2608 There being no objection, the con- current resolution was considered and agreed to. NOMINATION OF DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS Mr LUCAS. Mr. President, yesterday the chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JoHNstTon], by di- rection of that committee, reported fa- vorably the nomination of Roy Victor Peel, of Indiana, to be Director of the Census. That nomination is now on the Executive Calendar. The Senator from South Carolina feels that it is necessary that the Senate consider the nomination immediately, and confirm Mr. Peel to be Director of the Census. I ask unanimous consent that, as in executive session, the Senate now pro- ceed to the consideration of the nomina- tion of Roy Victor Peel, of Indiana, to be Director of the Census. The VICE PRESIDENT. objection? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, there is no objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, as in executive session, the Sen- ate will proceed to consider the nomina- tion on the Executive Calendar, which will be stated. The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Roy Victor Peel, of Indiana, to be Director of the Census. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, let me ask the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the commit- tee, whether the nomination was re- ported favorably by the committee. It was; was it not? Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Yes; it was reported unanimously and favorably from the committee yesterday. The only reason we are asking to have it considered now—of course, it is al- ready on the Executive Calendar, and would come up in the regular order—is so that prompt action may be taken. Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, the nomination is confirmed, and, without objection, the President will be notified forthwith. REPORT OF COMMODITY CREDIT COR- PORATION—MESSAGE FROM THE PRES- IDENT (H. DOC. NO. 491) The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, with the accompanying report, referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: To the Congress of the United States: In accordance with the provisions of section 13, Public Law 806, Eightieth Congress, approved June 29, 1948, I transmit herewith for the information of the Congress the report of the Commodity Credit Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1949. Harry 8. TRUMAN. The WHITE HovseE, March 2, 1950. Is_ there CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred, as indicated: Report oF SocraL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION A letter from the Administrator, Federal Security Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Social Security Admin- istration, for the fiscal year 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Finance. FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND REPORT ON OPERA- TIONS UNDER EOULDER CANYON PROJECT AD- JUSTMENT ACT A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a financial statement and report of operations under the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Ad- justment Act, for the year cnded May 81, 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Donations sy Navy DEPARTMENT To NON- PROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, reporting, pursuant to law, a list of institutions and organizations, all nonprofit and cligible, which have requested donations from the Navy Department; to the Com- mittee on Armed Services. Rerort ON PERSONNEL CEILINGS A letter from the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget, trausmitting, pur- suant to law, his report of personnel cellings for the quartcr ended December 31, 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Com- mittee on Post Office and Civil Service. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS Petitions, etc., were laid before the Senate, or presented, and referred as in- dicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: Resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relating to the securing of additional financial aid for the Waltham Watch Co. from the Recon- struction Finance Corporation; to the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency. (See resolutions printed in full when pre- sented by Mr. SALTONSTALL (for himself and Mr. Longe) on February 16, 1950, p. 1830, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ) Resolutions of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, relating to decreases in the next Federal budget and the Federal debt; to the Committee on Finance. (See resolutions printed tn full when presented by Mr. Lopcr (for himself and Mr. SALTONSTALI.) On March 1, 1990, p 2535, Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD). A resolution adopted by General M. Emmet Urell Camp No, 9, United Spanish War Veterans, Department of the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., favoring the continued retention of the United States Soldiers’ Home under the Department of the Army, to the Committee on Armed Services. The petition of Liberty Pension Club No. 8, General Welfare Federation of America, of Buffalo, N. Y., signed by L. W. Lewis and sundry other citizens, praying for the enact- ment of House bill 6000, providing old-age assistance; to the Committee on Finance, A resolution adopted by the Greek-Ameri- can Political Club, of Cambridge, Mass., re- lating to the forcible abduction of certain Greek children; to the Committee on Foreign Relations, The petition of Daisy D. Wilson, of Wichita, Kans., praying for a redress of griev- ances (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on the Judiciary, A resolution adopted by the Daughters of American Revolution, of Cedarville, Ohio, protesting against the enactment of legisla- MarcH 2 tion providing compulsory health insurance; to the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare. A letter from the Philadelphia Chapter, Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engi- neers, of Philadelphia, Pa., signed by Thomas E. Bruder, president, embodying a resolution adopted by that society, protesting against the enactment of legislation providing com- pulsory health insurance; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. A resolution adopted by White Motor Local No. 82, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, of Cleveland, Ohio, favoring the enactment of the so-called labor extension bill; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. A letter in the nature of a petition from Mack Local Union No. 3438, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, of Plainfield, N. J., signed by Walter T. Pritchard, president, and Stephen Rohlfing, financial secretary- treasurer, praying ior the enactment of Senate bill 110, and House bill 1380, provid- ing for the extension of labor education; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. A letter in the nature of a petition from J, O. Long, of Thomaston, Ga., relating to the coal strike, to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. A letter in the nature of a petition from Herman J Bolst, of Brooklyn, N. Y., reluting to the retirement of Federal employees; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice. A letter from the Dover (Tenn.) Chamber of Commerce, signed by Porter Herndon, president, enclosing a resolution adopted by a mass mecting of Stewart County (Tenn.) farmers and businessmen, endorsing the plans of the Corps of Engineers for the de- velopment of the Cumberland River (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Public Works. A concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of Mississippi, to the Committee on Public Works: “House Concurrent Resolution 87 “Concurrent resolution memorializing the United States engineers and Congress to open all spillways of the Federal Govern- ment to relieve floodwaters of the Missis- sipp! River “Whereas it has been brought to the at- tention of the membership of the Legisla- ture of the State of Mississippi that the United States engineers have opened the Bonnet Carre spillway, in order to relieve the pressure on the levees in the vicinity of the city of New Orleans, thereby protect- ing the property owners of the State of Lou- isiana from possible heavy damage in the event of crevasses in the leveo; and “Whereas in 1945 the Government engi- neers decmed it necessary and advisable to open said Bonnet Carre spillway, which was kept open for approximately 58 days, permit- ting the-waters from the Mississippi River to fan out over the Mississippi Sound in the State of Mississippi! and: Lake Borgne and vicinity within the State of Louisiana, there- by destroying the oyster reefs both in the State of Mississippi and the State of Lou- isiana, it having been estimated that 1,700,000 barrels of oysters were destroyed within the territorial waters of the State of Mississippi; and “Whereas this destruction was brought to the attention of the Congress of the United States in two hearings, one before the Pub- lic Works Committee in the House of Rep- resentatives in Congress, and one before a subcommittee of the Fish and Wildlife Com- mittee of the House of Representatives in Congress, with a request that the Congress make reparations to the State of Mississippi for the damage done by the opening of sald Bonnet Carre spillway in 1945; that although
1950 it has been 5 years since this damage was done, and ¢ years since the first hearing was had before the said congressional commit- tees, the Congress has made no move to make reparations except to authorize the appointment of a subcommittee of the Fish and Wildlife Service to make a survey and made an appropriation to finance said sur- vey; and “whereas due to the excessive high water in the Mississipp! River it has again become necessary to open the Bonnet Carre spillway and in the opening of this spillway to pro- tect property loss in Louisiana, it is an established fact that great loss will come to the oyster industry of Mississippi, in that, first, the State of Mississippi will sustain a great loss in the destruction of the oysters we have cultivated in the Mississippi Sound, and, second, a large number of oyster-can- ning plants operating in Mississippi depend on oysters from these Mississippi recfs for a supply of oysters to operate their plants. Jn the operation of these plants a large number of men and women are employed. These men and women, in fact thousands, will be thrown out of employment and the owners of these factories, who have large investments in boats and machinery, will be forced out of business, affecting adversely the entire economy of the Mississippi Gulf coast and southern Mississippi Due to the fact that the Mississippi Legislature has from time to time appropriated money to cultivate these reefs and only the last session appropriated $360,0C0 to rehabilitate these reefs when they had been practically destroyed by open- ing of the Bonnct Carre spillway in 1945 and the destruction of the hurricane of 1947, and “Whereas a large quantity of oysters have been developed through the expenditure of these funds and the cultivation of said reefs by the Sea Food Commission, an agency of the State of Mississippi; and “Whereas the Government has expended enormous amounts of money in the con- struction of other spillways to relleve the pressure of floodwaters on the Mississipp! levee, and feeling that by the opening of all spillways constructed by the Government, that the floodwaters may be dispersed over a wider area, thereby doing less damage to all oyster recfs on the Gulf coast: Now, there- fore, be it “Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Mississippi (the senate con- curring therein), That Gen. Pete Ferringa, United States engineer in charge of flood con- trol in the lower Mississippi Valley, and the Congress of the United States be memorial- ized to utilize all flood-control spillways in order to lower the water level in the lower Mississippi Valley by dispersing said flood- waters to all sections of the Mississippi Val- Jey, rather than dispersing all floodwaters out into the Mississippi Sound of the Gulf of Mexico and destroying the oystcr reefs in Mississippi and east Louisiana; be it further “Resolved, That the clerk of the house be authorized and directed to send a copy of this resolution to Gen. Pete Ferringa, to the Presiding Officer of the lower House of Con- grecs, and to the Vice President of the United States, the Presiding Officer of the United States Senate, and to the United States Sen- ators from Mississippi, and to each Member of the delegation in Congress from the State of Mississippi. “Adopted by the house of representatives February 13, 1950. “MILTON SIMS, “Speaker of the House of Representatives. “Adopted by the senate February 15, 1950. “Sam LUMPKIN, “President of the Senate.” 8ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY—RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ERIE COUNTY, N. Y. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I present for appropriate reference, and ask unani- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mous consent to have printed in the Rec- ORD a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Erie County, N. Y., voicing its opposition to the St. Law- rence seaway. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Whereas on May 23, 1947, January 20, 1948, and on various occasions over a period of years prior thereto, this board of supervisors has recorded itself in opposition to the pro- posed St. Lawrence seaway; and Whereas the Public Works Committee of the United States Congress is preparing for a hearing on the St. Lawrence project, to be held during the month of February 1950; and Whereas it is still self-evident that the proposed scaway, if completed, would threaten the economy of the entire Stute of New York, and particularly the Niagara frontier; and Whereas the people of this State have in- vested large sums of money to provide water transportation from Lake Erie to the port of New York; and Whereas the construction of the St. Law- rence seaway would cauce a serious diversion of transportation from the Erie Canal, and particularly the port of Buffalo, such diver- sion resulting in direct loss of revenues to this locality, and further resulting in the eventual loss of employment to many of our citizens; and Whereas the people of Erie County would be called upon through additional Federal tuxation to meet the staggering cost of the contemplated project; and : Whereas such a project is unsound, un- warranted, and unnecessary: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this board of supervisors again voice its opposition to the St. Law- rence seaway; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to our Representatives in Congress and to the Public Works Committee of Congress. SUPERVISION OF BANK HOLDING COMPANIES Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have received a fine communication from George A, MacLachlan, president of the Wisconsin Bankers Association, a splen- did organization of leading citizens of my State, and associated with the Na- ‘tional Bank of La Crosse, Wis., enclos- ing a resolution adopted by the associa- tion endorsing legislation now pending before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee for the supervision of bank holding companies. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be appropriately referred and printed in the REcorp. There being no objection, the letter was referred to the Committee on Bank- ing and Currency, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: WISCONSIN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, Milwaukee, February 27, 1950. Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My Dear SENATOR: You may recall that some time ago the Wisconsin Bankers Asso- ciation adopted the following resolution: “Whereas the Congress of the United States is now considering legislation for the supervision and control of the operation and expansion of bank holding companies; and “Whereas it is the time-honored custom of commercial banking in the United States to devote its efforts exclusively to the busl- ness of banking: Now, therefore, be it 2609 “Resolved, That the executive council of the Wisconsin Bankers Association urge the Congress that legislation be enacted to su- pervise bank holding companies and to reg- ulate creation of new bank holding com- panies.” We trust that in view of the above Senate bill 2318 now pending in Congress will have your very careiul consideration and we would appreciate your putting this letter on rec- ord with the Senate Banking and Currency Committee. Very truly yours, GEo. A. MACLACHLAN, President. COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE—RES- OLUTION OF KIMBALL (NEBR.) AMERI- CAN LEGION AUXILIARY Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I pre- sent for appropriate reference a resolu- tion adopted by the American Legion Auxiliary of Kimball, Nebr., strongly ex- pressing their opposition to any form of compulsory health insurance or any sys- tem of political medicine designed for national bureaucratic control. The res- olution is in harmony with a similar one adopted at the national convention of the Legion which convened in Philadelphia, Pa., on September 1, 1949. I ask unani- mous consent that the resolution be printed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Whereas the American veteran in two world wars has defended the American free enterprise system, which has made possible the development in this country of the high- est standards of medical care and the finest medical institutions attained by any major country in the world; and Whereas having experienced the shortcom- ings of impcrsonal, assembly line medical care inherent in the form of government- controlled medicine necessary in time of war, the veteran understands the dangers of im- posing such a system permanently on the entire population; and Whereas compulsory health insurance would impose an unjust tax on the veteran's pay check for medical care to which he is now entitled free of charge as a reward for his service to his country; and Whereas compulsory health insurance would force a tax of 8 percent on the income of the employed veteran, rising to a tax of at least 6 percent within a few years, creat- ing new financial burdens which would in- crease the costs of necessities of life and lower the standard of living for veterans and other citizens: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the American Legion Aux- iliary of Kimball, Nebr., does hereby go on record against any form of compulsory health insurance or any system of political medicine designed for national bureaucratic control; that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each Senator from the State of Nebraska and the Representative from our District and that said Senators and Representative be and are hereby respectfully requested to use every effort at their command to prevent the enactment of such legislation. BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. NEELY (by request) : 8.3160, A bill to authorize the establish- ment of an educational agency for surplus property within the government of the Dis- trict of Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committce on the District of Columbia.
2610 By Mr. MAGNUSON: 8.3161. A bill to amend the Longshore- men’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act so as to provide a system of safety rules, regulations, and orders, and safety inspec- tion and training, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare, By Mr. MORSE: S 3162. A bill for the relief of Helena Jange Chinn; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary By Mr. TYDINGS: S 3163. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Honora Redman; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. GURNEY: 8.3164. A bill authorizing the issuance of a patent in fee to Rebecca Fire Thunder Gal- ligo; and 8.3165. A bill authorizing the issuance of @ patent in fee to Angeligne Fire Thunder, Rebecca Galligo, William Fire Thunder, Pe- ter Fire Thunder, Lydia Bluebird, and Vir- ginia G. Conroy, heirs of Edgat Fire Thun- der, deccased, to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs By Mr. LANGER: 8 3166 A bill for the relief of certain Lat- vians ond Estonians, and 8.3167. A bill for the relief of certain Lat- vians and Estonians; to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr. McCARTHY (for himself and Mr. FULBRIGHT) . 8.3168. A bill to amend section 131 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to provide for the reference of certain private relief measures to the Court of Claims for recommendation as to the quantum of rellef to be granted; to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (Mr. MORSE introduced Senate bill 3169, to amend the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, so as to provide a more effective method of dealing with labor disputes in vital industries which affect the public in- terest, which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and appears under a separate heading.) CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS—-AMENDMENTS Mr. SALTONSTALL (for himself and Mr. LoncE) submitted an amendment in- tended to be proposed by them, jointly, to the bill (H. R. 5472) authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and har- bors for navigation, flood control, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. MAGNUSON | submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 5472, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. HOUSE BILL REFERRED The bill (H. R. 7477) providing for the conveyance to the town of Nahant, Mass., of the Fort Ruckman Military Reservation, was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Ex- penditures in the Executive Depart- ments. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, 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.) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE JEFFERSON-JACKSON DAY DINNER ADDRESS BY SENATOR ANDERSON {Mr. LUCAS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the Jefferson- Jackson Day dinner address dclivered by Senator ANDERSON at Boise, Idaho, on Febru- ary 25, 1850, which appears in the Appendix.] ADDRESS OF SENATOR AIKEN BEFORE . EASTERN STATES FARMERS’ EXCHANGE ANNUAL MEETING (Mr. TOBEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the address de- livered by Senator ADEN before the Eastern States Farmers’ Exchange annual meeting, at Springfield, Mass., February 28, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] LINCOLN DAY ADDRESS BY SENATOR TOBEY BEFORE WOMEN'S REPUBLICAN CLUB, CLAREMONT, N. H. [Mr. TOBEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a Lincoln Day address delivered by him to the Women's Republican Club, of Claremont, N. H., on February 13, 1950, which apvears in the Appendix ] COMPANY, SEVEN UNIONS AT PEACE FOR 15 YEARS—-ARTICLE FROM NEW YORK TIMES {Mr. TOBEY asked and obtained Icave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Company, Seven Unions at Peace for 15 Years,” published tn the New York Times, February 17, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix | THE CRUSADE AGAINST GAMBLING — STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILEY {Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a statement pre- pared by him on the subject of combating the influence of interstate gambling and racketeering, which appears tn the Appendix J EXCERPTS FROM ADDRESS BY SENATOR MARTIN BEFORE SENIOR CLASS OF CONFLUENCE HIGH SCHOOL [Mr MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp excerpts from an address he delivered before the senior class of the Confluence High Schoo] at Con- fluence, Pa., February 27, 1950, which ap- pears in the Appendix ] EDUCATION FOR FREEDOM-—ADDRESS BY DR. MILTON 8. EISENHOWER [Mr. MARTIN, on behalf of Mr ScnHorp- PEL, Mr. Dagsy, Mr. MyYers, and himself, asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address entitled “Education for Freedom,” delivered by Dr. Milton 8. Elsenhower, president of Pennsylvania State College, at the forty-first annual dinner meeting of the Pennsylvania Manu- facturers’ Association in Philadelphia, on February 28, 1950, which appears in the Appendix. ] THE ROAD AHEAD—CONDENSATION OF BOOK BY JOHN FLYNN (Mr BREWSTER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp a condensa- tion of the book entitled “The Road Ahcad,” written by John T. Flynn, published in the February 1950 issue of the Reader's Digest, which appears in the Appendix. ] STATEMENT BY ROBERT M. SEARLS IN OPPOSITION TO EXTENSION OF SO- CIAL-SECURITY INSURANCE TO COVER MINE BLOCK LEASERS {Mr. MCCARRAN asked and obtained leave to have printed tn the Recorp a statement delivered by Robert M. Searls, of San Fran- cisco, Calif., in opposition to certain sec- tions of House bill 6000, which appears in the Appendix.] MARCH 2 EYEWITNESS REPORT ON COMMUNIST- OCCUPIED GERMANY [Mr. MUONDT asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a letter addressed to him by Otto Kundert, of Mound City, 8S. Dak., as an eyewitness report on Com- munist-occupied Germany, which appears in the Appendix. ] The VICE PRESIDENT. If there are no further routine matters, under the unanimous-consent agreement the Chair recognizes the Senator from Virginia. JOINT COMMITTEE ON REDUCTION OF NONESSENTIAL FEDERAL EXPENDI- TURES Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Friday, February 24, while I was absent from the floor of the Senate because of serious illness in my family, the junior Senator from Minnesota |[Mr. Humpsrey] at- tacked the Joint Committee on the Re- duction of Nonessential Federal Expend- itures, of which I am chairman. He called it the Byrd committee. I find that in 2,000 words of remarks attr.buted to the junior Senator from Minnesota, appearing on pages 23.8 to 2329 of the ConGcRESSIONAL Recorp, there are at least nine misstatements wach require correction, for accuracy. Tey are as follows: Misstatement No. 1: The junior Scna- tor from Minnesota said the committee stands as “the No. 1 example of waste and extravagance” in the Federal Gov- ernment. This is not only a misstatement; even in this atomic era of superlatives, it must go down as a superexagegcration. During the committee’s existence, Federal ex- pend.ture budgcts have totaled more than half a triluon dollars. Of this voval, $127,500 has been appropriated to the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non- essential Federal Expenditures, and I deny that any of it has been squandered. But even if there had been no revurn from the committee’s work, to say that the loss of something over $100,000 in 9 years would constitute the No. 1 exam- ple of waste and extravagance in the Federal Government is absolutely theat- rical, and requires no answer. But it does indicate that the junior Senator from Minnesota discussed this subject in a mood that cannot be regarded as unprejudiced. In passing, Mr. President, let me say that only yesterday the junior Senator from Minnesota submitted a resolution calling for the appropriation of $250,000 for the examination of the coal situation. That resolution could have no bearing on the pending coal emergency. Yet while condemning the expenditure of $127,000 as “the No. 1 waste and extravagance,” although that was expended for the pur- pose of economy, the junior Senator from Minnesota seeks for his commit- tee—I assume he will wish to head the examination or investigation—an ap- propriation of $250,000, for what purpose I do not know unless the Senator from Minnesota has in mind the nationali- zation of the coal industry. That may be; I do not know. The purpose will be developed, I imagine, if the Senator from Minnesota secures the $250,000 appro- priation.
1950 Misstatement No. 2: The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota said the report of the committee and its accompanying Stotement of February 14 “presents a dis- torted picture of Federal employment.” Mr. President, distortion is to be found only in the manner in which the junior Senator from Minnesota quoted from my February 14 statement. He picked up half of the first paragraph sentence and read it with the third paragraph, and then he picked up the eighth paragraph and read it into paragraph 12. Person- nel statistics compiled by the joint com- mittee show trends not only in total Fed- eral civilian employment, but also in the agencies, in categories of activities, such as military and civilian, in types of work, such as industrial and white-collar, and in dcmestic and overseas service. The committee began compiling personne] re- ports certified to by the departmenis and agencies only when by its own experi- ence it found that those otherwise avail- able were inadequate and unreliable. Centinued dissemination is in response to recucsts by Members of both Houses of Cor gress. In connection with that misstatement, the junior Senator from Minnesota pro- tested my statements relative to continu- ing increases in Post Office employment, and cited increased business—presum- ably in justification. The Hoover Com- mission’s Citizens Committee is author- ity for the statement that there “has been no basic change in the organiza- tional structure of the Post Office Depart- ment since 1836.” And as a result of pressure being put on the Department to reduce ils operating costs, postmasters from 50 of the larger offices were called into the Department during the past week to discuss the sub- ject. The postal deficit estimated for the next fiscal year is $555,000,000. Postal deficits have been responsible for a@ substantial part of the Federal debt. Misstatement No. 3: The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota said the Eightieth Congress refused to appropriate for the committee. This statement is not sustained by the facts. No request for funds was made, and there was no act of refusal. The chairman submitted his resignation when the EHightieth Congress was or- ganized by the Republican majority. But he was advised that a proposal to expand the scope of the committee's authority to embrace the functions of the Joint Committee on the Legislative Budget was under consideration, and that action on his resignation would not be taken pend- ing a decision on this question. Under the circumstances, the chairman recom- mended no appropriation. When the Eighty-first Congress was organized, the question was no longer active, and funds were appropriated. Misstatement No. 4: The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota said: The only reports which this joint committea has produced are monthly personnel stutis- tics. Mr. President, the committee does compile monthly statistics, as I have said, on increases and decreases in Federal employment. But in addition to the series of 71 monthiy personnel issuances, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE there have been 26 formal reports by the committee. These are documented in the public records of Congress which are available to all who would choose to have themselves advised as to the facts in this respect. Misstatement No. 5: The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota said that “without any justification whatsoever the com- mittce has regularly issued general state- ments calling for blanket reductions in Federal personnel. To the contrary, the only formula pro- duced to date for orderly reduction in force in periods of transition or other- wise originated with the committee, and took the form of the Byrd-Langer amendment, adopted by Congress in 1944, Mr. President, I wish again to express my eppreciation to the Senator from North Dakota who, as a patron of the amendment, rendered valuable service on the Committce on Post Office and Civil Service which held long hearings rela- tive to the amendment adopted. That legislation established ceilings under which the Director of the Budget—with full knowledge of funds available and production requiremenis—can avoid meat-ax slashes, and can apply reduc- tions on the basis of justification. As the Senator from North Dakota knows, it resulted in proper, orderly and substan- tial reduction in Federal Government personnel. The trouble now, however, is that these ceilings have constantly been chipped away by continual exemptions of pet agencies, over my protests and over the protests of the Senator from North Dakota. Had we retained those ceilings, the economy would have been very much greater; but, as I shall show, later on, 1t was very substantial, as a re- sult of that action. So if the Senator from Minnesota says we have given neither justification nor plan for reduc- ing the Federal Government personnel, he is making a statement which is not in accord with the record. The committee many times has di- rected attention to areas of excess em- ployment, including the postwar situa- tion in the defense establishment prior to the Johnson order of last August, and in the Veterans’ Administration prior to the general order of the Administrator a year ago. Reductions in both instances followed committee revelations, The joint committee has repeatedly called the attention of the Secretary of Defense to excess civilian employment in the armed services, and to the fact that the armed services have had one civilian employee for every two persons in uniform. I think this constant rep- etition as much as anything resulted in the reduction ordered by Secretary John- son—and I congratulate him on his courageous action. The Veterans’ Ad- ministration also ordered reductions. In both instances, facts relative to the sub- ject were revealed by the committee. Misstatement No. 6: The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota said the committee “deals only in generalities.” The committee has conducted many formal hearings, and in its 26 fully docu- mented formal reports it has made some 75 specific recommendations for Federal 2611 economy and efficiency, and they have been followed in more than 50 instances by legislative or administrative action in the fields to which they were directed. As I shall show, savings resulting from this legislation and action have been estimated to involve very large sums of money. But one who does not know about the reports could not be expected to know what was in them. Misstatement No. 7: The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota said the committee ‘4s a violation of the spirit of the Legis- lative Reorganization Act.” The matter of record joint commit- tees was deliberately excluded from ap-= plication of the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act as it was enacted, with respect to reallocation of functions. And even in the Senate version of the bill, joint committees in existence prior to enact- ment of the Legislative Reorganization Act would have been excluded from its application. This committee was estab- lished before the enactment of the Legis- lative Reorganization Act. Other such committees in existence then included the Joint Committce on Intcrnal Reve- nue Taxation and the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, and so forth. If the junior Senator from Minnesota thinks the committee violates the spirit of the law he is in disagreement with the views of Congress at the time the Legis- lative Reorganization Act was passed and since it has been in effect, for all these committees have been subject to review by Congress since 1946, whenever it became necessary to obtain additional appropriations. Misstatement No. 8: The junior Sena- tor from Minnesota said “the Joint Com- mittee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures is one of those that has most frequently indulged itself” in one of two “sports,” which he described as “persecution and prosecution,” and “concealment, containment, evasion, and misrepresentation.” That is a pretty big charge; it takes in a great deal of terri- tory. I deny emphatically this allega- tion, and challenge the junior Senator from Minnesota to produce any evidence whatever that the committee has ever engaged in persecution or prosecution of anyone, or in the concealment, contain- ment, evasion, or misrepresentation of anything. Members of the committee include some of the most highly esteemed Mem- bers of Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Budget, To say that these gentlemen who consti- tute the committee would engage in or tolerate any of these practices is an ir- responsible statement which imputes un- worthy conduct and motives on the part of the committee members. Every for- mal report of this committee has been agreed to by a majority of the members, Misstatement No. 9: The junior Sen- ator from Minnesota said the committee “is merely used as a publicity medium.” I submit that the chairmen of the Ap- propriations Committees of the House and Senate, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and the chairman of the Senate Finance Com- mittee, the ranking membcrs of these committees, and the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Budget
2612 require no medium for publicity. In fact, in these days, no publicity could popu- lariz2 a committee such as the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessen- tial Federal Expenditures, to which are assigned the objectives of economy. If information developed through the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessen- tial Federal Expenditurcs has found its way into publication, it is on merit; it is because those responsible for the pub- lications have found that the informa- tion is reliable, authenticated, and docu- mented; it is because the source of the information is the one particle of this vast Government best known for its dedi- cation to keeping both the revenue and the expenditure side of the Federal fiscal situation in true perspective without re- gard to the vacillation of .political ex- pediency. The committee has naturally made enemies. As chairman of the commit- tee, I have made many enemies in the ranks of those who resent any and all efforts to balance the budget or to re- trench and eliminate the waste and ex- travagance which permeate nearly every agency of the Federal Government. After years of effort, I am fully aware that an economizer has a thankless task in this day, when the one panacea of- fered for all problems is more and more Government spending. But as chairman of the committee, I take pride in the fact that in all of its many rcports during 9 years there has not been a single in- stance of a factual statement having been successfully contradicted. If the Senator from Minnesota can point to a single inaccurate statement of fact by the committee, he has not done so. It is because of the accuracy of the factual statements of the committee that it has a standing for reliability throughout the country. This may account for the pub- licity complained of by the Senator from Minnesota, which has been given to the committee's reports and recommenda- tions. Why does the Senator from Minnesota object to this publicily? Why should he be afraid of it? In his speech in the Senate he said the committee ‘“‘serves no useful purpose” and is mainly used as a “publicity me- dium.” As the Senator from Minnesota is a publicity expert himself, his state- ment, although not intended as such, could be regarded as a compliment from one who welcomes, and has been sig- nally successful in creating, pubhcity for himself and his objectives. I know of no Senator who has more generous- ly used the CoNGRESSIONAL ReEcorp and other governmental facilities to pro- mote his publicity. If he has ever hid- den his light under a bushel, I am not aware of it. If he has ever run away from publicity, I do not know of it, and no one else does. I am not impressed by any I have observed indicating that he is of the shrinking-violet type evading publicity. The Senator charges propaganda when the newspapers publish the re- ports of the committee in its efforts to promote sound fiscal policies. But he continually strives to propagandize him- self and those things he advocates as being proper and worthy. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE If the Senator desires to pursue the question of propaganda further, it might be interesting to measure on a day-by- day basis the propaganda he has inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorpD since he came to the Senate. Meanwhile, I sub- mit that if the committee is a “publicity medium,” it 1s a piker in comparison with the scores of propaganda, mills elsewhere in the Government, which spend a thou- sand times, or at least many times, the amount this committee is spending—on the average about $12,000 to $14,000 a year, For those who would criticize the committee as a “publicity medium,” I quote from an editorial in the Washing- ton Evening Star of Monday, February 27, wherein, speaking of the effort of the €enator from Minnesota to abolish this comuniltee, it is said: The relatively small cost of maintaining this congressional “publicity medium” is a piofitable investment, the returns on which in terms of adininistrative savings can be large, indeed. I have mentioned nine misstatements. There are other statements, incapable of proof, such as the assertion that $250,000 worth of time and effort of the execu- tive branch “have gone into compuiing joint committee data” over a period of 9 years. Such a figure is fiction. It might as well have becn picked out of the alr. Actually, the commitice 1s author- ized by law to require such information from executive agencies as it chooses to requcst. The information requested should be available to the citizens of the country: it should be available to Congress, and it should be available without extra cost, and Government records should be ca- pable of producing it with no unreason- able cost. I have analyzed every statement about the committee, made on last Friday by the junior Senator from Minnesota, with respect to the committee. I could go on mentioning more, which should be re- futed in the interests of accuracy and fairness, but nine misstatements in 2,000 words on this one subject should be enough. This is an average of a mis- statement in less than every 250 words; and the Senator from Minnesota speaks like the wind. It has been said that “It is an ill wind that blows no good,” and for some time I have been hoping for an opportunity to discuss the work of the committee be- fore the Senate, especially for the bene- fit of the newer Members who have not had occasion to become familiar with it and with the reasons for its establish- ment, or with its accomplishments to date. It was never intended to accom- plish miracles, and none have been wrought. It was not empowered to act legislatively, and it does not. It stands apart from other committees in that it was established by statute, and its mem- bership embraces not only representa- tives of the legislative branch, but the executive branch as well. The unusual nature of its mission is disclosed by its legislative history. It is directed, how- ever, to investigate activities of the Gov- ernment with a view to finding and re- porting where economy and efficiency may be achieved. MarcH 2 Before discussing other aspects of the committee and its work, I should like to summarize for the Recorp its activity and accomplishments, During its existence the committee has conducted many hearings, issued 26 formal and fully documented reports, and made some 75 specific recommenda- tions for economy and efficiency. Aside from its formal reports the com- mittee has compiled a series of 71 com- mittee prints containing certified per- sonnel reports from departments and agencies on a monthly basis. Comple- menting these monthly personnel re- ports the committee has compiled 15 ad- ditional statistical studies in various cat- egories of Federal personnel reporting. Among the formal committee reports dealing with specific subjects and activi- ties have been those submitted with re- spect to Government questionnaires, un- official use of Government automobiles in general, unofficial use of nonmiliary Government automobiles during the war, qauphication among agricultural credit agencics and competitive lending prac- ticles in agriculture, delayed HOLC liq- uidation, NYA training program, un- necessary travel and communications in the Government. Special reports on the Federal personnel situation during the war effort and postwar readjustment pericd, Federal ownership of real estate of the Nation. The committee made an exhaustive report, with great effort, showing the exact amount of Federal ownership of real estate in every State of the Union, as well as other property owned by the Federal Government. The abuse of official mail privileges, Government corporations, surplus and unexpended balances, reorganization in the executive branch of the Federal Gov- ernment, the operation of personnel ceil- ings, Federal subsidies and grants-in- aid to States, assets of wholly owned Government corporations, Federal lend- ing agencies, and United States postwar foreign assistance. The committee rec- ommendations, based on its studies, hearings, and reports have been followed in more than 50 instances by legisiative or administrative action resulting in re- duction of Federal expenditures. Of course the committee does not and should not claim full credit for this ac- tion, but it may properly contend that through its recommendations it has made some contributions toward the reductions which have been effected. An exhaustive report was made on Government corporations, and, as a re- sult, the Byrd-Butler bill was passed, placing these corporations under the control of the budget, for the first time. Prior to that time, there had been blan- ket appropriations which were not su- pervised by the budget. That law is still in existence. As chairman of the committee, I take this opportunity to express my grati- tude to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKELLAR] who, as a member of both the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures and as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has taken the floor {frequently in behalf of expenditure reductions recor.zmended by
1950 the committee. I express the same ap- preciation to other members of the com- mittee. I do not contend that a specific price tag can be placed upon any or all of the committee’s recommendations. However, it may be of interest to know that as legislative and administrative action has been taken in fields in which the committee made recommendations, estimaies as to savings resulting from such legislative and administrative ac- tion were requested from competent authorities. A summary of legislative and admin- istrative action in which the commit- tee has been interested by virtue of its recommendations, with estimated re- ductions in each case, as made by com- petent officials, follows: First. Abolition of Civilian Conserva- tion Corps, $238,960,000. Second. Abolition of nondefense ac- tivities of NYA, $83,767,000. Third. Wartime reduction of WPA activities, $540,000,000. Fourth. Temporary curtailment of non-war-connected activities of Depart- ment of Agriculture, $195,731,208. Fifth. Curtailing of farm-tenant pro- gram, $2,270,000. §ixth. Liquidation of Farm Security Administration, $26,180,000. Seventh. Emergency deferment of €x- penditures for Federal highway projects, $50,300,600. Eighth. Emergency dcferment of non- defense public-building construction, $33,148,000. Ninth. Emergency limitation of Inte- rior Department public works projects undcr construction already, ¢56,985,C00. Tenth. Reduction of loan authoriza- tions for farm-tenant program, $17,- 500,000. Eleventh. Reduction of loan author- ization of Farm Security Administration, $22,500,000. Twelfth. Deferment of nondefense REA expansion program, $90,000,000. Thirteenth. Elimination of unneces- sary questionnaires, $1,790,000. The committee was accorded the un- usual privilege of having a resolution in- troduced by the distinguished Senator from Michigan |[Mr. VANDENBERG] to in- vestigate the matter of questionnaires. Although, under the rules of the Senate, the committee has no right or power, ex- cept by special permission, to consider any resolutions, the majority leader was kind enough to agree to have the resolu- tion referred to the committce, and the Senator from Michigan appeared before the committee. That was at a time when the country was being flooded with requests for filling out questionnaires and making reports on every conceivable sub- ject. The committee held extensive hearings and recommended legislation which was enacted and which greatly re- duced the number of such reports. Fourteenth. Reduction of Government vehicle mileage, $383,168. Fifteen. Leasing instead of purchas- ing land and utilization of Government- owned Jand, $2,800,000. Sixteenth. Cancellation of leasehold interests, $47,907. Seventeenth. Abolition of NYA, $56,- 744,009. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Eighteenth. Liquidation of Work Proj- ects Administration, $106,167,499. Nineteenth. Curtailment of Govern- ment publicity, $5,811,199, Twentieth. Elimination of certain overlapping and duplicating functions, $937,922, Twenty-first. Deferment of nonde- fense reclamation projects, $52,719,470. Twenty-second. Deferment of work on rivers and harbors projects, $181,894,100. Twenty-third. Reduction in Farm Security Administration following rec- ommendation for its liquidation, $18,- 022,142. Twenty-fourth. Curtailment of farm- tenant program, $298,930. Twenty-fifth. Liquidation of resettle- ment projects, $78,961. Twenty-sixth. Reduction in loan au- thorization of Farm Security Adminis- tration, $37,500,000. Twenty-seventh. Reduction in loan authorization of farm-tenant programs, $2,500,090. Twenty-eighth. Reduction in Federal personnel under Byrd-Langer amend- ment, $295,669,000. The Senator from Minnesota stated that the committee had made no recom- mendations concerning reductions in personnel. These are official figures. Twenty-ninth. Suspension of competi- tive lending activitics of Regional Agri- cultural Credit Corporation, $171,700,000. Thirtieth. Reduction in HOLC admin- istrative expenses, $4,171,506. Thirty-first. Elimination of unneces- sary Government forms and reports, $5,370,000. Thirty-second. Termination of mili- tary leases, $3,080,523. Thirty-third. Termination of tional military leases, $25,919,477. Thirty-fourth. Leasing instead of pur- chasing land for war activities, $2,- 800,000. Thirty-fifth. Waste paper contracts, $173,C65. Thirty-sixth. Additional mileage re- duction by motor vehicles, $3,466,626. Thirty-seventh. Further cancellation of leasehold interests, $1,254,184. Thirty-eighth. Curtailment of  re- gional agricultural credit corporations administrative expenses, $790,007. As I recall, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. WHerRy] had a part in that. Thirty-ninth. Further reduction in HOLC funds, $1,883,682. Fortieth. Reduction in travel and com- munication costs, $89,833,310. Forty-first. Further cancellation and renewal of waste paper contracts, $519,- 195. Forty-second. Further action on Gov- ernment leases, $2,800,000. Forty-third. Further action with re- spect to maximum utilization of Govern- ment property, $1,082,115. Forty-fourth. Further action with re- spect to maximum utilization of Govern- ment property, $161,352, Forty-fifth. Enactment of the Govern- ment Corporation Control Act. Forty-sixth. Reorganization in the ex- ecutive branch, Forty-seventh. Curtailment of subsi- dies and grants-in-aid. addi- 2613 Forty-eighth. Liquidation of certain wholly owned Government corporation assets. Forty-ninth. Curtailment of Federal lending activities. Fiftieth. Curtailment of Commerce De- partment publications, $422,923. After considerable investigation we recommended curtailment of quite a number of publications of the Depart- ment of Commerce, at a saving of $422,923. The total of these estimated reductions resulting from legislative and adminis- trative action in flelds toward which at- tention was directed by committee recommendations is $2,436,000,000. (This total does not include any estimate of savings resulting from postwar person- nel reduction.) Again I emphasize that the committee is not trying to take credit for that sav- ing, but I do say that, in accordance with the law, which directed it to do so, we made these recommendations, after hearings and full documentation, prior to the time the reductions were made. From this record it is seen that while the committee has performed no mir- acles, it has made an earnest effort to promote economy. This is one of the toughest obligations confronting Con- gress at this time, but it is vital if we are to preserve our solvency. If we continue deficit spending, sooner or later we shall go over the precipice of financial disaster. Every Senator knows we are about to embark on an- other year of deficit spending—although it is a year of perhaps the highest pros- perity the country has ever known—a year when there are no new economic emergencies abroad. The President has recommended in his budget message less forcign assistance money than is to be spent this year. There are no eco- nomic emergencies at home except that brought on by the coal strike. With all the earnestness of which I am capable, I ask Senators this question: If we can- not balance our budget now, in God’s name when can we balance it? What reason is there to believe that it will be easier to balance it next year, or 5 years from now, or 10 years from now, than it is now? I should like to say, further, that 2 years ago we cxpended $34,000,000,000. No worthy object suffered then. The economic crisis abroad was greater than it is now. We spent $34,000,000,000. Now we are spending $43,000,000,000, an increase of $9,000,000,000 in 2 years of peace, with no new emergencies to jus- tify the additional domestic civilian ex- penditures at home, and $6,000,000,000 of the increase for next year is purely for domestic civilian spending unre- lated to past or future defense or for- eign assistance. We have nearly doubled our non-war-connected domestic spend- ing in 2 years. I think the time has come, for us to face the situation squarely, and realize that if we embark now on deficit spend- ing resulting from domestic-civilian in- creases, under the conditions which now exist, we may never again balance the budget of the United States Government,
2614 I believe that is not too broad a state- ment to make under the conditions. What justification is there to believe that the budget can be balanced in later years if we cannot balance it now. Sup- pose we had a recession in business, It would mean that for every $4 decline in personal income there would be approxi- matcly $1 less in Federal revenue. So that if there is a recession of only 10 orcent—that is all it would have to be, to go back to the income of 1948 and we were fairly prosperous then—we would lose $5,000,000,000 in Federal income. Where would our Federal deficits be in that event, if we continue the current rate of spending? So I think that economy deserves a little consideration. We have a great many agencies to promote expenditure of Federal funds and there are many people who are interested in spending public money. There must be a balance. This Nation was established on the prin- ciple of checks and balances. It was not intended to be all one way. I do not be- lieve we all have to be economizers. I do think, however, there ought to be a few persons—and I think there are— who realize the danger in the situation which confronts us. There should be some whose job it is to say what should be done to avert financial disaster. I have often thought and have asked myself, When does a democracy become insolvent? Our national wealth could not be put up for sale. I say a democracy begins to be insolvent when, in the ab- sence of emergency, there is continuing failure to raise sufficient taxes to pay the obligations of the Government for the year. I ask in all seriousness if we have not about reached that point. Does any- one believe that we shall be able to raise five or six or seven billion dollars in new taxes this year? The distinguished Sen- ator from Georgia [Mr. GreorcE], chair- man of the Finance Committee, knows how difficult it would be to raise five or six or seven billion dollars. Some say that we should tax the cor- porations. Last year we collected $12,- 000,000,000 from corporations. If we taxed the corporations six to seven bil- lion dollars more, it would mean an in- crease of about 50 or 60 percent in their taxes, and the corporations would have nothing with which to pay their divi- dends, and nothing with which to pay for expansion, and nothing with which to pay their debts. Some say that we should put the extra taxation on individuals. Last year we raiscd $18,000,000,000 from individual in- come taxes. If we put six or seven billion dollars of additional taxation on individ- uals, it would mean an increase of 30 or 40 percent. We cannot raise the needed amount through excise taxes, because many of the excise taxes, when the con- dition of the Treasury warrants it, should certainly be repealed or reduced. I say we have reached the point right now where insolvency begins in this country unless we balance our budget. Our forefathers, in their wisdom, estab- lished the principle of checks and bal- ances. One of those checks and balances was that excessive spending should be curbed by excessive taxation. When it is passed on in deficit spending it is like CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE an opiate. The people do not realize it until they are burdened with the evils of enormous debt, which might easily be- come uncontrollable and disastrous. Could anyone imagine that in time of peace and high prosperity the Govern- ment would deliberately indulge in an- other era of deficit spending resulting from increased domestic civilian expend- itures? So I say this year will be one of the most critical years in the destiny of our country, because if we deliberately go into deficit spending, there is no rea- son to believe that the condition will not continue. No man can predict that con- ditions will be more conducive to bal- ancing of the budget next year or in fu- ture years than they are today. Let me say, in conclusion, Mr. Pres- ident that the idea for the Joint Commit- tee on Reduction of Nonessential Fed- eral Expenditures originated in a sug- gestion by former Secretary of the Treas- ury Morgenthau. He suggested to the Senate Finance Committee that a joint committee composed of the chairmen and ranking members of the congressional Revenue and Appropriations Commit- tees, complemented by the revenue and spending officiels in the executive branch, would fill a bad gap in Federal fiscal machinery, and would be helpful in coordinating the Government’s income probability with expenditure rcquire- ments. It was with this historical back- ground that the Joint Committee on Re- duction of Nonessential Federal Expend- itures was created by the Revenue Act of 1941. Mr. President, for the Recorp, I wish now to read from the Revenue Act of 1941 the act which created the commit- tee. It is very short. (a) There is hereby established a commit- tee to investigate Federal expenditures * * * to be composed of (1) three mem- bers of the Senate Committee on Finance and three members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, to be appointed by the President of the Senate; (2) three members of the House Committee on Ways and Means and three members of the House Committee on Appropriations, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and (3) the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. * * * (b) It shall be the duty of the committee to make a full and complete study and in- vestigation of all expenditures of the Fed- eral Government with a view to recommend- ing the elimination or reduction of all such expenditures deemed by the committee to be nonessential, The committee shall report to the President and to the Congress the results of its study, together with its rec- ommendations, at the earliest practicable date, The committee has spent, on the aver- age, $12,000 to $14,000 a year. The Sen- ator from Minnesota {Mr. HumMpurey] says that is the No. 1 outstanding ex- ample of waste and extravagance in the entire Federal Government. It could profitably spend more, but I am not going to be an example of spend- ing. The committee has done the best it could, and I submit in all candor, and without taking credit to myself or the other members of the joint committee, that committee has done pretty well with appropriations totaling $127,000 over a period of 9 years. MaRcH 2 Mr. President, I wish to mention one further matter. I have offered several times to resign. I offered to alternate with the House of Representatives, but Mr. Doucuton requested that I remain as chairman. I offered to resign when the Republicans took charge. I am per- fectly willing to resign at any time. It would be a great relief to me to be re- lieved of the responsibility. I have no desire to continue as chairman of the committee, and whenever the Senate wants to change the committee, or abolish it, or do whatever in its judgment it may think proper, it is at perfect liberty to do so, and whatever it did would be entirely satisfactory to me. But I do not want it done as a result of misinformation such as that which has been presented to the Senate. The committee members include: Rosert L, DoucHTon is vice chairman, and he has taken a great interest in the work of the committee. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKE.iarl is the ranking member. ‘The other members from the Senate are the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Grorce), the Senator from New Hampshire |Mr. BrincEs}], and the Senator from Ne- braska {Mr. BuTLer], and myself. The members from the House are: Representative CLARENCE Cannon, the chairman of the Committee on Appro- priations in the House. Representative Joun H. Keer, of North Carolina. Representative JERE Cooper, of Ten- nessee. Representative JoHN Tazer. of New York. Representative DANIEL A. REED, of New York. The committee has met as often as it could in consideration of the pressure of the work on its members who, as I have said, is composed of the chairmen of the important committees, and others who have extremely burdensome duties. At the last meeting of the committee the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GerorcE] offered a resolution directing the com- mittee to conduct certain investigations, which it is doing now, and it will report shortly. Committee meetings are held as prompily as possible, but this spring, for example, Mr. DoucHToNn requested post- ponement of committee meetings because constant sessions of the House Commit- tee on Ways and Means were to be con- cluded, and the Senator from Georgia (Mr, GeorcE] was confronted with simi- lar schedules by the Senate Committee on Finance. Mr. President, this is not a one-man committee, as some try to charge. At- tempt has been made not to take com- mittee chairmen away from their pri- mary responsibilities but they have been fully informed as to all of the activities of the committee, and they have received the reports. Not a single report has been made except with written approval of a majority of the committee. The committee I think is proud of the fact that it is widely regarded as a watchdog for the Federal fiscal situation. It re- ceives literally thousands of letters from all over the cc’1try asking for informa-
1950 tion about expenditures in Washington, and they are answered. It receives many complaints about extravagance. The committee takes these complaints up with the departments and in many in- stances it has been able to accomplish some economy and bring about some changes simply by taking up the bona fide complaints. The value of the com- mittee in that respect is difficult to eval- uate. But there is ample evidence of its intangible value. Mr. President, I will not take up any more time of the Senate. I thank Mem- bers of the Senate very much for the at- tention they have given me. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Virginia yield to me? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc- CLELLAN in the chair). Docs the Scna- tor from Virginia yield to the Senator from Illinois? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The able Senator from Virginia spoke of balancing the budget this year. As the Senator knows it is estimated that the deficit this year will be about $5,100,000,000. May I inquire from the able Senator whether he has a break-down of that $5,100,000,000, and whcther he can state how and where he would save that $5,100,0C0,000 so far as the President's expensliture budget is concerned? Mr. BYRD. I will: in reply to the Senator from IWinois vot I placed in the RecorD a month ago 2 detailed break- down, expenditure budget as proposed by the President along with the expenditure estimates of the current year and the actual figures for 1948. The table also listed suggestions I would make. I did that on my own responsibility because I did not want to involve the committee in recommendations of that kind until it had had a full opportunity to study the subject, and I did it after a very careful consideration. The President’s budect provides for spending upward of $43,000,000,000, when the postal deficit is included. My proposals total $36,000,- 000,000 which would be $2,000,000,000 more than Federal expenditures in fiscal year 1948, 2 years ago. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I was certain the Sen- ator had made such a suggestion. Mr. BYRD. I shall be glad to furnish it to the Senator with the detail which has been published. Mr. LUCAS. I assume the Senator would be in a position to come before the Appropriations Committee—— Mr. BYRD. I want to do so. Mr. LUCAS. And explain to the com- mittee where these budget cuts can be made. Mr. BYRD. I shall be pleased to pre- sent my views with respect to expendi- tures in each category of items. With the limited facilities at my command, I shall do my best to meet the require- ments for detail, but the Senator from Illinois cannot expect me to say exactly, in every instance, where a dollar may be eliminated. Mr. LUCAS. No; I appreciate that the Senator is perhaps somewhat lim- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ited in the budget under which the com- mittee operates. But the Senator says the Federal budget ought to be balanced. Mr. BYRD. I say absolutely it should be balanced. Beyond question it should be. Mr. LUCAS. I am sure the Senator will give his recommendation to any committee. Mr. BYRD. I will give it to the Sen- ate or I will give it to the Senator from Illinois or give it to anyone in America as to how I think it should be balanced. Mr. LUCAS. I think that is tremen- dously important, because the Senator has constantly told the American people that the budget ought to be balanced. I aerce with him that if it can be it ought to be balanced. I think the Senator from Virginia, with his long experience here in budget matters and financial matters, ought to be in a position at least to give the committee a break-down of exactly where he thinks money can be saved. Mr. BYRD. Please. The Senator used the word “exactly.” His question is a pretty big one when he asks if I can tell precisely where, in a $43,000,000,000 budect, every dollar should be cut off. 1 can give the Senator the outline which has been submitted in some detail. It has been published in the CoNGRESSIONAL Recorp since this session of Congress was convened. It has been published twice in the CoNGRESSIONAL ReEcorD. I am sorry the Senator missed it. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr LUCAS. The Senator knows that the cxpenditures in 1951 are estimated to be $1,000,000,000 less than the Presi- dent recommended in 1950. The Sena- tor agrees with me on that, does he not? Mr. BYRD. I do not have the figures immediately available here But I as- sume the Senator from Illinois knows that 2 years ago the Government spent $34,000,000,000, and now it is spending $43,000,000,000. I should like the Sena- tor from Illinois or someone who can speak for the budget proposed by the administration to justify an increase of $3 000,000,000 to $9,000,000,000 in ex- penditures in 2 years, when $6,000,000,- 000 has been added to domestic civilian spcvding unrelated to war-connected costs or any economic crisis abroad. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from IIli- nois is trying to represent the admin- istration as best hecan. If Ihad a little more cooperation frequently from some of my brothers on this side of the aisle I might do a better job. Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Illinois receives cooperation when he is on the right track. [Laughter.] Mr. LUCAS. J am afraid that if I followed my good friend the Senator from Virginia I would not be on any track at all. Mr. BYRD. The Senator would be on the sound track of a balanced budgct if he followed the Senator from Virginia, and that is what this country wants and must have if we are to preserve our solvency. Mr. LUCAS. I should like to ask the Senator this question. I have great affection for my fri:nd from Virginia. 2615 Mr. BYRD. I reciprocate it, every bit of it. Mr. LUCAS. I know he is trying to do what he thinks is best for his Govern- ment in connection with the great finan- cial problem it confronts. Mr. MUNDT. Louder. Mr. WILEY. The debate is being con- ducted on the other side of the aisle with so much peace and harmony that we cannot hear what is being said. Mr. LUCAS. I regret that Senators cannot hear what is being said. I shall try to talk a little louder. I thought my friend from Wisconsin heard everything that was said on the floor of the Senate, at alltimes. Perhaps I am mistaken. I wish to ask the Senator from Vir- ginia another question. The total Gov- ernment receipts have declined from $42,200,000,000 in 1948 to an estimate of $37,300,000,000 in 1951. Can the Sen- ator give me his reason for that decline in the Government receipts? Mr. BYRD. I think there are several reasons for it. One reason is that the President, I think it was in 1945, recom- mended the repeal of the excess profits tax on corporations. That lost to the Treasury $6,000,000,000. He recom- mended that at a time when we had a $20,000,000,000 annual deficit. I think that is one of the causes of the situation we are in now. The first recommenda- tion for reduction of taxes came from the President of the United States when he reccommended that the excess-profits taxes be taken off corporations. This resulted in a loss of $6,000,000,000, and let me emphasize again, that was when we had a $20,000,000,000 annual deficit. Mr. LUCAS. Let me say to the Sen- ator that we received $42,100,000,000 in 1948 after that tax reduction. I was getting around to the point as to whether or not the last tax reduciion did not have something to do with our present situation? Mr. BYRD. There were two tax re- ductions. One was made on the recom- mendation of the President, which cost $6,000,000,000. Another was made by the Eightieth Congress, which cost #5,000,- 000,000. The Eightieth Congress made the reduction when we had in the Treas- ury a surplus for the year of $8,000,000,- 000. The President made his recom- mendation, and it was adopted, when we had a deficit of $20,000,000,000 for the year. The Senator now can decide which of those reductions is responsible for the present situation, or whether either one of them is. Let me say to the Senator from Illinois that the present situation is the result of increasing expenditures $9,C09,000,- 000 in 2 years. The situation is not due to tax reduction. We have in 2 years in- creased expenditures, as can be seen by consulting the budget, from $34,000,000,- 000 to $43,000,000,000, without any emer-~ gency having arisen to justify it. Mr. LUCAS. Let me say in response to that, if I may, on the Senator’s time—— Mr. BYRD. Take all the time neces- sary. Mr. LUCAS. That the $42,100,000,000 we received in 1948 was the amount col- lected after we had made the first tax reduction,
2616 Mr. BYRD. I do not know, but the Senator must connect the two tax reduc- tions. If he wants to blame the deficit on tax reductions, then he must consider both reductions. He must consider one for $6,000,000,000 and one for $5,000,- 000,000; one given to the corporations, and the other given to the individual taxpayers. Both parties might be re- sponsible if tax reductions are the cause of the deficit, as the Senator says. But I say that they are not the cause of the deficit, and all the Senator has to do is to read the figures; all he has to do is to look at the budget. We spent $34,- 000,000,000 2 years ago, in the fiscal year 1948. We are now spending $43,- 000,000,000 plus. That is an increase of $9,000,000,000. I should like to ask the Senator from Tilinois this question. What is the jus- tification for now spending $9,000,000,000 more than we spent 2 years ago? Mr. LUCAS. I will answer the Sena- tor’s question as best I can. Part of it is due to the Congress of the United States itself in passing a great number of bills. Mr. BYRD. Perhaps some part of it is due to that, but there have been recom- mendations from other sources as well. Mr. LUCAS. Quite a little money is spent in that way. And such matters will come along in due course. I am for the balancing of the budget, if it can be done, and I want to see the Appropria- tions Committee go into the matter to determine whether they can cut appro- priations, as the Senator from Virginia has suggested, without impairing the na- tional defense of the country or repudiat- ing the international obligations we have entered into. Now, the Senator knows—— Mr. BYRD. Let me answer one of the Senator’s questions? Mr. LUCAS. The Senator asked me a question, and I will yield back to him. Mr. BYRD. I want to make the sit- uation clear. The Senator asked me what program or plan I have presented. I do not have it before me. But that plan provided for spending $100,000,000, for example, more than the President spent in the foreign field. And certainly that plan would not injure the President's program. I think my estimate of the foreign field expenditures was perhaps too high, but it was made before the budget was submitted by the President. Iam just as anxious to maintain the na- tional defense as is the Senator from Illinois. But if the Senator from Illinois wi]l examine the items—and it will be a great pleasure for me to send him such detail as I have—he will see that of the $8,000,000,000 to $9,000,000,000 increase in 2 years, $6,000,000,000 is for non-war- connected domestic civilian spending. It is not for foreign defense, it is not for forcign recovery. It is for spending here at home. Spending for domestic civilian purposes has increased in 2 years by $6,000,000,000. Mr. LUCAS. Who is responsible for that? Mr. BYRD. I think the budget has been followed substantially by the Con- gress. I donot think the Congress on its own initiative has increased expendi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tures by $9,000,000,000. I know the Con- gress did not do that. Mr. LUCAS. But it did not add that much, Mr. BYRD. It did not add very much, as a matter of fact. Mr. LUCAS. But the Congress has control of the purse strings. The Con- gress could have cut the $6,000,000,000 if it had desired. Mr. BYRD. It sounds all right for the Senator to say that. But he knows it is difficult for Congress to cut expenditures when the President says ‘““We have a tight budget, from which you cannot take a dollar.” He said, “if you reduce this budget $1 you are going to bring disaster to the country, to foreign nations, to our national defense,” and so forth. He has made that statement time and again. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I know how difficult it is for Senators who con- stantly are talking about the great ques- tion of economy to vote for their pet projects. I have constantly noticed that when various sections of the country are involved in respect to a proposed direct hand-out, to be made by way of subsidy, or something of the sort, Senators do not get too far with their economy. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Sen- ator from Illinois is not directing his re- marks to me. Mr. LUCAS. No; Iam directing them where the shoe fits. Mr. BYRD. ‘The shoe does not fit me. I have not voted for any unjustifled ex- penditure for my State, and I am not going to do it. Mr LUCAS. has not. I repeat that if the budget can be bal- anced, that is fine; I hope it can. Mr. BYRD. With the assistance of the Senator from Illinois and his active, earnest support, I believe we could bal- ance the budget. I am glad the Senator Mr. LUCAS. I thank the Senator for that compliment. Mr. BYRD. I have great confidence in the distinguished Senator from Illi- nois, when he is on the right track. {Laughter.] When he is on the right track, he is a great leader; one of the greatest. I said that last fall in connection with the graduated percentages proposed for the farm bill. Unfortunately, the Sen- ator from Illinois did not accomplish anything in that respect, but that was not his fault. Mr. LUCAS. That was because of my great leadership. [(Laughter.] Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Illi- nois exercised great leadership in the Senate; that was all he could do. If he were to get behind other reductions in expenditures in the way he got behind certain aspects of the farm bill, we would make great reductions in expenditures. Mr. LUCAS. I was defeated last week on the potato bill. Mr. BYRD. I was sorry I could not be here at that time; but my mother met with an accident, and I could not be ere. Mr. LUCAS. TIappreciate that. If the Senator from Virginia had been here to help us, no doubt we would have put it across. But I lost that battle. Marcy 2 Mr. President, I wish to make this con- cluding remark: I have said, and I now repeat, that so far as our country is concerned and so far as our international obligations are concerned, I am not going to vote to cut appropriations if I sin- cerely believe they involve the safety and security of my country. Senators can talk about deficit financing; but I know that if war were to break out to- morrow, the Congress would, overnight, appropriate any amount of money the military wanted to have appropriated. If the military wanted 100 billion dollars appropriated by the Congress for war, to- morrow, the Congress would appropriate it, in the event of war. What I am trying to do, as one Mem- ber of the Congress, and what I have always tried to do, is this: Every move I make with respect to a piece of legisla- tion affecting the domestic economy, or a piece of legislation affecting interna- tional relations is based upon the premise of peace. I know it is a calculated risk; but the alternative, if we do not get peace, is to draw back into our shells and, as Mr. Hoffman has said over and over again, spend from $25,000,000,000 to $30,000,000,000 for defense alone, in a garrison state. I am convinced beyond the peradventure of a doubt that is ex- actly what would happen. Mr. President, I hate deficit financing; but I know that if war were to come to- morrow, we would have plenty of deficit financing; and we would not hesitate, as I have said before. Onc day during the last war, I saw the Senator from Tennessee [Mr McKetrar] bring before the Senate a bill calling for $57,000,000,000 for war; and it was passed within one hour’s time, without a record vote. We can appropriate billions of dollars for war and billions of dollars to win a war; but when we talk about appropria- ting a few billion dollars for the pur- pose of trying to achieve peace in this world, then we are charged with a give- away program and with wrecking or bankrupting the Government. Mr. President, I simply cannot agree with that. I say this with all the sincerity I pos- sess: In the event this country does not ultimately achieve the peace for which we all hope, and about which the Sen- ator from Maryland [Mr. Typ1nes], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Mc- Manon], and other Senators have been talking during whe past few days, all the protestations we hear about deficit fi- nancing, balancing the budget, the in- terest on the national debt, and so forth will be merely so much talk; unless we can have peace, the question then will be one of the self-preservation of our country. We will be in a condition like that which prevailed in the Dark Ages, when it was a matter of dog eat dog. The prevention of war and the preser- vation of civilization are what the Sen- ator from Illinois is greatly interested in, as I know the Senator from Virginia is, God knows, if I were convinced we could get peace by deficit financing to the ex- tent of $15,000,000,000, I would be will- ing to do that tomorrow, and so would
1950 the Senator from Virginia. That is the whole thing back of all of this. The Senator from Virginia talks about balancing the budget and about deficit financing and about other things as though these were normal times, But, Mr. President, the times we are going through now are the most extraordinary times in the peacetime history of Ameri- ca. I do not believe we can judge the present by what has happened in the past, with respect to some of the things we are doing. I wish to compliment the Senator from Virginia on some of the things he has done in the way of economy. Certainly the Senator from Illinois believes in economy. Everything I have, I have made myself; and I have always paid my bills promptly, and I propose to do so in the future. But, Mr. President, the situation our country faces in the world today is peculiar, serious, and extraordinary. We cannot treat it as a normal, peacetime situation, in view of the cold war we are facing and in view of the atomic war we may face. Those are the things that keep running through my mind, I may say to the Senator. I thank the Senator for permitting me to make this statement. Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Mr. President, I wish to make this reply to the Senator from Illinois, in respect to what he has said: I entirely agree that we must have an impregnable national defense. As a member of the Armed Services Committce I have worked dili- gently to that end. I also wish to say again that I have great affection for the distinguished majority leader. He and I do not always agrec; but I have great affection for him; I think he is a man of splendid character and great ability. I wish to say again to him that 2 years ago we spent $6,000,000,000 less for non-war- connected domestic civilian purposes than 1s proposed now. There is no justi- fication for the Senator from Illinois and other Senators to rise on this floor and say that the deficit comes by reason of increased spending for defense or for foreign aid. That simply is not correct; that is all there is to it. As a matter of fact, it can be shown, item by item, that from 1948, just 2 ycars ago, we have now traveled to the point where today we are spending $9,000,000,000 more than we were spending 2 years ago, and under pending proposals $6,000,000,000 of that is purcly in the fleld of non-war-con- nected domestic civilian expenditures which have nothing to do with war, nothing to do with defense, nothing to do wiih foreign recovery. I think that is a fleld that could well be explored here. That is about the amount of the deficit. If we do not increase the budget by $6,000,000,C00, as compared with domes- tic-civilian expenditures 2 years ago, we will not have the deficit facing us. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoey in the chair). Does the Senator from Virginia yield to the Senator from zorgia? Mr. BYRD. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I have asked the Senator to yield to me, for the purpose of permitting me to speak of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures of which the senior Senator from Virginia has been chairman since its creation. The Senator from Virginia has correctly pointed out that the joint committee was created by an act of Congress, and on the recommendation of the then Sec- retary of the Treasury of the United States, Mr. Morgenthau. As I think the Senator from Virginia has stated, it was created in the Revenue Act of 1941, Since the creation of the joint commit- tee, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia has been chairman of it. But the joint committee has consisted at all times of the chairman of the Ap- propriations Committees of the two Houses of the Congress, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the Secretary of the Treas- ury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. The joint committee has engaged in many difficult, tedious, and, I think, profitable studies and investi- gations. From time to time it has held hearings. Evidence was taken. Vari- ous recommendations were submitted, as they have been referred to by the distinguished Senator from Virginia. It is not a question of what has actu- ally been saved by the committee; but I think it may be truthfully said by any honest man that it is a question of what might have happened if there had not been a few men in the House of Repre- sentatives, at the other end of this Capi- tol building, and a few men in this body who insisted upon some curbing and some restriction upon constantly spend- ing beyond the Government’s income. Mr. President, I have nothing to do with the controversy; but I wish to bear testimony to the fact that the distin- guished senior Senator from Virginia has done a magnificent job as chairman of this joint committee through the years. Without his constant devotion to duty, it is not possible for any man to say what might have happened in the fiscal affairs of the Government. I know of my own knowledge that it has not been possible to have many meet- ings of the full joint committee during the first scssion of this Congress, or any meetings at the present session of Con- gress, because the chairmen of the House and the Senate Appropriations Commit- tees are always busy and the House Ways and Means Committee last session was engagcd for 9 months, or thereabouts, in a careful study of the social-security sys- tem. Soit was impossible for the distin- guished chairman of that committee to attend hearings of the joint committee. The Finance Committee of the Senate was not idle. At the last full session of the Congress, we not only had to deal with such things as the oleomargarine bill, on which we held protracted hear- ings, but with even longer hearings upon the more important matter of reciprocal trade agreements. At this session of the Congress the Finance Committee has constantly been at work, since the 17th day of January, on the social-security 2617 bill. We cannot close the public hear- ings on that bill before the 24th day of March. Mr. President, on my own motion, at the last meeting of the Joint committee, of which the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia is chairman, I submitted a request for the development of certain matters vitally affecting our financial and fiscal affairs. I know the Senator from Virginia has been constantly en- gaged in that work, and I think I should make this statement, in justice to the committee. I know of no more valuable committee that has functioned in this body since I have been a Member of it. I say that without any exception. I think it the height of reckless irresponsi- bility for anyone to suggest otherwise. I wish to make my position perfectly clear. The committee has functioned well. It has been in the control of some of the best men in the House and Sen- ate—excusing, of course, myself from the catcgory—and certainly under the able direction of the Senator from Virginia since the creation of the committee. Let me bear this further testimony: In the 1940 act when it had been re- solved that we would create this special committee, it was suggested that of course, I, as then chairman of the Fi- nance Committee, would become its chairman. I declined. I said that un- der no circumstances would I act as chairman; that the distinguished Sen- ator from Virginia, who had first sug- gested it and who had offered the reso- lution, following the statement made by the then Secretary of the Treasury, was entitled to the chairmanship; but, more than that, that he was eminently quali- fled by character and experience to head the committee. The same position was taken by my distinguished friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Com- mittee of the House, who became vice chairman of the committee, but who himself recognized the peculiar fitness of the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia for this important work. I do not care to go into the question of balancing the budget, or whatnot: that is wholly a different question. But I do want to make this statement, and I make it without fear of contradiction, that World War I was financed through borrowing more than two-thirds of the cost of the war. We paid less than 33 percent of the cost of World War I out of direct taxes. World War II, which reached a total expenditure never be- fore known in the history of mankind, was paid for to the extent of 53 percent out of taxes imposed by the Government upon the American people. With the debt reduced by some 53 percent, and in view of the enormous taxes since exacted from the American people, there is in my judgment—and I should feel myself un- worthy of sitting in this body, if I did not say it—no possible excuse for a deficit, now climbing toward $6,000,000,000. Beyond that, Mr. President, I do not wish to discuss the financial or fiscal af- fairs of the Government, but I did wish to make this statement regarding the committee of which my distinguished friend from Virginia has been chairman since its creation.
2618 Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator with all my heart. Mr, STENNIS, Mr. BUTLER, and Mr. MILLIKIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield, and if so to whom? Mr. BYRD. I yield first to the Sena- tor from Nebraska. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, first I want to endorse every statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, the senior Senator from Geor- gia, so far as I am personally concerned, and I am sure it will go for almost every other Member of the Senate, regardless of the side of the aisle on which he may sit. I especially want to endorse the statement in which the Senator from Georgia speaks of the importance of the work done by the committee. I shall use one illustration. Lindsay Warren, as Comptroller General, made the state- ment that the act, called the Corporation Control Act, passed entirely on the rec- ommendation of the committee of which the senior Senator from Virginia is chairman, was one of the most impor- tant laws that have been passed during the past 25 years. It was the result of the investigatory work and the work which was started in the committee of which the senior Senator from Virginia is chairman. I also want to mention the fact that, so far as I am concerned, and I think I may say so far as every other Senator on this side of the aisle and perhaps most of the Senators on the other side of the aisle are concerned, I am impressed with the splendid work done by the chairman of the joint committee from a nonpartisan standpoint. There has been no partisan- ship in the committee, as evidenced by the fact that during the Eightieth Con- gress, when the Republicans were in con- trol, they decided that there should be no change in the chairmanship of the committee. I simply want to make this statement in support of the work done by the joint committee and its chairman. Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senotor yicld? Mr BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi Mr. EASTLAND. Mr President, I de- sire to endorse wholeheartedly what the distinguished Gcnator from Georgia and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska have said I am a member of the Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, and I know that the work Cone by the joint committe of which the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrp] is chairman hus been of enormous benefit and of tremendous help to our commit- tee. There are in the Senate 15 commit- tees which have to do primarily with the expenditure of moncy. There are in the House 19 committees dealing primarily with the expenditure of money. We have but one committee dealing primarily with nonessential expenditures and the sav- ing of money for the taxpayers. Mr. President, the distinguished Sena- tor from Virginia has performed a pub- lic service of the highest importance. His chairmanship of the Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Expenditures of the Federal Government, his work and the work of the entire committee, have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE won the confidence of the American peo- ple. The chairman of the committee, the Senator from Virginia, enjoys to a marked extent the confidence and re- spect of the American people. I say his committee is one of the best committees, one of the most beneficial committees in the American Congress. Mr. BYRD. Ithank the Senator. Mr. STENNIS and Mr. WHERRY ad- dressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield, and, if so, to whom? Mr. BYRD. I yield first to the Sena- tor from Mississippi. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I wish to obtain the floor in my own right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield to the Senator from Nebraska? Mr. WHERRY. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Mississippi? Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, a point of order. I wish to be courtcous. Mr. WHERRY. I beg the Senator’s pardon. I thought the Senator from Virginia had the floor. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, a point of order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yielded to the Senator from Misissippi. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator from Virginia concluded? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Virginia has not concluded, I shall appreciate it very much if I may say just a word about the subject under discussion. If the Scnator from Missis- sippi has the floor, I do not wish to com- plicate the parhamentary situation. Mr. STENNIS. I will make the par- liamentary inquiry to find out. I under- stood the Senator from Mississippi had been recognized, but I do not want to cut off the Senator from Virginia, of course. I have been very much interested in his discussion. However, I do not want to be delayed indefinitely. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Virginia had not concluded, he would still have the floor. Mr. STENNIS Very well. Mr WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I should like to make a very brief observation, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and as one who has worked industriously on that committee, under the leadership in the Eighticth Congress of the chair- man, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Bripces], and be- fore that time and since that timc, under the able leadership of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKeiiar]. I merely want to say that time and time again I have used the statistics furnished by the Committee on Reduction of Nones- sential Federal Expenditures. They have been very helpful to me. I only wish the committee were larger. The work of the committee is almost identical with the work I had in mind in offering a res- olution to increase the legislative per- sonnel in order that we might carry out the provisions of the unified appropria- tion bill. What we need from the leg- islative point of view is an enlargement MARCH 2 of personnel and facilities for carrying out work such as the Committee on Re- duction of Nonessential Federal Expend- itures has been doing necessarily in a Mmited way. I wish to thank the dis- tinguished Senator from Virginia for the work he has done, and I also wish to thank those who sit with him on the committee for the services they have rendered. They are outstanding men of the Senate. The committee has per- formed a valuable service not only for the Congress but indirectly for the American people. Mr. President, it is unusual to see so many Senators, long in the service of the United States, taking such an in- terest as that which has been demon- strated here this morning in the sub- ject matter under consideration. Time and time again, when I have heen mak- ing speeches throughout the United States, it has been with a great deal of pride that I have quoted not only the Senator from Virginia but his commit- tee, and have commended them for the work they have done. They have some- how become a symbol of the things for which I stand. When we consider the balancing of the budget and the ques- tion of deficit spending, the committee 1s most helpful to those of us who be- lieve in the purposes of the committee. We have taken that position not only in the Congress but elsewhere through- out the United States. I merely wish to pay my respects to a great chairman for a great work well down. I deeply appreciate it, and I beheve I speak the sentiments of the entire membership of the Senate, particularly of Senators who have been associated for a very long time with the distinguished Senator from Vir- ginia. Mr.BYRD I thank the Senator Mr.STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor. Mr THOMAS of Oklahoma Mr. President, will the Senator from Mis- sissippi yield? Mr. STENNIS I understood I did not have the floor, but that the Senator from Virginia had yielded to me. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. BYRD. I have yielded to the Sen- ator from Mississippi. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Vir- ginia has yielded to the Senator from Mississippi, I understand. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi be good enough to yield to me for an observation? Mr. STENNIS. I have becn waiting for some time, but I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, it has been suggested that our budgetary diffi- culties followed the reduction of taxes by the Eightieth Congress. I simply wish to say that at the time income taxes were reduced the recession which later occurred was in prospect, and one of the reasons for reducing taxes was to plow back the money into the hands of the people, so they could spend it in the most economical and effective way economics knows. We reduced the income taxes. The money was not lost. It went into the hands of the people. The people
1950 spent it and, in my opinion, it was that dynamic spending which kept the reéés- sion within bounds and prevented it from catapulting into 9 depression. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. Président, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I was among those present-——— Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. As I understand, I do not have the floor; the Senator from Virginia yielded to me. Mr. BYRD. I yielded to the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I was among those Senators present last Fri- day when the charges were made on the floor, and a bill was introduced providing for the abolishment of the Joint Commit- tee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, of which the distinguished Senator from Virginia is chairman. At that time there happened to be only a few Senators present. The charges were so amazing, and I thought, in view of what I believe to be the facts, were so reckless, that I felt that some Senator not a member of the committee should at least say a few words on the subject. Boiled down, the charges made in the speech of the junior Senator from Min- nesota [Mr. Humpnrey! were that this committee, of all committees, should be abolished on the grounds of economy. I approach my very few remarks—and I shall be very brief—on that subject, trying to look into the proposal that this committee be abolished on grounds of economy. I had intended to read the names of the members of the committee, but that has already been covered. As a background for this thought, I was re- minded of the vast and far-reaching ac- tivities of this great Government, which gocs into every county and community in the whole Nation, and then I thought of the vast globe-circling activities which go round and round with the sun in the most colossal undertaking, I believe, that has ever been known in the history of the world. It has approached such pro- portions that there is a budget of more than $42,000,000,000 annually. As a part of the picture, I found a doc- ument prepared by the Legislative Refer- ence Service of the Library of Congress, which attempts to point out the acts of Coneress providing for grants-in-aid to the States. Iam not passing on the merits of those items; Iam merely putting it in as a part of the picture. I find that this pamphlet is a regular 814 by 11 inch pamphlet. It contains three full typewritten pages of index showing the different laws which have been passed and which have been financed, on one subject—grants-in-aid to the States. It lists those laws more or less by title, certainly with no analysis, It requires 45 single-space typewritten pages merely to list the titles of the laws, giving references as to where they may be found. That is only a part of the back- ground, Against this background to the sug- gestion to abolish this joint committec, and as against the more than $42,000,- 000,0C0 budget figure, which has been mentioned, I found that the cost of the Mr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE operation of the joint committee had averaged only $14,000 a year for the past 8% years. Those of us who sit on the Committee on Rules and Administration and pass on the sums requested and ob- tained for the operation of the standing Senate committees know that this sum isa mere pittance by comparison. What a pittance it is in connection with a $42,000,000,000 budget. I shall not try to balance the budget this afternoon, Mr. President. I am speaking as one of the newer Members of the Senate, trying to find light in the maze of conflicting and complex prob- lems which confront us. Last year I sat as an ex officio member of a subcommit- tee of the Committee on Appropriations. There were 453 witnesses who came be- fore it, and 452 of them wanted their appropriations increased over those of the preceding year. One witness sug- ecsted a reduction. That indicates what the newer Members of the Senate have to undergo. I further found that this joint com- mittee is the single agency established in the congressional machinery whose primary purpose is the elimination of nonessential Federal expenditures The purpose and the work of the joint com- mittee, of course, are altogether differ- ent from that of any other committee in that it has representation from the Treasury Department and the Budget Bureau, each an executive branch of the Government. In view of all these facts, the charge that the continuation of the joint com- mittee violates the Reorganization Act of 1946 and as a move for economy falls flat, without any support whatsoever. In spite of the very small cost in- volved in the operation of this important committee, I have found many of its reports very valuable 1n my own efforts to try to find my way among the mass of work which comes before the Senate. Further, and of far more importance, it is both a help and a strong assurance to have a committee of the Congress viewing the entire picture and bringing to the attention of the Congress the true situation with reference to the expendi- ture of funds. I have learned that I need not expect any department to re- port to the Congress the defects of other departments or its own. These are cer- tainly matters about which the individ- ual Members of the Congress cannot make personal investigations. I have further found that the work of the joint committee is most valuable in the eyes of the public. I think this is a major point. Extravagances of the Government are often felt, but are fre- quently hard to prove, especially when it is to the interest of many of the de- partments to keep such practices from the public eye. To abolish the commit- tee charged with the primary function of exposing inefficiencies and extrava- gances is to encourage these very practices. By the very nature of things, the con- tribution of such a committee is neces- sarily partly intangible and psychologi- cal. The senior Senator from Georgia (Mr. GeorGce] stated my point in that respect. It is not a matter of estimating in dollars and cents what this committee, 2619 regardless of its personnel, has done. Just think of what might have happened if there had not been some agency of this kind in the Congress, representing the Congress. I am reminded of what a citizen once told me, when I was a district attorney. He said the grand jury had been a power- ful influence in his life. I said, “What has it ever done to you?” He said, “It never has done anything to me, but it has been the thought of what it might do.” Cf course, in that connection, there is no suggestion that any of the depart- ments are not acting in good faith. The different agencies of the Government get all the moncy they can get. We are the ones who have the responsibility of pass- ing on those questions. Who is wise enough to measure the benefits in terms of dollars and cents that flow from a fecl- ing on the part of the taxpayers that the Congress has its own independent com- mittee watching the taxpayers’ dollar beyond that dollar’s momentary stop in the Federal Treasury? . With the prospective budget for the fiscal year 1951 running well above $40,- 000,000,000, and with an apparent and almost certain deficit facing us of more than $5,000,000,000, and with virtually all of the trends toward increasing this deficit rather than decreasing it, it is the height of folly and borders on the ridiculous to talk about abolishing this committee that is trying to expose non- essential Federal expenditures and par- ticularly, doing it on the basis of econo- mizing when the annual savings would be only $14,000, a mere pittance in a forty-odd-billion-dollar budget. The psychological effect of abolishing this committee under these circumstances would not only cost the American tax- payers billions of dollars in money but would disappoint and disillusion them and cause the people to seriously ques- tion the motives of our actions. The peo- ple could charge with much reason that we had abandoned their cause and sur- rendered to the pressure group for more and more spending. I have discovered that one of the most pronounced deficiencies in our legisla- tive system here is that, although we usually scrutinize fairly carefully the proposals for the expenditures of funds before appropriations are made, we sel- dom make much examination of just how the funds were expended or how much was accomplished. So long as funds are spent “‘within the law,” the auditors are satisfied; this should not be enough to satisfy us. We are directly responsible to the people; it is their money. After looking into this entire picture, I am fully convinced that the powers of the committee ought to be enlarged and strengthened, and the committee mem- bers encouraged, rather than to have the committee outlawed and its members abused. Again, Mr. President, I should like to congratulate the chairman of the joint committee for the complete, the conclu- sive, the devastating answer and pres- entation which he has made here this morning for the benefit of Congress and for the benefit of the American people.
2620 Mr. WILLIAMS and Mr. HUMPHREY addressed the Chair. Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Delaware. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, do I not have the floor? Mr. WHERRY. A point of order. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FuL- BRIGHT in the chair). The Chair is in- formed that the Senator from Virginia has the floor. The present occupant just came into the Chair. Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Delaware. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. HUMPHREY. If my memory serves me correctly, the Senator from Mississippi was at one time recognized as having the floor. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The present occupant of the chair was not in the chair at the time and has just come into the chair, and is informed by the Parliamentarian that the Sen- ator from Virginia had not yielded the floor. Mr. BYRD. I have not yielded the floor at any time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that the Senator from Virginia yielded to the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. BYRD. I yield now to the Sen- ator from Delaware. Mr. HUMPHREY. A parliamentary inquiry. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not true that under the rules of the Senate if a Sen- ator speaking leaves the floor and re- sumes his seat he automatically loses the floor? Mr. WHERRY. A point of order. The Senator from Minnesota is not in order. The Senator from Virginia did not yield for him to propound a parlia- mentary inquiry, and he refuses to do so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized. Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Delaware. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I am honored to associate myself with the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Greorce] and other Members of the Senate in com- mending the Senator from Virginia {Mr. Byrp] for the able work which he and the members of his joint committee have done toward informing the country of the unnecessary expenditures in our Government. There is no man in the United States Senate for whom I have a higher regard or greater respect than I have for the able Senator from Vir- ginia [Mr. Byrp]. I know of no greater way to empha- size the irresponsibility of the sources of criticism of the Senator from Virginia for his efforts to balance our budget than to quote a statement which was made by the critic, the Senator from innesota [Mr. Humpurey], on Septem- er 28, 1949, in which he expressed his own opinion of deficit spending. The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Senator from Minnesota stated at that time: The Senator from Minnesota does not be- lMeve in a balanced budget at this hour, nor is he afraid to say so. I join with the other Members of the Senate in opposition to any effort to abolish his important committee. Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. MARTIN. I shall not take the time of the Senate now, but I do wich to ask the distinguished Senator a ques- tion. Before doing so, I should like to associate myself with the distinguished Members of this body who have com- mended the chairman of the joint com- mittee so highly. I know of no one in public life whose utterances are followed more carefully in my own State than those of the distinguished senior Scena- tor from Virginia. I should like to ask him a question. From the Senator’s ex- perience as a public official, not only as a Senator of the United States, but also as the chief exccutive of one of our lead- ing States, is he of the opinion that one of the best methods of national defense is a sound fiscal policy and a balanced budect? Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Senator that it is the greatest security we have. Mr. MARTIN. Will the Senator yicld further? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. MARTIN. From the Senator’s ex- perience, does he believe that it is pos- sible for us to fight a third world war, using the free-enterprise system, unless we do balance our budget and begin to reduce our public debt? Mr. BYRD. I agree with the Senator that our greatest security lies in a bal- anced budget, sound government, and preservation of the free-enterprise system. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. CAIN. The junior Senator from Washington is generally thought of as being a very sturdy and positive par- tisan who has great pride in the Repub- lican Party, but because of my tre- mendous respect, affection, and admira- tion for the senior Senator from Virginia, I should like to relate a story in just a sentence or two. On the Pacific coast, long before I came to the Senate, I had heard of a great American, whose name was Harry FLoop Byrp, of Virginia, who sought to help in reeducating the American peo- ple to a restoration of financial and fiscal normalcy, integrity, and sanity. When I was privileged to come to the Senate, a little more than 3 years ago, I went first, as a Republican, if you please, to the office of the very distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, a Democrat, and I introduced myself to suggest that if there were any way in which I could ever be of service to the sound programs which he had in mind, I should take advantage of the opportunity to do so. I have continued to try to support what he has advanced to the American peo- Marcu 2 ple, and my trust in him and my faith 4n what he proposes for the good of the American people is unlimited. I count myself as being fortunate in being able to say a feeling and sincere word in support of the continuing efforts of the Senator from Virginia. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. I came into the Chamber just a few minutes ago. I have been busy in the Committee on Appro- priations, and have not heard the de- bate which interests me very much. I should like to associate myself with the Senators who have commended the dis- tinguished senior Senator from Virginia. I have known him ever since he was a little boy, and that was a long time ago. He is one of the finest, ablest, most effi- cient men, and one of the most com- petent legislators whom I have known since I have been a Member of the Sen- ate. I understand a bill has been intro- duced—and I have sent for it—proposing to abolish the joint committee of which the Senator from Virginia is chairman. I hope that will not be done. I hope the Senate will not permit it to be done. I think his jomt committee has done a wonderful work, and I think I can safely say, being a mcmber of the joint com- mittec myself, that the principal work of the jomt committee has been done by the distineuished Senator from Virginia I take off my hat to him—I am sorry I do not have my hat on so that I could take it off literally—to indicate how I honor him for the wonderful work he has done jin behalf of economy at a time when economy 1s freatly needed. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will not vote to abolish the joint com- mittee, because it should continuc in ex- istence. The Committee on Appropria- tions, of which I am the chairman, uses the work which has been done by the chairman of this joint committee. We have it before us every year, and it is fine work. Iapprove of it. I approve of what the joint committce is doing, and I acain thank the Senator from Virginia for the outstanding work he has done. He has made a wonderful record in the Senate, Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President—— Mr. BYRD. Iyield to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT. I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the fine words of commendation which have been uttered today of the great services of the senior Senator from Virginia and of the joint committee of which he is chair- man. I know of no man in public hfe in America, during the time the Senator from Virginia has been a Member of this body, who has contributed more to the general welfare of the country than has the senior Senator from Virginia; and in that category I include those Presidents of the United States who have been serv- ing as President while he has been serv- ing as a Member of this august body. I should like to comment very briefly on one aspect of this subject, because there seems to be abroad a rumor, which is completely without foundation, that
1950 because the junior Senator from Minne- sota [Mr. HUMPHREY] happens to be a member of the Senate Committee on Ex- penditures in the Executive Departments there is a tendency on the part of the members of that committee to try to take over—— Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yielded to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT. There seems to be abroad a rumor that the Senate Coimmit- tee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments is inclined to take over the work of the Joint Committee. Iam sure that the junior Senator from Minnesota had no intention of giving any such im- pression. I read his remarks very care- fully, and I do not see any statement in them that would indicate such an in- tention. But on behalf of one member of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, I desire to dis- claim here publicly any such desire on our part. The Senate Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments has a job to do, which, under the very able and courageous leadership of the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Mc- CLELLAN], who is now on the floor of the Senate, we are endeavoring to accom- plish. But we are not in any sense a joint committee, we are not in any sense a committee which includes representa- tives of the executive departments. We do not have that particular equipment, therefore, by which we can approach the problem of expenditures in the manner in which the joint committee headed by the distinguished senior Senator from Vir- ginia can. As one member of the Com- mittee on Expenditures, I will say that we have received a considerable amount of assistance and guidance and help from the Joint Committee headed by the dis- tinguished Senator from Vireinia. Mr. HUMPHREY. A point of order, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President: Mr. HUMPHREY. I wish to ask the Presiding Officer whether or not it 1s possible for a Senator to yield for any purpose other than for a question. The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not. A Senator can yield only for a question, if a point of order is made. Mr. MUNDT. I have a question, Mr. President. My question is The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield for a question. Mr. MUNDT. I will proceed with my question, Mr. President. Since I see my good friend the chairman of our Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments on the floor, I ask him whether it is not true that I went to him, after I heard about this controversy and said, “Now this is my attitude respecting this matter, and I wonder whether it is not shared by the chairman of the com- mittee, that I feel that we have so many tasks and so many burdens that we would be the last to insist that the duties which are so well being performed by the chairman and his Joint Coramittee on xXCVI——165 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Reduction of Nonessential Federal Ex- penditures should be turned over to us”; and is it not true that the chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments agreed whole- heartedly that that was the situation? Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yleld? Mr. BYRD. I yield if I do not lose the floor thereby. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fut- BRIGHT in the chair). The Senator from Virginia can yield only for a question. Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas for a question. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia may yield to me for a brief statement, without losing the floor thereby. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia asks unanimous consent that he may yield to the Sen- ator from Arkansas for the purpose of making a statement? Is there objec- tion? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, in answer to the inquiry made by the able Senator from South Dakota I may say that, so far as I can recall there has been no discussion in our committee at any time, since I have been chairman, at least, with reference to the Commit- tee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments desiring to take over or in any way to encroach upon the functions and duties of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Ex- penditures. I did reply to the able Sen- ator from South Dakota, when he asked me about this matter, that there had been no such purpose on my part, and I knew of no movement or discussion in the committee along that line I wish to make a further statement, Mr. President, while I am on my feet. If there is any impression or rumor abroad from any source whatsoever that the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments has designs upon or has given any thought or had any idea, as a committee, of undertaking to have the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures abolished, and take over its functions, it is certainly erroneous, because person- ally I may say—I cannot speak for the whole committee—that unless facts can be developed that should warrant our committee favoring such action I should certainly oppose a bill to abolish it. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield for a question only. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may make a statement at this time without the Sen- ator from Virginia losing the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Michigan asks unanimous consent that he may make a statement without the Senator from Virginia losing the floor. Is there ojection? Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, I want to expedite the proceedin7s. I wish that Senators be permitted to say as much as 2621 they want to say, but I call attention to the fact that I have a reply to make today. I contend that the rules of the Senate are being violated flagrantly. I ask that the Chair try to uphold the rules of the Senate, and when it comes time for me to address the Senate, I shall abide by the same rules. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia can yield only for a question, unless unanimous consent is given that another Senator may make a statement. Is there objection to the reauest of the Senator from Michigan? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, with respect to whether the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments is in conflict with the Joint Com- mittee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, I should like to say that during the Eightieth Congress, when we on this side of the aisle were in charge of the joint committee, we did not at that time undertake to abolish the committee, even though its chairman was a Senator on the other side of the aisle. The members of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments and the Members of the Sen- ate and the Members of the House thought so well of the distinguished Sen- ator from Virginia |Mr. Byrpl, and the way he acted as chairman of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures that there was no desire on our part to take away from him the chairmanship of that committee. Even though the Republicans were in control of the Senate at that time, there was no desire on our part to transfer the functions of that committee to the Com- miitee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. In all the work the Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments has done in the way of in- vestigations, in which the junior Senator from Michigan took part, which investi- gations during the war covered the man- power question, I wish to say to the Sen- ate that we received the full coopera- tion of the distinguished Senator from Virginia and his committee. There was no time when that committee did not aid the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments by giving it figures and facts. The reports of the joint committee were valuable to us. Mr. President, I think one of the calamities of this session would ccme about if we were even to consider the question of abolishing the joint com- mittee. The Committee on Appropriations, of which the junior Senator from Michigan {is a memhcer, reccives valuable aid from the joint committce. The distinguished Senator from Virginia, who is an ex officio mcmber of the Appropriations Committee, has at all times at his finger- tips answers respecting questions rclat- ing to personnel, and on many occasions he has aided the Appropriations Com- mittee in solving problems which have come before it. Mr. President, I think all we have to do is to look at the personnel of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non- essential Federal Expenditures, whose
2622 chairman is the distinguished Senator from Virginia, and we will realize that it is a committee composed of distin- guished Members, a committee which is rendering a real service not only to the Senate but to the people of the United States. Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr. TOBEY. I take it the Senator yields for a question only? Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr, TOBEY. Here comes the ques- tion. It is a double-barreled question. Did the Senator from Virginia ever hear the story of the freshman class in an eastern college to which had been given its assignment of the lesson for the day? Half a dozen of the boys had studied the lesson conscientiously and carefully, and were sharpened up and had full and ade- quate knowledge of the subjects. They ably recited and answered all questions. There was one boy in the class, however, who had little knowledge of the subiect matter. He was an ignoramus. How- ever, he was determined to come under the wire, so he said, when he was called upon to recite, “Mr. Professor, I voice the sentiments of the preceding speak- ers.” Did the Senator from Virginia ever hear that story? Mr. BYRD. No. Mr. TOBEY. At this time I wish to say that I voice the sentiments which have today been expressed on the floor of the Senate by all preceding speakers, respecting Harry Byrp. As a long-time friend of the Senator from Virginia, and a@ great admirer of him, I join in the sentiments that have just been expressed on the floor. I ask the Senator to please put that in his book. Mr. BYRD. I will preserve that ex- pression on the part of the Senator from New Hampshire, forevermore. Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. BYRD. I yield. Mr, BRIDGES. The Senator from New Hampshire, who is a member of the joint committee of which the distinguished Senator from Virginia is chairman, would like to make inquiry of the Senator from Virginia, in view of rumors that have been circulated, concerning dissension in the ranks of the joint committee, and the fact that the joint committee has not been called together for frequent meet- ings, whether there has been any protest made by any member of the committce to the distinguished chairman, the Sen- ator from Virginia, about any of his ac- tivities as chairman of the joint com- mittee. Mr. BYRD. There have been no pro- tests whatever. There have been no complaints of any character or descrip- tion that I have heard. Mr. BRIDGES. And the chairman of the joint committee would be aware if any member of the committee had pro- tested by reason of lack of frequent meet- ings? Mr. BYRD. I naturally would be aware, but no such protest of any kind has been made. Mr. BRIDGES. So far as the Senator from Virginia is aware, there has been, has there not, rather a unanimous opin- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE jon of the members of the joint com- mittee respecting the reports which the chairman has from time to time issued? Mr, BYRD. The committee has been practically entirely harmonious in all its sessions. Mr. BRIDGES. I should like to ask the Senator if he recalls a distinguished Democratic Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Pat Harrison? I believe Pat Harrison served in the Senate with the Senator from Virginia, as I did. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia remembers, when the splurge of spending was started in this country, the statement made by the then Senator from Mississippi, which I have always remembered? He said, “This country can no more spend its way to prosperity than a drunken man can drink himself sober.” I think that is a very pat, a very clarifying expression. It always appealed to me as an expression which in a few words clarified the issue of the morc- abundant-life spending in this country. Mr. BYRD. I recall that statement. Mr. BRIDGES. I think the precept is a good one for the joint committee to remember and act upon. Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Are there any further questions? [Laughter.] If not, I yield the floor. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I want to concur in some of the friendly remarks which have been made in refer- ence to the person of the senior Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byrp]. Obviously it was not the intent of the junior Senator from Minnesota to enter into a name- calling match, or to indulge in person- alities. There is an issue at stake. I am happy that the time has arrived when so many of our distinguished col- leagues are on the floor. Yesterday the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McMa- HON] delivered a powerful speech on the floor of the Senate. About a month ago he delivered an equally important speech on the floor of the Senate. I hesitate to report for the purposes of the REcorpD that there were not a dozen Senators present. I hesitate to report that not more than four or five Senators rose to express their points of view as to the im- portance of the pronouncements the Senator from Connecticut made. Yet today, over a proposal to abolish a committee which needs to be abolished, as I shall point out, we have had as ercat an array of testimony as the Senate of the Unitcd States has witnessed for many a@ year. It would seem that this was testimon- ial day. This pleases me, because I be- lieve we should not wait until people pass to their heavenly reward before express- ing our feelings about them. I think it is fine, although irrelevant to the issue, vhat the Senator from Virginia now knows how much some of his colleagues think of him and how much they appre- ciate him. It should give him a greater sense of warmth and security in his work. To be sure, all these things would prob- ably be said at a later date, but today the Senator from Virginia has been here to hear them. I remind the Senate, however, that when we discuss the hydrogen bomb we are unable to get anyone in the Senate MARCH 2 to say very much about it, except the distinguished Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typincs], who made a masterful statement on this floor, or the distin- guished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McManon], or the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. Lruman], or the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. MorsE]. These Members have expressed themselves on the subject, but we never have had such a gathering to hear them as we have today, when we are talking about a nonessential Joint Committee on Nonessential Federal Expenditures. To the contrary, when we talk about world peace Senators are often too busy to be present to hear the discussion. But when there is an opportunity to attack the administration, through one of the junior members of the administration, then the faithful are rallied, and the re- actionary coalition which operates in this Congress is present en masse. Then the big guns are wheeled out, and we hear the thunder of the artillery—the thun- der against the President’s program and against the budget. Of course, a convenient decoy was sct up by the junior Senator from Minne- sota; but as was pointed out, he is no shrinking violet; and before this debate is over, he will not be an apple blossom, either. He will be in there to expose the nonessential activities of a nones- sential committee, and why he believes that on the merits of the matter the com- mittee should be abolished. Mr. President, let me say that I was somewhat disturbed at the comment of the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Georce], because I hold him in high regard. The senior Senator from Geor- gia charged that it was reckless irre- sponsibility for anyone to suggest the abolition of this committee, but I be- lieve the Senator from Georgia will re- consider those words, in the days to come. Let me read what was said for the Recorp the other day in reference to the Joint Committee, and why I believe it should be abolished. First of all, the junior Senator from Minnesota said this—and I shall quote now from page 2328 of the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp for February 24: Dr. George Galloway— Who, by the way, is the senior research specialist in American government and public administration for the Library of Congress, holding one of the most re- sponsible jobs in the field of research our Government has to offer. Dr. Gallo- way was invited to testify before a com- mittee in the Eightieth Congress in reference to the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act. Here is what Dr. George Gal- Joway said, and here is exactly what the junior Senator from Minnesota said, as to why this joint committee should be abolished: I suggest— I am quoting now from Dr. Galloway’s testimony on legislative reorganization, in February 1946— that the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures be dis- continued. This committee was established by section 601 of the Revenue Act of 1941 to make a full and complete study and in- vestigation of all expenditures of tne Federal
1950 Government with a view to recommending the elimination or reduction of all such ex- penditures deemed by the committee to be nonessential. Dr. Galloway continued, saying that— Its function— Namely, the function of the Joint Committee on Nonessential Federal Ex- penditures— overlaps that of the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments, which, having been rejuvenated by the Legislative Reorganization Act, are now equipped to as- sume their historic responsibilities in this fleld. Mr. President, the {issue here is a very simple one. With reference to a very brief bill which was introduced by the junior Senator from Minnesota—and that brief bill is not even one page long— the issue is simply whether—in this year of 1950, or in the year 1951, in view of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, in view of the history of that act, in view of the testimony surrounding the passage of that act, in view of the ex- press lunguage contained in that act—we need the Joint Committee on Nonessen- tial Federal Expenditures. Let me read the exact language, and I shall leave it to all fair-minded persons, both lay persons and Members of the Congress, to determine the fairness of what I have said in this respect; let me read the exact language, in part, of the Legislation Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session. What does that act say? I read from it: (g) (1) The Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, to consist of 18 Senators, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorinis, and other matters re- lating to the following subjects— Mr. President, the word “all” is used; not almost all, but all. It has jurisdiction over the following subjects: (A) Budget and accounting measures, other than appropriations— All budget and accounting measures— (B) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government— All such reorganization— (2) Such committee shall have the duty of— (A) Receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller General of the United States and of submitting such recommenda- tions to the Senate as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter of such reports. Mr. President, I read this with care and at a tempo that can readily be un- derstood by both the reporter and by the Membcrs of the United States Senate: It shall also have to do with all mat- ters of— (B) Studying the operation of Govern- ment activities at all levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency. Mr. President, how does that language stack up with the language of the meas- ure establishing the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Ex- penditures, as passed by the Seventy- seventh Congress, Public Law 250? What is the authorization in respect to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the so-called Byrd committee in the Sev- enty-seventh Congress? What did it say? I read: It shall be the duty of the committee to make a full and complete study and investi- gation of all expenditures of the Federal Government with a view to recommending 2623 the elimination or reduction of all expendl- tures deemed by the committee to be none essential. Mr. President, I submit in tabular form a comparison of two legislative au- thorizations establishing the two com- mittees. They clearly show the dupli- cating nature of the two committees: LrarsLatrve REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946, Postic Law 601, SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS, Spconp SESsion (g) (1) Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, to consist of 18 Senators, to which committee shall be re- ferred all proposed legislation, inessages, pe- titions, memorials, and other matters relat- ing to the following subjects: (A) Budget and accounting measures, other than appropriations. (B) Reorganizations in the branch of the Government. (2) Such committee shall have the duty of— (A) receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller General of the United States and of submitting such recommendations to the Senate as it deems necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter of such reports; (B) studying the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view to deter- mining its economy and efficiency; (C) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and exccutive branches of the Government; (D) studying intergovernmental relation- ships between the United States and the States and municipalities, and between the United States and international organiza- tions of which the United States is a member. executive Pusric Law 250, SEVENTY-SrvVC~NTH CONGEESS, First Srssion (H. R. 5417) TITLE VI—NONESSENTIAL FEDERAL EXPENDITURES Sec. 601. Nonessential Federal Expendi- tures. (8) There ts hereby established a com- mittee to investigate Federal expenditures (hereinafter referred to as the “committce’’), to be composed of (1) three members of the Senate Committee on Finance and three members of the Senate Committee on Appro- priations, to be appointed by the President of the Senate; (2) three members of the House Committee on Ways and Means and three members of the House Committee on Appropriations, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and (3) the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. A vacancy in the committee shall not affect the power of the remaining members to execute the functions of the committee, and shall be filled in the same manner as the original selection. A majority of the committee shall constitute a quorum, and the powers con- ferred upon them by this section may be exercised by a majority vote. (b) It shall be the duty of the committee to make a full and complete study and in- vestigation of all expenditures of the Federal Government with a view to recommending the elimination or reduction of all such ex- penditures deemed by the committee to be nonessential. The committee shall report to the President and to the Congress the re- sults of its study, together with its recom- mendations, at the earliest practicable date. ({c) The committee, or any duly authorized subcommitteo thereof, is authorized to hold euch hearings, to sit and act at such times and places, to employ such experts and such clerical and other assistants, to require by eubpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, and to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable. The provisions of sections 102 to 104, inclu- sive, of the Revised Statutes shall apply in case of any fallure of any witness to comply with any subpena, or to testify when sum- moned under the authority of this section. (ad) The committee is authorized to utilize the services, information, facilities, and per- sonnel of the departments and agencies of the Government. (oe) There is hereby authorized to be appro- priated, the sum of 810,000, or so much there- of as may be necessary, to carry out the provisions of this section. (f) All authority conferred by this section shall terminate upon the submission of the committce’s final report. Sec. 602. Section 1303 of the Revenuc Act of 1918, as amended, is amended by striking out “President of the Senate” wherever it appears therein and inserting in Neu thereof “Presi- dent pro tempore of the Senate.” Mr. President, I do not wish to indulge in a battle of semantics this afternoon, but I submit to all fair-minded and reasonable citizens that the words of these two authorizations are identical in purpose. The language is clear and con- cise. Mr. President, when I introduced the bill I knew that I would set loose a hornets’ nest. I was advised by wise and prudent men that I should not do so. I was so advised by Members of this body, as well as by persons in other branches of Government. They said, in substance: “Senator HUMPHREY, if you ever try to touch the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, you are going to open up a hornets’ nest, and they are going to mow you down,”
2624 Well, Mr. President, there has been some lawn mowing going on today, but the shrinking violet still has not been clipped. Again I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the objective of my pro- posal. The objective is not to go back and dig up ghosts, or to look into people’s closets. Rather it is to quite simply do away with a nonessential committee. Mr. President, is there any better evi- dence of the fact that it is not needed than the statement of the Senator from Virginia that it does not meet? I heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the floor of the Senate this afternoon about the tremendous Federal budget and about the deficit; but I also hear that all members of the joint committee are too busy to have the committee meet. Mr. President, those facts and state- ments are simply incompatible. If we have a $42,000,000,000 budget and if we have a $5,000,000,000-plus deficit, no one should tell me that they are too busy to have a meeting of the committee, 1f the committee can do anything after it meets. Mr. President, I know why the com- mittee has not met. It has not met be- cause there is no need for it to mect. As to the duties of the committee, I am not here to say that it d'd not perform them well, from 1941 to 1946. But since 1947, with the Legislative Reorganiza- tion Act in existence, the joint commit- tee has had no function, because its function was taken over by a standing committee, The only function of the joint com- mittee since 1947, I repeat, is to put into the Recorp reports and releases to the press and to talk about the number of employees on the Federal pay roll. Isub- mit that since 1947, even by its own doc- ument, which I shall soon produce, the joint committee has made no recom- mendations. All it has said is that we are spending too much money. Mr. Pres- ident, it is not necessary to have a com- mittee to know that. So I repeat, Mr. President, that the statements made this afternoon about the work of the joint committee are ir- relevant. The fact is that since 1947 the committee has not functioned as a committee at all. The Director of the Budget did tell me however that he at- tended one meeting in January 1949. Yet since that time, in the Eighty-first Congress, the committee received a siz- able appropriation, The appropriation on the Senate side was $20,000, and still no meetings. Someone may say, “Well, that is not waste,” but I submit, Mr. President, to appropriate for a commit- tee which does no work, to appropriate for a committee whose functions have been taken over by another committee, is a waste. Whether it is $1, $2, or $20,- 000, it is a waste of money. Besides that, it is a denial and a violation of the re- sponsibilities of the Congress of the United States under the Legislative Reor- ganization Act. Mr. President, I want to take up sys- tematically each of the nine charges which were leveled at the junior Senator from Minnesota. Some comment was made about the fact that my friend from Virginia was absent when I spoke and introduced my CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE bill. I apologize for having introduced my bill in the Senator’s absence. I can honestly say, Mr. President, I did not know the Senator was absent. I want to offer my sympathy and my condolences upon the {fllness of his beloved and dear mother. Believe me, under no circum- stances would I introduce a bill on this subject if I thought the Senator was not able to be present. But I think that is an extraneous matter, in the sense that the record was made, the word was there, and there was plenty of opportunity for reply. Now, let me deal with the alleged nine misstatements brought to the floor by the Senator from Virginia. The first charge was that the junior Senator from Minnesota alleged that the Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures was itself waste- fuland extravagant. Irepeat the charge. It is wasteful and extravagant. I repeat the charge on the basis that since 1946 the committee has received appropria- tions with which to do the work that another committee has already been established to do, namely, the Commit- tee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. I submit, Mr. President, that in this instance money is being ap- propriated to keep alive a committee that has no right to live, unless we wish to abolish the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, or at least that function of the Committee on Expenditures which it is delegated to perform under the law. It does not serve well to have members of the committee, like the junior Senator from South Da- kota |Mr. MunoptT]1, and the chairman of the committee [Mr. McCLetxian], say that no member of the committee has ever asked to take on this job, and that no complaints have been made. The fact is that the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments is charged by a public law to do this work. If the Senator from Virginia has grcat knowl- edge of the budget, and has great and deep devotion to economy, then let him apply for a place on the expenditures committee. The junior Senator from Minnesota would resign from the com- mittee to make room for him. I want the Senator from Virginia to be on a legitimate committec, a committee desig- nated by the Legislative Reorganization Act to perform the function in which he is interested. Now, Mr. President, going on to what was said about waste and extravagance, I repeat that funds appropriated for a committee whose functions have been taken over by another committee, is a waste. It may not be $1,000,000, but, Mr. President, you know it is the princi- ple of the thing that is important. The Senator from Virginia defends the op- eration of his committee—which, by the way, is not his committee; it is a commit- tee of Congress; the committee is just as much the committee of the Secretary of the Treasury, who is on it, it is just as much the committee of the Director of the Budget as it is of the Senator from Virginia. It does not belong to any one Member of the Congress. It is a congres- sional committee. The Senator from Virginia says that while the junior Senator from Minne- MARCH 2 sota talks about extravagance and waste, he introduces a bill for a bi-parti- san coal commission and suggests an ap- propriation of approximately $250,000. Then the Senator from Virginia says that there is no need for such a commission. Very well; let us take a look. Is there no need for a bipartisan coal commission to look into the coal business? Ask the people of America today whether there is a need for someone to look at the coal situation, not only for today, but for to- morrow. Is there no need for a sick in- dustry to be studied? Governor Cox, of Ohio, 30 years ago recommended such a commission. After all, the late Presi- dent Theodore Roosevelt had a coal com- mission in the anthracite fleld. There is great need today for such a commission as I propose. Then the Senator from Virginia inti- mated that this was going to be my com- mission—the commission of the junior Senator from Minnesota. In order to make the record clear, let me say that the bill which was introduced to create a bipartisan coal commission would au- thorize the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the United States to make equal num- bers of appointments to an 18-man com- mission. There would be three from the Senate, and I say quite honestly, in view of the rules of seniority, the junior Sen- ator from Minnesota, who is low man on the totem pole, undoubtedly would not find himself a member of the bipartisan coal commission. But I repeat, if some people entertain the idea that it is economy to ignore a basic industry which is sick, then I dis- agree. I think the $250,000 requested for a bipartisan coal commission is a cheap price to pay in order to find out some of the answers to the major eco- nomic labor-management problems which exist in the coal-mining industry. What is the next point raised by the senior Senator from Virginia? I was supposed to have said in my remarks, in introducing my bill, that the Joint Com- mittee on Reduction of Nonessential Fed- eral Expenditures, commonly known as the Byrd committee, presented a dis- torted picture of Federal employment. The Senator from Virginia then says that it is the only committee that reports to the Congress every month on the number of Federal employees. That is correct. That is one of the reasons why it ought to be abolished, because the Sen- ate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments reports season- ally—every 6 months—and that is quite adequate. I must also point out that the preparation of Byrd committee reports every month by Federal departments and agencies causes undue work, expense, and waste of time, for it is necessary to assign people to make a census every month of every Federal employee. We do not need a census every month of every Federal employee. Is it right, Mr. President, for the Committee on Reduc- tion of Nonessential Federal Expendi- tures, the Byrd committee, to call on every agency, every month, for a head count, and then for the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments to call on them every 6 months? Why not get together? Why call on the
1950 same agency through two different com- mittees? That is unadulterated waste. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Has the Senator from Minnesota been able to figure out an approximation of the cost to the Government departments of making re- ports each month to the so-called Byrd committee? Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; I have. I placed that figure, I may say to the dis- tinguished Senator from Ilnois, in my report the other day, a figure of ap- proximately $250,000. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is, $250,000 a year? Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. And that is in addi- tion to the expenditures by the commit- tee itself, is it? Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. I was told by the Senator from Virginia that this is a wild guess. Then I ask him to go over to see the wild guesser—the Director of the Budget. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question? Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. DOUGLAS. Do I correctly under- stand that the estimate of an added cost of $250,000 comes from the Director of the Budget? Mr. HUMPHREY. That ts the esti- mate. Mr. DOUGLAS. And he has carefully surveyed the situation, and thinks that $250,000 a year, as an extra cost, is oc- casioned by the making of reports to the Byrd committee? Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Senator. Mr. HUMPHREY. I should like to point out that this has also been cor- roborated by every agency that has been contacted. But I may say, this is con- sidered to be a minimum amount. Now let me read what Mr. Paul Ap- pleby had to say in the autumn quarterly of the Yale Review of 1949. Mr. Paul Appleby was at one time with the De- partment of Agriculture. He is consid- ered to be one of our outstanding public administrators. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is this the Paul Ap- pleby who is the director of the school of citizenship at Syracuse University? Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. A very eminent au- thority on public administration, who js now separated from Government and has no direct interest in the issues here involved. Mr. HUMPHREY. I so understand. I thank the Senator from Illinois, who knows Mr. Appleby, I am sure, as a fel- low worker in the field of public admin- istration and economics. Mr. Paul Appleby had this to say: Some idea of the dimensions of constant governmental reorganization may be had from a story of one large governmental de- partment's struggle to comply with a request from the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures, headed CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE by Senator Byzp. The request was to trans- mit all memoranda, plans, studies, recom- mendations, records, and orders involving administrative changes and reorganizations in the preceding half-dozen years. Scores of persons were involved for weeks in the process of locating and assembling such papers. Assembled, they would have filled a dozen trucks, for those papers dealt with a large part of the administration of a very large department during the years of acute social stress. I bring this forward as testimony that this probing every month for all this in- formation is costing the Government money. If the probing produces results, if the gathering of statistical evidence produces reform, then I want to be the first to commend the procedure, regard- less of the time and regardless of the dif- ficulty which it may place upon some of the Departments. But, actually, since 1947, Mr. President, the probing has pri- marily been about how many people are employed. What is the latest count in the Federal Trade Commission? What is the latest count in the Post Office De- partment? What is the latest count in the National Military Establishment? Reports are placed in the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, and bulletins are sent out, hit and miss, throughout the Nation under bold headlines. Let us return to the problem of Fed- eral employment. I entered my remarks in the REcorp as of February 24 because of a charge which was made by the Byrd committee with reference to the Post Office Department. I submit that the Post Office Department gives more serv- ice per person per hour than does any other department of Government. I submit that the Post Office Department delivers the mail with the kind of effi- ciency and dispatch which is the envy not only of other Government depart- ments, but of private industry itself. Is it honorable or fair to report that the Post Office Department has an increase in employment, without at the same time pointing to the reasons for that increase? When the announcement is made that the pay roll of the Post Office Depart- ment has increased, the question is asked, “Why?” It is simply because we have given better working conditions to the employees, through the action of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice. My friend, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. LANGER], has been a cham- pion of those employees in improving their working conditions. I am sure the Senator from Virginia is aware of the fact that the business of the Post Office Department has never been greater than in the past 2 or 3 years. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield for a ques- tion. Mr. LANGER. The Senator is also aware of the fact that there has becn an increase in urban population. Rural mail routes must still be kept up, even though half the farmers move to the towns. Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. Mr. LANGER. The population of the city of Los Angeles increases at the rate of 125,000 persons a month, with the re- sult that more post offices must be es- 2625 tablished and more mail carriers em- ployed. Mr. HUMPHREY. ‘That ts correct. We have to continue the service even though the man on the route may not serve aS many patrons. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not also true that because of the fact that parcel-post rates have not been increased, though the cost of express service has, industry, in an increasing measure, is sending its parcels not by express, but through the parcel-post system; and such parcels are being carried at a loss, and, therefore, constitute a subsidy paid by the United States Government to the shippers of the country? Mr. HUMPHREY. I am very happy that my friend the Senator from Tllinois is with me this afternoon, because he is absolutely correct. Not only that, but he brings to my mind another thought. Where are the economy figures? How is it that we do not have a bulletin from the Joint Committee on Nonessential Government Expenditures concerning increasing postal rates for publishers? Why do we not have a recommendation from that committee for the elimination of subsidies for certain classes of mail? Subsidies do not seem to hurt there. They hurt only in connection with the REA or on legislation for some poor working fellow. Subsidies do not seem to hurt when the Government of the United States is paying out fabulous sums to industry in connection with cer- tain types of mail. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from Minnesota is aware, of course, that the subsidy on second-class mail, newspapers and magazines, amounts to approxi- mately $200,000,000 a year, that the sub- sidy on direct advertising matter amounts to $120,000,000 a year, and that the subsidy on fourth-class mail, parcel post, amounts to approximately $80,000,- 000 a year, or a total of $400,000,000. I take it that the Senator from Minnesota is determined to reduce those subsidies. Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator could not have spoken truer words. Mr. DOUGLAS. I congratulate the Senator very much for his effort to save money for the public. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield for a ques- tion. I must abide by the rules. Mr. TYDINGS. My understanding is that if the Post Office Department were operating on a self-sustaining basis, if the subsidies referred to by the two Sen- ators were eliminated—in other words, if those classes of mail were to carry the burden of expense which they should carry—the Post Office budget might be balanced. Mr. HUMPHREY. I reply to the dis- tinguished Senator by saying that he ts substantially correct. If we should elim- inate these subsidies we would be able to have a nearly balanced Post Office
2626 budget. It would be approximately $150,- 000,000 short by the elimination of those special classes. Mr. TYDINGS. That would wipe out a tentative half-billion-dollar deficit in the budget. Mr. HUMPHREY. That is correct. I bring the subject of the Post Office Department to the attention of the Sen- ate because it appears to me that it is About time the American people clearly understood that if the costs of manu- facturing an automobile are up, if the cost of a suit of clothing is up, then cer- tainly the costs of some Government services are up. That is why we have deficits. We have not adequately raised the rates as some merchants have raised their prices. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr, HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Along that line, I should like to point out to the Senator that many persons say the dollar of today will purchase only 60 percent of what it would purchase in 1939. That fact alone would indicate that some ad- justments are necessary. Another fac- tor in the case is that subsidies them- sclves are evil. They should be applied only as an emergency measure to ac- complish some particular purpose. A perpetual] and continuing subsidy is the least justifiable. Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe strongly that it may be necessary for the Govern- ment to underwrite certain deficits in the Post Office Department. A modicum of good sense and reasonableness is re- quired. The Senator from Virginia stated that in my statement I presented a distorted picture of Federal employ- ment. I repeat that my charges are true, because, merely to list the head count of Federal workers is not an adequate statement of fact as to what should be done in terms of Federal employment reduction. The next charge which has been made against the junior Senator from Minne- sota was with reference to his statement that the Eightieth Congress refused to appropriate money for the use of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non- essential Federal Expenditures. I stand partially corrected by the Senator from Virginia. However, I should like to say that while the distinguished chairman of the com- mittee did not ask for appropriations from the Eightieth Congress, he did ask for a deficiency appropriation from the Eighty-first Congress. It is a small item, Mr. President, but it simply means that this joint committee was doing work which it ought not to have been doing. The next charge which was leveled at the junior Senator from Minnesota was that he had charged the Committee on Nonessential Federal Expenditures with dealing only in generalities. I repeat, Mr. President, that since the enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act the joint committee has been dealing in generalities. The enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act is one of the reasons for my asking for the discon- tinuance of the Joint Committee on Non- essential Expenditures. Before the en- actment of the Reorganization Act the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE joint committee may have had a legiti- mate function to perform. It held hear- ings and issued reports. The next charge which was leveled against the Junior Senator from Minne- sota was that he had said, in introduc- ing the bill, that the Joint Committee on Nonessential Federal Expenditures was in existence in violation of the spirit of the Legislative Reorganization Act. The Senator from Virginia said that joint committees were excluded under the Legislative Reorganization Act. The Senator from Virginia ought to know that joint committees which duplicate the work of standing commit- tees are not excluded. The common sense of the Legislative Reorganization Act calls upon Congress not to have two committees doing the same work, bothering the same agencies, hiring duplicate staffs, and using paper, time, and equipment to do exactly the same job. Any man skilled in economy, or any management specialist, would make & recommendation immediately, if two committees were performing substan- tially the same work, that one of them ought to be abolished. Perhaps we ought to abolish the committee set up under the Legislative Reorganization Act, the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. Person- ally, I do not believe that committee should be abolished. I believe we ought to abolish the Joint Committee on Non- essential Federal Expenditures. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I am very glad to yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr, DOUGLAS, I take it that the Senator from Minnesota is acquainted with the fact that in biological life there are found vestigial organs which no longer perform any function. The appendix in the human body is such a vestigial organ. When these organs get out of condition they must be oper- ated upon and excised. Does the Sena- tor from Minnesota find any analogy between physical life and congressional life? Mr. HUMPHREY. May I say to the doctor from Illinois that he is 100-per- cent correct in his physiological, psycho- logical, political, social, and economic analyses? Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield further? Mr, HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. I take it that what the Senator from Minnesota believes he is doing is performing the useful func- tion of a surgeon. Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Minnesota, believes that he is performing the function of just an average citizen who looks into a congressional] situation and finds two committees doing the same work. One of the committees, according to the testimony of its chairman, has not met for 2 years, It has not held a meeting for 2 years. However, it still gets money from the Senate. The other committee meets every week. Mr. President, I do not like to say that it all seems a little nonsensical to me, but it does not make very much sense to me. If the financial dilemma of the country is as the Senator from Virginia MARCH 2 has pointed out, and if the financial sit- uation is as he has pointed out, it ap- pears to me that members of the joint committee ought to find time at least once in 2 years to meet—or then close up shop. Mr, President, I know why the Joint committee has not met, and so does everyone else today who is not willing to rally round on the basis of personali- ties. The reason is that there is no ne- cessity for the joint committee to meet, because the work of the committee has been taken care of, under public law of the land, by the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments. I, for one, am not willing to stand on the floor of the Senate and vote appropria- tions to keep a committee in business Just because I ike someone who is a member of the committee, or who is chairman of it. The next charge which has been leveled against the junior Senator from Minnesota is that he accused the joint committee of being a publicity medium. I was being very moderate when I said that, Mr. President. It is a publicity medium second to none. I submit that every monthly report it makes is head- line news in the country. I submit that every monthly report of the committee gets good coverage in the country. I submit that not only does it get good coverage, but that after these monthly reports come out, every Congressman gets thousands of letters about the num- ber of people on the Federal pay roll. I believe this information should be made available, However, it should be made available by the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President—— The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mrc- NUSON 1n the chair). Does the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Senator from Illinois? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. I understand, then, that it is not the purpose of the Senator from Minnesota to have concealed from the public the figures concerning the total number of persons employed, but it is his purpose to have these figures issued periodically, by the proper com- mittee, so that the public as a whole may know what the situation is. Mr. HUMPHREY. I desire to repeat what the Senator from Illinois has asked me in question form. Of course, the public must know. Of course there should be the fullest publicity. Every day there is something being released from the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments as to what is being done in terms of economy. Only a month ago the committee, in its meet- ing, adopted a resolution that we should have more publicity about the economies we are effecting. In the matter of Federal properties, which we heard the Senator from Vir- ginia say his committee had looked into the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments has made the same survey. One of the reasons why we tightened up thc committee system— and when I say ‘‘we,’’ Iam a part of this honorable body—one of the reasons why the Reorganization Act came into effect, was to take out of existenc2 committees
1950 which were duplicating the work of oth- ers, and threatening them with juris- dictional problems. Now as to one other comment that was made—and I accept this in the spir- it in which it was made. It was said the Senator from Minnesota is quite a pub- licity specialist. I have learned much today. I learned that when one attacks the old-guard coalition in the Senate, through one of its prominent spokesmen a freshman Senator is going to learn something. I have watched the rallying of the old-guard coalition on the floor of the Senate, and I know why it happened. I recently had a check made into the record, and I found from the Congres- sional Quarterly that in the Seventy- ninth Congress the distinguished Sena- tor from Virginia supported the admin- istration 37 percent of the time, that he supported the administration in the Eightieth Congress 36 percent of the time, and that he supported the admin- istration in the first session of the Eighty-first Congress 34 percent of the time. The junior Senator from Minne- sota, as is shown by the same Congres- sional Quartcrly, supported the admin- istration 94 percent of the time. I sub- mit that the 34 percent recorded for the Senator from Virginia for the first ses- sion of the Eighty-first Congress is about the same record that some of our Repub- lican colleagues on the other side of the aisle could report. They supported the administration at least one-third of the time, because when the appropriation bills came through, most of them voted “aye.” I now understand why all at once I found Senators rising to the de- fense of the Senator from Virginia. I understand why all at once I was se- verely challenged by the coalition. Now let me do a little challenging. The press today attributes to the Scn- ator from Virginia a statement on the floor of the Senate about the fabulous savings which his joint committee is sup- posed to have made. I have in my hands the report of that joint committee. By the way, it is not a Senate document. There seems to be no Senate document of that sort in existence. It is a Senate committee print, which was made in 1947. It is entitled “An Additional Report of the Joint Committee on Re- duction of Nonessential Federal Ex- penditures to the Congress of the United States—Economy Progress from 1941 to 1947.” Here we see real exaggeration. Let me read from the report of Economy Progress from 1941 to 1947. I read from the second paragraph on page 1: Generally regarded as the spearhead of all congressional economy drives during the period of its existence from 1941 to 1947. By the way, may I digress for a mo- ment. Note the words “during the period of its existence from 1941 to 1947.” The author of this report knew that the committee was living on borrowed time after 1947, that it was a sort of political zombie. I continue reading the second paragraph: The joint committee’s activity has resulted in direct savings to the Federal Govern- ment of more than $6,283,190,545. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE “Direct savings” the words are. Amazingly enough at the same time the administrative cost of the committee itself in the past 6 years has only been $107,500, representing an expenditure of approxi- mately $17.50 by the committee for each $1,000,000 saved the Federal Government. I would not say that was patting one’s self on the back. I would say that is just twisting one’s self up like a pretzel and spinning and announcing to the world the greatness of onc’s accomplish- ments. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator ac- qQuainted with the famous remark which Disracli is reputed to have made upon the occasion when he was asked how it was that he got along so well with Queen Victoria? He replied that he got along well because he always laid it on with a shovel. [Laughter.] Mr. HUMPHREY. I wish to thank the enator from Illinois. I may say in an- swer to his question that I have not heard that story. I am very grateful for the education I am receiving here, not ouly during the earlier moments of the day, but during these more delightful moments of the later hour. Mr. DOUGLAS. Does not the Senator from Minnesota fee] that possibly this quotation from Disraeli is appropriate to the debate of this afternoon? Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator from Minnesota would like to accept the judg- ment of his distinguished and learned colleague from Illinois. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. I am happy to yield. Mr. WILEY. Was the last remark by the Senator from Illinois an admission that the Senators who are now engaged in exchanges on the floor are both good shovelers? Mr. HUMPHREY. I may say to my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, that I am not immune from such activi- ties. However, as a result of what I have found out today, I bow in humble inferiority to the experts. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HUMPHREY. Iyiteld to my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. WILEY. Perhaps the Senator is acquainted with the Caterpillar shovels. Perhaps they would be more suggestive of the ability of the two Senators. Does not the Senator think so? Mr. HUMPHREY. I have never claimed to be an expert in those fields, Mr. President, but I shall be glad to take the word of the Senator from Wisconsin for what he has said, just as I take the word of my friend the Senator from Illinois for what he has said. Mr. WILEY. Of course, I have always listened with interest to my distinguished colleague from Minnesota. Mr. HUMPHREY. I have never known the Senator from Wisconsin to be anything else but complimentary and gracious, and to be a gentleman at all times. I want to thank him for his gra- cious words. 2627 However, we were discussing a moment ago something which was not quite so gracious or complimentary. I was re- ferring to the report respecting ‘‘so- called” economies. I now wish to read from the Washington Times-Herald. The Washington Times-Herald of recent date, I believe it was of Saturday last, had this to say: The committee officially known as the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessen- tial Federal Expenditures stood on its report of 1947, This is quoting the Senator from Vir- ginia. The report sald it is saving the taxpayers @ $1,000,000 for every 617.60. The committee has since reported that its economy meas- ures accepted by the government agencies since 1941 have saved $6,000,000,0U0. Now, Mr. President, what economy measures does the committee take full eredit for having inaugurated? Mark my words, Mr. President. The report did not say these economy measures were an “indirect” product of the work of the committee. It did not say that these economy measures came about merely because of the suggestion of the commit- tee. It said that these economy mcas- ures were a direct result of the work of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures. The Senator from Virginia read all these fig- ures. He started out by saying that in the fiscal year 1943 the Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures recommended that the Civilian Conservation Corps be abol- ished, saving $38,000,000. He said that the committee recommended that the National Youth Administration be abol- ished and recommended drastic reduc- tion of the Work Projects Administra- tion. The report continues on and on through page 1, page 2, page 3, and page 4. That is up through 1946. Mr. President, I offer excerpts from the President’s budget messages for the RecorpD, I shall read part of them and ask unanimous consent to have the re- mainder incorporated in the ReEcorp. First of all, what did the late President Franklin Roosevelt say on page 7 of his budget message for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1942? He said: The increased military expenditures permit @ substantial reduction {n nondefense ex- penditures, particularly for those activities which are made less necessary by improved economic conditions, On page 8 of the budget message we find the following: For the items subject to administrative rather than legislative action, I have been ablo to reduce expenditures by ¢600,000,000, or 15 percent. These facts demonstrate that the Byrd committee in taking credit for what the President of the United States is respon- sible for. The Congress listened to and acted on the advice of the President— not the echoing of the Byrd committee. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? iw HUMPHREY. I yield for a ques- tion.
2628 Mr. DOUGLAS. Sine we have been indulging in literary allusions this after- noon, I wonder if the Senator from Min- nesota would pardon me if I asked an- other literary question. Mr. HUMPHREY. I am more than happy to have the Senator from Illinois do so. Mr. DOUGLAS. As I remember the legend of Chanticleer, which I believe was put into a play by the French play- wright, Rostand, Chanticleer, when the dawn approaches, crows. Chanticleer is a glorified literary term for the barn- yard rooster. Chanticleer used to crow and still crows as the dawn appears, and crowing a great deal, Chanticleer got the idea that his crowing caused the sun to rise. [{Laughter.] Does the Senator from Minnesota think that possibly this literary allusion also has a place in ex- plaining the financial reports made dur- ing the past 10 years? Mr, HUMPHREY. I surely do. I concur with the Senator from Illinois. What do we find? We find that the President of the United States, in his budget message preceded the recommen- dations of the Joint Committee on Re- duction of Nonessential Federal Expen- ditures. Today we should pay a word of tribute to the late President Roosevelt for his wisdom in curtailing expenditures, and to our present President, who is one of the finest examples of a President with good management ability and compe- tence. He has really saved the Govern- ment of the United States billions of dollars. He has not spent his time in merely issuing reports. He has made recommendations which have been car- ried out in terms of drastic reduction of Federal employment. The record speaks for itself. Mr. President, at this point I ask unan- imous consent to have printed in the body of the Recorp excerpts from the budget messages of the President for the years 1942 to 1947, respecting savings which were made, the same savings which are now listed in the economy progress report. There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the Rrc- orp, as follows: EXceRPTS FROM THE BUDGET MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1942 PAGE VII. NONDEFENSE EXPENDITURES The increased military expenditures per- mit a substantial reduction in nondefense expenditures, particularly for those activities which are made less necessary by tmproved economic conditions. * * PAGE VIII For the items subject to administrative rather than legislative action, I have been able to reduce expenditures by $600,000,000, or 15 percent. PAGE IX. PUBLIC WORKS During this period of national emergency it seems appropriate to defer construction projects that interfere with the defense pro- gram by diverting manpower and ma- terials, * * With this in mind I am recommendin reductions for rivers and harbors and fico @ontrol work. Where possible, without plac- ing the project or the water users thereof in jeopardy, reductions are proposed in expendi- tures for reclamation projects. I have re- quested that further contracts for the con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE struction of public buildings outside the Dis- trict of Columbia. be held in abeyance for the present. * Throughout the Federal! Service other proj- ects are being deferred until a more appro- priate time. * * * PAGE X I recommend an appropriation of $995,- 000,000 for work relief for the full fiscal year. This is $400,000,000 less than the amount required for the present fiscal year. It will not be necessary to use this full amount if the defense program should result in a more general reemployment than 1s presently in- dicated. EXCERPTS FROM THE BUDGET MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT FOR THE FIscaAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 1943 PAGE VII. THE CIVIL FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT In a true sense there are no longer non- defense expenditures. In the preparation of the present budget, expenditures not directly related to the war have been reduced to a minimum or re- oriented to the war program. It is estimated that expenditures for the major Federal assistance programs—farm aid, work relief, youth aid—can be reduced by $600,000,000 from the previous to the current fiscal year, and again by 8860,000,000 from the current to the next fiscal year. These programs will require $1,400,000 dur- ing the fiscal year 1943, about one-half of the expenditure for these purposes dur- ing the fiscal year 1941. By using methods of administrative budget control, $415,000,- 000 of appropriations for civil purposes have been placed in reserves. Excluding debt charges and grants under the social-security law, total expenditures for other than direct war purposes have been reduced by slightly more than $1,000,- 000,000 in the next fiscal year. PAGE XIII. AGRICULTURAL AID I propose to continue the soll conservation and use program on a moderately reduced scale. The remaining expenditures for the agri- cultural program are being brought into accord with the war effort. PAGE XIII. WORK PROJECTS The average number of WPA workers was 2,000,000 in the fiscal year 1940, the year before the defense program started; the average has been cut to 1,000,000 this year. With increasing employment, a further con- siderable reduction will be possible. PAGE IX. AID TO YOUTH Under war conditions there is need and opportunity for youth to serve in many ways. It 1s, therefore, possible to make a consider- able reduction in the programs of the Civil- jan Conservation Corps and the National Youth Administration. PAGE IX. PUBLIC-WORKS PROGRAM The public-works program is being fully adjusted to the war effort. Federal aid for highways will be expended only for construction essential for strategic purposes. Other highway projects will be deferred until the postwar period. For all other Federal construction I am restricting expenditures to those active projects which cannot be discontinued without endangering structural work in progress, Excerpts FroM THE BUDGET MESSAGE OF THE PRESMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 1944 PAGE IX. CONSERVATION AND USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES On the other hand, I am recommending a reduction of $50,000,000 in the appropriation for “Conservation and use of agricultural land resources,” MARCH 2 PAGE X. FOOD-STAMP PLAN For “Exportation and domestic consump. tion of agricultural commodities,” the budget includes only the permanent annual appropriation of 30 percent of customs reve- nues provided by law, plus reappropriation of unobligated balances. The food-stamp plan, which is a major item of the current program, will be discontinued shortly. Al- though other items such as school lunch and school milk projects and the direct distribu- tion of surplus commodities are somewhat expanded, there will be an over-all reduction of about $30,000,000. PAGE XIV. NONWAR EXPENDITURES All counted, there are less than 850,000 civilian employees of the Federal Govern- ment, including the postal service, who are engaged in these so-called nonwar activities. A few weeks ago I transmitted to the Con- gress a comprchensive report on Nonwar ex- penditures during the past decade This document demonstrated the important re- ductions which had been made in these ex- penditures, especially since the start of the defense program. “Nonwar” expenditures, fiscal years 1939-44 [Exeluding interest and statutory debt retirement] ‘Yota) nonwar Reduction Fiseal yeni expenditures below 1949 Lh $6, 616,000,000 |.-.222------ 6, 246, 000, 000 $270, 000, 000 5, 208, 000, 000 | 1, 218, 000, 000 5, 125,000,000 | 1, 891, 000, 000 4, 682, 000, 000 | 1, 934, 000, 000 1944 4 (estintted) coe 4,124,000, 000 | 2, 302, 000, 000 The table shows a reduction of 36.7 per- cent in nonwar expenditures in the next fiscal year compared with 1939. The most important reductions recom- mended for the coming year relate to work relief and general public works. Because of present high levels of employment, I am able to recommend elimination of the Work Projects Administration. Expenditures for general public works will be greatly curtailed. PAGE XV Others have been discontinued as rapidly as this could be done without risking the loss of the investment already made. I shall be glad to cooperate with the Con- gress in effecting further reductions in nonwar expenditures through the necessary revision of underlying legislation and in every other way. It should be pointed out to the Congress and to the Nation, however, that we are fast approaching the subsistence level of government, the minimum for sustaining orderly social and economic processes, and that further reductions will necessarily be of much smaller magnitude than those already achieved. My recommendations contemplate that in the fiscal year 1944, 96 cents of every dollar expended by the Federal Government will be used to pay war costs and interest on the public debt, and only 4 cents for all the so-called nonwar purposes. Excerpts FRoM THE BUDGET MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JuNE 30, 1946 PAGE XIV PUBLIC WORKS Actual construction will continue to be restricted to those projects which contribute to the war effort. Because of the completion of some of this war-related construction, ex- penditures are estimated to decrease slightly in the next fiscal year. PAGE XVI, FEDERAL PERSONNEL The total number of paid Federal em- ployees in the continental United States in November 1944 was slightly under 2,900,000, of whom 2,040,000 were in the War and Navy
1950 Departments and other war agencies and 836,000 in the Post Office and other peace- time establishments. The total has declined 126,000 below the peak of June 1943. There will be further reductions as the course of the war permits. Excerpts FROM THE BUDGET MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT FOR THE FIscaL YEAR ENDING JUNE 80, 1947 PAGE XLV. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL The rapid reconversion of the Federal Gov- ernment from war to peace is reflected in the demobilization of its civilian personnel. The number of these employees in conti- nental United Stutes has been reduced by more than 500,000 from the total of approxt- mately 2,900,000 employed in the final months of the war. I expect that by next June we shall have made a further reduction of equal magnitude and that there will be continuing reductions during the next fis- eal year. Of the special wartime agencies now remaining, only a few are expected to continue actively into the next fiscal year, Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I want to summarize at this point what I believe to be the case for the bill I have presented. Number 1. That the Legislative Reorganization Act charges the responsibility for the surveillance and for the careful scrutiny of the budg- et and of expenditures to the Commit- tees on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. Number two, that the ac- tivities of the so-called Byrd committee are a duplication of function, and there- fore the Joint committee is a violation of the spint and language of the Leg- islative Reorganization Act, and is, I re- Feat, a waste of money. Whether that money be thousands of dollars or mil- lions of dollars, it is still a waste. I think the cvidence bears me out, from the very fact that the chairman of the ccmmittec has stated on the floor of the Senate that for 2 years the joint com- mittee has not had a meeting. I repeat that if a committee is vital and is per- forming a service for the Congress of the United States, it should meet and meet regularly. The work of the com- mittee from 1941 to 1946 can stand on its own merits. The junior Senator from Minnesota is not complaining about the work of the committee as it was author- ized by public law, and I want the record to clearly show that I am in no way chastising any member of the joint com- mittee for the work he has performed. Distinguished Members of this honorable body are members of the committee. I also respect the administrative members of the committee, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Bu- reau of the Budget. But, Mr. President, simply because I respect them and hold them in high regard is no reason why I should stand idly by and see continued a committee which apparently has no work to do, no function to perform, and no reason for continued existence. Mr. President, what is the last charge that is made? It has been made again and again today—that apparently we are not concerned about economy or our national economy or about a balanced budget. Mr. President, I take exception to those remarks. In fact, there are many remarks which have been made today to which one could take exception, I am concerned with our economy, and I re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE peat that our economy is not bricks and stones and mortar and bones. Our econ- omy consists of people—fiesh and blood, people with souls and spirits, people who want Jobs and houses. I am concerned with that kind of an economy, and I am concerned that during the days of the depression they had something to eat, too. The testimony which has been given today indicates that perhaps they would not have had anything to eat if some persons had had their way. Today I have heard a great deal said about the carelessness of the fiscal policy of the administration and of the President. The splendid remarks of the majority leader, which were so well stated and so well grounded, should an- swer this charge. How does the Sena- tor froin Virginia propose to balance the budget? He is an expert, so his cohorts say, then what specific proposals does he suggest—what economies—what serv- ices to be deleted. I have heard about the great increase in the cost of government in the last 2 or 3 years. One of the reasons for the increase in the cost of government is that we have had many new problems in the world. The senior Senator from Vir- ginia said—and I have his remarks noted here—that there are no new emergencies. I quote his words: If we cannot balance the budget now, when can we? There are no new emergencies. There has been nothing new happen. Mr. President, perhaps there has not been in Virginia; but I think we had an emergency when the President author- ized the construction of the hydrogen bomb. I thought we had an emergency when the Communists took over China. I heard a great deal of talk here on the floor of the Senate about an emergency in Formosa. I thought there was an emergency in Indochina. Almost every day that I sit here in the Senate I hear talk and repeated talk about emer- gencies, The Senator from Virginia voted against the Marshall plan. If his vote had governed in this body, to be sure we would not have a deficit. That would be meaningful, of course; but I wish to say for the record, for once and for all, that if my choice as a Member of this honor- able body is between a deficit with the kind of economy we have in America and the elimination of the Marshall plan, I will accept the deficit. I submit that the ECA has done a creditable job. Mr. President, I submit that it does not show too much vision or too great an understanding of the problems of the world to say that we can disregard those fields. We shall not have any chance to balance any budget unless we win the cold war, Mr. President. We shall not have any chance to balance the budget unless we understand the kind of world in which we are living and the kind of world in which we are living has been a changing one. Back in 1939, in the Seventy-sixth Congress there was @ record vote and on that vote the senior Senator from Vir- ginia voted against increasing the num- ber of airplanes in the Air Force to 6,000 planes; but he voted for a naval appro- 2629 priation bill. Of course, there are great shipyards in a certain area of this coun- try, Mr. President. I submit to you, Mr. President, that the Air Force bill should have been enacted in 1939, and we should have had that Air Force. The administration was at- tempting to get that Air Force, but had the judgment of the Senator from Vir- ginia prevailed, we would not have had it. Mr. President, this afternoon Senators talked about fiscal policy during the war. Of course, a good deal of money was made during the war. During that pe- riod we could have increased the social- security taxes so that as of today we would have a greater reserve, and would not nave to be moving precipitously now to increase those taxcs. We could have moved in easy stages. Mr. President, just consider the profits, after the pay- ment of taxes, of corporate business from 1940 to 1948. Here is the record, Mr. President: The net profits of corporate business from 1940 to 1948 were $106,- 700,000,000. Does anyone believe it would have bankrupted the country to have made an increased payment of a small amount, 1 percent, into the fund for the payment of old-age pensions? If that had been done, today the people retiring would have a real pension, in- stead of what they have at the present time—a pension which is almost mean- ingless in terms of the present need. I would not have regarded it as good econ- omy to have voted against increasing the social-security taxes. I am sorry to say that some persons did not vote to increase those taxes—one being the Sen- ator from Virginia. Mr. President, I have here a fairly com- plete voting record. However, I shall not burden the ConGRESSIONAL RECORD by presenting a complete analysis of that record. When we talk about balanc- ing the budget in this country, it is one thing to talk about it, and it is an- other thing to do it. It is like saying we should cut down the number of Fed- eral Government employees. Yet the Bureau of the Budget points out that for the fiscal year 1951, we will spend only two-tenths of 1 percent more, pro- portionately, for Federal Government employees, than we spent in the fiscal year 1939. But today the American people are led to believe that almost everyone in the country is working for the Government, and that those who are working for the Government are not do- ing any real work. Mr. President, I am of the opinion that these Government employees are working, that they justly deserve what they get, and that the Gov- ernment of the United States is making consistent efforts to reduce the number of nonessential employees in the Govern- ment. If the Congress does not think that is so, I suggest that the Members of Congress follow the leadership of my friend the Senator from Mlinois (Mr, Dovcaias]. He has suggested again and again on this floor that we can cut down on the number of Federal Government personnel; but he does not get very many votes in his attemptstodoso. Referring to the unbalanced budget, the distin- guished senior Senator from Virginia has inquired, “When does a nation become insolvent?”