1950 tax revenue to maintain certain public facili- ties, particulurly roads. Alaska—even count- ing the Government employees—does not have that minimum. Proponents of statehood for Alaska have tried to give the impression that territorial status is the only obstacle to a rapid develop- ment of Alaska resources and a growth of her population. Such an impression {gs false. The failure fo Alaska to develop more rapidly is due to a ‘combination of climatic and geographical handicaps, plus a gigantic superstructure of stifling regulations and restrictions upon the use of its resources by various bureaus of the Federal Government. Foremost among these restrictions is the Federal policy of withdrawing vast arcas of Alaska’s most promising resources from development and use. Althcugh H. R. 331 as amended is some- what superior to the original Alaska state- hood bill passed by the House, its provisions, as will be pointed out, still fail to correct the evils that are thwarting Alaska's growth. To grant statehcod at this time is to put the cart before the horse. Alaska’s great problem fs the development cf tts resourccs. Rather than pass this bill, we cculd best help Alaska's development by investigating thor- oughly the restrictive policies now hamper- ing the exploitation of Alaska and insisting they be removed. If statehood is granted under H. R. 331, these restrictions still must be removed if Alaska is to develop. How much better to remove these obstacies first. GOVERNMENTAL EOOM Those sponsoring this legislation try to create the impression that Alaska is simply an additional frontier which our pioneers have finally reached and are about to bring into productive use rapidly. This amounts to a complete misunderstanding of Alaska’s recent history and current situation. Since our purchase of Alaska from the Russians, it has had two population booms. The first occurred between 1880 and 1900 when gold was discovered. The population increased sharply from about 30,000 to ap- proximately €0,000 during that decade. Gold discovery did not lead to a steady, solid, permanent growth. As a matter of fact, the population of Alaska actually declined be- tween 1900 and 1950. The second spurt in population occurred between 1930 and 1950 but this did not re- sult from increased use of Alaska’s natural resources. It was due almost entirely to something elee—the growth of Federal Gov- ernment activities. The increase of Alaska’s population closely paralleled the increase in Federal spending and in the number of Federal jobs. Federal expenditures specifically earmarked for Alaska in 1950 amounted to $71,000,000; in the 1951 budget estimates, $112,000,000. These figures do not include a great part of the military spending there. As of December 1948, the latest date avail- able, there were 11,536 Federal employees in Alaska, most of whom it is safe to assume went there after 1920. To this figure must be added the employees of companies hav- ing Federal construction contracts in the Territory. During the 20 yeare since 1930, it 1s esti- mated that the population of Alaska has in- creased to approximately 130,000. It is clear that substantially all of this increase can be accounted for by the increase in Federal job holders, employees of Government con- tractors, their families, and the trade and service establishments dependent upon them. What will happen to this increased popu- lation if the Army follows its announced policy of evacuating its civilian employees from Alaska? On the other hand, military expenditures in Alaska depend entirely on the interna- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tional situation. Eventually, Alaska must look forward to a sharp decrease in military activity there. TECLINING INDUSTRIES During this artificial boom created by Government spending, the basic industries of the Territory, instead of expanding, de- clined. Gold mining, the principal industry of the interior, has fallen cff sharply. In 1241 gold preduction amounted to apprcximately $28,- C00,0C0. By 1049 this production had fallen to less than §$8,000,0C0. Statehood cannot improve the condition of this industry. In- creesed production costs and a fixed selling price have crippled it. Uniess the price of gold is changed, there can be no relief for the gold-mining industry in the forceeeable future. The story of the fishing industry ts sim- flar, although not quite so bad. Produc- tion of canned selmon on the average dur- ing the past 5 years (1945-49) has been less than the average production for any 5-year period since 1910-14: Those fa. miliar with Alaska conditions agree that the salmon and mest of the other fishing indus- tries in the Territory have about reached their peak on a sustained-yield basis. Even the most ardent proponent for statehcod will admit that passage of H. R. 331 will not increase the annual run cf salmon, Take away military expenditures and Alaska’s entire economy must depend en- tirely on the fishing industry. This means that the economy of the new State would depend on this resource’s conservation and protection. The fishery resource, in turn, is affected by imports of foreign products. Furthermore, the conservation and protec- tion of the industry are dependent to a large extent on the establishment of inter- national treaties extending protective meas- ures beyond the 3-mile limit. OTHER INDUSTRIES What are the prospects for other indus- tries which are supposed to develop with such amazing speed once statehood is granted? There are still only about 600 farms, in- cluding fur farms, in the entire Territory— less than in the average agricultural county in the continental United States. For years we have been hearing about the possibilities of agricultural expansion in Alaska. But thus far the combination of climate, geog- raphy and Federal red tape has prevented any substantial additional settlement there. Furthermore, there {s no reason to believe that statehood will remedy this situation. We have also heard glowing, optimistic reports about the future of timber and pulp in Alaska. High transportation and produc- tion costs plus foreign competition have halted development of these resources. One large contract for wood pulp produc- tion has been signed. But the contractor has been hesitant about going ahead with his plans and making the large investment required. Reports are that the prospect of excessive taxes under statehood has been a dominant factor in causing this delay. Instead of hastening the development of the timber and pulp Industry in Alaska, pas- sage of H. R. 331 might well thwart it. In short, there is no evidence of any in- dustry that will appear and develop once statehood has been granted. The only in- dustry—if such it can be called—which has developed at a rapid pace during recent years has been Federal bureaucracy. A Fed- eral bureaucracy is hardly a fit basis on which to erect a structure of statehood. It must be remembered that Alaska’s cli- mate is unfriendly to many ventures—that it necessitates that all industries be of sea- sonal nature because of severe winters in the interior and heavy rainfall on the coast. Outside work is difficult for many months under these conditions, Construction, for 10161 example, fs limited to summer months in most parts of Alaska, FEDERAL RESERVATIONS Alaska has been preserved for many years as a sort of happy hunting ground for Fed- eral bureaus which have withheld its re- sources from development. Either that, or they have tried to control its development according to plans drafted 5,000 miles away in Washington, D. C. Passage of H. R. 381 will not cure these ills. Of the vast land area, 99.7 percent is owned by the Federal Government; 99.8 percent of Alaska has never even been surveyed by the Interior Department. Some surveying is being done from year to year, but only at @ snail's pace, During the past 5 years, sur- veys have proceeded at an average rate of only 27,494 acres annually, At that rate, 1t will be about 13,000 years before the sur- veying of Alaska is completed. Nor is that all. Much of the best land and most valuable resources of the Territory have been reserved or withdrawn from use by private industries or corporations. Over 20,000,000 acres have been withdrawn in for- est reserves. Almost 69,000,000 acres have been withdrawn in the oil and gas reserves. On the island of Kodiak, substantially all the useful land outside the limits of the city of Kodiak has been withdrawn as wildlife reserves. Strips of land of at least 100 feet on each side of even the feeder roads (3800 feet on each side of the Alaskan Highway) have been withdrawn. Bombing ranges, Indian reservations, colonization withdraw- als and a variety of other withdrawals add to a system which has taken most of the best lands and available resources away from any possible development by private enterprise. There are 80 many land reserves and with-~ Grawals that there has never been any com- plete, accurate tabulation of them all. One tabulation, which may be reasonably com- plete, shows a total of 98,500,0CO acres in withdrawals out of the 365,481,600 acres in Alaska (p. 421, Senate hearings). This area is about the size of the State of Califfornia and represents about 27 percent of Alaska’s total area. More important, it comprises al- most all of the best and most valuable re- sources known to exist in the Territory. In our system of government, the States are sovereign within their own jurisdiction. How can a State government be sovereign in an area where most of its resources are owned by a different soverelgnty—the Federal Gov- ernment? Statehood under such circum- stances would be a mockery. The new State would simply be the puppet of its dominant Jandholder. It would not have the re- sources to live on and it would have no pros- pects for development except to the extent that Federal bureaus permitted such develop- ment. Every important decision of its career would be controlled by the decisions of its landlord, the Department of the Interior. No action at all is taken or proposed by the committee in this bill with respect to the vast Federal reservations in Alaska. This probably is Alaska’s most pressing problem. The pending measure may not be the proper place to take such action, but certainly this problem should be faced frankly and solved before statehood is considered, As of today, there is no reason to expect that with or without statehood any of the present reser- vations will be relinquished to any material degree for private use. In fact, there is every reason to assume that more and more reser- vations will be created from time to time as new resources are discovered for the Federal bureaus to reserve, The extreme difficulty created by the ex- istence of these Federal reservations ts illus- trated by the committee's attempt to provide additional land on the outskirts of the vari- ous Alaskan cities for the development of
10162 those cities, At present many of the towns and cities of southeast Alaska are aharply lUmited in their expansion, since all the land on all sides, right up to the city boundary, is included within the Tongas National For- est. The committee bill attempts to meet this situation by granting 200,000 acres from the national forest to the State for city development. This device does not meet the problem. Lands to be granted are subject to the ap- proval of the Secretary of Agriculture. He has it in his power to thwart the intent of this provision by refusing to grant any of the land selected as suitable by the cities. Even without this bill, he could open the way to city development tf he chose to do s0 by restoring such Jand to the public domain and thus opening it up for use. He has not chosen to do so heretofore and there is noth- ing in this bill to require him to approve the grant of any particular land which may be desired by the cities or the new State. THE CLOUD OF INDIAN TITLES For some years the persistent determina- tion of the Department of the Interior to recognize and uphold the claims to vast tracts of land by various tribes of Alaska natives has thrown a cloud on the title of a great proportion of the real estate in the Territory. These claims are based on the so-called posseszory rights of the natives (Indians, Aleute, and Eskimos). It is the consensus of legal authorities familiar with this prob- lem that any such rights the natives once possessed were extinguished by the treaty of annexation and subsequent acts of Congress. This view has been upheld consistently in the Federal courts. The natives, of course, have the same rights to homestead or to ac- quire title to land by other means as do other United States citizens, and many of them bave done so. Nevertheless the Department of the In- terior, under section 2 of the Wheeler-Howard Act, has already given recognition to some of these tribal claims. It is currently engaged in trying to establish numerous additional reservations so as to bring as many of the native tribes as possible within the reserva- tion system. Originally and until recently there were no reservations for natives in Alaska. Under that situation, free from the restrictions of the reservation system, the natives of Alaska have made more rapid progress toward acquiring the ways of civil- ized man than have the Indians in the con- tinental United States. From the standpoint of the natives, it would be a terrible mistake to establish the reservation system in Alaska. But the re- sults would be even worse from the point of view of developing the Territory, The sweep- ing claims of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of the natives have the effect of throwing a cloud on titles of the settlers all over the Territory, No property owner in Alaska can be sure that his title is valid, since at any time he fears his property may be snatched away and vested in the United States in trust for some small native group. No greater deterrent to the development of the Territory's resources can be imagined. Considerable testimony on this question ‘was received by the committee during the course of the hearings, and committee amendments have changed the language of the bil) somewhat with respect to the prob- lem. However, it is not clear that the com- mittee amendments represent much, !{f any, improvement over the present situation. The eminent legal firm of Bogle, Bogle & Gates, of Seattle, Wash., has expressed this opinion of the amended section: “It ia our opinion that section 3 and par- ticularly subsection second thereof in H. BR. 831 is so uncertain and ambiguous as pres- ently amended by the Senate committee that it is difficult to specifically determine what its effect would be. However, we think that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE if it is enacted in present form and the courts are called upon to construe it, there is a strong probability that it will be held to constitute an affirmative recognition of aboriginal rights not only to beaches and uplands but also the ocean in view of its ref- erence to fishing rights. You will note that the section covers lands presently owned by the United States as well as lands or other property which may be held by natives. Thus the section opens the door to native claims to all of Alaska except patented lands which presently conatitute less than 2 per- cent of the total area with the result that the mere enactment of the bill would im- mediately cast a cloud upon the future ownership of 98 percent of the Territory as well as to the beaches, the marginal seas, and the open ocean. Moreover, if the bill should be construed as suggested then under the decisions in the cases of Duwamish Indians v. U. S. (79 Court of Claims 530) and U. S. v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad (814 U. 8. 339) the native rights thus recognized by the bill would be protected by the Fifth Amendment and would not thereafter be subject to modi- fication or extinguishment by Congress without payment of full compensation, whereas ordinary aboriginal rights may be so dealt with by Congress with or without com- pensation, In other words, once this pro- vision is enacted and construed as suggested then because of the constitutional guaranty Congress cannot later change its mind.” Thus, it appears that even with its amend- ments, H. R. 831 provides no real security to owners of real property in Alaska and will seriously hamper settlement there. The way to clear up this problem definitely {s to take permanently from the Secretary of the Interior the right to establish reserva- tions in Alaska. Legislation to that effect has been introduced from time to time, but it has not yet been possible to get final action on it. The committee in section 5 (1) has temporarily forbidden the establishment of additional native reservations, but for such a short time that it is hardly worth while. The only way to get proper legislation through settling this problem is to include specific language in this bill. Otherwise the new State and its Representatives in Con- gress, immediately after the granting of statehood, would be forced to start all over again in an attempt to push through legis- lation clearing up this threat to the land titles of the settlers there. Without han- dling this problem, it is foolish to talk about encouraging settlers and investors, develop- ing resources, or granting statehood to Alaska. THE PATTERN OF BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL Altogether, the picture 1s clear that the control of Alaskan resources by the various Federal bureaus has been Alaska’s greatest draw-back and will continue to be s0 even if statehood is granted. The cloud of Indian title, Federal ownership of virtually all the land, the reservation from use of the prin- cipal resources, and the “controlled develop- ment” psychology of the Federal bureaus have combined to throttle the exploitation and use of such potentialities as Alaska has, They have kept the Territory in a semifeudal status to date. In this bill the committee has, I believe, made an honest effort to meet some of these problems. It has largely failed, however, Even if this bill should pass in its present form, all the Federal reservations would re- main, the cloud of native titles would remain, Federal ownership of almost all the land would remain. In short, Alaska's great prob- lem would remain as before—the control of almost all ita resources by a Federal bureauc- racy. ALASKA'S FINANCIAL PROBLEM Closely tied in with this bureaucratic con- trol is the financial problem that would confront the new State. The excessive con- centration of power in the hands of the JULY 14 Federal bureaus over all these resources nat- urally resulta in a lack of taxable wealth from which to draw revenue for State pur- poses. Federal ownership not only hinders the development of Alaska's resources, but it exempts from taxation many of those resources which are developed. Without adequate tax revenue, Alaska can- not take care of its local needs either as a Territory or as a State. In the Territorial status, tax revenue from productive wealth is replaced by subsidies from the Federal Government. Under statehood, these sub- sidies would largely disappear. The new State would have to supply and pray for its governmental services now being paid largely by the Federal Government. There would be no means of doing this except by laying a double burden of taxation upon those few sources of wealth which are taxable. To date Alaska has not even been able to carry properly those limited expenses which are imposed on it as a Territory. Recently Alaska has gone through a succession of financial crises which have involved the “freezing” of Territorial appropriations, monthly deficits and bank financing to cover those deficits, a judicial decision that the recently enacted Territorial real property tax js unconstitutional, and the misapplica= tion of funds. An insight into the Territory’s financial situation is given by the following extracts from a news article appearing in the Juneau Empire for June 10, 1950, describing an address given by Mr. Henry Roden, treasurer of the Territory: “With the Territory’s going costs of opera- tion—schools, salaries, welfare, Pioneers’ Home, University of Alaska—amounting to $750,000 a month, the Territory is running behind monthly,” Mr. Roden said. “The tax commissioner and the legislative finance committees during the last session of the legislature had figured income from Territorial taxes to be about $24,000,000 for the biennium, and the Territory‘s budget was based on this figure. “From April 1, 1949, to April 1, 1950, the income was about $8,500,000, but of this eare marked funds from the gas tax (about $1,760,000 for the biennium) and the to- bacco tax ($500,000 earmarked for the con- struction of schools) cannot be used for general Territorial costs. “While anticipated revenue for the cur- rent year, April 1, 1950, to April 1, 1951, 1s $10,000,000, it might in turn be less than last year,” Mr. Roden sald. “Last year the fisheries paid a tax of 2 per- cent of the total value of the pack. But pink salmon last year brought $23 a case, and today the wholesale price is $14.50," Mr. Roden said. “And there is a question also of some canneries not operating thie year.” Under statehood, the financial problems of Alaska would be multiplied, as the cost of the State government would be approxi- mately twice that of the Territorial govern- ment. The estimated costs of operating the new State have been carefully worked out by Mr. W. OC. Arnold and appear on pages 859 and 860 of the hearings. They are based on the present expense to the Federal Govern- ment of carrying on functions which would automatically become the responsibility of the State as soon as statehood is granted, Those additional revenues would have to be raised by increased taxation. At present, taxable resources are largely limited to the fishery and mining industries, and, as indl- cated above, both have already passed the peak of their development, Many Alaskans do not realize the extent to which their Territorial function is subsidised by the Federal Government. Proponents of Alaska statehood are fond of raising the old cry of taxation without representation. The actual situation is completely opposite. Alaskans escape taxation because of the Ter< ritorial status, They receive subsidies they
1950 could not hope to receive us a State. They are relieved of a tax burden that they other- wise would have to carry. For example, some Alaskans complain that as residents of a Territory they are not eli- gible for funds under the Federal Highway Act, They do not realize that under this act they would be required to match the Federal grants with funds from local taxation. As a matter of fact, Federal funds spent for highways in Alaska are now as great as they would be if Alaska were eligible for Federal highway grants. In other words, Alaska to- day now receives all the benefit that it could hope to receive under the Federal Highway Act, without being required to put up its share of the funds. The Territory's only railroad, the Alaska Railrond, 1s subsidized by the Federal Gov- ernment 1s are the Alaska Signal Corps, a large number of cooperative stores, and sev- eral canneries operated by the Office of Indi- an Affairs—all tax free, Its shipping com- munications with the States are indirectly subsidized by the Federal Government. Some of its airports have been built directly by the Federal Government, instead of re- quiiing the Territory to match Federal funds under the Federal Airport Act as the States are required to do. The same is true with some of the other Federal grants-in-aid pro- grams Alaska receives many things free from the Federal Government, because it does not have the revenue to put up its share of the cost. DEFECTS IN BILL A bare handful of copies of the amended statehood bill has been circulated in Alaska or the Statcs Those who have read H. R. 331, raise serious objection and have asked both privately and in the press that con- greesional action be delayed until such time as they can point out obvious defects in the measure Criticism of the bill 1s concen- trated on the fisheries provision and land- grant sections. Edward W. Allen, Seattle attorney, mem- ber of the International Fisheries Commis- sion, and MacArthur Fisheries Mission to Japan, has this to say about the fisheries provision: “Alaskan coastal fisheries constitute such a huge and increasingly important food sup- ply that their conservation is not a local Alaska matter but is of vital interest to all the people of this Nation ‘The Supreme Court itself in recent years has decided that the Federal Government has the right and power to control such fisheries even though they are within the waters of a State. The largest of these fisheries, that for salmon, is partly in national, partly in inter- national waters. The Federal Government has been completely regulating this fishery for many years and js the only power which can give it complete conservation regulation as well as protection against destructive fish- ing by Russians or Japanese. “The committee amendment section 5 (g) does not repeal the present Federal laws pro- tecting these fisheries but does exprossly take away all the facilities for enforcing them. When the court decisions referred to are considered, it is apparent that the amendment is so ambiguous that no one can safely say what it means. But whether, as its advocates claim, it actually turns over that part of these fisheries which are within national waters to the new State, or wheth- er, as Seems more probable, the amendment simply paralyzes all conservation of these valuable fisheries, in either event, the amendment threatens to sacrifice an impor- tant food aeset of this country and to en- courage foreign entanglements. “The amendment should be completely rewritten so as to retain the present full Federal control of these food fisheries, but if this is not done, it should at least be so re- drafted as to provide expressly for the repeal of the present Federal fishery laws relating CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to Alaska and state specifically what fishery control is to be vested in the new State. It is unfair, both to the people of Alaska and the rest of the country, to enact the present amendment with all its confusion It is almost as bad as the proposai in the original bill which even overlooked this country’s treaty obligations.” LAND GRANT SECTION If statehood is granted to Alaska the new State will be forced to construct various facilities essential to a state government immediately. The cost of doing so will im- mediately throw a heavy financial burden on the new State. It has been customary in connection with the admission of other States to grant them a large proportion of unoccupied land to meet such costs This system has worked out satisfactorily with most of the other States. In the case of Alaska, however, the system we have usually followed has turned out to be virtually unworkable In most of the other States, the land was largely surveyed at the time of statehood, or soon after, and it was simple enough to grant the new State a certain proportion of the unoccupied, newly surveyed sections of land In Alas- ka, however, considerable less than 1 per- cent of the land has been surveyed. To grant to Alaska, for school purposes, only a small proportion of this tiny percentage, would appear ridiculous. As an alternative, the committee has pro- posed a direct grant of 20,000,000 acres to be celected by the new State 5 years after statehood This proposal does not solve the pioblem, however, and has led to serious objection trom those who have read the amendment, First, the new State would receive none of these school lands for a 5-year period No provision is made to take care of the situa- tion for the intervening 5 years Under this section, the State would be en- titled after 5 years to select not to exceed 20,000,000 acres from vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved Innds As these tracts are selected, the Secretary of the Interior shall survey the exterior boundaries of the areas requested and shall issue a patent for such selected area in terms of the exterior bound- ary survey, . Discussing this provision in an editorial on July 10, 1950, the Juneau Alaska Empure pointed out. “Now, let us suppose that the new State after 5 years begins to select arcas to be transferred to it by patent from the United States Let us say they select an area con- taining three or four thousand acres in one locality. The new State is not likely to select mountain peaks or tundra, but it may be assumed that it will try to select the best lands available, and it is difficult to conceive of any considerable tracts of land which might be so selected which would not contain within their exterior boundaries some unpatented mining claims and some other unpatented ground held by settlers for one purpose or another. “In the first place, since the State is au- thorized to select only from vacant, unap- propriated, and unreserved public lands, it could hardly be said that tracts which in- clude unpatented mining claims and other unpatented claims would be either vacant or unappropriated; therefore, according to the atrict letter of the law, the Secretary would refuse to make the survey and issue the pat- ent to the State. If he should attempt to make the survey and issue the patent, just how would the valid existing rights of any person be protected? Furthermore, there might be existing rights which the Secre- tary or the.new State might consider not to be valid. “This would surely cause litigation in case the Secretary should consider the lands to be vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved and issue the patent to the new State. The 10163 very best he could do would be to survey the lands selected and issue a patent which would contain a reservation in the language of the statehood bill that all valid existing rights on the land are unaffected. No one would know what those valid existing rights wore, how many claims were involved, their area or extent, or what other rights might be affected, and there is no machinery cet up in the bill for determining these things. This is a most serious matter, and one which might well prevent the new State from ever getting any public lands, or if 1t did acquire any, there would be endless lawsuits to deter- mine who had valid existing rights on those lends prior to their transfer. Who would be the judge as to what was a valid existing right? In all cases it would require litiga- tion.” The Emptre pointed out still another ob- jectionable feature in section 5. This news- paper referred to the provision for the sale of State lands in tracts of ‘not more than 640 acres for any purpose” The meaning of that phrage is obscure. Does it mean that not more than 640 acres may be sold to any person or corporation? “If 1t does mean that any one person or corporation is Hmited to 640 acres, what would happen in the case of a mining com- pany like the Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Co, which operated before the war a large low-grade property on a very narrow margin requiring a very considerable acreage of land exceeding 640 acres” asked the Empire Actually, the Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Co now has over 2,000 acres, every bit of it necessary to its operation. This includes the mining claims, dock sites, oll-tank sites, car- penter machine shops and foundry, power plant, water-storage sites, etc. How could it ever operate low-grade lode mining on the necessary large scale if it were restricted to 640 acres? Other mines in Alaska would be similarly affected. ROYALTY ON MINERALS Alaska mining men are up in arms over the provision of section 5 (b) which provides that when the States sells any of its acquired lands, it must reserve a royalty on minerals of not more than 121, percent. Talk of a royalty revives memories of the ill-fated gross tax on gold which was in effect in Alaska a few years ago, It lasted for a period of 10 years and was then repealed because of its disastrous effect on the devclopment of the mining industry. As pointed out above, the gold mining industry in Alaska has declined sharply dur- ing recent years, and is still struggling desperately to keep alive. Additional taxation on an industry which has declined about 70 percent in the last 8 years {s the surest way to kill that industry entirely. Yet Alaska, under statehood, may well be driven to even more desperate expedients in an attempt to raise sufficient revenue to maintain the basic, essential public services on a minimum basis. NO OIL ROYALTIES Section § (k) seems to contemplate that some oi) royalties would be paid to the State. But the bill contains no specific provisions to that effect. Some 50,000,000 acres of ofl lands are completely reserved by the Federal Government, Under the terms of this bill, no part of them would ever go to the State. During the committee hearings several members expressed the view that the State should receive some royalty in Neu of oll lands. Although section 6 (kK) contemplates such a provision, none is contained in the bill. SUMMARY The principal problem for Alaska fe not statehood but rather the system of Federal reserves and controls which 1s hampering the development of the Territory. I believe Congress can be of most assistance to Alaska
10164 by having the whole problem thoroughly studied, and a policy set which will free the Territory from these controls and restric- tions. Until that is done, I do not believe Alaska should be granted statehood. In short, we must decide whether we want a fully self-sustaining State free to develop its own possibilities and able to carry its share of the burdens and responsibilities of maturity, or, as an alternative, whether we want a Federal reserve with most of the wealth kept in a nontaxable status and with Federal subsidies replacing tax revenues. The committee has attempted to grant statehood without breaking up this Federal reserve or providing taxable sources of wealth. That attempt is bound to fail whether state- hood is granted or not. If statehood is granted under this bill, it will simply mean that the new State will struggle under un- surmountable burdens. ALTERNATIVE It ig my belief, however, that the Congress should do everything possible to further the development of the political institutions of Alaska and to broaden its opportunities for self-government. The people of Alaska are competent to manage their own local affairs, There 1s no reason why the Governor should be selected by Washington or why the Alaskans should have to come to Washing- ton every time they want some change in their basic law. I propose, therefore, that as a substitute for statehood, the people of Alaska should be given the right immediately to select their own Governor and other Terri- torial administrative officials. I would also be glad to sponsor and support legislation granting to the people the right to draft their own constitution in place of the present organic act. If such legislation is enacted, we will be following the pattern already set for Puerto Rico, Several years ago Puerto Rico was granted the right to select its own Governor, and it has just recently been granted au- thority to write its own constitution. That experiment in Puerto Rico has proved very successful to date. In the case of Alaska, however, the right of selection of a Governor might well be a step toward full statehood at a later date. Selection of thelr own Governor might well give Alaskans a democratically selected spokesman against the disabilities under which the Territory labors. If a start can also be made toward breaking down the reservation system and opening up the wealth of the Territory for development, then Alaska may well be started on the road toward statehood through the adoption of my substitute amendment, THE COURT OF CLAIMS Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, there is now on the Senate Calendar @ bill, 8. 638, to amend title 28 of the United States Code. The bill is identi- fied as Calendar No. 1652. A basic objective of this legislation is to make the Court of Claims a con- stitutional court under article ITI of the Constitution. In view of the implica- tions which appeared to be involved in the bill, I interposed objection to its pas- sage by unanimous consent on the cal- endar call of June 8, 1950, simply that I might give the measure further study, Because of the relationship of the De- partment of Justice to the Court of Claims, I felt that the views of that De- partment would be of considerable value in appraising the merits of the bill. These were not set forth in the report of the Senate Committee on the Judi- ciary accompanying the bill, and I have since ascertained that no report thereon was submitted by the Department of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Justice. However, a report was sub- mitted on companion legislation, H. R. 6975, to the House Committee on the Judiciary. With the assistance of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was en- abled to obtain for my personal study copies of recent correspondence on the House side in which the views of the Justice Department and the Court of Claims were exchanged with respect to this legislation. The correspondence was addressed to the House committee, not to me, and the legislation is still pending there. Accordingly, I do not feel free to comment thereon, other than to state that, as a result of my preliminary study, I determined to seek from the American Law Section, Library of Congress, an objectivd analysis of the pending bill, in the thought that it might be helpful in the Senate’s appraisal of its merits. The reply of the Library of Congress is now at hand, in the form of a memorandum to me, dated June 28, 1950. I have examined it in some detail and I believe its contents may be of interest to the Senate in connection with its consideration of this legislation. I therefore ask unanimous consent to insert the memorandum in the body of the Recorp following these remarks: There being no objection, the memo- randum was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tre Lrsrary or Conakess, Washington, D. C., June 28, 1950, To: Senator RoperT C. HENDRICKSON, From: American Law Section, Legislative Reference Service. Subject: Constitutional and Other Problems With Respect to S. 688, Eighty-first Con- 88. tn'response to your request for an analysis of certain problems raised by 8. 638, Eighty- first Congress, it may be said that the chief purpose of the bill 1s to recreate the present Court of Claims as a constitutional court of the United States, and to make certain con- forining changes in title 28 of the United States Code consonant with that purpose. The present Court of Claims is generally regarded as a legislative court, created by Congress by virtue of the authority of ar- ticle I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution to pay the debts of the United States, and also by virtue of the general legislative au- thority to determine when and under what conditions the Government may be sued. Ez parte Bakelite Gorp. ((1929) 279 U. 8. 438); Williams v. U. S. ((1933) 289 U. 8. 653); Harris, the Judicial Power of the United States (1940) 198-201. As such a court it may be and is given nonjudicial functions and duties. Ibid. The language of section 1 of S. 638 pro- vides that the Court of Claims “shall con- stitute a court of record established under article III of the Constitution of the United States. * * *” Thus the Court of Claims is sought to be established as a constitu- tional court of the United States by virtue of the judicial power contained in article III, section 2, clause 1. This raises, at the out- set, one important question. Article III, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States is extended, among other things, “to con- troversies to which the United States shall be a party.” Yet, in Williams v. U. 8., supra, the broad language of the decision suggests that any case involving a claim, against the United States as a defendant is not within the judicial power just quoted. See also Rottschaefer on Constitutional Law (1939) 433 (pointing out that the matter thus is not left altogether clear). The Williams case, however, quoting Murray’s Lessee y, JULY 14 Roboken Land & Improvement Co, ((1866) 18 How. 272, 264), also said: “at the same time there are matters, in- volving public rights, which may be pre- sented in such form that the fudicial power is capable of acting on them, and which are susceptible of judicial determination, but which Congress may nor may not bring with- in the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem proper.” Moreover, in Miles v. Graham ((1925) 268 U. 8. §01), dealing with an income tax levied upon the salary of a Court of Claims judge and following Evans v. Gore ((1920) 253 U.S. 245), the Supreme Court sald that under article IIT, section 1 of the Constitution, it is the duty of Congress definitely to declare the amount which a Pederal judge shall re- ceive from time to time out of the public funds, and the times of payment, and the amount thus specified becomes his compen- sation which is protected against diminu- tion during his continuance in office. In Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, it was said by way of dictum, however, that this de- cision was “not to be taken as disturbing the earlier rulings or attributing to the Court of Claims a changed status.” These inconsistencies as to the status of the Court of Claims were not resolved in National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Ine. ((1949) 387 U. 8, 682). There Mr. Justice Jackson, speaking for him-~ self and two other members of the Court, said: “Congress ts given power by article I to pay debts of the United States. That involves as an incident the determination of disputed claims. We have held unanimously that congressional authority under article I, not the article III Jurisdiction over suits to which the United States is a party, is the sole source of power to establish the Court of Claims and of the judicial power which that court exercises, Williams v. United States (289 U. 8. 553). In that decision we also noted that it is this same article I power that is conferred on district courts by the Tucker Act which authorizes them to hear and determine such claims in lmited amounts. Since a legislative court such as the Court of Olaims is ‘incapable of receiv- ing’ article ITI judicial power, American In- surance Co. v. Canter (1 Pet. 511, 546), it is clear that the power thus exercised by that court and concurrently by the district courts flows from article I, not article III.” But Mr. Justice Rutledge, speaking for himself and Mr. Justice Murphy, although agreeing as to the result of the case, ex- pressly disagreed with this line of reasoning and sald: “Comfort {s sought to be drawn * * © from this court’s rationale in Williams v. United States (289 U. 8. 568), which, in sanc- tioning salary reductions for judges of the Court of Claims, held that that court did not derive its jurisdiction from article III, That conclusion stemmed in part from the propo- sition that suits against the United States are not ‘controversies to which the United States shall be a party,’ within the meaning of article ITI, section 2, Hence, it is said, the permissible inference is that the long~estab- lished concurrent jurisdiction of district courts over claims against the United States is Hkewise not derived from article IY. We need not today determine the nature of dis- trict court jurisdiction of suits against the United States. Suffice it to say that, tf such suits are not ‘controversies to which the United States shall be a party,’ they are pre- sumptively within the purview of the Fed- eral-question jurisdiction to which Mr. Jus- tice Frankfurter’s opinion directs our attention—the article II, section 2, grant of power over ‘cases * * ° arising under * * * the laws of the United States.’ This is, at least, the conventional aed Giatrict court jurisdiction under the ker Act (2 Moore, Federal practice (2d: ed., 1948) 1633), ‘
1950 “But, in any event, to rely on Williams as Gisposttive of the present case is to rely on & bending reed: Williams and O'Donoghue were companion cases, argued together and decided together; and the opfnions were written by the same Justice. Accordingly, what was said in one must be read in the light of what was said in the other. O’Don- oghue, as has been observed, expressly re- jected the proposition today announced— that Congress can vest in constitutional courts outside the District of Columbia jurls- diction derivedfrom * * ® article I.” Since, in this case, four juatices dissented altogether, and two of the dissenters also agreed with Justice Rutledge, it 1s apparent that to what extend a majority of the Court as pow constituted would support either of the views thus advanced above !s open to question. On the other hand, in a long line of de- cisions the Supreme Court has upheld the grant of jurisdiction to the district courts of the United States (which are constitu- tional courts) to cetermine certain claims against the United States. (See e. g., U. S. v. Sherwood ((1941) 312 U. S. 584); Bates Manufacturing Co. v. U. S. ((1938) 303 U. 8. 567).) Nor has this jurisdiction been chal- lenged under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (See e. g. Brooks v. U. S. ((1949) 337 U. 8. 49).) Accordingly, unless the Supreme Court is prepared to repudiate its position in these cases, 1t must be assumed that on some basis Congress validly can create an inferior con- stitutional court of the United States and confer upon it jurisdiction to determine claims against the United States. But whether the power thus asserted is article I, article III or some other power is not alto- gether clear. Consequently, it may well be that the reference in section 1 of 8S. 638 to article III alone would create certain difficul- ties. Perhaps the section would be better constructed to withstand challenge if all ref- erence to article ITZ were omitted, leaving 1t to the Supreme Court to find the exact basis for the creation of such a constitutional court. It is axiomatic that the question of the constitutionality of action taken by Con- gress does not require recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise. (See Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co, ((1948) 333 U. 8. 138) .) Another problem may be noted. Section 8 of the bill repeals Twenty-eighth United States Code, section 1493, which now pro- vides for reports by the Court of Claims on matters roferred to it by the heads of ex- ecutive departments. This proposed repeal is consonant with the purpose of the bill to create a constitutional court. But the bill does uot appear to repeal Twenty-eighth United States Code, section 1492, which in part gives the Court of Claims jurisdiction to report to either House of Congress on any bill referred to the court by such House. Nor does the bili appear to revise or repeal Twenty-eighth United States Code, section 2609, which provides that whenever any bill is referred to the Court of Claims by either House “such court shall proceed with the same in accordance with its rules and report to such House, the facts in the case, includ- ing facts relating to delay or laches, facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed, or facts claimed to excuse the claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy" and that the court “shall also report conclusions sufficient to inform Con- gress whether the demand is a legal or equi- table claim or a gratuity, and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the claimant.” It has been said that “a duty to give decl- sions which are advisory only, and so with- out force as judicial Judgments, may be laid on a legislative court, but not on a consti- tutional court established under article ITI.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra. Moreover, it 18 well settled that constitutional courts CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE may not be given nonjudicial functions or duties of an administrative or legislative character, U.S. v. Ferreira ((1852) 18 How, 40); U.S. v. Todd ((1794) 18 How. 62, note); Hayburn’s case ((1792) Dall. 409); Muskrat v. U. S. ((1911) 219 U. 8. 346); Keller v. Po- tomac Electric Power Co. ((1923) 261 U. 8. 428); Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co. ((1927) 272 U. 8. 675). It is possi- ble, therefore, that the failure of 8S. 638 to remove or revise the provisions above men- tioned would be taken as indicative of the fact that the Court of Claims remained a legislative court regardless of any supposed congressional intent to the contrary. The distinction as to whether a tribunal is a constitutional or legislative court * ° * is a tenuous one and depends for its exist- ence not upon the tenure by which the judges of a court hold office, or upon the organization of the court, or yet upon the will or intention of Congress. Harris, op. cit, supra, 202. “The true test of the status of a court lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction ccnferred."” Harris, op. cit. supra, 202-203; Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra. The question has also been raised whether under section 1 of the bill it would be neces- sary to have new judicial appointments by the President and confirmations by the Sen- ate. Judges of constitutional courts are se- cure against dimunition of compensation and hold office during good behavior by vir- ture of article III, section 1 of the Constitu- tion. Booth v U.S. ((1934) 291 U. 8. 339). Judges of legislative courts, however, do not have such protection. Williams v. U. S., sue pra; see also Harris, op. cit. supra, 200-201; but cf. Miles v. Graham, supra. In Pope v. U S. ((1944) 823 U. 8.1), the Court pointed out that Congress has conferred on the Court of Claims nonjudicial functions of an ad- ministrative or legislative character to be ex- ercised as a mere agency of Congress to aid it in the performance of its constitutional duty to provide for payment of the debts of the Government. The Court said further: “We have no occasion to consider what effect the imposition of nonjudicial duties on the Court of Claims may have affecting its con- stitutional status as a court and the per- manency of tenure of its judges. Cf. Wil- liams v. United States (289 U. S. 553)."” Ac- cordingly, it could be contended that when the present judges of the Court of Claims were appointed by the President and con- firmed by the Senate those appointments were of a substantially different nature and to different positions than those envisioned by 8. 638. In this view, as the result of the creation by 8. 638 of a different kind of court, it could be asserted that new appoint- ments and new confirmations, therefore, wquld be necessary and that any attempt by Congress to retain the incumbents in office without such appointments would be an un- constitutional interference with the Execu- tive power of appointment. Congress may not impose limitations on the exercise of the executive power of decision in this re- gard, Meyers v. U. S. ((1926) 272 U. S. 52); Byers v. U. 8. ((1887) 22 C. Cl §9); Foote v. U. S. ((1888) 23 C. Cl. 443); Wood's case ((1878) 15 C Cl. 151, aff'd 107 U. S. 414)), and any such tnfringement violates the doc- trine of separation of powers (Meyers vy. U.S, supra ((1860) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 462)). Section 7 of the bill seeks to empower the newly constituted Court of Claims in the exercise of its jurisdiction, to “grant any redress against the United States, or its offi- cers and agents, which would be proper in a court of law or equity” and, for such pur- pose, “to summon as a party defendant, for the purpose of making effective such orders as the court may deem proper, any officer or agent authorized to act for the United States in the premises.” Aside from questions of policy, or of administrative convenience or practicability, as to which we express no opinion (although it may be supposed that a 10165 constitutional court would be given the or- dinary powers of process of such courts), a further question arises if the quoted lan- guage were to be interpreted as authorizing an execution or writ in the nature of man- damus or the lke against an officer or agent of the United States to pay or discharge a money claim adjudged against the United States. In Reeside v. Walker ((1851) 11 How. 271), &@ mandamus was asked for by the plaintiff to direct the defendant, as Secretary of the Treasury, to enter a certain sum on the books of the Treasury Department to the credit of the plaintiff and to pay such sum. The Supreme Court said: “No officer, however high, not even the President, much less a Secretary of the Treasury or Treasurer, is empowered to pay debts of the United States generally, when preeented tothem. If, therefore, the petition in this case was allowed so far as to order the verdict against the United States to be entered on the books of the Treasury Depart- ment, the plaintiff would be as far from having a claim on the Secretary or Treasurer to pay it as now. The difficulty in the way is the want of any appropriation by Congress to pay this claim. It is a well-known con- stitutional provision, that no money can be taken or drawn from the Treasury except un- der an appropriation by Congress. See Con- stitution, article 1, section 9 (1 Stat. at L,, 15). “However much money may be in the Treasury at any one time, not a dollar of it can be used in the payment of any thing not thus previously sanctioned. Any other course would give to the fiscal officers a moat dangerous discretion. “Hence, the petitioner should have pre- sented her claim on the United States to Con- gress, and prayed for an appropriation to pay it. If Congress after that makes such an eppropriation, the Treasury can, and doubt+ lees willl, discharge the claim without any mandamus, But without such an appropria- tion it cannot and should not be paid by the Treasury, whether the claim is by a verdict or judgment, or without either, and no man- damus or other remedy lies against any officer of the Treasury Department, in a case situated like this, where no appropriation to pay it has been made. The existence of this other and ordinary mode of redress, by resort to Congress, may be another reason against a mandamus, as that Nes only when no other adequate remedy exists.” One further point may be noted. Section 4 of S. 688 seeks to amend 28 United States Code section 792 (a) so as to authorize the appointment of 15 commissioners for the Court of Claims, instead of the 7 now pro- vided for in the section. No mention is made, however, of a statutory provision now con~ tained in 41 United States Code, section 114, as amended, which authorizes the appoint- ment of not more than 20 additional com- missioners for the court. This provison was unaffected by the recent revision and reen- actment of title 28. See section 2 (d) of the act of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 985). It would be open to interpretation, therefore, whether this provision would be regarded as im- pliedly repealed by section 4 of the bill (a very doubtful construction), or whether the two provisions together would be regarded as authorizing the appointment of a maxi- mum of 35 commissioners. This latter re- sult was apparently intended, since Senate Report No. 1668 on S. 688 refers briefly to the present maximum of 27 commissioners. Roser 8. Oaienay, American Law Section. JUNE 28, 1950, GENERAL APPROPRIATION, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern~ ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes,
10166 The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendments on page 122, beginning on line 3. The amendments were agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Transportation of Malls,” on page 124, line 4, after the word “includ- ing”, to insert “current and prior fiscal years.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title I11J—Government corpo< rations—Reconstruction Finance Cor- poration,” on page 126, line 12, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$26,000,000” and insert “$26,700,000.” Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I certainly hope that the Senate will not accept this committee amendment. This is an increase of $700,000. I hope the amendment will be rejected. I notice that a substantial part of the money would be used to provide additional au- tomobiles for the RFC. They now have 94 cars. Last year we gave them 40 ad- ditional cars. The cars, therefore, should be in good shape. There is an investigation going on at the present time with respect to this Corporation, and the Senate is undecided whether this agency should be continued. Therefore I urge that the committee amendment be rejected. When the next amendment is taken up I shall move to strike out the number of automobiles. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr, President, I do not desire to discuss the number of automobiles. If the Senator wishes to strike out the provision with refer- ence to automobiles, that is one matter. However, I should like the Senate to know what the add‘tional money is for. The $300,000 is to defray the cost of keeping the securities of the Corpora- tion, at the rate of $50,000 a month. This money is paid to the Federal Re- serve bank for custodial and fiscal serv- ices in the safekeeping of securities. If the RFC does not get this amount, we shall have to appropriate it to the Fed- eral Reserve bank. I may say, further, that the interna- tional situation has already caused the reopening of three synthetic plants for the manufacture of rubber. These plants had been placed in mothballs, but they are now being reopened on the request of the military authorities. Mr. FERGUSON. Do I understand correctly that the custodial services with respect to the papers, bonds, and so forth, are being rendered by the Federal Reserve bank? Will the Senator from South Carolina explain to the Senate who is taking care of them at the present time? Mr. MAYBANK. The Federal Reserve bank, They are the custodian for the RFC. There is to be a transfer and a new undertaking. It is a matter of making the transfer, which will be large ly accomplished by December 31. Mr. FERGUSON. Why make the transfer? Why do the papers not stay in the same custodial place they are to- day? Why should we spend $300,000 so as to take care of the transfer? Mr. . XI should like to say to the Senator from South Carolina that since the House authorized $26,000,000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Senate has accepted one of the President’s reorganization plans which took away a substantial part of the work of the corporation. Mr. MAYBANK. It does not take ef- fect until December 29. I have before me a record of the discussion between the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SaLTONSTALL], representatives of the RFC, and myself. If the Senator wishes to have me read it, I shall do so. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. MAYBANK. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. When the transfer of the Federal Home Loan Agency was proposed one of the objections raised on the Senate floor was that the activities would be transferred to a new agency, and that the same employees who are now doing the work on the so-called “Fannie May” mortgages would still re- main on the payroll of the RFC, because the employees would not be transferred, Is that a correct statement? Mr. MAYBANK. The FNMA mort- gages have so increased, by leaps and bounds, in the last few months, that anything that might have been said on the Senate floor prior to last August wouid not apply to the situation as of today. Mr, FERGUSON. The Senator said the transfer would be completed in De- cember. On the day of the transfer, will the employees be transferred from the RFC to the new agency which takes charge of the FNMA mortgages? Mr. MAYBANE. It 1s my judgment that they will be. It is an administra- tive matter, and I understand is covered by the Reorganization Act. Mr. FERGUSON. Then why should we appropriate this increase of $700,000? Mr. MAYBANK. These funds would be transferable, along with the em- ployees. Mr. FERGUSON. Why should not the new agency come forward and ask for a deficiency appropriation? Why should we transfer these funds to a new agency? As I understand, when such transfers are made from one agency to another, it is done for the purpose of saving money or increasing efficiency, or both. Is not that a fact? Mr. MAYBANK. It is my opinion that at least some of the reorganization plans were supposed to save money. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, MAYBANK. I yield to the Sen- ator from Delaware, Mr. WILLIAMS. I shall like to point out to the Senator from Michigan that the Department of Commerce asked for an appropriation which is sufficient to take care of their items, and in addition to that, the RFC is asking for an in- crease, and I see no reason for the in- crease, Mr. MAYBANK, Four million and seven hundred thousand dollars was the Budget Bureau's estimate for the FNMA account. Mr. WILLIAMS, That function has been transferred to the RFC since the House authorized the $26,000,000. Mr. MAYBANK, The Senator is ab- solutely correct, JULY 14 Mr. WILLIAMS. Based on that, I wonder if we should not reduce the $26,000,000 appropriation. Mr, MAYBANK, Somebody has to carry on the work. Mr, WILLIAMS. I would be willing to let it go through temporarily as the House fixed the amount, but I certainly am opposed to any increase whatever to an agency which is or should be in the process of reduction. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield? Mr. MAYBANK. I yield to the Sena- tor from Oregon. Mr. CORDON, Is ‘t not a fact that as to the $600,000, a portion of it represents payments for services to be rendered by the Federal Reserve Bank? Mr. MAYBANK, Fifty thousand dol- lars every month, of $600,000 in all. Mr. CORDON. For such period of time as is necessary in order that a transfer of the custody of documents, most of them evidences of debt, can be made to the new receiving agency. Mr. MAYBANK., The Senator is correct. Mr. CORDON. And that the balance represents the necessary cost of setting up the records in the receiving agency, which could not be taken from the Fed- eral Reserve Agency itself. Mr. MAYBANK. The Senater is correct. Mr. CORDON. When that transfer is made then the sole custody, so far as that portion of the business to be han- dled by the RFC is concerned, will be in RFC. The Federal Reserve will have none of it. As to the portion that was transferred out of RFC, the eustody will go, and the share of the appropriation necessary to administer that custody will go with it. Mr, MAYBANK. The Senator is cor- rect. That is the situation under Reor- ganization Plans 22 and 23. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MAYBANK. Iyleld to the Senator from Delaware. Mr. WILLIAMS. Will the Senator point out where there is anything in the bill which would prevent the Recon- struction Finance Corporation from pay- ing the $300,000 out of the $26,000,000 appropriated for it? Assuming the amendiment providing the $700,000 addi- tional is adopted, why could it not be paid out of the $26,000,000? I see noth- ing to prevent it. Mr. CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield? Mr. MAYBANK. I yield to the Sena- tor from Oregon. Mr. CORDON. I suggest that there is nothing in the bill which, as a legal prop- osition, would prevent it. The only thing that might prevent its being done is that there is not enough money to go round. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I should like to offer a substitute for the committee amendment, on line 12, page 126, to strike out ‘$26,700,000" and sub-~ atitute, “$20,000,000”, a cut of $6,700,000. Four million seven hundred thousand dollars of this would he accounted for as
1950 a transfer of “Fannie May” funds from the RFC to the Home Finance Agency. I believe much inefficiency has been dis- closed on the part of the RFC in the investigation which we are making, which would justify a further cut. Sol hope the Senate will strike out “$26,700,- 000” and insert “$20,000,000.” Mr. CORDON, Mr. President, I hope the amendment of the Senator from II- linois will not prevail. If it does prevail and the bill finally becomes a law, for the period of time between the enactment of the bill and the necessary enactment of another to provide funds to handle FNMA mortgages, there will be no funds for handling them in the hands of their new custodian. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that this agency, in fiscal year 1950, had an average employment of 4,600 persons. The estimate is for 4,690 for the fiscal year 1951. In other words, they ask for an increase of 90 persons, and for an increase of $100,000. This matter was before the House. The House saw fit to cut the appropriation down to $26,000,- 000, The Senate committee has in- creased it by $700,000. I hope that the Senate will not in- crease the amount allowed by the House. On the side slips it is indicated what this money will be used for. There is no doubt, in the opinion of the junior Sen- ator from Michigan, that this agency can operate with the amount allowed by the House, $26,000,000, and that they will be able to pay for the custody of the papers referred to, which have been in existence in the past and are at present, out of the $26,000,000. I hope the committee amendment will not be agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois |Mr. Dovaetas] to the amendment of the committee. The amendment to the amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr, parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor will state it. Mr. WILLIAMS. Are we now about to vote on the committee amendment which would increase the House figure by $700,000? The VICE PRESIDENT. Yes. Mr. WILLIAMS. And a vote “no” would leave the House figure of $26,000,- 000 in the bill, $700,000 less than the Senate committee figure? The VICE PRESIDENT. If a suffici- ent number of Senators vote “no” it would mean that the committee amend- ment would be defeated. The question is on agreeing to the com- mittee amendment on page 126, line 12. [Putting the question.] The “noes” seem to have it, Mr. MAYBANK. 1 ask for a division. On a division the amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next committee amendment, President, a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The next amendment was, in the item for automobiles, on page 126, in line 17, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “twenty” and insert “sixty-one.” Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I do not wish to discuss the pending amendment, but I do desire to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the amendment which was submitted to- day and which will be voted on some time next week, which is a substitute for the Bridges amendment which was sub- mitted today, is a little different in its application from the Bridges amend- ment. The Bridges amendment provides for most personnel agencies a 10-percent cut below the budget estimate. The other amendment we will vote on calls for a 10-percent cut of what is in the pending Senate bill. Some of the subcommittees used the pruning knife very liberally in the prep- aration of their subcommittee reports, The item I have in mind now, and which I think would be cut very dangerously by this provision, is ECA, and perhaps all of the foreign aid, Those who are on the committee will recall that when we reached the ECA appropriation, which became a part of the military assistance chapter of the bill, there was a division of opinion among the members as to how much should be appropriated. Several mem- bers of the committee favored the sum of $2,600,000,000, plus the carry-over, Finally a motion was made to fix the sum at $2,500,000,000. One member of the committee proposed $2,450,000,000. The amendment calling for $2,500,000,- 000 was adopted by a majority of one. I voted for that amendment. The amend- ment was offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. Haypen]. When I found that the committee had so evenly divided on a difference of $50,- 000,000, I suggested to the Senator from Arizona that he move to reconsider the vote by which that amendment had been adopted, to see if we could not secure a unanimous vote on the smaller amount of $2,450,000,000. The Senator from Ari- zona moved to reconsider the vote, and the motion was adopted. Then we voted on the figure $2,450,000,000, plus the car- ry-over, and that proposal was adopted by a vote of 17 to 3. When the full com- mittee considered the complete milita- ry assistance chapter, including the for- eign cooperation, an amendment was offered by the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr,. Frrcuson] to cut items in the military assistance chapter, other than strictly military items, by 10 percent below the budget estimate. It will be recalled that when the au- thorization bill was before the Senate, there was a tie vote on the question of reducing the authorization by $500,000,- 000. Then the motion to reduce it $250,- 000,000 was carried. So when we first acted on ECA and appropriated $2,450,- 000,000, plus the carry-over, we were within $50,000,000 of the proposal which was lost in the Senate by a tis vote on the authorization bill. Then, as I said, the distinguished Sen- ator from Michigan (Mr. Fercuson] of- fered the amendment to cut that chap- ter, exclusive of the strictly military 10167 items in it, 10 percent below the budget estimate, That amendment was adopt- ed by a vote of 12 to 11. When the mo- tion was offered, several Senators, in dis- cussing it, said that if we are going to cut the whole domestic program 10 percent below the budget we should also cut for- eign cooperation 10 percent. The Fer- guson amendment cut foreign -coopera- tion $67,000,000, and $58,000,000 of it came off of ECA. But when the proposal was made to apply the same percentage cut to the domestic program it was de- feated. So we came out of committee on an almost equally divided vote, one ma- jority, to apply a certain theoretical per- centage reduction to foreign aid which we then did not apply to the domestic program. I call attention to the fact that the same theory is not followed in the Bridges amendment, which is to be voted on next week, but that amendment pro- vides for a 10-percent cut of what is now in the bill, which means that what we have in the bill now, which I think is $58,000,000 below the absolute minimum that should be provided for ECA, will be cut another 10 percent, I wanted to call that to the attention of my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Pres- ident, so that next week, when we reach this matter, I hope very much that the committee amendment will not be adopt- ed, which will leave the ECA program as we originally fixed it by a vote of 17 to 3 in the committee, at $2,450,000,000, and then if the final amendment should be adopted the total would then be cut not quite $58,000,000, but approximately that, but it would not be cut $58,000,000 twice. Ido not think there is any Mem- ber of the Senate who, even if we did not have the terrible world conditions which have developed in the past few weeks, would want to cut ECA below the point where it could operate efficiently. Mr, CORDON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. CORDON. I may say that I join with the junior Senator from Virginia in his position, and shall support his posi- tion when the item in question comes up for consideration on the floor. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I appreciate that statement very much. The distinguished Senator from Oregon and I have worked together. We have done what we could in behalf of proper economy. But we do not want to be parties to an improper economy which would hurt our foreign program in these critical days. Mr. LUCAS, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, as the majority leader of the Senate, I have taken little or no part in the discussion of the various phases of the appropria- tion bill up to this time. On the whole Iam willing to go along on practically all items that have been submitted by the Appropriations Committee in the way of cuts, however, I want to commend the Senator from Virginia for the positiox he is taking with respect to the European recovery program,
10168 Mr. President, I cannot understand how under present world conditions the Senate can afford to cut ECA below the amount that was recommended in the committee by a vote of 17 to 3. When that item comes to the floor of the Sen- ate the Senator from Dlinois is certainly going to do everything within his poor power to-see that sufficient money is ap- propriated to carry out our international obligations. The conditions in Korea today are such that we under no circumstances or contingencies should permit any reduc- tion in the appropriation to meet our international obligations. Such a reduc- tion would further give aid and comfort to the Kremlin in Moscow, and do quite the opposite for our allies and our friends in Europe whom we are attempting to help at this particular time. We need to do everything we can to continue to bol- ster the courage and the morale of those who are in the European democracies, who are on our side in this battle against the poisonous ideology of communism which seeks to sweep over the earth. Mr. President, it is simply false econ- omy for the Senate to cut the ECA pro- gram below what was recommended by the committee on the basis of a vote of 17 to 3. If the Senator does not fol- low the suggestion made by my friend the Senator from Virginia, we shall rue the day. Mr. ROBERTSON. I appreciate that expression by the distinguished Senator from Tllinois, the majority leader. I wish to add that last fall when Mr. Hoffman prepared his estimate of the cost of the ECA program, and when the budget estimate was sent to us, it was based on the prices existing last Novem- ber. However, in recent months there has been a steady increase in the prices of everything the ECA will have to buy. About a month ago Mr. Hoffman in- formed me that price increases already had added $200,000,000 to the cost of the ECA program—an increase which was not anticipated when the ECA budget was prepared. We have cut the ECA budget estimate which was submitted to us, which was prepared on the basis of the lower prices, nearly $500,000,000; and the price increases which had oc- curred up to a month ago have resulted, in effect, in cutting the ECA budget es- timate another $200,000,000. Of course, no one knows whether the current price inflation will get so out of hand that be- fore the year is over Congress will be compelled—I say “compelled,” because all Members of Congress will be reluc- tant to do so—to put the economy of the Nation on a strictly war basis in order to keep profiteers and gougers from ruin- ing the consumers. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield to the dis. tinguished chairman of the committee. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, the Senator will recall that in the Appropria- tions Committee, I suggested for the ECA appropriation the sum of $2,450,- 000,000. After a very considerable argu- ment and debate, the committee reached the compromise sum of $2,391,930,000. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE That figure was reported by the commit- tee, as the Senator from Michigan has just stated. I wish to say that I took what I thought was a proper step in endeavoring to bring about economy as far as I could. How- ever, the committee had a different no- tion about the matter. We finally de- cided, by our vote in the committee, to report the figure I have just stated. I think the vote was either 17 to 83 or 17 to 4, as I recall. I wish to say to the Senator from Vir- ginia that although I am and I have been as much in favor of economy as is anyone else, nevertheless, I think the amount reported by the committee, as a result of the decision it reached, is the proper amount; and I hope very much that the Senate will agree to that amount. It has been very carefully gone over and debated, and the amount has been compromised. After all, that is a fairly good way to arrive at legisla- ion. I wish to call the Senator’s attention to a further fact, namely, that the budget estimate for the entire bill was $33,900,- 208,648, and the amount of the total] ap- propriation carried in the bill as re- ported by the committee is $32,504,- 972,672—showing that the total amount of appropriations carried by the bill as reported by the committee is below the budget estimate by the enormous sum of $1,395,235,976, representing a very great saving. The amount carried by the bill as reported by the committee ts greatly below the amount for last year. In percentages, the bill is 4.1 percent under the estimates. The committee's bill 1s $5,158,259,008 over the House bill, but this is due largely to approval of $4,861,724,664 of budget estimates not considered by the House. In contract authority, the committee's bill is $77,813,600 under the estimates. Mr. President, as experienced legisla- tors, I think we should know that we are obliged to settle these matters after a most thorough examination of the facts. All of us realize that the amount re- ported by the committee comes about as @ result of the compromise I have stated. Icertainly join the Senator from Vir- ginia and all other Senators, including our distinguished Democratic leader, in saying that I sincerely hope that the amount reported by the committee will be agreed to. Let me point out that the committee has done excellent work; ex- cluding myself, I wish to say that every other member of the committee, either Democrat or Republican, has done won- derful work on this bill. So I sincerely hope that the amount of the bill as reported by the committee will be agreed to by the Senate. Mr. ROBERTSON. Then, Mr. Presi- dent, as I understand the distinguished chairman of the committee, he does not want another cut made in the ECA funds—a cut which would reduce its funds below the amount reached by the committee as its final action. Mr. MCKELLAR, I wish to stand by the committee's report. Mr. ROBERTSON. That is my posi- tion, too, Mr. President. The only way Juty 14 we can do so is to vote down the Fergu- son amendment when it is reached, be- cause the next amendment, if adopted, will cut 10 percent from the ECA's funds. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Virginia has indicated that the prices stated by the ECA in connection with its budget estimate were the prices as of last year. Mr. ROBERTSON. They were the prices as of last November; that is when the ECA made its estimates. Mr, FERGUSON. However, is it not also true that today we here in the United States in civilian life—and the ECA program is a civilian program—face a shortage of steel and iron and various other products? If we examine page 9 of the side slips, we find a statement of the number of millions of dollars’ worth of materials that are to be sent from the United States, as civilian products drained from our domestic economy, to build up the various European countries. I have gone along with the ECA program, but I feel that this amount can be cut at this time, because we shall never be able to furnish all the products stated in connection with this matter. For instance, let us consider for a mo- ment the list of products which it is pro- posed that we send to the European countries under the ECA program: Solid fuels; petroleum and petroleum prod- ucts; industrial raw materials; iron and steel raw materials; iron and steel crude, semicrude, and finished materials; non- ferrous ores and concentrates; alumi- num; copper; lead; zinc; other nonfer- rous metals; lumber; paper and pulp; raw hides and skins; industrial chenl- cals; capital equipment. The total would be the difference be- tween §3801,000,000 and $494,000,000— which is $193,000,000—for that item alone. In the next group we have agricultural machinery and industrial machinery and equipment. Industrial machinery and equipment alone are provided for in the amount of $453,000,000. For other manufactured and raw ma- terials, $65,000,000. Also, leather, rubber, textiles, miscel- laneous, and so forth. The amount for them is approximately $65,000,000. So, Mr. President, as I have previously indicated here on the floor of the Senate, if we make this cut in the funds, later, at the beginning of the next session of Congress, the representatives of the ECA can request a deficiency appropriation, if at that time it is possible for the ma- terials wanted by the ECA to be manu- factured. Why should we undertake to go into the red at this time, and why should we invite the expenditure of these funds, which would be spent in competition with our own preparations for war—in fact, in ‘competition with our own prep- arations for war in behalf of the very countries which are to receive these ci- vilian aids? Will not it be essential for the coun- tries which are receiving these civilian
1950 aids and for our own country, which is fighting at the battlefront today, to take action to make a reduction in some of the civilian items previously carried un- der the ECA program, so that we may be, in a material sense, strong and prepared to do battle against the common enemy? Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I may say to my distinguished colleague that he proposed his cut when we were not at war, and I grant that there might be an argument as to where steel would do us the most good, whether by sending it to our allies in western Europe, to help stem the tide of aggression, or by build- ing more homes and other things for which steel is used. But in my opinion, if we decide to cut the heart out of the European cooperation program and to use the steel at home, we had better go to the valley of Virginia and use the steel to reinforce the Luray Caverns and the Endless Caverns and all the other caverns to be found there, because few of us will want to be living above ground when world war If] starts, If the ECA program is not designed to ward off and to stop perpetually the threat of world war III, it has no validity. We cannot justify it merely because we have certain surplus farm products that we want to get rid of. We are sacrificing in behalf of the people of Europe for a definite purpose. We believe that our assistance will be a contribution to peace. That is why I am supporting it. That is why I say it would be false economy of the most disastrous character if we were to cut this program below the point where it would be effective. T have called attention to the fact that the appropriation is nearly $500,000,000 below the budget estimate. Since the budget was prepared, increased prices have cut it $200,000,000 more. Prices are now increasing by leaps and bounds. I do not think increased prices are justi- fied. I read in a New York newspaper that it was said we were buying 1,000 tons of sugar from the Philippines for delivery in August and September, and paying 6 cents a pound for it. Everyone knows there is plenty of sugar. Every- one knows that Cuba has a million tons of surplus sugar which, up to this point, she has not known what to do with, Either such statements are merely false propaganda to start a run by housewives to get sugar or else the 1,000 tons of sugar are being purchased in order to raise the price of the other thousands of tons which are already here, and which are owned in Cuba, to be unloaded at an unconscionable price. I note that the steel companies, with no increase in the cost of steel, were operating at full capacity, with full em- ployment. I saw where the manufac- turers had advanced the price of stain- less steel, which is in sharp demand, thus taking advantage of this situation to gouge the public. I read that cotton ad- vanced $10 a bale in 1 day, although the crop reports show that the coming cot- ton crop will be more than can be used domestically. Certainly we have a big surplus which the Government owns. I read that the price of hogs went up in Chicago $1 a hundred in 1 day, although but a few days before, the crop report showed a great increase in the prospec- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tive corn crop, and there has been a great increase in the number of hogs moved to market, farmers taking advantage of the war psychology. Mr. President, I am on the Senate committee which must consider another OPA if it comes. I am on the committee which must consider allocations of scarce materials, if it comes. Iam on the com- mitee which must consider all qucstions affecting war controls, if the Congress jis forced by the greed and selfishness of producers and distributors, because of war psychology, to impose controls for the protection of the consuming public, and to put our cconomy in a straight- jacket. Nothing could please the Krem- lin more than that. We do not get maximum production under Govern- ment control—we never have, and we never will. But if prices are pushed up and up and up, Congress may be forced to impose controls, and the men in the Kremlin will smile, because they know that our production will be reduced, that our inflation will be increased, and they will then lift the war cloud and say, “Well, let us have some peace; we really were not intercsted in Korea, anyway; that was the fight of the North Koreans; we did not have anything to do with it.” We shall then be plunged into the worst depression we ever saw, and will play right into the hands of the Kremlin. I beg the American people not to be stampeded by the threat of war. I beg the manufacturers of this country not to be selfish. They have had the best divi- dends, in spite of high taxation, they have ever had. They are looking for- ward now to full employment. I have just heard that the Armed Services Committee has been requested to recommend an authorization of $6,- 000,000,000 more for military expendi- tures. Just how much of that we would authorize and how much of it we would appropriate, I do not know, but that is the request which I understand has al- ready gone to the Armed Services Com- mittee—the authorization of $6,000,000,- 000 above the amount provided by the bill we are now discussing. Mr. CAPEHART rose. Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. CAPEHART. I should like the floor in my own right. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Virginia has the floor. Mr. MAYBANK, Mr. President, I de- sire to obtain the floor in my own right, also. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Virginia still has the floor. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I shall conclude these extemporaneous re- marks by saying that when we reach the military-assistance program next week and come to the Ferguson amend- ment, amendment to the ECA appro- priation, I hope the Senate will not adopt the amendment but will wait to see what action may be taken on the other amendment, which, if adopted, would place a 10 percent cut on what is carried in the bill for ECA. Mr. CAPEHART, Mr, FERGUSON, and Mr. MAYBANE addressed the Chair, The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Virginia still has the floor. 10169 * Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield the floor. Mr. FERGUSON. Will the Senator yield for a question? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, a mo- tion has been made to strike out the pro- vision for a certain number of auto- mohbiles—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The question before the Senate now is on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 126, lines 17 and 18. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I Wish to say, as chairman of the subeom- mittee, that I have no intention of press- ing for the adoption of that amendment. It would be entirely agreeable to me to have it stricken out, if it is agreeable to the other members of the committee. The VICE PRESIDENT. ‘The question is on the committee amendment, FOREIGN EXPENDITURES Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I desire to speak briefly about foreign ex- penditures. I think possibly this is a good time to do it. It seems to me that our foreign policy is a one-way street. Certain of the questions which are being asked me by the people of Indiana are rather difficult to answer. For the last 5 years we have been appropriating billions of dollars for different forms of aid to foreign countries. We have been appropriating that money in the hope that it would keep us out of war. Unfor- tunately we are at war today. Evidently the appropriations have not kept us out of war. The question which I think is upper- most in the minds of the American people today is this: Are we going to furnish not only the materials and money, but also the manpower? Is it not time— in fact, is not the time long past, though perhaps it is not too late-—for us to have an understanding and to tell the Amer- ican people exactly how much help we are going to get when a war breaks out—- if it does—at different points through- out the world? We are fighting the Korean war alone. When are we going to have an under- standing that we shall receive manpower help from the nations which we are helping? Is this going to be a one-way street? Why do not England, France, and all the other nations we have been helping offer ground troops to fight side by side with our boys in Korea? So far as I know, and I think I can speak for the American people, we are fighting the Korean war alone. If war breaks out tomorrow in Iran, are we going to fight that war alone? If war breaks out at some other point, are we going to fight it alone? Are we going to furnish materials, money, and manpower? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. CAPEHART,. I shall be happy to yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Is the Sena- tor aware of the fact that the public press carried a few days ago the offer of Chiang Kai-shek to send several thousand highly trained Chinese troops
10170 to save some of the American lives that are going to be lost, and that the ad- ministration would not accept the offer? Mr, CAPEHART. I am aware of the fact that the General offered some 20,- 000 troops, and that the administra- tion rejected his offer. I think a majority of the American people are in favor of the help which we are giving, but I believe they ques- tion whether it was the proper thing to do. Now that war has broken out, and they find we are standing alone, after having furnished billions upon billions of dollars and a large amount of materials, and are having to fight the war with our own boys, it seems to me the people are beginning to wonder. . Is it not possible to have an under- standing? Or is there an understand- ing at the moment with England, France, and the 16 ECA nations, and is there an understanding with the 45 na- tions which are members of the United Nations, that they will furnish X num- ber of ground troops to help in case war breaks out in Korea or in any other spot in the world? Is there an understand- ing? Istherea blueprint? Can anyone, including the President of the United States, tell the American people tonight that if war should break out in Iran to- morrow members of the ECA nations and members of the United Nations would furnish troops to help us fight such a war? Have we been appropriat- ing billions of dollars and giving away billions of dollars worth of materials with absolutely no understanding, possibly on the same basis on which we took over the responsibility of governing one-fourth of Berlin, and then forgot to have a cor- ridor into Berlin so that our troops could enter? Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, CAPEHART. I yield. Mr. CONNALLY. Does the Senator approve or disapprove the action of the Government, through the President, concerning Korea? Mr. CAPEHART. I approve of it. Mr. CONNALLY. If we called on the other nations for help and they did not respond, would the Senator from Indi- ana have us quit and get out of Korea? Mr. CAPEHART. Have we called on the other nations to do it? Mr. CONNALLY. The United Na- tions has. This is a United Nations project. The United States is just one member of the United Nations. We are carrying the load now, it is true, but I am not in favor of throwing up my hands and surrendering if the other nations do not furnish assistance. Is the Sena- tor from Indiana in favor, under those circumstances, of surrendering and quitting the fight? Mr. CAPEHART. Will the Senator let me answer? Mr, CONNALLY. If he will. Mr. CAPEHART. Iam not criticizing the President. I am certainly not in favor of pulling out, but I want to know whether we are going to get anything in return for the billions upon billions of dollars worth of help we have given other nations, The Senator said that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE this ts & United Nations project and that we have called upon the United Nations for help. How many nations have offered to help, and how many troops are on the way this’ afternoon to Korea to help out our soldiers in Korea? Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator an- swers his own question. If the Senator has kept up with it from the first, he knows that a great number of nations have pledged their aid. Mr. CAPEHART. Have any of them pledged any foot soldiers to move to the front and carry guns? Mr. CONNALLY, I do not know how many foot soldiers they have approved, how many rifles they have approved, or how many cannon they have approved. We all know that Great Britain has furnished ships. Mr. CAPEHART. How many ships? Mr. CONNALLY. I do not know how many. There are more now than there were yesterday, I am sure. Why does not the Senator from Indiana go there and see about this business on the ground? Let him inspect the arrange- ments and say to General MacArthur, “Look here, General, you are not run- ning this show correctly. You do not know anything about it. Let me show you how to run this war.” Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, the vaudeville act of the able Senator from Texas at the moment is typical of the vaudeville act which has been going on—— Mr. CONNALLY Since the Senator from Indiana rose. Mr. CAPEHART. Through the Sec- retary of State for many years. There are boys dying in Korea this afternoon, and the chairman of the Foreign Rela- tions Committee, in trying to make a clown out of me, makes a clown out of himself by throwing his feet up into the air when the world is at war. All I rose to do was to ask a question, and I think it is an appropriate question to ask on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. My question was, When we are voting on two and one-half billion dollars to help other nations, is it a one- way street? Can we not have an un- derstanding in advance as to what help we shall receive in case of war? We are at war today. The able Senator from Texas, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, should know, but he evidently does not know. His only answer to the question is to act the part ofaclown. Idonot think American mothers appreciate that sort of attitude on the floor of the United States Senate. To me this is a serious matter, because I am just as much aware of what will happen to this Nation in world war II as is anyone else. I also know that we cannot win wars with money. Wars can be won only with manpower. That is being proved in Korea today. I again put to the United States Sen- ate, to the President of the United States, and to the Secretary of State the ques- tion, Is this a one-way street? Why is it not possible under the United Nations Charter, clause 43, which was approved by the respective nations, for each nation JuLY 14 to say what it will furnish in case of war? So far as I know, outside of a few ships which have been offered by Great Britain, and a ship or two offered by the Netherlands, no other nation has offered to help the United States. I think it is time the question should be answered. I think it is what the American people want to know. The American people are good sports. They are generous. However, Mr. President, I will say that this afternoon they have a big question mark in their minds. It is whether or not our foreign policy and our spending and our help to the world are not a one-way street. What I want to know, what every other Senator should want to know, what every American wants to know, and what every mother who has a boy of the age to get into this war wants to know, is how much help are we going to get from the members of the United Nations, and how much help we are going to get from other na- tions? They are entitled to know how much help we are going to get. There is nothing wrong about asking that question. It is a simple matter. It is as simple as two and two make four. Mr. President, my opinion this after- noon is that there is not one in our Government who can tell us whether any other nation is going to support our troops. If I am wrong about it, let someone come forth and give us the agreement. Let them come forth and show us exactly what has been offered, Mr. President, I think the time has ar- rived when the Senate and the Ameri- can people should know whether or not this is a one-way street. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I am not at all surprised by the address which the Senator from Indiana has made. He says he has approved of what the Pres- ident has done. In the next breath he hits the President in the ribs and kicks him in the seat of his pants, Oh, yes, Mr. President: we all want to get all the help we can from the United Nations. Forty-six members of the United Nations have approved the Presi- dent's action, and have pledged their support. I have no doubt that the United Nations has called upon them. I do not know the details, but I know that Great Britain has furnished ships, and that other countries have furnished ships. I know that Australia has fur- nished ships and airplanes, They are cooperating. There are men on those ships, Mr. President. Talk about not having foot soldiers. I would rather be a foot soldier than an air soldier, with someone shooting at me from a high- powered jet plane. Other nations have furnished soldiers and they have fur- nished ships. We were in a better po- sition to furnish troops than the other nations were. We had troops in Japan. General MacArthur is located in Japan. The troops there could be more expe- ditiously moved into Korea than could troops from Europe, or from some other distant point. Of course we want help from other na- tions. However, if they do not help us, I am not going to surrender. I am not going to vote to lie down and do nothing
1950 because they do not help us. If I can- not get any help, Iam not going to quit. That is my attitude. I know that is the attitude of the people of Indiana. Oh, the Senator is not in sympathy with the furnishing of arms to other countries. As I recall, he voted against the arms aid bill. I do not hear any response. I do not hear any denial. I suppose I was correct in saying what I did. That is my recollection. I do not have the record before me. He did not want us to contribute anything for the protection of western Europe against the infiltration of totalitarianism. Now he wants other nations to come in and help us. He is demanding that they come to cur rescue, although he was unwilling to go to their rescue. He voted against aid to them. The record does not make any mistake about that. The record is before us. He is talking for the people of Indiana. I imagine the people of Indiana know that record. They will know more about it between now and November. I do not blame the Senator for running to cover and trying to show how enthusiastic he is for the program which is now being undertaken in Korea, Of course we welcome all the aid we can get. General MacArthur has been made the commander in chief of all the United Nations forces operating in Ko- rea. He is a capeble officer and gen- tleman. He knows the situation there better than any other important mili- tary figure, because he has been on the scene for 4 or 5 years. We are trying to do the best we can. The kind of speeches the Senator from Indiana has been making, speeches behind the lines, do not help us. It is a sample of in- filtration and sabotage to tell the world, “Oh, yes, we are for it, but we are not so hot for it. We are for it, but if we cannot get a lot of other people to come forward and help us do the fighting, we will throw up our hands.” Mr. President, that is the inevitable reaction which will take place in the minds of people. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CONNALLY. I yield. Mr, CAPEHART. No one has said anything about throwing up anything. The Senator is injecting that into the debate. The Senator knows it is not true. No one has said anything about that. Mr. CONNALLY. I said something about it. Mr. CAPEHART. The Senator has said something about it. The Senator knows it is not true. Mr. CONNALLY. What is not true? Mr. CAPEHART. No one has said anything about throwing up anything. I simply asked the question, “When are we going to get help from those other na- tions?” The Senator cannot answer that question. There is no answer to it, be- cause no arrangements have been made. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, the Senator knew there was no answer to the question when he asked it. He merely wants to rawhide the President. Mr, CAPEHART. No one has been able to get an answer from the Secretary of State. No one has been able to get an answer from the administration. We CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE have the same people running the Gov- ernment today and carrying on the Ko- rean war who have been carrying on for many, many years. They are the same people who made the deal in Berlin, when they forgot to get a corridor into Berlin. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, first the Senator talks about Korea, and then he talks about Berlin. Oh, we do not want to talk about Korea now. We have had enough of that. Let us talk about Berlin. The only thing the Senator has not mentioned is Yalta. What is wrong with Yalta? Why do we not talk about Yalta? Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, CONNALLY. I do not yield now. I will do a little talking now. Mr. CAPEHART. The Senator asked a question. Mr. CONNALLY. I do not yield for anything until I get through answering my own question. [Laughter.] Mr. CAPEHART. The Senator is afraid to yield. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Texas declines to yield. When a Senator declines to yield, another Sen- ator has no right to interrupt him. Mr. CONNALLY. I want to talk about Yalta. I want to talk about Berlin. We handled Berlin pretty well with the air- lift. We did not leave. We did not run off. We did not quit. We did not do any of that because other nations did not come to our rescue. We stood up and maintained our position. We won. We will win in Korea, if the barkers at our heels let us alone, and do not keep shooting at us in the rear or flanking us. Oh, yes, Mr. President, I am talking about what we are doing in Korea, but I do not like it a bit, The Senator says he does not have the answer. He says he does not have the answer as to whether other countries are going to fur- nish troops, what kind of troops and how many troops, when they are going to get there, or on what ships they are going there. Of course, no one knows that. No one can answer that question at this time. It is all dependent upon develop- ments and circumstances. If the Sen- ator were acting in good faith he would not ask such a question.” He would not want to advertise to the world that we are in the dark, that we are ignorant, that we do not know anything about what is going on, and so forth. That is the attitude of the Senator. That is the attitude which is refiected in his expressions. They are expressions of not Ixnowing. We all know that. Those are expressions which a good many peo- ple have. Mr. President, we are going to win in Korea. We are going to win alone, if we have to. I hope we will not have to do it alone. I hope we will have other nations fighting with us, as some are now fighting with us. Australia, Great Brit- ain, and some other nations are fighting with us. I hope other nations will fight with us. However, whether or not they fight with us, we are not going to lie down. We are not going to surrender. We are not going to sheathe our sword until we drive the enemy into defeat, hu- miliating defeat, in order to maintain the high principles which actuated the 10171 United States when the President took the action in that area. Mr. WHERRY and Mr. CAPEHART addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. I wish to say in be- half of the distinguished Senator from Indiana—— Mr. CONNALLY, Oh, yes. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator from Texas wish me to yield to him? I shall be glad to yield to him so that he may make another speech. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will be in order. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator from Texas has interrupted me. The VICE PRESIDENT. A Senator has no right to make observations. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have the floor, and I have a right to make any observations I want to make so long as I keep within the rules of the Senate. Mr. President, the distinguished Sen- ator from Indiana has brought to the attention of the Senate this afternoon a thing which I think the American peo- ple want to have, and what I think the Congress wants to have, namely, a report from the President of the United States or a review of what has happened, the facts in the case, and his recommenda- tions. I submit to the Members of the Senate and my distinguished friend from Texas that that is constructive. There is noth- ing wrong about it. Up to this minute Members of the Senate or of the Con- gress, with the exception of a few invited to the White House, have had to rely solely upon press releases and newspaper reports of what has happened. I say that in all constructiveness. I happened to be invited to the White House at one time. I appreciated it very much, and said so. When I got there I was asked if I desired to ask any questions, and I said, “Mr. President, I want to ask you, when are you coming before the Congress of the United States? I think the Con- gress, the Senators and Representatives, ouaht to know the facts of the situa- ion.” I submit in all fairness, as a construc- tive suggestion, that I believe if the Pres- ident would come before the Congress and review the facts, reveal what has happened and what the plans are for the future, it would answer questions which many Members of Congress are asking today. I deeply respect the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. It has been some time since he has castigated the Senator from Nebraska, and I hope that I may be permitted to escape that operation being performed upon me, if possible, because I respect the Senator. But I do say that while as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations he may know all the facts, yet the Congress as a whole does not know them, and in my opinion the Members of the Congress are entitled to them. When appropria- tions are being considered, certainly we must have the facts, and I think the time has come for us to know them. I say constructively, without any ani- mosity, straight from my heart, that
10172 I believe, regardless of what one’s posi- tion might have been in the past or what it is to be in the future, if the Congress is to have unity, it must know the facts. I think the Congress is entitled to that much. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Does the Sen- ator from Nebraska think it would be proper to ask the administration to state what has happened to over $53,000,000,- 000, the equivalent of one-fifth of the entire national debt, which has been spent for the Military Establishment of the United States in the fiscal years be- ginning with 1947 and ending with fiscal year 1950? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in answer to the distinguished Senator’s question, I think it would not only be fitting, but the time has arrived when the answer should be made. As a mem- ber of the Committee on Appropriations I have tried to find out all I could about that, and I certainly believe the time has arrived when questions similar to this one should be answered. These things cannot be laughed off, and the motives of a Senator cannot be impugned because he did this or did that in the past, or because of what he may do in the future. I have offered to sup- port efforts to secure unity, but I cer- tainly have a right constructively to crit- icize. I certainly believe we should act as a unit, but if we are to do so, such questions as were propounded by the Senator from Indiana, such questions as have been propounded by the Senator from Iowa, such questions as have been propounded by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisles, should be an- swered. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may ask the able Senator from Texas whether or not he agrees with the statement I am going to read? Mr. WHERRY. I would have to have unanimous consent to enable the Sena- tor to do that. If he does not mind, I should like to finish my remarks, and then the Senator from Indiana can take the floor in his own right, and can ask the Senator from Texas any question he desires to propound to him. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor from Nebraska declines to yield. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, this morning I rose on the floor of the Senate and read from a newspaper account a statement, which is in the Recorp, and I asked a question, because, as a Member of Congress, I think I have a right to know about what appeared in the article. The press release might not have been authoritative, it might not be correct, I realize, but it was an Associated Press dispatch, which stated explicitly that the British would refuse to furnish ground troops in Korea unless an § O § call were made by the United States. That is an entirely different thing from suggesting that we have to ask the United Nations to supply this, that, or the other. I should like to know whether that report is true. I should like to know whether CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the United States has asked any other member nation to furnish troops in Ko- rea. If the action there is United Na- tions action, and General MacArthur is the commander, the Wnited States has a right to know whether other troops are to be supplied, and the question of the Senator from Indiana ought to be an- swered, and it ought to be answered now, if it can be, by those who know. Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I am glad to yield to the Senator from New York. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from Iowa made a statement, with which the able minority leader agreed, that he thought the President of the United States, or the Government of the United States, should make public now in what way the military appropriations, amounting to over $50,000,000,000 since 1947, have been used. I ask the distin- guished minority leader, whether he would want the Government of the United States at this time, in the midst of not only a cold war, but a hot war—in the making, at least—to give an inven- tory of what we have in the way of arms, munitions, and other implements of war. I cannot conceive of anything more unwise. Mr. WHERRY. I will answer the question. If the Senator desires to make an observation, I shall be glad to have him make it in his own time. Mr. LEHMAN. I ask the question. Mr. WHERRY. I shall answer the question. The Senator has a perfect right to ask a question, and I yielded to him, and I desire to answer. I think it behooves every Member of the United States Senate, especially those who are members of the Commit- tee on Appropriations, to inquire into all appropriations, how they have been spent, whether it is on a hot war or a cold war or any other kind of war. That is how I feel about it. I think that if there ever was a time when we needed to inquire into appropriations, and how they are being spent, it is now. I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and my record shows that I have stood for economy. I have always voted for appropriations backing up the military, for practically every- thing they have ever asked for, both in war and peace. I was one who believed in a 70-group Air Corps. So I cannot be charged with not supporting the mili- tary or the defense of the country, I have been right behind them. But I say if there ever was a time when we should get a dollar’s worth of defense for every dollar spent, it is now. The Appropriations Committee is the only one I know of that has been able to get information, and that is because that is the committee’s business. We find that out of the $10,300,000 we appropriated for Korea last year, only $200 has been actually used to provide anything like a military program in Korea. I believe we should know why the policy set by the Congress was not carried out. I believe that is the result of the Acheson policy in the Pacific. I am glad the President repudiated it, but we found that this Ad- ministration had not spent a dime in JULY 14 Korea to do the thing the Congress au- thorized it to do. And, by the way, I supported those appropriations, Mr. LEHMAN. Will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I supported the ap- propriation for the ECA after it was once authorized, and I supported the appro- priations for the military after they were authorized. Mr. LEHMAN and Mr. CAPEHART addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. WHERRY. I yield to one Senator at a time. I yield first to the Senator from New York, then I shall yield next to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from Ne- braska has not answered my ques- tion. The only way to account for the appropriations of $56,000,000,000 or $57,000,000,000 which have been made by the Congress of the United States dur- ing the past 4 years for the purposes of acquiring arms and ammunition and for defense generally is by giving an in- ventory. I again ask the distinguished Senator from Nebraska whether he would want the Government of the United States to give such an inven- tory, which would be made public. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I think we ought to have a complete in- ventory of our military equipment. We should be told what has been done with it, and what is to be done with it. That is one of the things which I think the President should announce to the Con- gress. What is our equipment? What has become of it? Where is it scattered throughout the world? The distinguished Senator from Texas, chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, spoke of the feats we had ac. complished in Germany. The Berlin airlift did a good job. But I should like to know what the policy of the admin- istration is in western Europe; whether the corridor of 700 miles in Germany is to be protected. I should like to know what the judgment of the military is if that corridor is not protected. I should like to know why it is that the adminis- tration refuses to recognize Spain, whose recognition is recommended by the mili- tary because it is one of the most strate- gic points in Europe, and would be nec- essary to us if we are going to do what we ought to do to protect Germany against attack, I should like to ask not only about what we have in the way of military equipment, and what our policy is with respect to Spain, but what our whole foreign policy is, Some of our policy has been repudiated and needs to be repudiated if we are to protect Ger- many against attack. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY, I cannot yield to the Senator all afternoon, I yield now to the Senator from Indiana, who has asked me to yield, Mr. CAPEHART, Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Ne- braska whether he agrees with the state- ment made on Wednesday last by tre
1950 junior Senator from Texas (Mr. Jonn- son}, who is & member of the Armed orp of yesterday, and ask the Senator from Nebraska whether he agrees with But I sincerely believe that never before, during my experience, has the Nation been in such grave peril aa it is at this moment. We are outnumbered—outnumbered seri- ously, There is little likelihood that this numerical superiority can be overcome, or even that the odds can be equalized, at least Tor many months to come. Our equipment—our tanks, our guns, our planes—is plainly inadequate in quantity, it is not the right kind, and it is not at the right place. Our problem of supplying our troops in South Korea ts overwhelming. The pros- pects for correcting thie situation are bleak. That statement was made on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday by the able junior Senator from Texas, 9, member of the Armed Services Committee. Does the able Senator from Nebraska agree with that statement? Mr. WHERRY. The testimony we had before the Appropriations Committee would indicate that that statement is correct, The situation in Korea is bleak. It is a question of getting military equip- ment into Korea. It is a question of getting men there. I realize the situation which exists. To be perfectly frank, and getting down to brass tacks, we were caught flat-footed in Korea. We found out something about the CIA, the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. WHERRY. I should like to can- tinue, if the Senator will permit me. In view of the facts which have been pre- sented, which the Senator has men- tioned, and in view of the questions which are being asked, I believe that the Congress of the United States is entitled to have a complete review, a complete statement of the facts by the President of the United States. We should have his recommendations with respect to where the United States shall go from here relative to our foreign policy, our military appropriations, and whatever is meeded in order to go overseas and do the job the distinguished Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Foreign Re- lations Committee, talked about. Mr. CAPEHART, Mr. President, will the Senator now yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr, CAPEHART, Does the able Sen- ator from Nebraska agree with the state- ment the junior Senator from Minne- sota (Mr, Humpurey] made on Wednes- Gay last as follows: The American people are wondering what Jpas happened with all the money which has been appropriated for these purposes— Meaning military purposes. Undoubtedly it has been tsed for good purposes, but I do not think we can permit supsrsecrecy about this matter. I think the people want to know what has hap- pened to these funds, this $18,000,000,000 or §14,000,000,000. Does the Senator agree with that state- ment? xCVI—041 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. T do. I thought it @ very able statement. While I did not hear all the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Texas, I thought he made a very force- Tul address to the Senate on Wednesday. I believe the suggestions which have come from both sides of the aisle make it mandatory that the Congress be advised with reference to the matters we have spoken of, I hope that will be the fu- ture course that will be taken. I believe - that if unity is to be had in the United Btates Senate the questions must be atiswered. I do not want to say anything deroga- tory of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, but I am quite satisfied the answers the Congress wants are not the answers the distinguished chairman gave this afternoon. I say that in all sincerity. I am not in any way deriding the Senator, nor do I in any way mean to make a statement deroga- tory of him. I believe it is necessary that we be given the cold facts of the situation. We should have an entire review, I will say to my distinguished friend from New York, of our military equipment. I believe that to be necessary, because when we shall be called upon to make appropriations we must know where we can place a dollar so it will do the most good and secure for us the greatest amount of defense. If it is found from that inventory that there has been waste, that fact might be of help to us in pre- venting waste in the future. I say that in all sincerity, because I fee] that such an inventory is necessary. I believe the Senator will agree with me that the Senate should do its level best to cut domestic expenditures so we can provide the sums necessary to provide military equipment and carry out our objective of winning the struggle in Korea. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief observa- on Mr. WHERRY, I should be glad to do so, but I must ask unanimous consent that the Senator may make an obser- vation without my losing the floor thereby. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the Senator from Nebraska yielding to the Senator from New York so that the Senator from New York may make an observation, and not ask a question? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I am very much interested in the remarks of the distinguished minority leader. Of course, I can fully understand his wish that he and the entire country, includ- ing the Congress of the United States, should be given an inventory of our mili- tary equipment. It would be fine if that could be done and if it could be kept within our family circle as Americans. But unfortunately, any inventory of mili- tary equipment which would now be given publicity would inevitably fall into the hands of our enemies and be of very great sssistance to them. I would strongly regret any such action. 10173 Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will bad poner permit me to interrupt Mr. LEHMAN, Yes. Mr. WHERRY. Of course, I would not want any inventory to be submitted to us which could not be kept secret. I would want such information to be given on the same basis as we are acting now. Any such information should not, of course, be given to the public. It should be given in executive session, as is done in the Appropriations Committee and in the 4rmed Services Committee. That is the way I should wint the matter handled Mr. LEHMAN. May I continue my observation? Mr. WHERRY,. I would not want any information given out to the public that might affect the national security or our defense. Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. President, as a very junior Senator, I have been sur- prised at, and I regret very much, some of the matters that are being openly de- bated and discussed on the floor of this House. Only 2 or 3 weeks ago, in a col- loquy between the distinguished minor- ity leader and the chairman of the Com- mittee on Armed Services (Mr. Typinos], the minority leader pressed very hard for an answer as to what part of the $1,200,000,000 which we proposed to vote for arms aid to our friends and allies would be used for aircraft. The Senator from Maryland at first withheld that in- formation, but he was pressed and again pressed by the able Senator from Ne- braska, and finally Senator Typincs made the statement that one-third of all this money— Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator per- mit me to interrupt him? Mr. LEHMAN, May I finish this one sentence, and then I shall be very glad to yield to the Senator. Mr. WHERRY. Yes. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator from Maryland was pressed, and finally came forward with the answer, reluctantly, it is true, that one-third or one-fourth—TI do not remember the exact percentage— of this $1,200,000,000 would be used for aircraft, I think it was unfortunate that that information was made available to our enemies. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, has the Senator concluded his observation? Mr. LEHMAN. Oh, yes; and I thank the Benator for permitting me to make it, Mr. WHERRY. The Senator is quite welcome. Mr. President, to reply briefly to the distinguished Senator from New York, let me say that I recall most distinctly the colloquy I had with the Senator from Maryland, On each occasion, my ques- tion was prefaced by the remark that if an answer to the question would re- veal any matter which should be kept secret, then I would not want the Sena- tor from Maryland to give the informa- tion. If the Senator from New York was on the floor at that time, I am sure he heard me make that remark, and I am sure he will agree that the question I asked was asked in that spirit. Of course no one wants to have secret information revealed. It is surprising
10174 how secret information sometimes gets out, of course. However, I take second place to no one in keeping confidential any information which is of a confi- dential character or nature and has any- thing to do with the national defense. Mr. President, to sum up my remarks, I wish to say that I sincerely hope that before the Congress adjourns, the facts and a review of the situation will be given to Congress, I think it is im- portant that that be done. I think that will answer many of the questions being asked by Members of Congress who do not really know what the situation is. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I doubt that we have ever experienced a more serious situation than the one facing our country at this very moment, I can understand how very anxious Senators and citizens of the United States generally are to obtain correct in- formation in regard to what is occurring. I have no hesitancy in saying that in due course the President of the United States will make his report to the peo- ple. Mr. President, the only question in re~ gard to making a report to the Con- gress or the people is one of timing. Everyone must agree that in the un- usual and grave circumstances which now exist in the Far East, Gen. Doug-~ las MacArthur, General Bradley, the President, and the Secretary of State, and others close to the facts, who are daily advised in regard to what is oc- curring in the Far East and, in fact, all over the world, probably are in a some- what better position to make that deci- sion than is a Member of the Senate. I understand how easy it is for a Sen- ator in a speech on the floor of the Sen- ate to demand that the President do this or do that. However, I think that in a crisis of this kind we must have an unusual amount of confidence in the President. I do not believe that there is a Senator on either side of the aisle, regardless of political affiliation, who does not believe that Harry Truman is one of the most patriotic men who ever lived in this country of ours. His rec- ord in World War I demonstrates be- yond peradventure of doubt not only his patriotism but his ability. He is not keeping anything from the American people deliberately or stealthily. When the proper time comes, he will make a full report to the people—whether through the Congress or directly from the White House. I do not know when he will do so, but I know he will do it. It is his duty to do it. I doubt that he could have given the American people the correct information one week after this crisis developed. If he had done so then, there would have been a demand on the floor of the Sen- ate, a week later, for him to give fur- ther information, because of reverses which occurred in Korea, So, Mr, President, it seems to me that the Congress should not be too hasty in demanding this or demanding that, at a crucial hour in which we are experienc- ing a rather dificult time—and no one will deny that. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Por Senators now to demand prac- tically an investigation of the way money hes been spent in the past 4 years, seems to me to be the most unusual de- mand I have ever heard—for everything else to be laid aside, and for a committee to be appointed, and for that committee to begin an investigation, after 3 weeks of serious trouble in the Far East, to determine how the money has been spent. Mr, HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LUCAS. Yes; in view of the fact. that the Senator from Iowa raised tha question. . Mr. HICKENLOOPER. At this time of emergency, when we find through the public press and through the admissions of responsible Government officials that we cannot put an adequate force into the peninsula of Korea, and that we have victually nothing with which to fight over there, does the Senator from Ijinois think it is unusual or unfair for & Member of the Senate to ask what we have been doing with the more than $53,000,000,000 which the Congress has appropriated for the Armed Forces, be- ginning with and including the fiscal year 1947, through the fiscal year 1950— in those 4 years? Is it unreasonable to ask why we do not have equipment that we can put into Korea to stop the alleged bandit raid— as it was alleged to be when it first started. Is there anything unusual in asking that; or is it beyond the responsibility of a Senator of the United States to ask for some replies to the questions as to what has been done with the $53,000,- 000,000, when we find our ability to put even one full combat division in the field highly questionable, according to the statements in the public press. Mr. LUCAS. I observe that my friend is having some difficulty in speaking, I do not want him to choke in my time. Mr. HICKENLOOPER, I think it is enough to make a great many of the American people choke. Mr. LUCAS. I am sorry the Senator from Iowa cannot goon. I was enjoying his speech very much, although I believe he is absolutely wrong. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I am de- lighted to go on now, if the Senator Will yield further. [Laughter.] Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I simply disagree with my very distinguished friend with respect to calling on the Government at this particular time for a thorough investigation. If that oc- curred, all the men who have anything to do with the Army, the Navy, and the Air Corps, who now are engaged in de- voting all their time to trying to get out of the mess in Korea, would have to journey to Capitol Hill, listening to Sen- ators bombard them with all kinds of questions and inquiries, not only for 30 days, but perhaps for as long as a year. That is what would occur if there were to be the kind of investigation the Sena- tor from Iowa is talking about, I do not know anything about what has happened at this particular time; but if an investigation is due, now is cer- JULY 14 tainly not the time. An investigation would only result in delay of our present operations and disunity among our peo- ple. It seems that some persons would like, for some reason or other, to have disunity develop. Mr. President, the Senator from Ne- braska has said that the Secretary of State and the President have repudiated the policy we have had in Asia, Of course they did change their policy; after conditions in Korea changed, they changed their policy in the Far East. However, the Senator from Nebraska, too, changed his position on the military. assistance program, after conditions changed in Korea. He had a right to do that, and I think he was correct in mak- ing the change that he did, and in vot- ing for that program, although he had voted against it last year. So, Mr. President, when someone is charged with changing the entire policy in the Asiatic theater—which occurred— I undertake to say that it was done be- cause the conditions existing in Korea had changed as a result of the invasion of South Korea by the aggressive forces of North Korea. The Senator from Nebraska asks about our foreign policy in Europe? Why, Mr. President, we have a foreign policy there. We have always had one. The thing that was always the subject of complaint was that we did not have a foreign policy in Asia, Now, my good friend asks what the foreign policy is in Europe at the present time. Everyone knows what the Marshall plan is, as a part of our foreign policy. Everyone knows about our aid to Turkey, Greece, and Iran, as a part of our foreign policy. Everyone knows about the Atlantic Pact, as being a part of our foreign policy, and about the im- plementation of the Atlantic Pact with the mutual-assistance program to aid the western democracies. Everyone knows that an attack upon one of the signatories to the Atlantic Pact, whether the United States or some other signa- tory, is an attack upon all. That is the foreign policy laid down in the European theater. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Sen- ator from Nebraska? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY, I appreciate the re- marks of the distinguished majority leader. The part of the foreign policy which I questioned has to do with Ger- many. What are we going to do with Germany? I have been on the Appro- priations Committee. I have done my level best to find out what provision is made to defend the German border, For the life of me, I have been unable to get that information. There is a 700- mile corridor there which is wide open. The idea of appropriating money is one thing, but what we propose to do is another. I ask the distinguished Sena- tor, What is the program for the de- fense of Germany? What is the foreign policy with respect to Spain? Favorable recommendations as to both have been made by the Military Establishment,
1950 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, so far as Germany is concerned, everyone knows what our foreign policy has been there. Everyone knows what we did in con- nection with the Berlin sirlift. We stood there, with few troops, in Berlin, and practically defied the Communists across the way. We called their bluff, as the Senator from Texas has said. What will happen to the corridor? What will hap- pen to western Germany? I presume that if Russia wanted to march tomor- row, if the Kremlin ordered the Com- munists to go through Germany, they would not have much trouble in doing it, because everyone knows that they have 300,000 trained troops in eastern Germany. It has been recognized by practically all military men and by prac- tically all Senators who have been in Eu- rope or who have discussed it upon the floor of the Senate, that the Russians could overrun those countries if they 60 desired. They have the manpower and armaments with which to do it. So far, they have not done it, and I do not think they are going to. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Sena- tor from Nebraska? Mr, LUCAS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. How does the Senator feel about arming Germany? What is the policy of the Defense Department in that regard? Mr. LUCAS. ‘The question of arming Germany has been discussed, I think, pro and con. The Senator knows very well the position of France with respect to the arming of Germany. If he were living in France, he could understand that position, which is the result of a number of previous wars. France has been invaded three times fn less than a hundred years, so it is possible for one to understand the French reaction. But I have a feeling that, before long, that situation will be worked out to the satis- faction of all the Allies. It is a difficult thing to do. The same thing may be said with respect to Japan. I know that the German soldier is one of the best fighters on the continent of Europe to- day, as the Japanese soldier was one of the best fighters in the Far East. If German and Japanese soldiers were armed they would give a good account of themselves. Mr, President, while I am on my feet, I should like to refer to another thing. It is the question of publicity given to troop movements. We read the reports im the press from day to day. They practically tell where our troops are go- ing, what the outfit is, the total number of troops, their equipment, when they are to sail, and the port of their desti. nation, I do not understand that, Mr. President. I cannot understand it, to save my Hfe. Ido not want to say that we should have rigorous censorship, but there certainly should be a voluntary censorship of information of that sort, In my opinion, the President should re- quest it. It seems to me that we are giving the enemy every opportunity to do whatever may be desired with respect to the destruction of our ships, or at- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-—-SENATE tempts to destroy our troops on their way to the Far East, I shudder to think what might happen through a submarine attack as a result of this bold and un- necessary publication of information. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LUCAS, I yield. Mr. WHERRY, On that point, I should like to say to the distinguished Senator from Dlinois that I-agree with him, I think the line taken by the dis- tinguished Senator from New HRamp- shire {Mr. Brrpags] was to the same effect. What I wanted to say was that @ dispatch has just come over the ticker, which begins as follows: San Dizgo.—The combat-loaded transports Pickaway, George Clymer, and Henrico steamed out of port today carrying thousands of First Division marines to the far eastern ‘war zone. The dispatch continue in four or five paragraphs to describe similar troop movements. I do not know who gave out the information. That, I believe, is the point the Senator is talking about. I think the point is well taken. Mr. LUCAS. That is what I am talk. ing about. Mr. WHERRY. I ask unanimous con- sent to have this:dispatch printed in the Recorp at this point, as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the dispatch was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Saw Dreco.—-The combat-loaded transports Pickaway, George Clymer, and Henrico steamed out of port today carrying thousands of First Division marines to the far eastern War zone. Nine destroyers got under Way shortly before the attack transports cast off from San Diego Naval Station docks where they have been loading for a week, The destroyers wore believed slated to escort the three larger 8 8. ‘Two LST’s, alao ferrying units of the First Division, put to sea 2 days ago. The famed marine command which stormed Pacific World War II beaches from Guadalcanal to Okinawa was the first or- ganized ground unit dispatched to the Far Bast during the present crisis. Mr. LUCAS. Obviously, Mr. President, when troops are congregating in a port, newspapermen are present who cannot help seeing them. There is nothing we can do, unless we get a voluntary censor- ship on information of that kind, or else get legislative censorship—which no one wants. But we have got to have censor- ship, Mr. President, either voluntary or required. We must have it soon, if we want to protect the ives of American soldiers, It seems almost criminal for commentators, columnists, and other newspapermen to teli the world exactly where our troops are congregating, where they are going, and the total amount of their equipment, especially in view of the great emergency which exists at the present time. Mr. President, during this crisis it is not my dispasition ever to quarrel with anyone upon these very serious questions. In this critical situation, I want, as mae jority leader of the Senate, to exercise all the restraint possible in order that we on the floor of the Senate may remain 10175 in unity. I do not say that simply be- cause I want to defend the administra- tion in any way. I am pleading for our American boys who are fighting for liberty and justice against a vicious foe. There will be plenty of opportunity for criticism, but let us give as little en- couragement as possible to the enemy, when our boys are en route to foreign lands. That is my plea, Mr President, as majority leader of this great body. GENERAL APPROFRIATION, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President—— Mr. LUCAS. I was going to move that the Senate go into executive session, Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LUCAS. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. May I ask if we can- not come to some agreement on the pending amendment? Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. President, I do not want to speak to the amendment, but it is my understanding that the Sen- ator from South Carolina is agreeable to rejecting the committee amendment. Mr. MAYBANK, Yes; so as to leave the provision as passed by the House. Mr. HAYDEN. That does not reduce the amount of money appropriated in the bill. The number of automobiles which may be purchased is fixed in the bill, but the amount of money appropriated is not changed. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment on page 26, line 17. The amendment was rejected. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, does this conclude the chapter on the Treas- ury and Post Office Departments? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that it concludes the chap- ter on the Treasury and Post Office De- partments, IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING RESER- VOIR OF TRAINED MILITARY PERSON] NEL Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, dur- ing the fiscal year which ended on June 30, approximately §15,000,000,000 was appropriated for the armed services of the Nation, We read almost daily in the press that questions are asked as to what has been done with those many billions of dollars which were appropriated in order to build up our national defense, We also read that responsible officials of Government, particularly in the armed services, offer an alibi because we do not have the ships, the aircraft, the tanks and other matériel, and the military equipment which we probably should have with which adequately to defend our country in the face of an upheaval throughout the world. I shall not direct these brief remarks to an attempt to point out what has been done with the many billions of dollars which have been eppropriated, but I should like to invite the attention of the Senate'to what I consider to be the neglect and deliberate disregard by the armed services of the importance of
10176 maintaining as a component part of our military personnel a vast reservoir of manpower which has been available fol- lowing the end of World War Ti. Last spring, when I visited my State capital, Boise, I was asked by representa- tives of many hundreds of men who had served in uniform in World War II as to the reason for the lack of interest, pare ticularly on the part of the Air Force, in maintaining an adequate training pro- gram for hundreds of men in Idaho and thousands of veterans throughout the United States. Those men had received valuable experience during World War II, and, as patriots, they wanted to be prepared to meet any emergency which might confront our country. So, Mr. President, when I returned, about the 2d of May, I addressed an in- quiry to the Air Force Command. I wanted to know what was being done with the volunteer reserve of the Air Force, I addressed a letter to the Com- manding General, and, under date of May 22—and I point out, Mr. President, that I am not discussing any develop- ments which have occurred since the Korean outbreak—on May 22 I received a letter from Maj. Gen. Willis H. Hale, United States Air Force, commanding Mitchell Air Force Base, New York, in reply to my inquiry. I should like to read the letter, which is as follows: Deak Senator DworsHax: In the absence of General Whitehead, your letter of May 6 wherein you requested information concerns ing Air Force Reserve training at Boise, Idaho, has been referred to me. At the present time, the 9094th Volunteer Air Reserve Training Group is located in Bolse. This group is part of the Volunteer Air Reserve Training Program which offers training of a classroom nature in general military subjects and is designed to provide training facilities for those Air Force Re-~ servists who are unable to participate in the Organized Air Reserve training program. In addition to the 9094th Volunteer Air Reserve Training Group, the 190th Fighter Squadron, Idaho Air National Guard, is also stationed at Boise. As you know, this is an excel- lent fighter organization and an integral part of our programed M-day force. It is regrettable that Organized Alr Re- serve training cannot be provided in many areas where Air Force Reservists exhibit an interest in and desire for such training. However, the scope and extent of Organized Atr Reserve training 1s limited by the amount of funds allotted to the Air Force by Can- gress for this purpose. In order to achieve maximum Afr Reserve training for each dollar spent, the Organized Air Reserve troin- ing bases have been located in areas where large populations can provide extensive long Tange support to the program, Any enlarge- ment of the Organized Air Reserve training program will depend upon future allocations of funds by Congress and subsequent action by Headquarters United States Air Force. I wish to express my appreciation for your interest in the Air Reserve training program which is vilal to our national defense, Mr. President, having served upon Ap- propriations Committees in both the House and the Senate, and knowing the usual alibi presented by offictals of the Government whenever they are con- fronted with some policy which they seek to defend, that the Congress has failed CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE miserably to provide adequate funds for the specific program—knowing that fact, I requested the Senate Appropriations Committee to get some information con- cerning the Air Reserve training pro- gram of the Air Force, and I should like to read at this time the reply which was given by the Department of the Air Foree under date of May 26, 1950: DEPARTMENT oF THE AIR FoRCE, Washington, May 26, 1950, Bubject: Request of Senate Appropriations Committee. 1, In compliance with your request, the following information is forwarded: (a) Funds in the amount of 882,000,000 under “Appropriation, Air Force Reserve” were requested from Congress for flacal year 1950. Congress appropriated funds in the emount of 877,630,000. . I should like to point out that while the Air Force tried to alibi by saying that adequate funds had not been provided by Congress for this specific training program, Congress had provided within 5 percent of the amount of money which had been requested. I contend that in view of the fact that the Bureau of the Budget usually requests more funds than it expects to receive, certainly there was little, if any, justification on the part of the Air Force officials for saying the Con- gress did not provide adequate funds for the Air Reserve training program. I continue reading from the memo- randum: (b) Of the $77,680,000 appropriated, $77,060,000 is programed for the support of Organized Air Force Reserve units (T/O&B Units and Mobilization Aselgnees) and $580,- 000 is programed for the support of the Volunteer Reserves. (c) Air Force Reserve funds are allocated from Headquarters, USAF, to major air com- mands, major air commands issue sub- allocations to the numbered air forces, and numbered air forces issue allotments to the appropriate operating location under the jurisdiction of the numbered air force. (d) (1) There are no Organized Air Force Reserve activities in the State of Idaho; therefore, no funds have been allocated for this purpose, (2) (a) There are three Volunteer Air Force Reserve units located in Idaho as follows: One group headquartérs and one- squadron at Boise, and one squadron at Poca- tello. (b) The locations made available for the training of these units have been made avall- able on a rent-free basis by the local com- munity; therefore, funds have not been allo-~ cated for this purpose. (c) Personnel of the Volunteer Air Reserve are not authorized to participate in active and inactive duty training in a pay status; therefore, no funds have been allocated for this purpose. Dow 5S. Burrows (For Eugene M. Zuckert, Assistant Sec- retary of the Air Force.) Mr. President, I am making no per- sonal comment on this situation. I deem it my duty, however, to point out that in Idaho, as probably in every other State of the Union, there are hundreds and thousands of young men who served in the armed services of World War II who are eager to maintain the training and the experience which might prove vital in case of an international crisis, such as JULY 14 the one which confronts our country today. Yet when inquiry is made as'to why our Air Force and armed services a8 a whole during the past year or two have not seen fit to maintain an adequate Re- serve training program, the answer has been that Congress has heen niggardly in providing the funds which are essential for the conduct of such a program. We know that the draft has been in- voked and that our armed services are far below authorized strength. Today people are wondering why we do not have the essential and adequate person- nel to implement the military services so that they may defend the country in this time of great peril and stress. I do not know what kind of programing has been in the minds of the officers in our armed services who have been responsi- ble for this indefensible personnel pro- gram, but I should like to point out that Congress appropriated in the past year approximately $15,000,000,000 for the armed services. When we are wondering what has been done with all this money, surely it seems to me that tf there had been the kind of planning which we rec- ognize as being essential, advantage would have been taken of the experience of the thousands of patriotic young men who served in World War II and who have been eager to maintain the alert- ness which could be utilized by the Re- public in time of great peril. In the Bightieth Congress, which was a Republican Congress, steps were taken to instruct the military services and the President of the United States, who is still the President now, on the basis of building up a 70-group air force. What does the record show as to that? It Shows that, although appropriations were made for the implementation of 55 air groups, the Commander in Chief of the armed services of our country saw fit, notwithstanding whether or not he had the authority, to impound about a half billion dollars of the appropria- tion because he disagreed with the Con- gress and thought that we did not need a 70-group air force, or a 55-group air force, for which appropriations had been made, but that we needed only a 48- group air force. It is not my purpose to pose as a military expert and say that he erred or defied Congress, and therefore the personnel in our armed services are far below the authorized strength. I point out, however, that it is entirely and completely indefensible that those who have been charged with the responsi- bility of planning for the defense of vhe country during the past year or two saw fit to ignore completely the thou- sands of veterans of World War IT who wanted to cooperate with the Govern. ment, Today we are drafting young men. We find inadequate personnel in every branch of our armed services. Yet the record shows that Congress has provided $15,000,000,000 in the past fis- cal year. Notwithstanding that fact~ and I think the Vice President will agree that that is a large sum of money, and is 10 times the amount of the appro-
1950 priations for the armed services in the year preceding World War Yi—there faces the Nation today a situation which is extremely difficult because thousands and thousands of young men have been denied the right to train themselves and to be ready to answer the call of their country in any emer- gency, ‘ I point out this situation on behalf of the several hundred volunteer re- servists in Idaho who feel that they have not had proper recognition. In the face of this great crisis we do not have ade- quate strength in the armed services because of the tragically inept planning of those in charge of our military serv- ices, EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of executive business. The motion war agreed to, and the Senate proceded to the consideration of executive business. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A COMMITTEE The following favorable report was submitted: By Mr. GREEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations: Executive O, Eighty-first Congress, second session, a convention on road traffic, which was open for signature from September 19, 1949, until December 31, 1949, and during that period was signed on behalf of the United States of America and 20 other states, with a related protocol concerning occupied countries or territories which was open for signature at the same time as the conven- tion (Ex. Rept. No. 10). The VICE PRESIDENT, If there be no further reports of committees, the clerk will state the nomination which has been newly reported. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION The legislative clerk read the nomi- nation of E. F. Salisbury to be a member of the Mississippi River Commission, The VICE PRESIDENT. ‘Without ob- Jection, the nomination is confirmed. The other nominations on the calendar go over, RECESS TO MONDAY Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I move that the Senate take a recess until 12 o'clock noon Monday next, The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o’clock and 6 minutes p, m.) the Senate took a recess until Monday, July 17, 1950, at 12 o’dlock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Genate July 14 (legislative day of July CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Uniren Stares MARsHaL Thomas P, O'Donoven, of Ilinols, to be United States marshal for the northern dis- trict of Ilinols. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which expires July 15, 1960, In THE ARMY The following-named officers for promo- tion in the Regular Army of the United States, under the provisions of sections 502 and 510 of the Officer Personnel Act of 10947. Those officers whose names are preceded by the symbol (X) are subject to physical ex amination required by law. All others have been examined and found physically quali- fied for promotion, To be colonels James Harold Banville, 028921. Paul Dunn Berrigan, 016741. x Charles Pennoyer Bixel, 016808, Charles Brundy Brown, 016787, Frederic Joseph Brown, 016761. John Milton Burdge, Jr., 016803, Jack P, Campbell, 038610. Willard Burton Carlock, 016790, Eimer Joseph Collins, 060952, X Reynolds Condon, 016786. Raymond Wiley Curtis, 016784, Edward Grow Daly, 016786. Willlam Joseph Darmody, 028004. James Pooley Davis, 028895. George Townsend Derby, 016744 Glenn Gilmer Dickenson, 050954, Fred Dixon, 028892. Leander LaChance Doan, 016330. Edward Doherty, 028918. XHenry Gordon Douglas, 016742, X Ernest Glenn Doyel, 041453. x Parmer Wiley Edwards, 016775. Edward Gilbert Farrand, 016788, X Russell Bruce Fontaine, 089548. Francis Scoon Gardner, 016833. Joseph Howard Gilbreth, 016817, X Edward James Francis Glavin, 016815, Clarence Quarles Graham, 041463. Frederick Andrew Granholm, 016805, Ernest Benjamin Gray, 016268. Lewis Hinchman Ham, 016848. John Frederick Harlan, 050949. Burleigh Follett Hillman, 028907, John Leonard Hines, Jr., 016749. Henry Joseph Hoeffer, 016765. Jeremiah Paul Holland, 016812, Hans William Holmer, 016734. Bertram Arthur Holtzworth, 016804. William Nelson Hornish, 041457. Francis Elliot Howard, 016776. William Hamilton Hunter, 016772. Charles Richard Hutchison, 016796, Harold Stanley Isaacson, 016886. Harvey Albert Johnson, 041462, X Max Sherred Johnson, 016745. Walter Morris Johnson, 01635. X William Francis Kirby, 028:06. John Harold Kochevar, 016867. Ottmar Frank Kotick, 028924. Francois Anthony Kreidel, 039553, Fred Wallace Kunesh, 016768, Harold Albert Kurstedt, 016735. Olaf Helgesen Kyster, Jr, 016830. Ceci] Winfield Land, 016750. Paul Otto Langguth, 028023, Aloysius Joseph Lepping, 016853. Gerald Francis Lillard, 016770, Robert Graham Lowe, 016800. ‘x Robert Murray Mann, 089660. Edward Martin, 016802. Nathan Alton McLamb, 016860. William Lewis McNamee, 0167861, Charles H, McNutt, 016751. ix John Bruce Medaris, 039554, Alexander Macomb Miller Sd, 016769, John Kenneth Miller, 028800, Marlin Sheridan Moody, 028011. Robert Hammiell Naylor, 016739. Melville Freeman Noyes, 039555. 10177, Frank Thomas Ostenberg, 016863. ‘Barry Oliver Paxzon, 016764, XLoren Davis Pegg, 016754. George Fenton Peirce, 016771, William Perry Pence, 016779. Victor Woodruff Phelps, 041455, George Lucien Richon, 016794, Shayer Oswin Lancelot Robinson, 028002. Adolph Edwin Schonberger, 041461. Herman Walter Schull, Jr., 016752, XLawrence Edward Shaw, 016856, XOarl William Siegert, 050068. Thomas Herman Bills, 028909. Arthur Edwin Solem, 016840, XHarold Taber, 050040. James Virgil Thompson, 016826. Thomas John Hall Trapnell, O16782, Robert Grifith Turner, 016809. Russell Oscar Utke, 028915. xX William Jordan Verbeok, 0168652. x Thomas Morgan Watlington, 016780, xChariie Wesner, 016842. Theodore Addison Weyher, 016738. Willis Webb Whelchel, 016837, Robert Curtis White, 016851, Alex Norwood Williams, Jr., 016810. Stuart Wood, 016857, XHenry Magruder Zeller, 016843. The following-named officers for promotion in the Regular Army of the United States, under the provisions of sections 502 and 609 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947. Those officers whose names ere preceded by the symbol (x) are subject to physical exam- ination required by law. All others have been examined and found physically qualified for promotion, To be Heutenant colonels Russell Franklin Akers, Jr., 019243, Ralph Alspaugh, 019159. John Denton Armitage, 019014. XEdward Thorndike Ashworth, 019052, William Harold Bach, 042228, William Agin Bailey, 019264. Roy Charles Baker, 020979. James Wilbur Barker 2d, 030001. Valentine Motte Barnes, Jr.. 051494. William Gordon Bartlett, 019047 Joseph Edward Bastion, Jr., 019162, Rovert Harrold Bayne, 019207, XThomas Herbert Beck, 010164. xGeorge Wood Beeler, 018958. Charles Pearce Bellican, 019285. Lyle William Bernard, 019195. Robert Moore Blanchard, Jr., 019282. William Orin Blandford, 018990. Edward Bodeau, 019008. XJames Orr Boswell, 019188, Claude Leslie Bowen, Jr., 019244. James Noel Brewer, 042220. XFrancis Clay Bridgewater, 019182. John Roosevelt Brindley, 019087. Albert Sidney Britt, Jr., 042237. Edwin Martin Cahill, 019141. Charles Anthony Cain, 029988, William Roberts Calhoun, 019256. Paul Thomas Carroll, 019146. George Allen Carver, 019122, Emmanuel Salvador Cepeda, 019207. Ethan Allen Chapman, 019076. George Hobart Chapman, Jr., 010064. Gerald Chapman, 019035. Charles Henry Chase, 019096. XPeter Demosthenes Clainos, 019269, Ernest Mikell Clarke, 019183, John Abell Cleveland, Jr., 019136, Frederick William Coleman 8d, 019216. Hughe Doyle Coleman, 039848. X Theodore John Conway, 019015, Avery John Cooper, Jr., 019107, Dabney Ray Corum, 019001. Ira Whitehead Cory, 019026. Joseph Brics Crawford, 019215. Donald Cameron Cubbison, Jr. 019204. William Prancis Curren, Jr., 038749. Arthur Robert Cyr, 019119. X Chester Arthur Dahlen, 019020.
10178 John Joseph Dalton, 042219. William Fant Damon, Jt., 019179. William Joseph Daniel, 019019. Carl Darnell, Jr., 019213, Hoy D. Davis, Jr., 018982, Joseph Franklin Decker, 029990. Chester Braddock Degavre, 019262. John Phil Dicks, 029982. Edger Collins Doleman, 019131, Cyrus Abda Dolph &d, 019170. Robert Hulburt Douglas, 019212. Elisworth Barricklow Downing, 018986. Walter Adonis Downing, Jr., 018981. William Field Due, 019268. xXCharles Golding Dunn, 018096. Morris Oswald Edwards, 019041, Edward Spalding Ehlen, 019286. Frank Laurence Elder, 019208. William Jonas Ely, 018974. Jean Evans Engler, 019198. xGraydon Casper Eesman, 019242. Roy Colella Evans, 042238. Roy Tripp Evans, Jr., 019140. Thomas Bowes Evans, 019174, John William Ferris, 019097. x Kenneth E. Fields, 018957, Randolph Whiting Fletter, 019148. Marshall Woodruff Frame, 019103. Robert Beall Franklin, 019046. William York Frentzel, 019026, William George Fritz, 019069. Harold Armand Fulton, 042225, James Hensley Fulton, 029984, Btephen Ogden Fuqua, 019109. Amaury Manuel Gandia, 019205. Samuel Edward Gee, 019251. xX Frederick William Gibb, 019222, David Parker Gibbs, 019189 Douglass Graver Gilbert, 019202. Paul Nelson Gillon, 019048. William James Given, 019108, David Warren Gray, 018988. Duff Green, Jr,, 042239. Fay Kenyon Green, 029976. George Rushmore Gretser, 019126. Melville Hulbert Griffth, 039846. Alston Grimes, 019252, Patrick William Guiney, Jr., 019066, Robert Worman Hatin, 019072. . Duncan Hallock, 018960. Ben Harrell, 019276. Benjamin Thomas Harris, 019166. William Allen Harris, 018976. William Ernest Harrison, 029091, Frederick Otto Hartel, 019264 X Morris King Henderson, 019230. Frank Sherman Henry, 018989. Edward George Herb, 018978. Marcus William Heskett, 042218. John Thomas Honeycutt, 0189/75. Ferdinand Marion Humphries, 019012. Walter Abner Huntsberry, 019200. Oren Eugene Hurlbut, 019077, David Thomas Jellett, 019273, Walter August Jensen, 019006, Harold Keith Johnson, 019187, Beverly DeWitt Jones, 019081, Clyde Lucken Jones, 019074. Herman Henry Kaesser, Jr, 019057, Maurice Evans Kaiser, 019165. Frank Kellers, 051482. Edgar Haskell Kibler, Jr., 019089. John Roberts Kimmell, Jr, 019291. Russell Roland Kianderman, 019099, Anthony Frank Kleitz, Jr., 019145. Walter August Kneyse, 042227, Paul Elton LaDue, 019017, John Joseph Lane, 019021, Robert John Lawlor, 019086. Aianson Tyler Leland, 042236, Robert Crain Leslie, 018993. Cyril Joseph Letzelter, 019132, Richard Leroy Lewis, 042224. Charlies Ellsworth Leydecker, 019227, Lawrence Joseph Lincoln, 018968. George Frederick Linthwaite, 029990. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE William Bruce Logan, 019083, ‘xCam Longley, Jr., 019112, Stanley Nelson Lonning, 019281. X Melvin Delos Losey, 042235. Quy Cecil Lothrop, 018992. Earl Jacob Macherey, 019158. Norman Kemp Markie, Jr., 019223. William James Marquette, 042231, Victor Edward Maston, 019075, John Douglas Matheson, 018962. Arthur Alfred McCrary, 019087. Francis Joseph McMorrow, 018995, X Robert Wolcott Meals, 019005. Lauren Whitford Merriam, 019002. Richard Davis Meyer, 018963, Richard John Meyer, 010147. Marvin Arrington Middlebrooks, 051440. X Charles Harlow Miles, Jr., 019151, Austin Andrew Miller, 019228, Edwin Taylor Miller, 030006. Gus Hugh Montgomery, 029998. Rafael Montilla, 051437. xX Robert Benton Neely, 019114, Wallace Jay Nichols, 030003. Thomas Joseph O'Connor, 019125, Hardin Leonard Olson, 019110. Joseph Henry O'Malley, 019061, xX John Daniel O'Reilly, 019283. Dulaney Lee O’Roark, 029986, X Samuel Edward Otto, 019030. Richard Park, Jr., 019080. Daniel Parker, Jr., 019038. Ivan Walter Parr, Jr., 019255 Charles Goyer Patterson, 019073. James Pugh Pearson, Jr., 019157, Richard Henry Peter, 029987. Joseph Menzie Pittman, 019121. Herbert Charles Plapp, 019059. James Hilliard Polk, 019028. Phillip Henshaw Pope, 019115. Gardner Wellington Porter, 019167. Gwinn Ulm Porter, 019210. Ernest Warner Posse, 029989. Charner Weaver Powell, 019284. George Thomas Powers 3d, 019137. James Rhoden Pritchard, 019248. Ralph Harper Pryor, 029996. William Wilson Quinn, 019283, Edson Duncan Raff, 019261 Lamar Cecil Ratcliffe, 019034, Claude Elbert Ray, 051430, John Francis Reed, 061436, Joseph Anthony Remus, 019276, Royal Reynolds, Jr., 019238 x Curtis Theodore Ricketts, 051433, Richard Allen Risden, 019278 Gerald Lorenzo Roberson, 019161, Henry Harper Rogers, 029992. Franklin Gibney Rothwell, 019176, X William Francts Ryan, 019142 John Frederick Schmelzer, 019270. Edson Schull, 019286, John Newman Scoville, 019267. Albert Lewis Seeger, 029997. Frank Harris Shepardson, 019068. John Gardner Shinkle, 018979, Alden Kingsland Sibley, 018964, ‘X James Henry Skinner, 019144. Franklin Guest Smith, 019164. Kimball Clay Smith, 029882. X Maddrey Allen Solomon, 019194, Herbert George Sparrow, 019003. Robin George Speiser, 019104. Frederick Miller Sperry, 051427, X Alfred Dodd Starbird, 018961. Andrew Donald Stephenson, 019201. Joseph Warren Stilwell, dr., 019117. Harry William Sweeting, Jr., 019168. Marcus Tague, 019090, Ralph Talbot, 019226, Robert Penn Thompson, 019098. William Vernard Thompson, 019292. Edward Philip Thomson, 029974. John Frederick Thorlin, 019087, George Zinn Traeger, 051429, Robert Campbell Tripp, 018972, JULY 14 X Harry Sheldon Tubbs, 019056, Robert Amrine Turner, 018987, Arthur Wilson Tyson, 019120. George Leon Van ‘Way, 019093, Humbert Joseph Versace, 019152. David Wagstaff, Jr., 019246, Neil Merton Wallace, 019101, Paul Rudolf Walters, 019050, XJohn Edward Watters, 018904. Alvin Charles Welling, 018983. William Paul Whelihan, 019102. Sherburne Whipple, Jr., 019130, George Warren White, 019079. xXJohn Luther Wilkin, Jr., 039847, John Mary Woestenburg, 030004, Frank Joseph Zeller, 019048, Frederick Robert Zierath, 019211, To be majors, Veterinary Corps George Dallas Batcheldor, 038852, Carl Frederick Brenner, 051969, Thomas Joseph Wheelin, 038856. To be captains, Medical Service Corps Budley Page Cook, 038562. Jordan Lee Epperson, 038550. x John Joseph Erb, Jr., 088538, Jack Lewis Flora, 038551. Joseph Stanislaus Foley, 098539, Bernard Anthony Hart, 038544 X Matthew Sebastian Heep, Jr., 056981. James Wilbert Keenan, 049972. Reginald Sanders LaFrankie, 0411€3, Andre Raymond Pascal, 038573. Lawrence Joseph Pfeiffer, 038548. William Olva Prettyman, Jr., 038549. XJohn Redmond, Jr., 088542. X Forrest Harvey Stanley, 038545. Frederick Myers Wells, 039487. xX John Raymond Williams, 038533. Harry Robert Zielazinski, 038543. To be lieutenant colonels, chaplains Edward Joseph Burns, 041709. Silas Edward Decker, 020104. To be majors, chaplains Lewis Minyon Durden, 030935. Andrew Lincoln Johnson, 080934. Edwin John Kozak, 043129. Robert Stanley McCarty, 051970. Harmon David Moore, 051971. The following-named officers for promo- tion in the Regular Army of the United States, under the provisions of sections 502 and 509 of the Officer Personne] Act of 1947, as amended. All officers are subject to phys- ical examination required by law. To be majors, Women’s Army Corps Victoria Pearl Dunn, L810, Muriel Alice Foster, L242. Margaret Helen Harlow, L309. Margot Lorraine Harris, L243, Rosemary Hart, L811, Kathlyn Clara Hilton, L308, Olive Ellen Mills, L85. Muriel Outwater, L307. Margot Reis, L244. Mary Willia Stephenson, 178, In THE Coast GuarRD Capt. Kenneth K. Cowart, United States Coast Guard, to be Engineer in Chief of the United States Coast Guard, for a period of 4 years, with the rank of rear admiral, effective August 1, 1950. . Ce memeeameend CONFIRMATION Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate July 14 (legislative day of July 1), 1950: Mississtprr Riven Commission &. F. Salisbury to be a member of the Mississippi River Commission.
1950 REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT In compliance with Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, title III, Regu- lation of Lobbying Act, section 308 (b), which provides as follows: (b) All information required to be filed under the provisions of this section with the Olerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate shall be compiled by said Clerk and Secretary, acting jointly, as soon as practicable after the close of the calendar quarter with respect to which such information {a filed and shall be printed in the ConorzastonalL Recorp, ‘The Clerk of the House of Representa- tives and the Secretary of the Senate jointly submit their report of the com- pilation required by said law and have included all registrations and quarterly reports received for the first calendar quarter of 1950. To carry out the provisions of the Lob- bying Act, three forms were originally printed and used in making detailed statements (Form A), registrations (Form B), and filing quarterly reports (Form C). Beginning with the current quarter, & new composite form to take the place of the three forms heretofore in use by each office was prepared and made available. The following registrations and quar- terly reports were submitted on the old forms, the outlines of which are repro- duced below: Form B Recrerratton (Iv DuriicaTe) WitH THE CLEZR oF Tis House OF REPRESENTATIVES AND BnC~ EXTARY OF THE BewaTE Unowe THE Lopsrine Acr (Public Law 601, 78th Cong.) Name ..~------—-- enn n enn nen ee Aeneneewn Business address... 2.2... nennnenee nnn en - INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM PERSONS REGISTERING (1) The name and addresa of the person by whom employed: (1) nnn nna ee eee eee en eee eee << (2) In whose interest he appears or works: (8) nnn nnenn wee nne een weenewwee a — ) - (8) The duration of such employment: @) -22 eee eee seeeensnennerwemene owes (5) (6) How much he js to be paid for ex- penses: (8) wannnnennnnnene we ceeennneennnnnnne — (7) What expenses are to be inctuded: 1m 0 Oe We ON On se HO OO om a8 OO a OO OOD OED See form © for quarterly report to be filed. OATH OF RXCISTRANT {Omitted in printing] Foax 0 QUARTERLY Report oF PARSONS REGISTERING Unpze Lossrine Act To Bs Fritz, ww Du- PucaTa, Wrrn ver Our or tHE Hover OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SECRETARY OF THE Senate (Public Law 601, 72th Cong.) Name ........ dm rennet am mew een meme me cee mae Business acidress ...22.-. nnn enwnnnnen awe Employed by ...-....---.------------+ name A@Gress 2022 ee eee ene awn INVORMATION BEGQUIRED IM QUARTERLY REPORT Zach such person so registering shall, be- tween the ist and 10th day of each calendar quarter, 20 jong as his activity continues, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE file with the Clerk of the House of Repre- sentatives and of the Senate (1) A detailed report under oath of all money received and expended by him during the preceding calendar quarter: 1) 1... owen een: wee cece ener mre memeen me: - 3”) To whom paid: i) Bae win papa (4) The names of any papers, periodicals, magazines, or other publications in which he has caused to be published any articles or editorials: (8) oo nn nner cemamnetanmeenennen womme mene: “= (5) The proposed legislation he is em- ployed to support or oppose: (8) nwenwnnmenemnnencnene cunnweeswerman oor OATH OF REGISTRANT FILING QUARTERLY REPORT {Omitted tn printing} REGISTRATIONS The following registrations were re- ceived for the first calendar quarter, 1960, and filed, using Form B, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. (Nore.—In order to reduce space, the questions in Form B (see above) are not repeated. Only the answers to questions are printed and are indicated by numbers in parentheses.) American Pulpwood Association,’ 220 East Forty-second Street, New York, N.Y. (1) The association is a voluntary unincorporated as- sociation, not for profit, and 1s composed of producers, suppliers, and consumers of pulp- wood within the United States. Its princi- pal objective is the promotion of the welfare of the industry at large and protection of its interests. It is principally concerned with improved logging, production, and transpor- tation methods, conservation of resources, betterment of operations, safety and fire pre- vention programs, development of mechani- cal equipment, and other problems peculiar to the industry which !t represents. Ite only concern with legislation or legislative action of any character arises when some legislative proposal is made which appears to have some direct effect upon the industry, ite members, or thetr business and operations, Such occa- sions rarely arise, but when they do the ssso- ciation acts by itself and is not, therefore, “employed” by anyone in the ordinary sense of that word, (2) The association works solely in the interest of the pulpwood indus- try in the United States as represented by its membership. (3) As above stated, the asso- ciation is employed by no one. Such legis- lative activities as it may undertake will pre- sumably be continued when and as the need therefor is apparent as long as the assccia- tion's organization continues to exist. (4) The revenue of the association is derived entirely from dues and assessments collected from its members. It is not conducted for t and no part of its income inures to the nent of any member, Its funds are used exclusively for the objectives above described, only a small portion being allocated from time to time for legislative activities as the actual necessities of each individual problem may require. No specific contributions are received for such purposes nor 4ny specific ap- propriations made therefor, all such expenses being charged as made against the general funds of the sasociation. (5) See (4). (6) Bee (4). (7) The expenses paid or incurred by the association in legislative activities consist of that proportion of ite secretary's compensation of 18,000 annally ea the time deroted by him to such activities bears to his total working time, together with the out-of-pocket expenses of the secretary 3 Registration with the Secretary only. 10179 in auch activities. There are also the ex- penaes of holding meetings from time to time and the rarely oovasional publication and distribution of eduvational and informative literature, There may be other expenditures of an Unusual or emergent character which are not possible of general clasaification. Atkins, Rdward, 61 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. ¥Y. (1) National Asso- ciation of Shoe Chain Stores, Inc., 51 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. ¥. (2) National Association of Shoe Chain Stores, Inc., and its members. (3) Permanent. (4) $500, which amount is an estimate of the proportion of total salary per year that is allocated to activities regulated by this act. (5) National Association of Shoe Chain Stores, Inc. (6) To be reimbursed for ap- proved out-of-pocket expenses, (7) Trana- portation expenses, hotel bills, etc; Barker, Creighton, M. D., 160 St. Ronan Btreet, New Haven, Conn. (1) Connecticut State Medical Society, 160 St. Ronan Street, New Haven, Conn. (2) Connecticut State Medical Society. (3) I am not employed for the purpose of influencing legislation, and therefore I do not believe that I am required to register under the Pederal Regulation of Lobbying Act. However, I am filing this reg- istration voluntarily to remove any doubt. I have been employed by the Connecticut State Medical Soctety since 1939 and since February 1, 1940, as its full-time executive secretary, subject to reelection once a year. (4) I am paid an annual salary as a full- time executive officer of the soctety. Legis- lative work is estimated to require about 1 percent of my time and no part of my salary is specifically allocated for that purpose. (5) Connecticut State Medical Society. (8) Out- of-pocket expenses only. (7) Travel and lodging. Barnes, James T., 203 Capital Club Build. tng, Raleigh, N. ©. (1) Medical Society of the State of North Carolina, 203 Capital Club Building, Raleigh, N.C. (2) Medical Society of the State of North Carolina. (8) Septem- ber 16, 1947, with continuing tenure to May 1, 1952, under present election. (4) This is to state that my annual salary in the amount of $7,000 is paid to me specifically as execu- tive secretary of the Medical Soctety of the State of North Carolina and said sum is nei- ther appropriated or expended to cover serve ices related to lobbying. As executive secre- tary my entire time will no doubt be fully occupied by the performances of duties that will have no connection with any so-called lobbying activities and my compensation is paid to me for the performances of these regular duties; however, with reference to my present and future duties and respon- sibilities, this registration is being filed out of an abundance of caution, as I do not re- gard my position and activities as being cov- ered by the act. (5) Medcal Society of the State of North Carolina. (6) Annual bud- getary allocation of 62,100 expendable as earned in the course of performing official duties, (7) Travel and personal mainte- nance. Bell, OC. Jasper, 904 Bryant Building, Kan- eas City, Mo. (1) Philippine-American Com- mittee, 1086 Connecticut Avenue NW., Wash- ington,D.C. (2) Philippine-American Com- mittee, which committee 1s a voluntary com- mittee formed in order to present the views of the Philippine-American interests in con- nection with the desirability of increasing the authorised appropration for Philppine war damages. (3) This session of Congress. (4) €25,000 ptus necessary expenses of travel- ing to Washington and stays in Washington for him and his wife. (5) Philippine-Amer- ican Committee. (6) 00 ra mo a ex ceed approximately ¢6,000. - penaes between Kansas City, Mo., and Wash- ington, D. C., and hotel, meals and inciden- tais on visita to Washington.
10186 Bolton, Paul H., 708 Ring Buliding, Wash- ington, D, ©. (1) National Association of Wholesalers, Inc., 708 Ring Bullding, Wash- ington, D. C. (2) National Association of ‘Wholesalers, Inc. (8) Beginning March 15, 1940, I was elected executive vice president of National Association of Wholesalers, Inc. (4) Executive salary at present is based upon 810,000 per year, which covers full executive and administrative duties. (5) ‘The above salary amount is from the treas- ury of National Association of Wholesslers, Inc. (6) No defined budget for expenses. Present expenses consist solely of rent, seo- retarial expense, printing, postage and ad- ministrative. (7) The above items cover the only items of expense at present anticipated. Boorde,: Thomas E., 945 Pennsylvania Ave- nue NW., Washington, D. C. (1) General Welfare Federation of America, Inc., 945 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D. C, (2) In behalf of a Federal old-age pension for the aged citizens. (8) Indeterminate. (4) Actual expenses, travel, hotel, postage, wires, etc. (5) General Welfare Federation, Inc. (6) Actual expenses. (7) Travel, hotel, post- age, eto. Bowden, Benjamin Edward, 10 Independ- ence Avenue SW., room 313, Washington, D.C. (1) American Train Dispatchers Asso-~ ciation, 10 East Huron Street, Chicago, Ill. (2) American Train Dispatchers Association, (8) Temporary, approximately 2 months. (4) $19.50 per day, not exceeding 5 days per week and actual living expense in Washing- ton, D. C. (6) American Train Dispatchers Association, 10 East Huron Street, Chicago, Ill. (6) Actual living expenses (approxi- mately $11 per day). (7) Hotel lodg- ing, meals, transportation, communication, United States postage, laundry. Breed, Arthur H., Jr., and Hahn, James D., associates, 1111 Jackson Street, Oakland, Calif. (1) Pacific American Steamship Asso- ciation, 16 California Street, San Francisco, Calif. (2) Pacific American Steamship Asso- ciation, 16 California Street, San Francisco, Calif. (8) Indefinite. (4) $200 a week dur- ing continuation of employment. (5) Pa- cific American Steamship Association, 16 California Street, San Francisco, Calif. (6) Actual expenses incurred. (7) Telephone, telegraph, stationery, postage, traveling, liv- ing expense while away trom home. Brinckerhoff,’ H. E., 220 East Forty-second Street, New Yark, N. ¥.,: (1) American Pulpwood Association, 220 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. Y. (2) The pulpwood industry in the United States as represented by the membership of American Pulpwood Association. (3) At the pleasure of the board of directors of American Pulpwood Association. (4) That portion of his an- nual compensation of 813,000 as is repre- sented by the proportion which is working time devoted to activities covered by the Lobbying Act tn any year shall bear to his total working time in such year. No fixed sum can be estimated in advance, (5) American Pulpwood Association, 220 East Forty-second Street, New York, N. ¥. (6) Actual out-of-pocket expenses paid or in- curred while actually engaged in activities covered by the Lobbying Act. No accurate estimate can be given in advance, (7) Traveling ard hotel expenses, subsistence, meeting space, luncheons, cab hire, and other expenses incidental to group meetings and conferences held in connection with activi- ties covered by the Lobbying Act and the preparation and editing of literature per- taining thereto. Brown, Ethel G., 1184 North Orange Drive, Los Angeles, Calif. (1) The registrant is chairman of the standing committee on leg- islation of the National Congrees of Parents and Teachers. The registrant expressly dis- @laims any activities constituting lobbying 1 Registration with the Secretary only. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE within the purview of Public Law 601, Sev- enty-ninth Congress, and files this registra~ tion under protest. (2) The National Con- gress of Parents and Teachers. (8) The term of office of the registrant is 3 years, (4) The registrant receives no compensation for her services. (5) Not applicable. See item (4). (6) The registrant is reimbursed periodically by the National Congress of Parents and Teachers for her out-of-pocket expenses in- curred in connection with her activities as chairman of the standing committee on leg- felation. The expenses for which the regis- trant is reimbursed together with the oute of-pocket expenses of the chairman of the Washington committee on legislation (whose activities are directed by the registrant) are estimated at not to exceed 6250 per calendar quarter. (7) Special secretarial services (ex- cept as paid for directly by the National Congress of Parents and Teachers), telegrams, telephone, postage, transportation, and sim- ilar miscellaneous itema. Bryan, James E., as agent for the Medical Society of New Jersey, 315 West State Street, Trenton, N. J. (1) The Medical Society of New Jersey, 315 West State Street, Trenton, N.J. (2) The Medical Society of New Jersey, 816 West State Street, Trenton, N. J. (3) Since September 1, 1947. (4) Proportionate amount of total salary for proportionate time devoted to lobbying within the meaning of Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, €2,000 annually. (5) The Medical Society of New Jersey, 316 West State Street, Trenton, N.J. (6) For actual expenses incurred, cov- ering travel and incidental expenses; average reportable under this act not exceeding $15 per month. (7) Travel. Bugbee, H. C., 1681 K Street NW., Washing- ton, D.C. (1) W. 8. Lockwood, Inc., 1631 K Street NW., Washington, D.C. (2) Natural Rubber Bureau, 1631 K Street NW., Washing- ton, D. C. (8) Calendar year basis. (4) Not applicable (see letter of February 16, 1960, attached’). (5) Not applicable (see letter of February 16, 1950, attached"). (6) Not applicable ‘see letter of February 16, 1950, attached’). (7) Not applicable (see letter of February 16, 1950, attached *). Callaghan, Edna, 2032 Belmont Road NW., Washington, D. ©. (1) The registrant is the chairman of the Washington committee on legislation of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. The registrant ex-~ pressly disclaims any activities constituting lobbying within the purview of Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, and files this registration under protest. (2) The National Congress of Parents and Teachers. (3) In- definite. The registrant serves as chairman of the Washington committee on legislation at the pleasure of the executive committee of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. (4) The registrant receives no compensation for her services. (5) Not pap- plicable. See item (4) above. (6) The reg- istrant is reimbursed periodically by the Na- tional Congress of Parents and Teachers for her out-of-pocket expenses Incurred in con- nection with her activities as chairman of the Washington committees on legisiation, The expenses for which she is reimbursed to- gether with the expenses reimbursed to Ethel G. Brown, chairman of the standing com- mittee on legislation are estimated at not to exceed $260 per calendar quarter, (7) Spe- cial secretarial services (except as paid for directly by the National Congress of Parents and Teachers), telegrams, telephone, postage, tax! fares, meals, and bimilar miscellaneous items. Campbell,? Wallace J., 726 Jackson Place NW., Washington, D. ©. (1) Cooperative League of U.S. A., 843 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Ill. (lobbying activities if there be any are incidental to information and ree * Registration with the Clerk only. ‘Not printed. Filed in the Clerk's office. JuLY 14 search activities of the Washington office). (2) Cooperative League of U. 8. A. and its constituent organizations. (8) Permanent. (4) $7,500 per year. (5) Cooperative League of U.8. A. (8) About $200 a year if needed, (7) Taxis, meals, and other transportation. Carson, Tenderson H., 640 Shoreham Builld- ing, Washington, D. ©., 600 First National Bank Building, Canton, Ohio. (1) East Ohio Gas Co. Cleveland, Ohio. (2) East Ohio Gas Co. as a client in the general practice ofiaw., (3) Unknown. Have been one of the attorneys for sai. company for over 27 years. (4) $12,000 annual retainer which primarily covers nonlegislative service. (5) The Hast Ohio Gas Co. (6) Unknown; issue itemized bills for expenses quarterly. (7) Travel and out-of-pocket expenses. Carter, Horace, 9 West One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street, Borough of Manhattan, olty of New York. (1) To be filed accordingly. (2, To be filed accordingly. (3) To be filed accordingly; indefinite. (4) To be filed ac- cordingly. (5) To be filed accordingly. (6) To be filed accordingly. (7) To be filed accordingly. Casey, Joseph E,, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. (1) Radio Manu- facturers Association, 1317 F Street NW., Washington, D.C. (2) Radio Manufacturers Association, 1317 F Street NW., Washington, D.C. (3) For the remainder of the calendar year 1960. (4) To receive $5,000 retainer and 81,000 & month, and expenses, beginning March 1, 1950, for the balance of the calendar year. (5) Radio Manufacturers Association, 1817 F Street NW., Washington, D. C. (6) As incurred. (7) Undetermined. Clucas, W. Frank, 1105 K Street NW., Wash- ington, D. C. (1) National Association of Master Plumbers, 1105 K Street NW., Wash- ington, D. C. (2) National Association of Master Plumbers, 1105 K Street NW., Wash- ington, D.C. (3) Permanent. (4) Nothing; part of regular activity as executive secretary of the association and paid by annual salary. (5) National Association of Master Plumbers, 1105 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. (6) None. Reimbursed for out-of-pocket ex- pense. (7) Telephone, telegraph, postage, other miscellaneous expense. Coles, Marvin J., Ingoldsby, Coles & Wright, attorneys, 818 Washington Building, Washington, D. C. (1) Employed as attor- neys by the Wisconsin & Michigan Steam- ship Co., 2489 Detroit National Bank Building, Detroit, Mich. (2) Wisconsin & Michigan Steamship Co. (8) Indefinite. (4) Regis- trant's compensation is for legal services and will be dependent upon the amount of time required to perform such services. (5) Wis- consin & Michigan Steamship Co. (6) Registrant will be reimbursed for out-of- pocket expenses. (7) Long-distance tele- phone and telegraph charges, mimeograph- ing, printing, entertainment, travel, pay- ments to associate counsel or economist. Cooper, J. Milton, attorney at law, room 544 Washington Building, Washington, D. C. (1) Thomas D. Griffin, 106 West Madison Street, Chicago, Ill, acting for an informal group of licensed small-loan companies af- fected by section 501 (b) (6) of the Internal Revenue Code. (2) Clients mentioned in (1) above. (8) Indefinite. (4) Reasonable fee to be determined and paid when employment is terminated. (5) Clients mentioned in (1) above. (6) None. (7) None. Corwin, Harold B., 1616 I Street NW., Wash- ington, D.C. (1) Retired Officers Association, Inc., 1616 I Street NW., Washington, D. C. Not maintained for the principal purpose, nor does it solicit, collect, or receive funds prin- cipally for the purpose of influencing legis- lative action. (2) Retired Officers Associa- tion, Inc., whose membership is retired off- cers, watrant officers, and nurses of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, 5 Registration with the Clerk only.
1950 Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Public Health Service, and of Reserve components of those eervioes, (8) Indefinite. (4) 6800 per month, no part of which 1s paid or received specifi- cally for attempting to influence legislative action. (6) Retired Officers tion, Inc. (6) Nothing. (7) None. Counihan, Donald N., attorney at law, 1420 Now York Avenue NW., Washington, D. CO. (1) Class Room Perlodical Publishers Asso~ ciation, 182 North Main Street, Dayton, Ohio. (2) See (1} above, (8) 6 months. (4) 8500 per month, (5) Class Room Periodical Pub- Iishers Association. (6) Out-of-pocket ex- penses as required, (7) Out-of-pocket expenses. Courtney, John J., 848 Continental Bulld- ing, 1611 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. (1) Catholic Press Association, Inc., Fordham University, New York, N. Y. (2) Catholic Press Association, Inc. The association as a whole and ita individual members are op- posed to any increase in postal rates on re- Ngious publications. (3) Indefinite. (4) Reasonable value of sefvices, as and when billed, The activities of the association, its individual members and of the registrant are not belleved to come within the purview of section 308 (a) of the act in question since all activities are normally confined to publishing information, committee hearings, and the like. However, registrant ts inter- ested in all phases of legislation without differentiating between that which does and that which does not come within the pur- view of the act; accordingly all moneys re- ceived will be reported quarterly without any attempt at apportionment so that employer and registrant will comply with both the letter and the spirit of the act. (5) Catholic Press Association, Inc. (6) No specific agreement except that out-of-pocket exe penses will be reported when, as and if in- curred. (7) Only those referred to in an- swer 6. Crowley, Frederick T. M., 1494 EK Street NW., Washington, D. C. (1) Associated in the general practice of law with Douglas L. Hatch at 1424 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. (who ts also registered under Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress). (2) Will assist Douglas L. Hatch in matters involvy- ing his client, James Stewart & Co., Inc., 230 Park Avenue, New York, N. ¥. (8) Indefinite. (4) No amount stipulated. (8) By James Stewart & Co., Inc., through Douglas L, Hatch. (8) Out-of-pocket expenses such as taxi fares, etc. (7) Out-of-pocket expenses. Cummings, Stanley, Truitt & Cross, 1625 K Btreet NW., Washington, D. O. (1) Kansas City Board of Trade, Board of Trade Building, Kansas City, Mo. (2) Kansas City Board of Trade, Board of Trade Building, Kansas City, Mo. (3) Indefinite, (4) Not yet determined, (8) Kansas City Board of Trade, Board of Trade Building, Kansas City, Mo. (6) No fixed amount; reasonable out-of-pocket ex- penses, (7) Transportation, communication, reproduction of documents, etc. Disney, Wesley E., 484 Southern Building, Washington, D. 0. (1) Engeged in general law practice. (2) Eastern Magnesia Talc Co., Inc., ington, Vt; W. H. Loomis Talc Corp., Gouverneur, N. ¥.; International Talo Co., Inc., 41 Park Row, New York, N. Y. (8) Indefinite. (4) I have been employed by the companies named in the interest of the tale industry to represent the producers of talc before the Congress in connection with re- taining their present. percentage depletion allowances under the Internal Revenue Code. Tt has not yet been determined which other Dlopsegt ibe lr ted sopasios les have agreed to pay me $8,000 each with a maxi- mura total fee for pervices to the industry of $15,000. No expenses will be patd me other than any necessary. travel th ens inet dental expenees 18 < ‘playment, (8), See fh). (8) Bee. a. ry Bee (4). ‘ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Donovan, Thomas J,, 10 East Fortieth Street, New York, N. Y. (1) Tax Council of the Alcoholic Beverage Industries. (2) Tax Council of the Alcoholic Beverage In- dustries. (8) Indefinite. (4) No compen sation paid for services rendered to this or- Ganization. (5) See (4). (6) Actual ex- penditures made on behalf o: Tax Council of the Alcoholic Beverage Industries. (7) Traveling and expenses incidental to travel such as hotel, meals, cab fares, etc., and printing. Eaton, George S,, 1412 Union Commerce Building, Cleveland, Ohio, (1) National Tool and Die Manufacturers Association, 1412 Union Commerce Building, Cleveland, Ohio. (2) National Tool and Die Manufacturers As- sociation, 1412 Union Commerce Building, Cleveland, Ohio. (8) Indefinite. Am em- ployed year by year as the executive secretary and operating head of the National Tool and Die Manufacturers Association. Lobbying activities will be a very minor part of my work, and it does not seem probable that registration ts really required. However, I am registering, in view of the uncertainty as to the meaning of title ITZ of Public Law 601, in order to make sure that I am com- plying with its terms. (4) Pay as executive secretary is $10,000 a year. It is impractical to allocate any specific share of this as pay for lobbying; if it were, 1t would be only a small part. (5) National Tool and Die Manufac- turers Association, 1412 Union Commerce Building, Cleveland, Ohio. (6) Actual amount spent. (7) Transportation, hotel, meals, entertainment (if any), incidentals. Ellison,’ Newell W., 701 Union Trust Build- ing, Washington, D. 0. (1) Ray W. Britton, 1416 Cherry Street, Erie, Pa. (2) See No, (1). (8) Indefinite. (4) No fee yet deter- mined. (5) See No. (1). (6) Not yet de- termined. (7) Usual disbursements cus- tomary in legal work, Erickson,’ Oliver F., 1105 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. (1) National Associa- tion of Master Plumbers, 1105 K Street NW., Washington, D.C. (2) National Association of Master Plumbers, 1105 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. (8) Permanent. (4) Nothing. Part of regular activity as assist- ant executive recretary of the association and paid by annual salary. (5) National As- sociation of Master Plumbers, 1105 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. (6) None; retm- bursed for out-of-pocket expense. (7) Tel- ephone, telegraph, postage, other miscella- neous expense, Esman,*? Mré. Sherly Goodman, 184 East Thirty-second Street, New York, N. ¥. (1) Americana Associates, 194 East Thirty-sec- ond Street, New York, N. ¥. (2) People of the United States of America and their for- eign affairs. (3) Permanent; I am the direc- tor of the above company whose field is in- ternational industrial relations through cul- tural projects. (4) Nothing. (5) Expenses only by Americana Associates. (6) What- ever it takes to do the job right. (7) Living, telephone, and other communications, travel, and entertainment when necessary. Palk, Albert S., Wheaton, Minn, (1) Self. (2) My own. (8) [Blank.] (4) No pay- ment. (5) None. (6) Nothing. (7) None. Federline, Andrew Paul, 1888 Jefferson Piace NW., Washington, D.C. (1) Bureau of, Baleamen's National Associations (Marshall J. Mantier, managing director), Bona Allen Building, Atlanta, Ga. (2) The outside com- mission salesmen in the men's, women's, and children’s apparel and the shoe flelds, who are members of the national saleamen’s as- sociation that support the bureau. (3) In- definite, (4) Registrant receives regularly a Yegal retainer of $200 per month for’ on a part-time basis as Washington co on legal, administrative, and legislative mat- ‘Registration with the secre on * Registration with the monetary ¥ 10181 ters of interest to bureau members. Am en- titled to an additional fee on matters involy- ing Utigation or formal legal oo (such as before the Interstate Commission, etc.). (6) Buresu of Ox Belen men’s National Associations (including ite association members, which are the National Association of Men's Apparel Clubs, Inc,, the National Shoe Travelers’ Association, and the National Assoctation of Women's and Chil- @ren’s Apparel Galesmen, Inc. (6) Reim- buraement for actual expenditures on bu- reau business only. (7) Necessary travel; telephone and telegraph; per diem for at~ tending conventions and formal hearings (principally outside of Washington); and lunches on bureau business. Fillius, Maurice W., 703 National Pres Building, Washington, D. OC, (1) National Association of Alcoholic Beverage importers, Inc., 700 National Press Bullding, Washing~ ton, D.C, (2) National Association of Al-~ coholic Beverage Importers, Inc. (3) In- definite. (4) $1,500 annually. (8) National Association of Alcoholic Beverage Importers, Inc. (6) Reimbursement for ordinary out~ of-pocket expenses. (7) Taxis, travel, and similar nses. Finley, Forrest §E., 211 National Press Building, Washington, D. ©. (1) Sam O'Neal, 211 National Press Building, Wash- ington, D. C. (2) Symphony orchestras. (8) Indeterminate. (4) $250 monthly, plus $500 initial retainer. (5) Sam O'Neal. (6) Nothing. (7) None. Finley, Forrest E., 211 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. (1) Committee of a small number of educational and re- gious magazines, (2) Committee of a small number of educational and religious maga- zines. (8) Undetermined. (¢) Undeter- mined; not to exceed 82,000. (5) Committee of a small number of educational and reo ligious magazines. (6) None. (7) None. Fitts, Joseph C., 1250 Avenue of the Amer- icas, New York, N. Y. (1) Heating, Piping, and Alr Conditioning Contractors National Association, Inc., 1250 Avenue of the Amerie cas, New York, N. Y. (2) Heating, Piping, end Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Inc, (8) On yearly basis, (4) $10,000 per year for services as secretary, in- cluding many other duties in addition to legislative work, (6) Heating, Piping, and Air Conditioning Contractors National Asso= ciation, Inc. (6) Reimbursed for out-of- pocket expenses on itemized bills. (7) Trav- el, maintenance, etc. Fitzgerald, Stephen E., doing business as the Stephen Fitsgerald Co., and Raymond C. Baker, as employee, 602 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. (1) National Association of Hlectric Companies, 1200 Eighteenth Street, Washington, D.C. (2) National Association of Blectric Companies. (3) Undefined; be- ginning January 1, 1960, to last until any termination of agreement. (4) An annual fee of $50,000. (6) National Association of Rlectrio Companies, (6) Up to $10,000 an- nually, in accordance with expenses actually incurred, (7) Froduction costs such as mimeographing and printing; telephone tolls, telegrams, miscellaneous incidentals. Fleming, David A., 610 Ring Building, 1200 Righteenth Street NW., Washington, D. C. {1) Nati®nel Electrical Contractors Associa- tion, Inc., 610 Ring Building, 1200 Eight- eenth Street NW., Washington, D.C. (A na- tionai nonprofit membership association of firms engaged in electrical contracting.) (2) The registrant works in the interests of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., which was organized in 1901 to promote the interests of electrical contractors in the installation, servicing, and maintenance of @lectrical wiring ces and equipment and to further ethical business practices and to improve products and services, (8) The registrant has been continuously smployed since August 1947. (4) The registrant ts paid at the rate of 7,500 per year as