1916 BIWEEKLY BROADCASTS BY SENATOR MYERS [Mr. MYERS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp certain biweekly broadcasts made by him during the month of February 1950, which appear in the Ap- pendix.] SHOULD UTAH-IDAHO POTATO GROWER BE FARM SUPPORT “WHIPPING BOY" ?— EDITORIAL FROM THE DESERET (UTAH) NEWS [Mr. WATKINS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rzcorp an editorial from the Deseret (Utah) News of February 15, 1950, entitled “Should Utah-Idaho Potato Grower Be Farm Support ‘Whipping Boy’'’? which appears in the Appendix.] CONTROL OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES |Mr. BREWSTER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a report of the Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture dealing with the authority of the President, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other offi- cilals of the executive branch to control im- ports and exports of agricultural commodi- ties, which appears in the Appendix } HOUSING LOANS—TELEGRAM FROM D. T. KIMBROUGH Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I have received a telegram from Mr, D. T. Kimbrough, Jr., president of the Home Builders Association of Memphis, Tenn., concerning Senate bill 2246, which has to do with housing. I ask that the tele- gram be printed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the tele- gram was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Mempnis, TENN., February 17, 1950. Hon. K. D. McKELLaRr, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Our home-building industry in Memphis produced over 6,000 homes here in 1949 un~ der our free-enterprise system. This $36,- 000,000 per year industry bas housed better than 70,000 Memphians and Shelby Coun- tians in the four postwar years. As presi- dent of our association representing 150 home builders and associates, I respectfully urge you to direct your attention to Senate bill S. 2246 to come up for consideration on the floor of the Senate. We specifically ask your opposition to the following provisions which we feel are detrimental to the home- building industry: One, we are unalterably opposed to title 3 of 8 2246 establishing co~ operative housing with 3 percent loans for a 60- to 60-year period. Two, we are opposed to the provision providing three hundred million in direct Treasury loans through the VA. Three, we strongly oppose the elimina- tion of 605 (A) VA-FHA combination loans and vigorously oppose the provision trans- ferring more than 32,000 permanent Lanham Act housing units to local public housing authorities We urge you. support of provi- sions for the permissible mortgage limit of @7,600. Under section 203 (B) (2) (D) as now called for by the House bill and urge in- creasing the Federal National Mortgage Asso- ciation appropriation by at least @1,000,000,- 000. We humbly ask your support of our position related to the amendments herein- above. D. T. KimproucH, President Home Builders Association of Memphis. ALICE'S UNCLE IN BUREAU LAND— STATEMENT BY SENATOR DOWNEY Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp, without reading, a statement of my own, entitled “Alice’s Uncle in Bureau Land.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ALICE'S UNCLE IN BUREAU LAND (Mr. Ant, president of the Association of National Taxpayers, discusses the central Arizona project with Michael Straus, Com- missioner of the Bureau of Reclamation) (By SuHeRaAN Downer) “Good morning, Mr. Straus. I can see that you are deep in a whirlpool of nonreim- bursables,” said the visitor. Mr. Straus growled without looking up from his figuring. “Somebody around here has to find ways to make infeasibles look more like feasibles.” “I might agree, if I were you,” said the visi- tor diplomatically. “As I understand it, you are planning to have the people spend $33,- 000,000 to recreate on the central Arizona project s0 you can charge the Treasury that much.” “Well?” glared Mr. Straus. with that?” The visitor swallowed hard. ‘Let me in- troduce myself. I am the president of the Association of National Taxpayers * * * the ANTS, as we are known. Ha, he, the hardworkers of the Nation. Just call me Mr. Ant.” Mr. Straus sat up straight, a gleam of hope in his eyes. “ANTS,” he cried. “Ant con- trol. How much do you suppose we could write off a reclamation project for ant control?” ‘Probably you could write off a lot,” said Mr. Ant. “If I may say s0, you are very efficient at such work.” Mr. Straus smiled. ‘We have a good writ- ing-off staff.” ‘Indeed,” said Mr. Ant. “Especially with such things as fish and mountain lions and coyotes. I'm not forgetting recreation. My, but you are good at writing off project costs for recreation. And then there is interest. I expect there is no one in the country bet- ter at getting money out of the treasury without interest than you.” Mr. Straus waved a hand as if to dismiss the thought. “Oh, we seldom pay any in- terest for Federal money. We leave that to you people—the ANTS, isn’t it?” Mr. Ant put his umbrella and old battered hat on the floor beside his chair and sighed. “These are matters I'd like to discuss with you at length some time. Unfortunately I'm in a hurry this morning. I have to see some Senators about the central Arizona project, and——” “Don't waste breath.” Mr. Straus almost yelled “That project is all written off. The Treasury will get nothing——” Mr. Ant swallowed so hard that Mr. Straus stopped speaking. There was an awkward silence, during which Mr. Straus grabbed his pencil and wrote off a million dollars from a Colorado project. Mr. Ant regained his voice. “As I’m tn a mood to pay a compliment,” he said, “I may as well tell you that for sheer genius the write-offs of the central Arizona project are without equal.” “We'll do better,” murmured Mr. Straus. “It was a masterful performance,” Mr. Ant went on. “As a taxpayer I would give any- thing. * * * I have left * * * to learn how you arrived at this peak of per- fection. No one but a pure fiscal artist could have thought up such clever ways to keep the Treasury from being reimbursed. It’s financial confusion of the highest order.” “You are too kind,” Mr, Straus still mure mured. “Not at all,” said Mr. Ant with some vehemence. “I believe you have written off at least $73,000,000 for fish propagation and recreation and such things. That’s a world’s record.” Mr. Straus only smiled, as if he was well aware of the fact. “What's wrong FEBRUARY 20 “But the interest which the Treasury loses,” Mr. Ant said with rising admiration. “It's inconceivable. If my figures are correct, the Treasury will lose more than a billion dollars in interest alone.” Mr. Straus frowned as if he were displeased. “Well, we had hoped to get more than that out of the Treasury, but there was a slight slip somewhere, I guess. The project only costs one and a half billions to butid.” “And that’s not paid back, either,” eaid Mr. Ant with short breath. “We're not in the paying-back business,” Mr. Straus said firmly. “My point is, that we ought to be able to lose the Treasury more interest on such an amount than a mere billion.” “Your ambition overwhelms me,” said Mr. Ant. He controlled his emotion. “You say that recreation benefits of the project are worth thirty-two million to the people How do you decide that?” “Recreation is a great thing,” said Mr. Straus. “If you can get it,” said Mr. Ant. “We get it,” said Mr. Straus. “Now, Just think. We propose to build a great dam at Bridge Canyon for the central Arizona proj- ect. Bridge Canyon is one of the most awe- inspiring places on earth, and the most bleak. Nothing but burning desert all around it. A prairie dog wouldn't bury his mother-in- law there.” “Fine place for recreation,” commented Mr. Ant. ‘Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the President vetoed reclamation projects with recreation benefits.” “Oh, well, he did,” admitted Mr. Straus. “But he doesn’t understand these things yet.” “Maybe I'm the same as the President, in that respect,” said Mr. Ant. “Do you sup- Pose you could explain it to me?” “Do you have to have everything ex- plained?” growled Mr. Straus. “I'm only asking,’’ answered Mr. Ant meekly. “Well,” said Mr. Straus as if he were talk. ing to an inferior, "it’s like this. Please pay attention. We believe that benefits to the Nation from recreation in this ghastly desert place are as follows: $687,600 for travel value, and s * " “Horse and buggy?” asked Mr. Ant. are no roads there.” “Somebody will have to build rcads,” snapped Mr Straus. “Travel value is based on our belief that 600,000 people will go to Bridge Canyon each year.” “What for?” asked Mr. Ant. “To travel,” said Mr. Straus. “And the travel value is what they spend to get there.” “Suppose they go some place else,” sug- gested Mr. Ant. “For heaven sake, rtop interrupting,” said Mr. Straus. “I’m sorry,” said Mr. Ant. the theory of travel benefit?” “The greater the distance, the greater the benefit,” said Mr. Straus. “Now, if this theory 1s applied to projects in general, it comes clear. If it’s twice as far to one proj- ect as to another, the first project would have twice as much written off for travel benefit as the second. Is that plain?” “Very,” said Mr. Ant, and wiped his glasses. Mr. Straus seemed satisfied. “Now we come to per diem value. That amounts to @660,- 000 a year for Bridge Canyon.” “Per diem for whom?” said Mr. Ant fear- fully. “Listen to him,” scoffed Mr. Straus. “We figure that 20 percent of the visitors will stay one night, and 5 percent will stay longer.” “Where will they stay? W4lll there be hotels?” asked Mr. Ant. “Bomebody has to build 4 hotel,” said Mr. Straus, and went right on. “That makes a total of 150,000 visitors, and each * * °.” “I thought there would be 600,000 via tors * * *.” Mr, Ant began. “There “But what is
1950 “For goodness’ sake, let me finish,” said Mr. Straus crossly. “Each will spend $4.40, or a total of $660,000 a year. There you have the per diem value.” Mr. Ant looked a little dizzy. “Now we come to recreational value,” Mr, Straus continued. “We figure this is about 20 cents each.” “Twenty cents,” repeated Mr. Ant. aren't very high-class visitors, eh?” Mr. Straus glared at him. ‘Leave class out of this. Recreational value at 20 cents each amounts to $100,000 a year. So * * * now we come to general value, and that’s worth $269,000 a year. We arrive at this amount by figuring that general value is made up of 20 pefcent of travel value plus 20 percent of per diem value. Altogether that makes about $1,700,000 a year. Then you simply figure that over a 70-year period, which is the amortization period of Bridge Canyon Dam, That comes out 833,000,000.” “Who does it come out of?” asked Mr. Ant. His mouth was dry, but he managed to speak. “That's what the Treasury pays out for recre- ation at Bridge Canyon, the desert waste where there are no accommodations, no roads, no hamburger stands * * * only a few coyotes and prairie dogs.” “Don't be petty,” said Mr. Straus critically. “What's the Treasury for?” “I'm beginning to wonder,” Mr. Ant said “These frankly. Mr. Straus’ face brightened. “But I haven't told you about the fish yet. Boy, fish are wonderful things for write-offs.” “What kind of fish?” Mr. Ant asked, some- what recovering his sense of reasoning. Mr. Straus waved his arms ‘Fish, fish, gentle fish. Who cares? In a write-off a fish is a fish We wrote off about three million for fish for Bridge Canyon Dam.” “They may not like it,” suggested Mr. Ant. “Never mind that,” said Mr. Straus. “We like it. There will be a lake behind the dam, you know. The people who come there to recreate will catch fish.” “Three million dollars worth?" asked Mr. Ant. “That would be good fishing. But maybe they won’t like to fish?” “They have to like it,” said Mr. Straus with finality. “Maybe the people would rather go some- place else,” said Mr. Ant. “They won't be allowed to,” said Mr. Straus, pounding his desk. “Look here, don't you start to sabotage this scheme. This is a benefit to the Nation.” Mr. Ant appeared to have found new cour- age. “I was just thinking that if the people didn't go to Bridge Canyon Dam to spend their money they might spend it someplace else, or they might buy shoes, or maybe cigars, and that would be a national benefit, too.” “Rubbish,” scoffed Mr. Straus. “Well,” said Mr. Ant. “Something is both- ering me. You say the fish are worth three million in the lake. How do you figure how many fish will be in the lake if they are not all caught?” “More rubbish,” said Mr. Straus. “We fig- ured how many fish will be in the top foot of water. That’s conservative figuring. We know that these fish will be worth about 60 cents a pound. There you have your total.” “You mean if a visitor catches a fish he can sell it to the Government and get his money back?” asked Mr. Ant. Mr. Straus jumped up. “I've had enough of this nonsense,” he roared. “Here we are trying to benefit the Nation, and you'd think we were trying to swipe $2,000,000,000 from the Treasury, to hear you talk. You tax- payers make me sick.” Mr. Ant looked sick. “I must be going,” he said weakly. “I just reminded myself that the central Arizona project takes a cou- ple of billion dollars from the Treasury and doesn't pay it back.” XCVI—121 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE “Ha, ha,” laughed Mr. Straus. “Maybe ou'd like to talk about the billion dollars interest the Treasury doesn’t get back. That’s really something.” He grabbed up a neil. “Look, let me explain about the terest——"" But Mr. Ant, his face white with horror, had grabbed up his hat and umbrella and was staggering out the door. DEATH OF J. C. NICHOLS, OF KANSAS CITY, MO. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I ask unani- mous consent that I be permitted to speak for 1 minute. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. KEM. Mr. President, this country lost a great public-spirited citizen when J.C. Nichols, of Kansas City, Mo., died on February 16. Mr. Nichols was one of the leading community developers in the United States. He was a unique combination of a man of vision and a man of action. The Country Club district in Kansas City, which he planned and developed, is world famous. There are few cities of large size in this country that in one way or another have not felt his genius. The physical aspect of many of them has been changed through the influence of his ideas. Mr. Nichols contributed to the plan- ning of the city of Washington as it is to- day. Its beauty, efficiency, and orderly arrangement is in no small measure due to his skill and foresight. He served as @ member of the National Park and Planning Commission for 22 years. He was appointed to the Commission in 1926 by President Coolidge. His tenure of service continued through the adminis- trations of Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, and Truman. During this time Mr. Nichols made approximately 150 trips from his home in Kansas City to Wash- ington. Like the other members of the Commission, this was without pecuniary compensation. I believe it is fitting that the unselfish service to his country of this able and patriotic citizen be made a matter of public record in the Senate of the United States. Mr. DARBY. Mr. President, Kansas lost one of its outstanding native sons in the death of J. C. Nichols February 16, 1950. Born in Olathe, Kans., in 1880 and ed- ucated in Kansas schools, he became one of the leading citizens of Greater Kansas City. He had as much to do with the progressive development and growth of Kansas City as any other man. The Country Club district of Kansas City is one of the outstanding examples of city planning in the United States. ¥or many years Mr. Nichols was engaged in the creation in Greater Kansas City of perhaps the most beautiful and modern residential district in America. The Country Club Plaza district is one of the monuments to the accomplishments of this great man. Mr. Nichols received national recogni- tion by his appointment to the National Cap‘tal Park and Planning Commission, & position he held for 22 years, He was 1917 often called the father of city planning in the West. His death brought to a close a full, active, and useful life. It is fitting that we pay tribute to this great citizen of Kansas, Missourl, and the Nation. He was truly a national figure. SOCIAL SECURITY VERSUS RAILROAD RETIREMENT MONTHLY BENEFITS—A COMPARISON Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, a few days ago I inserted in the Recorp two tabulations comparing certain aspects of the social-security and railroad-retire- ment plans. I would now like to have inserted another tabulation entitled “Ex- hibit C,” presenting some further com- parison between the benefits to be provided under these two retirement systems. It is important to remember that rail- road employees pay out 6 percent of their wages to secure the benefits provided under the Railroad Retirement Act, whereas employees covered by social se- curity at present pay only 114 percent and even under the proposed rising scale of tax rates will never pay more than 34 percent. In other words, railroad em- ployees today pay four times as much and in the future will always pay twice as much. They receive benefits which are generally less than those under the provisions of the proposed revision of the social-security system. From these figures it is obvious to me that either railroad employees pay too much or social-security employees pay too little, or else the benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act are too small or the benefits under the Social Security Act are too large. I do not know which, but I certainly believe we have a respon- sibility to bring tax rates and benefits under the two systems more nearly in line. Exursrr C.—Social-security versus ratlroad- retirement monthly benefits—a comparison HR. Social | 6000, Rail secu- | social rot ites rity, jsecurily ment 1950 pro- 1950" posed $45 60 | $64 40 [$144 00 22. 80 32. 20 0 Husband and wife... 68 40 | 96 60 0 Dependent child.......... 22,80 | 32 20 0 128 &0 | 144 00 150 00 | 144 00 46.30 | 84.28 2.15 0 Husband and wife........- 89.00 | 69 45 0 Dependent child. ........- 1300 | 23 15 0 Total_...........2.------ 52.00 | (82 60)| 84. 28 Maximum..............-.-|--...--- 76.00) |-.---25 Maximum survivor benefits possible: Aged widows..........-..- 834.20 | 48.30 | 40. 61 rooms [exe | Widows with children..... 34.20] 4830] 40 61 Children : OR Children 13. Parenta......---- ecacncenee! 13,
1918 Exuwrr C.—Social-security versus railroad retirement monthly benefits—a comparte so0n—Continued HR, Socinl | 6000, Rall secu | Social | ratiro. ritv, security ment, 1050 pro- 1950" posed os Credit for military service per- formed during World War dl | None )$160 00. :$160 00 Disabilty msurance benefits. | None Q) () Amount e henefleary may earn in covered employment without loss of benefits. ... | $14 50 00 25 00 Maximum monthly reurement annuity awarded at uve 65 after 5 years of coverage....-] 42.00} 72.00 | 24 00 1 Permanent and total disability. Source Tall Pension News, published by the National Ratlrond Pension Forum, Inc, 1104 West 104th PL, Chitavo 43, Hl The above exhibit C has heen subnutted to the Senate Finance Committee now holding hearmes on HR 6000 for their study and consideration Chat rau workers should receive the same ratio of increases in benefits now proposed or those covered by social security and has been sub- mitted by Mr Thomas G Stack, president of the Na- thonal Railroad Pension Forum, Ine (9 voluntary organ zation of mon and nonunion rafl workers) February 1950 BORING FROM WITHIN—EDITORIAL FROM THE OMAHA (NEBR) WORLD- HERALD Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Rrcorp, an editorial en- titled “Boring From Within,” published in the Omaha (Nebr.) World-Herald of February 5, 1950. There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the REc- orp, as follows: BORING FROM WITHIN Recent events suggest that the Missouri Valley Authority advocates have switched to the tactics of boring from within. The old issue of sufficiency of water, and who gets it, has been raised again. It has been presented by the Governors of Mon- tana and Missouri. This could be more than coincidence Montana and Missouri are the ehief spawning ground of MVA propaganda. Governors Bonner, of Montana, or Smith, of Missouri, are serving their first terms, and are not as familiar with the background of Missouri Basin development as older mem- bers of the committee. We believe they are acting sincerely, but surmise they have been getting bad advice from people who don't want to see the valley development proceed the way Congress has determined it should. These people, badly beaten in every at- tempt even to get a hearing for their au- thority plan in Congress, are trying to fan the old feud between the upper and lower regions of the Missour! Valley. That original quarrel was between irriga- tion and navigation interests Congress sat- isfled the irrigation interests when it amend- ed the Flood Control Act of 1944 to give irri- gation priority over navigation in the use of water arising in States “wholly or in part” west of the ninety-eighth meridian. This, in effect, assures all irrigable portions of the Missouri Basin that they will not be deprived by navigation of any water they need for irrigation or other beneficial consumptive uses. That should satisfy the present Mon- tana Governor as it satisfied his predecessor and the Montana water board. Navigation doesn’t figure in the attempt to revive the feud. Instead, the complaint is heard from Missouri that the upper States may take so much water that there won't be enough to satisfy downstream needs for drinking purposes and sanitation. This ignores a public health survey which advised that about 1% million acre-feet of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE water in the Missourl River below Sioux City would be adequate for drinking supply and sanitary purposes during the winter season when water normally would be stored for the following irrigation and navigation seasons. That is only about one-sixteenth of the aver- age annual flow of the river at Sioux City. And it probably is less than the amount that would be released in power production any- way. It {gnores also a fundamental precept of wator law and policy—that rights to water necessary for health and sanitation have first call. The Montana and Missouri arguments, lumped together, make a wenk wedge for any one to try to drive into the co-operative ef- forts of the Missouri! Basin States to retain direction of the basin development with a minimum of Federal master-minding. But they also show to what lengths the disciples of Washington totalitarianism are driven in their campaign to wreck Missouri Basin unity for the Pick-Sloan plan. INVESTIGATION OF NATION-WIDE GAM- BLING—STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, 1 have issued a statement on the importance of an investigation of interstate gambling and racketeering activities. I believe such an investigation would have a tre- mendous salutary effect, and could lay the groundwork for revisions in our ob- solete anticrime laws. I ask unanimous consent that the statement I released be printed at this point in the body of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, and that it be followed by a brief, clear-cut editorial endorsing this feneral idea, published in the January 1 issue of the Milwaukee Journal. There being no objection, the state- ment and editorial were ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY SUGGESTING JOINT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE INTER=- STATE GAMBLING AND RACKETFFRING ACTIV- ITIES I believe that there is an excellent chance that the Senate Judiciary Committee will act on some version of legislation for a thorough investigation of interstate gambling and racketeering activities It 1s quite obvious to Members of Congress and the Department of Justice that present legal weapons avall- able against the multi-billion-dollar crime syndicates are hopelessly obsolete. This holds true, particularly for our puny “pop- gun” methods of coping with gambing syn- dicates which rely on interstate wire and telephone facilities for their widespread operations. It is quite obvious too that the Federal Treasury is losing literally billions of dollars in potential taxes because of the secrecy of income gained through the underworld’s “take” in gambling, slot-machine and related activities. At the same time, it is obvious that no investigation will achieve real re- sults unless it rips into the rotten heart of the tie-up between gambling syndicates and crooked politicians in State capitals and city halls. Merely arresting a few “tin horn” gamblers has been done too many times, while the real “big shots,” well protected by tie-ins with crooked officeholders, have in- variably escaped the net. I believe that Senator KEeFravver is to be congratulated for sponsoring the racketeer- ing investigation idca. Necessarily, however, it would have to be taken up in its turn on the already crowded docket of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I suggest specifically that my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee look very earnestly FEBRUARY 20 into the question of authorizing a joint Sen- ate-House committee to investigate inter- state gambling and racketeering, rather than @ Senate Judiciary subcommittee alone. The reason for that is this: There is a tremen- dous amount of waste motion involved, if we in the Senate hold hearings, suggest legisla- tion and then if the House holds almost identical hearings to evaluate our proposals. It is important that we concentrate all our facilities against the big shots and that we mobilize the full weight of the FBI and other investigators in this process. It is essen- tial, too, and I am sure my colleagues will agree, that this investigation not degenerate into a headline-hunting expedition which would barely scratch the surface of countless underworld activities. Any investigation must proceed with the full cooperation of State and municipal off- cials in law enforcement work. Moreover, it will come to naught unless we strive to- ward a public awakening of the evils of gam- bling and a public crusade for effective en- forcement of existing State and local laws. The Federal Government cannot do the job alone. [From the Milwaukee Journal of January 1, 1950] CONTROLLING INTERSTATE GAMBLING It may be hoped that the Senate will adopt the proposal of Sonator Krrauver (Democrat, Tennessec) that organized gambling in the country be investigated. There is evidence that national gambling syndicates sre spreading their activities in the larger cities of the country. It is known, too, that they operate in such fashion that they often be- come entrenched betore responsible local people know of their presence. Once organ- ized in a city, it is extremely difficult to get rid of them. In such a situation, a national study look- ing to a national remedy is indicated In this connection it 1s well to remember that kidnaping and the white-slave trafilc con- tinued as serious problems until Congress, alarmed at the growing menace, passed Fed- eral control measures, Where there is an interstate ungle there can be a Federal remedy. There is reason to suppose that, if Congress took an interest in the matter, gambling syndicates could be as well controlled as drug traffickers now are. Somehow Federal courts seem to be able to carry out the intent of control laws better than some of our State courts. EVERYBODY WANTS SOMETHING POSI- TIVE—EDITORIAL FROM THE BALTI- MORE SUN Mr. O’'CONOR. Mr. President, recent proposals by my distinguished colleague (Mr. Typincs] and the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McManon!], looking toward improve- ment in the current arms competition, have found a receptive ear among our people generally. The attached editorial from the Balti- more Morning Sun of Saturday, Febru- ary 18, is an example of the conviction so widely felt and expressed as the need of something—anything—positive that might possibly be done in the interests of heading off conditions likely to pro- duce another world-wide conflagration. I ask unanimous consent that the edi- torial from the Baltimore Morning Sun of Saturday, February 18, be reprinted in the ConcrESSIONAL R«corp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows:
1950 EVERYBODY WANTS SOMETHING POSITIVE Not content with Secretary Acheson's care- ful statement of the reasons why he considers peace negotiations with Soviet Russia im- possible just now, Senator Typinas has re- peated his plea for a world-wide disarma- ment conference. Like Mr. Churchill, he feels that an approach to Ruseia would not do any harm. Like Benator McMaHon, he considers that a bold gesture of some sort is necessary to stop the course of events. Such a disarmament conference would at the worst, he belteves, tell the world who was responsible for failure. Whatever one may think of the specific suggestions of Senator Tydings, Senator Mc- Mahon, and Mr. Churchill, these three men unquestionably have a point. If we look back over the tangled story of the postwar years, we find that our most notable diplo- matic successes have been the result of cer- tain simple and dramatic decisions. Each of them is asking, in effect, for another simple and dramatic decision. The so-called Truman doctrine was the first of these. We decided that #e Communist conquest of Greece and the continued pres- sure of Soviet Russia on Turkey could not be tolerated. We took certain steps. As a re- sult, Greece was not conquered, and the pressure on Turkey was relaxed. Another was the establishment of the air lift. The Russian tactic of isolating Berlin was met by the decision that if the western sectors of Berlin could not be supplied by ground transportation they would be sup- plied by air transportation. The simplicity of this decision obscured its brilliance and daring. It was responsible for a diplomatic victory of incalculable importance. The third was the Marshall plan. It is easy to forget now how rapidly the state of affairs in western Europe was disintegrating in 1946 and 1947. The simplicity of General Marshall’s idea, again, concealed in some de- gree its brilliance and its daring. The Mar- shall plan has not done everything that was hoped of it. But it stopped the disintegra- tion of western Europe Today people are tremendously concerned about Asia and the atomic armaments race. What about them? The best that Secretary Acheson feels able to offer is a program, at once tedious and nerve-wracking, of methodically opposing every Soviet Russian move with a counter- move, of reinforcing weak spots, plugging holes, concentrating on specific situations as they develop. As he says: “This road is a very long one and a very difficult one. It takes purpose, continuity of purpose, perseverance, sacrifice, and it takes, more than almost anything else, very steady nerves.” But, under a popular government, a policy which depends above everything else on “steady nerves” is the most difficult of all to “sell” as well as to administer. Under popular government, people need something more than admonitions to be patient and to prepare for sacrifices. They need evidence that the patience leads somewhere, and that the sacrifices will yield tangible successes. “Where are we heading?” they ask. “Just what is our policy, anyway?” It is the vagueness and flexibility and obscurity of our present policy, the lack of @ definite goal that everybody can under- stand, that leads such men as Senator Typincs and Senator McMaHon and Mr. Churchill to speak out for something defi- nite—an atomic-energy meeting, a world dis- armament conference, a world-wide Marshall plan—anything that will somehow bring the boil to a head and yield relief. In their specific suggestions, these three men may be wrong. But they are right in sensing that something positive is needed to balance the negative virtues of perseverance, sacrifice, and steady nerves, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE \ISIT TO THE SENATE OF MEMBERS OF THE JAPANESE DIET Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, on the twentieth day of January last, Gen. Douglas MacArthur sent to the majority leader of the Senate the following tele- bram: WASHINGTON, D. C., January 20, 1950. Hon. Scorr Lucas, Majority Leader, United States Senate, (Report delivery Washington D. C.) A delegation from the Japanese National Diet will shortly visit Washington in the course of a tour of the United States to observe on the American scene our concepts of democracy in action. This group CMA representing a legislative body patterned in form very much after our own CMA seeks orientation of Japanese thinking from a practical view of American legislative pro- cedures as evolved through their historical development. I shall be most grateful for any assistance which you and other Members of the Senate may give to this delegation which will serve to guide and encourage the progress of representative Government in Japan and further our national aims under- lying the occupation, Cordial regard. MacArTHur, SCAP, Tokyo, Japan. On the 26th day of January last, in reply to the telegram, and also in line with a visit made by officers of the Army to my office, I sent the following tele- gram: Unrrep STATES SENATE, OFFICE OF THE MaJorrTy LEADER, Washington, D C., January 26, 1950. General of the Army DouGLas MACARTHUR, Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, APO 500, Care of Postmaster, San Francisco, Calif. Dear GENERAL MACARTHUR: Tracy 8. Voor- hees, Under Secretary of the Army, called at my office recently and advised me that a delegation from the Japanese National Diet will shortly visit this country, appearing at the State capitals and the Capital of the United States. I advised Mr. Voorhees I should be most happy to show these gentlemen every Sena- torial courtesy, which will help them develop the kind of interest in representative gov- ernment we so desire. With every good wish, I am, Yours very sincerely, TT W. Lucas. Mr. President, when these gentlemen left Japan, General MacArthur made a very notable address. I shall not take time to read it to the Senate, but I hope every Member of the Senate will read the memorable address General Mac- Arthur made to the delegation of the Japanese Diet immediately before their departure from Japan to the United States of America. I ask unanimous consent that the address delivered by General MacArthur may be printed at this point in the body of the Recorp. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: As leader and active participants in the most peaceful political transformation ever effected by any country, east or west, you rep- resent the new Japan, which places its faith in the sovereign will of the people rather than in dictatorship of the few. Most of you be- gan your Diet careers following the surrender. All of you resisted the single-party system imposed upon your country by the discredited 1919 leadership of the past. I wish to congratu- late you and your colleagues upon the signal success you have achieved in making genuine representative government a reality. At the outset, I had confidence in the ability of the people to understand, cherish, and defend the liberties and dignity they won only at the staggering cost of war and defeat. Now efter six sessions of the National Diet under the new constitution, my confidence in the true self-governing spirit of the people is stronger than ever. As their agents, you have given every indication of being able to fulfill the three basic functions of a repro- sentative assembly, making laws, supervising the administration of laws, and looking after the diverse individual and group interests of the people. In your new Diet law, you in- corporated many of the salient features of the United States Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. I distinctly recall that shortly after the Diet law was enacted about 3 years ago, the speaker at that time, Mr. Yamazaki, chairman of this delegation, proposed the study mission that you are now undertaking. I recommended then that more could be gained from a study of this nature after the Diet had had practice with its new proce- dures. You are now in a position to observe and evaluate the United States Congress and State legislatures against the background of much experience. You can concentrate on the letter and spirit of those American legis- lative practices which are essential to your needs and thereby accomplish much more than you might have at an earlier date. From the cordial and sympathetic discus- sions you have had with numerous delega- tions of United States Congressmen in your own Diet building, you may take for granted the hospitable treatment and generous as- sistance you will receive in the United States. Representative democracy is much more than popular elections and the assembling of suc- cessful candidates in legislative halls. The essential thing is that the people themselves rule, that legislators are the people's servants, reelecting and carrying out the people's will, that the combined wisdom of all 1s sounder than the arbitrary dictates of the few. This is the most difficult form of government. It imposes a burden of responsibility upon all citizens and encourages them to observe the conduct of their legislative agents. For over 3800 years, Americans have conducted their affairs through popularly elected local as- semblies, and for more than 150 years the United States has conducted its far-flung and ever-expanding affairs through a National Congress of State and district representatives. I urge you to observe closely the attitude of typical Americans toward their representa- tives and especially the attitude of elected representatives toward the desires and opin- ions of their constituents; and upon your re- turn I urge you to inform your constituents and your colleagues concerning your observa- tions of the fundamental spirit which under- lies representative democracy in America at all levels. Mr.LUCAS. Mr. President, as majority leader of the Senate, I am certain I speak in behalf of all Members of this delibera- tive body when I say that we are very happy that these gentlemen have come from far-away Japan to study our form of government, not only in the Nation's Capital, but in various State capitals of the United States. We are deeply indebted to General MacArthur for having arranged the trip. In the General's message it will be found he says that this delegation from the Japanese Diet, now in America, individ- ually resisted the single-party system imposed upon them by the party in power at the time of the attack upon
1920 Pearl Harbor. This statement is of ex- treme impo‘tance to Members of this body, who have been elected by the peo- ple. Mr. President, we are the pcople’s servants. It is our duty to carry out their will. It is under this system of free government, that our great country has advanced to the true leader in world affairs. I hope that our distinguished visitors will understand we greet them in the spirit of sympathetic cooperation, that their stay in the country will be a happy and profitable one in the interest of a representative democracy. Mr. SALTONSTALL Mr. President, as one who sits for the moment in the seat of the minority leader, I join with the majority leader in welcoming these gentlemen from Japan. I muy also say that, as a Senator from Massachusetts, and as one who reads the Boston news- papers very regularly, I am glad to wel- come them. I do not agree with the ac- tion of the Boston City Council, which has been given such broad publicity. I hope that our visitors, thrcugh the other functions they were able to attend in Massachusctts and through their visits to other places in the State, were able to dispel from their minds any feeling that the reception given them in the city of Boston by the city council was indica- tive of the general attitude of the Massachusetts’ citizenry. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from California. Mr. KNOWLAND. I should merely like to join with the able majority leader and the acting minority leader in ex- pressing a word of welcome to the dele- gation that is here. During November and December 1t happened to be my privilege to be in Japan and to visit both houses of their Parhament. As a Sen- ator of the United States representing the State of California I received a most cordial welcome in both houses of the Japanese Parliament, and had the op- portunity of meeting the very fine and able group who are carrying on the democratic processes in Japan. I join with the majority leader in expressing a real welcome to these distinguished representatives of the Parliament of Japan on the occasion of their visit to our legislative body. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. President, I am glad to join with the majority leader and with my colleagues from Massachusetts and California in this word of welcome. I was in Japan during the month of September of the past year. With General MacArthur, I had the privilege of meeting the lead- ership in the Japanese Diet, both in the council, which corresponds to our Sen- ate, and in the house itself, which cor- responds to our House of Representa- tives. I had the privilege of talking with the president of the council and with the speaker of the house, and I was very much impressed with the cordial feeling existing between their group and those of us who represented the Congress of the United States. I am happy as a Senator from New Jersey to reciprocate the expression of welcome I received in Japan by joining in extending to our CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE distinguished friends from Japan this word of welcome. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I, too, join with the majority leader and other Senators who are welcoming members of the Japanese Parliament on their visit to the Senate of the United States. I also desire to pay tribute to one particu- Jar Senator. I think the attitude of all the Senators is noble, but I want to pay tribute particularly to the laudable pur- pose and the fine citizenship displayed in the noteworthy gesture made here today by the Senator from Massachu- setts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]. It has touched me deeply. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, as one of the Senators from the State of New York, I wish to associate myself with the remarks which have been made by my colleagues who have spoken before me. I deeply hope that the time may not be distant when Japan will be equipped to take a place in the great family of free democratic nations. I am very glad, on behalf of the State of New York, to wel- come our visitors from Japan. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, first, I desire to commend General MacArthur for having sent this delegation to America to study our form of government. Next, I am very proud, when I read his statement, to note that he instructed them to be sure to visit South Carolina and also New York on their tour. I know that when these gen- tlemen from Japan went to South Caro- lina recently they received proper recog- nition and a demonstration of good old southern hospitality, which can only be extended by South Carolinians. I want to join our majority leader in what he has said today in welcoming these gen- tlemen. Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I should like to lift my voice in consonance with the remarks of the distinguished Sena- tor from Massachusetts (Mr. SaLTon- STALL]. I want to express in my own way my feeling of repugnance and shame that the city officials of my native city of Boston, Mass., should have shown the un-Christian attitude, and I say the Un- American attitude, which they displayed in the city hall in recent weeks when this group came before them. So I join with other Senators in saying I am glad to have these gentlemen from Japan here today in the Senate of the United States, and to greet them in fine fellowship, as human beings, under God, facing a great future for Japan and this Nation of ours in one world. I want to say also to my friends from Japan who are here, this is America, the United States of America, which we love, a free country of free men, and it is the only country in the world where such a greeting could be extended toward men who have been enemies of ouzs in the recent past, but who today come here as friends, with hands extended to them in greeting and in fellowship, with no guile or hypocricy, but in all sincerity. Today, in the United States Senate, here at Washington, we greet Japan. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, as a Senator from the State of North Dakota, where many Japanese were interned at Fort Lincoln during the war, I wish the FEBRUARY 20 Senate to know that a great many citi- zens of our State became acquainted with people of Japanese origin from the west coast, and that as a result of that acquaintanceship, I am personally happy to welcome this delegation. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful to all the Senators who have joined me in a very cordial and heartfelt welcome to our distinguished visitors from Japan. The VICE PRESIDENT. If it is agree- able to the Senate, the Chair will have inserted in the Rrecorp a list of the dis- tinguished Members of the Japanese Diet who have just visited us. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list follow the remarks which have been made by the various Senators. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. The list-of Members of the delegation from the Diet of Japan is as follows: JAPANESE DiET DELEGATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (466 MEMBERS) Democratic Liberal (266). Takeshi Yama- zaki (Chairman of Delegation), 63, Ibaragi Pref., 8th term, tormer Speaker; Nobuyuki Iwamoto, 54, Kanagawa Pref., 3d term, Vice- Speaker, Chusuke Imamura, 50, Nagano Pref.,, 2d term, member Steering Committee. Democrat (70). Saburo Shiikuma, 54, Hok- Kaido, 3d term, former Parliamentary Vice- Minister Communications, member Steering Committee. Social Democrat (47). Inejiro Asanuma, 51, Tokyo, 5th term, member (former Chair- man) Steering Committee. People’s Cooperative (14). Takizo Matsu- moto, 48, Hiroshima Pref., 3d term, Harvard U. graduate, former Parliamentary Vice- Minister Foreign Affairs, member Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretariat’ Makoto Oike, 54, Nagano Pref., Secretary-General; Seiichi Shima, 35, Toy- ama Pref., Chief Liaison Officer. HOUSE OF COUNCILLORS (250 MEMBERS) Green Breeze Society (74). Hiroshi Takada, 51, Tokyo, Chairman Steering Committee. Democratic Liberal (52). Hidejiro Onogi, 54, Kyoto, former member House of Peers, member Judicial Affairs Committee. Social Democrat (41). Kanae Hatano, 53, Fukuoka Pref., former Minister Agriculture and Forestry, member Finance and Budget Committees. Democrat (42). Tatsuro Sakurauchi, 64, Tokyo, former member House of Representa- tives 2 terms, Chairman Finance Committee. Secretariat: Hideaki Kondon, 47, Shimane Pref., Secretary-General. National Diet Library: Tokujiro Kana- mori, 63, Tokyo, former State Minister, Chief Librarian. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. I now move that the Senate stand in recess for 15 minutes, in order that we may become better ac- quainted with these gentlemen, who are with us as representatives of the Japa- nese Parliament. The motion was agreed to, and (at 12 o'clock and 47 minutes p. m.) the Sen- ate took a recess for 15 minutes. On the expiration of the recess, the Senate reassembled, and was called to order by the Vice President. CREATION OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (S. Res, 58) to amend
1950 the Senate rules by creating a standing Committee on Small Business. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, under the unanimous-consent agreement, the time between now and 4 o’clock, when the vote is to be taken, is to be equally di- vided between the proponents of the res- olution and those opposed, to be con- trolled by the junior Senator from Ne- braska and myself. The VICE PRESIDENT. That js cor- rect. Does the Senator from Nebraska wish to be recognized at this time? Mr. WHERRY. I should like to be as soon as the distinguished majority lead- er yields. Mr. LUCAS. I yield now, Mr. WHERRY. Before the distin- guished majority leader yields, I may state that I understand that the total time remaining will be practically 3 hours. ahe VICE PRESIDENT. That is cor- rect. Mr. WHERRY. That is, an hour and a half to each side. The VICE PRESIDENT. An hour and a half to each side, deducting the 4 min- utes which have already elapsed. Mr. WHERRY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished junior Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. I informed the Sen- ator from Nebraska and the press that I was going to discuss a subject and give facts which I think will be of great in- terest to the Senate and the press. How- ever, in view of the limitation of time between now and 4 o'clock, I shall not be able to do it until that hour. I hope to get the floor as soon as possible after 4 o’clock, I believe the facts which I shall disclose at that time will interest the Senate very greatly, and I hope as many Senators as possible will be on the floor then. My remarks will deal with the extent to which Communists have infiltrated into the State Department and are shaping State Department pol- icy. I intend to cover that subject in detail as soon as I get the floor at 4 o’clock. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I yield 30 minutes to myself. The VICE PRESIDENT. The junior Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 30 minutes. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration authorized the junior Senator from Nebraska to report favor- ably Senate Resolution 58, which is the unfinished business, and is now before the Senate for consideration. In the re- port, which was made on June 29, 1949, will be found comments and observations on small business in the United States, which indicate the interest not only of the junior Senator from Nebraska, but of many other Senators. Any Member of the Senate who is interested, and who will analyze the report, will find that it is estimated that there are 3,650,000 small-business concerns in the United States, owned and operated, on the aver- age, by 24% persons each. This consti- tutes a total of 9,125,000 persons, or 92 percent of our entire manufacturing economy. These concerns employ about 65 percent of all commercial and indus- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE trial wage earners, and produce about 45 percent of our entire output. Those are the figures that were used in the report to the Senate made by me on June 29, 1949, to which I have referred, when the resolution to create a standing Committee on Small Business, with leg- islative authority, was reported favorably by the Committee on Rules and Admin- istration. On July 6, 1949, the report was placed in the Recorp, but I doubt that the Members of the Senate recall what that report set forth as the work objective of @ permanent Small Business Committee. The report states: Your committee envisions that the work of the Committee on Small Business will in- clude, but not be limited to, the study and investigation of— 1. Bupply and distribution of basic mate- rials with particular reference as to whether or not independent small business is obtain- ing its fair share of such materials under existing or future distribution methods and patterns: 2. Policies of Federal Government depart- ments, agencies, and corporations with re- spect to inclusion of independent small busi- ness in their present programs and future planning with particular reference to the procurement activities of such departments, agencies, and corporations; 3. Prices charged for materials needed and utilized by independent small business to determine whether they are fair and equit- able in relation to prices charged their larger competitors; 4. Pressures of vertically and horizontally integrated combinations to eliminate inde- pendent small business in the American in- dustrial productive and distributive system; 6. Inability of both new and old independ- ent small business to adequately finance itself from its own earnings due to tax struc- ture and effect of such tax structure on the merger movement; 6. Participation of independent American small business in foreign-aid programs and adequacy of representation of independent American small business by diplomatic and consular officials abroad; 7. Development of programs to adequately insure independent small business a fair share of raw and finished materials and serv- ices on and from public-owned resources, forest services, irrigation and reclamation projects; 8. Development of a sound program to safe- guard the place of independent small busi- ness in the American economy. Mr. President, that is a program which is essential to the welfare and survival of independent business in this country. The number and importance of the problems peculiar to small business war- rant the establishment of a permanent committee in the Senate which will give full time and attention to the solution of these problems, as I stated last Friday, and which will have authority to recom- mend remedial legislation to the Senate. Mr. President, I maintain that there is no one committee in the United States Senate which can give the time even to consider legislation from the standpoint of its effect upon smaller business, much Jess make the necessary investigations into our economy, or of regulatory agen- cies, when quick action may be needed to prevent the ringing of the death knell of an entire segment of our economy. Mr. President, the special Senate Small Business Committee was permit- ted to expire by default on January 31, 1921 1949. I hope the businessmen of the country will ponder and appreciate that statement. The committee was termi- nated, and has not been revived during this session of the Eighty-first Congress, although effort upon effort has been made, during this session of the Eighty- first Congress, to have considered on the floor of the Senate a resolution which would reestablish that committee for the benefit of small-business men. Prior to the expiration of the com- mittee, and before it was actually off the books, a legislative proposal was pre- sented by the junior Senator of Ne- braska, and by the senior Senator from Montan2, to continue the special Senate Small Business Committee. Senate Resolution 29 was submitted on Janu- ary 13, 1949, and referred to the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency. And it was because Senate Resolution 29 was referred to the Banking and Currency Committee, instead of the Committee on Rules and Administration, that I sub- mitted Senate Resolution 55. The reasons for submitting Senate Resolution 55 were: First, to insure continuity for the Senate Small Business Committee is es- sential. Second, because there has sprung up in the Banking and Currency Committee a movement to take over all of the pre- rogatives of small business in the Senate, investigative and legislative. Senate Resolution 33, submitted by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. May- BANK] on January 17, 1949, was called a resolution to provide for “Succession to the Special Committee on Small Business Committee.” It was unanimously re- ported to the Senate from Banking and Currency on January 27, 1949. It proposed that the Small Business Subcommittee on Banking and Currency take over all the functions and duties of the former special committee. That assumption was based upon a conviction that special committees are prohibited by the Legislative Reorgani- zation Act, and the committee’s report also emphasized the need for prompt leg- islative action on small-business prob- Jems, which authority a special commit- tee did not have. Senate Resolution 33 was never acted upon, and was replaced on the calendar later by Senate Resolution 101, entirely different in purpose. Senate Resolution 55 was referred to Banking and Currency, and, both Senate Resolution 29 and Senate Resolution 55 were reported upon unfavorably by Banking and Currency within a short time. There has been a persistent impression among some Members of the Senate that the Legislative Reorganization Act pro- hibits the establishment of special and select committees. When the legislative reorganization bill was passed by the Senate—and I was a Member of the Senate when it was passed and heard the debate on the issue—it contained a provision prohibit- ing the creation of special or select com- mittees, Many of us, including the junior Sen- ator from Nebraska, because time was
1922 running out, went along with such a pro- vision in order to get the entire act passed. This was particularly true since section 101 (b) was retained, which gives full right to the Senate to change its own rules; one of those rules relating to the committee-forming power. In other words, even though the Re- organization Act was passed, it does not mean that never can we amend it for the purpose of setting up a committee. The Senate governs its own procedure, and can at any time amend its rules, if it so desires, especially so with respect to the establishment of new committees. When the legislative reorganization bill went to the House, the provision pro- hibiting the continuation or creation of special or select committees was stricken from the measure, and the House insisted on its amendments in conference. The reason the House insisted on its amendments was that it had already set up some special committees. The House had already provided for a Special Small Business Committee, which it did not want to legislate out of existence. So the House struck out the restriction placed in the bill by the Senate. One of the authors of the Legislative Reorganization Act, Senator La Follette of Wisconsin, moved to accept the House version of the bill which contained a pro- vision that special committees could be established. When the conference re- port came to the Senate, it was approved, and the House version of the bill was enacted into law. Because of the limit placed on debate today it is impossible for me to give all the colloquy and debate that occurred at that time respecting the measure, but let me say that it all was summed up by me in 1949, as appears on page 840 of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp of the first ses- sion of the Eighty-first Congress. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Recorp, at this point, my statement, beginning in the first column of that page with the words, “There appears to be some musunder- standing and confusion regarding the terms of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,” down to and including the paragraph in the third column on page 840, beginning with the words, “The reason for the passage of the Reorgani- zation Act.” I ask to place this matter in the Recorp because I wish to present the summary of the history of the act; the fact that the Senate passed the Re- organization Act without the provision prohibiting the creation of a special committee or committees, and the fact that the House would not go along with such a provision. As the measure was approved, it provides that special com- mittees may be organized. There being no objection, the matter referred to was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: There appears to be some misunderstand- ing or confusion regarding the terms of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Some persons have said, and have told me, and some Members of the Senate have sald, that special committees are prohibited by that act. Mr. President, that simply is not s0; such a prohibition ts not to be found among the provisions of that act. When the legis- lative reorganization bill passed the Senate, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE it contained a provision prohibiting the cre- ation of special or select committees. I say it contained that provision when it passed the Senate: but many of us, including the junior Senator from Nebraska, went along with such a provision in order to get the entire act passed because of the fact that time was running out. It will be remem- bered that when consideration was given to the bill on the floor of the Senate, time was running out, and we took the bill as the Senate passed it, with that provision in- cluded. But section 101, subsection (b) gives full right to the Senate to change its own rules, one of which recognizes the commit- tee-forming power of the Senate. However, when the bill went to the House, the pro- vision prohibiting the continuation or cre- ation of special or select committees was stricken from the measure. In conference, the House insisted on its amendment. The House amendment provides for the creation of such committees. One of the authors of the bill, former Sen- ator La Follette, of Wisconsin, seated where the Senator from Kansas 1s now seated, voted to accept the House version of the bill, and in this form it was enacted into law. There- fore, from a legal standpoint, there is no prohibition against the creation of a special committee either by Senate resolution or by joint resolution, or by an act of the Congress itself. That 1s the history of the Legislative Re- organization Act of 1946 I supported that act. I voted for its passage, and I did it with that full understanding At that time I was a member of thts special committee, and even though when the Senate passed the bill I vated for the provision against the creation of special committees, yet when the conference report came back it pleased me very much, and the bill passed the Senate by adopting the conference report, which did not prohibit the creation of special com- mittees Indeed, this is amply evidenced by the creation or the continuance of many joint committees by this body, such as the Joint Committee on Labor-Management Re- lations, the Joint Committee on Housing, the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and the Joint Committee on Foreign Economic Cooperation, which were created in 1948 The fact that these committees have been created by an act of Congress or by a joint resolution rather than by Senate resolution in no way changes their status. Distinguished Members of the Senate have told me they recognize it is not a violation. One of our best constitutional lawyers tells me it 14 not a violation of the provisions of the Reorganization Act. Some of those who oppose special committees say, ‘‘No, their creation does not violate the law, but does violate the spirit of the act.” Certainly Senators who feel that way will agree with me that the joint resolutions and acts of Congress creating the various special joint committees I have enumerated have been passed by their votes, and they have not moved to abolish those committees since they were created. So if those who oppose this resolution on the theory that it violates the spirit of the Reorganization Act continue to appropriate money and to set up special joint committees as they have done, then they are doing exactly what is sought by the resolution I have offered and asked to have referred to the Rules and Administration Committee. There is no difference. The legal status !s the same. There is no viola- tion of the spirit of the act; if one is right, so is the other. If we continue to create such committees, if we continue them in exist- ence, if we continue to appropriate for them, we are doing nothing more, there, than I am asking the Senate to do, in this instance. It involves neither a violation of the act itself nor a violation of the spilit of vhe act, FEBRUARY 20 There is no reason to dwell upon this, for it is my strong conviction that neither the creation of those joint committees nor the creation of the special committee sought by the resolution violates the spirit of the Re- organization Act. The reason for the passage of the Reor- ganization Act, as I understand, was to sim- plify the operation of Congress, and with that I am in total agreement. The original provision contained in the Senate version of the act prohibiting the creation of special committees was designed to prevent creation of special committees when a standing com- mittee had jurisdiction of the subject mat- ter. That was the principal argument used. It was said, “Here is a standing committee which has jurisdiction. Therefore, a special committee that assumes the same jurisdic- tion, duplicates the work.” I can remember the arguments so ably presented by the then Senator from Wisconsin. He certainly made a convincing argument on that basis, and that was one of the reasons given, if I re- eall correctly. Mr. WHERRY. Therefore, Mr. Presi- dent, from a legal standpoint, there is no prohibition against the creation of spe- cial committees, either by Senate reso- lution, by joint resolution, or by act of Congress. Of course, I know that some may say that the establishment of a new committee would violate the spirit of the Reorganization Act. Let me, as one who believes in the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act, and who voted for it, and who today is a member of the Appropriations Committee, and of other committees say that my experience is that Senators have more conflicting dates for attendance on committee meetings now than they had before the passage of the Reorganization Act. I doubt very much whether the Reorganization Act has cut down the number of committees Senators are called upon to attend. They are now called subcommittees rather than special committees. I do not disapprove of the result of the Reorganization Act, but I may say to those who feel that the crea- tion of a new committee would violate the spirit of the act, that it is my belief that we have created nearly as many committees, which we now call subcom- mittees, as we would have had if the Reorganization Act had not been passed. Because of the very fact that the House insisted upon this provision, there is to- day a Special Small Business Committee in the House of Representatives. That committee is functioning very well. This is the first time since I have been a Mem- ber of the Senate that we have not hada corresponding committee in the United States Senate. The point of whether a special or se- lect committee violated the intent and purpose of the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act has been a bone of contention every time a resolution to continue, or to grant funds to the Senate Small Busi- ness Committee, has come before the Senate, although the House of Repre- sentatives has gone ahead without in- terruption with its special and select committees. Senate Resolution 58 which confronts the Senate today is: First, an effort to meet two of the most strongly expressed objections to a Special Small Business Committee, the resolution proposed to establish a new standing committee for small business; and second, it proposes to
1950 give that committee full legislative and investigative authority. The junior Senator from Florida [Mr. Howzanp] introduced Senate Resolution 58 on February 7, the same day the junior Senator from Nebraska. made the appeal from the Chair’s decision to commit Sen- ate Resolution 55 to the Committee on Banking and Currency. I joined with him at that time. Senate Resolution 58 offers a better way of meeting the objections to a Spe- cial Small Business Committee, and it would strengthen such a committee’s po- sition and authority immeasurably. The junior Senator from Nebraska is not unmindful of the fact that a number of Senators object to a standing Small Business Committee, because it would cut across the jurisdictiona) lines of other standing commitees. That same argu- ment may be used to defend the need for a separate Small Business Committee on the grounds that what is everyone’s business, is no one’s business. The problems of small business have shifted through war and postwar years. They are still shifting between a hot war and a cold war, but they still go on, and it is more important now to have a com- mittee in the Senate that can speak strongly in behalf of small business, than it was during and before war years. Mr. President, I received more mail today than ever before from small-busi- ness men, asking for relief from dircc- tives and orders, asking for help in find- ing their way around among the bureaus in Washington, so they may bid for con- tracts which may arise by reason of ap- propriations made for Government pro- curement, the ECA, and other matters to which I shall refer as I speak during the present debate. They are knocking at the door asking for help, asking for guid- ance and direction, and they are cer- tainly asking for a different form of financial help than they now can obtain. When I came to the Senat~ in 1943 I was assigned to membership on the Small Business Committee, and was ac- tively engaged in working on that com- mittee until it was terminated by the majority party at the beginning of the Eighty-first Congress. They have re- fused to revive it until the election, which will occur next November, has come closer to hand. Whether a special committee is con- tinued on a permanent basis, or a stand- ing legislative committee is newly estab- lished, the responsibility is still ours to encourage by every means possible the basis of our industrial life, which is free, competitive enterprise. That is our Job, and small business needs that protection now more than ever before. Senate Resolution 58 has been on the Senate Calendar since June 29, 1949. It was first called on the calendar on July 6. Every time it has come up on the calendar, I have requested its considera- tion; but every time I have done so, some Senator has objected to its con- sideration. At the time it was reachcd on the calendar on July 6, the majority leader stated that he objected on the rvrounds that certain Members who wanted to be heard on the resolution were not then in the Chamber. He offered the information, too, that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Democratic Policy Committee at that time was unanimously in opposition to the appointment of a standing com- mittee. He did not express himself as to how the Democratic Policy Committee felt about the appointment of a special committee. On July 26, Senate resolution 58 was again reached on the calendar. At that time several Senators, unidentified, objected. So it went through all the calendar calls in the past session, and throughout the present session until now. I wish to congratulate the majority leader, regardless of the purpose, on bringing the resolution before the Sen- ate at this time. I think it is a fine thing that it has been brought up now. I hope something constructive will come from this proposed legislation. But in the past, objection has repeat- edly been made to consideration of the resolution, in spite of repeated appeals by the junior Senator from Nebraska to the majority leader for consideration of the measure before the end of the ses- sion. Again on the first calendar call of this session, on February 1, the majority leader objected to the consideration of Senate Resolution 58. He did not state what his own personal opinions were re- garding the resolution, but he alluded to the conflict of opinion regarding a Small Business Committee in a recent Demo- cratic caucus. I think it is true, there are in the Senate, not only on the other side of the aisle, but on this side of the aisle, Senators who believe that the creation of a Small Business Committee would be in violation of the spirit of the Reorgani- zation Act. There has been a conflict and there will be a conflict on that sub- ject. But regardless of how many Sen- ators vote for or against the creation of such a committee, I shall vote, in behalf of small business, for the creation of a Small Business Committee, either with or without legislative authority, in order that there may be a Senate committee to which small-business men can come, and through which they can speak. Mr. President, the majority leader and other members of the Senate are en- titled to vote on the question of whether the Senate should set up a Senate Small Business Committee, either with or with- out legislative authorities. If it is the will of the Senate not to have a Small Business Committee, un- der any conditions, then that settles the issue, at least for this Congress. But, Mr. President, why at this late date—well into the second session of the Eighty-first Congress—is an attempt being made to force the issues back and forth, all over again? Why was not an amendment to Senate Resolution 58, or a measure to meet the objections of the majority offered long before this time? This brings us to what has happened to the Subcommittee on Small] Business in Banking and Currency in the past year. As I mentioned earlier, the attempt of the Banking and Currency Committee to succeed the former Special Small Busi- ness Committee was abandoned. 1923 In place of Senate Resolution 33, the Banking and Currency Committee re- ported Senate Resolution 101, by which the committee took an entirely different position, and asked for funds to pursue three categories of investigations, among which were investigations of small-busi- ness problems. Sixty thousand dollars was asked, $30,000 of which was esti- mated to be spent on small-business investigations and studies. Here, I should like to call attention to the fact that the Banking and Cur- rency Committee asked for funds, to study and investigate the problems of small business, which is precisely the reason the Banking and Currency Com- mittee gave when it turned down the resolution, introduced by the junior Sen- ator from Nebraska—to create a per- manent Small Business Committee, without legislative authority. Senate Report 128, on Sonate Resolu- tions 29 and 55—the report comes from the Banking and Currency Committee— states, on page 2: Your committee—Banking and Currency— believes the time has come to progress from action consisting mainly of analyses, studies, report, and recommendations on small busi- ness to practical legislative action designed to save small-business enterprises from grad- ual extinction in America. Let us see how the Subcommittee on Small Business has progressed on its “studies and investigations” or its legis- lative program to save small-business enterprises from extinction. I speak now of the subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee. First, let me remind Senators that the Senate has expressed itself very deci- sively as to what prerogatives the Bank- ing and Currency Committee may have regarding small-business investigations or Jegislation. The Senator from Colorado IMr. JoHunson] offered an amendment to Sen- ate Resolution 101 on May 6, 1949, which was adopted, and specifically limits any small-business activities by Banking and Currency to those subjects directly un- der its jurisdiction. I have indicated the view taken of this matter by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and no doubt a similar view will be taken by all other Senate committces. In other words, if we expand the power of the subcommit- tee of the Banking and Currency Com- mittee, we run headlong into the very reason why Senate Resolution 58 docs not have the support of the Banking and Currency Committee, namely, that 1t de- prives the committee of some of its ju- risdiction. Mr. President, what are the subjects directly under the jurisdiction of the Banking and Currency Committce? I shall enumerate them: First. Banking and currency generally. All of us agree as to that. Second. Financial aid to commerce and industry, other than matters relat- ing to such aid which are specifically assigned to other committees under the Reorganization Act. We agree as to that, of course. Third. Deposit insurance. we agree as to that. Of course,
1924 Fourth. Public and private housing. We agree. Fifth. Federal Reserve System. We agree. Sixth. Gold and silver, including coin- age thereof. Of course, we agree as to that. Seventh. Issuance of notes and re- demption thereof. We agree as to that. Eighth. Valuation and revaluation of the dollar. Of course, we agree as to that. Ninth. Control of prices of commodi- ties, rents, or services. Of these nine, matters relating to financial aid and control legislation are the only subjects which I believe to be of direct importance to small business, except, of course, it could be said that all lesislation affects small business to some degree. Tax relief, I think, would be the place to begin on aid to small business; and taxation problems, as well as a number of other finance problems, would be re- ferred to the Senate Finance Committee, not to a subcommittee of Banking and Currency. If a subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee were to investigate such problems without au- thority and were to propose legislation on them without authority, the subcom- mittee would certainly be cutting across jurisdictional lines, insofar as matters of finance and taxation are concerned. According to the latest Banking and Currency Committee calendar, which I have before me, one hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Small Business on February 15, 1949. The hearing was held on an amendment to the ECA legis- lation introduced by the junior Senator from Nebraska inthe first session of the Eighty-first Congress, in accordance with recommendations made by the for- mer Special Small Business Committee. That amendment has been adopted, and I understand that a good job is being done under its provisions. Mr. President, I wish to insert at this point in my remarks a report from the House committee showing that that measure is resulting in the doing of a good job. That provision was written into the ECA Act; it was offered as an amendment by the junior Senator from Nebraska, and was adopted by the Senate. The report reads as follows: Excerpt FROM THE PROGRESS REPORT, FIRST SESSION OF TIIE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, House oF REPRESENTATIVES, Tlouse Report 1576, EIGHTY-F1rRST CONGRESS, Seconp SESSION ECA OPERATIONS UNDER THE SMALL-BUSINESS AMENDMENT In May 1949, ECA announced the appoint- ment of peroonnel to formulate procedures to implement the small-business amendment and to handle both the domestic and Euro- pean phases of the program. During the next months, the committee was in frequent contact with ECA representatives to check on progress. On September 21, 1949, ECA announced plans for a five-point program to carry out the provisions of the amendment. The pro- gram when placed in full operation is de- signed to provide small-business firms with— 1. A counseling service in exporting under the Marshall plan. 2. Information regarding potential pur- chases to be made in the United States. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 8. A directory of European importers and the products they have purchased under the recovery programs. 4. Information regarding commodities offering the greatest opportunities for sales in western Europe. 5 A directory of potential American ex- porters listed by commodities for distribution to European importers. On October 19, 1949, ECA announced the establishment of an inquiry and export coun- seling group to aid small-business men on their export problems. In addition, it was stated that arrangements had been made with the Department of Commerce whereby its 42 fleld offices would render assistance to small business in (1) explaining of ECA pricing policies as guides to sellers in nego- tiations; (2) providing information on docu- mentation; (3) granting advice on regulations governing the handling of ovorseas ship- ments; (4) explaining ECA's requirements regarding labeling; and (5) information on how the ECA Commodity Supplier Data may be used to find potential European pur- chasers. The committee was informed on October 27 that a field counseling program had been developed by ECA whereby those small-busi- ness men interested in participating in the program could obtain practical personalized consultation from other businessmen in their own communities. This project draws on the fund of local business knowledge and relates it to ECA matters by the formation of local volunteer ECA counseling panels. To date this progrum has been tested in widely sepa- rated cities with gocd resuits, both in terms of the immediate assistance to local business- men and in terms of tailoring the program more closely to their needs Plans are now under way to establish counselor meetings in sevcral hundred cities throughout the coun- try with the help of local chambels of com- merce and other similar organizations ECA states that it intends to maintain constant contact with the field counselors through bulletins on recent developments and to fur- nish supplementary counseling materials as developed. As the second step to implement the small- business amendment, ECA announced on November 6, 1949, that it had completed plans to publish a directory of the names and products of American small-business firms desiring to enter or continue in the export trade and would distribute the directory to overseas purchasers The directory will be printed in the languages of the countries participating in the recovery program and will be paid for out of local currency coun- terpart funds ECA is exploring with the Department of Commerce the feasibility of its distributing the directory to countries other than those participating in the recovery programs. This project gives promise of pro- viding great benefit to small business and offers possibilities for further benefits at the conclusion of recovery programs. ECA has displayed a commendable spirit of cooperation in implementing the small- business amendment and in other matters brought to its attention by the committee. The five-point program recently announced and described above seems to the committee to comprise a realistic approach to the prob- lem of small-business participation. How- ever, the key to insuring equitable participa- tion lies in constant effort to provide small businessmen with timely information on the types and quantities of proposed purchases far enough in advance to permit him to bid or negotiate at the time purchase orders are contemplated. Another hearing on petroleum prices is listed as having been held by the Bank- ing and Currency Committee’s Subcom- mittee on Small Business on June 29 and 30, 1949. No testimony is available, and the advice from the clerk of the com- FEBRUARY 20 mittee is that the hearings were explora- tory; and nothing further has been scheduled at this time. The subject of petroleum prices would be an interesting one for the subcom- mittee to get into. Believe me, Mr. President, we who served on the Special Committee on Small Business know something about prices and allocations, not only as applied to petroleum itself, but also as applied to steel, which was allocated during the Eightieth Congress. Only one measure—Senate Joint Reso- })-tion 93—specifically referring to small business, is listed on the committee cal- endar having been referred to the Sub- committee on Small Business of the Banking and Currency Committee, in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress. Three other measures of a routine na- ture are also listed as follows: First. Senate bill 547 to extend voluntary allo- cations, which are out of existence now; second, Senate bill 548 to extend export controls, which was a routine extension at that time; and third, Senate bill 1570, to preserve export markets for surplus agricultural commoditics. In this latter instance, it is notable that when we wrote into the ECA Act the amendment providing that $175,000,000 was to be used for that very purpose, we found that. Mr. Hoffman and the Secretary of State interpreted that provision as not being practical, and we found that in- stead of using the $175,000,000 to pur- chase surplus wheat in this country—as ECA should have done, because the Sece retary of Agriculture declared it was sur- plus—that money was used to buy wheat or other commodities in other countries, not the surplus wheat in the United States. None of the matters I have just re- ferred to specifically concern smali busi- ness, Mr. President, I do not want to give the impression that I am opposed to per- mitting the Committee on Banking and Currency to have a Subcommittee on Small Business. Each standing commit- tee is entitled to do what it wishes in that respect, and the idea is not a new one with the Banking and Currency Com- mittee. In fact, I have supported the appropriations for that committee. In the interest of small business, I would prefer to nave a Subcommittee on Small Business of the Banking and Currency Committee, rather than to have no com- mittee on that subject at all. But I say we cannot expand both the authority and investigating power and legislative power of the Banking and Currency Com- mittee without crossing the jurisdictional lines of other committees. If that is done, then we run directly into the ques- tion of whether we would prefer to do so or whether we would prefer to have a special committee, without legislative au- thority, doing the investigating and iron- ing out the difficulties which confront small-business men, and doing the things that the small-business men of the country really want to have done. There has been a subcommittee on small business in Banking and Currency since 1947, I do not know all that the subcommittee did during the Eightieth Congress; but it did not in any way in-
1950 terfere with or duplicate the work of the former Senate Small Business Commit- tee, so far as I remember. However, I think the more effective way to handle small-business matters is to have everything on the subject of small business handled by one commit- tee. After all, what is everybody’s busi- ness is nobody’s business. If we wish to give help to small business, I think we should do so by means of a continuing special committee, without legislative authority, or else by means of a standing committee with authority. I shall vote for either one. Within the past few days, the Banking and Currency Committee has come be- fore the Senate to ask for the extension of its investigation under Senate Reso- lution 101, and the use of unexpended funds. The junior Senator from Nebraska voted for Senate Resolution 101 last year, because he thought then that was all we could expect to obtain for small busi- ness at that time, and did not want to leave small business completely without a voice in the United States Senate. Mr. President, I have offered to Senate Resolution 58~—an amendment which clearly defines the issues before us, namely, whether we shall have a perma- nent small business committee, without legislative authority, along the lines pro- posed in Senate Resolution 55—and it was reported adversely from the Bank- ing and Currency Committee, as orig- tnally proposed by the junior Senator from Nebraska, or whether we shall vote for a standing committee with legislative powers, as proposed by Senate Resolu- tion 58. Senators may think my position ts con- flicting, but it is not confiieting, Mr. President. I think the Senate should have an opportunity to vote, first, on the question of the appointment of a special committee, as we have had in the past, without legislative authority. Of course, I think the committee should be a per- manent one. I do not believe that at each and every session of the Senate we should be confronted with the question of whether we shall have a spectal com- mittee on small business at that par- ticular session. It is impossible to ob- tain the right kind of personnel or the right kind of assistance which is needed for such a committee, if the committee personnel know their jobs are not per- manent. I think, once and for all, the Senate should decide whether it wishes to have a special committee on small business, either with or without legislative author- ity. If Senators wish to vate for the latter, they can vote for the amendment I have offered to Senate Resolution 58. If that is defeated, Senators can vote for Senate Resolution 58 itself, to establish @ standing legislative committee, with rank equal to that of every other Senate committee. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered does not propose to violate in any way the rules of the Senate in regard to committees. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gerorck in the chair). The time of the Senator from Nebraska has expired, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes more. The Senator from Montana submitted an amendment at the close of the ses- sion an Friday, but subsequently with- drew it. I do not know his present intentions. I do not believe there is any difference now between the Sena- tor from Montana and the junior Sena- tor from Nebraska, except that the amendment of the Senator from Mon- tana carries a provision for the creation of a committee to continue only during the Eighty-first and Bighty-second Con- gresses. I submit that if it is possible te extend the life of a special committee through two Congresses it certainly is possible to bind a succeeding session with respect to a permanent committee, as well as to bind the Eighty-second Congress. I think the reason for want- ing to carry it through the Enighty- second Congress possibly is that there is but little time left, it seems to me, in which to create a special committee for the remainder of the Eighty-first Con- gress. But if it is proper to create a committee for the Eighty-first Congress and the Eighty-second Congress, it cer- tainly is proper to create a permanent standing committee, without legislative authority. I hope the distinguished Senator from Montana will join me in the amendment, so that we may have at least two votes. If he desires, he may call it his amendment; it is im- material to me. I have no pride of authorship. But I think all will agree we should once and for all either make & permanent standing committee, with- out legislative authority, or 8 permanent standing committee with authority. Otherwise, we shall have the same diffi- culty at the beginning of each Congress, and it will be necessary to beg for a continuance of the committee, as a spe- cia) committee, for the duration of one session of the Congress. If that pro- cedure were followed it would impede the work. It would not permit the con- tinuing employment of personnel to give us the assistance such a committee should have. All along the line, it seems to me, it would not be nearly so effective as ® permanent committee upon which we could depend, even though it would be without legislative authority. As I say, I think the Senate should vote these questions either up or down. If the Senate cannot make up its mind on one of those alternatives, let us give up the idea of trying to do the most effective thing for smal] business in this Congress, and merely allow matters to proceed as they now are, and await action at some future session of the Congress for the settlement of the issue. To authorize a temporary small-busi- ness committee this late in the Eighty- first Congress, would be a make-shift arrangement, which could not be organ- ized to take effective action before it expired. To attempt to enlarge or give new au- thorities to a Subcommittee on Small Business in Banking and Currency would be equal to creating a standing commit- tee within a standing committee—a mon- strosity as far as operation would be concerned. 1925 Mr. President, the support which the Senate decides to give to the establish- ment of a permanent Small Business Committee is not a small problem which may be relegated to the back of our minds, or handled, incidentally, in the major standing committees. Today, American independent busi- ness is threatened not only by the ex- ploitive abuses of concentrated economic power in the hands of “big finance” and “big business,” but also by the new de- velopments of economic power in the hands of “big labor” and “big govern- ment” which are now on the domestic scene. Mr. President, in conclusion, I should like to correct a statement made by the Senator from Montana. I am sure, had he read the past Recorp, he would not have made the statement which appears in the Recorp for February 17, at page 1898. In that statement he said no leg- islation had been introduced by the mem- bers of the former Senate Small Busi- ness Committee, during the Eightieth Congress, nor had any of its members appeared before standing committees in behalf of legislation. I am sure an ex- amination of the fact will reveal other- wise. I said last Friday, and I now repeat, that while I am glad to admit that the Senate Small Business Committee dur- ing the EHightieth Congress was more distinguished for direct action against monopolistic-trade practices in industry, which were throttling small business, it also made specific legislative proposals, which were enacted into law. The committee helped in the matter of newsprint distribution. It helped, and helped tremendously, in the field of pe- troleum distribution. No one can deny that. We persuaded major oil compa- nies to continue distribution to smaller, independent dealers on the basis of the same quotas as those in effect in prior years. The same thing was true in steel. How anyone can even suggest that in the consideration of complaints and exami- nation of needs, such as the petroleum shortage which developed in the city of Baltimore, the Small Business Commit- tee was not effective, I do not know. I wish the distinguished Senator from Maryland were present to give the testi- mony he gave when we considered and solved the problem of fuel-oil shortage in Baltimore in the winter of 1947. Mr. President, I yield myself another 5 minutes, in which to conclude. Time and again the Small Business Committee secured help that was en- tirely outside the field of legislative au- thority. It is my plea that we support @ proposal which will result in a con- tinued service of that kind. If all we are going to do is to set up an academic board to consider matters affecting small business, a board which will go into the field and conduct hearings in the four corners of the United States, with the idea of introducing legislation which will impose upon the backs of small business further controls and impositions, then I am decidedly against it. I shall be the first Senator on the floor of the Senate to criticize it, if the committee is reorgan- jzed and operates solely for that purpose.
1926 I think the principal purpose is to have @ place to which small-business men may come, register their complaints, and have them considered. There should be a place to which they may come, where they may receive a friendly hearing, whether it be before a special committee or a subcommittee of some standing committee. But getting back to the sub- ject of legislation, I may say the Small Business Committee did introduce pro- posed legislation in the Eightieth Con- gress. Time does not permit me to go into detail, but I want to give the law. First. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Martin] appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 17, 1947, to instst upon the continuation of export controls upon steel, which was in short supply. The export-control legislation was at that time about to lapse, by de- fault. Saudi Arabia was at that time getting steel which should have gone to our own reserve oil companies. We should have been digging the wells in- stead of Saudi Arabia. A supply of 340,000 tons was temporarily held up. It has only been since the second session of the Eighty-first Congress that new sup- plies have been sent. I understand stecl is now in ample supply. The statement by the Senator from Pennsylvania was made in support of House bill 3049. I ask that that portion of the report, con- taining the testimony of the Senator from Pennsylvania, be incorporated in the REcorp as a part of my remarks. It is found in the reports of the Special Committee To Study Problems of Ameri- can Small Business, Senate Report No. 825, Eightieth Congress, second session, pages 38 to 41. There being no objection, the portion of the report was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: BTATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD MARTIN, OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHAIRMAN OF THE STEEL BUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE SMALL BUSI- NESS COMMITTEE, BEFORE THE SENATE JUDI< CIARY SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERING THE RENEWAL OF THE EXPORT CONTROL ACT, REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF EXPORT CON- TROLS ON STEEL (JUNE 17, 1947) Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which you are chairman, has completed hearings upon H. R. 3049, a meas- ure to continue in effect section 6 of the act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 714), as amended, relating to the exportation of certain commodities. In this connection I would like to call your attention to the hearings which have been in progress by the Steel Subcommittee of the Senate Small Business Committee since May 15, 1947. These hearings have been con- cerned with an investigation of shortages in steel which are affecting the welfare and sur- vival of smaller manufacturers and users of steel. In fact, as 95 percent of our do- mestic manufacture uses steel, the supply and distribution of steel is a basic considera- tion in our entire national economy. In these investigations we have made some study of the situation with respect to ship- ments of steel in export, and while our in- quiry into this situation is not completed and further sessions with the Department of Commerce and with the State Department are on our schedule of hearings, I would like at this time to express some of the facts in relation to the renewal and administration of the Export Control Act (as it pertains to steel) for your consideration, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Steel, and practically all steel products, are in short supply; not in relation to the vol- ume of tonnage being produced, but in rela- tion to a heavy and rising demand. Steel mills are operating at approximately 95 per- cent of capacity, and are producing finished steel at the rate of 65,000,000 short tons for the year 1947. This is considerably higher than the 49,000,000 tons produced in 1946 and the 46,000,000 tons produced in 1940 (ap- proximate figures). However, reviving domestic manufacture, rising per capita use of steel, work stoppages affecting the production of steel, and mount- ing pressures for export of steel have come bined to produce a short market in steel. In spite of this increased demand, and ris- ing per capita use of steel, the steel-produc- ing industry does not intend to increase its capacity, and states further that existing fa- cilities are sufficient for long-term demand. Thus, with a lid on production, and a cur- rently rising demand from every area, the pressures have developed a number of in- equities of distribution, under which num- bers of smaller concerns are suffering and actually being forced to go out of business. There apparently is also an increased ef- fort on the part of steel producers to de- velop export markets. with emphasis on South America. Thus we find that pressures sre very much in evidence to cause removal of steel from export control. In fact, so an- ticipatory that in last Saturday's Washington Post, I noticed an article that stated mil- lions of tons of steel will be going to Saudi Arabia within the next month or two. No buch tonnage could be supported giving due consideration to our domestic need, nor could such tonnage be possible under proper export control The attention of the Steel Subcommittee was originally called to the steel export sit- uation by a number of complaints from small manufacturers and users who claimed that large shipments of sheet steel abroad were causing their difficulty, and other complaints from independent oll producers, from ranch- men and farmers who protested that large shipments of steel pipe abroad were making it impossible to secure any pipe for oil and gas lines to supplement our domestic sup- ply—and for wells and watering systems for farms and livestock. The natural-gas and oil shortage has reached serlous proportions, as _ recently stated in news releases, and the Interior De- partment confirms the possibility of fuel-oil and natural-gas shortages for this fall. While oil barge and other transportation problems were mentioned as a cause, investi- gation by the Senate Small Business Com- mittee indicates the pipe shortage is also a contributory factor In securing figures from the Bureau of the Census on steel exports for the year 1946 and the first 3 months of 1947, we find total ex- ports on the rise in 1947 over 1946, at the rate of what will appear to be a million and a halt more tons this year. This represents also about a million more tons of export than shipped in the prewar year of 1938 when there was no shortage of steel and exports were unrestricted. Exports of such critical items as sheet steel and steel pipe and tubing have doubled and trebled in 1946 and 1947 over shipments of those items in normal prewar years. The Steel Subcommittee was especially in- terested in shipments of sheet steel and steol pipe—and the countries to which these ship- ments were being made. Census figures in- dicate that our prime country of export on most steel products, especially on the vital sheet steel, is Canada. Next in volume are such countries as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Switzerland, and other nations certainly not involved in war rehabilitation projects. Lesser shipments have gone to France and Italy, as we might expect, but not in the degree nor of the critical items as shipped to South America, FEBRUARY 20 In the case of steel pipe—Brazil, Argen- tina, Venezuela, and Russia are chief recip- jents. In the case of Venezuela, investiga- tion has shown that American oil firms are developing new oil resources in Venezuela which accounts for the large pipe shipments to that country. In the case of Russia, how- ever, it is difficult to figure out any reason for the shipment of 65,000 tons of steel pipe and tubing to that country in 1946, with con- tinued shipments of pipe still going forward— not to mention other steel products, as well. It is not probable that the United States will secure any oil as a result of pipe ship- ments to Russia, nor for that matter any other trade or economic considerations. A clipping from yesterday morning’s Wash- ington Post gives further information on the oll-shortage situation in this country, and includes a brief, but pointed, statement that Russia is sending its fleet over to get United States gas and oil. To resume the steel export story: In ex- amining export control administration in the Office of International Trade in the De- partment of Commerce and by the Export Policy Control Committee, it was discovered that a simplified method of issuing export licenses has resulted in a number of condi- tions. (1) No control is maintained on the destination of exports permitted under the export license; (2) relatively little policing of the qualifications or statements submitted by the export licensee is done; (3) no knowl- edge is available of the end-use of the steel products being shipped in export; (4) export quotas seem to be quite elastic and variable, as determined by Government-sponsored projects. By this last point it is meant that the Ex- port Policy Control Committee, an inter- agency group under the general direction of the Commerce Department, ostensibly sets steel export quotas in relation to the strain upon the domestic economy—then it may permit a 20-percent increase to be shipped “exquota’—and then along may come a& Government-sponsored project for which may be issued an export licknse in any amount over and above the original quota (which was supposed to have been set at a level not to disrupt the domestic economy). The subcommittee is endeavoring to ob- tain a list of Government-sponsored projects from the Department of Commerce, and the amount of steel exports involved in each. Such Government-sponsored projects, we understand, may be based upon both diplo- matic and international trade considera- tions (and, of course, national defense), and are generally agreed to with the approval of the State Department. Our information 1s not complete on this subject, but it is of great importance in the steel export picture us it is evidently a matter beyond the con- tro) of the nominal export control officials. Going further into the export picture, it was discovered that in the instance of Can- ada (our largest receiver of steel products in export), there are no export controls and shipments may be made to Canada in any amount at any time. This situation seem- ingly dates back to the Hyde Park agreement between Prime Minister MacKenzie King and the late President Roosevelt made dur- ing the war, by which controls were elimi- nated on exports to Canada for a number of wartime considerations. The question which is naturally raised is whether or not the Hyde Park agreement has been reviewed in the light of present-day economics with respect to steel exports (and undoubtedly other products), to determine why export controls should not be put into effect between Canada and the United States. It is interesting to note that Canada has never removed her export controls upon her ship- ments to the United States. The increase of steel shipments to Can- ada is marked—409,279 tons of steel prod- ucts were shipped to Canada in 1938, 876,-
1950 185 tons were shipped in 10946, and steel products are being shipped to Canada at the rate of over a million tons per year at the end of the first quarter of 1947. Of this total, sheet-steel shipments are unusually large, which means that steel products such as stoves, refrigerators, and hundreds of other finished products using steel are being manufactured in Canada, rather than the steel going to our own steel-manufacturing industry for production of finished products needed here, and necessary to provide em- ployment in the United States. Also, as no check is maintained on end-use of steel ex- port shipments, it is possible that some steel shipped to Canada may find its way out of Canada to other countries in export. While normal exports are to be desired to maintain foreign markets and to promote worthwhile and reciprocal projects, it is my opinion that the export situation is out of control and that a stronger hand with re- gard to exports of steel 1s of vital importance at this time. To remove controls on steel would un- doubtedly open the floodgates for the highly lucrative export market. Prices being se- cured for steel in export are twice and three times the mill price in the United States. At the same time an inadequate control, ageravated by the failure of the Department of Commerce to allocate existing manpower and funds, is also causing another set of problems in the Office of International Trade in the Department of Commerce. I be- lieve that existing controls should be strengthened. As chairman of the steel subcommittee, I would like to submit for the consideration of your subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee of the Senate, the following con- clusions with respect to continuation of ex- port controls and the strengthening of existing controls: 1. Export controls on steel should be con- tinued for at least another 12 months, and should be reviewed at that time to determine the pressure of domestic demand. 2. The Export Control Act should be amended to provide for certain administra- tive requirements: (a) That designation of destination be re- quired on the issuance of all expart licenses, and, as far as possible end-use of the steel must be indicated. (b) That the procedures for issuing export licenses require detailed qualifications and identification of licensee, and that severe penalty be provided against forgeries, sales of licenses, and misrepresentation. (c) That export licenses must be used within the quarter for which they are granted and for the purpose for which granted to the original licensee. (ad) That a review of the Hyde Park agree- ment with Canada be made at once by the responsible Government agencies, with a view to establishing export controls on steel ex- ports to Canada. (e) That there be set forth in the exten- sion of the Export Control Act language di- recting the establishment of industry export advisory committees consisting of all seg- ments of the industries coming under the export control; and that the Export Policy Control Committee be required to seek and give consideration to the recommendation of such committees, particularly with regard to the effect which export quotas and Gov- ernment special projects might have on the domestic economy. (f) That the Export Policy Control Com- mittee be thoroughly investigated as to qual- ification of personnel and methods of opera- tion, especially with respect to its policies for determining export quotas. (g) And that when such quotes are de- termined due consideration will be given to gee that small and newly established busi- nesses in the export and import trade will be given a fair and equitable share of such quotas. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. Another legislative action recommended by the Small Busi- ness Committee was a provision for pro- curement from small business, under the Selective Service Act of 1948. There is a provision, in section 18 (a), providing for the utilization of industry, which reads as follows: UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRY Sec. 18. (a) Whenever the President after consultation with and receiving advice from the National Security Resources Board deter- mines that it is in the interest of the na- tional security for the Government to obtain prompt delivery of any articles or materials the procurement of which has been author- ized by the Congress exclusively for the use of the armed forces of the United States, or for the use of the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, he is authorized, through the head of any Government agency, to place with any person operating a plant, mine, or other fa- cllity capable of producing such articles or materials an order for such quantity of such articles or materials as the President deems appropriate. Any person with whom an or- der is placed pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be advised that such order is placed pursuant to the provisions of this section. Under any such program of national procurement, the President shall recognize the valid claim of American small business to participate in such contracts, in such man- ufacture, and in such distribution of mate- Tials, and small business shall be granted a fair share of the orders placed, exclusively for the use of the armed forces or for other Federal agencies now or hereafter designated in thig section. For the purposes of this section, a business enterprise shall be deter- mined to be “small business” if (1) its posi- tion in the trade or industry of which it is & part is not dominant, (2) the number of {ts employees does not exceed 500, and (3) it is independently owned and operated. That was provided for in Public Law 750. It was recommended by the junior Senator from Nebraska, as chairman of the Small Business Committee, and it was a good piece of legislation. The third piece of legislation to which I desire to advert is the ECA amendment, providing for small-business representa- tion in that agency. Senators will re- call that last year, in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress, the junior Senator from Nebraska recommended, as former chairman of the defunct com- mittee, that the Senate enact procure- ment legislation providing that under purchasing programs inspired by ECA funds, small business be given the in- formation and the opportunity to par- ticipate. Such legislation was passed by the Senate, in Public Law 47, Eighty- first Congress, section 7 (d). Mr. President, finally, the junior Sena- tor from Wyoming will recall that a bill was proposed last session by the senior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Mano- ngy], 8. 1647, to relieve smaller, inde- pendent oil-refining companies from the payment of premiums on their contracts for Government-royalty oil. That was a recommendation by the former Small Business Committee. The Senator from Wyoming paid the committee a compli- ment when he brought up the legislation on the floor and stated it was recom- mended by the chairman of the Small Business Committee. It is now Public Law 280, Eighty-first Congress, and an- other example of legislation recommend- ed by the former committee. 1927 Mr. President, I could go on to give further illustrations of what the Senate Small Business Committee of the Eighti- eth Congress did. I again want to say the prime importance of the committee is not so much in connection with a leg- islative function. We have committees to do the legislating. It is true that in our investigation, any subject that needs legislation ought to be brought to the at- tention of the committee having juris- diction over the subject matter. But I submit, in all fairness, it is impossible to have this job done as it ought to be done by any one of the jurisdictional commit- tees such as the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency. That is no reflection upon the Senator from South Carolina. I think he is doing as good a job as any chairman could do under the circum- stances. But one of two things will have to be done. Either the Senate will have to give this subcommittee the jurisdic- tion that a special committee needs for investigative purposes, give it legislative authority, and authority to cover all the jurisdictional fields, or else, if the prob- Jem is to be handled a. I think it should be handled, then the Senate should once and for all set up a permanent special committee similar to the one in the House, and let it cooperate with the one in the House. Either give that commit- tee legislative authority, or else merely give it investigative authority, and let it continue to do the job for the small- business men of the country, on a per- manent basis. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grorcr in the chair). The time reserved by the Senator for himself has expired. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am authorized by the majority leader to take 15 minutes at this time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I merely want to say I have listened with great interest to the very eloquent re- marks just concluded by the minority leader. I also wish to say I am in entire accord with him on most of his state- ments today and I should like to con- gratulate him upon the eloquence he has displayed in presenting the arguments in support of a program for the solution of small-business problems. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to thank the Senator for that statement. Mr. MURRAY. I wish to say also that the Senator from Nebraska served on the original Small Business Committee set up in the Senate in 1940 under my chair- manship. When he came to the Sen- ate, he became a member of the com- mittee, and it did not take very long for him to become familiar with the work of the committee and to become one of its most active members. He cooper- ated completely with me as chairman of the committee throughout the time the committee was in existence. In fact, I do not know of any member of the com- mittee who was more energetic or more helpful in the programs we carried through. I recall with a great deal of interest how, when the Senator from Nebraska first began his activities on that committee and before he became
1928 familiar with the entire program, he listened very carefully to some of the speeches I made in the early hearings we held. Very soon I began to observe my good friend from Nebraska making the same speeches I had been making for a year or two before he arrived. So I felt highly complimented by the spirit of emulation he was displaying. He had a thorough erasp of the problem in- volved and was extremely helpful to the committee. On one particular occasion I had re- ceived great and enthusiastic applause for the arguments I was presenting on behalf of the program of the Small Busi- ness Committee. As chairman of the committee, I had the privilege of making the first speech. Therefore, I was in a very advantageous position over that of the Senator from Nebraska. I recall on one occasion he informed me he had another engagement and that he would like to have an opportunity to speak first. Very much to my surprise, I found he was making the same speech and pre- senting the same points that I had been making at several of the hearings we had held, but must confess his speech was much more eloquent than any I had made. He has today exhibited the same eloquence in behalf of his position on the question which is now before the Senate. I think if the Senate would leave this subject to the Senator from Nebraska and myself we could sit down as a committee of two and work out a program which, if the Senate would ac- cept it, would be highly satisfactory to the small-business men of the country. We are both convinced that there is real merit to our opposition to either a standing committee with legislative au- thority or a subcommittee of the Bank- ing and Currency Committee with the expanded jurisdiction which that com- mittee secks. I think the only proper course for the Senate is to adopt a reso- lution which will establish a small-busl. ness committee in exactly the same form in which the small-business committee was originally established. That com- mittee during the period in which it operated performed very valuable service for the small-business men of the Na- tion. The Senator from Nebraska will concede that. In fact, he has made sim- ilar statements on many occasions, After the Republicans became the ma- jority party in the Senate and the com- mittee was reestablished under the lead- ership of the Senator from Nebraska, I cooperated with him to the fullest de- gree in all his activities in connection with it, and I do not want it understood that I have ever undertaken to criticize the Senator or to intimate that he failed in any respect to perform effective serv- ice for the small-business men of the country. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Iam sorry I did not hear all the Senator said, but as one who is in sympathy with the small-busi- ness men in their problems, I should like to ask the Senator whether a small-bust- ness committee with authority to recom-~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mend legislation, would not be, in the opinion of the Senator, and based on his experience, more harmful to small business than it would be helpful? Mr. MURRAY. I think it would be. In the first place, we could not define the jurisdiction of a standing committee with legislative authority without encroaching upon all the other committees which are already established. It would create vast confusion and diffi ulties for the legis- lative work of the Senate. I think the only thing to do is to proceed as in the past with a committee without legisla- tive authority, because it has been dem- onstrated in the Senate by the small- business committee which operated for a number of years that it is not neces- sary to have legislative power. Action can be taken quickly and effectively without that authority. Mr. SALTONSTALL. In Massachu- setts where there are many small busi- nesses, certain interests may not want small industries to develop. Small in- dustries of that character could come before a committee such as that which the Senator recommends and could re- ceive its best judgment, and, if neces- sary, the committee could make recom- mendations to other committees regard- ing legislation. Mr. MURRAY. That is exactly true and it is the way in which the Small Business Committee has always oper- ated heretofore. Many small-business concerns representing various industries came before us. I remember that rep- resentatives of the baking industry and various other industries of the Nation came before us, for the reason that very often small-business concerns, as a re- sult of the war, found they were unable to continue in business and were facing bankruptcy unless they could get some relief through the Small Business Com- mittee. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator one more question? Mr, MURRAY. Certainly. Mr. SALTONSTALL. If the Senate in its wisdom does not recommend the establishment of such a committee, is it the opinion of the Senator from Mon- tana that the matter should be left as it is until another session of the Con- gress? Mr. MURRAY. No. I think that would be a great mistake, because small- business concerns are facing a very serious situation at the present moment. We are now in a buyer’s market, and small-business concerns in many lines of industry have developed problems and are in a desperate situation. It seems to me that it would be a serious mistake if the Conrress of the United States failed to recognize the conditions which exist in the country at this time and should fail to establish a committee before which businessmen could appear and present their difficulties. A few days ago a couple of representatives of the Auto- mobile Dealers’ Association called on me at my office and told me they were facing very serious conditions in the coming year and were very anxious to ascertain what we were going to do with reference to setting up a small-business commit- FEBRUARY 20 tee, because they desired to present their problems to that committee when it was established. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Senator. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. CAIN. As I understand, the health and welfare of smal] business throughout the country are now con- sidered and protected, so far as the Sen- ate is concerned, by a Small Business Subcommittee of the Banking and Cur- rency Committee. I know that many Members of this body would appreciate it if the Senator would point out pre-~ cisely the weaknesses in the subcommit~ tee approach to the problems of small business. Mr. MURRAY. I have no desire to make any criticism of the Banking and Currency Subcommittee. I have no de- sire to criticize the position of any Sen- ator of the United States with reference to position he takes in favor of one or the other of these courses. I am sup- porting the idea of a special committee because I know from past experience that it has been a successful method of mect- ing the problems of small business. So far as the Banking and Currency Com- mittee is concerned, I must confess that I am not entirely familiar with what it has accomplished. I know of one or two matters on which it has worked. For instance, it undertook to hold hearings on labor monopoly and conducted some investigations along that line and had witnesses appear before it, Finally, it was discovered that it did not have juris- diction over the problem, and it was turned over to the Judiciary Committee. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. I communicated with the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Mc- Carran] and said, “This is in your juris- diction. Shall we go ahead and hold hearings?” ‘The Senator from Virginia (Mr. RosBertson]} received permission be- fore hearings were held. Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for that, information. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one further question? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. CAIN. Is the senior Senator from Montana prepared to say that the small- business subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency is not proper- ly qualified to protect the best interests of American small business or that the subcommittee is presently doing an in- adequate job? Mr. MURRAY. No. I think the mem- bers of the full committee on Banking and Currancy and of its subcommittee are men of unusual ability. I have no criticism to make of any member of the committee. I think they are fully quali- fied to undertake any problem or study of any problem that may come before the Senate. I feel, however, that it is wrong to continue to turn this problem over to a subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee, because our experience has been that to hand it over to a committee which has limited juris- diction would not be as wise as it would I thank the
1950 be to refer it to a committee established especially for the purpose of handling small-business problems. That is the only criticism I have to make of the pro- cedure of the subcommittee of the Bank- ing and Currency Committee. The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. ‘WuHerryl], during the course of his re- marks, went into that subject in con- siderable detail, and I am in entire ac- cord with him on this matter. Mr. CAIN. I should like to point out that small business generally, insofar as its contacts with the Banking and Cur- rency Committee are concerned, ap- pears to be duly appreciative of the fine work which that committee has done in connection with the problems of small business, and those from whom I have eard think it is an adequate place for the problem to be considered. Mr. MURRAY. Every Senator is en- titled to his own judgment and opinion on these questions, and I do not have any quarrel with the position Senators take, but I want to point out that at the present time small business is in a more desperate situation than it has been in at any other time in its history. When we established the original committee in 1940 it was because of the conditions small business had gone through during the period of the depression. Thousands of small-business concerns folded up dur- ing that period, It finally became such an important issue in the Nation that the National Democratic Party, at its 1940 Convention, adopted a platform plank approving the establishment of a special committee on small business in the Congress. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Following what the Senator from Washington [Mr. Carn] has said, do I understand cor- rectly that the Senator from Montana objects to the Small Business Subcom- mittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency because it has too narrow a scope? Mr. MURRAY. Yes; that is true. Mr. SALTONSTALL, If the subcom- mittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency finds that a matter is not with- in its jurisdiction, can it not set forth all the facts and give those facts to one of the other committees of the Senate? Mr, MURRAY. Yes, but it would be irregular, it seems to me, for the sub- committee to be undertaking constantly the study of subjects which are not with- in its own jurisdiction. It would un- necessarily take up the time of the com- mittee, which is one of the most impor- tant committees in the Senate. It has very important duties to perform. If they undertake to go over the whole field of small business in the United States, determine what is wrong with small business, and what it is necessary to do in order to preserve it in our sys- tem of enterprise, the members of the committee will find that they have too much work to do, and they will neglect some of the other important functions which they have to perform. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. CAIN. I should like to point out that the Chair has informed us that the Banking and Currency Committee has the major interest in the affairs of small business, and it is for that reason that it is currently handling the problems of small business through a subcommittee, Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, that statement has been made many times, but I should like to say that it is not en- tirely correct. The committee does not have jurisdiction over the major prob- lems of small business, by any means. There are four or five other important committees of the Senate which have functions to perform with reference to small business just as important as those performed by the Banking and Currency Committee. That is true even of the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs. Very few people would think, at first blush, that that committee should consider matters in connection with small-business problems. Yet it has im- portant functions to perform in that field. Mr. THYE. Mr. Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I will yield for a ques- tion. Mr. THYE. I should like to commend the Senator from Montana for the splendid work which he and the Senator from Nebraska |[Mr. WHERRY] have done in behalf of the small-business men not only of my State, but of the entire Na- tion. Long before I came to the Senate I was familiar with the splendid work of the Small Business Committee, and I was familiar also with how the small- business men throughout the State of Minnesota appreciated what was being done for them by the Small Business Committee. I certainly hope that this committee may continue to function in the same menner in which it functioned during the time it was designated an in- dependent Small Business Committee, So again I say that I commend not only the able Senator from Montana but the junior Senator from Nebraska for hav-~ ing fought for the continuance of the life of the Small Business Committee in order that it may continue to do the splendid work which it has been doing. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his very generous remarks. I think what he has said is absolutely true. I recall many small-business concerns in the State of Minnesota that made splen- did contributions to war production dur- ing the war. I cannot recall the names now, but I remember one organization in the State of Minnesota which suc- ceeded in taking a subcontract for the manufacture of some materials which were being used in the war, and it cut the price almost in half because of its efficiency. Mr, THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. THYE. If time would permit we could certainly go into the splendid record made by the small-business men of Minnesota and of many of the other Northwestern States. They made an excellent contribution in assisting with their subcontracts some of the larger President, will the 1929 firms in the East and in other industrial sections of the country. They could have accomplished that and fulfilled those contracts only through the assist- ance of a committee such as the Small Business Committee. Mr. MURRAY. That is absolutely correct, There can be no question about it. The committee was responsible in a very large measure for the tremendous volume of production during the war, because we mobilized thousands and thousands of small concerns throughout the United States which would have gone bankrupt if it had not been for the activities of this committee. We held hearings in Washington and in other parts of the country and brought the businessmen before us. We caused the procurement agencies of the Govern- ment to set up small-business units in their various departments in order to try to bring these small concerns into successful operation in fighting the war. We had over 2,500 business concerns scattered all over the western part of the United States working, in connec- tion with the Navy, out of Mare Island. The Navy presented its E award to a number of these concerns for the excel- lence of their work in that regard, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Montana has expired. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, on Friday last the majority leader said he would yield me 10 minutes, and if the time of the Senator from Montana has expired, I should like to have some time. I wish to discuss for a short time the question now pending before the Senate. I would not question the sincerity of any Senator who makes an honest effort in behalf of small-business men. I would protest their motives, however, should they prove to be nothing more than a cloak of do-goodism enshrouding base political ambitions. My feelings would be the same regardless of the Senator’s party affiliation. Hear me well, Mr. President and Senators. I know my remarks will not change any votes in this Chamber to- day, but tn anticipation of what is going to take place here at 4 o'clock, there will be a record of my caution which will be of little consolation in the coming con- gressional elections, and especially in 1952. The vote here this afternoon will not be a record of either political party. It will be a record of politics, The pending proposal] is not an attempt to help small business. I appreciate as much as does any other Senator that the small-business men of the Nation do need help and that it is necessary for them that legislative action be taken by the House and the Senate, but I cannot see how a special committee of the Senate, or an investigating com- mittee, can in any way relieve them from the plight in which they now find them- selves, I am anxious to observe the future voting record of Senators on small-busi- ness legislation. I intend to report some legislation from the Banking and Cur- rency Committee which will give the do- gooders a chance to stand up and be counted. It will be before November, too.
1930 The small-business men of this Na- tion have been so taunted with lip serv- ice that they have become calloused to campaign promises. Even Government departments and agencies have failed in their pledges. I wish to make it clear that many of the bills, amendments, and other meas- ures, intended to relieve small business, have been referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, but that commit- tee has never gotten the proper coopera- tion from the agencies of the Govern- ment. In many instances, they have not even approved of legislative proposals which have been sent to the Senate, and in some instances they even threatened adverse legislation. So, regardless of some of the things we may or may not do in the House or Senate, I say, as Chair- man of the Committee on Banking and Currency, that, certainly since I have been chairman, we have not received full cooperation from the Government agencies in an effort to help small busi- ness, not only through legislation, but in many instances by action taken by the departments. It has been necessary for us to change some of the laws. It was necessary last year, when we were considering the continuance of controls on steel, and continuance of export con- trols—which we later abolished—on cot- tonseed, oils, and other commodities af- fecting many of the small-business inter- ests throughout the country. We did not get proper cooperation from the depart- mental agencies until after we brought the matters to the floor of the Senate. On the basis of studies and investiga- tions made by the Small Business Sub- committee of the Banking and Currency Committee, I have been convinced of the necessity of certain legislative action. In deference to adverse reports by some of the departments, committee action was delayed on several bills during the past session. I think the Congress should now have an opportunity either to support this lip service, or brand it for what it 1s, and offer some practical help. Now let us have a look at the record of gross inconsistencies. The majority leadership is flip-flopping to the support of a group of well-organized and highly vocal lobbyists who are clamoring for the creation of a special small-business com- mittee. I say that, Mr. President, be- cause I have received telegrams from these lobbyists. I have sent their names to the Secretary’s office, where they are supposed to be recorded. We criticized the Republicans vigor- ously in the Eightieth Congress for doing this very thing. In January 1947 when the question of renewing the life of the Smal! Business Special Committee was before the Sen- ate, administration leaders in this body, with unsurpassed logic, mercilessly flayed the Republican leadership which was at- tempting to create a special committee. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 was then sacred in our administra- tion leaders’ eyes. The then senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Hatch, who is now a Fed- eral judge, told this body that he would welcome the opportunity of standing be. fore a court to prove that the intent of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Legislative Reorganization Act was to do away with special committees. He pointed out the reason, intelligence and knowledge of the conditions that existed before the Reorganization Act was passed all led to that conclusion. As he stated, “one may argue until he is black in the face that it was not intended to do away with special committees,” but the facts are to the contrary. The Joint Committee on the Organi- zation of Congress in its report deal- ing with the whole subject of congres- sional reorganization declared: We recommend that the practice of cre- ating special committees of investigation be abandoned. (No. 1011, 79th Cong., 2d sess, dated March 4, 1946 ) The La Follette-Monroney bill as passed by the Senate contained this pro- vision in section 126: No bill or resolution, and no amendment to any bill or regulation. to establish or to continue a special or select committee, in- cluding a joint committee, shall be received or considered in either the Senate or the House of Representatives The House deleted that provision from the bill, Representative MonronEy, who was in charge of the bill in the House, explained that this provision was more suitable for the Senate which was plagued with a great many special com- mittees. He pointed out further: It is a rash that has broken out there which practically destroys the continuity and the power of the standing committees. The then senior Senator from Ken- tucky, Mr. BarKk.ey, arguing in 1947 against the establishment of a special committec, explained as follows the rea- son why the Senate concurred 1n 1946 in the House version: It (the bill) came buck to the Senate when we were on the verre of adjournment, and we almost had to accept the House amendment or get no legislation at all along that line. Several Members of this body made, in 1947, the most cloquent and convincing arguments that could be presented against the establishment of a special committee on small business. They were convincing because they were true. Thus, the present majority leader then Stated: I undertake to say that this resolution Goes violate the spirit of the La Follette- Monroney Act. I do not refer to what was said on the Inst day of the session, when practically every Member of the Senate had his bags packed, ready to go home. There was not time for debate or even a conference. Senator La Follette accepted the House version in order to get something But I refer to what was said when this matter was debated at length. There we find the statements and conclu- siors which will prove to every reasonable and prudent mind that the spirit of the Senate of the United States on special com- mittees, as expressed at that time, certainly is being violated by these particular resolu- tions (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Volume 93, Part 1, pp. 285, 286 ) Mr. President, those were the resolu- tions we adopted in 1947. On pages 285 and 286 of the CoNGRESSIONAL REcoRD, volume 93, part 1, will be found the re- FEBRUARY 20 marks of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas], which I have read. What, then, has happened to our side of the aisle? It is not a question of the job that has been done by the Banking and Currency Committee through its Subcommittee on Small Business, In fact, all references to the subcom- mittee’s work on this floor have been complimentary. The small-business men who have availed themselves of our services have been most complimentary over the excel- lence and the thoroughness of our efforts in their behalf. In fact, Fred A. Virkus, chairman, Conference of American Small Business Organizations, recently testified as follows: I know this subcommittee and the Bank- ing and Currency Committee are doing a better job for small business than has ever been done before, and personally I should like to see this jurisdiction over small busi- ness remain in this committee. (Hearings on Economic Power of Labor Organizations, p. 606.) What, then, has happened to Members on this side of the aisle? I will tell the Senate what has happened. Members on this side of the aisle are doing pre- cisely what they mercilessly criticized the Members on the other side of the aisle for doing in 1947. We are forget- ting logic. We are casting aside the fruit of years of research into the func- tioning of our legislative process. We are casting into the scrap heap the re- forms that flowed from those investiga- tions. And what will we get from this mess of pottage? We will get the same crop we reaped before the passage of the Reor- ganization Act. We wil) get inefficiency, waste, and duplication and confusion. The special committee will issue reams of reports that will be read by but few Sena- tors, as we are all so busy. It will intro- duce a large number of bills that will be referred mostly to our committee, and in part to others. Our committee will not take the word of others for the existence of the conditions stated, as it is our duty to investigate the facts before legislating. Hence, lengthy duplicate hearings will again be held. The Rules Committee and the Senate will be called upon to provide even more money so that the staffs of the standing committees may be enlarged in order to keep up with this new mass of recom- mendations from a committee with no legislative authority of its own. Mr. President, I would leave the Sen- ators with one further thought. Per- haps it would be well to simply repeal the Legislative Reorganization Act. Seriously, my colleagues, do not lose sight of the fact that it is our party's duty to adhere to the Reorganization Act. If we do not do so now, let us not weep when there again breaks out a rash of special committces for ‘’ool, for mines, for liquor, for gold, and for $3 bills, and for many others. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, in the absence of the majority leader I will take 10 more minutes. Before he left, the majority leader told me I could take that much time, if it was necessary for me to do so.
1950 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, one of the most important things for Members of this body to consider is the great change that has come over the country as the result of the growth of big busi- ness and monopoly, and how it affects small-business concerns. Studies have been made of this situation in our coun- try, and many articles have appeared in Magazines and important newspapers dealing with the subject. I recall that back in the depression period it was shown that while all of small business was in a highly competitive situation and was not able to survive in that period, the big-business concerns were able to continue and to make progress, even though the country was in one of the most serious depressions we ever wit- nessed. Al! during the depression years the major corporations of the United States made satisfactory profits. In 1937 the major companies of the country made more profits than they did in 1929, which was the highest period of American prosperity. That was due to the fact that they were able to curtail production and raise prices and continue to operate successfully, while all the small-business concerns were in a state of intense competition and were not able to meet the conditions which had come upon them. Mr. President, I shall refer to an ar- ticle taken from Fortune magazine of March 1938, in which the situation I have described was discussed. The article shows how American business had changed over the years, and how we were rapidly becoming a collectivist economy in this country. The article says: Thus collectivism in industry begets col- lectivism in government. And if this is not collectivism as practiced In the so-called col- lectivist states, it is only a couple of theoretic steps removed from it. Carried to its ex- treme, it means the downfall of the economy upon which American business has been reared; the perversion of the democratic or- der; the destruction of the right to risk and profit, and—all too easily—the loss of those civil Nberties that are at present based upon the principle of the limitation of govern- mental power. That article shows what a serious situ- ation is confronting this country, and how important it is for the Senate to set up a special committee which will make small-business problems its chicf con- cern, and work out ways and means of aiding small business to survive in this desperate period. I submit that the mat- ter is very important. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the Rrecorp a statement from a book entitled “People and Power,” published by William Mor- row & Co. of New York, in 1947. The book is written by Harvey Ferguson. There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the REc- orp, as follows: The effort here is to understand the psy- chology of conservative citizens and it cannot be understood without considering the fact that all of them have lived their whole lives in the world of laissez faire, and that the alternation of boom and slump was typically, for a hundred years, to those who own the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE means of production, both a means to wealth and & means to power, More individual for- tunes have been made by speculation than by production, and speculation depends upon the wide swing in values which only the business cycle can produce. Every great bull market requires first a great bear market where those who have can buy cheap. Every real-estate boom is preceded by a period in which a great deal of real estate passes from the little fellow to the big one. No doubt, every lender hates to foreclose a mortgage, but during the great depression thousands of small property owners were closed out and their holdings were later resold at enormous profits The business cycle has played an essential part in a process of expropriation which has been concentrating American wealth in fewer and fewer hands for gencra- tions. The process is even more dendly to the little entrepreneur than it fs to the wage earner, who has nothing to lose but the fat on his ribs. So the defense of free pri- vate enterprise, as carried on in the halls and lobbies of Congress by organizations repre- senting vested interest, has, as a matter of fact, been a means of destroying the prime essential of freedom of economic enterprise a8 & mass condition, for that essential is ac- cess to some means of production (Ferguson, Harvey, People and Power, pp. 48-49, Wil- liam Morrow & Co., New York, 1947). Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I also wish to call attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Standard Oil Co. against United States, which was decided on June 13, 1949, in an opinion written by Mr. Justice Douglas. The opinion refers to the concentration of industrial power in the hands of a few. I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt from the opinion may be printed in the REcorp, at this point. There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The increased concentration of industrial power in the hands of a few has changed habits of thought. A new age has been in- troduced. It is more and more an age of monopoly competition Monopoly competi- tion is a regime of friendly alliances, of quick and easy accommodation of prices even without the benefit of trade associations, of what Brandeis said was euphemistically called cooperation While this is not true in all fields, it has become alarmingly ap- parent in many. The lessons Brandeis taught on the curse of bigness have largely been forgotten in high places. Size is allowed to become a menace to existing and putative competitors Price control is allowed to escape the influences of the competitive market and to gravitate into the hands of the few But beyond all that there is the effect on the community when independents are swallowed up by the trusts and entrepreneurs become employees of ab- sentee owners. Then there is a serious loss in citizenship. Local Ieadership is diluted. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. CAIN. May I inquire of the Sen- ator from Montana if from the material he has he can insert something which criticizes the inadequacy of the present Small Business Subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee of the Senate, in order that independently minded Senators may judge whether or not what we are doing is inadequate for the task of the future, in order that we can give better consideration to the pro- posal offered by the Senator from Mon- ana 1931 Mr. MURRAY. Quite naturally, no criticisms have been made by major magazines, because they have never made any study of the subject. I doubt if any of them really know about the activities of the subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee. Very many busi- nessmen of the country do not know that such a subcommittee exists. Therefore, no public criticism has been made of it. I could not make any criticism of it. I think the subcommittee wants to do the best job it possibly can, but I do not think it is an effective way to meet the problems affecting small business. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair how much time I have re- maining. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 52 minutes and the Senator from Nebraska has 46 minutes, the Chair is advised. Mr. LUCAS. I yield 20 minutes to the S2nator from Florida [Mr. Hotzanp |. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield several minutes to me? Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield a portion of my 20 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I wish to say to the Senate now that the small-business men who have availed themselves of our services have been most complimentary over the excellence and thoroughness of our efforts in their behalf. In fact, Mr. Fred A. Virkus, who is chairman of the American Small Busi- ness Organizations, recently testified as follows: I know this subcommittee and the Bank- ing and Currency Committee are doing 4& better job for small business than has ever been done before, and personally I should like to see this jurisdiction over small busi- ness remain in this committee. Mr. President, I read that quotation merely because I wanted those who have worked so faithfully on the staff of the committee and the Senators who are members of that committee, and who have given of their time to its work, to have that acknowledgment of the value of their services placed in the Recorp, to- gether with the speech I have made. I am glad to have heard so Many com- plimentary remarks, even by some Sena- tors who may not. be on the floor today, made regarding the work the committee and its staff have done. J thank the Senator from Florida. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, as the junior Senator from Florida understands the situation, he has for his time the re- mainder of the 20 minutes yiclded to him by the Senator from Illinois | Mr. Lucas], and 40 minutes yielded to him by the Senator from Nebraska {Mr. WHERRyY]. Mr. President, I do not care to go over the same ground that I covered Friday afternoon in my argument on this sub- ject. However, there are two points which I think need to be accentuatcd at this stage of the argument, the first of which is to remind Secnators—and I wish more Senators were present in the Senate Chamber at this time—that this matter was very fully and ably argued to a conclusion, at least for the time being, in 1947, in the Eightieth Congress, and that the splendid arguments against the setting up of any special committee on
1932 small business, as then suggested by Senate Resolution 20, are to be found in the ConcressIoNnaL Recorp for that time, and it seems to me they still very clearly express a conviction on the part of the Democratic majority of this Congress, then the minority of the Eightieth Con- gress, against the creation of any spe- cial committee on small business or any other special committee, as being in con- travention of the spirit of the Reorgani- zation Act, and also as not being in ac- cord with the best interests of sound, economical, efficient, and democratic government, here in the Hal's of Con- gress. I have been impressed today while re- reading the arguments presented in the 1947 debate, and I wish time permitted me to read a larger portion of them into the Recorp at this point. I wish to comment that able Senators, who are still] Members of the Senate, took very strong positions against the adop- tion of the then pending measure, Scnaie Resolution 20, which was intended to reestablish a special committee on small business. The argument of the able senior Senator from Arizona |Mr. Hay- DEN] was very compelling on this point. The argument of the able senior Senator from Utah |Mr. THoMas] was one of the best I have ever heard him make The two arguments made by the able senior Senator from Maryland [Mr. Typinas] are full of good meat, and they Iced one to the very definite conclusion that it was against the interests of sound and well-organized legislative government to trespass against the spirit of the Re- organization Act by the adoption of a measure to sct up a Special committee on small business. The eble Senator from Arkansas IMr. McCLELLAN] argued the matter with great ability and distinction. The able Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas]. although he now takes a differ- ent position, at that time—as shown by his participation in the argument on several occasions—was strongly of the feeling that the special committee should not be reconstituted or set up again. The then serving minority leader, Mr. BarKLey, now the President of the Sen- ate, likewise argued this question ex- haustively at that time, and I shall quote briefly from his argument before I con- clude my remarks. The arguments against the setting up the Special Committee on Small Business were not solely heard, however, from Senators on this side of the aisle. On the contrary, two of the ablest arguments were made by Senators who sit upon the other side of the aisle. I refer to the Senator from New Hampshire |Mr. Tosey| and the Senator from Oregon {Mr. McrsE], both of whom made very able arguments against the setting up of a Special Committee on Small Busi- ness, against the breaking of the spirit and purpose of the Reorganization Act, and against the kind of confusion which they so ably pointed out would result by having the Senate again embark upon a course of action by which it would set up special committees running across the lines of jurisdiction of the general or standing committees. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, I believe every Member of the Senate knows that the Senator from Utah [Mr. THomas} is one of the ablest scholars in this body. In his ar- gument at that time, on January 15, 1947, I am impressed with the fact that he approached this question as a schol- ar, as a Student, as one who had partici- pated, as a member of the committee, in the work of the special joint committee from which came, as a result of its la- bors, the Congressional Reorganization Act. I shall not quote him at great length, but I certainly wish to quote some of the argument he made at that time. First, in giving the basis upon which he would discuss this subject, he said: Mr THomas of Utah. I should like to dis- cuss these questions on the high ground of the basic principles of good legislative or- ganization and udministration, without ref- erence to personal ambitions or partisan ad- vantage. Again, he spoke as follows: Speaking both as a close student of repre- sentative government and as an experienced practitioner of the political art, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the ulsic, and especially newcomers to the Senate, to con- sider the issue before us with open miuds and with a view to the long-run welfare and repute of the United States Senate. Mr. President, I should like to ap- proach the debate today on that same high plane. Again, the able Senator from Utah [Mr. THomas] spoke as follows: We know that the Congress is not the body to execute, it is not the body to admin- ister; but it is the body to direct. By resort to the expedicnt of special committees, Congress to a grent extent actually loscs control because of the independent way in which investigating committees set about and carry on their work without review by a standing committee of the Setate Later in his argument the able Sena- tor from Utah adopted the basic argu- ments as advanced by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse], and quoted them as expressing in large part his position on this very interesting subject. I shall read the points he stated, from 1 to 9, which the senior Senator from Utah stated in the course of his argument as an analysis of his attitude on the ques- tion and also of the attitude, in opposi- tion, of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] to the measure which would have set up a special committee for small business. The Senator from Utah then said: First. The jurisdiction of the standing committees has been so comprehensively de- scribed in the reformed rules as to cover every concelvable subject of legislation. Thus, to create a special committee 1s to trespass upon the assigned jurisdiction of some standing committee. How very true that is, Mr. President. The Senator from Utah further said: Second. The standing committees of the Senate have been authorized by the Legis- lative Reorganization Act to exercise con- tinuous oversight of the execution of the laws by the administrative agencies within their respective jurisdictions. They are being equipped with professional staffs and expert investigators to assist them in performing their oversight function and have been armed FEBRUARY 20 with the subpena power for this purpose. Hereafter the investigatory function of Con- gress should be performed by its standing committees which have been empowered and equipped for the purpose instead of relying upon special investigating committees which are sporadic in nature and cannot introduce legislation to give effect to their recommen- dations. Third. The reformed Senate rules limit Senators to service on two standing com- mittees each so that they can meet their leg- islative responsibilities more effectively. If, in addition, Senators are appointed to serve on special committees, the burdens of com- mittee work will be correspondingly multi- plled and the old evils of poor attendance and scattered attention will return. Fourth. Creation of one or two special committees now will pave the way for the establishment of a rash of special committees with inevitable duplication of the work of the standing committees and unnecessary large- scale expenditures. It might also lead to a revival ot the use of staff personnel borrowed from downtown departments with all the disadvantages of that practice. Fifth. Creation of special committees to deal with subjects already assigned to stand- ing committees will also be a burden to, and impair the efficiency of, the executive agen- cies of the Government by requiring their Officials to repeat their testimony on the same subjects before several committees of the Sonate. Sixth. Sporadic inquiries by select com- mittees lack continuity and fail to provide the members of standing committees with direct knowledge of the information gath- ered In cases where legislative action is indicated, standing committees find it neces- sary to do much of the work over again. Seventh. Special investigations should be conducted by subcommittees of the reor- ganized standing committecs having juris- diction of the subject matter involved. Thus, for example, inquiries into the condition of small business might well be assigned to a standing subcommittee of the Senate Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Eighth On June 10, 1946, the Senate ap- proved of the ban on special committees by a vote of 49 to 16 in passing the La Follette bill Ninth. Modernization of the congressional committee structure, achieved by the Legis- lative Reorganization Act, was the keystone in the arch of congressional reform. To set up a series of special committees now would be a regressive step that might lead to the ultimate destruction of this fundamental reform, Following those nine statements of the compelling reasons the Senator from Oregon |[Mr. Morse] had advanced against setting up special committees— reasons which were adopted by the Sen- ator from Utah |Mr. Tuomas], the S2n- ator from Utah continued his remarks by making the following statement: There is one further argument I should lke to add to the cogent statement of the distinguished Senator from Oregon While some special committees in the past have been “black sheep,” some truly progressive committees in recent years have made a major contribution to public understanding of our economic and social problems. I ap- plaud their achievements. But I say that all the advantages which are claimed for the special committee technique can now be en- joyed by our reorganized and newly staffed standing committees and their subcommit- tees, Armed with the power of subpena and staffed with expert investigators and em- powered to keep constant watch over the activities of the executive agencies within their jurisdiction, there is no reason why our great standing committees of the Senate
1950 should not serve the Congress and the coun- try as well as certain outstanding special committees have done in the past. That ends my quotation from the re- marks made at that time by the Senator from Utah (Mr. Tuomas], Mr. President. While I am on this point, though, I should like to put in the Recorp one of the various quotations which might be given from the able arguments of the Senator from Illinois who, as I said a while ago, participated, not once, but several times in the debate, though he now takes the contrary position. For instance, I quote from page 345 of volume 93, part 1, of the permanent Con- GRESSIONAL Recorp, the following state- ment then made by the senior Senator from Illinois: I am further told that General Gregory appeared one day before a special committee of the Senate and was kept practically all day before that committee giving testimony; that the following day he appeared before another committee of the Senate, giving the same testimony; and the third day he was summoned to the House of Representatives to give the same testimony over there on sur- plus property. That is an example of what the Senator 1s talking about—taking the time of important men in tle executive branch of the Government of the United States and constantly bringing them before committees to go over the same subject- matter time and time again. If the Reor- ganization Act functions as the Senate said it should function in the debates we had when we passed the bill, when the time comes for these men from the executive branch of the Government to come to the Hill to testify, they can go before either one full committee or a subcommittee of a full committee. Then we shall eliminate the duplication of effort, waste of time, and waste of manpower which was unavoidable under the system which existed when we had special investigating committees. I want to reread into the REcorp, as the advice of the Senate at that time, this verdict of the able Senator from Illinois, who then urged: Then we shall eliminate the duplication of effort, waste of time, and waste of muan- power which was unavoidable under the sys- tem which existed when we had special in- vestigating committees. I wonder whether the distinguished Senator from Illinois is now of the opin- ion that some other conclusion was a sound one. However, this is the latest expression of his considered thinking that I have seen, and it is to the effect iat duplication of effort, waste of time, waste of manpowe’, is inevitable under the system which existed when we had special investigating committees. Mr. President, the able minority leader at that time, now the Vice President, in concluding the argument of this point before the Senate on the occasion which I mentioned used the following words: Mr. President, in the interest of efficiency, economy, and orderly legislation, it seems to ame to be common sense to refer to the com- mittee having jurisdiction of substantive legislation the investigation necessary to bring out the facts which will show what legislation is needed; for, in the absence of legislation, neither the Small Business Com- mittee nor any other committee can for very long do any legislative business or any other kind of business, because we must give our attention to the law, and not to XCVI——122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE an effort to substitute a committee of Con- gress for an executive department, whether it be the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, or any other agency which deals with the financial set-up of businoss whether it be large or small. I go back to say it seems to mce—and I paraphrase the Vice President, then the senior Senator from Kentucky—it seems to me still to be common sense to refer to the committee having jurisdic- tion of substantive legislation, the in- vestigation necessary to bring out the facts which will show what legislation is needed. Mr, President, not only was this the position taken by the distinguished lead- ers on this side of the aisle, but I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that when the votes were taken on this measure, it appeared that all but three Members among the Democrats in the Senate at that time voted to stand by their then leader, the then distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky; and also by the distinguished senior Senator from Tllinois, the whip at that time; and that with three exceptions, on both yea-and- nay votes taken on that legislation, first upon the so-called Tobey amendment, and, second, on the adoption of the reso- lution, there were only three Democrats then sitting in the Senate who did not go with the leadership and with the other leading Democrats, who had voiced their extreme disapproval of the custom and practice of setting up special commit- tees, and of the cfficiency of such a sys- tem. I may say those three include the senior Senator from Montana, who is consistent in his continued opposition on the floor of the Senate. He is the only one who has been consistent, I may say, and I think, in passing, we should all compliment him upon his consistency. The other two brethren among the Dem- ocrats who joined him in 1947 are no longer on the floor of the Senate. They were the then Senator from Texas, Mr. O’Daniel, and the then Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Stewart. So that the only Senator now serving as a Democrat who then took that position is the dis- tinpwuished Senator from Montana, who quite consistently maintains his posi- tion; which, however, flew in the face of the party’s position taken by his lead- ership, and followed by nearly all mem- bers of the Democratic minority. The VICE PRESIDENT. Thce time of the Senator has expired. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator another 5 minutes. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes more. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I may say I have 40 minutes of the time of the Senator from Nebraska, I do not think the Senator heard me when I made that statement when I started. I shall be glad to yield for a question. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator yielded 17 minutes, which expired. There is no record at the desk of the 40 min- utes referred to. 1933 Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Nebraska was called from the Chamber, but he told me before he left to an- nounce that he had yielded me 40 min- utes of his time. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the Sen- ator has been talking about inconsist- ency. Does the Senator from Florida believe he has been consistent in con- nection with this matter? Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Florida thinks he has been entirely con- sistent, and, since the question has come up, I wonder—— Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Florida yield to the Sen- ator from Illinois? Mr. HOLLAND. I wonder whether it might be interesting to read a question which was addressed by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] to the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Fercuson] during the course of the debate. If ever in- consistency existéd, it is the present an- nounced position of the Senator from Illinois, as contrasted to his position taken in this question. I read the ques- tion, further-— Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I will gladly yield after I get through reading the question propounded in the debate in 1947 by the senior Senator from Illinois to the Sena- tor from Michigan [Mr. Fereuson] in these words: So that brings me back to the same ques- tlon-~ The Senator from Illinois was talking to the Senator from Michigan— namely, if the Senator was so determined last year to eliminate special committees, and he voted to do so, and he played a part in doing so by his vote here in the Senate, it is difficult for the Senator from Illinois to understand the change of heart and mind overnight of the able Senator from Michigan. That is the exact quotation taken from the debate at that time, which might be paraphrased now, to phrase this question addressed to the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas1: If the Senator was so determined last year to eliminate special committees, which he was, and he voted to do so—and he did— and he played a part in doing so by his vote here in the Senate—which of course is a matter of record—it is difficult for the Senator from Florida to understand the change of heart and mind overnight of the able Senator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Docs the Senator from Flcrida yield to the Sena- tor from Illinois? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Flor- ida introduced in the Senate a joint res- olution cosponsored by the Senator from Nebraska, asking the Senate to create a standing Committee for Sriall Business. Has not the Senator retreated from that position? Mr. HOLLAND, I am glad to answer the question. In the first place, the Sen- ator from Nebraska had nothing to do
1934 with the drafting of the joint resolution. It was drawn by the junior Senator from Florida. Mr. LUCAS. Will the Senator answer my question? Mr. HOLLAND. In the next place, the fenator from Florida introduced it, thinking that a standing committee clothed with full authority could best handle the matter. Mr. LUCAS. But the Senator has re- treated from that position, has he not? Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator has re- treated, in this respect only—— Mr. LUCAS. Well Mr. HOLLAND. And if the distin- guished Senator will allow me now to state my position, I think he will have the information he so ardently desires. Mr. LUCAS. I have been talking about—— Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I do not yield until I have answered the ques- tion. The fact of the matter 1s this: The question came up in the caucus of our party, at which time our leader knows full well the majority refused to give to him a verdict on this that he could change his position or change the position of the party, because no such action was taken. But it became clearly apparent to the junior Senator from Florida, as it was to everyone who was there, that the chairmen of the several committees of the Senate were unwilling to accede to the giving of jurisdiction in this matter to a standing committee, be- cause they could not feel at this time that they would know exactly how far it would go, about cutting across lines of their jurisdiction. It became So evident, that the majority of the leaders here on this side, excluding the Senator from Illinois, who, as I recall, made no expression at that time upon the subject, that the ma- jority of the leaders, the chairmen of the committees, were not willing to give their approval, and it became very evident that the resolution as first introduced by me could not pass. Therefore, taking the next best course, he is turning to the Committee on Banking and Currency which has been found by the verdict of the Senate, through a vote of 57 to 20, to be the committce which has dominant jurisdiction in the field of small business; I am trying now to five to the committee not only the legislative authority which it has already, but sufficient investiga- torial authority, without disturbing at all thcir legislative authority, so that they can more effectively cover this particular business: and I may say that in order to have a better tie-in with other commit- tees which have a stake in small business, my proposed amendment suggests that, for instance, a member of the Commit- tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be assigned as an extra, an added and ex officio member to the Committee on Banking and Currency, on matters effecting small] business; likewise, that a member of the Committee on the Judi- ciary, which has to do with antitrust leg- islation, which affects small business so vitally; HMkewise, a member from the Committee on Finance, which affects all tax matters that bear upon small busi- ness; leaving it to five additional com- mitteemen, coming from committees CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE where the best experienced members can be found, in the hope that small busi- ness will be better satisfied with that ar- rangement than it has proved it has been satisfied with the present situation in which a subcommittee of the Commit- tee on Banking and Currency has han- dled the matter. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The only reason the Senator from Illinois rose was to ask the distinguished Senator from Florida with reference to consistency and inconsist- ency. The Senator made a long speech after I asked him the question. The only thing I am asking is this: Is it not a fact that the Senator has retreated from his previous position, and is that not an in- consistent position? Mr. HOLLAND. Not in the slightest. Mr. LUCAS. Why did not the Scna- tor approve the original resolution? Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask to be protected against the assaults which are being leveled against me. Mr. LUCAS. I apologize to the Sena- tor if he thinks I am leveling any assaults against him. Mr. HOLLAND. I accept the Sena- tor’s apology and shall be happy to state my position again, as I stated it on Fri- day. I should be glad to continue to fight for a standing Small Business Com- mittee with legislative powers to deal with the affairs of small-business men, were that possible. Seeing I cannot get that, Iam willing to stand for the next best thing, which is to lodge the jurisdic- tion in a standing committee, a commit- tee which has the great preponderance of interest in the affairs of small business. The Senator cannot claim that I have abandoned my position, because, to the contrary, I stated on Friday that if I thought there were a chance for the res- olution to be adopted, I would support it. I am not guilty of the type of in- consistency displayed by my friend from Illinois, who, after twitting the Senator from Michigan with being inconsistent in having adopted an entirely different position from the one he had taken the year before, now finds that the question be leveled at the Senator from Michi- gan is when addressed to him now impos- sible of being answered, because it clear- ly shows the complete inconsistency of the present position of the Senator from Illinois as measured against his position in 1947, 1948, and 1949. So, Mr. President, if I may proceed with my statement—— Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. HOLLAND. Not at the moment. I am operating on limited time. When I finish my statement, if I have any time remaining, I shall be very happy to yield. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. HOLLAND, I cannot yield now. I shall be happy to yield when I have concluded my statement, The first point, Mr. President, is that the majority leader has deserted his par- ty, the shepherd has deserted his flock, and now, in spite of the fact that juris- diction has been conferred upon another FEBRUARY 20 committee, an excellent committee, the Committee on Banking and Currency, to do the job, and it has been trying to do it, the Senator wants to establish a dupli- cate authority, a special committee on small business, to interfere with and encumber the work and the labors now being performed by the Committee on Banking and Currency. That brings me, Mr. President, to the second part of my remarks, and I ask that Senators follow them very closely. In February 1949, the Senate ruled that the Committee on Banking and Currency had the predominant jurisdic- tion over legislation affecting small busi- ness. A little bit later, on May 6, 1949, the Senate adopted Senate resolution 101 which following out the decision al- ready made by the Senate as to where the major jurisdiction lay, turned over to the Banking and Currency Committee not any additional legislative jurisdic- tion, because that was carefully safe- guarded under an amendment offered by my friend, the senior Senator from Colo- rado [Mr. JoHNson], whom I see here, but full investigative duties and func- tions. That resolution, which was agreed to on May 8, 1949, was the verdict of the Democratic Senate to the effect that that committee was the proper place in which such an investigation should take place. Mr. President, I want vo read into the ReEcorD at this time, in order that it may be crystal clear that what we did was done by deliberation and was done in such a way as to really vest investigative authority in the Banking and Currency Committee, Senate Resolution 101: Resolved, That the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed during the Eighty-first Congress, until February 15, 1950, to make a full and complete study and investigation of such problems as it may deem proper, relating to small business, including (A) problems threatening the continued existence of small business enterprises, (B) financial aid to small business enterprises, (C) financial ald to veterans operating small business enter- prises, and (D) adequacy of Reconstruction Finance Corporation loan authority and ex- tensions thereof. Further, Mr. President, the budget at- tached to the report on the resolution showed $30,000 out of a total of $60,000 appropriated out of the contingent fund of the Senate was earmarked to serve in this investigation in the fleld of smatl business. Not only was that action taken on May 6, 1949, but in this particular year, On February 9, Senate Resolution 218 came on to be acted upon, and it pro- posed that the authority of the Banking and Currency Committee and its sub- committee, as provided for in Senate Resolution 101, be continued until Feb- ruary 15, 1951. Mr. President, not only was that done through the passage of the resolution, but if Senators will take the time to refer to the report attached thereto, they will find that a substantial additional sum of money was assigned to small-business investigations, raising the figure from $30,000 to approximately $45,000, to be expended in the investigations for the protection of small business. The report shows that antitrust litigation has al-
1950 ready been brought in pursuance of some of the committee’s recommendations, It shows that the committee has effec- tively served small business in many par- ticulars, and the testimony filed by the distinguished Senator from South Caro- lina [Mr. Mayank], the chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee, shows the approving reaction of various small- business men and small-business groups to the type of service which the com- mittee has rendered. But the point Iam making, Mr. Presi- dent, is that the Senate has acted. It acted last year and again this year, and has committed itself until February 15, 1951, to a course of investigation of the affairs of small business which is now being conducted by a highly trained and extensive staff, with all the facilities needed, and it is going on regardless of whether the Senate skall look with ap- proval upon the suggestions made by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY] or the Senator from Montana [Mr. Mur- RAY]. Regardless of whether their sug- gestions shall prevail, that activity will continue until February 15, 1951. What a request to make to the Senate of the United States, when we are all economy-minded. What a request to make to the Senate of the United States to slap at a good committee which is rendering good service in the perform- ance of a direction given to it by the whole body of the Senate, and to try to establish a special committee—whether standing or for the length of the session makes no difference—with authority to investigate the same field, with the ne- cessity of establishing a new staff and providing for new expenditures, and of duplicating the whole field of service. I cannot believe that my friends, the Sen- ator from Montana and the Senator from Nebraska, who have made contrast- ing suggestions and who, I understand, will offer substitutes, have really thought through the position in which they would put the Senate of the United States if their suggestions should prevail, and if, instead of having a single duly consti- tuted authority to represent the Senate in the investigation of small-business matters, we establish an additional one. We would have a second horn of the di- lemma, with conflicting and competing staffs and expenditures. They have sug- gested something which is nothing more nor less than duplication and which seeks to do nothing more nor less than to give affront to a committee which I think has rendered good service. For the information of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] I say that that committee should have full authority, but it does not have it because we cannot give new legislative authority to stand- ing committees because of the attitude in the Senate at this time. So, the best we can do is to give it investigative author- ity—— Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. please. Iam not a member of the Banking and Currency Committee. I was a member of the Small Business Committee for 2 yerrs. I found it was helpless to func- tion properly because it had no legisla-~ In just a moment, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tive authority. It was completely emas- culated as to any authority which any committee needs to carry through its rec- ommendations and convictions. There- fore, what I shall say with reference to the Banking and Currency Committee is not a personal matter in any way, but I heard suggestions made on the floor of the Senate on Friday to the effect that small-business men felt they were going before a group of glassy-eyed bankers when they came before the members of the Banking and Currency Committee. Mr. President, the members of that committee are Members of the Senate, just as are the rest of us who are assigned to other committees. It so happens, whether our friends who made the sug- gestion realize it or not, that the mem- bership of the Banking and Currency Committee very peculiarly falls within the group of Senators which has shown the greatest sympathy for the problems of small business. For instance, there are three members of the Banking and Currency Committee who were members of the Special Small Business Commit- tee, namely, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Tayor], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. CapeHart], and the Senator from Wash- ington |Mr. Cain]. In addition to those, there are two members of that commit- tee, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone! and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Dovuctas] who by their unyielding atti- tude in the protection of small] business with reference to the basing-point bill, Senate bill 1008, have won the particular estecm and affection of the small busi- ness groups of this Nation. Yet it 1s sug- gested that in the Banking and Currency Committee there is an unsympathetic backercund for the rendition of real serv- ice to small business. I could continuc with my reference to the members of the special committee, For instance, there is the Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLanpvenrs!, whose kindly, sympathetic attitude toward small busi- ness has marked everything he has done since he came to the Senate. There is the Senator from A:kKansas |Mr. Fut- BRIGHT], who is even now conducting an investigation in an effort to make the RFC more sympathetic in its considera- tion of loans requested by small business. Mr. President, we can look at the whole membership of that committee. I apolo- gize because time does not permit my mentioning the other members. Every member of that committee should be an acceptable person to small business for the handling of its complaints and con- sideration of its legitimate needs. So it seems to me, Mr. President, we should not be doing somcthing which would seem rather ridiculous in the present state of our economy and in the present state of our overwork. To assign a new group of 12 or 13 Senators to handle what would not only be a new field of activity for them, but a duplicate field of Senate ac- tivity, deprived of any legislative power at all, needing a new staff, with new ex- penditures, with all the organizational work which would be entailed, would be a complete disservice to small business, and a complete disservice to the Members of the Senate who would be called to that new responsibility. 1935 Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. Do I correctly understand the distinguished Senator from Florida to point out that under the Reorganization Act the Banking and Currency Committee has jurisdiction in that fleld? Mr. HOLLAND. It has a large part of the jurisdiction. The Senate de- cided, by upholding the ruling of the Chair, that the committee has the domi- nant jurisdiction in the fleld of small business. Mr. ROBERTSON. And that the Re- organization Act outlaws special com- mittees of the type here under discussion? Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct. Mr. ROBERTSON. The Banking and Currency Committee has set up a sub- committee, with a technical staff, which is successfully functioning, and doing its work in an economical way. Mr. HOLLAND. That is my belief. Mr. ROBERTSON. And under the so-called Murray plan there would be set up & new and competing committee, with authority to hold hearings in Washington and elsewhere in che United States? Mr. HOLLAND. Yes, and with au- thority to subpena witnesses and books, wherever they held hearings, in complete duplication and competition with the efforts of the Banking and Currency Committee, at least until February 15 of next year. Mr. ROBERTSON. Neither of the distinguished sponsors of the proposed legislation has told us what their com- mittee would cost in the event their pro- posed resolution were adopted. I assume it would be not less than $150,000. Mr. HOLLAND. I would not assume that, but I have noticed the reticence of the distinguished sponsors in that par- ticular regard. Mr.ROBERTSON. The distinguished Senator from Florida is proposing now to give a little further coverage, in line with the precedent already established, under which we bring, from the Com- mittee on Armed Services, or from the Committee on Public Works, or from some other committee, ex officio members into the Appropriations Committee when it has before it a bill dealing with a subject in the jurisdiction of one of those committees. Mr. HOLLAND. I pointed out in my argument on Friday that we would be following exactly the same course which we are following with such distinct suc- cess in the functioning of the Committee on Appropriations. We realize that the members of the Committee on Public Works have a background and knowledge concerning public works which have been authorized, and three members be- come ex officio members of the Commit- tee on Appropriations when the com- mittee is considering appropriations for public works. Similarly in the ficld of agriculture, in the ficld of armed serv- ices, and in other fields. Mr. ROBERTSON. I am not a mem- ber of the Subcommittee on Smail Busi- ness of the Committee on Banking and
1936 Currency, but I believe that the subcom- mittee is composed of as fine members as there are in the Senate. I have no ob- jection at all to the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Florida to add, when some particular subject is under consideration, an additional five ex officio members, and I shall support the Senator in that amendment. I cer- tainly hope that the other amendments will not be adopted, because I do not see how anyone who has sat on this floor and has spoken for economy and effi- ciency in business, as I have, can vote to set up two committees to do the same thing, with overlapping expenses, and with no assurance that the second com- mittee will be as good as the one we have Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Sena- tor. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Sen- ator from Montana. Mr. MURRAY. I merely wish to thank the Senator for his remarks with reference to my consistency. If the Senate had been equally consistent in handling this matter, we would not now have this problem before us. We would have kept the Committee on Small Busi- ness in operation. It was doing a splen- did job. Its termination was a great dis- appointment to every businessman in the United States. If there is any merit to consistency, I think we should have been consistent and kept that committee in existence. It is proposed now to have members representing five different standing committees participate with the Banking and Currency Committee in matters involving small-business prob- Jems. May I ask the distinguished Sena- tor whether that would include the Committeee on Interior and Insular Affairs? Mr. HOLLAND. It may. As I stated on Friday—and I believe the Senator remembers my statement—I suggested that three of the additional members should come, one each from the Commit- tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, from the Committee on Finance, and from the Committee on the Judiciary, which latter committee {s charged with the consideration of antitrust matters. As to the two additional members, I did not suggest from what committees they should come, because I think there are exceedingly able junior Senators who do not have heavy committee assignments, who may well be assigned to that com- mittee. I should like to mention the mame of the junior Senator from Con- necticut [Mr. BENTON] as fulfilling that description. I had previously talked to the Senator from Nebraska ({[Mr. Wuerry] and he said that that part of my suggestion was an excellent one, because he felt there were some Sena- tors on his side of the aisle whose success in business was outstanding, and who could make real contributions in this field. I should state, however, that the Senator did not agree with other portions of my suggestion, Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator with respect to new Members of the Senate, who would be very competent and able. In fact, I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE can think of no Member of the Senate who is better informed on small business problems than the new junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Benron], and if any committee is set up, I should like to see him serve on the committee, But I insist that the program the Senator from Florida offers is not a satisfactory program. I do not think it would oper- ate in a satisfactory manner, but that it would lead to confusion. It would require an amendment to the rules of the Senate, and it would change the sit- uation completely. Other committees would have a perfect right to come be- fore this body and insist on a similar pro- gram for their committees with refer- ence to some other segment of our eco- nomic problem. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, with all due deference to the Senator, I yielded for a question, and I should ap- preciate a question from him, if he has one. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator from Florida take the position now that the present Reorganization Act does not prohibit the creation of a special com- mittee? Mr. HOLLAND. Not technically, no. The Senate voted to prohibit the crea- tion of special committees. In the last minute work upon the bill in confer- ence the Senate conferees had to yield to the House, but the vote on the floor of the Senate, by an overwhelming ma- jority, showed what the attitude of the Senate was. I pointed out, before the Senator returned to the floor, that so far as the Members of the Senate on this side of the aisle were concerned in 1847, with the exception of three, only one of whom is now a Member of the Senate, the argument made by our distinguished leader, the Senator from Illinois, and by his predecessor, the distinguished Sen- ator from Kentucky, now the Vice Presi- dent, was so completely conclusive that as one man we marched down the bill behind them, save for the one exception whom I have already named. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. But it is a fact that the Senate by an overwhelming majority approved the conference report, which certainly took out the provision which the Senate had placed in the bill in tts original consideration under which spe- cial committees could have been created by the Senate. I desire to get the Rec- orp clear. I should like to ask the Sen- ator another question. Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator js cor- rect, except that he fails to recognize the impelling difficulty of the situation, I read now from the argument of the distinguished Senator from Utah IMr., Tromas!] on that point. He said in 1947: It is an erroneous interpretation of what happened on that occasion to say that in the Legislative Reorganization Act Congress ex- pressly refused to abolish special committees. We yielded to a parliamentary situation. We have not changed our minds, FEBRUARY 20 He had shown in great detall that the mind of the Senate had been expressed on the matter. Mr. WHERRY. I submit to the dis- tinguished Senator, who is always so just and fair, that the Senator from Utah yielded to his interpretation, but if the record is to be cleared up, it will be found that the Senate overwhelmingly, I think unanimously, if I remember cor- rectly, adopted the conference report after it had considered its position, when the matter was debated on the floor of the Senate. The conference report pro- vided that the position of the House be accepted, which meant that the Senate or the House could create special com- mittees if not in violation of the Reor- ganization Act. Is not that true? Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is cor- rect in this much of his statement, that the Members of the Senate, with their bags packed, ready to catch their trains—as is shown in the argument in the Recorp—voted for the reorganiza- tion bill as it came out of conference merely because they desired a reorgani- zation bill, and they wanted the other good things in the bill, although, as stated time and time again by the Sen- ator from Arizona [Mr. Haypen], the Senator from Utah [Mr. THomas] and other Senators who opposed the provi- sion they by no means gave up, as an objective, the effort to prevent the crea- tion of other special committees; and that they by all means felt that the Sen- ate had, in a direct vote dn the question, expressed its views, which were that spe- cial committees were a harmful growth upon the body legislative and should be eliminated. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I asked a@ question which the Senator has an- swered. Will the Senator now yield further? Mr. HOLLAND. I am glad to yield further. Mr. WHERRY. The conference re- port was adopted after the original bill was passed by the Senate? Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. And the adoption of the conference report is what governs. Whether Senators had their hats in hand and their grips by their sides and were ready to leave is beside the question. If they did not want to adopt the confer- ence report, knowing that the edoption of the report would perhaps mean the creation of special committees, they could have placed their hats on the racks and their suitcases in the cloak rooms and come back and further debated the question. We cannot go back on the final action, which was adoption of the conference report. We cannot go back of that, to the original vote of the Sen- ate on the bill, and say that controls, be- cause the Senate adopted the conference report, and did so on this floor with the full knowledge that by doing so, by acqui- eScing in the position of the House, either the Senate or the House could create a special committee in the future, if it chose to do so. Mr. HOLLAND. Of course, the Sen- ator from Nebraska is technically cor- rect, Of course, the Senate was then practical, just as the Senator from