CHAIRMAN. The question fs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. CaNnFrImELD] is rec- ognized to offer an amendment. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Canruip: On page 35, line 20, insert the following: “It is the sense of the House the postal deficit shall not be covered by taxes on incomes, imports,
1950 corporations, fur coats, railroad tickets, thea- ter tickets, pocketbooks, cosmetics, and baby oil.” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is merely to point up the problem that confronts us, serious as it is. We have got to get the money somehow. We have either got to get it by making these subsidy groups pay the freight or we got to get it through taxing all of the American people, so many of whom are tired of shouldering somebody else’s load. There is discrimination here today and it is discrimination against the taxpayers of the United States asa whole. Here is a@ golden opportunity for economy advo- cates to stand up and be counted for a bill seeking to meet part of this deficit in a proper way. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired, Mr. MURRAY of ‘Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I renew my point of order that the amendment is not germane and ds not in order. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair sustains the point of order. The Chair now recognizes the gentle- man from Minnesota [Mr. HaGEN). Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Haacen* On page 19, lines 20 and 21, after the word ‘“‘man- ufacture”’, insert “and on private mailing or post cards" Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment. will retain the rate on post cards as it is today, namely, 1 cent. In other words, post cards which are pri- vately printed by print shops throughout the country and sold in stores and busi- ness houses now go for 1 cent postage. This amendment retains the rate at 1 cent. The amendment would not change the proposed raise in the bill of 2 cents on other cards. In other words, the Gov- ernment postal card, by the bill, will have an increase of from 1 to 2 cents. My emendment will retain the private post card, sold at various stores, at 1 cent. This rate should be maintained at 1 cent because there are billions of cards in the ccuntry in the stores, in all the print shops, and in post card manufacturing concerns with the words ‘‘one cent post- age’ on the card. The time may come in the future for raising the rate, but it should not be raised now and the rate of 1 cent should be continued on post cards. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in my opening statement, it cost the Post Office Department 2.6 cents to send every postal card through the mail. There is a deficit of over $66,000,000 on those cards. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the pending amendment be defeated. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Minnesota [Mr. Hacen]. The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. McCartTHY], Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. McCartiyr: Page 29, after line 14, insert the following new subsections: “(d) Books, permanently bound for pres- ervation (including books bound with card- board or paper), consisting wholly of rcad- ing matter, or, in the case of work books for schools, consisting of a combination of read- ing matter and blank spaces for students’ notations (regardless of whether the pages having such blank spaces are intended to be removed from the books for separate use), and containing no advertising matter other than incidental announcements of books, and when in parcels acceptable for mailing as fourth-class matter, may be sent at the rate of postage established by section 2 (a) (1) for that portion of publications matl- able as second-class matter which is devoted to matter other than advertisements, plus 50 percent. "“(e) The rate of postage for library books shall be the same as authorized by existing law” Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to estab- lish something of an equity in the rela- tionship between the rates on books and rates on periodicals and also on cata- logs. My amendment proposes that the book rate be 50 percent higher than the rate on reading material in periodicals like the Saturday Evening Post, which would be 3 cents apound. At the present time you pay 8 cents a pound if the material is printed in a book and sent through the mail. If you sell it in serial form to the Saturday Evening Post you re- ceive a rate of 142 cents a pound. Under the increase here proposed you will pay 2 cents in the Saturday Evening Post and 8 cents 1f you send it through the mail, At the present time it costs about 10 cents for each catalog in the parcel post classification and it costs about 20 cents for a book. You can send the Sears, Roebuck catalog for 10 cents and the Bible for 20 cents. I do not think that is equitable. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Tennessee LMr. MuRRAY 1. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill to try to raise revenue. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Under what precedent or ruling is the Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment being offered? That was not included in the motion. Had it been included in the motion, it would have been subject to a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is try- ing to be fair in the conduct of the com- mittee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the opposite side has been Mr. 1691 the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Morray]. There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to each amendment. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. But the gentleman from South Dakota got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy. The Members who have_ proposed amendments here have been waiting all afternoon to be heard, and if the com- mittee adopted the procedure of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes’ notice, with 10 amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit of closing debate. The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the name of the committee. If the Chair was so in- clined, the Chair could recognize two Members for 5 minutes each on amend- ments, on each side, and that would pre- clude the others from having any voice in the amendments that are pending, or in the debate. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. That, of course, is true, the Chair could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the time is di- vided among those who ure seeking to offer amendments, and unless the mo- tion specifically reserves time to the committee, it has been the precedent to divide the time among those who are seeking to offer amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair fcels that the committee is entitled to a re- buttal on any amendment that is of- fered, and has so announced, and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair sustains its present position. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, a par- Hamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. CHURCH. The provision of the rules that a Member may require a read- ing of the engrossed copy of the bill, be- cause of the unusual situation I have been placed in today, waiting here since noon, js still a part of the rules, is it not? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will in- form the gentleman from Illinois that that question should be addressed to the Speaker of the House when he takes the present position occupied by your hum- ble servant. The gentleman from Ten- nessee may proceed. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill to try to raise revenue, to increase certain postal rates. It is not a bill to decrease postal rates, and yet this amendment would reduce the rate on books from 8 cents for the first pound to 3 cents for each additional pound. We have been very fair to books in this bill. We have not increased the
1692 rates on books, and I hope the commit- tee will let the present rate of 8 cents for the first pound and 4 cents for each additional pound stand and ask that you vote down the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. McCartTry]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. McCartuy) there were—ayes 22, noes 93. So the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross}. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I take this time merely to say that I am wit- nessing here a new high in gag-rule procedure. Iam one of those on this side of the aisle who voted a year ago last January and who voted again this year to liberalize the rules. I did not sup- pose I would see this afternoon the vote on the part of the Democratic member- ship to gag the House. Ten amend- ments are offered here and the propo- nents of these amendments are being allowed exactly 1 minute each to present them. This is a new high in the gag- rule, and the most high-handed action I have ever seen in this Chamber. I will vote against this bill if for no other reason than this procedure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the re- mainder of my 60 seconds. The CHAIRMAN. The Chatr recog- nizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. KEATING]. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of joining in the protest voiced by the gentleman from Iowa. There are many good features in this bill which certainly deserves more than the cursory consideration that is pos- sible at this late hour. Many of us might be able, at the conclusion of a full de- bate and after supporting various amendments to improve the bill, to vote for the measure, whereas if debate is shut off now and no opportunity af- forded to put the bill in shape, we may be forced to oppose it. Through the attitude of the majority leadership in trying to ram this half- digested measure down our throats, con- sidering 10 or 12 amendments in 20 min- utes, we are placed in a dilemma to which we should not be subjected. No opportunity is given us to have a final vote on anything except a bill contain- ing features, both good and bad, and never adequately subjected to commit- tee study and consideration. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, KEATING. I yield. Mr, HOFFMAN of Michigan, If the gentleman joined with the gentleman from Iowa in voting for the gag rule, Jet me say that you are now getting just what you voted for. Mr. KEATING. I voted against the motion to Hmit debate. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Forton]. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to echo the sentiments of the people that want to see proper justice done to these small newspapers and the users of the postal service. I am sorry that adequate CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE time is not given for the consideration of these amendments and for a full and free discussion here this afternoon, since this debate is being shut off. I have done everything I could to prevent that from being done. I may say that I am going to ask for the reading of the en- grossed copy of the bill because of that. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from [Illinois [Mr. CHORCH). Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. CHURCH: Strike out all of section 1, beginning at line 19 on page 19, and ending at line 9 on page 20, and insert in lieu thereof the following: “Section 3916 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. C., title 3a, sec. 356) is hereby repealed." Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment discontinues entirely the ts- suance of Government postal cards and provides for the continuance of the 1- cent postage rate on the privately printed post cards. The adoption of this amendment would realize a saving of around $45,800,000 a year. At the same time, it would take the Government out of competition with private enterprise engaged in the manufacture of post cards. According to the testimony of the Postmaster General before the commit- tee, it costs the Post Office Department around 2.6 cents for each postal card it sells at 1 cent. In other words, the De- partment pays 1.6 cents more than it receives for each of these cards. During 1948 approximately 2,830,000,- 000 of these Government cards were transmitted by the postal service. On each of these the Post Office Department lost at least 1.6 cents, representing the cost of manufacture and distribution. It can thus be seen that the elimination of this item entirely will realize a substan- tial saving, which I have estimated at $45,800,000 annually, not including the saving that would be realized in the transmission costs. I should like to emphasize this point. In his testimony before the committee the Postmaster General specifically stated that he would prefer to have the Post Office Department discontinue to manufacture the penny postal card to raising the rates, as proposed by this bill. His statement will be found on page 83 of the committee hearing. He said: I would much prefer if there would be a final decision of the committee not to raise the rates on the two oards but to repeal the law that requires the Post Office Department to manufacture them. The existing provision of law which re- quires that the Postmaster General manufacture and sell these penny postal cards was originally enacted in 1872, amended in 1876, and last amended in 1877. It is obvious from these dates, as well as from a reading of the provision itself, that the purpose of it was to en- courage the use of the mails. The pro- vision starts with this phrase “to facili- tate letter correspondence, and to pro- vide for the transmission in the mails,” and 80 forth. There is certainly no need today for stimulating the use of the mails. That need may have existed 75 or so years ago FEBRUARY 8 when this system of penny postal cards was inaugurated. And there ts no rea- son why it should be continued at such -an expense to the people as a whole. Those who may desire to use the card as &® means of communication can pur- chase them from private stores and, un- der my amendment, send them at a i-cent rate, which is a rate below the actual transmission cost. I believe this procedure is much to be preferred to the proposal embodied in this bill to raise the postage rates to 2 cents on both the Gov- ernment-issued cards and those pri- vately manufactured. The enactment of the bill as it now stands will place a great many businesses out of business. Billions of private cards bearing the inscription “place 1-cent stamp here” are in the inventories of wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers throughout the United States. There ‘would be untold confusion in every post office if attempts were made to collect the additional postage—on such short no- tice—for paid-for cards. By adopting this amendment, we will not only be saving several million dollars B year, but we will at the same time be eliminating this wholly unnecessary competition on the part of the Govern- ment with those engaged in the manu- facture of post cards. We will also be encouraging the use of the private picture card. This has great educational advantages. It will en- courage people to use cards which depict some historic scene of a city or section of the country. It will encourage travel and encourage our people to become ac- quainted with the many wonders existing in this country of ours. I hope the committee will adopt my amendment. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not understand exactly what the gentleman's amendment does. I know that it is not a good amendment, and ask that it be voted down. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Dlinois [Mr, CxurcH). The amendment was rejected. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. CHurcn: Strike out all of section 1, beginning on line 19, page 19, and ending on line 9, page 20, and insert in lieu thereof the following: “SECTION 1, The charge for postal cards issued and furnished to the public by the Postmaster General shall be at a rate fixed by the Postmaster General to approximate the cost of their manufacture and distribu- tion in addition to the postage rate of 1 cent each.” amendment simply provides that the Postmaster General shall charge for the postal cards issued by his Department the cost of manufacture and distribution of the cards, as well as the postage rate of 1 cent. It has been estimated that the penny postal card costs 2.6 cents each. For only 1 cent postage a person is furnished free of charge, the cardboard, the print- ing, the cutting, packing, boxing, distri-
1950 bution, and sale of a card. This is not the type of service that the post office is intended to perform. And it represents @ cost to the Government of at least $45,800,000. By this amendment I provide that the i-cent postage rate on both postal cards tssued by the Government and those pri- vately manufactured shall be continued. But I also provide by this amendment that in fixing the price of the postal cards sold by the Government the Postmaster General shall approximate the cost of manufacture and distribution of the card. We will thus discontinue this un- necessary subsidy, discontinue this com- petition with private enterprise, and at the same time eliminate the necessity of an increase in the postage rate on all cards as provided in the bill as it now stands. As the bill now stands we are asking all the people to bear the addi- tional cost to subsidize a few. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHURCH. I am sorry I cannot yield. Mr. TACKETT. I am trying to help the gentleman. Mr. CEURCH. Well then, go ahead. I wish the gentleman could get me some more time. Mr. TACKETT. Will the gentleman State whether or not this amendment provides {hat the Post Office Department shall actually charge what they expend for the making of post cards, rather than letting the taxpayers pay the expense 60 that they can take business away from the printing companies? Mr. CHURCH. The gentleman is exactly right. At least the Postmaster General] can charge the approximate cost. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is not a good amend- ment and I ask that it be voted down. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Illinois [Mr. Cyurcy]. The amendment was rejected. Mr. KEATING. Mr, Chairman, a par- liamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, in view of the remarks heretofore made, would a motion that the committee do now rise be in order? The CHAIRMAN. Such a motion is in order. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. Mr. EBERHARTER. I make the point of order that the motion is not in order because it has not been submitted in writing. The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is sustained. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I send the motion to the Clerk’s desk. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the motion offered by the gentle- man from New York. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, how many amendments still remain to be disposed of? XCVI——107 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand the regular order. We cannot wait here for amendments to be written. The CHAIRMAN. There are five amendments pending. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, how much more time re- mains? The CHAIRMAN. There are 6 min- utes remaining. Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I raise the point of order that 20 minutes ago we voted to close debate. The 20 minutes have gone. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman that the 20 minutes for debate have not been used. The Chair will watch the matter closely. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Kzatinc moves that the Committee do now rise. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. Keatinc) there were—ayes 72, noes 144, So the motion was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. JONES]. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair- man, I would like to rise in support of this bill. However, I regret that we have not taken time to perfect the bill as it should have been. There has been one amendment adopted which does offer discrimination against some of the other publications— some of the agricultural journals that were voted in under the religious and other classes of publications. While it is a bill to get increased revenue, although I do not think the bill is in proper form as it should be, I hope there will be an opportunity to have the bill perfected when it reaches the other body. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Sutton]. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at the desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr Svurron: On page 22, line 14, after the word “exceeding”, strike out "10,000" and insert '150,000.” Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, the philosophy of this amendment is the same as that expounded by the chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to help the rural sections and urban papers. I am glad that the great majority whip, the gentleman from Ten- nessee [Mr. Prirst], joins with me in support of this amendment. It is not to take care of papers like the Chicago Tribune, which has a million circulation, but it is to take care of the average daily newspaper throughout the United States. This is a good amendment, and I wish I had time to explain it more fully to you. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUTTON. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. Does it not also take care of the papers that go through the mails into the rural sections, not sold on newstands and delivered? Mr. SUTTON. It certainly does. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, will the geni!eman yicld? Mr. SUTTON. I yield. 1633 Mr. PRIEST. Obviously, the gentle- man does not have time to explain the amendment in detail, but I think it is a very important amendment, and I hope it may be adopted. Mr. SUTTON. I appreciate the re- marks of my colleague from Tennessee, the distinguished majority whip. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Sutton] has expired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I understand this amend- ment proposes that we leave the rates as they are for all second-class publica- tions with less than 150,000 circulation. Mr. SUTTON. One hundred and fifty thousand circulation. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That is certainly unfair discrimination. The newspapers are paying the same rates they have been paying for the past 70 years. Not one single solitary increase has been made since 1878. They should pay more, and I hope this amendment will be voted down. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. The question recurs on the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. SurTon]. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. Surton) there were—ayes 38, noes 120. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. HAGEN, Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Hacen: Page 24, line 9, after the word “packages”, insert “increases provided in the section shall be effective as follows: 50 percent of the in- creases effective January 1, 1951; and 60 per- cent of the increases effective January 1, 1952.” Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes that the increases in the rates for all the publications that go through as second-class mail be ex- tended over a period of time. Publishers have accepted subscriptions for 2, 3, and 5 years at their present rates and prices. This amendment will merely extend the time of the proposed second-class mail increases over a 2-year period so that publishers will not all find themselves with increased postage rates on the old rate of subscription that was charged at the lower postage rates. Unless this amendment is adopted, it will greatly harm many small publications. In closing let me say that I want to condemn the high-handed manner in which this bill has been rushed through here. At a time when 10 important amendments were still pending we were limited to 20 minutes’ time. I have sev- eral amendments that I shall not even have an opportunity to have read at the Clerk's desk, let alone offer and discuss. Here is a bill that affects every Ameri- can, one-hundred-and-fifty-and-some- million American people, and yet we have been forced to rush it through at this late hour of the day. There will not be a roll call on it to- night anyway, because an engrossed copy of the bill will be demanded.
1694 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Minnesota. The amendment was rejected. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. JENSEN: Add a new section at the end of the bill as follows: “In no instance shall the provisions of this bill affect rates now in effect on shipments of garden or field seeds.” Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, it should not take even 1 minute to explain the value of the amendment and the need of it in this bill. Everyone knows how many American families are de- pendent on their gardens for much of their food. If we are going to make it difficult for those folks to get garden seed and we are certainly going to hurt a@ lot of poor families in America. Another thing, garden seed and many field seeds are in short supply, and we need soil conservation no end. Let us not make it any more difficult or expen- sive to get garden seed and the needed field seeds, the latter especially which are so necessary for the conservation of our precious soil I hope this amend- ment will be adopted. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa. The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The pending amendments having been disposed of except the committee substitute as amended for the bill, the question now occurs on the committee substitute as amended for the bill. The committee substitute was agreed to. Mr. HAGEN, Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. The Clerk read as follows: Mr. HacEN moves that the Committee rise and report back to the House the bill with the enacting clause stricken. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this motion in an effort to have a few minutes more time. Here is a bill that vitally affects every American. It has a far-reaching effect on the economy of this country. The proponents are try- ing to rush it through in the matter of a few hours’ time. This bill, if enacted into law in its present form, will throw many hundreds of thousands of people out of work; it will close up hundreds of businesses throughout the country; it will curtail the activities of all the weekly and agri- cultural papers of the country and will have a tremendous effect on all business, and it may bring about a recession in the Nation. We should have more time to consider the many amendments that could have been offered, many of them very meri- torious. The fact that the bill has had so many amendments offered to it shows that it was not clearly drawn nor fully considered in the first place, and that it should be recommitted to the committee for further consideration. There is no one here now who knows how many amendments were adopted, and there were many more that could have been considered if we had not been shut off CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE for time. I condemn the practice of shutting off time of debate as undemo- cratic, as un-American, and not becom- ing this body. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I con- cur in the remarks of my colleague and add that from the time this particular version of the bill was reached up to this moment there has been a complete dis- regard of the welfare of the country and its people and the welfare of the whole Postal Department in the hurry to rush this thing through regardless of any scientific consideration or anything else. I hope that if we cannot recommit the bill, the Senate continues its action along that line. Mr.CHURCH Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr HAGEN. [yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. CHURCH. I want to concur in the gentleman's remarks also and to say further that if no one else does it I am going to demand a reading of the en- grossed copy of the bill. I said that earlier in the day and I repeat it. Mr. DAVENPORT. Myr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. DAVENPORT. Has the gentle- man knowledge of the fact that news- paper costs, production and labor, have gone up without any raise in revenue? If some of the gentlemen here who are going to vote for this bill would only go back and talk with some of their pub- lishers and get their ideas they might have a change of heart. I think the Members are confused and I think we should have more time to study this bill. Mr. HAGEN. The gentleman is right. We should have more time to study this very complex bill, I will therefore ask that the Members vote in favor of the motion to recommit the bill to the com- mittee. Many do not fully understand now what is in the bill. Ithink we should consider this proposal further in com- mittee, then bring it back later to you. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. MARSHALL. I have 81 country newspapers in my district. This is the most discriminatory bill I have seen come before the Congress this year. It will put approximately one-third of those coun- try newspapers completely out of busi- ness. Mr. HAGEN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. DAVENPORT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. DAVENPORT. I would just like to pass on this information. I talked with a publisher just the other day who said that the enactment of this measure would cause him to curtail by thousands of copies that circulation which goes out into the country areas. We therefore are being unfair to the people who live in the outlying sections who get these big daily newspapers, FEBRUARY 8 Mr. HAGEN. If this bill passes this House, I am glad to say that I will not be responsible for its passage. I can go back and face my people and my weekly and small daily newspaper publishers and say to them that “I fought for you, but the Democratic Party was against you and we got licked, so we will have to fight it out further in the next elec- tion.” Mr. McKINNCN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentle- man from California. Mr. McKINNON. I would like to point out just a couple of facts about news- papers. I have been in the newspaper business ever since I was a kid in high school. I have had a fair degree of suc- cess in publishing newspapers, and I would like to point out to the gentleman who spoke a moment ago that as far as revenues from newspapers go, last year the newspaper fraternity had the big- gest year in advertising history. They can well afford to pay a modest increase in cost as this bill provides. As far as weekly newspapers go, they are exempt in this bill. Furthermore, if this bill is passed, it will have a tendency to help the small newspapers by keeping the big metropolitan dailies out of the small newspaper dealers’ field. Mr. HAGEN. The increases in this bill will not be paid by the big news- papers but largely will be paid by the small weekly and daily newspapers and other small publications using the mails for the distribution to their subscribers. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. HAGEN]. The motion was rejected. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to, and the bill as amended do pass. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. HOLIFIELD, Chairman of the Commit- tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Commit- tee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 2945) to adjust postal rates, had directed him to report. the bill back to the House with an amendment, with the recommendation that the amend- ment be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the bill and amendment thereto to final passage. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. The SPEAKER. Obviously that can- not be done at this time.
1950 . EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. COOLEY asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his remarks. Mr. BREHM asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorD. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend their remarks in the Recorp on the bill under consid- eration today. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? There was no objection. SPECIAL ORDER TRANSFERRED Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that the special order I was granted for today be transferred to tomorrow. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. LEAVES OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leaves of ab- sence were granted as follows: To Mr. Lovre (at the request of Mr. Case of South Dakota), for 10 days, on account of official business. To Mr. SHELLEY (at the request of Mr. HAVENNER), indefinitely, on account of illness. To Mr. SaNgorN, until February 16, on account of official business. To Mr. Aten of California, for Febru- ary 8, in addition to leave herctofore granted, on account of extreme illness in family. To Mr. WapsworTH (at the request of of Mr. ARENDS), from January 24 and indefinitely, on account of illness. To Mr. Werve.t, from February 8 through February 16, on account of offi- cial business. CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO, Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday, and I ask that the business of Calendar Wednesday proceed. I submit that the regular order Is the continuation of the call of com- mittees by the Clerk. The SPEAKER. The Chair at this time is going to lay before the House a matter of highest privilege. UNITED STATES AGAINST CHRISTOFFEL The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication from the Clerk of the House: Fesruary 8, 1950. The honorable the SPEAKER, House of Representatives. Sim. From the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, I have received a subpena duces tecum, directed to me as Clerk of the House of Representatives, to appear before said court on the 9th day of February 1950 at 10 o'clock a. m. as a witness in the case of the United States v. Harold Roland Christoffel (No. 791-47, crim- inal docket), and to bring with me the min- ute book of the Committee on Education and Labor for the Eightieth Congress, including CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the minutes of the executive session of said committee. Since this minute book is under the un- qualified control of the House of Representa- tives, anc the Clerk is not possessed of any right over it that would enable him to com- ply with such a request without first ob- taining the consent of the House, the book in question is submitted herewith and the matter is presented for such action as the House in its wisdom may see fit to take. Very respectfully, RatPH R Roserts, Clerk of the House of Representatives. DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOLDING A CRIMINAL COURT FOR BAID DISTRICT—THE UNITED STATES V. HAROLD ROLAND CHRISTOFFEL (NO. 791-47, CRIMINAL DOCKET) The President of the United States to Ralph Roberts, Clerk of the House of Repre- sentatives, the Capitol, Washington, D. C.: You are hereby commanded to attend the said court on Thursday, the 9th day of Feb- ruary 1950, at 10 o’clock a. m., to testify on behalf of the defendant, and bring with you the minute book of the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor of the Eightieth Congress of the United States including minutes of the executive sessions of said committee, and not depart the court without leave thereof. Witness the honorable chief justice of said court, the 8th day of February, A D. 1950, Harry M. HULL, Clerk. By Enwarp J. SKIENS, Deputy Clerk. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 465) and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read as follows: Whereas in the case of the Untted States v. Harold Roland Christoffel (No 191-47, crim- inal docket), pending in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, subpena duces tecum was issued by the chief Justice of said court and ad- dressed to Ralph R_ Roberts, Clerk of the House of Representatives, directing him to appear as a witness before the said court on the 9th day of February 1950, at 10 o’clock antemeridian, and to bring with him the minute book of the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor of the Eightieth Congress of the United Statcs including minutes of the executive sessions of said committee in the possession and under the control of the House of Representatives. Therefore be it Resolved, That by the privileges of the House no evidence of a documentary char- acter under the control and in possession of the House of Representatives can, by mandate of process of the ordinary courts of justice, be taken from éuch control or possession: Be it further Resolved, That this matter be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary tor determi- nation as to whether documentary evidence in the possession and under the control of the House of Representutives as set out in the subpena of the said court will be re- leased pursuant to such subpena: Be it further Resolved, That Ralph R. Roberts, Clerk of the House, be authorized to appear at the place and before the court named in the sub- pena duces tecum before mentioned, but shall not take with him the papers or docu- ments mentioned in said subpena: And be it further Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the said court as a respect- ful answer to the subpena duces tecum aforementioned. Mr. WALTER. Mr. Spezker, I move the previous question on tl:e resolution. The previous question was ordered. 1695 The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. HOUR OF MEETING TOMORROW Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ten- nessee? There was no objection. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I insist on the calling of the committees. ADJOURNMENT Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. MarcaNTOoNIo) there were—ayes 64, noes 26. So the motion was agreed to. Accordingly (at 6 o’clock and 12 min- utes p. m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thurs- day, February 9, 1950, at 11 o’clock a. m. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC, Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: 1218. A letter from the Acting Attorney General, transmitting copies of the olders of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service granting the status of permanent residence to the subjects of such orders pursuant to section 4 ol the act of Congress approved June 25, 1948 (Public Law 7174); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1219. A letter from the Acting Attorney General, transmitting copies of orders of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Nat- uralization Service suspending deportation, as well as a list of the persons involved, pur- suant to the act of Congress approved July 1, 1948 (Public Law 863), amending section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended (8 U S C, 155 (c)); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1220. A letter from the Administrator, General Services Administration, tiansmit- ting a repoit of the General Services Admin- istration covering the period July 1 thiough December 31, 1949, pursuant to section 210 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (Public Law 152); to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. CANNON: Committee on Appropria- tions. H.R. 7207. A bill making appropria- tions to supply urgent deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1950, and for othcr purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1614). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina: Com- mittee on the District of Columbia H R. 6670. A bill to incorporate the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1615). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. KILDAY: Committee on Armed Serv- ices. H.R 4316. A bill to repeal the author- ity to assess certuin owners of nonmilitary
1696 buildings situated within the limits of the Fort Monroe Military Reservation, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1616). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. KEATING: Committee on the Judi- clary. S 563. An act for the relief of the P. S. Cook Co.; without amendment (Rept. No. 1598). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 914, An act for the rellef of Gladys Inez Greenwood; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 1594). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr, LANE. Committee on the Judiciary. H R. 1047. A bill for the rellef of the Aero- Bocker Knitting Mills, Inc; without amend- ment (Rept No 1595). Referred to the Com- mittee of the Whole House. Mr. JENNINGS: Committee on the Judi- ciary. H. R 1290. A bill for the relief of Charles W. Wulf, warrant officer, junior grade, United States Air Force, with an amendment (Rept. No. 1596). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary S 1449. An act for the relief of Robert B. Workman, without amendment (Rept. No. 1597). Referred to the Commit- tee of the Whole House. Mr JENNINGS Committee on the Judi- clary H R 1464. A bill for the relief of W. B Terry; without amendment (Rept No 1598). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. KEATING. Committee on the Judi- clary H R 1699 A bill for the rellef of the estate of William Kraus; with an amendment (Rept No 1599) Referred to the Committee of the Whole House Mr BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary S$ 1933 An act for the relief of C L Leffingwell and others, without amendment (Rept No. 1600) Referred to the Committee of the Whole House Mr. FRAZIER. Committee on the Judi- clury H.R 2719 A bill for the relicf of I. D. Cosson, with an amendment (Rept No 1601). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary H R. 2765. A bill for the relief of Reno E Stitely; with an amendment (Rept. No 1602) Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. DENTON: Committee on tre Judiciary H. R. 2929. A bill for the relief of Mrs Dorothy Manious; with an amendment (Rept No. 1603). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. KEATING Committee on the Judi- clary. H. R 3725. A bill for the relief of Mrs Elizabeth Gardner; with an amendment (Rept No 1604). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. JENNINGS: Committee on the Judi- clary. H R 4301. A bill for the relief of Y. 8. Hu; without amendment (Rept. No 1605). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 4342. A bill for the relief of J. R Holden, R C. Biggadike, and John Hoffman; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1606). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. BYRNE of New York: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 5546. A bill for the relief of Harry Tansey; without amendment (Rept No. 1607). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 6051. A bill for the relief of Alcide Raymond; without amendment (Rept. No. 1608). Referred to the Comr ittee of the Whole House. Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H R. 6691. A bill for the relief of Paul D Banning, chief disbursing officer, Treasury Department, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1609). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 6692. A bill for the relief of Sgt Blaine W. Hughes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1610). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr. DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary, H. R. 6694, A bill for the relief of Ervin Haas and Leno Vescovi; without amendment (Rept. No. 1611). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr, DENTON: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R 6695. A bill for the relief of Edgar F. Russell; Lillian V. Russell, his wife; and Bessie R. Ward; without amendment (Rept. No 1612) Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. Mr DENTON. Committee on the Judiciary. H.R 6696 A bill for the relief of Lawrence B. Williams and his wife, Viva Craig Williams, without amendment (Rept. No 1613) Re- ferred to the Committee of the Whole House PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referr2d as follows: By Mr CANNON H R 7207. A bill making appropriations to supply urgent deficlencies in certain appro- priations for the .lcscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes; to the Commit- tee on Apvropriations. By Mr ANGELL: H R 7208 A bill to amend Public Law 439, Fighty-first Congress, cited as the “Agricul- tural Act of 1949"; to the Committee on Agriculture By Mr BONNER’ H R 7209 A bill authorizing and directing the United Stites Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior to under- tuke a continuing study of the shortage of white shad, herring, and other fish in the Al- bemarle and Pamlico Sounds and tributaries with respect to the biolcgy, propagation, and abundance of such specics to the end that such Service may recommend appropriate measures for arresting the docline of valuable food fish for increasing the abundance and promoting the wisest utilization thereof; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. By Mr. CLEMENTE: YR 7210. A bill to amend the War Claims Act of 1948 to give prisoners of war 62 per day for the period of confinement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. FARRINGTON: H.R 7211 A bill to amend section 82 of the Hawaiian Organic Act relating to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii and temporary vacancies therein; to the Com- mittee on Public Lands. By Mr. GOODWIN: H R 7212. A bill to amend Public Law 439, Eighty-first Congress, cited as the ‘“‘Agricul- tural Act of 1949”; to the Committee on Agriculture. By Mr HELLER: H.R 7213. A bill to exempt admissions to moving-picture theaters from the Federal tax on admissions; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. KEARNS: H.R 7214. A bill to authorize the appro- priation of funds to assist {n more adequately financing education in the elementary and FEBRUARY 8 secondary schools of States found to be needy, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Education and Labor. By Mrs NORTON: H.R. 7215. A bill to provide for the renova- tion of the Columbia Hospital for Women in the District of Columbia, and for the con- struction of a modern nurses’ home on the grounds of such hospital; to the Committee on Public Works. By Mr. REDDEN: H R. 7216. A bill for the purpose of erect- ing in Bryson City, N. C., a post-office and courthouse building; to the Committee on Public Works. H.R. 7217. A bill to provide for the fur- nishing of quarters at Bryson City, N. C., for the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr RIBICOFF: H R.7218. A bill to amend section 301 (b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (U.S. Code, title 7, sec. 1301 (b)), and to amend section 313 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (U. 8. Code, title 7, sec 1313); to the Committee on Agriculture By Mr WHITTINGTON: H R 7219 A bill to authorize acquisition by the Administrator of General Services of certain land and the improvements thereon in the District of Columbia, to the Commit- tee on Public Works By Mr ASPINALL: H.R. 7220 A bill to expedite the rehabili- tation of Federal reclamation projects in cer- tain cases, to the Committee on Public Lands By Mr WERDEL: H R 7221. A bill to authorize the appro- priation of funds to assist in more adequately financing education in the clementary and secondary schools of States found to be needy, nnd for other purposes, to the Com- mittee on Education and Labor By Mrs WOODHOUSE H R 7222 A bill to amend section 301 (b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1928, as amended (U. S Code, title 7, sec 1301 (b)); to the Committee on Agriculture, By Mrs ROGERS of Massachusetts * H R 7223 A bill to authorize the attend- ance of the United States Marine Band at a celebration commemorating the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, to be held at Lex- ington and Concord, Mass, April 16 through 19, inclusive, 1950, to the Committee on Armed Services Ty Mr MURPHY: H J Res 416 Joint resolution to provide for research into the health hazards of air pollution, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce By Mr WALTER: H Res 464. Resolution providing for two additional clerks for the Committce on the Judiciary; to the Committee on House Ad- ministration. MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legis- lature of the State of Massachusetts, re- questing the enactment of legislation re- pealing the wartime excise taxes, to the Com- mittee on Ways and Means. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred, as follows: By Mr. ALLEN of California: H. R. 7224 A bill for the relief of Thomas (Toma) Moldoveanu and Constance Mol-
1950 doveanu (his wife); to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 7225. A bill for the relief of Mircea Niculescu; to the Committee on the Judi- Clary. By Mr. BONNER: H.R. 7226. A bill for the relief of Frank W. Hess; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr, BYRNE of New York: H.R. 7227, A bill for the relief of the Chi- cago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. FOGARTY: H.R. 7228. A bill for the relief of Kazuko Kamada; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 7229. A bill for the relief of Seiko Kastuzawa; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. By Mr. HAND: H R. 7230. A bill for the relief of Ramute Alexandra Vailokaitis; to the Committee on the Judictary. By Mr. JAVITS: H.R.7281. A bill for the relief of Esther Stone; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. RIBICOFF: H R 7232. A bill for the relief of Stefanie Pfister and Hildegarde Weber; to the Com- mittee on the Judictary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 1815 By Mr. HESELTON: Resolutions me- mortalizing the Congress of the United States to withhold recognition of the Communist government in China; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 1816, Also, resolutions memorializing the Congress of the United States to enact legis- lation repealing the wartime excise taxes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1817. By Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin: Petition of sundry citizens of Beloit, Wis., urging pas- sage of H. R. 5940, the so-called Emergency Professional Health Training Act; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce. 1818. By Mr. WOLCOTT: Petition of 27 residents of the Seventh Michigan District, urging the removal or impeachment of Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, because of his recent statement in the Alger Hiss case, and his replacement by & man not only qualified and capable but loyal to the United States; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 1819. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Mrs. Agnes Brant and others, Boynton Beach, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2185 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1820, Also, petition of Nellie L. Hackley and others, Miamt, Fla., requesting passuge of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means, 1821. Also, petition of Mrs Edna Ferguson and others, Orlando, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means, 1822. Also, petition of Margaret Anderson and others, Tampa, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1823. Also, petition of Mrs. Jane Morris and others, Winter Park, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1824. Also, petition of Juan Carrasco, Fa- jardo, P. R., relative to the condition of Juan Carrasco and requesting that his case be given conaideration; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1825. Also, petition of Wilbur LaRoe, Jr., general counsel, National Independent Meat CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Packers Association, Washington, D. C., rela- tive to a change in the buying policy of the armed forces, which ts considered injurious to the cattle-raising industry of the South- west, and requesting that this unfair change in buying policy be reconsidered; to the Com- mittee on Armed Services. 1826. Also, petition of the chairman, Coun- cil for Reenforcing Rightist Camp of Korea, Seoul, Korea, expressing gratitude for the United States Government's efforts in liberat- ing Korea and for aid to Korea since World War I; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. SENATE Tuourspay, Fesruary 9, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, January 4, 1950) 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: Almighty God, grant to our anxious, groping hearts the assurance that behind the shadows and in them standeth One who slumbereth not nor sleeps. We are beset by perplexity. Our needs are many, but our greatest need is of Thee. We confess that our own selfishness has hin- dered the coronation of Thy purposes for all mankind. We have too often sought a solution for human wrongs which would leave ourselves unchanged. We have been unwilling to pay the cost of better things. So fashion our desires and deeds in accordance with Thy will that, rising to the full measure of our duty and our op- portunity, we may be laborers together with Thee to build the new world for whose coming good men have bravely died and where the nations of the whole earth may live together in trust and fel- lowship. In the dear Redeemer’s name. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Typincs, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, February 8, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE-—ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its read- ing clerks, announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint resolution, and they were signed by the Vice President: 8.570 An act for the relief of Donald Francis Wierda; 8.736. An act for the reimbursement of Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co.; 8.753. An act for the relief of Sisters An- toinette Cometti, Mary Gibin, Angela Pelo- sin, Emma Ghisleni, Elisabetta De Caterin, and Onorina Franzina; 8.777. An act for the relfef of Calvin D Lynch & Son; W. Thomas Lockerman; Sud- lersville Supply Co.; George C. Moore and H. A. Moore; J. McKenney Willis & Son, Inc ; Hobbs and Jarman; C. 8. Thomas; and Royse R. Spring; 8.1003. An act for the relief of Emory T. Wales; 8 1019. An act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the 1697 Western District of Washington to hear, de- termine, and render Judgment upon any claim arising out of personal injuries sus- tained by Carl J. Freund and Pauline H. Freund. his wife, of Seattle, Wash ; 8.1048. An act for the relief of Saul Phil- lips; 8 1054. An act for the rellef of North- west Missouri! Fair Association, of Bethany, Harrison County, Mo ; 8.1088 An act for the relief of Milton Buechler; S.1096 An act for the rellef of Abe Lincoln and Elena B Lincoln; 8.1166 An act for the relief of Toriko Tateuchi; S. 1353. An act for the relief of G. H. Laz- arus, Jr, and Jesse F. Bewley; S.1446 An act for the relief of James Hung Loo; B 1634. An act for the relief of Harry Com- ber: 8 1702 An act for the relief of Riyoko Bato: S 1801. An act for the relief of Mrs 8S Campbell; S 1915. An act for the relief of Viktor A. Kravchenko; 8 1924 An act for the relief of the estate of William Walter See; 8 2031. An act for the relief of the Willow River Power Co; §.2100 An act for the relief of Penelope Corolyn Cox; S 2114 An Shigeno; S 2119 An act for the relief of the Alamo Irrigation Co; H R. 587. An act for the relief of the estate of Dick Walvok, Alfred L. Woods, and Edward Kimoktoak; and S.J Res. 105. Joint resolution to provide unrestricted entry privileges to Sister Eliza- beth Kenny. DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES IN NEW ENGLAND STATES AND NEW YORK The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair, in his capacity as President of the Sen- ate, has received a communication from the President which he will ask the Sec- retary to read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: Efic act for the relfef of Mitsue THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, Fcbruary 9, 1950. Hon. ALBEN W, BARKLEY, President of the Senate of the United States. Dear Mr. Vice PRESIDENT: I am in- formed that the Senate will shortly con- sider H.R, 5472, the rivers and harbors and flood control authorization bill. In addition to authorizing projects for con- struction, this bill will also authorize a number of investigations and studies to be made, looking to future projects for the development and conservation of our land and water resources. Such investi- gations and studies should be carefully planned, so that all relevant facts will be considered, and the resulting informa- tion and recommendations will be of lasting value for future action, both gov- ernmental and private. I am writing this letter to recommend that the Senate adopt an amendment to H.R. 5472 which I understand is to be offered by a group of Senators from the New England States and New York, pro- viding for a broad-scale study of how the Jand and water resources of those States may be best conserved and developed for the best interests of their people and the whole Nation.
1698 We are often inclined to think that, because those States were originally set- tled 200 years and more ago, and because they led the Nation for many years in in- dustrial and commercial development, they do not need the benefit of modern methods of resource development and conservation. Such a conception is very jar from the truth. New York and the New England States have real and se- rious problems of soil and forest conser- vation and management, and of control- ling and using water to prevent floods, to provide domestic and industrial water supplies, and to furnish low-cost hydro- electric power. These problems must be overcome if these States are to partici- pate fully in the economic growth of our country. We have gradually come to understand that, if best results are to be achieved, these problems should be considered to- gether, and met by comprehensive plan- ning and action which recognizes the close imter-relationship of Jand and water and their manifold uses. In many areas of our country coordinated plans have been worked out for multiple pur- pose, integrated development of natural resources. However, these seven States have not, so far, had the benefit of such comprehensive study and planning. Some notable individual projects have been planned, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway and power project. These proj- ects should, of course, proceed without further delay. No additional study is needed before they are constructed. They are obviously necessary parts of any broad-scale program. But a wider scope, a broader vision, is needed if the full possibilities inherent fn the resources of these States are to be realized. In the field of hydroelectric power, for example, it is not enough to consider cach project by itself. There are many un- developed power sites in the New Eng- land States, including the Passama- quoddy project, which have been esti- mated to offer in the aggregate as much as 3,000,000 kilowatts of additional ca- pacity. The redevelopment of the power capacity of Niagara Falls, concerning which negotiations with Canada are in progress, can provide more than 1,000,000 kilowatts of additional capacity. From Niagara on the west, through the St. Lawrence project, which will provide just under 1,000,000 kilowatts, and on into the New England States, there is a whole range of projects which should be con- sidered in relation to each other. These projects could all be interconnected by transmission lines. Some of them offer a steady, continuous power supply; others could provide the intermittent supply needed to meet peak loads. Much of this power could be produced at as low cost as any in the Nation. These potentialities need to be thor- oughly studied, since they offer real pos- sibilities for increasing the present power capacity of New York and the New Eng- land States by as much as 50 percent. Development of this great supply of hydroelectric power, representing three or four times as much electricity as we will obtain from the St. Lawrence project alone, would clearly stimulate the broad economic development—industrial, com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mercial, agricultural—of those portions of the region which have for many years been lagging in all-around economic progress. This power supply would also be a powerful force toward lower electric rates in New York and New England. This region now includes some of the highest electric rate areas in the country. Resi- dential rates in the New York City and Boston metropolitan areas in recent years have been the highest of all cities over 50,000 population in the country—about one-third higher than the national aver- age. Six of these 7 States are among the 10 States in the Union having the highest power rates for residential con- sumers. The homes, farms, and indus- tries in these States should be enabled to share in the general downward trend of rates and upward trend of use, which have added so much to the prosperity of other regions. These power possibilities are only one example of the questions of land and water use in the New England States and New York which should be thoroughly studied. Some of the worst cases of water pollution in the country are found on the rivers in these States. A great deal should be done to rebuild depleted soils, restore forests, and increase recrea- tional opportunities. These and other resource questions should be studied to- gether, and guidelines laid down which will be useful to Federal, State, and local governments and private groups in pro- viding for the provident husbandry of the precious natural resources of these States. I believe that a sound method for ac- complishing this is provided by the pro- posed amendment to H. R. 5472. The amendment would establish a Study Commission of seven members, including citizens from the region and representa- tives of the principal Federal agencics concerned. The Commission would util- ize all the studies which have been made already, and would arrange for such fur- ther investigations as may be desirable. An advisory committeee appointed by the governors of the seven States would par- ticipate in the work of the Commission, and the Commission’s recommendations would be submitted to the governors for their comments before submission to the President and to the Congress. The Commission’s final report would be sub- mitted in 2 years, after which time it would be dissolved. These provisions, which are similar to those already adopted by the Senate to establish a study commission for the Ar- kansas, Red and White River Basins, should result in a great combined pro- gram for wise, permanent, and economi- cally sound development of the natural resources of these States. Such a pro- gram will be a stimulus to economic growth and prospcrity not only for those States, but for the whole Nation. Sincerely yours, Harry S. TRUMAN. The VICE PRESIDENT. Inasmuch as the bill to which reference is made is on the calendar, the Chair suggests that the letter of the President lie on the table, and, without objection, that will be done. FEBRUARY 9 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I am naturally pleased by the President’s rec- ognition of the broad purpose which I proposed last year, and which is already embodied in the bill which was favorably reported at the last session, I believe, by unanimous vote of the committee. I hope this may mean that the majority leadership will at long last set this im- portant subject down for early action. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I join in the statement just made by my colleague from Massachusetts. I joined with him in the resolution he submitted more than a year ago providing for a study of this subject. I wish to say, furthermore, that more than a year ago I asked for and received a report from the Federal Power Com- mission which had made an informal survey of the whole problem in New England. That survey specifically dealt with the question of the economic value of the Passamaquoddy project, as well as any other undeveloped water power. The President, in the message to the reading of which Senators have just listened, mentioned the St. Lawrénce waterway. We are all in accord that the St. Lawrence power project should be proceeded with. The waterway project, however, 1s another matter, a bird of an- other feather. It seems to me there should be much further: study of that project so as to determine its economic feasibility in connection with vessels of the present day which draw 32 to 36 feet when loaded, whereas the survey, I believe, provides for channels of only 28 feet, and there is no harbor in the Great Lakes more than 30 feet in depth. I mention these things in connection with the President’s letter. I hope sur- veys of New England power potentiali- ties will be proceeded with. I certainly join my colleague in trusting that the proposal will be adopted. I most re- spectfully call attention, however, to the work which has already been done on this subject at the instigation of Members of Congress. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I am very glad to join my distinguished colleagues from Massachusetts in their expression of appreciation over the fact that the President seems at last to have realized the necessity of an undertaking of the kind he describes in his message. Com- ing from the State of New York, as I do, Iam also gratified to note that the Presi- dent seems to recognize that the St. Lawrence power project is altogether feasible without the seaway project. Some of us 1n New York have maintained that position for a great many years. I trust indeed that the President’s pro- posal will receive the consideration it merits. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I was very glad to hear read at the desk the message from the President of the United States urging the establishment of a New England-New York survey, as proposed in the amendment of which I am a co- sponsor. I have prepared a statement on the subject, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcorp at this point.
1950 There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR LEHMAN COMMENTING ON PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S MESSAGE ON PRO- POSED NEW ENGLAND-NEW YORK SURVEY President Truman’s message urging the establishment of a New England-New York survey as proposed in the amendment of which I am cosponsor sets forth in clear and simple language the reasons for this undertaking. The message projects the pos- sibility of coordinating navigational, power, and flood-control measures throughout the Northeast. The proposed survey will not, of course, retard or delay impending projects for the development of power or other facilities at the Niagara or St. Lawrence. These projects will be pushed forward with all vigor in Congress and elsewhere and would be fitted into the study which is proposed in the pending amendment. And the St. Lawrence Seaway project, of course, will not even come within the purview of this study, since the &t. Lawrence, an international waterway, has already been more than adequately studied in all aspects. The idea is to fit in the great power and navigational and flood- control potentials of New England with the already blueprinted potentials of sites and waterways in New York. And some of the navigational and power potentials of New York still remain to be adequately studied. President Truman’s message suggests that this great northeastern region of the United States may still be a new frontier for a vast increase in the productivity of the people living in that area. It holds a promise that this entire area, with new projects for the integration of the relationship between land and water, can support an even greater number o{ people than now inhabit it. Re- gions and districts which have long been thought to have reached the ultimate in de- velopment and conservation may be able to produce new riches far beyond present limits. Comforts and conveniences may be brought to our rural inhabitants in greater amount and at lower costs than is now considered feasible. Of course, all this is in the realm of pros- pect. It will take the tools of scientific study and examination to see whether these pos- sibilities are real. I think the President has performed a great service in calling this to the atten- tion of the Congress. The potentialities are enough to fire the imaginations of us all. I know the people of New York will look for- ward eagerly to the results of this study ff, as I expect, the Senate and the House ap- prove this undertaking. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members of the Senate be permitted to introduce bills and joint resolutions, present petitions and memorials, and offer other routine matters for the Recorp and the Appen- dix, without debate and _ without speeches. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Maryland? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM—ARTICLE BY WALTER LIPPMANN Mr. LODG=. Mr. President, in the Washington Post of January 26, 1950, Walter Lippmann comments on our two- party system in a way which seems to me to be extremely sound and worthy of the careful attention of the Members of the Senate, We, all of us, live and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE work under a two-party system, and yet there are many who do not understand its true significance. Mr. Lippmann says that “the solidarity of the people in a free society is stronger than their divi- sion into parties, their separation into sects, the diversities of class and of local- ity; and that their capacity to find com- mon ground is stronger than all the many interests which divide them.” Those who so thoughtlessly use the word “me-tooism” would do well to ponder Mr. Lippmann’s article. I ask that it be printed in the body of the Recorp at thus point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: MR. CHURCHILL AND ME-TOOISM (By Walter Lippmann) The Conservatives in Britain have been having an argument within their own ranks about “me-tovulsm” rather like that among our own Republicans Though compatisons can be very misleading, since Biitain’s eco- nomic condition is so very different from Americn’s, the Conservatives had to decide, as du the Republicans, where they should draw the line on which to fight the election. If I have understvod Mr. Churchill's speech and the Conservative platform, they are drawing the linc between the welfare state and the socialist state. They do not, as do many Republicans, identify the welfare state with the socialist state. On the contrary, they distinguish as sharply as they can be- tween them. Thus they stand for govern- ment action to maintain full employment, and to support the purchasing power of the poor, and they promise to preserve, but with some modifications, the social services. What they oppose are not these, the essential elements of the welfare state, but the na- tionalization of industries, bulk government buying and certain other government con- trols and arrangements which have to do with the socialist rather than the capitalist method of producing wealth. The issue, as the Conservatives hope to define it, is between the welfare state based on an economy of free, or at least freer, en- terprise on the one hand, and on the other, the welfare state based on a planned, gov- ernment-owned or managed, socialist econ- omy. No doubt the Conservatives would tilm the welfare state to what they believe to be the necessities of production, and to the deficit in the British economy. But they do not attack the welfare state in principle. They do not say it is incompat- ible with a free economy. They do not say that the welfare state is socialism. We see at work here a force which ts al- most certainly the secret of Bnitish and American success in operating free institu- tions through governments by parties. It is the force which draws the two parties closer and closer together as they face the voters—until when election day arrives, it often seems as {f on measures and principles the choice is between tweedicdum and tweedledee. That happens because in a sound democ- racy the central mass of the voters who de- cide the result are not doctrinaires and ide- ologues but moderate and pragmatically minded men and women. Without these middle people, who hold the balance of power, democracy is unworkable, as we can readily see in all the countries where the middle people do not exist. For a nation, divided irreconcilably on principle, each party believing it is pure white and the other pitch black, cannot govern itself. The sharp division of parties will first par- alyze the government, and then when con- ditions become bad enough, men will feel 1699 they must achieve by violence what they cannot achieve by the normal processes of law. The force exerted by the middle people results in what the extremists call me-too- ism. But that is only a derogatory epithet for what is in truth the proudest and noblest achievement of democracy—namely that the solidarity of the people in a free society is stronger than their division into parties, their seperation into sects, the diversities of class and of locality; and that their ca- pacity to find common ground js stronger than all the many interests which divide them. As long as this solidarity exists- as it does in Great Britain and the United States—it will never be good politics to Graw the issues so sharply that they are irreconcilable That is annoying to the doctrinaires, irritating to the fanatics, and disappointing to the sentimentalists. But that is how free soctetics survive through storm and stress They never allow their differences to divide them, their debates to become butties, and they push thelr leaders on to that common ground where all can live together in the same community. There is nothing unprincipled tn a re- fusa]l to let a nation become divided on principles propounded by its extremists. Devotion to the principle of solidailty, of the national unity, and of neighborly respect and deference each man for his fellows, ts a greuter principle than any which any polit- ical paity can think up in order to call attention to itself, than any movement be it of the right or the left can propound for the alleged salvation of mankind. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: REPORT ON ToRT CLAIMS PAID BY TREASURY DepaRTMENT A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on tort claims paid by the Treasury Department for the fiscal year 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on the Judiciary Report oF UNiTep STATES MARITIME ComMISSION A letter from the Chairman of the United State Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Commission's action under the provisions of section 217 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (with an ac- companying report); to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Avpir Report or Unirep STATES MARITIMBD COMMISSION A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, an audit report of the United States Maritime Commission, for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1948, and June 30, 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments. REPORT OF OFFICE OF EDUCATION A letter from the Administrator of the Federal Security Agency, transmitting, pur- suant to law, the annual report of the Office of Education, Federal Security Agency, for the fiscal year 1949 (with an accompanying report): to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. REPORT OF BUREAU OF EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSA= TION A letter from the Administrator, Federal Security Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, @ report of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensatio , Federal Security Agency, for the fiscal year 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the (ommittee on Labor and Public Welfare,
1700 SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF ALIENS A letter from the Acting Attorney General of the Unitcd States, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- ice suspending deportation as well as a list of the persons involved, together with a de- tailed statement of the facts and pertinent provisions of law and the reason for ordering suspension of deportation (with accompany- ing papers); to the Committee on the Judi- clary. SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF ALIENS— WITHDRAWAL OF NAME A letter from the Acting Attorney General, withdrawing the name of Michele Pennino from a report relating to aliens whose depor- tation he suspended more than 6 months ago, transmitted to the Senate on January 16, 1950; to the Committee on the Judiciary. STATUS OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE TO CERTAIN ALIENS A letter from the Acting Attorney General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, copies of orders of the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv- jee granting the status of permanent resi- dence to the subjects of such orders (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before the Senate, or presented, and referred as indicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: Resolutions of the General Court of Massa- chusetts, favoring the enactment of legisla- tion to repeal the wartime excise taxes, to the Committee on Finance. (See resolutions printed in full when pre- sented by Mr. SALTONSTALL (for himself and Mr. LopGE), p. 1620, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, February 8, 1950.) The petition of O. O. Owens, of Tulsa, Okla., praying for an investigation of alleged collusion and fraud, including forgery, by the Bureau of Internal Revenue and its em- ployees; to the Committee on Finance. A resolution adopted by Lion Mountain Post, No. 276, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, of Whitefish, Mont., favor- ing the enactment of House bill 4617, to liberalize the requirement for payment of pension in certain cases to veterans and their widows and children; to the Committee on Finance. A letter in the nature of a petition signed by Joseph S Smuda, legislative officer, Mount Vernon Post, No 2796, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, of Chicago, Ill., praying for the enactment of House bill 4617, to liberalize the requirement for payment of pension in certain cases to veterans and their widows and children; to the Committee on Finance. A resolution adopted by the Fellowship of Reconciliation Group of the Community Church of New York, of New York Clty, pro- testing against the cnactment of legislation providing funds to manufacture the hydro- gen bomb; to the Committee on Foreign Re- lations. Resolutions adopted by the South Dakota State Dental Society, of Aberdeen, 8. Dak., and the Downingtown (Pa.) Chamber of Commerce, protesting against the enactment of legislation providing compulsory health insurance; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The petition of Gernld W. Conway and Maurice J. Blake, of Dubuque, Iowa, praying for the enactment of legislation to provide a four-lane superhighway between Rochester, Minn., and Dubuque, Iowa; to the Committee on Public Works. By Mr. TYDINGS: A petition signed by sundry citizens of Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, in the State of Maryland, praying for the en- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE actment of legislation to balance the budget and reduce the cost of Government, as recom- mended by the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. A petition signed by sundry citizens of the State of Maryland, praying for the enactment of legislation to prohibit the transportation of alcoholic-beverage advertising in inter- state commerce; to the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce. By Mr. GREEN; A resolution of the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island; to the Committee on Public Works: “Resolution memorializing Congress in plea for cooperation by the United States Army engineers for the removal of wrecks in Nar- ragansett Bay and Providence Harbor “Whereas there are many wrecks of small boats and ships littering the waters of Nar- ragansett Bay and the Providence Harbor in Rhode Island, left there by the destructive hurricane and tidal wave of September 1938, which present a serious hazard to navigation and a menace to small boats on these navi- gable waters of this State: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That the State of Rhode Island through its general assembly, now requests the Congress of the United States to give consideration to this serious situation and to pass the necessary legislation or work for that cooperation with the official authorities of the United States Army engineers in order that these wrecks of small boats and ships may be removed; and be it further “Resolved, That the Senators and Repre- sentatives from Rhode Island in said Con- gress be and they are hereby earnestly re- quested to use concerted effort to bring about this greatly needed assistance in clearing the navigable waters of this State from dan- gerous obstructions; and the secretary of state is hereby authorized to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the Sena- tors and Representatives from Rhode Island in said Congress and to the United States Army engineers in Washington, D C” ADEQUATE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, the prevailing threats to the continued secu - rity of our Nation emphasize as nothing else can the vital necessity for an ade- quate American merchant marine. In this connection, a resolution adopted by the twenty-third annual convention of the Propeller Club of the United States and the American Merchant Marine Conference in New York, October 19-21, 1949, reflects the official position of these two great organizations and deserves the thorough consideration of all Members of this body. I ask unanimous consent that it be appropriately referred and printed in the REcorp. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE PROPELLER CLUB OF THE UNITED STATES AND AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE CONFERENCE, NEw YORK, Octoser 19-21, 1949 DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE The maintenance of an adequate Ameri- can merchant marine, under private owner- ship and operation, requires that— 1. Private capital be invested in the con- struction in American shipyards of vessels of new and improved type and design. 2. Shipowners be assured full opportu- nity to amortize their capital investments in FEBRUARY 9 order to provide funds for vessel replace- ment purposes. 8. Rights existing under present statutes to establish tax-free or tax-deferred reserves for the payment of future operating losses be extended to all owners of American-fing ships. 4. The merchant marine have adequate protection against discriminatory practices that favor foreign ships or other types of domestic carriers. The Propeller Club of the United States strongly recommends: (a) The absorption by the Government of construction differential subsidized to enable United States citizens to purchase new ves- sels built in American shipyards at world market prices. (b) Owners of vessels should be permitted by appropriate governmental agencies to amortize investments in vessel property by increasing annual depreciation charges against earnings in profitable years within the discretion of the owner, and in accord- ance with the accepted business practices and the policies of other maritime nations. (c) Permission to all owners of American- flag vessels to establish tax-free or tax-de- ferred reserve funds for the payment of losses and for such other purposes as may be con- sistent with the national maritime policy. (d) That immediate and vigorous action be taken by our Government to protect United States shipping from discriminatory practices by any foreign country (with par- ticular reference to proceedings required by section 26 of the Shipping Act of 1916, as amended) and, if necessary, further legis- lation be enacted which will insure equal treatment of United States shipping in in- ternational trades with ships of the par- ticular or most-favored nation. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr. HAYDEN, from the Committee on Rules and Administration: 8. Res 228. Resolution authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to employ addi- tional personnel from March 1, 1950, to Jan- uary 31, 1951, and increasing the limit of expenditures; with amendments (Rept. No. 1266) By Mr HUNT, from the Committee on Armed Services’ H R F876 A bill to amend the Army-Navy Nurses Act of 1947, to provide for additional appointments, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1267). By Mr. CAIN, from the Committee on Armed Services: S 2724 A bill to amend the Armed Forces Leave Act of 1946, ns amended, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No 1268). REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY RELATING TO SMALL BUSINESS (S. REPT. NO. 1263) Mr. MAYBANK, from the Committee on Banking and Currency, submitted a report making certain recommendations concerning small bus:ness, which was orderec to be printed. PRINTING OF COMMITTEE PRINT EN- TITLED “A COMPENDIUM OF MATERI- ALS ON MONETARY, CREDIT, AND FIS- CAL POLICIES” (S. DOC NO. 132) Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I should like to report several resolutions unanimously approved by the Commit- tee on Rules and Administration and ask unanimous consent for their present consideration. From the Committee on Rules and Administration, I report favorably, with amendments, Senate Resolution 216,
1950 and ask unanimous consent for its pres- ent consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolu- tion will be stated by title for the infor- mation of the Senate. The Leotstative Cirrk. A resolution (8. Res. 216) authorizing the printing as a Senate document of the committee print entitled “Monetary, Credit, and Fiscal Policies.” The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the resolution? Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I should like to ask the Senator from Arizona if all the reports he is about to make were unenimously approved by the commit- tee Mr. HAYDEN. They were. Some of the resolutions which were referred to our committee after having been previ- ously referred to some other committee were also unanimously approved. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to ask the Senator a further question. I know that one of the resolutions, Senate Resolution 228 involves a very consider- able amount of money—some $80,000. When the report comes, would the Sen- ator be willing to state the number of persons involved and would he be willing to go into a little detail in explanation of the resolution? Mr. HAYDEN. Certainly. Mr. SALTONSTALL, I thank the Senator. Mr. HAYDEN subsequently said: Mr. President, the resolution to which the Senator from Massachusetts referred previously was reported from the Com- mittee on the Judiciary, and it would authorize the Committee on the Judi- ciary to spend approximately $80,000. But the acting minority leader has sug- gested that he would like to know more about the matter, so I shall report the resolution for the calendar. (Senate Resolution 228, reported by Mr. HAYDEN appears under the heading “Reports of Committees.’’) The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of Senate Resolution 216? Mr. SALTONSTALL. I have no ob- jection. There being no objection, the Senate proceded to consider the resolution (8S. Res. 216) submitted by Mr. O’Manoney on January 20, 1950, and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported with amendments, on page 1, in line 2, after the word “entitled” and the quotation marks, to insert “A com- pendium of materials on’, so as to make the resolution read: Resolved, That the committee print, en- titled “A Compendium of Materials on Mone- tary, Credit, and Fiscal Policies,” prepared for the use of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, be printed as a Senate document. The amendment was agreed to. The resolution as amended was agreed The title was amended so as to read: “A resolution authorizing the printing as a Senate document of the committee print entitled ‘A Compendium of Ma- terials on Monetary, Credit, and Fiscal Policies’,” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL COPIES OF HEARINGS RELATING TO UTILIZATION OF FARM OROPS Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, from the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration, I report favorably, without amendment, Senate Resolution 222, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. There being no objection, the resolu- tion (S. 222) submitted by Mr. GILLErre on January 31, 1950, was considered and agreed to as follows: Resolved, That In accordance with para- graph 3 of section 2 of the Printing Act ap- proved March 1, 1907, the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, be, and is hereby, authorized and empowered to have printed for its use 900 additional copies of the hearings held before a@ subcommittee of said committee relative to utilization of farm crops. PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL COPIES OF IMMIGRATION HEARINGS BEFORE JU- DICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, from the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration, I report favorably, without amendment, Senate Concurrent Resolu- tion 69, and ask unanimous consent for its fmmediate consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the concurrent resolution? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me ask how much is involved in the concurrent resolution? The VICE PRESIDENT. No amount is stated in the body of the concurrent resolution. Mr. HAYDEN. It will cost $3,000. Mr. LUCAS. What is it for? Mr. HAYDEN. It is for the printing of additional copies of immigration hear- ings before a subcommittee of the Ju- diclary Committee. The Bureau of the Budget estimates the cost of printing to be $1 a volume, and there are 3,000 volumes to be printed. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the concurrent resolution? There being no objection, the concur- rent resolution (S. Con. Res. 69), sub- mitted by Mr. McCarran on January 13, 1950, was considered and agreed to, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- resentatives concurring), That there be printed 3,000 additional copies of the hear- ings conducted before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on §. 1832, Eighty-first Congress, first session, to amend the Immigration Act of October 16, 1918, as amended. Such additional copies shall be for the use of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL COPIES OF REPORT ENTITLED “PROGRESS ON THE HOOVER COMMISSION RECOMMENDA- TIONS” Mr. HAYDEN. idr. President, from the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration, I report favorably, without amendment, Senate Concurrent Resolu- tion 70, and ask unanimous consent for its present consideration. There being no objection, the concur- rent resolution (8, Con, Res, 70) sub- mitted by Mr, McCLELLAN on January 1701 23, 1950, was considered and agreed to, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- resentatives concurring), That there be printed 6,000 additional copies of Senate Report No. 1158, Eighty-first Congress, first session, entitled “Progress on the Hoover Commission Recommendations,” of which 3,500 copies shall be for the use of the Sen- ate Committee on Expenditures in the Ex- ecutive Departments, 1,000 copies for the Senate document room, and 600 copies for the House document room. DISPOSITION AND PRINTING OF EXECU- TIVE JOURNALS OF SENATE Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, from the Committee on Rules and Adminis- tration, I report favorably, without amendment, Senate Resolution 223, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. Let me say that under the law we have been printing 500 copies of the Execu- tive Journal of the Senate year after year, for a great many years. The re- sult is that the shelves in the Library of Congress, where they are stored, are crowded. There is no demand for the printed journals. There has also been an injunction of secrecy on these records. Mr. Biffle, the Secretary of the Senate, has examined into the matter, and is satisfied that, from now on, 50 copies will be sufficient. The authorization is for him to dispose of the extra copies previously printed in any manner he can, His plan is to have the Library of Congress ask other libraries in the United States if they wish to have them. If they do not, the extra copies will be destroyed as waste paper. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the immediate consideration of the resolution? Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator a ques- tion. As I understand, the resolution, if adopted, will result in the printing, in future, of 50 copies, instead of 500. So actually there will be a saving in expense. Is that correct? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes. It so happens that about a dozen volumes are now at the Government Printing Office, await- ing printing. So, under the resolution, instead of printing 500 copies of each of the volumes, only 50 will be printed. So there will be an immediate saving, and also a saving from now on. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the resolution? There being no objection, the resolu- tion (S. Res. 223), submitted by Mr. Hay- DEN on February 1, 1950, was considered and agreed to as follows: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate is hereby authorized to dispose of, by what- ever method he may deem appropriate, the following documents (except file copies) in his possession; and the injunction of secrecy now in effect upon any of such documents is hereby removed: Printed copies of the Executive Journals of the Senate together with indexes for cer- tain years for the period from December 1, 1901, to December 31, 1948, as follows: Volume 33, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. Volume 34, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, including special session of the Sen- ate convened on March 5, 1903.