1854 of procedure which will anticipate every- thing which might happen and which would, at least to some extent, retard its objectives. But it seems to me the pro- cedure to be followed would be some- thing like this: First of all, there would have to be a considerable preparation for any disarmament conference. The President could decide on the objective and could postpone it long enough to agree upon some mechanics. Certainly he would not call it within 2 weeks. If so, it would fail because there would not have been sufficient preliminary exami- nation. I have omitted from my remarks today a@ discussion of those points, but I have thought about them a great deal. One of the ways to avoid the very situation the Senator from Missouri has outlined would be that if the nations came with clean hands and submitted their schedules, showing, let us say, that what A nation has and what B nation has and what C nation has, we would then have the right—and there is no reason why every other nation should not have the came right, if it desired world disarmament—before proceeding further to inspect the statements and to see whether the nations had stated what they actually had. If they had not stated in the main their military poten- tialities, we would then know that nation ai, for instance, was not playing fair. There are many ways of avoiding such danger, and all those ways should be explored, not only for our own protec- tion, but for the protection of the other nations, for each nation would want to have such protection. Certainly there are many ways of safeguarding each nation in respect to every step it makes along that pathway, so that one nation would not do any more than its oppo- nent would do. For example, I would assume that if we had a disarmament conference and if a schedule of disarmament were worked out, to last over a period of 3 years, let us say, then at certain periods of time during those 3 years, certain things would take place under the eyes of international inspectors. The Rus- sians would want to be in our country to see what we did, and we would want to be in Russia, to see what the Russians did. At any point, wherever these in- termediate steps were carried out, for example, there would be the destruction of baseball bats today, iron slugs tomor- row, shillelaghs the following day, and so forth. Mr. DONNELL. The Senator is com- ing to the Irish contingent, now. Mr. TYDINGS. AS any one of these steps was being taken over a period of time, if any nation failed to play the game, the whole thing would stop right there; so that no nation would be caught in a relatively worse position, if it were done with reasonable fairness, than would nny other nation. I am not going into the mechanics of the plan now, which is really not my field. I think primarily in that aspect the proposal would have to be worked out by our mili- tary men. I have not the right to quote the military men. I am not quoting them. I have discussed this with not many of them, and not recently with CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE any of them. I think most military men would think it desirable but unattain- able. Perhaps it is; but I think most military men would welcome it, if it could be accomplished. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. DONNELL. I assure the Senator I greatly appreciate his answers, I do not want to inquire into the ultimate of detail, but I think, in a matter of this great consequence, it is of importance to have before us its possible eventualities. The Senator perhaps will regard the next question as indicative of a lack of confi- dence in another nation. I do not put it in that way, and, yet, I appreciate we have had some experiences which may lead us to have some fair degree of lack of confidence in some other nation. After putting our inventory on the table, as the Senator has indicated, and other nations had done the same, so that there had been mutual disclosures, sup- pose, then, some nation in which we did not have much confidence, or in which we did have confidence, as we would have or we would not have made the disclo- sure, should say, “Well, gentlemen, we have gone far enough. We do not need to go any further. Wedonot agree with this plan.” Within themselves they would say, ‘We have learned what we want to know about the United States; so far as the conference is concerned, it is over.” What would the Senator think of the possibility of such a situation arising? Mr. TYDINGS. I am going to say to the Senator in answer now to all three of his questions what I should have said in answer to the first. I think the Rus- sians know exactly what we have in al- most every category. Under our system of government, the budget reports, the reports of the different departments and different officers, the laws passed by Con- gress, the speeches we make, the news- paper interviews, the articles we write, come pretty close, I think, to disclosing all the information needed. Mr. DONNELL. It is a good deal like the closed sessions of committees, the proceedings of which are disclosed in full in the press the following day. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. And I think, too, while we do not have ave- nues of information comparable to those of the Russians, we have a pretty good idea of what is going on. We may not guess accurately the time they will have a certain thing, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what they are doing and of just how strong they are. After all, it is impossible thus far to stop com- munications, human beings being con- stituted as they are. I think I can say to the Senator that the thing he has mentioned would be of relatively small consequence, because—— Mr. DONNELL. Because the Senator thinks Russia already knows the facts? Mr. TYDINGS. Russia already knows about us pretty well, and we already know about Russia pretty well. We al- ready know about Britain pretty well, and Britain knows about us. Military secrecy is & wonderful thing, when it concerns invention, science, processes, and instrumentalities which the other I yield. FEBRUARY 16 fellow has not seen; but so far as keeping vital information away from the chan- ceries of the world, my own contact with that side of political life has taught me that when they want it, they get a pretty accurate picture of what the situation is. Mr. DONNELL. If the Senator will permit me to comment on that, now, I may say he is of course in the main cor- rect. I recall an occasion when a number of our people, including at least the Senator who is now speaking, were taken by surprise. I refer to the dis- closure which came with respect to the explosion of the atom bomb in Russia. I personally had had no such informa- tion as that confided to me, that Russia had a bomb to explode. It may be, though, that committees and other offi- cials who were in close touch with mat- ters of that kind were better informed than I. Mr. TYDINGS. I may say now, in or- der to take some of the taint of error off our military men, that they have never fixed definitcly any particular time when they said they thought Russia would have the bomb. They have said—and I have been in some of those briefings— “They may have it within a month, for all we know, or next year; but we believe under all routine circumstances it will be at such and such a point.”” They have never predicted with any assurance or certainty a particular year. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, if the Senator will be patient enough, I should like to ask two or three questions. Mr. TYDINGS. I am very glad to yield. Mr. DONNELL. The matter to which Iam about to refer might prove very an- noying. I donot know whether it would be at all fatal to the possibility of get- ting together such a conference. My understanding is that in the United Na- tions at this time the Russians are de- clining to participate because of the fact that the Chinese Nationalist Government is recognized by the United Nations. Am I correct in that understanding? Mr. TYDINGS. That is my under- standing That is why I do not think the United Nations should do this job which it is trying todo. More power toit. But, because it is interwoven with so many extraneous problems, they cannot get around to the main point. Mr. DONNELL. That leads me to this question: If it be correct that Russia is declining to participate in the United Nations because of the fact that it is the Nationalist Government of China which is presently recognized by the United Nations, would not the United States Government, in calling a dis- armament conference, be confronted with a very serious question as to which government it would recognize in China? If upon the one hand it should recog- nize the Communist government, it might go entirely counter to our own national desires. In the second place, if it should recognize the Nationalist Gov- ernment and invite representatives of that government to a disarmament con- ference, Russia might say, “The confer- ence is over before it commences; we decline to come.” Mr. TYDINGS. If Russia and the United States were to decide on dis-
1950 armament, with France and Britain and perhaps some other countries going along with the plan, I do not believe we would have any trouble about which of the Chinese delegations signed the docu- ment. In the last analysis, the two great, mighty powers that can make and have these world-destroying weapons are Russia and the United States, and it strikes me that if those two agree, all the other difficulties are minor and can easily be solved. What I am fearful of, the two of them being two pretty robust giants, used to throwing their weight around and feeling their might—and I put us both in that category in order not to draw an invidious comparison—is that the trouble is going to be to get them to agree. If they agree, then all other states not so powerful are pretty likely to agree, too, because it is so sen- sible for them all. They would want to agree, in the first place, because it would bring the great powers to an equality of reason with the others, rather than the inequality of force. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to permit a final question? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. The question is really in two parts. One is, what was the out- come of the Harding Disarmament Con- ference? I do not mean the immediate document that was signed, but what was the success of it? In the second place, have there been any disarmament con- ferences other than the Harding con- ference; and if so, what has been the ultimate outcome of such conferences? Mr. TYDINGS. Of course, the trouble with the Naval Disarmament Conference of 1922 was that it was limited to one branch of the service only, the Navy, and only to certain weapons of that branch. One of the great difficulties that stand in the way of atomic and hydrogen bomb control is this: If, merely by a stroke of the pen, it were possible to outlaw the manufacture of the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb only, then the money and effort now going into those things would be turned into the production of artillery, airplanes, conventional bombs, and so on. So all that would be accom- plished would be that a great many peo- ple would be killed with smaller weapons rather than more people with greater weapons. The trouble with the hydrogen and atomic bomb arrangement, in which field we are superior, is that it parallels the Naval Disarmament Conference of 1922, in which we also were superior. We gave up our great ships. We sank them all, That is what we are now proposing to do through atomic and hydrogen bomb control. I have said over and over again I do not think it will work. If it has any ad- vantage at all, it is that it opens the ave- nue a little toward disarmament with a hope that we can walk further down it. But my thought is that, unless total dis- armament is obtained—and by ‘total’ I mean pretty well down to the bottom— we do not get any disarmament at all. We would be giving up everything we had and getting nothing in return. There is a great deal of similarity be- tween the efforts to outlaw the atom CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE bomb and the hydrogen bomb at pres- ent and the Naval Disarmament Con- ference of 1922. We are superior in re- spect to the two things now in question. We were superior in the things that were in question in 1922. Consequently, if we were to have disarmament of the things only in which we were best equipped, it were better not to have any disarma- ment at all. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator tell us whether there have been conferences other than the Harding con- ference? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes. Ishall state one of the reasons for my being not alto- gether so skeptical as a great many pec- ple are about Russia wanting disarma- ment. I think it will come into the Sen- ator’s mind as I relate it. As I recall, in 1925 or 1926 there was a disarmament conference under the League of Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland. All the nations of the world were represented—the Brit- ish, the French, the Japanese, and the United States. At that time most of the countries attending the conference, at least the major ones, were stronger than Russia, although Russia had coming a pretty strong young green army. A man who arose in that conference electrified the world. It was 20 years ago or more, but I have remembered him. He was a man named Maxim Litvinov, the Russian representative at the Geneva Confer- ence. Iie made a simple speech. I do not give it verbatim, but in substance he said: Gentlemen, this conference has been Called for world disarmament. I propose that we disarm. No one wanted to disarm. The Rus- sian representative, on that occasion, proposed the very thing I am now asking for, and a foolhardy Western World, more intent upon empire than upon hu- manity, said, “We will disarm, but we will disarm only around the fringes. We shall not go into the core of the matter.” Litvinov went home; and that was the beginning of the Red army which de- feated Adolf Hitler. Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator for answering my questions. Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, first I should like to say that the senior Sena- tor from Maryland is entitled to the gratitude and the commendation of his colleagues in the Senate and of the people generally, because, certainly, his thought-provoking address, delivered in his usual forthright and courageous manner, must challenge the attention of us all. We are most grateful to him for the enlightening information he has given. May I ask the Senator whether he considers that there is anything incon- sistent with the proposal he advances in the recent statement of the President of the United States in regard to the manu- facture of the hydrogen bomb. Mr. TYDINGS. Notathing. We must continue to manufacture it. We must keep on building our strength. We must not let down until we know that disarmament is not only agreed to, but we must keep our defenses up to that point, and then reduce them, if disarma- ment is agreed to, only as we are certain 1855 beyond peradventure of a doubt, by ade- quate inspection, that the other fellow is walking down the disarmament steps to the same degree as we are walking down them. Mr. O'CONOR. In last September and October the senior Senator from Mary- land made a very thorough-going study of the defenses in western Europe and elsewhere. In the light of subsequent events, are the opinions which he ex- pressed upon his return confirmed, and does he entertain at this time the same opinions he entertained at that time? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; I do. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I thank my colleague for his kindly remarks. I now yield to the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I also extend my congratulations on the very forceful address of the Senator from Maryland. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Knowing some of the nations as we now know them, what ts the Senator’s opinion as to whether the nations which would agree to disarma- ment might be in favor of inspection? What chance is there at the present time for us to get that kind of an agreement? Mr. TYDINGS. Ido not think inspec- tion is as much of a problem as I at one time thought it was, if the counter ad- vantages are sufficiently great. What in the world has Russia to fear? Let us assume we can get disarmament. In my opinion, Russia will have accomplished a great deal without shooting a gun. She has acquired China, She can still carry on the war of ideas. Let us look at it from the Russian standpoint, from the standpoint of the comintern. Suppose Russia could take this terrific effort which I have described and translate it into railroads, industry, water power, into the lifting up of the standard of living of her people. She would be much more powerful than she could be in any other way. We want her to be powerful in that regard, so that her people will be benefited. There has been a disposition on the part of many persons to put a few wings on our shoulders and to assume that the Russian people some- times may not want some of the same things we want. We may not agree with her method of getting them, but I should think Russia would be favorable to obliterating the fear of atomic and hydrogen bombs and to eliminating the expense of her great military establish- ment so she could devote herself to other matters. I do not think she has been so successful in war propaganda and ideas that she might not think it to be to her complete advantage to do it. I do not like to say that as an undertaking it is absolutely impossible. I think it will take some “guts,” some determination, some vision, but I am sold on it, and no one has the right to say it is an impossi- ble and an impracticable proposal. There is no proof in history to show it. Mr, WHERRY. I thank the Senator for his observation. Being chairman of the Armed Services Committee, of course, he has a great deal of information which
1856 is very constructive and helpful to the Members of the Senate. I agree that the arguments which have been ad- vanced by the distinguished Senator could be used to indicate that Russia would be in favor of such a proposal. I wanted to get at the mechanics of it immediately, in my question, and I won- dered, without feeling that it is an im- possibility, if we would be able to get the inspection which certainly we would have to have. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator is sound on that point, and I thank him for his kindly remarks. Without inspection, Russia would not go into it. I know I would not. I would vote and fight against it as long as I could stand here. More than that, I would not want my country to take one step toward disarma- ment with the other great countries without taking the step of inspection simultaneously in the light of broad day. I should like to see the effort made, even though it should fail, to show the peo- ple of the world that the United States was not for peace merely in words, but was willing to put the matter to the test before a jury of all mankind. Then we would know who the culprit was who up- set it, and we would receive the kind of response in this country which we must have. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator have any information at all which might in- dicate that this may be accomplished, so far as Russia is concerned? Mr. TYDINGS. Ihave not the slight- est bit, except that i believe there is hope, based on what we have done in Europe and what Russia has done in Europe, going back 15 or 20 years. The Senator knows that some of the powers—we were not one of them—were in favor of the building of a cordon sanitaire, or a group of states around Russia, At that time Russia said, ‘‘We shall not let you do that. We are going to seize these states so they will be ours.” It was a matter of point and counterpoint. We go to western Europe and build our cordon sanitaire, a little bit farther away than it was built before. I do not believe it is impossible to sit down with Russia and agree. Ido not believe we could do it in & minute or in a day or a week, or even & month. It is big enough to work on for a year or perhaps longer. I think the mechanics can be found, and I should like to see it tried. If it fails, we shall not have lost a single thing in the effort. That is what encourages me. If we were going to be worse off because it had been tried and had failed, I might hesitate. But if we are not going to be any worse off, but shall probably be better off, then I think it should be undertaken. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. Mr. TYDINGS. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WILLIAMS obtained the floor. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield.in order that I may sug- gest the absence of a quorum? Mr. WILLLAMS, I yield for that pur- pose, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, is it in order at this point to ask unanimous consent that the order for the roll call be rescinded? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the roll call be rescinded, thst further proceedings under the call be suspended, and that the Senator from Delaware LMr. WILLIAMS], who has already been recognized, may proceed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the request is granted. THE IRREGULARITIES IN COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION ACCOUNTS Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I wanted the Recorp to show that the absence of a quorum had been suggested, and that a call of the roll was had, be- cause yesterday I appeared before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the Senate and at that time informed the Members of the Senate Agricultural Committee that I was going to take ex- ception to certain statements which had been made before that committee on Tuesday of this week, and that if any Members of either the committee or the Senate wanted to take exception to any statement I have previously made, or would make today, I would be willing to yield to them at any time during the discussion this afternoon. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator wants the Recorp to show that. Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Mr. President, I want the Recorp to show that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The REcorD will so show. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on February 14, Tuesday of this week, Mr. Frank H. Weitzel, Mr. Irwin S. Decker, and Mr. James R. Blakemore, represent- ing the General Accounting Office, ap- peared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry along with Mr, Frank K. Woolley and Mr. Karney A. Brasfield, representing the Commodity Credit Corporation; and together they did one of the neatest attempts of white- washing the discrepancies and faulty ac- counting policies of a government cor- poration that I have witnessed during my membership in the United States Senate. Their general theme was that instead of the books of the Commodity Credit Corporation being in a deplorable con- dition as I had previously reported, they were keeping excellent records. Together they denied that there was any foundation to the claim that over $366,000,000 recorded as due from sales made in the general commodities pur- chase program could not be supported nor verified and gave the impression to the press that this figure was merely the result of a misunderstanding. The result of this whitewashing epi- sode was that there was flashed over the country the news that the Commod- ity Credit Corporation was completely exonerated of all charges of mismanage- ment and that all funds had been ac- counted for. The same press release carried the notice that the three Gen- eral Accounting Office witnesses testi- fled that Senator W1iL1ams—that is my- self—has misunderstood their interim FEBRUARY 16 report, thereby accounting for all the unpleasant publicity which the corpora- tion had received during the past 12 months. Yesterday I appeared before the Sen- ate Agricultural Committee and advised the members of that committee that I would speak on the floor of the United States Senate today, at which time I would emphatically deny that I had mis- understood or misinterpreted the report of the Genera) Accounting Office as sub- mitted to the Congress on March 30, 1949, On the contrary, I advised them that I would review the complete record of this case and repeat the charge con- tained in the report of the Comptroller General to the effect that ‘the amount of $366,643,129 recorded as due from sales made in the general commodities purchase program could not be sup- ported nor verified.” I suggested that if any member of that committee wished to take exception to any statement I have made heretofore or should make here today, that he be present and I would be perfectly willing to yield at any time during this debate and that I would discuss this report to any length necessary. It is rather significant, Mr. President, that there are only two members of the majority party on the floor at this time. I have never charged that there was any shortage in the funds of this Cor- poration, nor do I make that charge here today. On the other hand, I will not make the statement that there is not fraud or a shoriage. I do not know. I merely know that the Comptroller Gen- eral on March 30 of last year reported to the Congress that over $366,000,000 recorded as due from sales could not be supported nor verified. And it is my position that this must be accounted for. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, is the Senator willing to yield during the course of his remarks? Mr. WILLIAMS. I am glad to yield at any time. Mr. WHERRY. I should like to ask the Senator a question respecting the report of the Comptroller General. I have in my hand the report of the Comp- troller General of the United States, House Document No. 148, Eighty-first Congress, first session. I believe that is the report the distinguished Senator had reference to, which contains the infor- mation relative to the $366,643,129. The point I want to make is this. The report states that the amount of $366,643,129 reported as due from sales made in the general commodities purchase program could not be supported nor verified. The distinguished Senator has just stated that in the colloquy which was en- gaged in before the committee, or during the testimony given yesterday, which- ever it was, that these representatives of the Commodity Credit Corporation said the Senator from Delaware had apparently misunderstood the shortage of $366,000,000, what it was for, and the bookkeeping involved. The amount of $366,643,129 referred to in the report is what the Senator is talking about, is it not? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.
1950 Mr. WHERRY. Did the Senator mis- understand, or are the facts set out here verified, and that there is that shortage? Mr. WILLIAMS. There has been no misunderstanding. As to whether there is a shortage or not, I do not Know. Nei- ther does the General Accounting Office know. I merely know that according to the Comptroller General's own state- ment, which he sent to the Congress last year, House Document 148, a copy from which the Senator just read on page 33, the statement was made by the Comp- troller General that the amount of $366,- 000,000-plus had not been supported or verified. So all I have said on previous occasions on this floor was to repeat the statement of the Comptroller General. If there is any misunderstanding, it was the Comptroller General who did not know what he was saying, not the senior Senator from Delaware. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. And the words the Senator has read are words contained in House Document No. 148, and they are the words of the Comptroller General in his audit report? Mr. WILLIAMS. They were his exact words. Mr. WHERRY. So the Senator from Delaware is not misunderstood. If there is anything in which there is a mis- understanding it is between the Com- modity Credit Corporation and the Comptroller General. Is that correct? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. The Secretary of Agriculture stated that last year, after the report was submitted to the Congress, he would be able to ac- count for every dollar. I hope he can, but he has not done so. If he can do 50 it is time that he do so now. We have waited 5 years for this report, and the amount {fs still not accounted for, so far as the Congress is concerned. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Have the Department of Agriculture or the Commodity Credit Corporation submitted any facts or any evidence that would change the state- ment made by the Comptroller General in his report relative to the shortage of $366,000,000? Mr. WILLIAMS. None that I have been able to obtain except that in gen- eral terms they say, “Oh, it is all right. Stop looking. We know it is all O. K.” As I said before, I am not making any charge of either fraud or shortage, for the simple reason I do not know what happened in this corporation. I merely know that the Comptroller General, as the Senator from Nebraska has pointed out, made the statement in his audit re- port that more than $366,000,000 in this account could not be supported or veri- fied. As evidence that the Comptroller General could not clear the Commodity Credit Corporation, I should like to read the statement made in a letter by the Comptroller General in reply to the Sen- ator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] as follows: In reply to a specific question by Senator ANDERSON as to whether the audit of the Commodity Credit Corporation disclosed any CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fraud, the Comptroller General replied that the audit of the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion had not disclosed that fraud existed; neither had it disclosed that fraud did not exist—that is, the records for the period covered in the audit report in many cases were simply insufficient to tell us or anyone whether fraud existed or not. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. On page 20 of the audit report of the examination of the Commodity Credit Corporation I notice two or three paragraphs, which I shall read. One appears under the heading “Accounting Weaknesses and Improve- ments,” as follows: Our examination of the affairs of the Com- modity Credit Corporation was seriously im- peded by major deficiencies in accounting policies and procedures and methods of financial reporting. Then another paragraph, the third paragraph under the same heading: The primary causes of the failure of the accounting function were found in the man- ner in which the functions of the Corpo- ration were intermingled with others of the Department of Agriculture, the apparent lack of appreciation by the management of the necessity for accurate financial reporting, and difficulties inherent in the operating characteristics of programs. Then the paragraph “b”: The Corporation did not maintain ade- quate control over amounts recorded as being receivable or payable. It was not possible in many instances to determine who owed amounts purporting to be receivable or to whom amounts recorded as owing were due. Does the Senator know anything about those allegations made by the Comptrol- ler General, especially the last one? Mr. WILLIAMS. All I know is what the Comptroller General himself has said; that he was unable to verify these accounts. But I think out of all the Sen- ator from Nebraska has read, the most damaging suggestion the Comptroller General made against this Corporation was that part in which he said their createst difficulty was “the apparent lack of appreciation by the management of the necessity for accurate financial re- porting.” Evidently the Corporation feels that it is above the law and that it does not have to report to the taxpayers and the Amer- ican people and does not have to submit its books to the Congress, as is required by law. As evidence that the Corpora- tion does feel that way, we are confronted with the fact that the books of the Cor- poration for the last 5 years have not yet been submitted to the Congress, and we cannot get the Corporation to make an accounting for those years. The books for 1946, which, under the law, were due on January 15, 1947, have not yet been submitted to the Congress. The books for 1947, 1948, and 1949, all of which are overdue, have never been submitted to the Congress. The Corporation says its affairs are in proper order. I do not say they are not in proper order or that they are not all right; but I say the Congress is entitled to have those books, and I ask why the books have not yet been submitted to the Congress. Certainly no one will 1857 contend that these, reports should not be submitted before consideration 1s given to their request for another $2,- 000,000,000. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr, WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY The figures which have been referred to today come from the testimony of a representative of the Comptroller General or his Office, do they? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct; they are from that source. Mr. WHIRRY. I should like to ask the Senator from Delaware this ques- tion: His either the Department of Ag- riculture or the Commodity Credit Cor- poration submitted any evidence which in any way refutes the statement to which the Senator has referred, which has been made by the Office of the Comp- troller General? Mr. WILLIAMS. If any such evi- dence has been introduced, I have neither found it nor seen it. Inasmuch as the General Accounting Office and the Corporation officials seemed to believe according to the news release on Tuesday that everything con- nected with the Corporation is in order, I advised the Committee yesterday that perhaps I haa overlooked something, and that is why I asked the members of the committee to be present on the floor to- day so they could correct any misstate- ments I might have made or correct any improper impression I might have given Yet it is significant, I say to the Senator, that not one majority member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is on the floor of the Senate at this time, although the committee was advised that I would discuss this subject today. Mr. President, the amount of $366,- 643,129 is still offictally unaccounted for. I know that a representative of the Gen- eral Accounting Office testified on Tues- day that the audit reports for 1946 and 1947 will, if the Congress ever gets them, account for a substantial part of the $366,000,000, and perhaps for all but $90,000,000. But even if that is so, why do they boast that they have found all but $90,000,000? What is wrong with accounting for the $90,000,000? ‘That ic still a great deal of money, and it cannot be passed over lightly. The audit report for 1946 is 4 years overdue, under the requirement of law; and the 1947 report is 3 years overdue. Why have not these reports been sub- mitted to Congress? No explanation is forthcoming as to why the Congress does not have those books. The 1945 report was submitted to the Coneress only last year, following a leak of information to the effect that the re- port would disclose some rather damag- ing information regarding the account- ing practices of the Commodity Credit Corporation. Following the receipt of that information, I joined with other Senators in offering a resolution request- ing the product:on of the books of the Corporation. At that time the charge was made by the distinguished majority leader (Mr. Lucas] that my sole purpose in making that request was to get my
1858 name in the newspapers; and the state- ment was made by htm even before the records were available that there was nothing wrong with the books of the Commodity Credit Corporation. Appar- ently the Administration was determined from the beginning that it would white- wash the Commodity Credit Corporation. Now, apparently in order to get their audit reports for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1949, we are going to have to send in clerks to get some additional in- formation in order to justify the adoption of another resolution requiring the pro- duction of the Corporation’s books. They may think this delay will check our interest, but I do not intend to drop this case until all those books have been submited to Congress in accordance with the law. Furthermore, I will not withdraw my objection for any additional support to this Corporation until an accounting has actually been made for the money it has received. Mr. President, there is now pending before the committee a bill proposing an additional $2,000,000,000 of borrowing authority for the Commodity Credit Corporation. I am unalterably opposed to making such an authorization until an accounting is made for every dollar the Corporation has had prior to the present time. If the Ccrporation can- not account for all the money it has re- ceived thus far, whether it cannot ac- count for $366,000,000 or for $1,000,600, I am opposed to writing off any of the money for which it cannot account. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the Senator yield at this point? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. What answer has the Corporation given the Senator when he has requested an accounting of the aciivities of the Commodity Credit Cor- poration? It seems to me that is infor- mation which any Senator should receive. Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Nebraska perhaps knows as much about that reason as I do. So far, for over a year I have been requesting the presen- tation to the Congress of the books of the Corporation. As to why they are being “\eld up and who is holding them up, the guess of the Scnator from Ne- braska is as good as mine. But so far, the fact remains that the books have not been produced or presented to the Coneress. I understand that the audits are com- pleted for each of the years 1946, 1847, 1948, and 1949. Yet they are being withheld from Congress for some reason. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. In view of the obser- vations which have been made by the Senator from Delaware, to the effect that the Corporation is now ready to show that it can account for all but $90,- 000,000, that would indicate that the audit has been made; would it not? Mr. WILLIAMS. It would indicate that at least they know more than they are telling us. Mr. WHERRY. Has the Department refused to present those figures to the Senator from Delaware? will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WILLIAMS. They have refused to send those figures either to me or to the Congress. They testified on Tuesday that perhaps they have accounted for all but $90,000,000, which amount Mr. Blaxemore, at one point in the hearings, said perhaps they would have to write off. This is the first time the $90,000,000 has been mentioned publicly anywhere. If they know how much will have to be written off, they should submit the infor- mation to Congress. Immediately following the statement made before the committee on Tuesday, I called the General Accounting Office and asked them to supply me that in- formation before I came on the floor today. That information was not re- ceived. I asked for an itemized break-down of the portion for which they could ac- count, because certainly if they found a part of the $366,000,000, they knew where they found it. I want to know just how each item is accounted for. Mr. WHERRY. Did the Senator make that inquiry of the witness who pre- sented the figures to the committee? Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not ask the witness, for the simple reason that I was not invited to be present in the commit- tee at the time when they were discussing the financial affairs of this Corporation. Last week I went before the Commit- tee on Agriculture and Forestry and re- quested that they ask the General Ac- counting Office and the officials of the Commodity Credit Corporation to sub- mit the books; and I indicated to the committee that in the event those cffi- cials should not submit the books, I would be glad to meet with the com- mittee at the time when those witnesses appeared. But, for some reason, the committee did not see fit to extend such an invitation tome. SoIam discussirig the question on the floor at this time. Mr. WHERRY. So the request has nct been comphed with, so far as the Senator from Delaware is concerned or so far as he knows; is that correct? Mr. WILLIAMS. It has not been complied with, to the best of my knowl- edgc. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator know whether the witnesses submitted the books to the committec? Mr. WILLIAMS. To my knowledge no books have been submitted to the com- mittee. Mr. WHERRY. So not only was the request of the Senator from Delaware refused, but the witness who appeared before the committee to testify did not have the books there to corroborate the testimony he gave the committee yester- day, when he said there was no difficulty; is that correct? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct, the complete audit reports for 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1949 have not been submitted to the Congress. Those books are not necessarily supposed to be submitted to the committee. The law provides that they shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and shall be printed and made official documents, and then they are supposed to be available to every Member of Congress and to any- FEBRUARY 16 one else who may be interested. That requirement of the law has not been complied with. Mr. WHERRY. But certainly a wit- ness who testifies relative to the dcbit balances or any shortages should be able to account to the Congress regarding the accounting practices used in that con- nection. There is a difference between doing that and supplying the books them- selves. But if a witness who appears before a committee claims there is no shortage to the extent of the full amount of $366,000,000, it seems to me a com- plete break-down should be submitted with the testimony he offers. Did the witness offer such testimony or evidence? Mr. WILLIAMS. There was no such supporting evidence. Perhaps I should read the testimony given by Mr. Blake- more before the committee. Mr. WHERRY. Is the Senator now referring to the testimony given yester- day? Mr. WILLIAMS. It was presented on February 14 before the Senate Commit- tee on Agriculture and Forestry. Mr. WHERRY. Who was the witness? Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. James R. Blake- more, who is connected with the General Accounting Office. Mr. WHERRY What is his official position there? Mr. WILLIAMS He its Assistant Di- rector of the Corporation Audits Divi- sion, General Accounting Office. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. Mr. WILLIAMS. I read now from the statement made on Tuesday before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry by Mr. Blakemore in reference to this three hundred and sixty-six million: Mr BLAKEMORE. Yes. As a matter of fact, subsequent development of that progiam, which meant taking $366,000,000 in receiv- ables as of June 30, 1945, adding to it the billings for sales during the fiscal year 1946, subtract from it collections received in due course, and doing the same for the fiscal year 1947, resulted at June 30, 1947, in a book balance of some $90,000,000, so that the $366,000,000, you might say, in due course of operation-—in other words, additional bill- ings, offset by collections on the original $368,000,000, plus the subsequent sales—re- duced it to some $90,000,000 Of that amount, some $90,000,000 was writ- ten off, so the loss, if any, is within the $90,000,000, but it is certainly not $366,000,000. If the Senator from Nebraska can reach any sound decision from that testi- mony, he is better than I am. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Was there any evi- dence to show why the $90,000,000, or whatever loss was sustained, was writ- ten off? Mr. WILLIAMS. There was no evi- dence to show that it was written off, or, if so, why it was written off. There is nothing but the back-handed state- ment I have just read from the testi- mony. There is no evidence that the $366,000,- 000 was found. There is no testimony to show that everything is in order. Nothing was said except, in effect, “Take my word that everything is lovely.”
1950 I have never said that they could not account for some of this $366,000,000 if they will get down to work. In fact, there is no reason why all of it should not be accounted for unless the records have deliberately been destroyed, in which case we have a right to know that. I feel sure that this accounting would have been made long ago if the officials of the Department of Agriculture had spent one-half the energy working on their jobs as they do in working for the political campaigns. In order that we may determine just who is confused or just who misunder- stood the Comptroller General’s state- men, I shall review the entire case. On March 25, 1949, I made a statement on the floor of the Senate, which appcars on page 3190 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECc- orD, to the effect that I had received information that the records of the Commodity Credit Corporation were in a deplorable condition and that ‘‘over $350,000,000 of receivables in the general commodities purchase program could not be supported or verified because of faulty accounting policies and poorly devised procedures.” At the same time, I pointed out cer- tain other irregularities in the records of this Corporation which had been re- ported to me, and I asked the other Members of the Senate to join with me in demanding that the books of the Cor- poration be produced, so as either to verify or to disprove the accuracy of my information. Subsequently, on March 30, 1949, the Honorable Lindsay C. Warren, the Comptroller General, submitted to the Congress an audit report on the exami- nation of Commodity Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1945. This report was made official House Document No. 148, and it is now avail- able for any Member of Congress or for anyone else who may be interested. As evidence that my information was correct, on page 33 of the report—House Document 148—is found this statement: The amount of 8366,643,129 recorded as due from sales made in the general com- modities purchase program could not be sup- ported nor verified. In the same report many other irregu- larities were listed, and severe criticism was made by the Comptroller General of the accounting practices of this Corpo- ration. Following its receipt by the Congress a@ resolution was passed by the Senate requesting that the Committee on Ex- penditures in the Executive Departments investigate this situation and see how much of the $366,000,000 could be veri- ed. During the succeeding months no ac- counting has been made to the Congress either by the Comptroller General or the Department of Agriculture regard- ing this discrepancy until Tuesday of this week. On Tuesday, Mr. Frank H. Weit- zel, Mr. Irwin S. Decker, and Mr. James R. Blakemore, representing the General Accounting Office, appeared before the Senate Agricultural Committee and, ac- cording to the press, denied that in their report submitted on March 30, 1949, they had ever intended to leave the impres- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sion that there was anything wrong with the accounts of this Corporation and told the committee that I had “misun- understood” their annual report for the fiscal year 1945. It is noteworthy that the auditors of the General Accounting Office were somewhat confused in their testimony Tuesday in that they contradicted them- selves several times. For instance, they first insisted that the 1945 audit report which stated that they could not verify the spending of $366,000,009 was correct at the time it was submitted to the Congress on March 30, 1949. Later in their testimony they are quoted in the press as having said at one point that “all the funds have now been accounted for,” and then they went on to say later that these unverified accounts had been reduced from $366,000 000 to $97,000 000 and then later to $60,000,000 and that finally this amount of $60,000,000 was accounted for by being charged off. The general impression at Tuesday’s meeting was, according to the press, that the Commodity Credit Corporation was completely exonerated of any charges of mismanagement and that as far as the taxpayers were concerned, all the money was accounted for. Also, the inference was clearly given that all this confusion regarding the accounting practices of the CCC was created by a misunderstanding on my part of the meaning of the lan- guage contained in their report. First I want to say that there was and could be no misunderstanding on any- body’s part of the language contained in the audit report for this Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1945, as submitted to the Congress by the GAO on March 30, 1849, in which it is clearly stated, “The amount of $366,643,129 recorded as due from sales made in the general commodities purchase program could not be supported nor verified.” If the Gencral Accounting Zffice has since discovered what disposition has been made of this $366,000,060 they have not as yet reported their findings to the Congress. If the GAO has been able to verify all or any part of this $366,000,000 item then it is their duty to submit such explanation to the Congress with an itemized break-down as to what hap- pened. Such a report was not submitted Tuesday and I am advised that such a report is not available. The chronological history of this case, which can be found in the Recorp, is as follows: On March 25, 1949, I made a statement before the United States Senate, which appears on page 3190 of the ConcrEs- SIONAL RecorD, to the effect that I had received information that the books of the Commodity Credit Corporation were in such a deplorable state of affairs that they were unable to render an account- ing for over $350,000,000, On the same day I called attention of the Senate to many other discrepancies in their ac- counts which had been reported to me, and at that time I introduced a resolu- tion requesting that the books of this Corporation for the fiscal year ended 1945 be delivered to the Congress. On March 28, 1949, I told the Senate that following a conference with the 1859 General Accounting Office I had been advised that the information which I had disclosed to the Senate on March 25, 1949, as appearing in the ConcrEs- SIONAL Recorp on page $190, was in ac- cord with their audit findings and that in compliance with our request of March 25 the Comptroller General promised that the audit report itself would be delivered to the Senate within a few days. My remarks on that date appear in the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD on page 3282. On March 30, 1949, the Comptroller General did submit to the Congress the official audit report on the activities of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1945. This report was made official House Docu- ment No. 148 and is now available to anyone interested. Upon receipt of that document, on that same day, I read to the Senate certain excerpts therefrom which suppoited in their entirety the disclosures which I had previously made regarding the af- fairs of this Corporation. My remarks of that date can be found in the Con- GRESSIONAL REcorRD on page 3487. After this report had been read by Members of the Senate I joined with eight other Senators in introducing a resolution requesting that an investiga- tion of the affairs of this Corporation be conducted in an effort that we might render a more complete accounting for the money which this Corporation had spent. This resolution was referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments and I indicated to the members of that committee my willingness to appear at any time and assist in any manner possible in their in- vestigation. This committee unani- mously adopted the resolution that they would investigate this situation. How- ever, to my knowledge, no action was ever taken. On Tuesday of this week, February 14, 1950, three members of the General Ac- counting Office, accompanied by two members of the Commodity Credit Cor- poration, appeared before the Senate Agricultural Committee and gave the im~ pression to that committee that there was nothing wrong with the accounting policies of this Corporation and accord- ing to the General Accounting Office on that date all of this discussion about the $366,000,000 was a result of the misun- derstanding on my part as to what they meant by the statements contained in their original report submitted to Con- gress. I emphatically deny that there had been any misunderstanding whatsoever or any misinterpretation of their state- ments and as evidence of that I shall proceed to read excerpts from the report of the General Accounting Office as sub- mitted to the Congress by the Comp- troller General on March 30, 1949, which covered the operations of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the period ended June 30, 1945. I suggest that anyone who thinks there might have been any misunderstanding regarding this report that they read my previous remarks appearing in the Con- GRESSIONAL REcorp on the dates and pages
1860 heretofore mentioned and compare those remarks with the excerpts which I am now going to read from the official re- port of the Comptroller General. Beginning on page 4 of the report, un- der the title “Corporate Management,” we find this summary: Weaknesses in management, operations, or accounting were attributed in large part by the Corporation to the stresses and exi- gencies occasioned by the war. We believe that, while this is true to a certain extent, the effect would have been lessened if a more sound managerial control had existed at the time. From page 20, under the subtitle “Ac- counting Weaknesses and Improve- ments,” I read: Our examination of the affairs of Com- modity Credit Corporation was seriously im- peded by major deficiencies in accounting policies and procedures and methods of financial reporting. es ° ° . s The primary causes of the failure of the accounting function were found in the man- ner in which the functions of the Corpora- tion were intermingled with others of the Department of Agriculture, the apparent lack of appreciation by the management of the necessity for accurate financial reporting. * » ° . . b The Corporation did not maintain ade- quate control over amounts recorded as be- ing receivable or payable. It was not pos- sible in many instances to determine who owed amounts purporting to be receivable or to whom amounts recorded "8s owing were due. It also was not possible tc determine that all amounts owed to or by the Corpora- tion were refiected in the accounts. From page 21, I read: f The Corporation did not exercise satis- factory control over its investment in fixed assets, particularly grain bins and related equipment Records were not maintained in such a way as to enable the Corporation (or us) to know the location or condition of such assets, whether, in fact, they were still owned by the Corporation, or whether all income resulting from rental or sale had becn received. It is rather significant to note the last statement, in which the Comptroller General said the Commodity Credit Cor- poration did not know how many grain bins it owned; it did not know whether it owned any, or, if it did, where they were located. Yet, at the same time, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Presi- dent, during the recent political cam- paign, were making a much ado about the shortage cf grain storage facilities throughout the country. Actually they were selling grain bins as “surplus” dur- ing the 1948 campaign. From page 22 of the report, I quote the following: Unrecorded liabilities are known to have existed, but no representations can be made concerning either their aggregate amount, which we believe was substantial, or their effect upon the financial statements. Mr. President, I emphasize the state- ment. It is not my statement. It is the statement of the Comptroller General re- gerding the affairs of the Corporation. On page 33, under “Accounts and notes receivable,” I find this statement: The amount of ¢366,643,129 recorded as due from sales * * * made in the Gen- eral Commodities Purchase Program could not be supported nor verified. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Again, that is a statement of the Comptroller General regarding the af- fairs of this Corporation, which state- ment was sent to the Congress on March 30, 1949. Now apparently they are at- tempting to say that is not what they meant. Continuing, I read now from page 35: In connection with cotton loans held by CCC, the Corporation had made no effort to prove the accuracy of the total amount of loans by adding the individual loan-account balances, and we were unable to reconcile the total amounts of loans reported by Fed- eral Reserve banks, as custodians, with the records of the Corporation. In addition, a duplication of 62,329,483 between loans held by the Corporation and those held by private lending agencies was observed in connection with cotton loans. As a result of the above circumstances, the amount of cotton loans indicated in the above summary as outstand- ing at June 30, 1945, is presented from Cor- poration records without satisfactory verl- fication. It goes on to state: The recorded balance of loans outstanding on wheat is known to be overstated by ap- proximately $4,000,000, with a corresponding overstatement in accounts payable. I fail to see how anyone could misin- terpret the language of the Comptroller General. Charges of mismanagement are found throughout this report. From page 38 of the same report, I read: The natural-cooler storage facility is a natural cave located on the site of a lime- stone quarry near Atchison, Kans Its re- corded cost to June 30, 1845, was 81,772,00¥ I shall not go into any discussion of the natural cooler at this time except to point out that this natural cooler or cave in Kansas about which so much has been said and on which the Government has spent millions of dollars, is constructed on leased land and the lease is about to expire. I now read from page 39 of House Doc- ument No. 148, Eighty-first Congress, first session: The amount of $203,186,263 indicated as owed on purchases made in the general! commodities purchase program could not be verified. No detail Hsting of individual creditors’ balances could be obtained. We are aware of an overstatement of approxi- mately 818,500,000 resulting from the failure to record cash disbursements of that amount on regional office records. Numeious errors, omissions, and inadequacies in the applica- tion of accounting policies und procedures in the conduct of this program necessarily had an effect on the recorded balance of accounts payable. Again, I want to emphasize that this is the statement of the Comptroller Gen- eral and not my statement. I convinue reading from page 39: No adequate record was kept of outstand- ing dairy or beef production payment pro- gram drafts, and no determination could be made us to the accuracy of the amount of 130,000,000 shown above as estimated pro- gram obligations at June 30, 1945. Mr. President, if they accounted for any of this money, why do they not give Congress a detailed paper? It has beena long time since the books were closed, and we still have no explanation. Now we are told that we should forget the whole matter. FEBRUARY 16 I move over to page 45 of this docu- ment: Criticism has been leveled at the Corpora- tion relative to methods (3) and (4), it being contended that favoritism was shown cer- tain dealers and that others rarely were given an opportunity to participate. Even when sealed bids were publicly requested or ob- tained as a result of bid invitations to specific dealers, it was claimed that the specifications eliminated all but favored operators. In most cases the invitations would indicate that specific quantities of certain quality were desired at stated gecgraphic locations. This was an advantage to any grain owner who had such described commodity near the stipulated location but did not necessarily indicate favoritism; we do not have any rea- son to conclude that locations were selected with that in mind. However, the selection of the successful bidder generally could be pre- determined by the knowledge of location of quantities of grain. Reading further from the same page: We wero informed that all sizable wheat purchases from July 1 to September 30, 1945, for example, were made without competi- tive bidding on the grounds that the use of the bid procedure clearly was impractical. On page 46, the following statement appears on the same subject: In the spring of 1947, an investigation was conducted by the Division of Investigations of the Department of Agriculture concern- ing alleged favoritism shown by the Corpo- ration to a grain dealer in Kansas City. In the course of this investigation, rather wide- spread criticisms of the Corporation’s grain trading practices and release of related in- formation was encountered, particularly #mong members of the grain trade. As a result, the scope of the investigation was cr- panded considerably In the reports on the investigation, it was indicated that con- siderable basis appeared to exist for the criti- cisms and allcgations made. In a report dated June 10, 1947, an investigator stated that, while the facts and circumsiances de- veloped were not conclusive, it appeared that further inquiry should be made and that effort should be directed at establishing con- trol adequate to insure that advance infor- mation concerning the Corporation’s buying plans would not be made available to unau- thorized persons Based upon our review of the related reports, we agree that this entire fleld warrants further administrative inquiry. My. President, I want to 1epeat that last line of the statement of the Comp- troller General regarding the buying practices of the Commodity Credit Corporation: Based upon our review of the related re- ports, we agree that this entire field warrants further administrative inquiry. Again, Mr. President, nothing has been done. It is very interesting to note that we are now told no further action is necessary and that everything is lovely. I read further from page 46 of the document: . Ordinarily in the audit of commercial en- terprises the audit procedures can be aug- mented and the scope of audit expanded to the extent that deficiencies encountered can be overcome sufficiently to permit of a satis- factory audit. In the case of CCC, however, we found the deviation from sound account- ing practices so pronounced, the errors and arrearages in record keeping so substantial, and the internal auditing activities and ‘n- ternal controls so deficient that such expan- sions were not a practical possibility and would have been, even if possible, unjusti- fiable economically.
1950 That sounds like a charge of loose bookkeeping to me. Turning to page 47, he concluded the statement which he submitted to Con- gress last year with this statement: The accounting deficiencies encountered were 80 substantial and the inaccuracies cited in this report so material that we can- not express an opinion that the financial statements prepared by the Corporation pre- sent fairly the financial position of Com- modity Credit Corporation. Those are the statements and that is the conclusion reached by the Comp- troller General last March. I am now wondering why, suddenly, the General Accounting Office finds that everything is lovely, without submitting any further reports to the Congress. Based upon this review of the evidence, there is no justification whatsoever for the press release yesterday to the effect that there had been a misunderstand- ing of the operations of this Corporation. If all or any part of the $366,000,000 item has been verified, it would be a very sim- ple matter for the General Accounting Office to furnish to the Congress an item- ized break-down of how this money had been found or how much remained un- accounted for. Some effort has been made by admin- istrative officials to show that a part of this amount represents transfers to other Government agencies. If this is true, then why have they not furnished us with a list of the other Government agencies which received the credit? These other Government agencies to which reference has been made were operating under direct appropriations from Congress, and if the Commodity Credit Corporation has transferred to these agencies substantial credits with- out requiring payment, it means that these other Government agencies might have spent more than Congress had au- thorized, in which event they, too, will need auditing. Certainly as a result of these unrecorded transfers their ac- counts would be over by the same amount the CCC was short. On numerous occasions I have re- quested that the General Accounting Office furnish to the Congress an item- ized break-down of any percentage of this amount which they have been able to account for subsequent to the delivery of the annual audit report last March, yet such information has not been made available. If they are unable to account for the full amount of the $366,000,000, to which they themselves first called our attention, then it is their duty to notify the Congress of the amount which must be written off as unreconcilable in order to balance the books of this Corporation. As one Member of the Senate, I refuse to accept as final any such ambiguous statements as were made before the com- mittee last Tuesday to the effect that they are satisfied that everything is now in order. It is significant that they do not explain what they have discovered to cause them to reverse their former position. I suggest that the Members of the Sen- ate read House Document 148 and they will find that it contains serious charges against this Government corporation of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE both mismanagement and inefficiency, and at the same time calls our attention to their lack of adequate financial rec- ords. After the General Accounting Of- fice made these rather serious charges in their own official document, I refuse now to permit them to pass off these charges lightly by saying that this entire contro- versy was a result of a misunderstanding of their report. That report is still damaging and the charges are clear enough not to be misunderstood. Nor can this glaring example of inefficiency in one of our Government corporations be whitewashed with any such contra- dictory and nonfactual testimony as was presented to the committee on Tuesday. I renew my previous statement that I shall continue to oppose giving any con- sideration to the request of the Com- modity Credit Corporation for an addi- tional $2,000,000,000 until such time as an accounting has been made, and until the books for the years audited, 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1949, have been delivered to the Congress as required by law. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, WILLIAMS. I yield to the Sen- ator from Pennsylvania. Mr. MARTIN. Does the Senator know whose duty it is to write off any loss which might be incurred by the Com- modity Credit Corporation? Mr. WILLIAMS. I would say that it is the duty of the Commodity Credit Cor- Poration to write off the loss. I believe that a statement should be carried on their books explaining the item and jus- tifying its being written off as a loss. As is the case with any private corpo- ration, it is conceivable that the Com- modity Credit Corporation may have a loss. However, the loss should be ac- curately recorded. A private corpora- tion cannot go to the Treasury Depart- ment and say, “We have spent $366,000,- 000. We know it is all right, but we cannot account for it. Just forget the whole thing.” The Treasury Depart- ment would laugh at such a statement. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. MARTIN. Has there been placed on record anywhere an explanation of any losses which have been incurred by the Commodity Credit Corporation? Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe the losses are explained to a certain extent in the Corporation’s financial report. They is- sue a monthly financial statement, and in it they explain their losses. However, as I have often said, they do not explain their losses clearly enough for the aver- age taxpayer to understand them, Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator vield further? Mr, WILLIAMS. I yield. Mr. MARTIN. What is the total amount of the losses as to which they have made an explanation? Mr. WILLIAMS. Losses? Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Mr. WILLIAMS. I cannot say exact- ly. However, it was only last year that I called the attention of the Senate to the misleading information which was issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan, in a bulletin which was 1861 circulated around the country, to the ef- fect that while he admitted that support prices did cost some money, the net re- sult of the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion’s operations as of that date showed a lifetime profit. He was boasting of a surplus. I could not understand how this Corporation could make money operating as it did. It was not set up by Congress with the intention that it should make money. It is a support pro- gram and in setting it up, Congress recognized the fact that it would lose money. Accordingly, I sent a letter to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget in which I asked him how this Corpora- tion could report a surplus and the Sec- retary of Agriculture could claim a profit. I received a reply from the Bureau of the Budget, signed by Mr. Frederick J. Lawton, in which he said that the only way the Secretary of Agriculture could boast that this Corporation showed a surplus as of that date was by including as income nearly $4,000,000,000 which had been appropriated to it by Congress. (On request of Mr. WILLIAMS, and by unanimous consent, the following debate relative to the accounts of the Commod- ity Credit Corporation, together with the three letters included therein, was or- dered to be transposed from the REcorp of February 17 and to be printed at this Point in the permanent Recorp of Feb- ruary 16:) Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. President, there has recently been considerable contro-~ versy in regard to auditing the affairs of the Commodity Credit Corporation. At this time I desire to ask unanimous consent to include at this point in the REcorp a letter from the Assistant to the Comptroller General, addressed to the distinguished chairman of the Commit- tee on Agriculture and Forestry, under date of February 16, in which an attempt is made to clear up some of the ques- tions relating to the audit. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- Jection—— Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object to the re- quest, let me observe that the letter to which the Senator from New Mexico refers is one to which I referred in my remarks yesterday. At that time I un- derstood the letter had been inserted in the Recorp by the chairman of the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry, but I stated that if it had not been inserted previously, I myself would insert it. I should like to make an inquiry of the Senator from New Mexico. Inas- much as the letter was not inserted in yesterday’s Recorp, I wonder whether he would have objection to having the letter, along with two other letters which I was planning to insert, all inserted in the permanent Recorp in connection with my remarks of yesterday, after their insertion in today’s Recorp. Mr. ANDERSON. No; I have no ob- Jection to having that done. Mr. WILLIAMS. The letters to which I refer are as follows: First, my letter addressed to Mr. Stephen B. Ives, under date of March 29, 1949, in which I called his attention to the statement I made on the floor of the Senate on March 25, 1949, relative to the discrepancies in the
1862 accounts of the Commodity Credit Cor- poration, and asked Mr. Ives for verifi- cation of that statement. I ask that that letter be inserted first in the permanent CONGRESSIONAL REcorp for yesterday, im- mediately following my remarks. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, im- mediately following that letter, I ask that the reply, dated the same date, and signed by Mr. Stephen B. Ives, be in- serted in the permanent ReEcorpD as a part of my remarks of yesterday. In that letter Mr. Ives made the statement: In reply to your letter of even date, the statements made by you, appearing on page 8190 of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of March 25, are in accordunce with our audit find- ings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have that letter printed in the permanent ReEcorp for yesterday, at the point I have just indicated. I call at- tention to the fact that both these let- ters preceded the report itself. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. WILLIAMS. The letter also pointed out that the report itself would come to the Congress within a few days. Immediately following the printing of that letter in the permanent Recorp for yesterday, as I understand, the letter to which the Senator from New Mexico has referred, dated February 16, 1950, ad- dressed to the chairman of the Commit- tee on Agriculture and Forestry, will be printed. Is that correct? Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; that is cor- rect. The letters ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp are as follows: MARCH 29, 1949. Mr. STePHEN B. Ives, Director, Corporation Audits Division, General Accounting Office, Wash- ington, D. C. DEAR MR Ives: Last Friday, March 25, 1949, I called to the attention of the Senate that I had received reports from sources which I considered very reliable, that over $350,- 000,000 of receivables in the general com- modities purchase program of the Commod- ity Credit Corporation could not be sup- ported or verified because of faulty account- ing policies and poorly devised procedures. I stated further that in the case of certain other programs it was also impossible to support the recorded balances of receivables, particularly in the case of claims in the case of cotton loans held by the Corporation. Also, that it had made no effort to prove the accuracy of the total amount of loans and it was therefore my understanding that the total amount of loans reported by the Federal Reserve banks, as custodians, could not be reconciled with the records of the Corporation. I stated that at least one dupli- cation of over $2,000,000 had been reported to me. I stated that it was my understanding that the wheat loans are overstated by about $4,000,000 with the corresponding overstate- ment in accounts payable. I went on to say that the book value of the inventories held by the Corporation as of June 30, 1945, was in excess of $1,000,000,- 000, but that it had been reported to me that it was not possible to verify this amount physically. Furthermore, I stated that an incident had been called to my attention where barley had been shipped to Russia in the amount of $1,000,000, under the trading program, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the item had been omitted entirely from the sales. Will you please advise me whether or not the information cited above is correct? Sincerely yours, JOHN J. WILLIAMS, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, Washington, March 29, 1949. Hon. JoHN J. WILLIAMS, United States Senate. My Dear SENATOR: In reply to your letter of even date, the statements made by you, ap- pearing on page 3190 of the CoNnGrrssIONAL Recorp of March 25, are in accordance with our audit findings. However, it should be clearly understood that the books of the Commodity Credit Cor- poration were not out of balance in the amount of $350,000,000 at June 30, 1945. This figure represents the approximate book amount of the receivables on the general commodities purchase program at that date and the documentation thereof was such that we were unable to verify the fact that the total was accurate although many of the individual items were of course in order. Subsequent events have proved that a cer- tain number were erroneously recorded and they have since been written off. In this connection it is worthy of note that the payables iff the same program were likewise overstated and a considerable amount thereof have subsequently been re- stored to income as not being actually due. Nowhere in our report on the audit of Commodity Credit Corporation is there any implication of fraud or embezzlement and we are of the opinion that no such instances existed. Of course, it is possible that in an organization of this size there may have been minor defalcations of a nature which it would not be worth while to extend the audit procedures to uncover. It is my understanding that this letter 1s being written at your request in order to clarify the record and that it will not be inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Very truly yours, STEPHEN B., Ives, Director. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, February 16, 1950. Hon. Ermer THOMAS, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate. My Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: During the hear- ings before your committee on February 14, 1950, on 8. 2826, question was raised as to what steps were taken by the General Ac- counting Office to clarify any impression to the effect that there was a shortage in the accounts of the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion amounting to some $366,000,000. At the outset I should like to quote what was actually stated in the report: “The amount of $366,643,129 recorded as due from sales made in the general com- modities purchase program could not be supported nor verified. The recorded bal- ances of individual accounts are subject to qualification as a result of faulty application of accounting policies and poorly devised procedures. Amounts recorded as owing from sales made in this program were re- corded on the basis of quoted prices on the date of recordation, while billings to cus- tomers were based upon the quoted price as of the date of delivery. Adjustments fre- quently were not made. In a number of cases, entries for quantities sold (with asso- ciated values) were based upon representa- tions made by the purchaser and could not be supported by documentary evidence. In the case of certain other programs, it was also impossible to support or verify recorded balances of receivables, particularly in the case of claims and miscellaneous receivables.” FEBRUARY 16 A statement was made on the floor of the Senate by Senator WILLIAMS On Friday, March 25, 1949 (see p. 3190 of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp) that “It has been reported to me, from sources which I consider very reliable, that over 8350,000,000 of receivables in the general commodities purchase program could not be supported or verified because of faulty accounting policies and poorly de- vised procedures.” Upon telephone inquiry on Monday, March 28, 1949, from Senator WIinLiaMs to Mr. 8. B. Ives, Director, Corpora- tion Audits Division, General Accounting Office, upon this point, Mr. Ives addressed a letter that same day to Senator WILLIAMS, stating as follows: “Referring to our telephone conversation, it should be clearly understood that the books of the Commodity Credit Corporation were not out of balance in the amount of $350,- 000,000 at June 30, 1945. This figure repre- sents the approximate book amount of the receivables on the general commodities pur- chase program at that date and the docu- mentation thereof was such that we were unable to verify the fact that the total was accurate although many of the individual items were of course in order. Subsequent events have proved that a certain number were erroneously recorded and they have since been written off. » * *. ° se “Nowhere in our report on the audit of Commodity Credit Corporation is there any implication of fraud or embezzlement and we are of the opinion that no such instances existed. Of course it is possible that in an organization of this size there may have been exceedingly minor defalcations of a nature which it would not be worth while to extend the audit procedures to uncover " Senator WILLIAMS, apparently after receipt of Mr. Ives’ letter, stated on the floor of the Senate on March 28, 1949 (p. 3282 of the CONGRESSIONAL REcoRD), that— “While the General Accounting Office con- firmed the fact to me that over 350,000,000 receivables could not be reconciled with the proper vouchers, they said this did not necessarily mean that this represented a shortage. In fact, they said it was impossible to state with any degree of accuracy that there was or that there was not any short- age, since adequate records were not avail- able, It is true that while the books did bal- ance, they were balanced only as a result of allowing credit for certain of the items which cannot be substantiated in full. They did not indicate that they found any evidence of fraud, but they were very critical of the manner in which the books and records of the corporation had been kept during this period" On March 28, 1949, a letter was addressed to Mr. Ives by Senator WiLLi1aMs wherein he specifically requested to be advised as to whether or not the information stated by him in the Senate on March 25, 1949, was correct, In reply, Mr. Ives by letter of March 29, 1949, said that the statements made by Senator WILLIAMS were in accordance with the audit findings. It was also said in the letter that it should be clearly understood that the books of the Commodity Credit Corporation were not out of balance in the amount of $350,000,000 at June 30, 1945, pointing out that this figure represented the approximate book amount of the receivable on the general commodities purchase program at that time and the documentation thereof was such that they were unable to verify the fact that the total was accurate, although many of the individual items were, of course, in order. It was further said that subsequent events have proved that a certain number were erro- neously recorded and that they have since been written off, Later discussions of the matter were had on March 29, 1949 (see p. 3379 of the Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD) and on May 25, 1949 (see p. 6808 of the ConcressionaL Record).
1950 On March 29, Senator WittiaMs stated in debate: “It 1s still not straightened out according to the General Accounting Office as of yester- day. They still do not have the full vouchers to follow through the transaction as required by the law. “I repeat, as I said before, that I am not making any accusation that there 1s anything wrong, because I am not in a position to do so. Iam merely saying that the records have not been reconciled in the amount of over $350,000,000 according to the General Ac- counting Office’s own statement.” On May 26, 1940, Senator ANDERSON ad- dressed a letter to the Comptroller General concerning the statements made by Senator WILLIAMS on May 25, 1949, and requested our comments. In reply, the Comptroller Gen- eral stated that each statement of Senator WILLIAMS as wes summarized by Senator An- DERSON in his letter of May 25 was correct, but stated, in so saying, that this did not mean he agreed with all the further assump- tions and interpretations made by Senator Witt1ams in the course of his several debates on the subject. In reply to a specific ques- tion by Senator ANDERSON as to whether the audit of, the Commodity Credit Corporation disclosed any fraud, the Comptroller General replied that the audit of the Commodity Credit Corporation had not disclosed that fraud existed; either had it disclosed that fraud did not exist—that is, the records for the period covered in the audit report in many cases were simply insufficient to tell us or anyone whether fraud existed or not. The Comptroller General also stated in his letter to Senator ANDERSON that he subscribed to the following statement made by our audl- tor in charge at the Commodity Credit Cor- poration charter hearings in the spring of 1948: “The question of dishonesty is not raised in any point of our report. It is a matter of inefficiency in the accounting set- up and the accumulated errors. It is a mat- ter of accumulation of work getting behind and errors that have been built up over the years rather than any dishonesty.” The Comptroller General added to that state- ment that the accumulated errors and in- completeness leave it unproven whether fraud could or could not have occurred; however, “this is in no way to be taken that our audi- tors reported or disclosed any fraud.” Reference to this letter, as well as to the Comptroller General's letter of May 2, 1049, to Secretary Brannan, inserted in the record of the hearing February 1¢, 1950, was made by Senator ANDERSON in debate on May 26, 1949, (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, pp. 6834, 6835.) I am enclosing copies of letters of March 28 and March 29, 1949, from Mr. Ives to Sen- ator WILLIAMS, as well as a copy of letter of May 26, 1949, from the Comptroller General to Senator ANDERSON. In connection with Mr. Ives’ letters of March 28 and March 20, you will note that the last paragraph of each letter states that it is understood that the letter will not be inserted in the Concrzs- SIONAL Recogv. The sole reason for this was that, while our audit report to the Commod- ity Credit Corporation for the fiscal year 1945 was complete and had been reviewed and approved, the report as of March 28 and March 29 was in final typing. The informa- tion in the letters was intended for Senator WriiiaMs’ use in clarifying the record, but it was thought better that any quotations of the position of the General Accounting Of- fice be based on the complete official report of the office, which was submitted to the Congress on March 80, 1949, rather than solely on statements in Mr. Ives’ letter. While the request of your committee was Mmited to furnishing copies of the letters whieh are enclosed, in view of the state- ments that have appeared in the press as @ result of the hearings it would be appreciated ff you will have this letter, as well as the en- closures. made a part of the record of your committee, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Iam sending copies of this letter to Sena- tor ELLenprr, Senator AnpeRsoN, and Sen- ator WILLIAMS. Sincerely yours, Franx H. Werrzeu, Asststant to the Comptroller General, Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I may say that I think all of us would like to discuss this matter at greater length. Probably the time when the bill to in- crease the borrowing power of the Com- modity Credit Corporation comes before the Senate will be the appropriate time to discuss the matter. Therefore, I suggest to the Senator from Delaware that he defer the discus- sion until that time. The VICE PRESIDENT. Discussion is not now in order. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from New Mexico if it is not a fact that the cor- respondence to which we have just re- ferred is the only correspondence which has been received by the Congress rela- tive to these matters, and that all the letters referred to preceded the report itself, and therefore have no bearing whatsoever, one way or another, on the report submitted to Congress on March 80, 1949. In other words, they do not explain the items either way. Is not that a fact? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I demand the regular order. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, if any Senators wish to take exception to my remarks of yesterday, let them do so now. Let me also state that the reason the letters just referred to have not previ- ously been inserted in the Recorp fs be- cause of the request of the General Ac- counting Office that they be withheld from insertion, since they felt that the subject matter in the letter would be covered more fully by the complete re- port which would be delivered to the Sen- ate the same week. They have no bear- ing on the report of March 30, 1949, or the statement of the GAO that the sum of over $366,000,000 had not been ac- counted for. That amount still has not| been accounted for, and I challenge any Member of the Senate to produce evi- dence otherwise. After the above transposition, TELEVISION FREEZE Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, I desire to discuss some of the current problems in television which have been receiving considerable atten- tion recently in the press. But first, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in my remarks an article which appeared in the New York Times of Sun- day, February 12, 1950, by Jack Gould, radio editor of that newspaper. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tur SENATOR Reptys—Epwin C. JOHNSON EXPLAINS H1s POSITION ON TV “FREXZE” anpD FCC—A REBUTTAL (By Jack Gould) Two weeks ago this department wrote about the Federal Communications Com- mission’s “freeze” on the authorization of new television stations. In reply, # letter has been received from Senator Epwin O. JoHNnson, Democrat of Colorado, and chair- man of the Senate Interstate Commerce 1863 Committee, which has supervisory authority over the Commission's activities. Pertinent parts of the letter follow: “I read with a great deal of interest your column, Time For Action, in the Times of January 29. Consistently I have admired your forthright, sensible comments. I was, therefore, surprised to have you chide the Federal Communications Commission for being ‘susceptible’ to my ‘beck and call’ and that I ‘persist in issuing communiques on what the Commission should or should not do in highly technical matters.’ I try to meet my responsibilities, which are specified by law, to follow as closely as possible all developments and viewpoints expressed on broadcasting matters. “Let us examine the principal points made in your column, a major portion of which I agree with heartily. First, you say ‘television ig in real trouble.’ You point out that the freeze is the source of the trouble and then you enumerate four ‘chain of events’ flowing from the freeze. I agree those are realistic deductions of the kind of trouble you are talking about and they are premised on sound facts. Then you ask the question, ‘Why the freeze?’ and proceed to answer It.” HALF BAKED “No informed person will disagree with some of your answers. Of course, there was interference in the low band; of course, no final decision with respect to allocations in the high band could be made until the inter- ference question was solved. Actually, in my opinion, you were charitable in your refer- ence to the interference problem. The Com- mission found itself in hot water because of its own injudicious half-baked allocation and the only way out was to clamp on the treeze; I had as much to do with inaugurat- ing that freeze as you had, and I have about as much to do with keeping it on as you. “You assert that the FCC has now no excuse for postponing the lifting of the freeze; that it has been agreed that a six megacycle width will be used for both color and black-and-white and that therefore the thing to do is to either open the high band, or find additional channels contiguous to the present low band. Perhaps you are right; perhaps the way is now open for the opening of the ultra highs, or at least, for a switch in the order of the current hearings so that testimony can be heard and agreement reached on the standards for the use of the high band. ®But here again, you are sug- gesting a technical engineering step which I io not feel competent to pass upon or give advice and upon which I have never advised. “I suppose, and here I am only guegsing, that the reason the FCC is reluctant to move first into the question of opening up the high band ts that it wants to know as thor- oughly us is now possible to know just how color will work on both bands, and whether and how the standards must be changed before opening both bands to insure a per- manent workable system of Nation-wide television.” SHORT-SIGHTED “However, I have never said, and do not assert now, that the color question must be settled first; I emphasize again there are technical engineering questions involved here that probably neither you nor I know very much about. I have asserted, and will continue to assert, that to open up the freeze merely for the purpose of making more sta- tions available only on the low band is a short-sighted negative policy which will piay into the hends of certain interests and will do irreparable harm even to those licensees who have applications now pending for low- band TV stations. “If the FCC believes it has the engineering knowledge to permit it to open up simul- taneously both the low and high bands for TV station assignments, by all means it ought to go ahead with that phase. I agree-
1864 with you that color will not come over- night; that there will be a transition phase; that there will be a-continued service for the vast number of black-and-white set owners. In my opinion the commission 1s asserting its authority properly in the public interest by holding the current hearings and I concur heartily with you that it call in the representatives of the industry and fig- uratively kncck their heads together on mat- ters which are in the public interest. “I cannot resist pointing out that in re- cent weeks a new prcpaganda campaign has gotten under way to have the FCC do one thing—and only one—lift the freeze at once, anc to heck with a Nation-wide competitive television allocation system However, very fairly you point out the need for considering the allocations problem on a broad basis of all available «hanncls. “I hope I am not being petty when I point out that your arguments do not logically lead to the gratuitous paragraph which flails me for something not related to the subject matter of your article. I do not deny that I ‘watch the FCC's actions closely; the law di- rects me to do that. I do not deny that I have written the FCC on several occasions with respect to broad policy matters affecting the public interest over which I have statu- tory responsibility. But, in fairness, I would not want my lack of comment now to sug- gest that I am even remotely responsible for the freeze or the engineering facts which have brought it on and which are keeping it on, I am not omnipotent; I cannot alter scientific facts “Ep C. JOHNSON, “Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. “WASHINGTON, D.C.” The article to which Senator JOHNSON re- fers made it clear that institution of the “freeze’’ was due to interference factors. Continuance of the “freeze” however, has been due not only to interference factors but also to the inordinately complex task of determining the technical merits of the CBS and RCA color systems, a task in which Sen- ator JOHNSON has played a much more active and specific role than his letter suggests. In August 1949, for example, Senator JOHN- 8ON wrote the Commission that a CBS dem- onstration proved color video was “here now” and that there was no reason for further delay in getting it started. In October 1949 he was quoted as saying “RCA‘s system has @ potential of acceptance comparable to none.” In November 1949 he wrote the Com- mission that compatibility of a color system with today’s black-and-white method, which is the heart of the RCA plan, “certainly should not be the primary basis for decision.” The whole point of the original reference to Senator JOHNSON was that such evalua- tion of the technical and engineering merits of competitive color systems is a logical func- tion of the FCC, which was specifically estab- lished by Congress to deal with scientific matters on which it was not practical for Senators and Representatives to legislate. Impromptu opinions on the merits of trans- mitting systems is not the same as exer- cising broad supervision over the FCC's af- fairs, which admittedly is the statutory re- sponsibility of Senator JoHNsON's; commit- tee. FCC ROLE In the last analysis it is the FCC which must make up its own mind. But the Com- mission can hardly do its job in a healthy climate if it ts subjected to constant advice from a group which for all practical purposes has the power of life or death over its exist- ence. Senator JOHNSON’s committee passes on all appointments—and reappointments— to the Commission, can conduct inquiries into its affairs, and can be a decisive influ- ence in the amount of its appropriations. If Senator Jonnson believes that there are certain aspects of broadcasting which should CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE be decided by Congress and not by the FCC, the remedy lies in a revised radio law, rather than in the indirect expression of congres- sional wishes through statements. Senator JOHNSON, in one letter to the FCC, noted that it was typical of “totalitarian” reasoning to argue that color TV must be absolutely “perfect” before it can be intro- duced By the same token, it 1s unrealistic that millions of persons be denied excellent black-and-white television for an indefinite period merely because some day there will be color. By reason of his commendably sincere in- terest in broadcasting and the importance of his office, the Senator can make a notable contribution to television by providing statesmanlike leadership in resolving the present impasse which is delaying all kinds of video, both black and white and color. His letter, particularly in its open-minded- ness on the possibility of a revised approach to the problems of the “freeze,” is a heart- ening step in thant direction Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. This article includes extracts from e. letter which I wrote to Mr. Gould last week with respect to a previous article by him in the New York Times of January 9, in which he urged the lifting of the existing freeze on the allocation of addi- tional television stations. But Mr. Gould conveniently omitted certain pertinent language contained in my letter to him. For instance, I said: Let us examine the principal points made in your column, a major portion of which 1 agree with heartily. First, you say ‘“‘tele- vision is in real trouble.’ The greatest trouble seems to be to keep the supply of sets up to the demand—2,500,000 sets were sold last year. Recent stock market quota- tions of television manufacturing companies do not reflect very serious trouble. But, for the sake of argument, let's agree that tele- vision is in trouble. That language is not found in the Gould article. By omitting it, Mr. Gould avoids an important point which he does not want to face. Again he runs away from realities when in discussing the causes of the freeze he omits this sentence from my etter: The truth ts that the series of allocations in the VHF band were incorrect, ludicrously incorrect, and no one in the Commission will deny it. Next he omits two extremely pertinent paragraphs which presumably do not pour any water on his propaganda wheel: You continue that once the question of the high band was raised, the color contro- versy was dumped into the FCC's lap. You explain, fairly and honestly I may add, that in this color dispute the FCC would like to see the public saved the expense of invest- ing in black-and-white if color can be made @ reolity in a reasonably short time. That has been my position throughout; about a year ago now when certain engineering stu- dies came into my hands, I became con- vinced that if the FCC continued to shelve the color question, there was an excellent chance that three things would happen: (a) color would come only when certain power- ful patent-holding corporations were good and ready for it to come; (b) the chain of circumstances would put the FCC into a po- sition where eventually it could okay only one system of color (because of prior engi- neering standards which would have been adopted for use of both low and high bands) ; and (c) television would fall largely, if not wholly, into monopoly control. I have been FEBRUARY 16 pleading for color to be given the oppor- tunity to develop in the good old American free-enterprise way. The FCC, or at least certain members of it, quickly realized the position they were in and, with but a single dissent, last May decided to hold hearings on the two closely related vexatious questions. It was the FCC which decided the order of the hearings, 4, e., that the color question be first ex- plored Again, I had no more to do with that agenda than you; I was concerned only that color not be shunted aside into the indefinite future and that the Commission fulfill its legal duty under the law of push- ing every advance and development in the broadcasting art. That there may have been sound engineering reasons for the FCC to first explore color before determining the allocations in the low and high bands is undoubtedly true, but that is a technical engineering question on which I have not commented or given advice. Gould maintains that the FCC has now no excuse for postponing lifting of the freeze, but when I gave him this reason he did not publish it: It 18 implicit, of course, from your own argument on this point that you agree that more channels must be xvailable before a final and complete television allocation is made You obviously agree that to merely open the freeze for the purpose of assign- ment of additional stations in the low band will defeat the building of a Nation-wide competitive system of television, regardless of whether that system eventually is a black-and-white or color system. It is especially revealing when Mr. Gould omitted this sentence from my letter: Sure, the FCC “needs * * * some real gumption and backbone to assert its proper authority” and that gumption should be used, as it is now used, to not let certain publications in the interest of their adver- tisers call the tune. He did not like that, and I know why. He wants the Commission to have gump- tion only to do what he proposes. What @ nice cozy little arrangement that would be. Mr. Gould, I presume, does not like anyone to infer that his column is being prostituted by private interests. That is the only way I can explain his deletion of this language from my letter to him: A leading engineer for the principal patent holder in radio in the course of a Ictter in- formed me casually that recent tests indi- cated that the interference problem for both low and high bands were the same and there- fore no useful purpose is served by main- taining the freeze on the low band; the legal counsel for a group of radio manufacturers spent several hours telling us much the same thing; a number of stories have ap- peared in the trade press recently along the same line; another group of leading lights in the radio industry have requested a con- ference with me shortly, on the same point; and now your column makes a similar sug- gestion. So much for Mr. Gould and his fidelity in serving a pressure group which is de- termined to dominate the Federal Com- munications Commission. Mr. President, I desire to comment briefly about the existing situation in television. It is time that there be some plain talk about this matter. The origi- nal television allocation made by the Fed- era] Communications Commission in 1947 provided for 405 stations to be located
1950 in 140 communities in the United States. That allocation was made in the “lower band” of frequencies, the area in which the principal experimental work had been carried on. By May of 1948 the Com- mission had received so many protests from communities which would have been denied television station facilities under the original allocation that it proposed a new revised allocation under which more than 900 stations would be allocated to 461 communities. This was a little closer to providing for a Nation-wide competi- tive service. Meanwhile, in the larger cities on the eastern seaboard, permits had been obtained and construction work started on television stations. It was not long after the first few television stations went on the air that both the industry and the Commission realized that some- thing was terribly wrong; there was so much interference that reception was wholly unacceptable. It did not take a genius to realize that under such circum- stances there just would not be a sound television industry capable of expansion. The original allociation put too many stations on the same channel too close together. That allocation was premised on use of the same channel by cities sep- arated by something over 100 miles; they placed Cleveland and Detroit on the same channel. In making that alloca- tion the Commission was guided by the engineering brains of the radio manu- facturers, principally based on the ex- perimental work of one of them. That experimental work was done in the lower bands, where only a limited number of channels were available. However, the Commission long before had set aside as the permanent home of television a por- tion of the spectrum known as the ultra- high band, where there is ample room for a Nation-wide television service without interference. But those who wanted to push television insisted that the high band should wait; they urged that they be given the green light to go ahead with the lower band. The Com- mission fell for this engineering argu- ment, and it made the allocation which proved so tragically wrong. By September 1948 the Commission knew it was in serious trouble, so it clamped on the freeze; in other words it announced it would make no more allo- cations and permit no further station construction while it ferreted out a solu- tion to the interference problem. By clamping on a freeze, the Commission acknowledged that its original allocation and its proposed revised allocation were wrong, based on unsound and unproved engineering data. The freeze had been in effect since September 30, 1948, and no new stations have been authorized since that time. When it went into ef- fect, some 40 television stations were on the air, and about 60 more had been au- thorized. Today there are 99 stations operating in 55 communities, and more than 4,000,000 sets are in use. When the Commission ordered the freeze, it announced that it would hold hearings on the entire subject. Those in the industry who had sold it a bad bill of goods were frantically scurrying around trying new devices and plans and theories to overcome the interference. They were anxious to keep television in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the lower band, where the original allo- cation had been made, and opposed the use of the higher band, where ample room was available. From September 1948 to the early spring of 1949 the Commission studied, the industry studied, and nobody came up with anything that would satisfy the Commission, which by this time had be- come exceedingly cautious about moving forward again until it was sure of its ground. Meanwhile, the Commission also had become acutely conscious of the development of color television and its enthusiastic acceptance by the people. It had held hearings 2 years before on the use of color, and had turned down a demonstrated system on the ground that it was not ready for commercial use. But it realized that someday color tele- vision would have to be accommodated, and to make a decision on the interfer- ence problem without taking into ac- count the use of color would be unwise technically and unsound economically. Should that be done, the Commission would find itself in another dilemma shortly, with another freeze unavoid- able. So in May of last year it decided to hold extensive hearings on the inter- ference problem, the use of both the low- er and higher bands, and the standardi- zation of color television. Those hear- ings began last September and have con- tinued intermittently since. They re- sume again late this month, and no one can say just when they will be concluded. The Commission’s agenda for the pres- ent hearings specified that it would ex- amine into the development of color tele- vision systems first, and thereafter study the use of the lower and higher bands. While I afm not responsible for the order of the hearings, common sense dictates that the Commission wanted to have all the facts available about color television first, so that when it came to a decision about use of lower and higher bands it would know just how color should be accommodated. In short, it wanted to avoid its mistake of 2 years before when it had accepted a half-baked engineer- ing thesis that stations could be on the same channel a hundred miles apart. To avoid areas of television distortion it now plans for a separation of more than 200 miles. Lately certain elements in the tele- vision industry are getting ants in their pants. “The freeze,” they cry, “let's get rid of the freeze. Let television go ahead. Forget a Nation-wide competitive sys- tem; forget color; forget using the higher bands. These things can come later; right now let’s get television stations op- erating in another 30 or 40 cities. The Commission,” they shout, “is stifling progress. The Commission is slow, hesi- tant, and lackadaisical; it ought to be investigated.” I have never hesitated to criticize the Commission when I thought they were wrong; by the same token, I am not going to remain silent and let them become the butt of unwarranted and unprovoked assault by people who are trying to grind their own ax, and without regard to the public interest and the general welfare. No one can deny now that the Com- mission was terribly wrong technically when it made its original television allo- 1865 cation, although there were voices in the wilderness 4 years ago who warned of the error. But having made a mistake, there is no reason for the Commission to compound the error now by again listening to the same siren voices who were so wrong before and who led them astray. Nevertheless, to high-pressure the Commission and others to their way of thinking, the radio manufacturers now have hired a high-powered public-rela- tions firm to grease the skids. The prop- aganda started rolling. Two months ago I received a letter from Dr. C. B. Jolliffe, RCA’s chief engineer and head of their laboratories, in which, in the course of other remarks, he casually informed me that Dr. Engstrom, their television ex- pert, had recently completed studies which proved that interference problems for color and black-and-white television were the same, and that since interfer- ence was no longer a problem in the lower bands, there was no point in main- taining the freeze. Counsel for certain radio manufac- turers recently spent 2 hours talking to me about television problems, and con- veying the idea that the freeze was un- necessary and improper, and that the color television question could be solved in its own good time. The trade press faithfully rallied to the attack with a series of stories, including two highly technical articles which were published in engineering journals. The trained seals took up the chorus with wisecracks. This was designed to furnish headlines for newspapers which devote attention to radio and television matters. Then alert radio writers got the cue and quoted copiously from such authorities as Dr. Allan DuMont and Mr. David Smith, of Philco. Last week Dr. DuMont discussed the freeze situation with New Jersey legis- lators, who, the trade press reports, were impressed by his statements and prom- ised to explore the situation. Dr. DuMont, so far as I know, is one of the more reputable authorities in the fleld of radio and television. He has wide technical knowledge and is a suc- cessful manufacturer. He operates a television network which competes with three other and somewhat better en- trenched network companies who have been in radio for many years. Under- standably and very properly, Dr. DuMont is anxious to expand his television net- work. So long as the number of cities having television is limited, his network cannot expand. He has been cool, there- fore, to color television development, and he has been impatient with delays, how- ever unavoidable, since his primary aim is to expand his existing black-and-white network as rapidly as possible. So Dr. DuMont hurls machine-gun- like innuendoes and distortions such as these: Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being denied workers by the existing freeze; the limits of the industry’s ex- pansion are drying up; the industry is becoming stagnant; soon unemployment will be rife in the industry. Mr. Smith of Philco blows the same kind of bub- bles, and because these men are re- spected in the industry, their words are widely quoted.
1866 Such statements are mischievous rant- ings and not based on facts. This talk about unemployment in the industry is not new to me, nor are efforts to enlist Jabor in the campaign to lift the freeze. Some weeks ago I received a letter from Mr. Joseph D. Keenan, director of La- bor’s League for Political Education, who informed me he had received reports from the electrical workers union that they feared the freeze would result in unemployment for their membership. I answered Mr. Keenan, and I should like now to quote from that ~eply: I recall your conversation with me regard- ing the reports you have been receiving from local unions of the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, arguing that the controversy about color and black-and-white television, and the present freeze on VHF licensing is causing unemployment. Frankly, I just cannot understand the present basis of such reports In the first place, the controversy between black-and- white and color television has nothing to do with the freeze on licensing of additional television stations, the freeze was clamped on because of interference between stations, and the Federal Communications Commis- sion is studying, as part of its current over-all television hearing, the use of ultra high frequencies and separation of stations on the very high frequencies. I had hoped that the hearing wculd be completed before now, but the subject is involved and complicated and it is vitally important, both to prevent mo- nopoly and in the general public interest, that the decision be a sound one for the long pull so that we will have in this country & genuine Nation-wide, competitive tele- vision service And, of course, the matter 1s entirely an administrative one and not a legislative one and the Federal Communica- tions Commission would be in a far better position to comment on the time element than would I. However, I must call to your attention that television receiver set sales for the year just past will reach the amazing total of 2,500,000, that the month of November bioke all previ- ous records for television set sales; that in some areas television sets are actually being black-marketed, |. e., they are in such short supply that premiums are paid to get sets; that no manufacturer in the business can keep up with demands from retailers Under those circumstances, I fail to understand how there can be any talk of unemployment among electrical workers, insofar as produc- tion of television sets is concerned A similar picture obtains for the sale of radio sets, Certainly, the electrical workers cannot be referring to the amount of employment that would be afforded by the construction of ad- ditional television broadcasting stations, once the freeze is lifted. There is very little elec- trical work in that, except for the building of transmitters, and even that work is insignifi- cant as compared with the employment af- forded by volume production of receiver sets. I am inclined to believe that the reports you are receiving are hangovers from a propaganda campaign initiated many months ago by the Radio Manufacturers Association, which had felt that the advent of color would adversely affect the sale of black and white receiver sets, and therefore they set in motion every wheel they could to becloud the issue Their interest was—and is—selfish; they desire to exploit the black and white receiver market and hold off color untll a rich melon has been garnered, then make tho switch and force the public to dis- card the old sets and buy new ones. Eventu- ally, 30,000,000 American families would have invested $6,000,000,000 in black and white sets which would bring tremendous pressure against opening up color television, thus serving the interests of the dominating pat- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ent holding corporation in black and white television. The fears of the radio manufac- turers lobby that the color question would hurt receiver set sales have proved ground- less but they have just .orgotten to turn off the propaganda mill; now the facts make them look silly. The truth of this situation is there is no unemployment in the television indus- try; it is riding at an all-time peak. As I wrote Mr. Gould, but which he did not quote, the only trouble the television in- dustry has today is keeping up with the demand for sets. Even the manufac- turers predict a 4,000,000 set sale this year in the existing 55 market areas now operating. Certainly, recent stock mar- ket quotations of television manufactur- ing companies do not indicate that the companies are suffering. Television stocks have been the market Icaders for weeks; one company’s stock went up nearly 10 points in 1 week. Certainly, that does not reflect any trouble, or any recession in their business cither, even though in the last 6 months set prices have been reduced a third. Of course, what some of these manu- facturers want 1s a freeze of their own, but their freeze would be entirely differ- ent. They want television to go down a blind alley based on the present wholly insufficient 12 channels which will not permit the building of a Nation-wide competitive television service. They be- cloud the issue by talking only about wanting to furnish the dear people with television programs but no one hears who 1s to furnish the service; to what ex- tent monopoly control will flourish; and most important of all, which cities will get service and which will not Sconators from the Southeast and the Southwest, and the great Mississippi Val- ley area, and the Rocky Mountain area, have a right to be concerned about the future of television. If the siren voices who rant and rave today about lifting the freeze have their way, thousands of communities will either never have tele- vision or at best will receive it through little slave stations operating as satellites of some big monopoly -controlled station in a far-distant metropolis. If that is the kind of television we visualize for this country, all we need do is support the “lift the freeze now” crowd In their selfish as- pirations. If these shortsighted propagandists have their way the indications are clear as to what will not be done. Thcy show little interest in the high band where 60 or more channels are available. In their book, television is merely a class service which can be made to pay big dividends. Why worry about the smaller towns when the larger cities have a greater-profit po- tential. They figure they can service all the large profitable cities with possibly another half dozen channels and the place to get those channels is right in the lowcr band where the present television channels are located. I should like to do that also but these channels are now assigned to various important Govern- ment services, including aircraft com- munications. Furthermore, FM radio is located there; also various safety serv- ices use frequencies in that area. But these manufacturers believe that a drive can be put on to shove these services FEBRUARY 16 out of their present position and assign the additional channels to television and everything will be fine—for them. I differ with them in that I want a perma- nent plan for the long pull based on a sound engineering decision and I want it now. Only last week I read with a great deal of interest a letter from an eminent radio consulting engineer written to Mr. Max Balcom, president of the Radio Manu- facturers Association, dealing with the propaganda wave to lift the freeze. Says this engineer: We fail to see what information and tech- nical progress have been disclosed which have eliminated the need for the current freeze. RMA has done absolutely nothing except shout compatibility and lift the freeze in order to promote the sale of current black- and-white sets on a Nation-wide basis. RMA has not lifted a finger to cure oscillator radia- tion and image interference, both of which can seriously affect the sale of television sets as more sets are sold. Instead, RMA has established a standard of minimum radia- tion which is patently absurd, as FCC well knows. There is no evidence that any RMC com- mittee has studied television as au system or that RMA has any idea of the require- ments of a truly Nation-wide system. In fact, the booklet says the new NTSC com- mittee is now ready to help if FCC will tell it what to do. If the RMA television committee mem- bers believe that the freeze should be lifted, what is the purpose of item 1 in the RMA recommendations? Why not come out and recommend the adoption of the RCA sys- tem with its speed flickering 15 picture per second rate and complex receivers, or the CTI system which will chain future receiver manufacture to projection techniques and expensive optical system If compatibility 1s the one and only thing of importance, obviously we do not need the establishment of sound standards, as stated in item 1. We already have these sound standards in the form of the present monochrome standards now in use If the RMA television committee will abandon its present policy of blind obei- sance to compatibility which prevents the free expression of engineering thought and work on this complex problem, we teel con- fident that the many qualified engineering employees of RMA membcr companies can do a fine job by developing all of the perti- nent facty The committee can then form a policy based on those tacts to replace the present policy which was formulated before many of the facts disclosed during the past 6 months were available for widespread study by the engineers of the industry. Mr. President, the campaign to lift the freeze is an artificial fog, spread by ex- pert, high-powered propaganda artists, aided and abetted by a public-relations agency. Relying on a lack of back- ground and knowledge among those it seeks to convince, it will continue to pressure Congressmen and Senators. Relying on threats and intimidation, it will continue to pressure the Commis- sion. One plan is to have a congres- sional investigation of television, as if & congressional committee could deal with technical problems of dot scquen- tial systems, proper band widths, and @ score of other involved technical fac- tors. If there is to be an investigation of television by Congress, let us have one which goes into monopoly controls and patent-holding devices and restrictions.
1950 Nearly a year ago technical data came into our committee’s hands which will provide an excellent basis for investigat- ing television-patent monopolies. Our ccmmittee may decide that the time has come thoroughly to explore what is going on, but when it does so, it will be an investigation to determine who is calling the shots, and why. Meanwhile, I know the Commission will proceed with their hearings without becoming rufficd or stampeded by high-pressure tactics. DEATH OF REPRESENTATIVE BLAND, OP VIRGINIA The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Serate a message from the House of Representatives, which the clerk will read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: House Resolution 476 In THE House Or REORESENTATIVES, February 16, 1950. Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of Ton, ScHUYLER OTIS BLanp, a Representative from the State of Virginia. Resolved, That a committee of 10 Members of the House with such Mempbrcrs of the Sen- ate as may be joined be appointed to attend the funeral. Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms ot the House be authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provision of these resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid out of the contingent fund of the House. Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased. Resolved, That as a further mark of respect the House do now adjourn. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I submit a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution submitted by the Senator from Virginia will be read. The resolution (S. Res. 229) was read, considered by unanimous consent, and unanimously agreed to, as follows: Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow the announcement of the death of Hon. ScHuyYLEeR OTIS BLAND, late a Representative from the State of Virginia. Resolved, That a committee of two Sen- ators be appointed by the Vice President to join the committee appointed on the part of the House of Representatives to attend the funeral of the deceased Representative. Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these resolutions to the House of Representa- tives and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the passing of Representative Buanp, of Vir- ginia, I feel a great personal loss. He and I have been close and intimate friends for many years. Our work brought us frequently together, and I have been impressed time and time again with the meticulous attention he paid to every detail of his public service. He Jeaves a record of constructive achieve- ments that will be a monument to his memory. He had the respect and confi- dence of all his colleagues. His loss is a severe one to Virginia and to the Nation. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the second resolving clause, the Chair appoints the senior Senator from Vir- ginia |Mr. Byrp]) and the junior Senator CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE from Virginia (Mr. Roperrson] as Mem- bers of the Senate to attend the funeral of Representative Bian. RECESS Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as a fur- ther remark of respect to the memory of the deceased Representative, I move that the Senate recess. The motion was unanimously agreed to. and (at 4 o’clock and 19 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday, February 17, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate February 16 (legislative day of January 4), 1950: COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE Ellis Campbell, Jr., of Dallas, Tex., to be collector of internal revenue for the second district of Texas, in place of John B. Dunlap, resigned. In THE AIR FoRCE The following-named officers for promo- tion in the United States Air Force, under the provisions of sections 502 and 509 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947. Those officers whose names are preceded by the symbol (x) are subject to examination re- quired by law. All others have been ex- amined and found qualified for promotion. TO BE MAJOR, CHAPLAINS Siwinski, Clement Anthony, 18762A. TO BE CAPTAINS, UNITFD STATES AIR FORCE Ainsworth, Jess Willard, 13238A. Allen, John Richard, 13213A. Alukonis, Stanley, 13132A Amundson, Floyd Allen, 13127A. Anderson, Curtis Alloyes, 13136A. Anderson, Richard Kenneth, 13201A. Andrews, William Carlysle, 13291A. Atterbury, Logan Cavanaugh, 131974. Behrens, William Chesly, 13202A. Bennett, Eddie Lowell, 13155A. Blake, Clifford Hubert, 13261A. Blanchard, Jerome Louis, 13164A. Bohling, Charles Frederick, 13289A. Bouchard, Charles Chester, 13298A. “Bradley, George Junior, Jr., 13187A. Brown, Joseph, Jr., 13264A Brown, Walter James, 13179A. Caldwell, Joel Blackwell, Jr., 13263A. Chinnock, Earl Howard, 13158A. Christopher, Albert McAdams, 13278A. Coleman, Thomas Philip, 132834. Collver, Robert Cecil, 13221A Corcoran, Joseph Bernard, 13126A. Corritore, Pascal Joseph, 13207A. Covell, Frank Dustin, 13119A. Cowan, Burl, 13191A. Cox, Claude Wright, 13212A. Crandall, Fred, 131294. Crockett, Woodrow Wilson, 132544. Davis, Montie Alius, Jr., 13108A. Dawson, Theodore Estel, 13113A. Dayton, Steward Ray, 13300A. Dietrich, Clair McAlister, 13222A. Driscoll, Kenneth Lloyd, Jr., 13273A. Ebelke, Willicm Henry, 13235A. Edwards, Gerald Brinton, 13224A. Ewing, Fredrick Eugene, 13232A. Fallon, Gerald Walter, 13206A. Fallon, Jack Stanley, 18272A. Fazlollah, Maurice John, 13247A. Fisher, Charles Ira, 13169A. Fisher, Orville Lee, Jr., 131934. Foss, Robert John, 132434. Foster, Clifton Conroy, 13139A, Foster, John Phillip, 18237A. French, Russell Aaron, 181744, Friedrich, Roy Edward, 13154A. Fruit, Firman Harley, 18269A. Galbraith, Charles Leland, 131814. Gassler, John, 13274A, 1867 Gauvin, Francis Roland, 13208A. George, Richard Pierce, 13226A. Gillaspie, Mark Wolford, 13305A. Good, Marvin Harold, 13162A. Gregory, Fountain LeVerne, Jr., 13122A. Grotenstein, Morton, 13185A. Hale, Benjamin Lyle, 13188A, Hall, Felton William, 132594. Hansen, Harold Christian, 181494. Harper, Cecil Leo, 132114. Harris, Charles William, 132454. Hartley, Frank William, Jr, 13189A. Henke, Arnold William, 13217A. > Hipsher, Charles Warren, 13209A. Holder, Glendi Craig, 13138A Hooper, William Duncan, 13151A. Houser, Patrick Byron, 13239A. Hunter, John Benedict, 13220A, Irwin, James Richard, 13182A. Jenson, Harris Lyle, 13121A Johnson, George William 8., 13165A. Johnson, Howard Carrol, 13219A. Jobnson, Kenneth Alfred, 13234A, Jones, Ellis Madison, Jr., 1312CA. Jones, Robert Louts, 13251A Jordan, Arthur Cleveland, 13190A. Keema, John Milford, 13293A. Kennedy, Jerome Michael, 13260A, Kleine, James Dallas, Jr, 13801A. Kocel, Edward Peter, 18216A Lambert, Henry Read, 13199A. Lane, Ralph Hodgdon, Jr., 18279A. Langworthy, Everett Walter, 13253A. Lanphere, Jean Wilberger, 13115A, Larson, Loren Melvin, 13295A. Laws, Warren Porter, 13257A. Leavick, Franklin Morris, 13296A. Liptak, James Steber, 13143A. x Lockwood, Harold Keller, 13173A. Long, Lewis Frank, 13234A Looney, John Preston, 13186A, Lupa, Henry Joseph, 13299A. Lyman, Edward McLean, 13256A, McCube, Charles James, 13205A. McClement, Robert Lloyd, 13236A. McCullough, Jonn Edward, Jr., 13177A. McGuff, Paul Hoover, 13240A McKenzie, Byron Ernest, 13164A. Mayhew, John Frank, 13147A. Menza, Dominic Frank, 13204A. Metcalf, George Nathan, 18200A. x Middleton, Cecil Jack, 13152A. Mikkelsen, Albert Hansen, 13250A. Moon, Jack F, 13176A. Moore, Robert Sterling, 13171A. Morgan, Noland Juul, 13303A Morgan, Joseph Pierpont, 13218A. Moses, Larrie Ellis, 13280A. Mulanax, Robert Verdell, 13286A. Mullin, Robert Edward, 13130A. x Murray, Richard Earl, 18161A Musgrave, Howard James, 13178A. Nebughr, Raymond Laverne, 13241A. Neil, John Gillespie, 18183A. Ness, Patrick James, 13227A. Norton, William Ray, 13140A. Ostrem, Roy Ebert, 132334. Paulsel, Donald Quentin, 13288A. Pascoe, Harry, 13266A. Pidgeon, Charles Henry, 13125A, Porter, Ernest James, 13141A. Ports, Robert Alton, 138277A. Quinones, Alphonse Diaz, 13110A. Randels, James Bennett, 13258A. Reilly, Alvin Edmond, 13118A, Renken, Fred Phillip, 13125A. Roberts, Ray Oliver, 132484 Romo, Peter Edward, 13157A. Ross, Richaid Harold, 13163A Sams, Richard Henry, Jr., 13267A. Savage, Robert Berl, 13156A. 8chooley, Jim Corbett, 13802A. Serafin, John Lawrence, 131534. Seymour, Charles Patrick, 13150A. Sheak, Richard Robert, 13180A. Shook, Fredric Warden, 13175A. Siebern, Vincent Peter, 13133A. Sitler, Fred Harry, 13124A. Smith, Clyde Henry, 13287A. Smith, Ralph Lindley, 132854. Smitherman, Julian Edward, 13276A,
1868 Sorbo, Albert Richard, 13166A. Spencer, Robert Vernon, 13230A. Sprague, Robert LeRoy, 131424. x Staley, Charles Walter, 132254. Stanley, Marvin Miles, 13109A. Stein, Joe Eugene, 13192A. Stevens, Charles Albert, Jr., 13117A. Stewart, Dale Fenton, 132554. Swap, Atthur Merrill, 13214A. Taylor, Roland Howard, 13282A Terrell, James Henry, Jr., 13134A Terrien, John Curry, 131314. Titt, Ralph E, 13262A. Todd, Raymond Victor, 13112A. Turner, William Hugh, 132714. Turnquist, Roy Henry, 13195A. Tyson, Houston Carroll, 13210A. Vacanti, Charles Louis, 12116A, Van Rope, Roy Wilson, 13246A. Warehime, Forrest Everett, Jr, 131944, Whalen, Dantel Joseph, Jr., 132654. White, William, 13228A. Widney, Ellis Verne, 13137A Wilson, Morris Francis, 131444. Wimberly, Wesley Forres, 13270A. Wood, William Dean, 13215A. Wright, Charles Franklin, 13284A. Yarbrough, Leonard Harold, 131724 * Yeoman, Bill Lec, 13146A. Zalk, Arthur Aaron, 13275A. The following-named officers for promotion in the United States Air Force under the provisions of section 107 of the Army-Navy Nurses Act of 1947. The officers nominated for promotion to captain have been found professionally qualified for promotion as re- quired by law. The officer whose name 1}s preceded by the symbol (xX) is subject to physical examination required by law All others have been examined and found physi- cally qualified for promotion. TO BE CAPTAINS, AIR FORCE NURSE Baldwin, Geraldine R, AN1421. Geovanelie, Eleanor A, AN7(C2. Smith, Carol V., AN1734 Spillmun, Frances J., AN1111. TO DE FIRST LIEUTENANT, WOMEN'S MEDICAL SPECIALIST Nichols, Elizabeth M , AJ28 Note —The officers nominated for promo- tion to major, captain, and first Neutenant wili complete the required 14, 7, and 3 years’ service, respectively, for promotion purposes during the month of March. Dates of rank will be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuerspay, Fesruary 16, 1950 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Rev. Fred W. Ortmeyer, district super- intendent of the Methodist Church, Algona, Iowa, offered the following prayer: Almighty God, we thank Thee for Thy goodness and Thy love. Accept our gratitude for each physical and spiritual blessing; for our homes, cur schools, and our churches; for every privilege and opportunity which is ours as American citizens. We earnestly pray that mankind may accept Thy spirit of altruism and love, so that the barrier of selfishness may be broken down and the brotherhood of man may become a reality. Grant a willingness on our part to render a posi- tive service to our fellow men, especially to those less fortunate than we. Thou from whom all tl-oughts of truth and peace proceed, kindle in the hearts CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of all men a true love for peace. May those who take counsel for the nations of the earth accept Thy wisdom and Thy guidance. We invoke Thy special blessing in this hour upon all who hold responsible posi- tions in State and Nation; upon the Chief Executive of our country and his associates: upon those who interpret the laws of our land. We remember every Member of Congress in our petition— guide them in their deliberations, grant Thy presence in today's session of the House of Representatives. In this moment, O God, we thank Thee for the memory of the life of Judge Buanpd. Wilt Thou bring consolation to the loved ones. We give expression to our gratitude and seek these favors in the name of our Lord and our Redeemer. Amen. The Journal of the proccedings of yesterday was read and approved. SPECIAL ORDERS TRANSFERRED Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the special orders heretofore granted for today to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Aucust H. ANDRESEN], the gentle- man from Massachusetts {[Mr. HEse.- Ton], and the gentleman from Wis- consin {Mr. Murray! be transferred to next Monday, following the legislative business of the day. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. O’KONSKI asked and was given permission to extend his remarks 1n the Recorp in three instances and include newspaper articles. Mr. ENGEL of Michigan asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the REcorp and include certain extracts from soil-conservation articles. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Rercorp and include an editorial. Mr. JENKINS asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp in three separate instances and to include extraneous matter. Mr HUGH D. SCOTT, JR., asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp. Mr. RICH asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorD and include a speech. Mr. KEARNEY asked and was given permission to extend his own remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp. Mr. VELDE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Ap- pendix of the REcorp and include an edi- torial entitled “A Real Answer to Meth- odism's Pink Fringe.” Mr. ANGELL asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Ap- pendix of the ReEcorp and include an article. Mr. LANE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp in three in- stances and in each to include extrane- ous matter, FEBRUARY 16 Mr. SABATH asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp in three in- stances and to include extraneous mat- ter. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Recorp. I wish to include an excerpt from the New York Times about Faker Einstein's joining the Com- munists in their attacks on America. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- sissippi? There was no objection. Mr. MULTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp in two instances and include extraneous matter. Mr. FLOOD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REeEcorp in three instances, in one to in- clude an editorial; in one to extend his own remarks with reference to the birth- day of Thaddeus Kosciusko; and in one to include his own remarks in reference to the independence day of Lithuania, and to include resolutions of the Lithu- anian Congress, notwithstanding the fact that 1t exceeds the lmit established by the Joint Committee on Printing and is estimated to cost $328. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the RrEcorp in two separate instances. Mr YOUNG asked and was given per- mission to extend his own remarks in the Appendix of the Rrecorp. Mr. RODINO asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp on the subject of Lithuanian independence day. Mr. HELLER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcoRp in two separate instances, 1n one to include extraneous matter. Mr. TEAGUE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp in three sepa- rate instances and in each to include ex- traneous matter. Mr. KLEIN asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp in four sep- arate instances and in each to include extraneous matter. Mr. BOLLING asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and to include extraneous matter. Mrs. DOUGLAS asked and was given permission to extend her remarks in the Appendix of the REcorp in four separate instances and in each to include ex- traneous matter. Mrs. DOUGLAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the REcorpD and include a letter which I wrote some months ago to the President about Mex- ican migrant labor in this country and to include two reports, one from the governors’ conference in California and one from the A. F. of L. study which was made recently in the Imperial Val- ley, notwithstanding the fact that the included matter exceeds the limit es-
1950 tablished by the Joint Committee on Printing. The SPEAKER. Notwithstanding the excess, without objection, the extension may be made. There was no objection. READING OF WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, February 22, 1950, immediately after the reading of the Journal, Washington’s Farewell Address may be read by a Member to be designated by the Speaker. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the géntleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS AND PROGRAM FO2 NEXT WEEK Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the REcorD. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, will the gentle- man tell us what the program will be for next week? Mr. McCORMACK. Next Monday is Consent Calendar day. There will be no other legislative business on that day. Tuesday is Private Calendar day. If there is any legislative business on Tues- day outside of the calling of bills on the Private Calendar which is assigned for that day I will announce it on Monday. I have talked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. WaLTER! and the gen- tleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] about sending the basing-point bill to conference. The agreement they have with me, as I remember it, of which I informed the gentleman from Massa- chusetts [Mr. Marty}, is that they would not make the motion before February 16 and that they would notify me as to when they were going to make the mo- tion so that I could give the House ad- vance notice. Can the gentleman from New York advise me when he is going to offer the motion? Mr. CELLER. I think it would be ap- propriate to make the motion on Tues- day next. Mr. McCORMACK. That is definite? Mr. CELLER. Yes. Mr. McCORMACK. I do not want to hold the gentleman but may I ask the gentleman, Is it the intention of the gentleman from New York |Mr. CELLER] to offer that motion on Tuesday next? Mr. CELLER. I have discussed the matter with Members of the House and they have agreed on Tuesday next. Mr. MCCORMACK. I want to know 50 that the membership of the House will be as much advised as I am. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. We can proceed on the assumption that it will be made on Tuesday. Mr. McCORMACK. Yes. Now, there is an Indian bill which the President vetoed, a bill that was passed last year. A rule has been reported on it and I un- derstand the objections of the President have been met. I may assign that for Tuesday or some day next week. XCVI—118 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Any further announcement relative to Tuesday I will make on Monday. Wednesday is Calendar Wednesday day. After the reading of the Journal there will be the reading of Washing- ton’s Farewell Address which I hope no Member will interrupt because that would be unfortunate and the country would resent it very much should a Member interrupt the reading of Wash- ington’s Farewell Address. Thursday and Friday are undeter- mined at the present time. Of course, if there are any conference reports they will be brought up at any time. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, may I ask if the gen- tleman can give us the number of that Indian bill to which he referred so that we can look it up? Mr. MORRIS. The bill is 8. 2734, to promote the rehabilitation of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes of Indians. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE UNTIL MONDAY NEXT Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the House for 20 minutes on Tuesday and Thursday of next week, following dis- position of matters on the Speaker's desk and at the conclusion of any special orders heretofore entered. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address the House on Tuesday next for 10 minutes, following disposition of matters on the Speaker's desk and at the conclusion of any special orders heretofore entered. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to extend her remarks in the Recorp and mnclude a bill which she has introduced that would create a Department of Veteran Affairs with a Cabinet member, the principle of which has been endorsed by the VFW; also to extend her remarks and include comments and an editorial regarding the Waltham Watch Co. and Swiss importa- tions; also to extend her remarks and include an article of appreciation of Abraham Lincoln by Mr. James Morgan, of the Boston Globe. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. ANGELL asked and was given per- mission to address the House on Monday next for 20 minutes, following any spe- cial orders heretofore entered, and in- clude extraneous matter. Mr. JACOBS (at the request of Mr. McCormack) was given permission to address the House on Monday and Tues- day next for 30 minutes, following any special orders heretofore entered. 1869 EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. RAINS asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a magazine article in reference to his colleague the gentle- man from Alabama [Mr. ELLiotr]. Mr. BARING asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the REcorpD. Mr. O’NEILL asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorpD and include a newspaper article. THE LATE SCHUYLER OTIS BLAND The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SMitH]. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, it is my very sad and unpleasant duty to announce the death this morning of the senior Member of the Virginia delegation, the chairman o2 the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Honorable ScHvuyLer Oris Branp. Mr. Bianpd has been a Member of the Congress for some 34 years. He was serving his seven- teenth term in the House. He was the fifth oldest Member in point of service. He was chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and had long and well served his constituency and his country in that capacity. I think he was one of the hardest-worked Members of the House. I think it can truly be said that when the war came on and the functions of the merchant ma- rine became so important, the work of that committee became so heavy that the tasks he was compelled to perform in those years, and did willingly and gladly and with all his heart, made him truly a casualty of the war, because since that time OTIs BLAND was never a well man; in fact, he had not been able to attend very often in the present session of the Congress. I know that the loss to the country is great, because I do not think that any other man knew as much about the mer- chant marine of this country as did SCHUYLER OTIS BLAND. Mr. Speaker, I know that my friends here in the Congress will join with me in mourning his departure and will with me extend their very great sympathy to his bereaved widow, who is well known to so many Members of this House, be- cause she is active in all of the social affairs of the membership, and I know that she is held highly in the affections of the Members of the House and their families. In the loss of SCHUYLER OTiIs Buanp I feel that we have lost a very dear Member of our official family, and I know that it is a great loss to our country at this time when he is so much needed. I yield to the gentleman from Massa- chusetts [Mr. McCormack]. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, on an occasion of this kind one gropes for words to express his thoughts properly. In the passing of ScHUYLER BLanp the House has lost one of its outstanding Members and the country one of its out- standing legislators. I have lost a valued personal friend. I can remember when | first came to Congress one of the first Members I met
1870 was our late beloved friend. As & young and a new Member, I was immediately attracted to him, not only for his great capacity as a legislator but for his charming personality, his sweetness, and his kindness. Our association through- out the years in this body has been very, very close. The House is deeply touched by the death of our late friend. We realize that while no man is indispensable, in the case of SCHUYLER BLAND it will be very difficult for uny district in the country, never mind his own district, to replace him by one who possesses not only his qualifications but his broad, understand- ing mind. Virginia is one of the mother Common- wealths of our country. It has given great men to the service of our country both in the preconstitutional days and Guring our constitutional history. The very father of our country, whose birth- day we shall commemorate and honor next Wednesday, was a son of the great Commonwealth of Virginia. Down through the decades, from the earliest colonial settlement to the present time, Virginia has made its marked contribu- tions in all walks of human activity, par- ticularly in those that relate to the prog- ress of our country, and more particu- larly to the public service of our country. There is a long list of outstanding men born in Virginia who have left their im- print upon the passage of time during their lives. Of them, ScHUYLER BLAND ranks with the greatest. Speaking for the Massachusetts dele- gation, as I know I can in particular, and as majority leader speaking for the en- tire House, we join the Virginia delega- tion in expressing our deep sympathy on the death of our beloved friend. We ex- tend to his widow and to the people of his district our profound sympathy in their great loss and sorrow. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. gentleman. I now yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House. Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I know of few men whose passing would touch me more deeply than the passing of OTIs Buianp, We were warm personal friends. I have had the privilege of visiting in his home and seeing his home life, the fine, courteous, splendid gentleman that he was, a man of outstanding ability, a man of great and fundamental character, truly one of the greatest souls with whom it has ever been my privilege to come in contact. His district, his State and his country, that he loved so well and that he served so long, will miss him always. But I could not leave this place without saying something about his sweet helpmate, Mary. She was able; she was kind. When people she kncw were in trouble, and you heard of it and went to see those people, you found Mary Bland already there. And she stayed and arranged things after all were gone. To that sweet and gracious lady I tender my deepest and sincere sympathy in her great loss. I want her to know that with her I shall miss him always. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished minority I thank the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE leader, the gentleman from Massachu- setts [Mr. Martin]. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I learned of the death of our good friend and beloved colleague, Ors Bann. His death is a great loss to allof us. When I first came to the Congress 26 years ago Otis BLAND was one of the outstanding leaders of Congress and so he continued through all of his many years of service. He was courteous, thoughtful, and con- siderate. He gave his friendship freely and was always anxious to give a helping hand to the newer Members. Through occupying adjacent suites he and I formed an early friendship that ripened as the years rolled by. I came to admire him as a great Virginian, a great states- man and a stalwart American. Perhaps no individual had a better grasp of the serious problem of the mer- chant marine than Mr. BLanp. He was an authority upon shipping and fisheries. It is unfortunate at this particular time when we face the task of maintaining for national defense a strong merchant marine that we should be deprived of his knowledge and his guiding hand. I join with the Virginia delegation and all of our colleagues, both Republican and Democratic Members alike in paying tribute to an outstanding public servant and a sturdy American, We have all lost a great friend, and the country a strong right arm. To Mrs. Bland, whom I have had the privilege of knowing for many years, and for whom I have the greatest respect and affection, as well as to the members of her family, goes my heartfelt and deepest sympathy. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speak- er, I yield to the gentleman from Vir- ginia (Mr, Harrison]. Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, throughout his long service SCHUYLER Oris BLAND held an unwavering devotion to his country and the principles of this Republic. His great concer was a con- scientious attention to matters entrusted to him by the Congress and by his con- stituents. Mr. Bianp rarely took the floor in this Chamber unless a matter af- fecting the committee he served so faith- fully and with such ability was under discussion. But in these times his col- leagues could rest assured that he would furnish them a carefully prepared and lucid exposition of the legislation offered for debate. In his years as chairman of the im- portant Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries he developed a peerless reputation as a champion of a healthy merchant sea service. The protection and proper utilization of our coastal and inland waters were problems to which he gave the diligent attention of a true conservationist. Mr. Branp learned the importance of industriousness in his youth, when he was obliged to practice rigid self-denial in his quest for legal Knowledge. He served as a friend and as an in- spiration to scores of his juniors in this House, and particularly to those of us in the Virginia delegation. As an out- standing and beloved example of the use- ful legislator, he will be mourned sin- cerely by the entire membership of this House and by the pepole of Virginia FEBRUARY 16 whom he served so faithfully and so well. We from Virginia have a particular feel- ing today of love and sympathy for his beloved widow. The affection which existed between Mr. Bianp and his wife and their deep attachment and love for each othcr was an inspiration to us all. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio | Mr. MCSWEENEY J. Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SmitH] and other Members of the Virginia delegation in paying tribute to a noble soul. One of the sadnesses upon my return to Con- gress was to find that some of the vigor and strength had gone from that once very vigorous and very arduous worker, Mr. BLanp. I remember, before the days when we had amplification in this Hall, his splen- did voice, loud and yet resonant, always could be heard with a kindly tone, carry- ing to us of the Congress his complete and reliable information relative to the things he knew were right and for the well-being of our country As I said, my sadness was increased when I came back to Congress and saw that Mr. BLAND’s step was somewhat halted, his back was somewhat bent, but I never saw a lessen- ing of that kindly gleam that came from his genial eye. Iremember coming here in my younger days with my wife, newly married, and one of those persons who was very friendly, and tried to make it possible for us to enjoy this new situation more completely, was that gracious lady, Mrs. Bland. Through all these years that splendid friendship has continued. I join with you and your colleagues, Mr. Smitn, in your beautiful expressions of sympathy and in your realization that we have lost not only a splendid public servant but a very fine friend. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Loui- siana (Mr. Boces]. Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana. Mr. Speak- er, when Judge Buanp first came to the Congress of the United States the mer- chant marine of this country carried ap- proximately 8 percent of the foreign commerce of this country. When Judge Buanp first entered the halls of this great body our merchant marine was at the lowest ebb in all of its great and glorious history. Today all over the world the American flag flies. The greatest trib- ute to Judge Buanp is the fact that those flags do fly everywhere in the world. I have the high privilege of representing the second port in the United States of America. There, in a very concrete, practical, and realistic way, we daily see the fruit of his great labors. The Mer- chant Marine Act of 1936 is the out- standing legislation passed by this Con- gress to restore and reaffirm the position of our country on the high seas. That act was the product of the genius of Judge Buanp, of Virginia. It meant that when we entered the second great World War we had the machinery, the equip- ment, and the shipyards to produce the greatest fleet that our Nation or any na- tion has ever known.
1950 So not only do I join with my friends from Virginia in paying tribute to a dear colleague, a loving, humble, and under- standing character, but to a man whose contribution to the United States of America and to the security of our great country is second to none. To his de- voted wife I, too, extend my heartfelt sympathy. She has the consolation of knowing that Judge Bianp served his State and his country well and faithfully. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania [Mr. Ricw]. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Virginia delegation in pay- ing tribute to this great American, Judge Brann. I came here first about 20 years ago. Irecall many, many times the vig- or with which Judge Briann presented problems that came before the commit- tee of which he was chairman, the great Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. How well and how ably he handled those problems, with that great vigor he possessed, and with a desire to impress upon the Members of the Con- gress that the things he said were abso- lutely true and correct. I think he did a@ wonderful job. He had a wonderful command of the English language. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word. Never have I gone to him and asked him to consider certain problems that he did not give me an honest, sin- cere hearing. He has now passed to the Great Beyond, but I consider him as a man who tried to serve his country and his State well. He did. I too wish to pay tribute to his dear wife, who has always been one of the most gracious ladies I have ever known, and extend my sympathy to her in the sorrow she now suffers through the pass- ing of her dearest companion and hus- band. This Nation has lost one of the best legislators with whom it has been my privilege to associate; the State of Vir- ginia likewise, and his congressional district May God be gracious unto his widow and members of his family to whom we extend our sympathy. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. O’TooLe]. Mr. O’TOOLE. Mr. Speaker, Scuuy- LER Oris Buianp has sailed to his home port with his ship full rigged and on the bridge to the last. This is as he would have planned it. During the 14 years I have been in this House, I learned to value the coun- sel and friendship of the departed. I served with him in the Committee on the Library and also in the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Judge Bianp was a man of strong will and strong determination, but he em- ployed these virtues with a wide, broad vision. This was a fortunate thing, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, for our country. Te recognized in the days before the last war that a conflict was coming, and he realized, as many others did not, that the merchant marine was not an auxiliary force but was just as important—more important in many re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE spects—than the Army and the Navy. He fought in a determined manner to strengthen the merchant marine, and he brought it up to such a high state of effi- ciency as to shorten the war by many years. His counsel will be missed by all in the committee; his counsel will be missed by those of his State delegation. Today to his dear, faithful wife and to the Members of the Virginia delegation Iextend the full degree of my condolence. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from New Youk. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LeCompte]. Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress in 1939 I discovered very soon that Judge BLanp was one of the strong men of this Congress and an outstanding leader; I also discovered that he was devoted to duty. Judge Branp was a man who extended to me a great deal of personal aid. I became ac- quainted with him early in my service here. We had a number of problems to- gether in one of the departments. ScHUYLER BLAND was a man who ex- pressed confidence in young men, gave them encouragement when they came into Congress and gave them confidence in themselves. I doubt if I could name a man in my experience who has ren- dered greater service than Judge BiLanp. We will not soon see his like again. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas |Mr. THompson]. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Spcaker, those of us who served with Judge BLanp as members of the Committee on Merchant Marinc and Fisheries feel the loss almost as keenly as it is felt by the Virginia delegation. The Judge was far more than merely a committee chairman; he was more of an elder brother; and, to some of the younger members, perhaps, almost a father. He expected the best from those of us who worked under him. He gave us the fullest amount of re- sponsibility, but always he was there with a helping hand under the elbow whenever we needcd it. The memory of the work that he did for the Nation and especially for the merchant marine of our country will continue to inspire all of us who have known him. There is one other little thought that has been running through my mind all this morning since this most distressing news reached me. There is a term ap- plied to a good many men but deserved by so very few—a genilcman of the old school. We may never have known another, but in Knowing Judge BLanp we knew one. I join with the Virginia delegation in extending to his family every sympathy. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. WHITTINGTON]. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, the sudden passing of ScHUYLER OTIS Buianp has brought sorrow to all of the Members of the House. While his health for more than a year had not been as good as usual, during the present session his many friends were delighted to note that there had been an improvement in his physical condition in the past few 1871 months. He had announced that he would not be a candidate for reelection after the expiration of his present term. The improvement in his health had en- couraged his many friends to believe that the relaxation from public duties would result in his living to be much older. He was a Member of the House for nearly 32 years. He was not only chair- man of the Committee on Merchant Ma- rine and Fisheries but he was the out- standing authority on merchant marine in the United States. The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the Committee on Flood Control, of which I was chairman, had adjoining offices and committee rooms. We saw one another daily. For a short time I served on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries with Judge BLAND. There is no better opportunity to judge the work of a Member of Congress than in the committee room. Judge BLanp was well born. He was a descendant of the Blands of Virginia, who wcre most prominent during the Revolution and the adoption of the Con- stitution. He was patriotic. He was an American of the Virginia mold. He was intensely loyal] to his State and to his country. Our departed friend was well prepared for service 1n the House. He was con- spicuous in his community service. He had had experience on the bench. He had grown up with an excellent back- ground and in the public service. From the very beginning of his scrvice he took high rank among the Members of the House. Judge BLAND was one o the most in- dustiious m2n I ever knew. He was in- defatigable in office and committee work. He was the master of every bill reported by his committee. The House came to rely upon him They knew that the hearings had been comprehensive; that all facts had been developed. The Mem- bers relied upon his conclusions and his recommendations. No Member ot either branch of Con- gress contributed more to the merchant marine in peace or to the expansion of the merchant marine in World War II than Judge BLanp. While interested in the merchant marine as it affected his district, he was interested in the mer- chant marine as it affected the Nation, and as 1t provided for the prosecution of World War II and for national de- fense. He is entitled to more credit for the merchant marine, for the Coast Guard, and for fisheries as authorized by the Congress, than any other Member of either body. Judge Bianp was a loyal and devoted friend. He was dependable. He was reliable. His word was his bond. He was a living demonstration of the fact that the best way to have friends is to be a friend. He was a devoted husband. His charming wife was the idol of his heart. She and my wife were close friends for years, They were associated in the ac- tivities of the Congressional Club com- posed of the wives of Senators and Rep- resentatives. My wife and I are person- ally and deeply grieved in the passing of Judge Bianp. We extend to his devotcd wife our deepest sympathy.
1872 Judge Biann was among the leading Members of the House of Representa- tives for many years. No man was more influential or controlling in the passage of legislation which he championed and which he reported to the House. He will be greatly missed. The passing of ScHUyLER OtT1s BLAND is a distinct loss to Virginia and to the United States. The country can ill af- ford to lose such men as he. He lived the good life of his time. He served his country long, well, and faithfully. He has been gathered to his fathers. Honor to his memory. Peace to his ashes. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jonas]. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Speaker, my ac- quaintanceship and association with the man we are paying tribute to this morn- ing is of much shorter duration than that of the distinguished gentlemen who have preceded me. I became acquainted with Judge Bianp during my short tenure as a mem- ber of the Committee on Merchant Ma- rine and Fisheries. During the period I served with him and under him as chair- man of that committee, I learned not only to esteem but to admire and to re- spect him. He was a man of scholarly attainment. Anyone who had the pleasure of serving with him on the committee was soon made conscious of the fact that he was a man who had a broad conception of the duties and functions that his com- mittee had to assume and, above all things, he was a presiding officer who was fair and impartial and through the eru- dite manner in which he conducted the affairs of the committee he won the ad- miration of every new Member who was privileged to serve under him. I join the distinguished delegation from Virginia this morning in paying tribute to the memory of a great Amer- ican, a great statesman, and a great scholar, and an humble citizen who has contributed so much to the cause and welfare of your country and mine. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. RANKIN]. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, first I de- sire to join in the statements that have been made about Virginia which has contributed more great men to the Na- tion than probably any other State. I have always regarded Virginia as one of the best governed States in the Union; and that applies today. Virginia produced the greatest leader of all times, George Washington, whose birthday we will celebrate next Wednes- day. She produced Thomas Jefferson, the wisest political philosopher the world has ever known. She produced Patrick Henry, the great- est orator of all times. You may search the literature of all ages, and you will find no speech of its length that will com- pare with Patrick Henry's address to the Virginia Convention. She produced Walter Reed, who has done more to alleviate the sufferings of mankind than Lister, Jenner, and Pas- teur all combined. Some day I hope I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE may find time to pay my tribute to this great American. She produced Robert E. Lee, the great- est commander of the English-speaking race, and many other great leaders I could mention. But, all of them had one great attribute that was possessed to the highest degree by Ov1s Brann, and that was common honesty. Alexander Pope said: 4 wit’s a feather, and a chief a rod; An honest man’s the noblest work of God. When I first came to Congress I ar- rived several days before my term of office began. There was a contest go- ing in the House over a seat in Penn- sylvania. I saw Oris BLAND put on trial in that contest. He took what to a ma- jority on our side, especially our leader- ship, was the unpopular position, but he was inspired by that common honesty he always manifested in all his dealings in the House of Representatives, and I am sure in all his dealings in private life. He umpressed me more that night than any other man that I saw in the Con- gress at that time, and during all the years we have served together that great attribute of Otis Branp, that sterling, common honesty, and courage to back it up, has stood out and marked him to me as among the great leaders of our generation. I join with the Virginia delegation in mourning the untimely passing of this great Representative of that great State. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Huen D. Scorrt, Jr.]. Mr. HUGH D. SCOTT, JR. Mr. Speaker, I have always had, from earli- est days, the greatest respect for the Con- gress of the United States and for this House. The inception of that feeling is due, I think, to the fact that the first Congressman I ever saw or ever met or ever heard was our beloved colleague, Judge Branp. When I was a young stu- dent, just beginning college, I heard Judge Buianp make one of his first speeches as a Member of the Congress at the unveiling of a statue to Gen. Hugh Mercer, the hero of the Battle of Prince- ton, after whom Mercersburg, Pa., was named, and who was a resident, as were many other distinguished people from George Washington and John Paul Jones on, of my then home town, Fredericks- burg, Va. I was born in Judge Branp’s district. I perhaps, have the unique distinction of being, so far as I know, the only Member of Congress, party lines aside, who had at one time been offered an appointment to the United States Naval Academy by a colleague with whom he later served in this House. That appointment was of- fered to me in the year 1918 by Judge Brann. So I have known him and known his family and learned from him and followed with interest and affection all the things he did. It was a great privilege to be able to serve with him and know him more inti- mately on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He was fair and he was courteous, but more than that he was kindly and he was helpful. At all times one felt the hand of a man FEBRUARY 16 who knew what was necessary to do and what was good for his country to have accomplished. He guided through this House many important and at times vi- tally essential items of legislation. I know we will all miss him, that we will grieve for him and for his family in his passing. He has gone to a world where rewards of which we know naught await those who have truly served and been loved by their fellow men. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota | Mr. O'Hara}. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join in the very deep and sincere tribute of respect that is being paid to my good friend, whom I always called Judge Briann. I recall that in the early months of my first session of Congress I went to Judge Bianp and asked him to do me a favor, which he could easily have turned aside; he graciously granted it. It was a kindly, helpful, human thing for one of the ablest leaders in the House of Representatives to do to a new Member of Congress. Always down through the years when I had an opportunity I would go out of my way to speak to Judge BLAND because of the fine, kindly smile he had and the kindly twinkle in his eyes. When I first came here, Judge Bianp was one of the most effective, powerful speakers on the floor. He has left be- hind him a tremendous record of accom- plishment. More than that, he has left with his colleagues an abiding affection for him as an individual as well as a Member of Congress. Knowing Judge Buianp, I would say that he was born a gentleman. God gave him a kind and a great heart. Life gave him the opportunity to be generous with two great qualities. In my memory, he is a very fine and a great individual, who has left a very lasting impression upon me and on the Nation. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Hae], Mr. HALE. Mr. Speakei, when I came to my office this morning and saw the flag at half mast, I did not know what it meant. It was a sad blow to me to learn that the occasion for this symbol of mourning was the death of my friend, ScHUYLER OTIS BLAND. I had the honor in 1945 and 1946, to serve on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, under the chair- manship of Judge Bian»n. Certainly no- body who ever served under him would forget him, would lack in admiration for his fine qualities as a legislator, or would lack in affection for him as aman. He was a most lovable personality. If he had a fault on the committee, it was that he was too patient with people who im- posed on his good nature. But he had @ wonderful heart and wonderful character. The efficiency of the American mer- chant marine was his religion. It was the object of his devotion all his life. If the seas do not teem with American shipping, it certainly is not the fault of Judge Bianp,
1950 As it happens I had occasion to go rather frequently to the district which he represented. I know something about the positive veneration in which he was held there. He was a prophet who had honor in his own country, and he had honor wherever anybody knew him. I mourn his loss and extend my heartfelt sympathy to his widow and devoted kins- men. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey {Mr. AUCHINCLOSS}, Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay my humble tribute to a great American. It was my privilege to know Mr. BLAND rather intimately in the last few years. I never met a man with a more gentle soul who had a keener and quieter sense of humor, or who had a more rigid sense of what was right, and practiced it, than did the gentleman from Virginia. I feel a deep sense of loss. My heart is full at his passing, and I extend my sympathy to his widow and family and his colleague from Virginia. A great power for good has left us and we are the richer for having known him. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the dean of the House, the gen- tleman from Illinois [Mr. SaBaTH]. Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, I cannot forego the privilege of adding my few words on the passing of a great states- man from a great State. I had the pleasure of serving with him for many, many years. It is not given to many to have the privilege of serving in the House over a long span of life together with one’s colleagues as it was his fortune to do. I always looked up to him with rev- erence because I saw in him the desire to be of service, not only to his district and his State, but to the Nation. He held a very important position in the House for many years. I do not know of any man in the years that have gone by who held that important position and who rendered greater service to the Nation than he did. He was a gentleman and a scholar. He was devoted to the cause of his country. I do not have the words to express my deep and heartfelt sym- pathy to his loved ones. As for the House of Representatives we have lost a sincere and capable man by the passing of our friend, Judge Buianp. Younger men, following in his footsteps with the same zeal and sin- cerity for honest and courageous serv- ice, always recognizing and having the interest of the people at heart, can also expect many years of service in this great deliberative body. Real service to the country is appreciated and recognized as we are recognizing it today. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed grieved at his passing. I wish to express to his loved ones, to his district, his State and to the Nation my sincere regret at losing such an outstanding servant, great statesman, and loyal and patriotic citizen. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr Harris]. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am deeply grieved at the untimely pass- ing of our devoted friend and colleague. I join my other colleagues here in pay- ing this high and well-deserved tribute CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE to one of the greatest and ablest legis- lators it has been my privilege to know. For 10 years I have personally known Judge Bianp. He has been an inspira- tion to me in the House of Representa- tives. I happened to serve with him on a committee when I first came here, and learned to know him intimately. It was my privilege to visit in his district during the war. I had occasion to spend 2 or 3 days there. Several hours of 1 day were spent with him, during which time he showed me around his district at Norfolk and Newport News. It was my pleasure to be with him that evening in the hotel. Inever had a more delightful visit. I never experienced a finer or better reception from anyone, So I, too, saw the esteem in which his own people held him. I have seen the wonderful and outstanding service that he has rendered here. I take this op- portunity of paying my respects and my tribute to Judge Brann. I, too, want to extend my deepest sympathy to the family in their bereavement. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I now yield to the distinguished gen- tleman from Virginia (Mr. Gary]. Mr. GARY. Mr, Speaker, we mourn today the loss of one of our most be- loved members. In years of service in this House, SCHUYLER OTIS BLAND stood fifth among his colleagues. He was nominated for this high office by one of the most turbulent Democratic conven- tions ever held in Virginia. Although he was not a candidate, when a dead- lock developed in the convention, his name was proposed on the eightieth bal- lot and he was nominated on the eighty- second ballot. He was elected in the special election which followed and took his oath of office on July 2, 1918. For more than 30 years he served without opposition within his own party and sel- dom was he challenged by a candidate outside the party. Mr. Buiann’s record in the Congress is outstanding. As chairman for many years of the Committee on Merchant Ma- rine and Fisheries, he labored diligently for the development of these important activities. At one time his committee also included all activities concerning radio and he assisted in drafting the first general radio law. In 1931 he served as Secrctary of the United States York- town Sesquicentennial Commission and contributed substantially to the success of.the celebration. He secured the pas- sage of legislation providing for the cre- ation of the Fredericksburg and Spot- sylvania County Battlefields Memorial. He also collaborated in securing the pas- sage of legislation establishing the Co- lonial National Historical Park, the Washington Birthplace Memorial, and the restoration of Stratford Hall. Mr. Buianp served his State and Na- tion with consummate skill, marked abil- ity, and untiring energy. He was inde- pendent, outspoken, and fearless. In every way he measured up to those high qualities which characterize a real statesman and a true Virginia gentle- man. We can ill afford to lose a man of his caliber at this critical time in our 1873 history, but since the Divine Ruler of the universe has called him to his last re- ward, we can only be thankful for the useful life that he lived, extend our heartfelt sympathy to his faithful and beloved widow who has stood always at his side during his eventful life, and trust that his mantle will fall upon one of like stature. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia. I yield now to the distinguished gen- tleman from Virginia [Mr. Harpy]. Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, everybody who has known Mr. Branp has recog- nized in him a great statesman, a great public servant; but we who have enjoyed a more intimate acquaintance with him have felt the warmth of his personal friendship and have loved him. We who have been privileged to associate with Mr. BLanp have had our lives enriched by that association. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. DEANE], Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speaker, on an oc- casion like this it is exceedingly diffi- cult for one to give full expression to his thoughts, and certainly that is true in my case, as I offer my most sincere sympathy to Mrs. Bland and join with my friends from Virginia, in extending our condolence to the loved ones of Judge BLAND. It was not my good fortune to know Judge Bianp the length of time that many Members have known him, but during these 4 years I have grown to love the gentleman in such a way as to look upon him as a father and a wise counselor; likewise, it has been my good fortune to visit in his district where sev- eral kinsmen of mine reside, and I know in what deep regard and great respect the people of his own district hold him. I am thinking of the love that Judge Btanp had for his church, and the moral influence that permeated his life. I be- lieve that his great accomplishments are due in no small degree to the fact that he put first things first in his life. We have lost a most sincere and devoted Member of this great legislative body. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina and yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hare]. Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I probably hold an unusual distinction, that of being the youngest Member of Congress to have known Judge Buianp for the longest period of time. I had the privilege of meeting Judge BLaNnp and living in the same hotel with him during the second session of the Sixty-ninth Congress, some 20 years ago or longer. Perhaps the most lasting impressions made on the mind of any individual are those made during childhood. The impressions Judge BLanp made on me when I used to sit on his knee and listen to his stories were that he was a gentleman of a kindly nature and a great scholar. At that time little did I realize that I should ever have the privilege or opportunity of serving on a committee of the Congress of which he was the chairman. WhenI came to Congress in January of last year
1874 I was delighted and elated that I should be assigned to his committee. As the gentleman from Texas has said, he was not only a brother to some but he was & father to many of us. Judge Bann to my mind was a gentleman and a scholar, and above all he was a statesman. In observing his character and nature I have been frequently reminded of a little verse. Its author ts unknown, but to me this verse exemplifies the nature of Judge BLAND: There are so many lands and there are so many creeds; There are so many paths that wind and wind, But the only thing this sad world needs Is the art of being kind. Judge BLanp was the most kind indi- vidual I have ever known. I join with his host of friends in expressing deep sympathy to his family. His passing isa great loss to our country. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Porrer). Mr. POTTER. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sorrow that I learned this morning that our good friend, Judge Bann, had passed away. He was a father to the members of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He was a father to the merchant marine in- dustry. He was a friend of every person who knew him. Judge Bianp was the type of man who could handle the most difficult situa- tions with the greatest of ease. We have lost a great statesman, a hard earnest worker, and truly a fine American. I extend my sympathies to his family. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. DurHamM]. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, I join with the Virginia delegation in expres- sing my sympathies to Mrs. Bland. Many of the Members now in the House recall the dark days of 1939, 1940, and 1941. We remember back there when the great Commander in Chief sent word here to this body to get ships and get them at any cost. At that time the type of cruel warfare which we were witnessing was sweeping from the seas the greatest merchant marine fleet in the world. Mr. BLaNp, as chairman of the Merchant Marine Committee, as- sumed that responsibility, he assumed it as a patriot, and there is no doubt in my mind that in shouldering those heavy burdens his health was impaired, patriot that he was. He has left something that is worth while to all Americans. I extend to Mrs. Bland my very deepest sympathy. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Priest]. Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, I never more fully realized the limitations of language or the inadequacy of words than on an occasion like this when I at- tempt to express my feelings about a per- son such as Judge Bianp. Oftentimes I think it is the little things in a man’s per- sonality that reveal most of his char- acter. TI recall that all during last year, when, as the Democratic whip in the House, I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE would put in a whip call for Members to come to the floor, each time Judge Briann came he would always report to me personally. And he always came. He seemed to feel that since the call had come he should come to me personally as soon as he reached the floor. He would always come and say: “Your call came. I want you to know that I am here and you need not worry about me for the rest of the day. I will be here as long as I am needed.” That is one of the small things that reveals the great fidelity to the position he held, a fidelity that characterized Judge Bianp throughout all of his long and distinguished career here. I join with all of our colleagues in pay- ing a sincere, if brief, tribute to his mem- ory, and in expressing my heartfelt sym- pathy for his loved ones. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Apsitt]. Mr. ABBITT. Mr. Speaker, it was with extreme sadness that I heard the news this morning of the death of our beloved associate, colleague, and friend, Judge Bann. It was not my privilege to have known him personally as long as many Members of the House have; but I had known him for some time. To know him was to love him. I appreciate the opportunity of having served here with him and fully realize the great ben- efit of his influence and guiding hand. He was a kind and loving husband, a great statesman, a good family man, an outstanding legislator, and a real public servant. He walked humbly before his fellow man, always ready, willing, and desirous of hearing anyone who he thought could be helped. His constitu- ency loved him. They held him in the highest esteem. He is survived by a most charming wife who felt that she, too, had the duty of looking after her people, and that she has done faithfully. We extend to her our greatest and heartfelt sym- pathies on this occasion. Virginia has lost a real statesman, and the Nation, too, will feel this great loss. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Fucate]. Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Speaker, Virginia has lost her elder statesman. Some men are measured by their usefulness in their community, some in the State in which they serve, and some in the Nation, and some in the world. Judge Oris BLANp had the distinction of being one who was able to serve the world. We are told that there can be no greatness without great dimensions. Judge BLanp possessed measurements in the greatest dimensions. He had, in the long service here in the House, a tenure of years which gave him an opportunity to serve his country. He had breadth of understanding and depth of knowl- edge, and a kindiiness such as I have never known. When I came here as a freshman Mem- ber last year and was given assignment on his committee, at first I was not sure that I would be satisfied with that assign- ment. But, as the days came and went and I learned to know my chairman, I came to love him, not as a colleague, but FEBRUARY 16 asa father. Day after day, as he came on this floor, he would sit by me and hold some kindly council, something to say to me that I appreciated. I loved him; I respected him. I believe he was not only great in his community and in the State of Virginia, but in these United States, and he contributed largely, by reason of his knowledge of merchant shipping, to the winning of the war. As many of you know, he was considered the father of the merchant marine. He lived and thought and gave his devotion to making that arm of our defense strong. I know that each one of us feel deeply his pass- ing. The 28 years of service here was a tenure that gave all of us an opportunity of knowing that Judge BLann was no ordinary man. Many have said here to- day that they loved him, and I, too, loved m. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Burton]. Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, this morning Virginia, as well as our Nation, has lost one of its most valuable citizens. Representative ScuHvyter Oris BLanp. We were all greatly shocked to learn of the death of our beloved friend. He was one of the most able and conscientious men in the House and the high esteem in which he was held by the people of Virginia is best evidenced by his election to this body for seventeen consecutive terms. Mr. Brann attained his position of leadership through his sterling charac- ter, his ability, integrity, and outstand- ing courage and those of us who have had the privilege of serving with him learned to love him for his kindness of heart and his willingness at all times to help those in need. His first thought was for his country, and his life was de- voted to its service. His knowledge and his wise judgment have been a large factor in the develop- ment of our merchant marine. The Nation and Virginia have lost in ScHUYLER OT1s Bianp one of their finest statesmen. We shall sadly miss him and mourn the loss of one of Virginia’s greatest and most useful public servants. To his wife we extend our deepest sympathy. Mr. SMITH of Virginia, gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Wash- ington [Mr. Jackson]. Mr. JACKSON: of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have suffered a great personal loss in the passing of Judge Briann. It has been almost 10 years now since I first came to Congress. My first assignment was to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The advice and kindly counsel he gave to me was that which a father would give to his son. In many ways I feel today as if I had lost my own father. I know of no man who has served in the Congress who was more able than Judge Brann. He was not only a great legislator, he was a great scholar. In spite of the passing of the years he was very alert to the problems confronting his great committee and the problems confronting the Nation as a whole. I thank the