10404 economy if we cheapen the dollar fur- ther by unnecessary inflation and if we permit greedy and selfish interests to profiteer out of the Korean war. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consid- eration of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. The VICE PRESIDENT. The whole Executive Calendar has been gone over heretofore. Mr. LUCAS. With respect to the nomination of the United States mar- shal for the northern district of Call- fornia, I inquire what Senator is object- ing to that? Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from California asked that that nomination go over until he returned from California, and the Senator well knows why he is absent. NOMINATIONS TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EZXPORT-IMPORT BANK Mr. LUCAS. Very well. With respect to the Export-Import Bank nominations. there are four members, and the members of the Board of Directors are now serving, I understand, without pay. When can we get to the consideration of those nom- inations? Mr. WHERRY. I have been asking unanimous consent that those nomina- tions go over for the convenience of the distinguished junior Senator from Ore- gon (Mr. Morse]. I have already talked with him, and have informed him that the nominations have been on the calen- dar since June 27 and that other Sena- tors on this side of the aisle have come to me and said they would like to have the nominations considered and voted either up or down. Mr, MORSE. Mr. President, from now on the junior Senator from Oregon will protect all his rights on the floor of the Senate, and he wants to make a statement in regard to the pending mat- ter, so that there can be no misunder- standing as to his position. Mr. LUCAS. Before the Senator starts, may I inquire as to how long he wishes to discuss the question? Mr. MORSE. If I can have the Sen- ator’s attention 5 minutes—— Mr. LUCAS. I shall be glad to listen to the Senator longer than that. Mr. MORSE, That is a great compli- ment. Mr. LUCAS. I hope the Senator will limit himself to 5 minutes. Mr. MORSE. I shall do my very best. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Oregon is recognized, Mr. MORSE. I wish to state my posi- tion on the parliamentary situation, be- cause when I get to the substance of the matter—— Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, may we have order? Iam very much inter- ested in these nominations, The VICE PRESIDENT, The Chair is attempting to get order, The Senate will be in order, _ The Senator from Oregon may pro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. MORSE, When I reach the dis- cussion of the merits and demerits of the nominations, that will take quite a while, but for tonight I wish to say that these names have gone over, not for the accommodation of the junior Senator from Oregon, but for the accommoda- tion of the committee. He thought that was the only fair thing to do for the committee, and he is very glad that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. May- BANK] is on the floor, so that the record can be made perfectly straight in re- gard to this matter. I shall tell my side of the story, and then the Senator from South Carolina can correct me if he thinks correction is needed, or supple- ment my statement if he desires to give more information. Mr. President, I did not know that these names were before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. I take full responsibility for that lack of knowledge, because I think it must be presumed, although we know it is a phys- ical impossibility, that each Member of the Senate is always on notice as to any nominations before any committee of the Senate. I did not know that these nom- inations were before the Committee on Banking and Currency until the day the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. May- BANK] reported them to the Senate. It so happened, as coincidences will, that it was not until the morning of the day when the Senator from South Caro- lina reported the nominations to the Senate as having the approval of the Senate Committee on Banking and Cur- rency that the Senator from Oregon re- ceived what he considers to be sufficient information about the Export-Import Bank to raise in his mind a serious ques- tion as to whether these nominations should be confirmed. Therefore the very day the Senator from South Carolina reported the nominations the Senator from Oregon went to the Senator from South Carolina, who was then getting ready to leave that evening, as I recall, for South Carolina, and told him that he would like to have a hearing before his committee on these nominations, and he would prefer to have it in executive session because he thought that until he had completed his investigation of what he considered to be some very question- able practices on the part of the Export- Import Bank discussion should be held in executive session, The Senator from South Carolina was exceedingly kind and gracious to the Senator from Oregon, as he always is, and said, “Wayne, it is pretty much out of my hands, I am leaving for South Carolina tonight. If I had known about this, you may be certain you would have had a hearing before the committee. But when I get back from South Carolina I shall be glad to talk to you about it further in regard to any question you want to raise concerning these men, or the Export-Import Bank, but so far as their nominations being reported to the Senate is concerned, I do not see that there is anything improper about that at the present time.” I think the Senator will recall that my reply was to the effect that “I am not going to let these nominations go JULY 17 through the Senate without presenting what I believe to be the facts concern- ing them, and I would like to have the matter discussed in committee.” I then thought of the matter further, and prepared a resolution, which that day I submitted in the Senate in order to put the full committee on notice as to my intentions about this matter. That resolution I understand has been re- ferred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. It calls for an investigation on the part of the committee in regard to these nominations, and the practices and policies of the Export-Import Bank. I think the time to lock the stable door is before the horse gets out. I think the time for investigation is in advance of the confirmation of the nominations. I have been exceedingly busy, the Sen- ator from South Carolina has been busy, and the majority leader has been busy. I think I have been derelict in not im- mediately, on the return of the Senator from South Carolina, pressing him then for further inquiry into the matter. I did not until today. I went to the Sen- ator from South Carolina today and told him that I would like to have these men brought before the Senate committee in executive session because I had some questions I wanted to ask them before I thought I would be in a position to vote for their confirmation. There is one other fact, to make the record complete. While the Senator from South Carolina was away, the Sen- ator from Illinois and I had a conversa- tion in which I expressed my desire not to have these nominations come for con- sideration until the Senator from South Carolina could return and a hearing could be held. We had a little misun- derstanding about it, which was com- pletely the fault of the Senator from Oregon. I received information on one occasion from clerks on this side of the Senate that the Senator from Illincis had brought the nominations up. I was ad- vised by the Chair that I was mistaken about that, that they had come up ina routine manner. The Senator from Illi- nois will recall that at that time I told him I was in error, and apologized to him for it, but I still wanted a hearing on these nominations before they were presented to the Senate for confir- mation. Today the Senator from South Caro- lina told me—and I am sure he will not object to my recalling the conversation— that last Saturday the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Snyder, called him and urged upon him early action on these nominations, because these men had not been paid, as he said, for the past few weeks. I think that is right. I do not think they should be paid for any time at least until this matter is cleared up. I do not think they should be confirmed, on the basis of my present information. This afternoon the minority leader, in a conversation with me, exactly as he has reported to the Senate, said that one of these nominations involved a man from Nebraska, and that he had accom- modated me in regard to the matter, that henceforth however, on this mat- ter, he would call for a quorum, that I
1950 would have $ be here to protect my own interests, because he thought he was in 8 position where he might find it neces- sary to make a motion to consider the nominations. I told him that was per- fectly all right, though I had hoped to carry on the discussion first in execu- tive session in the committee. The Senator from South Carolina ad- vises me today that he must press for action on the nominations, I assume by motion, because it will not be done by unanimous consent unless I am caught napping off the floor. If they are brought up on motion, of course I shall vote against the motion, but if the motion is agreed to, I shall proceed to discuss the nominations in some detail. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE, I yield, or I will yield the floor. Mr, MAYBANK. I merely want the record to show that when these nomina- tions were reported on June 27, the Sen- ator from Oregon spoke about the mat- ter, and did make a statement. Insofar as Secretary Snyder is concerned, he called me last week and asked me about the nominations. I told him the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency had reported them, that their consideration was a question for the majority leader to take up. I wish to say, Mr. President, that these nominations were sent here on June 16, and I gave notice that Mr. Gaston’s name had been sent to the Senate. I wrote to the junior Senator from New York [Mr. Laxman], and he talked to me, and I wrote to the senior Senator from New York (Mr. Ives], and I talked to him, and they spoke most highly of Mr. Gaston. The next name was that of Mr, Haw- thorne Arey, of Nebraska. The senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Burixr] and the junior Senator from Nebraska (Mr. WHerryY] are present. They spoke highly of Mr. Arey, and they were safis- fled with his nomination. The next name was that of Mr. Lynn U. Stambaugh, of North Dakota. The senior Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Lancer} and the junior Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] approved the nomination as being that of an excellent man. The next name was that of Clarence E. Gauss, of Connecticut. I conferred with the senior Senator from Connecti- cut [Mr. McMaxon] and the junior Sen- ator from Connecticut (Mr. Bzwron], and they spoke highly of Mr. Gauss. From the 16th of June to the 27th not one letter, the clerk of the committee re- ported to me, was received against any of the nominees, nor was a hearing asked, or any protest made. Yam not here to defend these gentle- men, except as chairman of the commit- tee to say that I took the nominations up with the Senators from the States from which they came, and there was not one unkind word said by the Sena- tors from Nebraska (Mr. Bur.re and Mr. Warary] or the Senator from North Da- kota (Mr. Lanczr]. The junior Senator from New York (Mr. Leaman] told me he expected to make a speech on the Gaston nomination, and the senior Sen- ator from New York (Mr, Ives] said he CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE was impressed with Mr. Gaston. So I reported the nominations. I told the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morsz] that we had received no protests agatnst the nominations. I did go home for a few ys. I did not have any right to promise anything, but when I came back my at- tention was called to the fact that there was a great deal of business waiting in the Export-Import Bank which could not be attended to. My attention was called to the fact that the members had not been paid, but I do not think the ques- tion of pay makes much difference. I told Secretary Snyder that the nomina- tions had been reported, and that there was no objection before the committee when we had them before us. The Sen- ator from Oregon [Mr. Morsx] said he would object, and he stated so on the Senate floor. Mr. President, that fs the status in which I find myself, I have been trying only to aid the business of the bank, It is up to the Senator from Dinois (Mr. Lucas], the majority leader, as to what he wants done. I have carried out my part. I would have held the hearings, but no one wanted to protest. Mr. Y. Mr. President, 2 min- utes will be sufficient for me to state my position, I thought I made it clear in the first place. It is merely the mechan- ics of this matter in which I am inter- ested. I know that on more than one - occasion I asked that the nominations go over, because I had been informed that the junior Senator from Oregon wanted them to go over until] his resolu- tion was acted on. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. As chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency I may say that if an investigation of the Export-Import Bank {s desired, since everything else is being investigated, I am willing that the investigation be held. I think, however, that the holding up of consideration of these nominations is a serious matter for the reason that the bank cannot, while the nominations are held up, transact business. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Oregon would like to have the nominations sent back to the committee, and he can work out an arrangement in that respect with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, that is perfectly agreeable to the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. MAYBANK. The Senator from Nebraska knows that I cannot very well ask that the four nominations be recom- mitted to the committee, Mr. WHERRY. I am simply com- menting on some observations which were made, I am not at all averse if the Senate wants to take any further action with respect to these men. [I simply went to the distinguished Sena- tor from Oregon and told him I could no longer ask unanimous consent that the nominations be passed over; that I felt the issue ought to be reached, and that if no other Senator would make the mo- tion, I would do so myself. I know Mr. Arey. He is a very fine gentleman. If it is believed that an in- 10405 vestigation will reveal anything pertl- nent I would be the first Senator to agree to such an investigation. If there is anything wrong about any of his activi- ties it is all right with me to have an investigation, if Senators want it. But the nominations of these four gentle- men are on the Executive Calendar. The nominations should either be returned to the committee or there ought to be some action taken on them on the floor of the Senate. The nominations have been before us since June 27. The time has come when we should either confirm them or reject them. I only hope the junior Senator from Oregon and the majority leader can agree on a date on which the question can be raised and the matter can be ironed out on the floor of the Senate. I hope action can be taken at an early date. By that I do not mean today or tomorrow, but I hope the two Senators can get together and arrange for a date soon when some action can be taken by the Senate with respect to the nomina- tions. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I am interested in the nomination of Mr, Lynn U. Stambaugh, because he comes from North Dakota. I wish to say to my distinguished friend from Oregon that Mr. Stambaugh would, in my opinion, want an investigation with respect to any kind or character of charge that might be made against him. I think he would ask for an investigation if a charge were made against him. If there were the slightest doubt raised as to his capacity, his honesty or his tntegrity I do not think he would want to be confirmed. I have known Mr. Stambaugh for 30 years. I endorsed him. I endorse him now. I do nat believe any evidence of any derogatory kind or character can be produced against Mr. Stambaugh. I will say in Mr. Stambaugh's behalf that I am sure he would want an investiga- tion if any charges against him were presented. He is just that sort of a man, Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, in view of the fact that one of the nominees comes from Nebraska I wish to join with my colleague in the remarks he has made with respect to Hawthorne Arey. He has an excellent reputation in the State of Nebraska. I think he has a splendid record as a member of the Board of the Export-Import Bank. I hope that those who want to have something in the Rrc- ord in connection with the confirmation of these gentlemen can make an ar- rangement so that it can be handled at an early date without any undue delay. Mr, MAYBANK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that biographical sketches of the four nominees may be printed in the Recorp at this point as a part of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Horiamp in the chair). Without objec- tion, it is so ordered. The biographical sketches are as follows: Nomprarions or Dmxcrors or Export-Import Bank Nominations of the four Directors of the Export-Import Bank were reported by Chair- man Marsanx, of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, on June 27, with the statement that a quorum of the committee
10406 was not present at its meeting on that date, but that the members had been polled and a majority approved the nominations, The chairman further stated that both Senators from the respective States of the nominees approved the nominations (p. 9236, ConanEs- sIONAL Recorp, June 27, 1950). Biographical sketches of the nominees are attached. (Submitted June 16) NoMINATIONS oF Mrmarrs oF THE Board oF Dmecrors oF THE Export-Import Bank Mr. Maypanx. Mr. President, as in execu- tive session, I report favorably the nomina- tions of four members of the Board of Direc- tors of the Export-Import Bank. I may say, Mr. President, that we did not have a quorum present at the committee meeting this morn- ing, but I have had the clerk of the commit- tee poll the members of the committee and find that a majority of them have approved of the nominations of the four members of the Board of Directors, I conferred with the Senators from the States from which each of the nominees comes. Mr. Arey’s nomination was approved by the Senators from Nebraska [Mr. Burier and Mr. Waergy], Mr. Gaston’s nomination ‘was approved by the Senators from New York [ Mr. Ives and Mr, Lexman], the nomination of Mr. Gauss was approved by the Senators from Connecticut {Mr. McMaHon and Mr. Benton], and the nomination of Mr. Stam- baugh was approved by the Senators from North Dakota [Mr. Lanarr and Mr. Youna}, The reason I am reporting the nomina- tions today is that the terms of these gen- tlemen expire on the 30th day of June. If these nominations are not approved before that date, the bank will have no Directors, Furthermore, under the rules of the Senate the names of nominees must le over until the following day. I merely wished to make that explanation at this time. I regret that the committee could not have a quorum present this morning. Some members had to attend a meeting of the Committee on Ap- propriations, As I said, the Senators repre- senting the States from which these men come have approved the nominations, and I trust that when the nominations are reached on the calendar the Senate will con- firm them. The Presiptinc Orricrr. The nominations will be received and placed on the Executive Calendar. The nominations ordered to be placed on the Executive Calendar are as follows: Haw- thorne Arey, of Nebraska; Herbert E. Gaston, of New York; Clarence E. Gauss, of Connec- ticut; and Lynn U. Stambaugh, of North Dakota, to be members of the Board of Di- rectors of the Export-Import Bank of Wash- ington for terms of 5 years each, expiring June 80, 1955. HERBERT E. GASTON Herbert EB. Gaston, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank, was born in Oregon. He was educated at the University of Washington and the University of Chicago. He has had extensive experience in newspaper work and served in an editorial capacity on various western and New York papers, including the Spokane Chronicle, Fargo Courler News, Minneapolis Star, and New York World. He became secretary of the New York State Oonservation Depart- ment in March 1931 and was later deputy commissioner. In March 1933 he became Secretary of the Federal Farm Board and later was Deputy Governor of the United States Farm Credit Administration. He was an assistant to the Secretary of the Treas- ury from 1934 to 1989 and became Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in 1939, to continue through the war years until his association with the Export-Import Bank. During his time in the Treasury, Mr. Gaston partici- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE pated as an adviser to the Seoretary of the Treasury in conferences involving interna- tional financtal problems, as well as prob. Jems concerning the domestic economy. He was the Treasury representative on the In- terdepartmental Committee on Cooperation with American Republics and was & mem. ber and Secretary of the Board of War Com- munications. He was the United States rep- resentative at the first conference of Finance Ministers of the American Republics at Guatemala City in 1939. In November 1045 he was appointed by President Truman to the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank where he served as Vice Chairman. In November 1946 he attended discussions with the British in London as the Secretary of the Treasury’s alternate on the President's Cabi- net Committee on Palestine and Related Problems, On February 8, 1949, he was dis- ignated by President Truman as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Export-Im- port Bank of Washington. HAWTHORNE AREY Born in Omaha, Nebr., October 31, 1905; attended Grinnell College, 1924-26; Univer- sity of Nebraska, 1926-27; L. L. B, cum laude, Creighton University, 1930. Married Ruth Gordon August 21, 1929; has one daughter and one son. Mr, Arey was engaged in the general prac- tice of law in Omaha from 1930 to November 1933. From 1938 to December 1934 he was on the legal staff of the Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation. From December 1984 to July 1938, he was a member o° the legal staff of the Home Owners Loan Corporation, regional office In Omaha and subsequently, the Washington office. He joined the staff of the Export-Import Bank of Washington in July 1938 as secretary and counsel, In 1943 he was promoted to the position of vice pres- ident and assistant general counsel in which capacity he served until 1945. He was also a member of the board of trustees of the Export-Import Bank of Washington from 1948 to 1945 and vice president and general counsel from 1945 to November 1947. From November 1947 to April 1949 he served as executive vice president of the Export-Im- port Bank, He was nominated by the Pres- ident of the United States and confirmed by the Senate in April 1849 to be a member of the board of directors of the Bank to fill an unexpired term. He is vice chairman of the board of directors. Mr. Arey also served as technical adviser to United States delegation, United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, Bretton Woods, N. H., in 1944, He ie a member of the Nebraska State Bar Association and the University Club in Wash- ington, D. C. He is a Presbyterian and pres- ently lives at 112 Franklin Street, Kensing- ton, Md. LYNN U. STAMBAUGH Lynn U. Stambaugh was born in Abilene, Kans., July 4, 1890; has lived in Fargo, N. Dak., since 1898; attended public schools, Fargo College, and the University of North Dakota; graduation from the University of North Dakota tn 1913 with degree of bachelor of laws, and admitted to North Dakota Bar the same year. Served as deputy clerk of the district court in Fargo, N. Dak., 1918~15. Practiced law at Hazen, N, Dak., 1915-17. Served with the Fleld Artillery in World War I, 1917-19, Returned to Fargo in 10919. From 1919 to 1945 practiced law in Fargo, N. Dak., as a member of the firm of Cupler, Stambaugh & Tenneson, engaged in general civil practice. In 1941 and 1942 served as national commander of the American Legion. Mr, Stambaugh is @ Republican, Episcopalian, and Mason. Fraternities: Order of the Coif, Sigma Chi, Phi Delta Phi. He ts a member of the American Bar Association, North Da- kota Bar Association, and the District of Columbia Bar Association. He was ap- pointed by President Truman as a member JULY 17 of the Board of Directors of the Export-Im- port Bank of Washington on December 16, 1945, and has served in that capacity con+ tinuously since that date. CLARENCE E. GAUSS Clarence E. Gauss, 2 member of the Board of Directors of the Export-lmport Bank of Washington, was born January 12, 1887, in Washington, D. 0. He was educated jn pub- Mle and private schools of Washington and by private tutors, On August 2, 1906, he entered the Department of State and served in that Department and in the Foreign Service of the United States until May 31, 1945. Over these years Mr. Gauss held various career, consular, and diplomatic posts, principally in China, serving in Shanghai, Tientein, Mukden, Tainan, Amoy, Peking, Nanking, and Chung- king as vice consul, consul, consul general, counselor of the Embassy, and chargé d@affaires. He served as consul general and counselor of the Embassy in Paris during 1985 and as the first American Minister to Australia in 1940. In February 1941 he was appointed Ambassador to China and served in that post until December 1944. During his period of service at consular posts in China he was elected by his colleagues to several international positions, including Chairman, Hai Ho Conservancy Commission, and member, Hal Ho Improvement Commis- sion at Tientsin, and at Shanghai as a mem- ber, and later President, of the Court of Consuls (having jurisdiction in actions against the International Municipal Coun- cil), Mr. Gauss was appointed by President Truman as a Republican member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank on December 20, 1945. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, on tomor- row afternoon at 5 o’clock, after we have debated the appropriation bill, I am go- ing to move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business, and at that time we are going to discuss these nominations to the Export-Import Bank with a view to having them con- firmed or rejected. We shall try to stay in session long enough to give every Sen- ator who is interested an opportunity to discuss the nominations. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I think the majority leader and I should ex- change views as to the procedure tomor- row afternoon, so that he will have ad- vance notice of what I propose to do at that time. I shall move at that time that the nominations be recommitted to the committee for an investigation of the policies the nominees have initiated and carried out as members of the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank. I may say to Members of the Senate who are very much interested in the investi- gation of the State Department, that there is a very direct relationship be- tween the policies of the Export-Import Bank and certain policies of the State Department, which I do not think are in the public interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have inserted in the Recorp at this peint in my remarks a letter I sent to the Chairman of the Export-Import Bank on June 8, a copy of his reply of June 14, another letter from him to me under date of June 28, and a copy of my reply con the same date, June 28, Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, may I see those letters? Mr. MORSE. I am very glad to hand them to the Senator from North Dakota.
1950 Mr. LANGER. -Mr. President, I have examined the letters and I have no ob- jection. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: JUNE 8, 1950. Hon. Hersrer E. Gastron, Office of the Chairman, Export-Import Bank of Washington, Washington, D. C. Drax Cxarnmam Gaston: There is a great deal of interest among some of us in the Senate in regard to the recently announced loan to Argentina, As far as I am concerned, before I pass final judgment on the policy involved in the loan, I wish to find out certain facts. There- fore, I shall appreciate it very much [f you will have prepared and submitted to me a memorandum on that loan answering the following questions: 8. What were the terms and conditions of 2. For what purposes was the loan made? 8. What were the terms and conditions of the loan? 4. Who were the direct beneficiaries of the loan? 6. Who were the lawyers or representatives who represented the beneficiaries in any of the negotiations connected with the loan? I shall appreciate the earliest possible re- ply to this request because I am very much interested in certain questions of public policy as they affect our country’s interna- tional program, particularly in respect to the future of our four-point program. Sincerely yours, Wayne Morsx, United States Senator, —e JUNE 14, 1950. The Honorable WAayNer Morse, United States Senate. My Dean Senator Morse: My delay in answering your letter of June 8 was due to my absence from Washington for several days. Following a settlement by Argentina of several controversial commercial policy matters involving United States firms, Ar- gentina approached the Export-Import Bank with a request for financial aid. The Argen- tine request, at least informally, was for credit of upward of $300,000,000, which would be available for purchase of new muchinery, equipment, and supplies for importation into Argentina. After extended and thorough analyses of the economic and financial situation of Argentina, the Board of Directors of the bank authorized a com- mitment to the following effect: 1. A credit of 125,000,000 would be estab- lished in favor of a consortium of Argentine commercial banks having adequate resources in the opinion of the Export-Import Bank, The credit would be unconditionally guar- anteed by the Central Bank of Argentina. 2. The credit would be available solely to aid Argentina to liquidate its past-due dol- lar obligations on private and governmental account, 8. The principal of the credit would be re~ payable in 20 semiannual installments be- ginning in June 1954, and would bear in- terest at the.rate of 314 percent per annum payable semiannually. The two principal conditions of the credit would be: (1) In the event the credit should be insufficient to pay in full all past-due dollar obligations on private and governmental account, the Ar- gentine banks would furnish sufficient dol- lars to Nquidate the obligations in excess of the axnount of the credit, and (2) the Gov- ernment of Argentina would agree with the bank to use its best efforts to work out with- in its financial possibilities a settlement of arrearages on financial account mutually satisfactory to Argentina and the creditors, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 4. The direct beneficlaries of the loan would be those United States firms which have shipped goods to Argentina and have not been paid therefor and those commer- cial banks, principally United States banks, which have discounted commercial dollar drafts for their customers and have not been reimbursed therefor by the drawee banks in Argentina. We do not have at this time a list of the names of the firms and banks nor the respective amounts due such creditors, This information, of course, would be fur- nished us prior to the time we were to make disbursement of the credit. Indeed, we have in mind disbursement directly by this bank in dollars in New York to the various credi- tors upon application and certification to us by Argentina of the names and amounts due the various creditors. 5. The negotiations were carried on with this bank by Ramon A. Cereijo, Minister of Treasury of Argentina, and several technical advisers of the Government and the Central Bank of Argentina who accompanied Mr, Cereijo to this country. No United States nationals were involved in conducting the negotiations on behalf of Argentina. The decision of the Board of Directors of the bank to extend a credit on the terms and conditions indicated above was conveyed by letter dated May 19, 1950, which I ad- Greased to Mr, Cereijo. In that letter I stated to Mr. Ceretjo that the Bank was prepared to receive a duly authorized representative or representatives of the commercial banks and of the Central Bank of Argentina to work out the provisions of the necessary agreement for the establishment of the credit, the form of the promissory notes which will be given to evidence the credit, and other details of the operation of the credit. We have not as yet been advised by Argentina as to when rep- resentatives of the Argentine banks wil) come to the United States to work out the details for the establishment of the credit. Sincerely yours, Henpert E. GASTON, Chairman. JUNE 28, 1940. Hon. Herserr FE. Gastron, Chairman, Export-Import Bank of Washington, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. Gaston: Thank you very much for your letter of June 28. I think my letter of June 8 was perfectly clear and that your relpy to it was unsatisfactory. I shall be glad to discuss the matter further with you before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee when the hearing I have requested is held. Very truly yours, WAYNE Morse, United States Senator. Export-Import BANK OF WASHINGTON, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1950, The Honorable Wayne Mors, United States Senate. My Dear Senator: You addressed to me, on June 8, certain inquiries with respect to the recently announced loan to Argentina. On June 14, I replied answering your questions as I understood them. I now learn, by reading the report in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of yesterday of a speech by you on the Senate floor, that the question to which you desired answer from me is quite different from any you addressed to me in your letter of June 8. In your letter of June 8 you asked “Who were the lawyers or representatives who represented the bene- factaries in any of the negotiations connected with the loan?” My answer was "The negotiations were carried on with this bank by Ramon A. Cereijo, Minister of Treasury of Argentina, and several technical advisers of the Government and the Central Bank of Argentina who accompanied Mr. Cersijo to this country, No Untted Btates nationals 10407 were involved in conducting the negotiations on behalf of Argentina.” This I believe to be an licit answer to your question listed as No, 5 in your letter of June 8. The question which you propounded on the floor of the Senate yesterday as was follows: “If Mr. Gaston did not understand my mean- ing when he read my letter, let me tell him from this desk today what I meant when I asked him some of the questions contained in my letter to him. I want to learn from him, as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, the extent to which some of the powerful United States corporations with certain eco- nomic interests in Latin America bring strong representations to bear upon the Ex- port-Import Bank in connection with the determination of the loaning policy of that enk.” After rereading your letter of June 8 I think you will agree with me that no such question was either asked or intimated in your letter. The answer to it 1s, however, quite simple. I know of no representations by powerful United States corporations with economic interests in Latin America which have been brought to bear upon the Export- Import Bank in connection with the de- termination of the lending policy of this Bank. Certainly no such representations were brought to bear upon this bank in con- nection with the Argentine credit. Our discussions were solely with repre- sentatives of the Argentine Government and I know of no attempt by any corporation or individual having interests in Latin America to exercise any influence whatever upon this Bank in connection with the credit. I would not want this answer to be broad- ened to include attempts to influence legis- lation before the Congress since I know that representatives of some corporations having important interests in Latin America have been very actively in opposition to the pro- posal now pending before the Senate to em- power the Export-Import Bank to guarantee productive investments in foreign countries against the risks of inconvertibility and ex- propriation without prompt compensation. Nor would I want to imply that United States manufacturing corporations desiring to sell their products in Latin-American countries have not been active in attempting to obtain loans for financing goods purchased from them, They have; but this is, of course, a mere matter of salesmanship. One of the major activities of the bank has been the making of exporter credits benefiting Amer- fean manufacturers and exporters. The Argentine credit, like other foreign credits, was of course discussed with various representatives of the State Department as well as with other agencies of this Govern- ment. The Secretary of State is a member of the Board of Directora of the Export- Import Bank and the bank is required by law to submit all ite proposals for lending to the National Advisory Council on Inter- national Monetary and Financial Problems for advice and coordination. This organiza- tion consists of the Secretary of the Treas- ury, as Chairman, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Administrator of the Economic Cooperation Administration, and the Chair- man of the Export-Import Bank. I regret that you did not ask me the question or questions you had in mind in your letter of June 8 so that I could have replied to them. If there are other ques- tions with respect to the policies or activi- thes of the bank to which you would like to have answers I should be glad to have you write to me freely or to talk to you about them at any time. Yours very truly, Hersrer E. Gaston, Chairman.
10408 RECESS Mr. LUCAS. As in legislative session, I move that the Senate stand in recess untll 12 o’clock noon tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 7 o’clock and 27 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 18, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian, NOMINATION Executive nomination received by the Senate July 17 (legislative day of July 1), 1950: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR COMMISSIONER OF LABOR STATISTICS Ewan Clague, of Pennsylvania, to be Com- missioner of Labor Statistics for a term of 4 years, expiring August 20, 1954. (Reap- pointment.) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monpay, Jury 17, 1950 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Rev. 8S. M. Yancey, Methodist minis- ter, Fayetteville, Ark., offered the fol- lowing prayer: Almighty God, father of us all, we stand today with bowed heads and heavy hearts, facing an upset world situation that can be settled only with Thy help and guidance. Thou hast been good to this country and its people; may we show our worthiness by helping others to see and know the Christ who has done so much for us. We pray today for our President and our Congress, whose duty it is to govern this land. Give them, Father, the strength, wisdom, and moral courage that these trying times demand. Grant them the faith to safely lead this Nation and the world to an enduring peace, for the benefit of man and the glory of God. These things we humbly ask in the name of Almighty God. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, July 13, 1950, was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. Mc- Daniel, its enrolling clerk, announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 8568) entitled “An act making appro- priations for the government of the Dis- trict of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes,” The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 28 to the above-entitled bill, The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendments of the House to bills of the Senate of the fol- lowing titles: 8.441. An act to redefine the units and es- tablish the standards of electrical and photo- metric measurements; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE S. 2046. An act to provide authority for cer- tain functions and activities of the National Bureau of Standards, and for other purposes; 6, 2201. An act amending section 2 of the act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1449), to pro- vide basic authority for the performance of certain functions and activities of the Na- tional Bureau of Standards, and for other purposes; and 8. 2607. An act to authorize the United States Maritime Commission to grant to the East Bay Municipal Utility District, an agency of the State of California, an easement for the construction and operation of an inter- ceptor sewer pipe line in and under certain Government-owned lands comprising a part of the Maritime Alameda Shipyard, Ala- meda, Calif. The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the com- mittee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amend- ments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 7477) entitled “An act providing for the conveyance to the town of Nahant, Mass., of the Fort Ruckman Military Reserva- on,” The message also announced that the Vice President has appointed Mr. JoHN- ston of South Carolina and Mr. LancEr members of the joint select committee on the part of the Senate, as provided for in the act of August 5, 1939, entitled “An act to provide for the disposition of certain records of the United States Govern- ment,” for the disposition of executive papers referred to in the report of the Archivist of the United States numbered SENDING OF TROOPS TO KOREA BY MEM- BERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS Mr. RICH. Myr. Speaker I ask unan- imous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” Why are we fighting in Korea? To test the United Nations, in my judgment, as to whether they are a unit in deter- mining world brotherhood. If they are, then they should all join forces to defend brotherhood. Are they sincere? If so, at once send troops to Korea to defend the United Nations in proportion to their manpower. This means Great Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, Holland, Aus- tralia, Norway, and all the other United Nations member countries, I request the President of the United States give Congress a weekly accounting of the help we get from the United Na- tions, singly and jointly. If they do not send men immediately, I ask, Why should we send over to the Orient our men to be murdered for their protection? This is serious. It means all-out war. It means drafting; it means rationing; it means men, money and munitions. It means much for other countries, and ruination to us if we go it alone, David Lawrence says, “What we see today is a need for world-wide conscription.” Mr. President, this is not a one-man war. Why not take Congress into your confidence, before you do the wrong thing and before it is too late to save JULY 17 ourselves from our leaders in govern- ment? Mr. President, you say we are not at war. Well, it does not look that way to me. The following little poem by Edgar Guest, We Haven't Learned, seems to me particularly appropriate at this time: Just Fours (By Edgar A. Guest) WE HAVEN'T LEARNED With all the wisdom taught in schools There shouldn't be so many fools, So many, stupid, blundering men Who want to go to war again. By now ‘tis strange we haven't learned That peace from war is never earned; That never long are cannons still Since war breeds war and always will. We must be fools to think that we Must battle when we disagree And give to fearful weapons new The problems sense would better do. Oh, sorry men so much to know And yet to learn one truth so slow: That reason, if we dared to try, Would save the boys war calls to die! GUNS OR BUTTER? Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speak- er, Iask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speak- er, the Agriculture Department has 1 pound of butter in cold storage for every person in the United States. I wonder how many tanks that butter would buy? We have $80,000,000 worth of butter and no 60-ton tanks in or out of cold storage. Maybe we had better stop living so high up on the hog while our good sol- diers are dying down in the Korean mud. It is time for business to forego big profits, labor to pledge a wage freeze in return, the farmer to accept sacrifices in his support program, and the taxpayer to support a pay-as-you-go war to avoid further inflation. This is no mere police action. It {fs everybody's war. It is time to stop this milling around. This great country can, through volun- tary cooperation, strengthen our econ- omy. It depends upon the vision and capacity of our national leaders. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. SIKES asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 10 min- utes today, following the legislative pro- gram and any special orders heretofore entered. GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK Mr. PETERSON. Mr. ‘Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H. R. 5866) to adjust and define the boundary between Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Cherokee-Pisgah-Nantahala Na- tional Forests, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend- ment, as follows: Page 1, line 5, strike out “Pisgah-Nanta- hala-Cherokee” and ingert ‘Cherokee-Pisgah- Nantahala.”
1950 The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. iad Senate amendment was concurred A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. EKLUTNA PROJECT, ALASKA Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H. R. 940) to authorize construction of the Exklutna project, hydroelectric generating plant, and transmission facilities in connection therewith, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert “That in order ta encourage and pro- mote the economic development of the Ter- ritory of Alaska, to foater the establishment of essential industries in said Territory, and to further the self-sufficiency of national de- fense installations located therein, the Sec- retary of the {nterlor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Secretary’) is authorized to con- struct, operate, and maintain the Eklutna project in the vicinity of Anchorage, Alaska, consisting of a low dam at Lake Eklutna, a diversion tunnel and penstock a power plant with an installed capacity of 30,000 kilowatts, transmission lines to Anchorage and other load centers, and related works (except recre- ational facilities) substantially in accordance with the plans and recommendations in the veport adopted by the Secretary of the In- terior on January 18, 1949, on file with the Committee on Public Lands of the House of Representatives and the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs of the Senate at an estimated cost of 920,866,400. The cap- ital investment properly allocable to each unit of said project, as determined by the Federal Power on, shall be amor- tized over a reasonable period of years, and interest shall be charged on the unamortined balance of the full capital investment in eaid project at a rate of 244 percent per annum and shall be covered into the Treas- ury of the United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipta. All minerals dis- covered in the course of constructing the Eklutna project are hereby reserved to the United States and may be sold or otherwise disposed of in such manner as may be pre- acribed by the Secretary, if he finds and so reports to the Congress in writing that the only economically practicable method of re- covering the ore ao reserved is to provide for the salvage of any minerals that may be con- tained in the excavated materials removed from the tunnel during the normel process of construction. The net from any euch sale or other disposition shall be cov- ered into the Treasury of the United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, The waters of Eklutna Lake and its tributaries which are required for the operation of the Eklutna project are hereby reserved for that purpose. “8xc. 2. Electric power and energy gen- erated at the Eklutna project, except that portion required in the operation of such project, shall be disposed of in such 8 man- ner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles and the maintenance of adequate electric service, the rate schedules to become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission. Such rate schedules shall be drawn having regard to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the recovery (upon the basis of the applica- tion of such rate schedules to the capacity of the electric facilities of the project) of the cost of producing and transmitting the power and energy, including the amortiza- tion of the capital investment as provided in section 1 hereof. Preference in the sale of such power and energy shall be given to all public bodies and cooperatives on the same terms, and to Federal agencies. It shall be a condition of every contract made under this act for the sale of power and energy that the purchaser, if it be a pur- chaser for resale, will deliver power and en- ergy to Federal egencies or facilities thereof within ite transmission area at a reasonable charge for the use of tts transmission facili. ties. All receipts from the transmission and sale of electric power and energy generated at said project shall be covered into the Treas- ury of the United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, save and except that the Treasury shall set up and maintain from the receipts for said project a continuing fund of $200,000 to the credit of the Secre- tary and subject to expenditure by him, to defray emergency expenses and to insure continuous operation. “Sc. 8. The Secretary is authorized to per- form any and all acts and enter into such agreements as may be appropriate for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this act into full force and effect, tncluding the ac- quisition of rights and property, and the Secretary, when an appropriation shall have been made for the commencement of con- struction or for operation and maintenance of said project, may, in connection with the construction or operation and maintenance of such project, enter into contracts for mis- cellaneous services for materials and sup- plies, as well as for construction, which may cover such periods of time as the Secretary may consider necessary but in which the lia. bility of the United States shall be con- tingent upon appropriations being made therefor. “See. 4. Upon completion of amortization of the capital investment allocated to power, the Secretary is authorized and directed to report to the Congress upon the feasibility and desirability of transferring the Eklutna project to pubitc ownership and control in Alaska, “Go, 6. Wherever in this act authority is vested in, or functions are to be performed by, the Secretary, such authority may be exercised, and functions performed, through such agencies of the Department of the Interior as he may designate. “Bgc. 6. There are authorised to be appro- priated the sum of $20,865,400 for the con- struction of the Eklutna project, and, in addition, such sums as may be necessary for the operation and maintenance of such pr . The SPEAKER. 1s there objection to the request of the gentleman from Flor- a? There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred in, A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ALLOCATION OF STEEL BY VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT Mr. MACY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to insert at this point in the Recorp an explanation of a bill that I am introducing relating to the alloca- tion of steel by voluntary agreement. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. MACY. Asyou all know, a thriving gray market in steel is with us again. In many areas, sheet steel is bringing two 10409 to three times the regular mill price. Steel scrap prices have skyrocketed and the so-called conversion deals which help inflate our economy are on the increase, It now appears that the present Korean situation will serve to worsen this con- dition. I fear that all these factors will shortly be used as arguments for the imposition of governmental controls and regulations on business. This is some- thing which I feel can and should be avoided, except when absolutely neces- sary in case a national emergency is such as to compel. As you recall, there was a severe steel shortage following World War II and in some quarters consideration was given to the reimposition of wartime controls. As chairman of the Committee to In- vestigate Questionable Trade Practices, I found that a serious condition did exist, but I also reached the conclusion that this problem could be better han- dled by industry itself, with governmen~ tal cooperation rather than arbitrary regulation. This confidence does not ap- pear to have been misplaced, for the record of the Office of Industry Cooper- ation under the guidance of Secretary Sawyer is @ fine example of the way in which industry can solve its own prob- lem of supply and distribution. I am, therefore, preparing a bill which will authorize the President or the Secretary of Commerce to again call upon indus- try for the formation of such a group so that voluntary allocation may obvi- ate the necessity for mandatory controls. BRITISH OIL SALES TO CHINA Mr. MEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas? There was no objection. Mr. MEYER, Mr. Speaker, under the heading “British oil sales to China boom,” the New York Times of July 14 reports that the British Asiatic Petro- leum Co., a member of the giant Shell family, is moving into the gap left in the supply of ofl to Communist China. What caused the gap? It was the wholly commendable action of the Sacony and Caltex companies, of United States origin, which have stopped sup- plying the petroleum market on the China mainland. The report says that the two companies which with the Brit- ish Asiatic formed the “Big three” of the Far East oil business, shut down on supply to China at the request of the State Department. Mr. Speaker, no amount of explaining can make the conduct of the British Asiatic add up to anything except a de- berate obstruction to our Korean cam- paign. The air is filled with speculation that Chinese Communists will soon be fighting as part of the North Korean Army and there have been reports that they already are. Now that the two American companies have stopped sup- Plying the China mainland, the only visible source of supply, in any impor- tant quantity, is the British Asiatic. The Shell interests have long enjoyed our hospitality. They were admitted on
10410 equal terms with our own citizens to do business in the United States. The as- sets of the Shell companies in this coun- try amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. I know many of their em- ployees—fine, upstanding men whose anger at the action of the British Asiatic Must be equal to my own, Mr. Speaker, Government action here cannot reach the British Asiatic com- pany but a protest should be made. Probably of greater importance is the fact that we have ways of making our individual protests. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. GORE asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 20 min- utes today, following the legislative pro- gram and any special orders heretofore entered. CONSENT CALENDAR The SPEAKER. This is Consent Cal- endar day. The Clerk will call the first bill on the Consent Calendar. AMENDING NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT TO PROVIDE ADDI- TIONAL DISABILITY BENEFITS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 6560) to amend the National Service Life In- surance Act of 1940, as amended, to au- thorize provisions in national service life« insurance policies for increased month- ly disability benefits. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill go over without prejudice. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I must object to that. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Three objections are necessary. Mr. RICH. Mr, Speaker, I object. There being no further objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be tt enacted, etc., That so much of sec- tion 602 (v) (1) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, as pre- cedes the first proviso is hereby amended to read as follows: “(v) (1) The Administrator is hereby au- thorized and directed, upon application by the insured and proof of good health satis- factory to the Administrator and payment of such extra premium as the Administrator shall prescribe, to include in any national service life insurance policy on the life of the insured provisions whereby an insured who is shown to have become totally dis- abled for a period of six consecutive months or more commencing after the date of such application and before attaining the age of 60 and while the payment of any premium is not in default, shall be paid monthly dis- ability benefits from the first day of the seventh consecutive month of and during the continuance of such total disability of not less than $5 nor more than $10 (in mul- tiples of €1) for each 81,000 of such insur- ance in effect when such benefits becomo payable:”. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Recorp and include a letter from the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to the committee. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection, VreTERANS’ ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., January 19, 1950. Hon. JoHN E. RANKIN, Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean Mk. RANKIN: This is in reply to your lotter dated January 7, 1950, requesting a report on H. R. 6560, Eighty-first Congress, a bill to amend the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, to au- thorize provisions in national service life- insurance policies for increased monthly dis- ability benefits. The purpose of the bill is to amend sec- tion 602 (v) (1) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, to in- crease the amount of total disability income benefits which may be underwritten from $5 to $10 per month (in multiples of $1) for each $1,000 of insurance, Up to about 18 years ago commercial com. panies underwrote disability income bene- fits which generally provided for a monthly income of 810 for each $1,000 of the face amount of life insurance in force, limiting the coverage to age 65, 60, or 65. The ex- perience under this type of coverage turned out to be quite unfavorable, and the com- panies either stopped underwriting such coverage entirely or restricted the coverage in various ways so as to eliminate as much as possible the elements responsible for this unfavorable experience. At the present time there are 87 companies which are writing Aisability income insurance in this country. Of the 37, there are 20 which limit the monthly income to 65 per $1,000, and 4 which issue policies providing for $10 per $1.000. The other 13 companies provide for modifications such as the choice in amount of monthly income as $5 or $10, or with benefits commencing at 610 upon disable- ment and reducing to $5 after a specified period or specified age, or with total termi- nation of payments at maturity or at some specified age. Thus, the companies as a whole have taken a conservative rather than a liberal attitude with respect to the issuing of this type of coverage. Unlike private insurance companies, there are no restrictions in the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, au- thorizing the Veterans’ Administration to make a selection of applicants for the total disability income provision because of occu- pational hazards, moral or other elements which might unduly affect the disability experience. Also, a uniform premium is charged for the disability provision without any increase in premiums being made in in- dividual cases. It is appreciated that some individuals would very much desire to carry a disability provision paying them 810 for each $1,000 of insurance as a benefit pay- ment in the event of total disability. This is especially true of veterans engaged in a hazardous occupation, To double the amount of income available from this pro- vision would increase its attractiveness to persons whose duties or occupations are of a hazardous nature. Such an increase in these cases may result in adverse selection against the national service life insurance fund. The present disability Income rate of $5 per $1,000 of insurance is in line with the limita- tion placed on disability income provision by private insurance companies and with the total disability provision available on United States Government life insurance, It should be remembered that the increased disability JULY 17 income provision, if authorized, will continue over a long period of time. In times of un- employment or depression, experience has shown that such provisions for income be- come particularly attractive and that some individuals are inclined to continue as long as possible a disability status providing bene- fits. The present limitations on the amount of income to be paid in the event of total disability appear to be reasonable. Under the provisions of the bill, individ- uals suffering identical disabilities would re- celve varying amounts of income with the least favored economically receiving a smaller share due to their inability to carry the maximum amount of insurance and the max- imum amount of total disability income pro- tection, Thus, the bill would benefit most those individuals who are able to purchase the maximum amount of insurance and cov- erage under the total disability income pro- vision. Under the provisions of the National Serv- ice Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, the Government pays all administrative costs and assumes the lability for payment of the total disability income benefit for all disabili- ties resulting from the extra hazard of mill- tary or naval service. The provisions of the bill would increase the liability to be borne by the appropriation of public funds. It is important to consider the probability that the proposed benefit may prove so attractive, especially in periods of economic stress, as to greatly increase the cost of such benefits to the national service life insurance fund which would adversely affect the interests of other policyholders. As indicated above, the experience of private insurers, who under- wrote disability income provision of $10 per month for each 61,000 of insurance, forced them to reduce the benefit provision so as to lessen any economic inducement to con- tinued idleness. The likelihood of similar unfavorable experience under our system seems unavoidable because of the rather gen- erous payments already provided under the pension and compensation laws administered by the Veterans’ Administration. From the Government's standpoint, the bill would also involve a cost because claims determined to be due to the extra hazard of military or naval service would be borne by the national service life insurance appropria- tion. Should the United States become in- volved in a future war, the cost of the ine creased total disability provision may be tre mendous, The provisions of the bill might tend to increase administrative costs, but such increase cannot be estimated. Because of the adverse effect which the pro- visions of the bill might have upon the na- tional service life insurance fund, it is my belief that enactment of the bill would not serve the best interests of the policyholders for whom such fund is maintained. Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objec- tion to the presentation of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Caru R. Gray, Jr., Administrator, The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to re. consider was laid on the table. PREMIUMS ON NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE - The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 8236) to provide that on and after January 1, 1951, dividends on national service life insurance shall be applied in payment of premiums unless the insured has re- quested payment of dividends in cash.
1950 There being no objection, the Clerk read the bili, as follows: Be tt enacted, ete,, That section 602 (f) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, is hereby amended by aubstituting a colon for the period at the end thereof and adding the following: “Pro- vided further, That until and uniess the Vet- erans’ Administration has received from the insured a request in writing for payment in cash, any dividend accumulations and unpaid dividends shall be applied in payment of premiums becoming due on insurance subse- quent to the date the dividend is payable after January 1, 1951.” The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to re- consider was iaid on the table. AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 8235) to amend further the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended. Mr, FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice, The . Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mich- tgan? There was no objection. PREPARATORY COMMISSION FOR INTER- NATIONAL REFUGEE ORGANIZATION The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5863) for refund of customs duties to the Preparatory Commission for the Inter- national Refugee Organization. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding this bill is scheduled to be called up under suspension of the rules today. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that it be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa There was no objection. ‘ GRANTING OF LAND TO CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 8678) granting land to the city of Albuquerque for public purposes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have been informed by people in New Mexico, following the discussion we had at last week's ses- sion, that this land is not to be used for college dormitory buildings, and the chances are it will be sold at a profit by some speculators who may reap the benefits and for that reason, Mr. Speak- or object to the consideration of the ill. Mr. FERNANDEZ. I do not think the gentleman is fully informed about the matter. This land was purchased by the State of New Mexico in 1906. There were originally 640 acres pur- chased. Half of it has been lying idie and not used for any purpose whatever. Thé State paid for it, and has had its money invested in it for all these years. After 44 yeara they have decided that i ought to be sold and the money used, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr, RICH. Here is what this letter says: ‘ You are doing well to look into this deal. No auditorium ts contemplated for the re- 820 acres. In fact, the city has a dog pound there, The area is good apecu- iative land, Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes. It can be sold for the people to use; instead of a dog pound it should be put to beneficial use. Mr, RICH. He says further: But the area is good speculative land. Someone will get it for a “song” and make a good profit. By continuing to object you night not ‘be saving the people anything but you will prevent a local deal which will probably “smell.” Check on it closely. Mr. FERNANDEZ. The city of Albu- querque is not going to sell it for a ‘“‘song.” It will sell it for the best price it can get so that the funds may be used for an auditorium. I do not think the gentle- man should object to it. The land is owned by the city and it cannot be used by the Federal Government. To object to it is to take a dog-in-the-manger attitude. The Federal Government cannot use it, and we ought not to keep the city from selling It and having it de- veloped. Mr. RICH. If this property was sold by the Government to the city for $1.50 an acre and now you are going to dis- pose of it and make a large profit out cf it, why do you not give that money back to the United States Treasury, the people of the United States, and let everybody benefit accordingly? And then the city can do what they please with the land. That is what I want you to do with it. Mr, FERNANDEZ. Would the gen- tleman say that we should figure the in- terest on the money that we have in- vested on that land ever since 1906? Mr, RICH. It never cost you mutch of anything. You only paid a dollar and a half an acre for it. I am willing that you get interest on your money. However, you had the use of this land for these years. Mr. FERNANDEZ. That is all it was worth at that time. It was more than it was worth. Does the gentleman mean if he buys a piece of property and, after 40 years if he can sell it for more, he should turn the difference back to the seller? His attitude is picayunish. Mr, RICH. If you got something for nothing, to be used for public use, and you are not going to use it, then it is your duty to turn it back to the Treas- ury of the United States, the place you received it and where it belongs, if you have no use for it, Mr. Speaker, I object. PURCHASE OF BONDS TO COVER OFFI- CERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE GOV- ERNMENT The Clerk cailed the bill (H. R. 8706) to provide for the purchase of bonds to cover officers and employees of the Gov- ernment. The Clerk read the title of the bill, Ine SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? 16411 this bill is also on the calendar to be called up under suspension of the rules. I therefore ask unanimous consent that it be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AND SUR- GERY IN THE VETERANS’ ADMINISTRA- TION The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 8619) to amend the act entitled “An act to es- tablish a Department of Medicine and Surgery in the Veterans’ Administra- tion,” approved January 3, 1946, to pro- vide for the appointment of dental spe- Clalists, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That sections 8, 10 (a), and 12 of the act entitled “An act to estab- lish a Department of Medicine and Surgery in the Veterans’ Administration,” approved January 8, 1946, are amended to read as follows: “Bec, 8. (2) Within the restrictions herein imposed, the Chief Medical Director may rate any doctor appointed under subsection (a) of section 4 of this act as a medical or sur- gical specialist, and, wpon the recommenda- tion of the Assistant Chtef Medical Director for the Dental Services, may rate any doctor of dental surgery or dental medicine, ap- pointed under subsection (a) of section 4 of this act, as a dental specialist: Provided, That no person shall at any one time hold tore than one such rating. “(b) No person may be rated as a medical, surgical, or dental specialist unless he is certified as a specialist by an American spe- ctalty board, recognimed by the Administrator where such boards exist; or if no such boards exiet, he bas been examined and found qualified by a board appointed by the Chief Medical Director from specialists of the De- partment of Medicine and Surgery holding ratings in the specialty to which the candi- date aspires: Provided, That whenever there are insufficient specialists, rated in the proper specialty, who are readily available to con- stitute such a board, the Chilef Medical Di- rector may substitute consultants with com- parable qualifications employed under sec- tion 14 of this act. “(c) Any person, rated as a medical, surgi- eal, or dental specialist under the provisions of this section shall retain such rating until it shall be withdrawn by the Chief Medical Director: Provided, That the Chief Medical Director shall not withdraw any such rating until it shall have been determined by a board of specialists that the person holding such rating is no longer qualified in his specialty. "(d) Any person, rated as a medical, sur- gical, or dental specialist under the provision of this section, shall receive, in addition to his basic pay, an allowance equal to 26 per- cent of such pay: Provided, That in no event shall the pay plus the allowance authorized hy this subsection exceed $12,000 per annum.” Sec. 2, Beotion 10 (a) of said act is amended to read as follows: “Bec. 10. (a) The Chief Medical Director, under such regulations as the Administrator shall prescribe, shall from time to time ap- point boards to be known as discipitnary oOards, each such board to consist of not less than three nor more than five employees, senior in grade, or the Department of Medi- cine and Surgery, to determine, upon notice
10412 and fair hearing, charges of inaptitude, inefi- ciency, or misconduct of any person em- Ployed in a position provided in subsection (a) of section 4 of this act: Provided, That when such charges concern a dentist, the majority of employees on the disciplinary board shall be dentists.” Sec. 3, Section 12 of said act is amended to read as follows: “Sxc, 12, The Administrator shal) establish &@ Bpecial medical advisory group composed of members of the medical, dental, and allied scientific professions, nominated by the Chief Medical Director, whose duties shall be to advise the Administrator, through the Chief Medical Director, and the Chief Medical Di- rector direct, relative to the care and treat- ment of disabled veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Department of Medicine and Surgery. The special advisory group shall conduct regular calendar quarterly meet- ings. The number, terms of service, com- pensation, and allowances to members of such advisory group shall be in accord with existing law and regulations.” The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third ‘time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. RECEIPT OF COMMISSIONS OR GIFTS FOR PROCURING LOANS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 4192) to amend title 18, United States Code, section 220, relating to receipt of com- missions or gifts for procuring loans. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. COMPENSATION AND LEAVE BENEFITS FOR POST OFFICE CUSTODIAL EM- PLOYEES The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 8711) relating to the compensation and leave benefits of officers and employees in the custodial service of the Post Office De- partment transferred to the General Services Administration under Reorgan- ization Plan No. 18 of 1950. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. AMENDING TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT The Clerk called the bill (8. 603) to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota and Mr. PATTEN objected. DISSEMINATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND ENGINEERING INFOR- MATION The Clerk called the bill (S. 868) to provide for the dissemination of tech- nological, scientific, and engineering in- formation to American business and in- dustry, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without preju- dice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- consin? There was no objection. CREATING A NATIONAL CEMETERY COMMISSION The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 7059) to create a National Cemetery Commis- sion for the consolidation of national cemetery activities within one civilian commission, and for other purposes, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. PLUMLEY, Mr. MASON, and Mr. GAVIN objected, and the bill was stricken from the calendar. BOISE BARRACKS, BOISE, IDAHO The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 7667) directing the transfer to the Department of the Interior by the General Services Administration of certain property in Bolse Barracks, Boise, Idaho, There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be tt enacted, etc., That the General Serv- ices Administration shall transfer to the De- pertment of the Interior, without reimburse- ment or exchange of funds, that portion of Boise Barracks at Boise, Idaho, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the westerly boundary of the cemetery access road, which point bears north four degrees thirty-two minutes east six hundred and twenty- seven feet from the intersection of the north line of Reserve Street and the west line of said cemetery access road; thence along the line of lands proposed to be conveyed to the city of Boise the follow- ing courses and distances: South eighty- seven degrees eight minutes west six hun- dred ninety-six and five-tenths feet; thence north twenty-one degrees two minutes west five hundred and thirty-two feet; thence south sixty-nine degrees four min- utes west twenty-one and nine-tenths feet, to a corner of the land proposed to be con- veyed to the Boise Independent School Dis- trict; thence along said school district land north twenty-two degrees forty minutes west eighty-six and three-tenths feet, to a corner of the lands of the Veterans’ Administration; thence along said Veterans’ Administration jJand north eighty-four degrees fifty minutes east nine hundred ninety-three and six- tenths feet to the westerly line of the ceme- tery access road; thence south four degrees thirty-two minutes west, along the westerly line of the said cemetery access road, six hundred twenty-four and ninety-five one- hundredths feet to the point of beginning; containing eleven and fifty-three one-hun- dredths acres, more or less; together with the improvements and buildings thereon located, and such of the furnishings, equipment, and other personal property situated at Boise Barracks and under the juriediction of the General Services Administration which has been declared as surplus, and which the Sec- retary of the Interlor may designate as needed for the maintenance, operation, and Protection of the area described and im- provements thereon, and for purposes inci- Gental to the use of such property by the Department of the Interior. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table, JULY 17 ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTITIONERS ACT The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 8201) to protect the public with respect to practitioners before administrative agen- cies, Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill may be passed over without prejudice. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. FOREST-FIRE CONTROL HEADQUARTERS The Clerk called the bill (H, R. 7257) to provide for the acquisition of land and the construction thereon of build- ings and appurtenances essential for for- est-fire control operations of the For- est Service, United States Department of Agriculture, at or near Missoula, Mont., and for other purposes. There being no objection the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to acquire by donation, purchase, and/or condemna« tion such tract or tracts of land, at or near Missoula, Mont., as in his Judgment may be suitable for the construction thereon of fire-control smoke jumper headquarters, air cargo supply base, a storage garage and other facilities, and said land upon acceptance of title to be subject to all laws and regula- tions applicable to lands acquired under the act of March 1, 1011, as amended (16 U.S. C. 615, 516). Sec, 2. The Secretary of Agriculture ts hereby authoriged, by contract or otherwise, to cause to be planned, designed, and con- structed on sald land, such buildings as in his Judgment may be suitable as fire-control smoke jump vw headquarters, air cargo supply base, storage garage, and other facilities, and including the purchase and installation of necessary equipment, the making of sewer, water, gas, electrical and other connections, and the construction of such roadways, side- walks, landscaping, and approaches as may be required. Sec. 3, For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap- propriated, the sum of $1,160,000: Provided, That the Secretary may, prior to July 1, 1951, enter into contracts for the acquisition of the land and for the construction of the buildings and other installations herein au- thorized, to an amount not in excess of $500,000. With the following committee amend- ment: Strike out beginning with line 7 on page 1, down through line 8 on page 8, and insert the following: “Saxe, 2. Section 409 of the Interstate Com- merce Act, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows.” The committee amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to re- consider was laid on the table. FREIGHT FORWARDERS . The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 5967) to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, to clarify the status of freight forwarders and their relationship with motor common The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?
1950 Mr, FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that this bill may be passed over without prejudice, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the poauest of the gentleman from Michi- gan There was no objection. BURIAL BENEFITS FOR PHILIPPINE VETERANS The Clerk called the bill (H. R. 8576) to provide reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the burial of those who served in the military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines while such forces were in the armed forces of the United States pursuant to the military order of the President of the United States, dated July 26, 1941. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the information on this bill is that it will cost approximately $26,000,000, which is $25,000,000 more than we are supposed to allow to pass by unanimous consent. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the bill may be passed over without prej- udice. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gen- tleman will yield, I call his attention to the fact that the cost of the bill does not exceed $1,000,000 a year. The $26,000,- 000 is the average for the life of the bill. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is still a total of $26,000,000. The gentleman could get it up under suspension, It should never have been placed on the Consent Cal- endar in the first place. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Iowa asks unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice, Is there objection? There was no objection. PROVIDING FOR THE HOLDING OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT ROCK ISLAND, ILL. The Clerk called the bill (H. R, 7260) to provide for the holding of court and the furnishing of quarters at Rock Is- land for the United States District Court for the Southern District, Northern Di- vision of Illinois. There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be tt enacted, etc.,, That the second sen- tence of section 93 (b) (1) of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Court for the northern division shall be held at Peoria and Rock Island,” Sec. 2. That, notwithstanding the provi- sions of section 142, title 28, United States Code, quarters and accommodations for holding court for the United States district court for the southern district, northern di- vision of Illinois, may be furnished in Rock Island, Ill., in any proposed Federal building construction project. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon~ sider was laid on the table. FORT RUCKMAN MILITARY RESERVA- TION, NAHANT, MASS, Mr. BONNER submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 7477) providing for the conveyance to the town of Nahant, Mass, of the Fort Ruckman Military Reservation. SCVI-—-656 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROVID- ING FOR METHOD OF ELECTING PRESI- DENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (8S. J. Res. 2) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for the election of President and Vice President. The Clerk read as follows: Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That an amend- ment is hereby proposed to the Constitution of the United States Which shall be valid to all intents and p as part of the Con- stitution when ratifféd by three-fourths of the legislatures of the several States. Said amendment shali be as follows: “ART:CLE — “Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as provided in this Constitution “The electoral college system of electing the President and Vice President of the United States is hereby abolished. The Pres- ident and Vice President shall be elected by the people of the several States. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the Statapegislature. Congress shall determine the time of such election, which shall be the same throughout the United States. Until otherwise determined by the Congress, such election shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the year in which the regular term of the President jis to begin. Each State shall be entitled to & number of electoral votes equal to the whole number of Senators and Representa- tives to which such State may be entitled in the Congress. “Within 45 days after such election, or at such time as the Congress shall direct, the Official custodian of the election returns of each State shall make distinct Hsts of all persons for whom votes were cast for Presi- dent and the number of votes for each, and the total vote of the olectors of the State for all persons for President, which lists he shall sign and certify and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. On the 6th day of January following the elec- tion, unless the Congress by law appoints a different day not earlier than the 4th day of January and not later than the 10th day of January, the President of the Senate shall in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatitves open all certificates and the votes shall then be counted. Each person for whom votes were cast for President in each State shall be credited with such pro- portion of the electoral votes thereof as he received of the total vote of the electors therein for President. In making the com- putations fractional numbers less than one one-thousandth shall be disregarded. The person having the greatest number of elec- toral votes for President shall be President if such number be at least 40 percent of the whole number of such electoral votes. If no person have at least 40 percent of the whole number of electoral votes, then from the per- sons having the two highest numbers of elec- toral votes for President the Senate and the House of Representatives sitting in joint sea-« gion shall choose immediately by ballot the President. A mejority of the votes of the combined authorized membership of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be necessary for a choice. 10418 “The Vice President shall be likewise elected at the same time and in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as the President, but no person conastitu- tionally ineligible for the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States. “The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate and the House of Repre« sentatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Benate and the House of Representatives may choose & Vice President whenever the right of choloe shall have devolved upon them. “Sxc, 2. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of section 1, article II, of the Constitution, the twelfth article of amendment to the Constitution, and section 4 of the twentieth article of amendment to the Constitution, are hereby repealed. “Sec. 3. This article shall take effect on the 10th day of February following its ratifi- cation, “Src, 4. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legis« latures of three-fourths of the States within 7 years from the date of its aubmission to the States by the Congress.” Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I demand a second. Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: {Roll No. 203] Allen, Tl. Hall, Murray, Tenn, Allen, La. Edwin Arthur Nelson Andrews Hare Norton Angell Harris Pace Barrett, Wyo, Hébert Passman Biemiller Hedrick Patman Blackney Hill Perkins Boggs, La. Hinshaw Pfeiffer, Breen Hobbs William L. Brooks Hoffman, Til, Phillips, Tenn, Bulwinkle Irving Pickett Carroll Jackson, Calif. Powell Care,S Dak. Jennings Quinn Cavalcante Johnson Regan Chatham Jonas Rivers Christopher Kearns Sabath Chudoff Keefe Sadowski Cole, Kans. Kennedy Sagscer Cole, N Y. Kilday Scott, Hardie Combs Kirwan Shelley Cooper Lichtenwalter Sims Cox Lovre Smathers Davis,Tenn, Lyle Smith, Ohio Dawson McCarthy Smith, Va. Dingell McConnell Spence Engel, Mich. McMillen. Ill. Thompson Frazier Miller, Md. Towe Gillette Mitohell Welch Gilmer Monroney White, Idaho Gregory Morrison Willis The SPEAKER. On this roll call 329 Members have answered to their names; & quorum is present. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the caill were dispensed with,
10414 ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE ; PRESIDENT Mr. . Myr. Speaker, I ask consent that the time for de- unanimous bate be extended for 30 minutes, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, T Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use, not to exceed 5 minutes. Mr, Speaker, we have under consider- ation Senate Joint Resolution No. 2. I regret exceedingly that the limited time will permit only a general outline of the resolution and ea somewhat dogmatic statement of the propositions in support thereof, without adequate time for docu mentation or elucidation. Senate Joint Resolution 2 passed the Senate on February 1 by a vote of 64 to 23. Briefly, it does this. It abolishes the electoral college; it abolishes elec- tors; it provides for direct voting for President and Vice President. It re- tains the electoral yote in each State, but provides that the electoral vote of each State shall be divided in exact ra- tio with the popular vote. In Senate Joint Resolution 2 is the Lucas amendment. Under the Lucas amendment, unless one of the candi- _Gates gets as much as 40 t of the total electoral vote, the election is thrown into the Congress, where the Senate and the House, sitting jointly, select a President from the two high candidates. I wish I had time to explain the many advantages of this method of congressional action over the old method. Some evils of the present system are— First. Existing provisions as to the choosing of electors, the manner in which their votes are cast and counted, and the deciding of elections in the Con- greas is an open invitation to fraud and chicanery and unless changed will some day result in disaster. Second. The electoral college confines and largely restricts national] campaigns to a half dozen pivotal States. The na- tional campaign committees and the po- litical strategists of both parties sit down with a map of the Nation and decide where to do their work and where to spend thelr money. Third. The electoral college greatly restricts the field of presidential possi- bilities. Fourth. The electoral college permits and invites irresponsible control and domination by small organized minority groups within the large pivotal States. It aggravates and accentuates the bulld- ing up and solidification within these States of religious, economic, and racial loos. ; Fifth. The electoral college deprives great masses of our citizens of the edu- cational benefits of national campaigns ond lessens their concern in national affairs. : Sixth. The electoral college places un- eonscionabie burdens and temptations upon a President elected by it. Biome benefits of the proposed reform are—— CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE First. We will have absolutely demo- cratic elections; everybody's vote counts for the pereon for whom cast, Second. There will be little opportu- nity for fraud or pressure-group action. Third. There will be no tie votes; the high man wins. Fourth. Sectionalism will be largely abated. The Government of the United States is by all odds the biggest and most im- portant business in the world. When a young Nation, we could muddle through more easily and make mistakes with less injury than we can today. We have now come of age. Our domestic and foreign responsibilities are ng. Unless we make democracy work at home, we have little chance of teaching it abroad. There is an old facetious and vulgar say- ing that, “God looks after sailors, drunks, and the United States of Amer- fea,” God has been good to us, indeed, but He may not always smile upon us. In the matter of reform, we are often like the Irishman who refused to repair his roof when the sun was shining. There is at least one major repair job that should be made before our struc- ture of government is seriously im- paired—before some storm blows our house down. This job is te abolish elec- tors and thé electoral college and to sub- stitute an honest and democratic meth. od of electing Presidents, This subject is by no means new. In fact, it is as old as the Government it- self. Many resolutions to this effect have been introduced in the Congress from time to time. In the Seventy-second and seventy-third Congresses, House committees unanimously reported such resolutions, of which Congressman Lea, of California, was the author. In 1934, the Senate twice voted on a pr by Senator Norris to do away with electors. The first vote was 42 yeas to 24 nays, and the next vote was 52 yeas to 29 nays. In both cases the necessary two-thirds vote was lacking. In the Eightieth Con- gress this resolution was reported by the Judiciary Committee of the House with- out a dissenting vote, and by the Judi- ciary Committee of the Senate with but one dissenting vote. Under the existing system, as you know, no citizen has ever been permitted to vote directly for a President. In fact, under our present system the votes of millions of our citizens do not count in the final tally, We elect the most impor- tant officer of our Government through a hocus-pocus method called the electoral coliege. We vote for electors, who in turn through a dubious, confused, and techn!- cal procedure vote for one of the candt- dates for President. The candidate who receives the greatest number of popular yotes in a particular State gets all of the electoral votes of that particular State, each State having a number of electoral votes equal to the number of ite members in the Congress. If no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes of the Na- tion the issue is then thrown into the Congress to be decided among the high Several resolutions now pending be- fore our Judiciary Committee would do JULY 17 simply this: Abolish electors and the electoral college and provide that one vote directly for the candidate of his choice for President and Vice President. We retain the electoral vote. however. Under the proposed reform New York wouul still have 47 electoral votes, Penn- syivania 3, Texas 23, and so forth. We would not tamper with or change the re- lative voting strength of the States, or the States’ absolute control of the fran- chise and of elections. These matters would be left to local State sovereignty and responsibility. However, a candi- date would get a proportion of the elec- toral vote of each State in the exact ratio with his popular vote. In other words, if the Republican candidate received 3344 percent of the popular vote in Texas, he would get 3334 percent of our 23 electoral votes. You would have a direct vote on the President in terms of electoral votes. The count becomes a matter of exact mathematics. ‘The high man wins. Let us examine a little history of the electoral-college system and see how badly it has worked. The men who wrote the Constitution, while being good and great men as a rule, and men of wisdom, were by no means commoners. There were no farmers or small! artisans among them. They were the aristocracy of the day. They distrusted, and some even despised the popular will. How to select a President was perhaps the most con- fusing issue to be decided by them. A dozen different plans were proposed and several plans agreed upon at one time or another, then changed. In the Virginia plan, the Pinckney plan, and the New Jersey plan, provision was made for the election of a President by the national legislature. No one seriously suggested & direct vote for President. George Ma- son even said that such a thing would be “as unnatural as it would be to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.” Some suggestions were made that the Chief Executive be elected by the governors of the States. Finally, it was Hamilton's compromise plan that was written into the finished document. Our eighteenth century elders envisioned electors as men of great wisdom and intelligence who would meet together and select the best fitted individuals in the country to be the President and the Vice President; the man receiving the greatest number of electoral votes was to be President, the one running second high to be Vice Presi- dent. They did not anticipate the crea- tion and growth of political parties nor did they foresee any of the procedures to which resort was subsequently made. Almost immediately the idea backfired. In the Presidential contest in 1800, Jef- ferson, the man intended for President, and Burr, the man intended for Vice President, turned up with a tie vote in the electoral college. The matter was then thrown Into the House of Representatives for a decision. Bickering and bitterness resulted, and had Burr exerted himself in the premises he doubtless would have been selected President. Almast mediately the Congress submitted to the and the States ratified, the twelfth am t to the Constitution which provided that electors should vote for a President and a Vice President, This
1950 cured one fatal defect in the original scheme but it left all of the others. Three Presidents have been seated who had a lesser vote than did their leading opponents, that is, Adams in 1824, Hayes in 1876, and Harrison in 1888. In 1824, Andrew Jackson led his nearest opponent, John Quincy Adams, by a substantial pop- ular vote and by a substantial electoral vote. However, lacking a majority over his three opponents, the election was thrown into the House of Representa- tives. As a result of the manipulations of Mr. Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, the minority choice, was selected over Andrew Jackson for President. In 1876, Mr. Tilden had a plurality of over 250,- 000 and a natural majority of more than 78,000 over Mr. Hayes. Again the selec- tion was left up to Congress and again through political manipulation, if not fraud, the popular will was defeated and the minority choice, Mr. Hayes, became President. In 1888, Grover Cleveland with a plurality of more than 100,000 votes and with an actual majority over Mr. Harrison was defeated. The entire career of Mr. Cleveland illustrates the folbles of the electoral college. In 1884, in the State of New York, Cleveland got 663,084 popular votes while Blaine got 562,001; with barely more than 1,000 pop- ular votes Mr. Cleveland got all of the electoral votes of the State of New York. A change of 600 votes in New York would have elected Blaine President. In 1892 in the State of Ohio’ more than 1,000 voters cast their ballots for Mr. Cleve- land’s elector No. 1, while not voting for the remaining Cleveland electors as they intended. The result was the success of one Cleveland elector, the Republicans winning the rest. Had the 1,000 Demo- cratic voters registered their choice cor- rectly Mr. Cleveland instead of Mr. Har- rison would have carried the State of Ohio. Every election illustrates the in- congruity of the electoral college. In the 1944 campaign Governor Dewey re- ceived 2,663,484 votes in 10 States from which he received 62 electoral votes. In New York, however, he received 2,997,586 votes, considerably more than in the aforesaid 10 States combined, yet for these he received no electoral votes. In effect, nearly 3,000,000 New York Repub- licans had their votes counted for Mr. Roosevelt, Out of 47,000,000 popular votes, President Roosevelt received 3,000,- 000 more than did Governor Dewey, yet received 432 electoral votes to the Gov- ernor’s 99. With 54 percent of the popu- lar vote, Mr. Roosevelt reccived 81 per- cent of the electoral vote. In the last election Mr. Truman with 49.5 percent of the popular vote received 57 percent of the electoral vote. . Back in the first Lincoln campaign, Douglas, while receiving 74 percent of Lincoln's popular vote, received only 625 percent of his electoral vote. Douglas also received three times as many votes as did Bell, yet got only one-third as many electoral votes. .In the 1912 cam- paign, Woodrow Wilson received only 42 percent of the popular vote of the Na- tion, yet recetved 82 percent of the elec- toral vote. Mr. Wilson received one electoral vote for each 14,500 popular CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE votes; while for each electoral vote re- ceived Mr. Taft got 435,000 popular votes—31 times as many popular votes per electoral vote as in the case of Mr. Wilson. In 1924, Mr, John W. Davis re- ceived 6,000,000 popular votes for which no electoral votes were received. Now let us make some specific charges against our present system of electing Presidents, all of which would be re- moved under our proposed amendment. First, existing provisions as to the choosing of electors, the manner in which their votes are cast and counted, and the deciding of elections in the Con- gress is an open invitation to fraud and chicanery and unless changed will some day result in disaster: While electors are morally bound to vote for certain nomi- nees they are not legally so bound. In the very first contested election in the Nation’s history, in 1796, electors who were supposed to vote for Thomas Jef- ferson voted instead for John Adams. As a result, Adams received 71 electoral votes to 68 for Jefferson. Jefferson might have been elected except for this abuse of discretion by said three electors, There are other instances where electors have not followed the instructions of their electorate. In the last Presiden- tial campaign serious difficulties arose in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas over the selection and duties of electors. If and when a Presidential election is hotly contested and is tlose between leading candidates we are likely to have serious upheavals and defections within and be- tween parties. Congress itself may even throw out legal votes or count illegal ones. Some of the record on this point is of interest. In 1857, the Wisconsin electors were prevented by a violent snowstorm from meeting at the State capltol on the appointed day to cast their votes. Had these votes been decisive in the election the majority in Congress might have counted or have thrown them out as sulted political expediency. In 1837, 6 persons who lacked the constitutional qualifications for electors had their votes counted on the grounds that they were de facto officials. In 1818, the votes of Indiana, in 1821, the votes of Missouri, in 1837, the votes of Wisconsin, were thrown out on technical grounds, in- volving the electoral college. In 1869, and again in 1881, Georgia’s electors voted on the wrong day and their votes were not permitted to be counted. In 1873 only half of the electors of Texas ever reached the State capitol. In 1873 also, the electoral vote of the State of Arkansas was rejected by the Congress and the State disfranchised because the return certificate bore the seal of the secretary of state instead of the great seal—an article which the State did not possess at that time. In recent campaigns we have wit- nessed near civil strife in several States over the manner in which electors were chosen. In some instances we have seen electors cast their votes contrary to the wishes of those selecting them. We have been lucky that no electors have died, or gone insane, or that an election was not changed by one or more electors switch- ing their votes arbitrarily. 10415 Thus from the bottom to the top this archaic vehicle is fraught with peril. Under the proposed method all these con- troversies would be avoided, because the Siates would have no electors to choose, and the Congress would have no election contests to decide. Second. The electoral college confines and largely restricts national campaigns to a half dozen pivotal States: The na- tional campaign committee and the po- litical strategists of both parties sit down with a map of the Nation and decide where to do their work and where to spend their money. Their job is to elect Presidenis. If modern scientific tech- niques of sampling public opinion are handled properly and with the history of past campaigns to go by, their prob- lem is relatively simple. The seven largest States in the Union, with their electoral vote, are as follows: New York, 47; Pennsylvania, 36; Illinois, 28; Ohio, 25; California, 25; Texas, 23; and Mich- igan, 19. Texas, being in the solid South, counts for little. Neither party would spend any money or make any effort of consequence there, so Texas is checked off. The same is true of other States of the so-called solid South. These States are solid largely because of the electoral college. California sometimes becomes a battleground. However, by and large, it is safe to say that 75 per- cent of all the political efforts by both parties is concentrated in five big pivotal States, to wit: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan. Any party carrying all of these States has a cinch to elect a President; any party carrying a majority of them has almost a cinch, We do not say that any election has been bought, but the present system has great possibilities along those lines. Third. The electoral college greatly re- stricts the fleld of Presidential possibil- ities: Certainly so important an office should have the whole Nation as a field from which to select potential Presidents. The electoral college, however, narrows the ficld of Presidential hopefuls almost exclusively to the aforesaid pivotal States, Since the Civil War, no Presi- dent has come from the South. With the exception of Herbert Hoover, none has ever come from the West. In the last 60 years, we have had three Presi- dents from Ohio and three from New York. In fact, to be a governor or an ex-governor of the great State of New York, gives one the inside track of the Presidential derby. Why? The answer is obvious. The change of a compara- tively few votes in the State of New York will ordinarily give to a candidate 47 electoral votes and usually the elec- tion. Only twice in the last 75 years has anyone been elected President without carrying the great State of New York. No one can dispute these facts and no one can defend the result on democratic principles. Fourth. The electoral college permits and invites irresponsible control and domination by small organized minority groups, within the large pivotal States. It aggravates and accentuates the build- ing up and solidification within these States of religious, economic, and racial blocs: Small, definable, minority groups,
10416 organized along religious or economic or racial lines, by voting together, can and do hold a balance of power within these pivotal States. Asa result, the political strategists in both parties make special appeals to these various groups as such. These groups have become more and more politically conscious. They know their power. In many instances, they have no political alinements or phi- losophy as such, but are simply up for sale to the highest bidder. To encour- age economic, racial, and religious group consciousness and group action, is a dan- gerously undemocratic practice, aside from its other evil consequences. At the danger of stepping on some toes, let us get down to specific cases. Let us take a look at the political plat- forms of both major parties in the Presi- dential campaigns of 1944 and 1948 and see how they were built and designed to appeal to minority groups and blocs in the large pivotal States. First, both parties wrote the FEPC into their plat- forms. The platform makers of both parties will tell you frankly, off the rec- ord of course, that this was done as a bid for the Negro vote. There are enough Negroes in New York City, when voting en bloc, to determine often how the entire electoral vote of the State of New York is cast; enough in Philadelphia if cast in bloc to probably determine the result of an election in the State of Pennsylvania; enough in Detroit to per- haps decide the vote of the State of Michigan; enough in Chicago to carry the State of Illinois. Hence, a danger- ous and radical proposal in which a ma- jority of neither party believes was writ- ten into both platforms as political bait for a minority vote within the large pivotal States. A second minority group that was wooed by the platform makers of both parties was the radical wing of organ- ized labor. In the large pivotal States above mentioned, the votes controlled by the political action committee of the CIO was a tremendous, potential, political threat. The votes allegedly controlled by this organization in the large pivotal States, if cast in bloc, would be sufficient to swing the votes of such States and perhaps elect a President. Hence, both parties generally speaking wrote plati- tudinous provisions into their platforms concerning industrial-management re- Jations. Both parties pussyfooted on the labor question because of organized labor’s power through the electoral college. Now, with all due deference to our many fine Jewish citizens, they consti- tute a third group, te whom a specific overt appeal was made in the platforms of both major parties. There are 2,500,- 000 Jews in the city of New York alone. When they vote even substantially en bloc, it means the balance of power in our largest State. The candidate for whom they vote carries New York State and probably the Presidency. What did the platform makers of 1944 do? Both of them wrote into their platforms spe- cifically and without equivocation the so-called Palestine resolution, calling upon Great Britain to immediately open Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immt- gration. Regardless of the merits of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Zionists’ cause in Palestine, this was po- litical demagoguery and dangerous med- dling with British foreign policy in the Holy Land. As a result of platform en- dorsements by both major parties, we passed a resolution though the Seventy- ninth Congress calling upon England to open up Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration. Within a few weeks after this resolution was passed, England asked us if we were ready and willing to back up our request with the Army and the Navy if she got into war. We stuck our noses into British foreign policy for purely political reasons and to the detri- ment of all of our citizens, Jewish and otherwise. , Then there are nutferous other mi- norities pressure groups within these large pivotal States to whom continuous political overtures are made by the strategists of both parties. There are more than 1,000,000 Italians in New York City. There are 2,000,000 Irish, many of whom are still politically conscious where Ireland is concerned. There are 500,000 Poles and other large racial groups. Because of the electoral college, the American Labor Party and the Com- munist Party in the State of New York have power and trading position out of all proportion to their numbers, to say nothing of their merit. It is entirely possible that because of this political strait-jacket, the etectoral college sys- tem, that sald Ameri@an Labor Party or the Communist Party will determine some day soon who will be the President of the United States. Of late, we have become rightly alarmed over the activi- ties of the Communist Party in the United States. Strange to say, this party has its greatest following and influence in the aforesaid large pivotal States. This party and its fellow travelers are shrewd political manipulators. What grim irony it would be if they should swing the balance of power and be re- sponsible for the election of a President of the United States. Again, mention might be made of the undue power and influence given to the big city political machines through the electoral college. Through, and because of the electoral college, a few big cities have elected and will probably continue to elect Presidents of the United States. It is largely within these big cities that the racial, religious, and economic blocs are found and in which they operate. Now, please understand, I have no ob- jection to the Negro in Harlem voting and to his vote being counted, but I do resent the fact that both parties will spend a hundred times as much money to get his vote, and that his vote is worth a hundred times as much in the scale of national politics as is the vote of a white man in Texas. I have no objection to a million folks who cannot speak English, voting, or to their votes being counted, but I do resent the fact that because they happen to live in Chicago, or De- troit, or New York, that their vote is worth a hundred times as much as mine because I happen to live in Texas. Is it fair, is it honest, is it democratic, ts it to the best interest of anyone in fact, to place such a premium on a few thousand labor votes, or Italian votes, or Irish votes, or Negro votes, or Jewish votes, or Polish JULY 17 votes, or Communist votes, or big-tity- machine votes, simply because they happen to be located in two or three large, industrial pivotal States? Can anything but evil come from placing such temptation and such power in the hands of political parties and political bosses? They, of course, will never resist the temptation of making undue appeals to these minority groups whose votes mean the balance of power and the election of Presidents. Thus, both said groups and said politicians are corrupted and the Nation suffers. Fifth. The electoral college deprives great masses of our citizens of the edu- cational benefits of national campaigns and lessens their concern in national affairs: Most of our citizens outside of the great pivotal States never see a Pres- idential candidate or a campaign speak- er, and never hear a campaign speech ex- cept by radio, Neither the platforms nor the speeches are designed to appeal to them. Furthermore, millions in these areas refrain from voting in general elec- tions, knowing that to do so is futile, since their votes will have no bearing on results. Sixth. The electoral college places un- conscionable burdens and temptations upon a President elected by it. A Presi- dent starts out heavily obligated to the organized minority pressure groups in the great pivotal States and to the po- litical machines, often the big-city ma- chines, that were most responsible for his election. Again, there are those who, with great logic, contend that by keep- ing the political machines and the mi- nority pressure groups of the large piv- otal States in line, a President can easily reelect himself if not actually perpetuate himself in office. Further, the political satellites and those who benefit from his tenure of office are constantly urging him to do this very thing. Certainly, a Presi- dent is constantly under great tempta- tion to devote undue attention to, and to confer undue favors upon, these stra- tegic political areas at the expense of and to the detriment of the rest of the country. I certainly would not accuse any President of playing cheap politics but no President should be subjected to the harassment of groups which under the electoral-college system hold such disproportionate political influence and power. Now, let me discuss briefly some of the main arguments against our proposed amendment. While a vast majority of our political scientists, legal scholars, and serious students of government agree that our present system is dangerously defective, they do not agree upon pro- posed remedies. Some favor electing Presidents by a direct vote of the peo- ple. A direct-vote method raises all of the issues between the large States and the small States, and such an amend- ment could never be ratified. Again, it would destroy State sovereignty in the matter of national elections. It would aggravate rather than alleviate sectional differences, It would reduce all States to the lowest common denominator. For example, all States would have to lower their voting age to 18 to be on a parity with Georgia. Again, in a sectional con- trovery, New York might vote their
1950 dogs, cats, and dead grandmothers, and Texas would retaliate by doing the same thing. Each State would be accusing the other of fraud in piling up big votes and each would probably be correct in such charges. Under our proposal, it is of no concern to Texas how many vote in New York and of no concern to New York how many vote in Texas. New York would still have 47 electoral votes, di- vided, however, in the exact ratio in which they were cast. Texas would still have 23 electoral votes, divided, how- ever, in the exact ratio in which they were cast. Another argument against doing away with the electoral college is that it would destroy the two-party system. Our reply is that it would have the reverse effect and that our major parties under the proposed amendment would succeed or tail on real merit and not upon their success in juggling or manipulating the archaic, undemocratic vehicle known as the electoral college system. Again, some submit statistics trying to show that the proposed amendment would favor one or the other of the major parties. We submit that no truthful statistics on such a score can possibly be offered. For example, under our proposed amend- ment, had it been in effect during the last campaign, Governor Dewey might possibly have been passed over by the Republican party for some other nom- inee. Furthermore, the Republican tick- et doubtless would have polled at least @ million more popular votes in the so- called solid South. Nothing could be more nonpartisan than the proposed amendment. It would be absolutely fair to all political parties. It would give our two great major parties new life and vigor. It would free them of the leeches and parasites that now cling to the backs of each. It would make them in truth and fact national parties, not sectional parties appealing to prejudice, passion, and bias. Each party would then write its platform and make its appeal on na- tional rather than sectional bases. To summarize and generalize the af- firmative arguments for the proposed amendment: We are convinced that the safety and welfare of this Nation de- mand the abolition of the electoral col- lege system of electing Presidents. This system now denies a majority of cur people any effective voice in the election of Presidents. The proposed amend- ment would remove the overpowering in- centive in the present system to coddle and corrupt organized minority groups in the pivotal States, since under the pro- posed amendment, there would be no piv- otal States. The proposed change would remove the incentive to buy those who may be for sale to the highest bidder, be- cause their votes would not mean a bal- ance of power and the election of a President. Under the proposed change, there would be little or no compulsion or incentive for fraud and chicanery in national campaigns. Such campaigns would no longer be sectional. The gen- eral welfare would then become a party's paramount concern, Principles would then tnevitably rise above politics, and statesmanship would then count for more than mere political expediency, Let us act before it is too late. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE In conclusion, and I have merely hit the high spots, the polls throughout this country show that more than two-thirds of the people want this reform: the peo- ple want the right to vote directly for President in order to have their political philosophies transferred into direct ac- tion. They are deprived of any such rights under existing procedures. Let me suggest to my friends here that such doubts as they may have as to the merits of this resolution should be re- solved in favor of the resolution. You do not amend the Constitution; the States do that if they wish. You merely give the States the right to debate and decide the issue. Three-fourths of the State legislatures must hereafter ratify and approve this proposal if it is sub- mitted. We ought to submit it to them for their consideration. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Texas has expired. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, will not the gentleman yield himself a little more time to explain just exactly how this method would work if the resolution and the amendment proposed by the resolution should be adopted? Mr. GOSSETT. I appreciate my friend’s request, but all time has been allotted. Subsequent speakers will do that. I thank you very much. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speak- er, I yield myself 5,.minutes. Mr. Speaker, obviously 49 minutes is not enough to deal adequately with a constitutional amendment of as far- reaching importance as the one with which we are forced to deal in that short time today The fault for that does not lie with those who oppose it. Many of the arguments made in favor of this amendment I agree with. I agree with many of the objectives sought to be achieved. Those objectives which are desirable could very easily be ac- complished. We can abolish the electoral college, we can give individual citizens a consti- tutional right to vote in Presidential elections, we can abolish the unit vote in the House of Representatives when an election is thrown into the House, all without endangering our political system. We cannot, however, make the major change which this amendment would make without disastrous results, in my opinion. That change is to divide the electoral votes of each State in propor- tion to the division of the popular vote for President in that State. In my judg- mcnt, Mr. Speaker, the effect of that change would be, first, to reduce the Re- publican Party to impotence; second, to change the Democratic Party entirely in character and to deliver it permanently into the control of the conservative southern wing of that party, with the resulting destruction of any chance for a program of civil rights on a Federal level, with impairment of the rights of minorities generally, and with a definite set-back to the legitimate interests of organized labor. In addition to those effects, which would, in themselves, be very bad for our two-party system, the two-party sys- tem, in my judgment, would further be deeply harmed by removing two of the 10417 most important pillars which now sup- port it. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr, Martin] will develop more fully the effect of this change on the Republican Party. Suffice it for me to say that it is quite clear in my mind, and competent statisticians and experts in this fleld have given it as their judgment, that if this change were adopted, under present voting practices and habits, the Republi- cans would have to get between 52 and 54 percent of the popular vote in order to elect a President, a handicap it would be practically impossible to overcome. It is said, of course, that this would open up the South to the two-party sys- tem, that the Republicans would have a chance to get votes there which they now do not have a chance to get. I suggest to you that is just an idle dream. It would take more than a little personal campaigning by a Republican candidate for President in the South to change ex- isting voting habits in that area. And if the Republicans did begin to make headway in the South I confidently predict they would not do so for long. Do you recall what happened when the Populist movement raised its head in the South? Restrictive legislation was promptly enacted, restrictions of all sorts were placed around the franchise and the Populist movement was kept out of the South. Mr. Speaker, so it would be here. Additional restrictions would be put on the franchise and the Repub- licans would be kept out of the South. There is no chance to get a substantial Republican vote in the South for many, many years to come. Where would southern Republican votes come from? We cannot get votes by appealing to the Negroes and other disfranchised groups. They are not and will not be allowed to vote. And the Republicans, traditionally the party of civil liberties, cannot appeal to the conservatives in the South. If, God forbid, they should attempt it, they would lose the support of the minority groups in the great States of the North, and the people who have the vote in the South would not vote Republican in any event. Why should they change? It is not just the Republicans who would be hurt. The Democratic Party itself would be badly hurt, and all liberal movements would be badly hurt if this change should be adopted. The forces which now control the Democratic Party in the South would then control the en- tire Democratic Party. The balance of power in this country would be swung from the northern pivotal States to the conservative South. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speak- er, I yield myself two additional minutes. Mr. Speaker, if this provision had been in effect in the last election, the electoral margin given by the State of Georgia alone would have been larger than the combined electoral margin given by either party by the 11 most populous States in this country outside the Solid South. Can anyone doubt that with power like that the South would regain
10418 control of the Democratic Party, domi- nate its conventions, dictate its plat- forms, choose its candidates. Under these conditions, civil rights would have no chance whatever. That is not my view only. In the committee record, in my minority report, you will find evidence from the southern press substantiating my views. And Charles M. LaFollette, a former Member of this House, and a great liberal, has asserted that this was the most cleverly concealed weapon American reaction has yet used in tts fight for control of American poli- tics. If a single liberal voted for this change, he would commit one of the greatest errors in his experience and one which he would always regret. The Republicans, the minority groups, and the liberals have been chided for being selfish about this thing. It has been said that their selfish interest ought to be yielded to the larger good. But where is the larger good? It does not exist. Mr. Speaker, the considerations I have mentioned would in themselves work great, perhaps, irreparable, harm to our two-party system. There are other important respects in which the proposed change would harm that sys- tem. I have only time to mention two. The first is this. At the present time, minority groups are politically impor- tant in pivotal States. Accordingly, both major parties must recognize and protect the legitimate interests of such groups, Since this is so, such groups have no need to form special interest blocks or parties for their own protec- tion. Their radical elements are forced to moderate their more extreme demands and the inclusion of the members of such groups into the life of the Nation has been successfully accomplished. Of course, undue consideration should not be given to such groups. But I submit that neither major party could indulge in that practice without losing the broad base of its support through- out the country as a whole. The second point is this. Under our Constitution as it now stands, neither party can profit by getting more than 51 percent of the popular vote in any State. This requires both parties to appeal broadly to the people of many States and many interests. It is an important fac- tor in making both parties representa- tive of the country as a whole, as op- posed to representing merely sectional, group, or limited class interests. The late Prof. Carl Becker, of Cornell, counts this as one of the important rea- sons for the continued existence of our two-party system in its present form. I agree that it is. It would be elimi- nated by the proposed proportional divi- sion of electoral votes. Mr. Speaker, the procedure under which this measure is being considered simply does not permit the Members of this body to give it the consideration which its importance demands. That fact alone should impel the House to reject it. I am confident the House will follow that course; that it will not lightly recommend a constitutional change which would, in my judgment, cut deeply and dangerously into the fabric of our institutions. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ili- nois [Mr,. Resp]. Mr. REED of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today an important proposal to amend the Federal Constitution is before the House for consideration—consideration limited to 40 minutes. It is indeed regrettable that ample time under a rule was not made avail- able for discussion, pro and con, of a matter as important as is this. The passage today of this resolution will re- sult in the submission to the several States of a proposed. amendment to the Constitution that will abolish the pres- ent method of electing.our President and Vice President through the medium of an electoral college and will substitute in Neu thereof, an orderly procedure whereby the electoral vote of each State will be retained and tabulated for all candidates in proportion to the number of popular votes they receive in the gen-~ eral election. It will replace an archaic, unjust, and inequitable method of choos- ing our President for one that will more accurately reflect the popular will. It will result in the selection of better can- didates by both parties because the whole 48 States will be the fleld from which candidates will be chosen, rather than merely the populous States having the large electoral vote. It will have a tendency to make two-party States out of those that are now one-party States because adherents of other national par- ties in those States will have an incentive to vote, knowing that their votes will be credited to and increase the percentage of the total vote of the candidates of their respective parties. It will minimize fraud in Presidential elections, because the re- ward of fraud—the entire electoral vote of a State—will no longer be available. It will result in an intelligent discussion of campaign issues in all States of the Union because no State can then be ignored by any of the political parties on the ground that “its vote is in the bag.” It is fair to the Republican, to the Demo- cratic, and to the minority parties. Now let me address my remarks par- ticularly to those who sit on my left. I am informed that some Republicans in- sist that this amendment will injure our party’s chances. The figures for every election since the Democratic Party gained control 18 years ago, prove other- wise. In all five of those elections there were 631 electoral votes, of which the winning candidate was required to receive 266 to obtain a majority. In 1932 Herbert Hoover, who received 39.7 percent of the popular vote, won only 59 electoral votes. This amendment would have credited him with 189.6. In 1986 Alf Landon, who received 3644 percent of the popular vote, was given only 8 electoral votes. He would have had 175.6, under this amendment. In 1940 Wendell Willkie received 44.8 percent of the popular vote, but it netted him but 82 electoral votes. He should have had 214.6. In 1944 Thomas E. Dewey, who polled 46 percent of the popular vote, received 99 electoral votes. He merited 223.5. JULY 17 In 1948 Mr. Dewey polled 45 percent of the popular vote, received 189 electoral votes. He was entitled to 221.4, If any Republican opponents of this resolution can defend these figures, and the system which makes them possible, as reflecting an honest expression of the views of individual voters, I would be de- lighted to hear him. In fact, the Republican National Con- vention of 1948 adopted a plank in its platform which reads as follows: We favor 8 revision of the procedure for the election of the President and Vice Prest- dent which will more exactly reflect the popular vote. That is exactly what this resolution does. It is our platform pledge and as one Republican I shall adhere to it. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speak- er, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Couperr], Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Speaker, I re- gret the necessity of arising at this time to differ with my very good friend, the able gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gos- sett], He and I are wholly in accord on our objectives. In view of the cir- cumstances, however, under which this resolution is coming before the House, I feel it incumbent upon me to rise to call the attention of the Members to the fact that this is not the only alterna- tive before this House for the system which the gentleman from Texas 80 soundly criticizes. Some time ago House Joint Resolution 414 was introduced by me as an alterna- tive method for amending the Constitu- tion with respect to the election of Presi- dents, House Joint Resolution 414 has the support of very respectable author- ity. It was supported by Jefferson, Mad- ison, Hamilton, Story, and all of the founding fathers and the men that im- mediately followed them, and it is sup- ported as late as today in the newspapers by such distinguished commentators as Messrs. Krock, Lippmann, and a host of university experts such as Professor Corwin, who edits our own constitution- al volume which is gotten up by the Library of Congress. The resolution very simply would provide for the elec- tion of electors in precisely the same fashion as we now elect Members of Congress, to wit, one elector for each congressional district and two at large to represent the Senators. Briefly, my resolution encompasses all of the objectives sought by the Lodge- Gossett resolution—every single one of them—without falling into the pitfalls that the Lodge-Gossett resolution would lead us into, to wit, unlimited growth of splinter parties and ultimately the elec- tion of minority Presidents. If the Gossett resolution should fail, I shall press for action upon House Joint Resolution 414. Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 38 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hays], Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, Ido not believe any Member of the House can defend the present system. We are not choosing between the alternative offered by the gentleman from New York {Mr. Couprerr] and the present system, but between the present system and this
1950 constructive plan advanced by the gen- tleman from Texas [Mr. Gosserr] and the Eenator from Massachusetts (Mr, Lover). It is not presented by the Com- mittee on the Judiciary as a perfect plan. It will be a long time before we work out the kind of machinery for demo- cratic government which can be re- garded as perfect. The present plan permits so many acts of irregularity, as has been pointed out, and there are so many weaknesses in it, including the experience of the last elec- tion which enabled one elector to cast his vote contrary to the results of the Presidential election in his State that we must make a change. But it is not the individual electors, nor the individual voter. who lack integrity, it is the system elf, I am convinced, with the study that I have given to this plan, that it will be a tremendous improvement, I concede that I am influenced partly by my obser- vations as a resident of the South and of the State of Arkansas in reaching this conclusion. I am sure I have never made a statement which was freer from partisan feeling than this. Mr. Hard- ing received 60,000 votes in Arkansas out of 150,000 votes cast in 1920. Mr, Hoover received a little larger percent- age than that in 1928. I suppose it is fair to say that out of nine electoral votes the Republicans would likely receive three votes in my State. So it is not a partisan point of view. Netther should this ever be re- garded as a fight between the large States and the small States, nor between the economic interests of the Nation. This is not designed to take from the large States any advantage held by them, Only five States have a larger population than that of Texas, Mr. Gossrrr’s home, and only eight States are larger than Massachusetts, Mr. Lopae’s home. The wide support for this amendment, in- cluding the endorsement by the Com- mittee on Political Parties of the Ameri- can Political Science Association—a group of disinterested and competent students of the current problems of gov- ernment—is proof that the issues can- not be defined in terms of the large States against the small, the Democratic Party against the Republican, or of the North against the South. If I might use the remaining moments I have to make a point on the positive side, I would say that over a period of years it will lessen the influence of bloc voting, that is often a menace to de- mocracy. Ihave no complex against any of the new blocs. I have welcomed their participation sometimes even as a small minority. I have never knowingly said anything to prejudice their rights. But the time has come for us to regard the damage that grows out of the use of highly organized minority influences in pivotal States, and the damage done to our election machinery and to our sys- tem of government, There is no threat to voting rights of organized blocs in this amendment. We could remove the damage done the system, however, by refusing to give the entire vote of the State in which they acquire great power to the candidate they favor, but confer, rather, upon the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE favored candidate of the organized mi- nority only that weight in the voting which their total vote represents. The bloc vote would still be a factor. Various groups—the farmers, the industrialists, the labor unions—all would still feel that their point of view would have political weight. The candidates for President and Vice President, and the parties spon- soring them, would still consider the points of view of these groups, but they would not be accorded greater weight in the voting than their proportionate share of the total vote justified. The more populous States would not lose their ad- vantage; they would still be battle- grounds; they would retain their pro- portionate share of :the electoral college total. But the minorities of the larger States would, under the Gossett plan, be given their recognition and would not be disfranchised, as under the present pro- cedures. If adopted, this amendment would exalt the individual voter, and exalt him wherever he lives, in relation to the na- tional group of which he is a part; first in his party—giving him a greater in- fluence in the Republican or Democratic Party, and then as a member of the na- tional community. I am afraid that my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Case], is lacking full faith in popular govern- ment. If the conservative wing of the Democratic Party in the South would gain in party counsels, then perhaps the conservatives ought to have greater weight, if our idea is correct, that this is a Government by the consent of the governed. That this is desirable or not, from the standpoint of the soundness of conservative views, is not the question. Let the people make mistakes. We can survive errors in their choice; we cannot survive mishandling of the machinery by which the choice is recorded. John Locke, thoughtful student of government, produced an _ epigram worthy of our contemplation, when he said, “There can be no government of and for the people unless there he gov- ernment by the people.” Democratic institutions are on trial. The Republic, a federation of States, is being tested. Concessions are made in this amendment to the States—the two- vote allotment to each—but at the base of the plan is the idea that the majority must rule and that majorities are con- stituted of men and women, not artificial blocs. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Herter] may extend his remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. HERTER. Mr. Speaker, I regret extremely that a matter of such impor- tance as a constitutional amendment should come before the House under a request for suspension of the rules which allows for only 20 minutes of debate on either side. This amendment, which bears the distinguished name of the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Sen- ator Henry Casor Lopas, as well as the 10419 name of the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gossetr] does not come before this House as a new matter. Four times in the last 15 years it has been ap~ proved by the House Judiciary Commit- tee, It was approved unanimously by that committee in the Eightieth Con- gress when the Republicans had control of the House. However, for the first time it was voted upon the Senate this year and received a two-thirds vote of that body with 19 Republican Senators voting for it. Today it is being objected to in this body for a number of reasons which are entirely divergent. Some Members are objecting to it because they believe that in practice it would work out in a man- ner harmful to the Republican Party. Others are opposed to it because they feel that it would work out in a manner to strengthen anti-civil-rights Democrats in the South. Still others object to it because they feel that some other meth- od of reforming our electoral procedure would be better than the present method. Undoubtedly all these arguments have @ certain degree of validity. However, as against these arguments, there must be weighed the excellent report of the Judiciary Committee on this amendment, prepared by the distinguished gentleman and Republican from Pennsylvania, Judge Granam. In addition, the amend- ment has the support of many careful students of our governmental processes, who are convinced that the reforms which this amendment would institute are essential if the will of the American people is to be more nearly reflected in our presidential elections. I personally have heard lengthy testi- mony given before the Rules Committee on the subject, and am convinced that the very able arguments presented by Senator Lonae on behalf of this bill over- ride the objections. Only through an amendment of this kind can the Repub- lican Party hope to become a truly na- tional party, rather than a sectional party. Only through this amendment can the overwhelming influence of a few votes in the big States of the Union— an influence leading to the successive nominations of residents of those big States—be offset so that all men properly qualified may have an equal opportunity to be considered for the Presidency re- gardless of their domicile within the United States. I realize that there is little chance of securing a two-thirds vote in this body, but I am convinced that even though the amendment may fail at this time, it or one very like it will be adopted before many years, and that we will then have & much more equitable method of select- ing a President than the antiquated and often distorted method now employed. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4% minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horii]. Mr. HOLIFIELD, Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous bill, and the method of discussing it for only 40 minutes is ridic- ulous. When we debate a matter of the importance of such a measure, which will change a deep-seated principle of our constitutional Government, for only 40 minutes, it is simply ridiculous,
I want to answer fn the brief time have some of the arguments that have been made. The argument has been made that this is an advance forward in obtaining the effect of the popular vote. Let me say to you that it is such a neg- ‘ligible increase and it brings so many at~ tendant evilg with it that I think you should know it does not change the pres- ent disparity between the electoral and the popular vote. One electoral vote in California repre- sents 168,862 voters. In South Carolina it represents 17,821, or about a 10-to-1 difference. That is not changed by the Lodge-Gossett bill. One electoral vote in California repre- sents 395,000 people. In Nevada it rep- resents 46,000 people, an 8-to-1 disparity. That is not changed 8o this is not a step forward in obtain- ing the effect of the popular vote, and let us not have anyone fool us on that, Now, let us see what it does. Under the present electoral system the winning party has averaged, since 1932, 436 elec- toral votes, Under the Lodge-Gossett formula the same winning party would have averaged 306. That is from 436 down to 306. What does that mean from a practical, political standpoint? First, it means that any strong but mi- nority bloc within either party could dic- tate at the party convention both the planks and the candidates. It could do this because its percentage strength would be stronger in the 306 average than in the 436 average. In other words, the minority block representing 40 or more votes, which would be the differ- ence between 266 and 306, 266 being now the requisite majority number, could force convention concessions from the majority of the party on the threat of withdrawal of support. Now, if the Lodge-Lucas amendment which is in the bill and which we will vote for if we vote for the bill, is accepted, it reduces the elective requirements from @ majority of 50 percent or more of the electors to 40 percent. That is a 20-per- cent reduction in the total required. In other words, that allows a minority of the electors to elect the President. Why did they put that provision in the bill? They did it because they knew this bill would foment splinter parties. Why would it do that? Because any minority bloc within either of the major parties, if it were not appeased by a damaging con- cession, would step out and form its own party. What would happen? Let us take the recent election. With approxi- mately the same number of votes cast in the South for the States’ Rights Party, they would have had 38.5 electoral vates. With the same number cast in New York, Mr. Wallace's party would have had 4 electoral votes. Do you see the differ- ence? Under the Lodge-Gossett formu- Ja, they would have had a total of a little over 40 electoral yotes, which is almost 10 percent of the electoral votes, With a Httle encouragement like this it would be very easy to get 10 percent of the electoral votes for a third, or for several parties, a third, a fourth, a fifth, @ sixth party, and’ so forth. Therefore they put in the 40-percent requirement in the Lucas amendment to try to com- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE pensate for the formation of splinter parties. The great question for us to decide is whether we want two major parties or do we want to foment small minority parties, splinter parties such as they have in France, and we know that the multiple-party situation in Prance has created an impotent government. France’s Government can only work through party coalition agreements based on damaging compromise between the coalition parties. I therefore, believing in a strong two- party system and fearing the effect of splinter parties upon responsible demo- cratic procedures, urge that s “no” vote be cast against the Lodge-Gossett reso- lution. REASONS WHY THE LODGE-GOSRETT PROPOSAT, SHOULD BE DEFZATED First. It is not necessary to argue that the present system of electing the President and Vice President is per- fect. There are more democratic meth- ods that can be devised. However, the Lodge-Gossett proposal is only seemingly a democratic reform. The cure it pro- poses is worse than the evil it seeks to remedy. Second. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the present electoral college system, with all its defects, has evolved in a far different way from what the founding fathers intended. In the course of more than 150 years of political experience, we as & nation have made ad- justments to this constitutional require- ment which are more democratic and more in keeping with the spirit and tem- per of American political and social institutions, Third. The Lodge-Gossett proposal has two classes of supporters: (a) those who have been misled by its stated al- truistic aims or its apparent step toward a@ more democratic procedure; (b) those who hope to gain some political adtvan- tage for themselves or their political group. Fourth. Among the latter are the southern conservatives who hope to gain control of the c Party and various Republicans who hope to capture the Republican Party, in spite of over- whelming Republican sentiment for the Taft-type leadership. Fifth. Conservative control of the Democratic Party means that that party would lose its hold on the people and lose elections. Minority groups that now work within the two-party system to ac- complish their objectives, in the absence of a Democratic Party under liberal con- trol, would seek alternatives to political impotence and frustration by forming their own political parties. Such parties would tend to follow along sectional, class, and race lines. Examples, Dixie- crat, Wallace Progressive, or a po Labor Party movement. Sixth. The major indictment, there- fore, of the Lodge-Gossett proposal is that it would encourage a multiplicity of political parties and intensify sectional, economic, and class conflicts. It poses the real possibility of drastic changes tn the American political system, and I am persuaded to believe that in the guise of a political reform the Lodge-Gossett pro- Juuy 17 posal would sound the death-knell of the two-party system. Seventh. Consider thet under the Lodge-Giogsett proposal the Dixiecrat and Wallace Parties, during the 1948 elec- tions, would have gained almost 10 per= cent of the electoral yotes. With the in- centive that this measure would provide for the formation of splinter parties, a total of more than 20 percent of the elec- toral votes going to such parties would likely throw the election into the Con- gress. Bighth. It is not far-fetched to say that under the Lodge-Gossett proposal, con- gressional election of Presidents would become the ordinary procedure, certainly @ long step backward. Under the pres- ent electoral system, no election has been thrown into the House for more than 120 years. Ninth. Incentive Is given to the forma- tion of splinter parties by the Lodge-Gos- sett proposal because ft results in the seri- ous upward distortion of the electoral in- fluence of such parties. The Dixiecrat Party, for instance, would have gained 38.5 electoral votes under the Lodge-Gos- sett formula. Tenth. A multiplicity of parties leads to coalition government with all the at- tendant evils and inherent instability of such governments, as exemplified by France. Eleventh. The Lodge-Gossett proposal would bring the two major parties into closer electoral balance. Under majority Tule there is no inherent virtue in a closely balanced election. Look at Brit~ ain, where uncertainty and paralysis are the results of a failure to have a decisive majority. The surplusage of electoral votes that goes to the winning party un- der the present American system helps to give punch and decisiveness to a party victory and compensate for the narrow margin of winning popular votes. Party responsibflity is actually enhanced by the compensation of added electoral votes, Twelfth, Our Federal Government has many constitutional departures from popular democracy in the strict sense. If the proponents of the Lodge-Gossett amendment are serious about achieving more democratic government, they should be willing to do many things that they are not doing. Many who favor this amendment do not favor poll-tax repeal; they do not favor ways and means of increasing the political participation of Negroes in the South; they are not in- terested in redressing the discrimination suffered by the large States in the ratio of electors to voters. Thirteenth. Standing by ttself, the Lodge-Goasett amendment not only fails to remedy the defects alleged, but it opens the door to undesirable political conse- quences which threaten to disrupt our two-party system of government and to introduce all the ills of multiple party division and irresponsible coalition gov- ernment. Lodge-Gossett argument: Lodge- Gossett formula is more representative of the popular vote. Rebuttal: While theoretically this may be partially sustained, the improve- ment is negligible and does not attack the basic cause of present disparity between
1950 the electoral method and a true popular- vote method. For example: Present system: Voters 1 electoral vote, California 1948... 160, 862 lelectoral vote, South Carolina 1948 ~~. nee ee 17, 821 People lelectoral vote, California 1948.. 395, 040 lelectorai vote, Nevada 1948..._. Lodge-Gossett system.....22..... ‘The same Conclusion: Argument that Lodge- Gossett formula is a more accurate re- flection of popular vote ts fallacious, be- cause the basic method of electoral rep- resentation remains unchanged. INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF SECTIONAL OR CLASS GROUFB WITHIN MAJOR PARTIES AND AS 8IP~ ARATE SPLINTER FARTIES Under the present electoral system the winning party has averaged since 1932, 436 electoral votes, Under the Lodge- Gossett formula the same winning party would have averaged 306, As 266 is the required winning majori- ty, we see that the margin of victory would have been reduced from 170 to 40 votes. What does this mean from a practical political standpoint? First, 1t means that any strong but minority bloc within either party could dictate at the party conventions both planks and candidates. It could do this because its percentage strength would be stronger in a 396 aver- age than in a 436 average. In other words, a minority bloc representing 40 or more votes could force convention concessions from a majority on the threat of withdrawal of support. If the Lodge-Lucas amendment which is in the bill is accepted which reduces the elective requirement from 50 per- cent to 40 percent of the electoral votes, a@ minority bloc within a party becomes even more powerful. Second, if minority blocs within a major party are not appeased, they will be likely to withdraw, form splinter par- ties, and wield their new-born effective- ness in the national elections, The Lodge-Lucas amendment reducing the elective requirement 20 percent is proof positive that splinter parties will flourish and election by 51 percent of the elec- toral votes will be unlikely if not im- possible. Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Dotrtrver]. Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is a venerable and honored instrument. Every man and woman who is » Mem- ber of Congress swears to uphold it. But it was not a perfect instrument when it was drafted, and with all due respect I suppose we can say today that it is not a@ perfect instrument, As evidence of the fact that it was not a perfect in- strument there have been more than & score of amendments attached to the Constitution; and, as rather conclusive evidence that it is still not thought per- fect by everyone, we are considering today a constitutional amendment. One of the most controversial sub- jects in the Constitutional Convention was that of the method of selecting the President of the United States. It was hoped by the idealists who were mem- bers af the Convention that partisan CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE politics could be eliminated from the selection of the Chief Executive, and great and elaborate precautions were set up in the Constitution to avoid partisan- ship in the election of the Chief Execu- tive through the electoral college. That plan worked pretty well until about 1820 when the last of the members of the Constitutional Convention was elected President, James Monroe. Immedltately after that the electoral college became the instrument of partisan politics, and it is so today. Mr. Speaker, the most persuasive argument to me, in favor of the pro- posed amendment ®% that it will elimi- nate, or will tend tg eliminate from our Presidential eamnggant the undue em- phasis which 1s ced upon the great centers of population, Always the prize of the compaigns, always the prize is the great electoral vote in the heavily popu- Jated States like New York, Pennsyl- vania, Ohio, Illinois, and California. Be- cause there 1s such a great and glowing prize of a large number of electoral votes held before the campaign committees, most of the energy of the campaigns is concentrated in those great centers of population. This amendment would tend, it seems to me, to transfer some of that cam- paigning energy from the States with the larger electoral votes to some of the States with fewer #aees and lesser popu- lation. + tar Because of the fact that at the pres- ent so much energy is used in the larger States, because of the larger prizes of electoral votes, those States have become the battlegrounds for the Presidential campaigns. And it has followed that the various minority groups who may swing elections, have become the object of those campaigns thus distorting the real issues into those affecting those minori- ties only. Always the battleground and the battle issues are planned to capture the larger States and to please the minorities who hold the balance of vot- ing power in those States. There are scores of arguments both for and against this proposal. Obvi- ously there is not time under a suspen- sion of the rules to discuss, or even men- tion all of them. But electoral-college reform has been a subject of discussion and debate for many years; and the Members of this body and the public at large is well familiar with the argu- ments. Let us remind ourselves that what we are voting on is to permit the people of the States through their various legislatures, to determine whether this change in the selection of the President is to be made. By our affirmative vote today we only give them that right. The ultimate determination is to be made by three-fourths of the States. We only give them today the right to make that decision. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have permission to extend their remarks at this point in the ReEcorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. 10421 My. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, the Con- stitution of the United States takes no cognizance of parties and it is because of this that the present method of elect- ing the President is not altogether sat~- isfactory. The Constitution provides that the President shall be chosen by electors who are chosen by the various States. It was the intention of the founding fathers that these electors should use their own discretion in pick- ing @ man. However, the electors are nominated on a straight party ticket and always vote for their party's candidate— Dixiecrat electors sometimes do not fol- low this custom. It happens, therefore, that the Presidential candidate in any State who gets more than one-half of the popular vote or a plurality of the popular vote gets all of the electoral votes. As a consequence, it is possible for a man to become President even though he has less than a majority of the popular votes and even though he has less popular votes than his unsuc- cessful competitors. In order to make this proposition clear, let us assume there are three States each with 100,000 popular votes and each with 10 electoral votes. Let us further as- sume that there are just two candidates for the President, whom we will call candidates.A and B, Candidate A wins the first State by 50,001 votes and wins 10 electoral votes. Candidate B loses the first State, receiving 49,999 popular votes, but no electoral votes. In the second State, candidate A wins in the same fashion and candidate B loses in the same fashion, In the third State, can- didate B wins the entire State by a clean 100,000 popular votes and acquires 10 electoral votes, It is clear that candi- date A wins the election with 100,002 popular votes and 20 electoral votes, and candidate B loses the election with 199,- 998 popular votes and only 10 electoral votes. In the history of the United States only two Presidents, Hayes and Harrison, have won elections with Jess popular votes than their defeated op- ponents, In all other elections the win- ning candidate has had a majority or a respectable plurality. The Lodge proposal aims to do away with the possibility of the President be- ing elected by the minority or a small plurality of the popular votes by allot- ting electoral votes in each State in pro- portion to the popular votes. Thus in the State of Pennsylvania, the Repub- licans in the last election would have received approximately 19 electoral votes, the Democrats approximately 16, and the Progressives approximately 1, As you know, what happened in the last election was that the Republicans got all of the electoral votes in Pennsylvania. The Lodge proposal provides that in case no candidate gets at least 40 per- cent of the electoral votes, the election shall be determined by the House and Senate seated together and voting as individuals, not as States. This is cer- tainly a more democratic method than the present arrangement which provides that if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral college, the House of Repre- sentatives shall decide the issue by a majority vote with each State delega- tion having one vote,
10422 The Lodge proposal will effectively draw the political eye-teeth of all in- dependent voters, including the Negro voter, as far as presidential elections are concerned. The political importance of independent voters exists in presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial elections. In these elections independent voters can swing the doubtful States into either one party column or the other. In New York in the last presidential election. the Progressive Party seceded from the Democratic Party and took enough votes to drop the State in the Republican ranks, Since 1909, in ever-increasing num- bers, the Negro has been migrating out of the South to the large industrial States of the North where he has gone largely into heavy industry. He has mi- grated to those States with a heavy in- dustrial population and consequently large electoral votes. It also happens that most of these States are doubtful States and pivotal States in presidential elections. A shift of from 2 to 4 per- cent of the votes in any one of these States will carry it for the Democratic or Republican candidate. It is possible to win a presidential election by carry- ing these large doubtful States. It is for this reason that Mr. Truman has been willing to stand up to the Dixiecrats. If the Lodge proposal goes through, the Negro vote and the vote of other minor- ity, national, and religious groups will no longer be important in the great piv- otal States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Tilinois, California, West Virginia, Ken- tucky and Tennessee. Instead of being able to throw these great States to one column or the other, the Negro will be effective in only approximately 15 elec- toral votes—rough guess. Of course, the same is true of most independent voters and voters of religious and na- tional groups who are for the most part liberal and espouse the Negro cause. First, it would appear that the Lodge proposal has been brought forward be- cause his following is convinced that the Republican Party is going to be a Jarge minority party in the great pivotal indus- trial States. Mr. Loner therefore hopes to pick up a proportionate share of the electoral votes in the big pivotal indus- trial States and to win by adding to these votes the electoral votes of the tradition- ally Republican States in the North and the West. Secondly, the Democratic Party is ex- pected to be plagued by a large number of splinter groups such as the Dixiecrat Party, the Liberal Party, the Labor Par- ty, and so forth. It is for this reason that this proposal requires only 40 per- cent of the electoral college for election. The Republican Party can get 40 percent of the popular vote. Thirdly, the Gossett proposal undoubt~- ediy seeks to destroy the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has be- come @ liberal party because of the influ- ence of the big pivotal industrial States which have been falling into the Demo- tratic column. Ase result of this oceur- rence, Franklin Roosevelt in 1986 was able to get rid of the two-thirds rule for Presidential nomination tn the Demo- cratic Party, a purely southern require- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE — ment. Under the Gossett proposal the electoral vote of the great Northern States would be split but the solid South would continue to deliver a solid Demo- cratic vote. It must follow that the southern Democrats would again rees- tablish their power over the Democratic Party, driving Mberal and independent groups out of it. No more fortuitous happening could be envisaged by con- servative Republicans, The Gossett proposal will result in # reduction of political influence for the North as a whole. Political represente- tives have had to pay attention to the needs of Northern States and northern political, economic, religious, and na- tional groups because’ of the decisive effect of these gro in causing the blocks of electoral votes in the large Northern States to fall to one party or the other. Under the Gossett proposal each party would get its proportionate share of northern votes; consequently, the competition for the Northern States as a whole will be reduced. But it should be remembered that the political infiu- ence of the South will still remain great since it will continue to vote solidly Democratic. The importance of the South will grow in the councils of the Democratic Party and in the Nation as a whole. For a long time persons concerned with politics have reajized the essential danger of minority election inherent in the electoral-college system, but they have thought that the present system of electing the President is the only pos- sible political counterbalance to the solid South. A great many persons have admitted that the Gossett amendment would have a bad effect on independent, liberal, and Negro groups in the North as a wrole and on the Democratic Party. But these persons have felt that one cannot logically oppose more democracy in America. It is assumed that the Lodge proposal means more democracy. First. The Senate of the United States represents each State equally, The peo- ple of New York, 13,000,000, have only 2 Senators. The people of Delaware, 230,000, have 2 Senators. Under the present system of electing the President, the influence of the people of New York and of its dependent groups is felt. Un- der the Gossett proposal the influence of the people of New York would be re- duced and there would be no counter- balance to the equal representation of the small States in the Senate. Secondly, we have a Federal system of government and the Gossett proposal fails to represent States in the election of the President. While the electoral votes are to be apportioned in accord- ance with the popular vote in each State, the real effect of the Lodge proposal, except for the loss of fractional popu- lar votes in each State, is to cast the United States as one great electoral dis- tet, Thirdly, the Gossett amendment pto- vides that a man may be elected Preai- dent with only 46 percent of the popu- lar vote. We consistently do much bet- ter than this under our present system, It is hardly a democratic proposal. JULY 17 Lastly, the only offset the Negro has had to disfranchisement in the South and the southern filibuster has been his political influence in the northern piv- otal States. The Gossett proposal will rob him of this political influence with- out enfranchising him in the South and without proposing to stop the unconsti- tutional filibuster. The Gossett proposal would have a bad effect in a cumulative fashion. First of all, it will kill directly the political in- fluence of the Negro and minority-group votes in pivotal States. Secondly, it will reduce the importance of the Northern States as a whole and the great indus- trial States specifically. Undoubtedly, it is in the North where the Negro and mi- nority groups find most interest in their problems. Thirdly, it will destroy the liberal Democratic Party, for it will once again establish the power of the solid South over the Democratic Party. In the last 20 years most of the advance- ment of the Negro and other minority groups has come as @ result of the inter- est of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Fourthly, many independent groups, liberal groups, and even labor groups will begin to take less interest in the problems of the Negro and other minorities. As far as national politics are concerned, political groups in Amer- ica are formed by accretion. The Gos- sett proposal will have a disintegrative effect on the political groups with which the Negro and other minorities have been allied. Fifthty, the Gossett proposal will kill the influence of the great urban pivotal States. These States have had for the most part the most aggressive labor forces and have been the most powerful ones in presidential elections. They have been the doubtful States, where a swerve from 2 to 4 percent of the vote on the average has been enough to carry the State for one presidential can- didate or another. It is difficult to understand why the opposition to the Gossett amendment in the Senate came only from Mr, Tarr and his followers and from a few Democrats. There are several possible explanations, First, it is possible that White House political leadership missed the signifi- cance of the whole move. Secondly, it is possible that Mr. Truman has been seriously hurt by splinter groups—Wal- laceites in the north and Dixiecrats in the South. There is no question that Mr. Truman is tarn between Dixiecrats on one side and Negroes on the other. It might be that he is willing to get rid of these “splinters in his side” even at the cost of a less liberal Democratic Party. Lastly, there is evidently some feeling among labor groups that the Gos- sett proposal will allow labor for the first time to lump together all of its votes in the North in presidential elections. It is true that the Gossett proposal is bene- ficial to all large minorities, such as labor or the Republican Party. However, it seems to me that an immediate frontal political attack by labor will result in a general public reaction unfavorable to labor. Furthermore, I doubt if labor's influence under the Gossett system will be any greater than its influence urider the present system, The indecisive na-
1950 ture of our Federal, separation of pow- ers, check, and balance system of Gov- ernment would be increased by a multi- party system. Should the Gossett amendment get past the House of Representatives, it has an excellent chance of being adopted by the States. The southern Democrats will vote for it asa block Solid Republican or near solid Republican States will vote for it. Generally the rural States in America will vote for it since the effect of the proposal is to decrease the influ- ence of the great urban States. It is also obvious that a great deal of conflict exists now between urban and rural popula- tion over the question of the cost of food and the farm price support program. The large urban States constitute only 12 of the Nation’s 48 States. Of these, 3 are normally Republican. Constitution- al ratification requires the adoption of three-fourths of the States The House of Representatives alone represents pop- ulation and largely urkan population. It is the best place, then, to fight the Gos- sett amendment which must be adopted by the House by a two-thirds vote. Iam not impressed with the traditional arguments that the Dixiecrats are going to try to steal the presidency in 1952, by splitting up the electoral vote and throwing the election into the House of Representatives. The Constitution requires that the President must be chosen by a clear ma- jority of the electoral votes If no can- didates gets this majority, the matter is decided by the House of Representatives with each State delegation having one vote. If the Dixiecrats bolt the Demo- cratic Party in 1952, they can perhaps prevent any candidate from getting a majority of the electoral vote. The elec- tion would then be thrown into the House of Representatives. Voting as States, the Southern States would un- doubtedly have more influence than if they had to rely on their electoral votes but they cannot elect a President in the House of Representatives without the support of conservative Republicans, The Constitution requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives. If the conservative Republicans and the Dixiecrats should agree on a President, ft would be the last election they would win for a long time. Exactly this kind of thing happened when the Clay and John Quincy Adams forces ganged up to take the election away from Jackson. The popular reaction was tremendous. The people took the attitude that the election had been stolen. At the next election Jackson was voted in over- whelmingly. The American people can- not be tricked except now and then. It seems to me that at most the Dixie- crats can take only nine States in an elec- tion carried out in the House of Repre- sentatives. They will probably be able to take only three or four States. What they really would like to have is the Gossett proposal, as they have shown by their vote in the Senate. Their threat in a House election of the President, I think, is insignificant. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, the electoral college is out- moded. I would like to see the electoral college abolished and that we elect the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE President and Vice President of the United States by direct popular vote. Pending the time this is accomplished, I consider that to vote up this resolution is to take a step toward the abolition of the electoral college. I support this resolution and regret that in all probability it will be over- whelmingly defeated today. This resolution accomplishes the abo- hition of presidential electors and its en- actment into law would permit the people of our country to vote directly for the election of a President. I favor this change in the method of counting votes. I consider that by Voting up this reso- lution we take a step toward eliminating the always present possibility of Presi- dential elections belng thrown into the House of Representatives. One by one old ties have been severed— the stagecoach, tallow dips, flintlock muskets and mustache cups have gone. The electoral college should be the next to go. The makers of our Constitution did well under the circumstances to pro- vide the electoral college, but we are now living in a different world. Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to arise from their graves, they would not know this Nation, nor would they recog- nize the world we are living in, yet we are wearing the same torn and patched old political cloak of the electoral col- lege. ates Although this résolution will be de- feateed today, a good has been accom- plished in that more and more people are thinking of the outmoded electoral college and of the advisability of modern- izing our national system of electing our President and Vice President by doing away with the electoral college and by electing the President and Vice President by direct popular vote. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will overwhelmingly support this resolution. In this day and age, abolition of the electoral college ought not present a se- riously controversial issue. The elec- toral college has long since become an anachronism for which reason and jus- tification has disappeared. The present system of electing the President of the United States was evolved as one of the many compromises of the Constitutional Convention. Our founding fathers of the eighteenth cen- tury envisioned presidential electors as men of unusual intelligent wisdom and judgment who would meet face to face and select the individuals best fitted to be President and Vice President; the man who received the most votes would be President; the second highest, Vice President, They obviously could not and did not foresee the vast physical growth of our Nation and did not an- ticipate the development of Nation-wide political parties. It is not necessary to recite the cases of inadequacy o.: the existing clectoral system. In three instances at least— 1828, 1876, and 1888—Presidents were elected who had lesser popular vote than their leading opponents, In every elec- tion we witness the disenfranchisement of the minority voters in each of the 48 States. We see lack of interest in the majority of the States with the presiden- 10428 tial campaigns centered in a few States of large population. We see open, and often compromising, invitations for sup- port of small organized minority groups in pivotal States with aggravation of balance of power, political blocs. Our Nation is deprived of outstanding candidates for President because they come from the Solid South, from rock- ribbed Republican States, or from States of small population that are “in the bag” for one party or another. Surely New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have no monopoly on presidential talent and yet both parties have favored candidates from those and other large States in order to assure the entire electoral vote of these large pivotal States, The major campaign efforts have been confined to a few such States. The majority of our voting population thus has no direct con- tact with presidential contests. These weaknesses constitute a rather severe indictment of our present electoral system. The vast majority of students of political science are agreed on the need for change. There is, however, sub- stantial difference of opinion as to what that change shall be. There {s a comparatively small but active group who advocate direct popular election of the President and Vice Prest- dent, completely disregarding State lines for election purposes, There are many practical objections to this proposal. The resolution before us today is, in my opinion, a practical solution to the prob- lem, It would make four important changes in the existing electoral sys- tem. First. The electoral college and the se- lection of persons as electors would be abolished, but the assignment of electoral votes to the State on the present basis would be retained. Second. The people would be given by constitutional right a direct vote for presidential and vice presidential candi- dates. The individual States, however, would retain their present right to fix the qualifications of voters. Third. The electoral votes of each State would be credited to the respective candidates in proportion to their popular votes within the States. Fourth. The President and Vice Presi- dent would be chosen by a simple plu- rality of electoral votes in place of the present majority requirement and the present necessity for election by elther branch of Congress in the absence of an electoral majority would be eliminated. In event of tie, the presidential or vice presidential candidate receiving the larg- est number of popular votes will be chosen. It can be stated that the plan is also a@ compromise just as the establishment of the existing electoral college was ac- complished through compromise. Such give-and-take measures do have thelr virtues as the formation and continua- tion of the American Republic will strongly testify. One significant virtue of compromise is that it does provide & vehicle for making substantial and prac- tical progress. In the discussion of the instant ques- tion this consideration is important, There i: widespread recognition of the
10424 practical difficulty of the adoption of a constitutional amendment to provide for the popular election of President and Vice President. It should be kept in mind that any constitutional amend- ment requires ratification by three- fourths of the States. It is not neces- sary here for us to discuss the merit or demerit of the present existence of two presidential electoral votes for each of the States to correspond to the two United States Senators from the State. Practically, it must be recognized that this provision does give a weighted ad- vantage in electoral votes to the States of smaller population. It is a natural consequence of the compromise which provided for a bicameral national leg- islature, one body of which gives equal representation to all States regardless of population. It simply is unrealistic to expect the States of smaller popula- tion to vote, either through State legis- latures or State conventions, to lessen their relative influence in the selection of the President. The Lodge-Gossett resolution gives the closest approxima- tion to direct vote for President by divid- ing the electoral vote, as it now exists, on the basis of the popular vote within the States. It provides this advantage without reviving the historical contest between the States of larger or smaller populations. There is a second important advan- tage of the proposed resolution. It pre- serves the right of the States to continue to fix the qualifications for their con- stituent voters as recognized in article I, section 2, of the Constitution. This is in keeping with the accepted concept of a Federal as contrasted to a National Government, It is a safe assumption that each State will fix the qualifications of its voters for the best welfare of that State. Fed- eral officials then now are, and would continue to be, elected by voters quali- fied under State law to vote for mem- bers of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. Direct popular vote is inconceivable unless there is to be uniform qualifications for voting throughout the Nation. Unless these qualifications were made uniform by Federal enactment, we could expect a contest among the State legislatures to lower voting qualifications. This would permit the inflation of the voting popu- lace so as to outvote other States, where another party 1s presumably stronger, in national elections. Amplification of the unhealthy situation thus encouraged is unnecessary. On the other hand, if there were to be Federal enactments to provide uni- form qualifications there would exist the confusing situation of voters, on the same date and at the same polling place, being qualified to vote for some offi- cials—State—but not others—Federal, or vice versa. Uniform Federal legisla- tion would also involve policing of the polling places by the Federal Govern- ment, There would be charges and counter- charges of voting ineligible voters with an unhealthy increase in the moral risk of permitting fraudulent vote practices. Under existing law and as proposed in the pending resolution, it is no concern CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of one State how many people are per- mitted to vote in another. The moral hazard of chicanery in national elections is thereby kept to a minimum. The nationalization of our Govern- ment with centralization and concen- tration of power in Washington is one of the alarming trends of the last two decades. The Lodge-Gossett resolution would give the major advantages of pop- ular election of President and Vice President but would protect the im- portant Federal principle. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, it is ex- tremely unfortunate that this measure comes before us under 4 procedure which does not permit any amendments and allows only 40 minutes for debate. A subject as important as the manner of electing the President and Vice Presi- dent of our great country should not re- ceive that kind of cursory treatment. The present method of selecting the Chief Executive is certainly open to im- provement. But the difficulty with this resolution is that it is put up to us on a take it or leave it basis without any opportunity to improve its provisions or debate them adequately. The only method of expressing opposition to this high-handed manner of handling im- portant legislation is by voting against the measure. In its present form, I entertain seri- ous doubt that the pagsage of the reso- lution would strengthen the two-party system in this country as its proponents claim. Rather, in my judgment, it would weaken that system. The award of elec- toral votes to every candidate would tend to encourage the formation of splinter parties to represent every form of pres- sure group. Under our present system, all of these groups can and very properly do exert their influence in molding the policies of the two major political par- ties. The division, disunity, and weak- ness which result from the creation and encouragement of many different parties has had tragic repercussions in many foreign countries. Much of the strength and stability of our Nation and its rise to its present position of world eminence may be attributed to its firm adherence throughout the years to the two-party system. I am not convinced thet this measure in its present form would be helpful in strengthening our two-party system or even continuing its effective- ness. I also am seriously concerned over the fact that the effect of the adoption of the resolution would be to give to a few southern States a veto power over al] Fed- eral legislation out of all proportion to that which they can justly claim by vir- tue of population or any other factor. An incidental effect of such action would, of course, be to sound the death knell of any civil rights program. Therefore, while I concede the neces- sity for an improvement in the pres- ent unsatisfactory system and am not dogmatically and stubbornly opposed to a change, I cannot support the resolu- tion before us for the reasons I have stated. Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against this resolution. I do so be- cause I cannot possibly justify a pro- cedure under which we are asked to cast JULY 17 our votes for as far-reaching a piece of legislation, involving an amendment to the Constitution, with only 40 minutes of debate and without the possibility of even considering, to say nothing of voting upon, amendments which surely would be introduced if this matter had come to us with a rule. There is real merit in the argument that existing situation under which the President and Vice President are elected should definitely be remedied and I hope that as soon as possible arrangements will be made which will insure the sort of consideration of such legislation which is justified and absolutely essential. Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be on record as favoring this Senate Joint Resolution 2, which proposes an amendment to the Consti- tution of the United States for altering the present antiquated method of elect- ing the President and Vice President. We are today firm in our belief that every citizen has the inalienable right of a voice in his Government, yet with un- reasonable adherence to outmoded prec- edent we illogically maintain a system that deprives hundreds of thousands of voters from having their votes count in the election of the President and Vice President of the United States. We all know that the electoral college method of election makes it possible for one candidate to receive a majority of the popular vote yet lose the election. We even know that history has seen such & possibility become a reality. In a de- mocracy why refuse to count a man’s ballot? What excuse can be offered for perpetuating the virtual disfranchise- ment of voters? This Gossett-Lodge resolution would only send this proposed amendment to the States to ratify or reject. It would give the 48 States the opportunity to ex- press an opinion on the electoral-college system, I hope that this measure passes for IT believe it would be speedily approved by the various States. It would then mean that henceforth every individual vote would count. It would eliminate the ridiculous possibility of one man being elected President when another had re- ceived a majority of the votes cast. It would prevent organized pressure groups from exerting unfair and disproportion- ate influences on national elections. It would, in short, strengthen our demo- cratic processes, I heartily commend this proposal. Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speak- er, I yleld the remainder of the time on this side to the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts (Mr. MARTIN]. Mr, MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe in all my long expe- rience in Congress I have never had more pressure put upon me to support a bill than this one, but I cannot bring myself to support it. I do not believe the proposal will achieve the objectives we seek, Certainly this is a most as- tounding proposal; it apparently is sup- posed to make everybody happy. If it works out the way we have been prom- ised the southern Democrats would be happy because they are led to believe that it would give them greater control over the Democratic Party and it might