1658 has been postponed, at the request of the Federal Government until February 24. The leadership of the Communications Workers of America ts to be congratu- lated on its sense of public responsibility in consenting to postpone action in the interest of arriving at an amicable settle- ment of the labor-management contro- versy. I want to take this occasion, too, Mr. President, to congratulate Mr. Cyrus Ching, Director of the Conciliation and Mediation Service, and his staff, for their energy and steadfastness in the interest of preserving industrial harmony in the telephone industry. I welcome this newest move for indus- trial peace because of my intense inter- est in the problems effecting the tele- phone industry, and because the con- venience and welfare of all the American people hinges so directly upon develop- ments in that industry. As a former mayor of the city of Minneapolis, I know from personal experience the problems of the telephone industry and incon- yeniences which can be caused the public as a result of the periodic disputes be- tween labor and management which have characterized that industry for the past few years. I recall specifically, Mr. President, a statement by the distinguished former Chairman of the National War Labor Board, Dr. George W. Taylor, on Feb- ruary 2, 1946, when, in referring to the 1944 National Telephone Pane! of the National War Labor Board, he said: The telephone industry presented one of those instances where wages could not be stabilized by application of the general wage stabilization program by regional war Jabor boards. Because of the nature of the tele- phone industry, wage data for comparison with telephone wage rates within the re- gional areas were inadequate. Furthermore, varied application of the wage policy by the regional boards would have greatly distorted the wage pattern of the telephone industry. It was impossible, indeed, that for the In- dustry as a whole, area handling of inter- plant inequality cases would create more ine equalities than it would correct. The Na- tional War Labor Board became convinced of the necessity of stabilizing telephone wages on an industry basis rather than by strict adherence to area wage considerations. It is my feeling that collective bar- gaining in the telephone industry is one of the most serious labor-management problems which we face. Much of this is due to the unusually complicated hold- ing company corporate structure of the telephone industry and the Bell system. A unanimous report of the National War Labor Board telephone panel con- cluded: The American Telephone & Telegraph Co, constitutes the coordinating and policy- making body for the Associated Bell Com- panies. * * * The over-all wage struc- ture of the Bell system reflects the centralized management policy of the A. T. & T. Co. The unifying influence of the A. T. & T. Co. ap- pears in the close similarity of most nonrate aspects of the wage structure of the various Associated Bell Companies. Yet the telephone industry seems to resist all attempts at Nation-wide bar- gaining. It ts certainly not my inten- tion at this time, nor do I have sufficient facts, to evaluate the merits of either the Present dispute between labor and man- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE agement, or previous disputes. Nor is it my intention to indicate the wisdom or lack of wisdom in the union's attempt to institute industry-wide collective bar- gaining. I do feel, however, that une of the functions of the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of our Senate Labor and Public Welfare Com- mittee should be to make an exhaustive study of industry-wide bargaining, par- ticularly as it affects the telephone indus- try. I make this statement now, Mr, President, because it is my intention, as @ member of that subcommittee, to urge such consideration and such study. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurte- nant dams and canals, and for other purposes. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I was wondering when the junior Senator from California and his colleague might present their amendments for the consid- eration of the Senate. It has been in- dicated that several would be submitted, and I am sure that all Senators would like to see them in advance, and have an opportunity to study them. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, the request of the Senator is a reasonable one. I have been working with my col- league, the senior Senator from Cali- fornia [Mr. Downey] and I was hopeful we could get some of the amendments in today. I believe we will have prac- tically all of them in during the coming week. We have assured the senior Sen- ator from Arizona that in no event will any of them come in after the 20th, so that they can be printed and lie upon the table. I think the request of the Senator fs a reasonable one, and I shall do everything I can to expedite the print- ing of the amendments. There is no desire on our part to delay. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, it is very important that amendments which may be submitted be presented at an early date, so that we may have an op- portunity to study them, and so that the Senate may have an opportunity to con- Sider them. I think they should be printed and lie on the table several days in advance, because it has been indicated that they will be offered, and it has also been indicated that some of them are very important, so far as Arizona is concerned. I believe the senior Senator from Cali- fornia said that if some amendments were agreed to the bill might not be objected to, I think it highly desirable that the amendments be offered and printed as quickly as possible, so they may be available to Senators. I should certainly appreciate the opportunity of studying them. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority leader desires to have the Executive Calendar considered very shortly. Therefore, I shall not take much of the time of the Senate. I merely wish to say that from the tenor of the remarks made by the FEBRUARY 8 senior and junior Senators from Cali- fornia and the junior Senator from Nevada [Mr. Matonz] I am afraid the impression has been created that what is now involved before the Senate is a controversy merely between the States of California, Nevada, and Arizona. For that reason, I wish to read to the Senate a resolution adopted on September 20, 1949, by the States of the upper basin. In other words, of the seven States in the upper and lower basins, there are four which join with Arizona in urging the passage of S. 75, the pending meas- ure, whereas there are two whieh do not agree with us. ‘The resolution is as follows: Be it resolved by the Colorado River Basin States Committee, an organization composed of official representatives of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mezico, Utah, end Wyoming, and open to the States of Cali- jJornia and Nevada, in meeting assembied at Grand Junction, Colo,, this 20th day of September 1949, That— Whereas this committee approves the pro- visions of 8. 75 as amended and reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs to the Senate of the United States on August 8, 1949, a bill authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, to- gether with certain appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes; and Whereas this committee is in full accord with the majority report of said Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on said S. 75, as amended: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this committee commends the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs of the United States Senate upon its thorough and careful consideration and re- port on 8. 75, as amended; and be it further Resolved, That this committee urges the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives to give favorable considera- tion to the provisions of said 8. 75 as amended by the Senate Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs in its considera- tion of H. R. 934 and 935; and be it further Resolved, That this committee respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take favorable action upon said 5S. 75 a8 amended by the said Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and reported to the Sen- ate of the United States on August 3, 1949; and be it further Resolved, That the chairman of this com- mittee is requested to send copies of this resolution to the chairman of the Commit- tee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate, to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Recla- mation of the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives, to the chair- man of the said Public Lands Committee, to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Com- missioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and to each Member of the congressional delega- tions of the participating States. Adopted unanimously, Beptember 20, 1949. Currroap H. STonz, Chairman. The representatives of the five States present when the resolution was adopted were the regularly constituted and offi- cial interstate water commissioners ap- pointed under authority of the laws of each State. For the State of Colorade: Clifford H, Stone, Frank Delaney. For the State of Wyoming: Joe Budd, H. Melvin Rollins. For the State of Utah: Harold A. Linke, William R. Wallace.
1950 For the State of New Mexico: Fred E. Wilson, John H. Bliss. For the State of Arizona: Wayne Akin, Charles A. Carson. There has come to my attention a reso- lution adopted by the Phoenix Central Labor Council endorsing the passage of Senate bill 75. It is a very clear-cut delineation of the Arizona position with respect to the pending legislation, and I ask that it be printed in the Recorp at this point as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Whereas the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation have re- ported to the Congress of the United States that the central Arizona project is in all respects feasible, and that the early comple- tion of the works proposed is essential to maintain the economy of the State of Ari- zona, and the national welfare; and Whereas the quantity of water of the Colo- rado River that is proposed to be diverted to the State of Arizona for the central Ari- zona project is well within the settled rights of the State of Arizona as established by the Colorado River compact, the Boulder Can- yon Project Act, the California Self Limita- tion act, and the Arizona water delivery contract; and Whereas the State of Arizona will not use or attempt to use, or interfere with the use of, any waters from the Colorado River within the State of California which the State of California can legally use under its self-limi- tation statute; and Whereas the State of Arizona will not at- tempt to utilize any waters from the Colo- rado River for the central Arizona project, which can be lawfully used anywhere else; and Whereas certain powerful interests in southern California are opposing the State of Arizona and the central Arizona project on false and unjustifiable grounds; and Whereas the State of Arizona, in waging this fight for her rights in the Colorado River system, finds herself pitted against tremendous odds in the same manner 4s Jabor has had to fight against tremendous odds in her struggle for the rights of the comiaon man; and Whereas the authorization and the con- struction of the storage dams, canals, trans- mission lines, and works necessary for the central Arizona project will provide members of organized labor with widespread employ- ment in all phases of construction work, and in the building trades, transportation, and factories in many points of the United States; and Whereas the opponents of the central Art- zona project have been opposing Arizona by contending that it was a matter for the United States Supreme Court to decide; and ‘Whereas the State of Arizona has accepted amendments to 8. 75 which were proposed to the Interior and Insular Affairs Commit- tee of the United States Senate by the Hon- orable JosEpH C. O'MAHONEY, of the Stute of Wyoming, chairman of the above-named committee, and the Honorable Eucene D. MrLLrxin, the able Senator from the State of Colorado, who is the ranking Republican member of the same committee; and Whereas the O’Mahoney-Millikin amend- ment to 8. 75 clears the way for the legal adjudication of California's claim and pro- vides that no moneys can be appropriated for the construction of any works of the central Arizona project to be used solely for the delivery of water from the main stream of the Colorado River to central Arizona un- til the conclusion of any suit which Cali- fornia or any other State of the Colorado River Basin is authorized to file within 6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE months after the authorization of the cen- tral Arizona project by the Congress; and Whereas the construction of other works authorized by the central Arizona project authorization bill, such as the Bridge Canyon Dam, power plant and transmission lines to supply badly needed hydroelectric energy for use in Arizona, can proceed while such a suit is pending without jeopardizing any possible claim of California to the use of water of the river: Therefore be it Resolved by the Phoeniz Central Labor Council, That this organization and its offi- cers and agents do everything within their power to support the said central Arizona project authorization bill, and do request the Congress of the United States to speedily pass S. 75 and its companion measure, H. R. 934; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolutior. be recorded in the minutes of this body and the secretary be instructed to forward copies of this resolution to the members of the congressional delegation from Arizona in the Congress of the United States, and to the secretaries of the various central labor coun- cils throughout the United States. Grorce 8. SrBEsTYEN, Secretary-Treasurer, Phoeniz Central Labor Council, A. F. of L. PHOENIX, ARIZ., November 22, 1949. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, before the Senate proceeds to the consideration of executive business, I should like to ask the Senators who are most interested in the pending bill whether speeches will be made tomorrow by any Senators who may be interested on one side of the ques- tion or the other? Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, speak- ing for the side of the State of Arizona, I doubt seriously that there will be any addresses made tomorrow on our part. Mr. LUCAS. Can the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] advise me whether any speeches will be made to- morrow by Senators on his side of the question? Mr, KNOWLAND. So far as I know, there are no speeches contemplated for tomorrow on the project. CONSTRUCTION AT MILITARY AND NAVAL INSTALLATIONS Mr. LUCAS. With that understand- ing, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending bill be tempo- rarily laid aside, and that the Senate resume consideration of Senate bill 2440, a bill to authorize certain construction at military and naval installations, and for other purposes, Calendar No. 926. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the Senate resumed consideration of the bill (S. 2440) to authorize certain construction at military and naval installations, and for other purposes. SPONSORSHIP OF DISPLACED PERSONS SEEKING ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, an article entitled ‘‘DP’s Sponsor Other DP’s for Entry te United States,” was pub- lished in a recent issue of the Chicago Tribune. I have no knowledge respect- ing the source of information on which the article is based, but I wish to say that the article must certainly be based on information similar to that obtained by the Committee on the Judiciary of the 1659 Senate of the United States, from the record made in Europe by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and by the Committee on the Judiciary itself in hearings held here in Washington. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the article may be printed in the Recorp at this point as a part of my remarks. . There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: DP’s Sponsor OTHER DP’s ror ENTRY TO UNITED STATES Displaced persons who have streamed into the United States from Europe during the last 16 months under the 1948 DP Act are being allowed by Federal authorities to act as sponsors for other refugees seeking ad- mittance to this country, an official of the Illinois Displaced-Persons Commission dis- closed yesterday. Such sponsors—homeless and largely desti- tute themselves until they arrived from Eu- rope—are finding it possible to sign vouchers for new refugees before the sponsors them- selves even have applied for first citizenship papers, it was explained. CITIZENSHIP NOT REQUIRED “There is nothing in the DP Act which specifies that the sponsor of a displaced per- son in Europe must be either an American citizen or the holder of first citizenship pa- pers,” the Illinols commission official said. “A resident displaced person can sponsor another refugee if he can guarantee the new refugee will be provided with a job and hous- ing without displacing an American citizen and can also guarantee that the new refugee will not become a public charge,” the official explained. Eight or 10 cases, in which displaced per- sons settled in Illinois have filed sponsorship papers for refugees still in Europe, are pend- ing before the Illinois commission, it was said. More are expected in the future. ONLY TWO ON COUNTY STAFF It is the commission's duty, in such cases of individual sponsorship of refugees, to de- termine whether the sponsor is financially able to stand back of the guaranties he gives for the new refugee. Apparently, however, the commission makes no attempt to investi- gate such sponsors thoroughly. “We have a staff of only two persons in Cook County,” it was explained. ‘Therefore we generally have to take the word of the sponsor that he fs financially able to sponsor & new displaced person.” MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the following bills of the Senate, each with an amendment, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: 8.485. An act for the relief of Joyce Violet Angel; and 8.1304. An act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to hear, deter- mine, and render judgment upon the claim of F. DuWayne Blankley. The message also announced that the House had agreed to the concurrent res- olution (S. Con. Res. 42) favoring the suspension of deportation of certain aliens, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. The message further announced that the House had passed the following bills,
1660 in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: H.R.597. An act to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, ari render judgment upon a certain claim of J. T. Melson against the United States; H.R. 1026. An act for the relief of the es- tate of Susie Lee Spencer; H R 1275 An act for the relief of Anna Helman; ° H R.1203 An act for the relief of the Franco-Italian Packing Co; H R.1479. An act for the relief of Michael A. Driscoll; H R 1481. An act for the relief of the estate of Julius Zaffareni, H R 1487. An act for the relief of Lt. (sg) Giacomo Falco; H R 1862 An act for the relief of Mrs. Walter K. Miyamoto (formerly Miyoko Ta- kahash!); H R 2230. An act to reimburse Arthur 8. Horner, Leah B Horner, and Maude Brewer, partners composing a firm, doing business as A. 8 Horner Construction Co.; H.R 2351. An act for the relief of Aileen L. Sherwood; H.R.3306 An act for the relief of Antonio Rojas Velez, H R 8309. An act for the relief of the estate of Ovidio Vazquez; H.R 3815. An act for the relief of Alejo Padilla; H.R.8319. An act for the relief of Juana Pagan; H.R. 3351. An act for the relief of John J. Franklin, James H. Bradford, William M. Orr Co., and Alex Mailer; H.R. 8462, An act for the relief of Walter J. O'Toole; H.R 3924. An act for the relief of Dr. T. F. Harrison; H R 4502. «An act to authorize the Becre- tary of the Army to dispose of a certain ease- ment near Fort Belvoir, Va., in exchange for another easement elsewhere in the same property; H.R.4100. An act for the relief of Calvin E. Cranford, H.R 4747. An act for the relief of Louise Ahting, H R 4857. An act for the relief of Mrs. Katsuko Nakahara Huntley; H R 5580. An act for the relief of Mrs. Tsuneko Shimokawa Guenther, H R 6609. An act authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to B. M. (Bud) Phelps; H.R. 6610 An act authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Emma Phelps Glenn; H R 5611. An act authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Charles M Phelps; H R. 5682. An act for the relief of William T. Orton: H.R. 5704. An act for the relief of Janis Shimada; H.R. 5860 An act authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to sell the land of Frank Phelps under existing regulations; H.R. 6003. An act for the relief of Beulah L. White, widow o” John E. White; H.R. 6093. An act for the relief of Masami Hiroya and Aiko Hiroya; H.R. 6282. An act for the relief of Mrs. Kivor Anne-Britt Jedlund; H.R 6283. An act for the relief of Johny Nielsen; H.R. 6323. An act for the relief of Ray- mond B. White; and H.R. 6845. An act for the relief of Mrs. Raymond Schaffer, Jr. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED The following bills were severally read twice by their titles, and referred, as in- dicated: H.R 597 An act to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and render fudgment upon 4 certain clatm of J. T. Melson against the United States; H.R. 1026. An act for the relief of the estate of Susie Lee Spencer; H.R. 1276. An act for the relief of Anna Helman; H.R.1293. An act for the relief of the Franco-Italian Packing Co.; H.R. 1479. An act for the relief of Michael A. Driscoll; H.R.1481. An act for the relief of the estate of Julius Zaffarent; H. R. 1487. An act for the relief of Lieu- tenant (sg) Giacomo Falco; H R. 1862. An act for the relief of Mrs. Walter K. Miyamoto (formerly Miyoko Taka- hashi); H.R. 2230. An act to reimburse Arthur 8. Horner, Leah B. Horner, and Maude Brewer, partners composing a firm, doing business as A. 8. Horner Construction Co.; H.R. 2361. An act for the relief of Aileen L. Bherwood; HR. 3806. An act for the relief of Antonio Rojas Velez; H.R. 3309. An act for the relief of the estate of Ovidio Vazquez; H.R. 3315. An act for the relief of Alejo Padilla; H.R 3819. An act for the relief of Juana Pagan; H.R. 3351. An act for the relief of John J. Franklin, James H. Bradford, William M. Orr Co., and Alex Mater; HR. 8462. An act for the relief of Walter J. O'Toole; H.R. 3924. An act for the relief of Dr. T. F. Harrison; H.R 4100. An act for the relief of Calvin E. Cranford; H R. 4747. An act for the relief of Louise Ahting; H.R. 4857. An act for the relief of Mrs. Katsuko Nakahara Huntley; H. R.6580. An act for the relief of Mrs. Tsuneko Shimokawa Guenther; H.R. 5682. An act for the relief of William T. Orton; H.R.5704, An act for the relief of Janis Shimada; H R. 6003. An act for the relief of Beulah L. White, widow of John E. White; H.R. 6093. An act for the relief of Masami Hiroya and Aiko Hiroya; H.R. 6282. An act for the relief of Mrs. ERivor Anne-Britt Jedlund; H.R. 6288. An act for the relief of Johny Nielsen; H. R. 6323. An act for the rellef of Raymond B. White; and H.R. 6845. An act for the relief of Mrs. Raymond Schaffer, Jr.; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 4502. An act to authorize the secre- tary of the Army to dispose of a certain ease- ment near Fort Belvoir, Va., in exchange for another easement elsewhere on the same property; to the Committee on Armed Services. H.R. 5609. An act authorizing the Secre~ tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to B M. (Bud) Phelps; H.R. 5610. An act authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Emma Phelps Glenn; H R 5611. An act authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Charlies M. Phelps; and H R.5860. An act authorizing the Secre- tary of the Interior to sell the land of Frank Phelps under existing regulations; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, as in ex- ecutive session, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of nomina- tions on the Executive Calendar, FEBRUARY 8 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the nominations will be stated. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of David L. Bazelon, of Illinois, to be Judge, District of Columbia circuit. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. The legislative clerk read the nomi- nation of H. Nathan Swaim, of Indiana, to be judge, seventh circuit. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS The legislative clerk read the nomi- nation of John A. Carver, of Idaho, to be United States attorney for the dis- trict of Idaho. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. The legislative clerk read the nomt- nation of Clarence U. Landrum, of Min- nesota, to be United States attorney for the district of Minnesota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. The legislative clerk read the nomi- nation of J. Vincent Keogh, of New York, to be United States attorney for the eastern district of New York. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. UNITED STATES MARSHALS The legislative clerk read the nomi- nation of Everett M. Evans, of Idaho, to be United States marshal for the dis- trict of Idaho. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Edward Lawrence Burke, of Ver- mont to be United States marshal for the district of Vermont. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. That completes the Executive Calen- dar. Without objection, the President will be notified of all nominations confirmed this day. EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED As in executive session, The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SpaRKMaN in the chair) laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomi- nation of William Webster, of Massa- chusetts, to be Chairman of the Research and Development Board, which was re- ferred to the Committee on Armed Services. EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A COMMITTEE As in executive session, The following favorable report of a nomination was submitted: By Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce: Hal P. Demuth and Merlyn E. Natto, to be ensigns in the Coast and Geodetic Survey. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. I move that the Scnate stand in recess until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow.
1950 The motion was agreed to; and (at 4 o'clock and 18 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Thursday, February 9, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATION Executive nomination received by the Senate February 8 (legislative day of January 4), 1950: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BOarD William Webster, of Massachusetts, to be Chairman of the Research and Development Board. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 8 (legislative day of January 4), 1950: Untrep States Court or APPEALS Hon. David L. Bazelon to be judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis- trict of Columbia Circuit. Hon. H. Nathan Swaim to be judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS John A. Carver to be United States attor- ney for the district of Idaho. Matthew E. Welsh to be United States at~ torney for the southern district of Indiana. Clarence U. Landrum to be United States attorney for the district of Minnesota. J. Vincent Keogh to be United States at- torney for the eastern district of New York. UnitTep States MARSHALS Everett M. Evans to be United States mar- shal for the district of Idaho. Edward Lawrence Burke to be United States marshal for the district of Vermont. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WeEpnespAyY, February 8, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Reverend Ralph E. Jasper, Win- chester, Ill., offered the following prayer: God of peace and glory, hear our prayer of thanksgiving, as we praise Thee for the richness and fullness of life. Bless us as we pray for ourselves, that we may live up to our responsibilities; bless us as we pray for our loved ones and our neighbors, both around the block and around the world. Bless that which is accomplished here this day, that meets with Thy approval, baptize it with Thy Spirit and cause it to prosper and bear fruit in peace and good living. Forgive us of all that displeases Thee, we ask in His name. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved. BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication: Frservuary 7, 1950. Hon. Sam RAysvurn, Stpeaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. SPeaKzER: I want to thank you for appointing me to the Board of Visitors of the Naval Acndemy. However, I do not believe xXCVI——105 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE that I can serve and will appreciate your acceptance of my resignation. With Kind personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, J. GLEnn Baars. The SPEAKER. Without objection, the resignation will be accepted. There was no objection. The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the pro- visions of Public Law 816, Eightieth Con- gress, the Chair appoints as a member of the Board of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MILLer], to fill the exist- ing vacancy thereon. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. WALTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the ReEcorp and include an article appearing in the Washington Post. CALENDAR WEDNESDAY Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against all busi- ness being transacted except the call of the committees. This is Calendar Wednesday. The SPEAKER. Docs the gentleman intend to object to all extensions of re- marks? Mr. MARCANTONIO. I will have to, Mr. Speaker, because this is Calendar ‘Wednesday. LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I propound a unanimous-consent request? The SPEAKER. The gentleman may do so. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that an indefi- nite leave of absence be granted to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. WiL- LIAMS], on account of illness in his family. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. If I object to a unanimous-consent request that a Member be permitted to extend his remarks in the Recor», is it proper to move that he be permitted to extend his remarks? The SPEAKER. That is not a priv- 4leged motion. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a. quorum ig not present. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. 1661 The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- Jowing Members failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 80] Allen, Calif. Hall, Pfeiffer, Baring Leonard W. William L. Barrett, Wyo. Halleck Philbin Bland Jackson, Calif. Potter Blatnik Kee Powell Bolling Kirwan Regan Bolton, Md. Lichtenwalter Sabath Bolton, Ohio McDonough Badowsk!i Brown, Ga. Marshall St George Bulwinkle Miles Sanborn Camp Monroney Shafer Chelf Morrison Shelley Christopher Morton Borers Cole, N. ¥. Nixon e Coudert O'Hara, Minn, Smith. Onio Dawson Pace mith, Va, Vursell Dingell Patman Wadsworth Dolliver Patterson White, Idaho Gilmer Pfeifer, Williams Gwinn Joseph L, Wilson, Ind. The SPEAKER. On this roll call 373 Members have answered to their names, @ quorum, By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. URGENT DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL, 1950 Mr. CANNON, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported the bill (H. R. 7207) making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain appropria- tions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 1614) which was read a first and second time, and, with the accompanying pa- pers, referred to the Committee of the ‘Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. TABER reserved all points of or- der on the bill. CALENDAR WEDNESDAY The SPEAKER. This is Calendar ‘Wednesday. The Clerk will call the committees. POSTAL RATE INCREASES Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee (\/hen the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice was called). Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H. R. 2945) to adjust postal rates, The Clerk read the titie of the bill. The SPEAKER. This bill is on the Union Calendar. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill H. R. 2945, with Mr. HOLIFIELp in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 minutes, and ask unanimous consent to revise and ex- tend my remarks. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? There was no objection. Mr. MURRAY of Tennesee. Mr. Chairman, I trust that the Members will stay on the floor during the debate on this bill, as it is a very important meas- ure. Your committee has spent more
1662 time on this bill than all other bills com- bined during the first session of this Coneress. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. COLMER. I understand from the statement of the distinguished chairman that he has a very important bill here, one that will take up considerable time in discussion. I also understand the gentleman has other bills that he will take up, if time permits, that would run well into consuming the day. That is a correct statement, is it not? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessce. That is correct. Mr. COLMER. I understand the gen- tleman would like to go ahead with the orderly consideration of his bill without unnecessary quorum calls. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. I hope this important bill may be acted on by the committee this afternoon. As I said in the beginning, your com- mittee has given more time, more thought, more study, and more atten- tion to this bill than to all other bills combined last year. Hearings were held in March, April, May, and June on this bill. It is a bill to readjust our postal rates. May I say at this point that I trust that no Member will ask me to yield until I finish my statement, in order that I may cxplain the provisions of the bill. At the present time the Post Office Department has a deficit of over $550,- 000,000. Last October Congress passed another postal pay bill for employees which cost $150,000,000. Since 1945 this Congress has increased the salaries of postal employees $740,000,000. The rates for the transportation of mail since 1945 have increased $165,000,000. The last fiscal year, 1949, the receipts of the Post Office Department were $1,571,851,202. The expenditures were $2,122,980,730. The total deficit for the fiscal year 1949, which closed last June 30, was $551,129,528. The deficit for this fiscal year, which closes next June 30. is estimated at more than $550,000,000 also. You know it is very easy to increase the salaries of postal employees, but it is extremely difficult to ever pass any kind of bill readjusting the postal rates. I know that Members have received a torrential flood of propaganda mail against this bill. I doubt if you have received mail from the general public asking you to support this bill. I know that users of second and third class mail have been unusually diligent in propa- gandizing the Members of Congress. It has now come to this question: Are the Members going to help remedy the sit- uation and help the Post Office Depart- ment in their financial distress by the passage of this bill, or are they not? What will this bill do? This bill will increase the postal rates by $131,000,000. That will leave a deficit of over $400,000,000. The Postmaster General sent us a bill last year which called for an increase in rates of $253,000,0C9. Your committee CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE after long deliberation felt that it could not approve the entire request of the Postmaster General for $253,000,000 and brought in this compromise bill in- creasing the rates to $131,000,000. What rates are increased? As the Members know there are four classes of mail. First-class mail includes letter mail and postal cards and air mail. Sec- ond-class mail includes all newspapers and magazines and other publications which have a bona fide subscription list. The third and fourth class embraces all mail not included in the first and second classes. Third-class mail in- cludes all circular mail and all parcels weighing up to 8 ounces. Then there is fourth-class mail composed of all mail weighing 8 ounces or more and includes parcel post, books, and catalogs. In addition we have the special serv- ices which include special delivery, col- lect on delivery, insured mail, money orders, and postal notes. This bill increases only one class of first-class mail and that is the post and postal card. At the present time, as you know, the postage on the post and postal cards is 1 cent. The uncon- troverted proof shows it costs the Post Office Department 2 cents 6 mills to carry every one-penny postcard. If we in- crease the postcard rate to 2 cents, there will still be a tremendous loss in the carriage of postcards and the post. At the present time there is a deficit of $65,000,000 in delivering the post and postal cards. This bill, by increasing the post and postal cards to 2 cents, would bring in $36,000,000, leaving a deficit still of $29,000,000 in that class of mail. But I have heard Members say, “‘Do not think about destroying the one-penny postcard. It is the poor-man’s card.” Well, what are the facts about the postal card? There are 3,000,000,000 pos- tal cards sent through the mails each year. Do you know that between 90 per- cent and 95 percent of them are sent by commercial concerns and by business houses for commercial purposes? Very few of these cards are sent by the indi- vidual for individual messages. Are you going to continue subsidies to these large business houses that use the l-cent postal card for advertising pur- poses? Is it fair to call upon the tax- payers to pay these subsidies to the large business concerns and still give them the benefit of the 1-cent postal rate? That is the only class of first-class mail that is increased except the drop-letter mail. That is a letter deposited in the local post office, without the services of a city carrier or a rural carrier. The next class is second class. At the present time there is a deficit in second- class mail of $174,000,000. The receipts from second-class mail are a little over $43,000,000. The expenditures for carry- ing second-class mail are $218,000,000. This bill only increases the second-class mail about 334% percent. It only in- creases the total revenues about $15,- 000,000. If this bill, with the increase in second-class mail, is adopted, there will still be a deficit in second-class mail of $160,000,000. Yet some of these sec- ond-ciass publishers have been waging a terrific campaign against the increase FEBRUARY 8 in second-class rates. We have been generous with the second-class publishers and they certainly ought to be satisfied. The last postal increase rate approved by Congress was during the Eightieth Congress. At that time your committee reported out an increase for second-class mail. The leadership of that Congress, unfortunately, told our committee that we could not increase the rate on sec- ond-class mail; that we could increase it on all mail except second-class, and directed us to take out the increase for second-class mail. We increased other classes of mail; and, yet, by Public Law 900 passed by the Hightieth Congress we did not increase second-class mail one single, solitary penny. Do you know that the rates for carry- ing second-class mail today are substan- tially the same as they were in 1879 when second-class mail was established? For over 70 years the newspaper and maga- zine publishers have enjoyed the small rate for mailing their publications. If there is any class of mail for which an increase is abundantly justified, it is sec- ond class. I come now to third-class mail. The only increase in third-class mail is for circular mail] sent in bulk, in mailings of 200 or more identical pieces. You Mem- bers know how your offices are flooded with this third-class propaganda mail from day to day. We have a tremendous deficit in third-class mail. The present deficit is $129,000,000. Last year there were over 9,500,000,000 pieces of third- class mail. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I cannot yield until I get through. Let me say to you that as the Post Office Department is suffering from this tremendous deficit on second-, third-, and fourth-class mail, the more business it does the greater the losses. This year we had the highest revenue in the his- tory of the post office, over one and one- half billions of dollars, yet we also have the largest deficit in the history of the Department. So you can sce that as the volume of this cheap mail increases the deficit grows larger and larger and larger. We only increase the rate on this bulk third-class mail from 1 cent to 114 cents. Is not that cheap and reasonable so as to be able to send a circular letter in bulk through the mails for 1% cents? Now I come to fourth-class mail, which includes parcel post, catalogs, and books. Your committee has recommended a very small increase in catalogs, only 1 cent on an average, which will reduce the deficit considerably but not wipe out the entire deficit. We have increased parcel post and also in the bill for parcel post there is the provision that parcel post shall be limited in the first and second zones to not more than 40 pounds in weight and to not more than 72 inches in length and girth combined for size; and that parcel post sent to zones be- yond the second-class zones, from the third to the eighth, shall weigh not more than 20 pounds and shall be not greater than 72 inches in combined length and girth. There has been some dissatisfac- tion, and I concede that there is grounds
1950 for .it, from people on the rural routes who complain that they do not want their parcel-post packages reduced either in size or weight, since they do not receive express service. So, therefore, I am pre- pared to offer an amendment which will take care of the situation and which will give the full parcel-post service so far as weight of 70 pounds and limit of 180 inches are concerned to the people on rural routes, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself five additional minutes. Mr, Chairman, my amendment will permit the present rate of 70 pounds and the same size of 100 inches to continue for all parcels addressed to or from any rural route in the country and also par- eels addressed to or from any third- or any fourth-class office. My amendment will remove all objection from the farmers. Mr. Chairman, do you know that at the present time, although the weight limit is 70 pounds, only about 1 percent of the parcel-post packages sent through the mails come over 50 pounds? So that very few packages of more than 50 pounds are being sent through the mails today. But by my amendment we will accept packages weighing 70 pounds and 100 inches in girth or size, addressed to farmers on rural routes or from people on rural routes and to third- and fourth- class post offices. Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to what the President of the United States has said about increasing postal rates. In the President’s budget message of Janu- ary 10, 1949, he said: The postal deficit for fiscal year 1950, on the basis of current postal rates, would be more than 6400,000,000. A deficit of this size is unsound; it imposes upon the general tax- payer a financial burden which should prop- erly be borne by the users of the service. Large postal deficits are resulting from a record volume of postal business, most of which ts carried at rates which do not cover handling costs. The low rates for parcel post have led to substantial diversion of express traffic fram common carriers, with the result that the Post Office Department is now re- ceiving a volume and type of parcel business which it cannot efficiently handle with exist- ing facilities. Present rates for second- and third-class mail are so low that they make only a smail contribution to the costs of handling such mail. Then, on June 24, 1949, the President stated in a special message which he sent to the Congress: The postal defictt for the fiscal year 1050, on the basis of current postal rates, would be more than $400,000,000. This deficit results primarily from the volume of postal business which ta carried below cost. If the postal service is to be conducted on a bustnessiiiee basis, it te essential that the postal rates bo brought in line with the increased caste of postal operations. I again strongly urge, as I neve tn previous messages turing the past 2 years, that the Congress enact an adequate revision of the postdl-rate structure, Mr. Chairman, in his budget message of last month the President stated the following: I have repeatedly urged the Congress to raise postal rates so as to bring them into CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ne with postwar costa. The need for such corrective ‘action becomes steadily ‘more urgent. It is unsound and unnecessary for the postal operation to continue as a growing burden on the general taxpayer. Instead, the users of the postal service should as a group pay the full cost of services received, Mr. Chairman, this parcel-post busi- ness has increased so tremendously that today the Post Office Department does not have sufficient or adequate facilities for handling this terrific volume of par- cel-post packages. At the present time we are handling over a billion pieces of parce] post. During the last 3 years there has been an increase of over 200,- 000,000 pieces of parcel post. Mr. Chairman, it was never intended that the Post Office Department be in competition with private business. But what is the situation today? We are driving out of business by unfair com- petition the private express companies, This is not fair to the express organiza- tions and to their many thousands of loyal employees, many of whom have been laid off during the last few years due to the increased volume of parcel- post business and the great decrease in express shipments. We should, there- fore, increase the parcel-post rates. Mr. Chairman, you will hear some mis- informed people say that if the Post Office Department would get credit for the penalty and frank mail it would wipe out the deficit. But do you know the true story about that? The deficit is $551,- 000,000? Do you know what the penaity mail would bring in in revenue if postage were paid on same? It would bring in approximately $76,000,000. Do you know how much the franked mail of Members of Congress you talk about costs? Some people would try to make you believe that we could wipe out the entire postal deficit if we Just made the Members of Congress pay for their own mail. The truth of the matter is that the total postage bill on franked mail would be just a little over $1,000,000. So the total subsidy for franked and pen- alty mail is about $77,000,000, and the other subsidy is for the air lines. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has again ex- pired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself five additional minutes. Mr. Chairman, our committee has per- sistently and repeatedly urged that sub- sidy pay to air lines be divorced from the air-mail pay; that the Post Office Depart- ment pay only the actual cost of the transportation of air mail. That legis- lation is now being considered by another committee of this House, and I hope it will be adopted. But the subsidy being paid to air lines under the guise of air- mail pay is only $50,000,000, according to the Postmaster General, so this whole free mail and subsidy by the Post Office Department amounts to only $120,000,- 600. I have here a letter from Deputy Post- master General Burke showing exactly the cost for last year, $128,000,000. So, Mr. Chairman, if you take out the penalty mail and franked mail and the subsidies paid to air mail, $128,000,000, you will still have a deficit of $423,000,000. This bill, 1668 conservative as it is, raises only $1338,000,- Icannot see how any Member can op- pose this bill. We have been extremely fair to all users of the mails. I know that the Members have been under tremen- dous pressure from special interests and from large users of mail to oppose this bill, but they do not give you the real facts. Mr. Chairman, I have here in my hand a circular letter sent out by a large mail-order house, in fact, the largest in the United States. I will not mention its name. This letter was sent by this mail-order house to people to propagan- dize against this bill. Do you know how many circulars this large mail-order house sent out in recent weeks? Over three million sent to farmers and people throughout the United States to high- pressure Members of Congress to vote egainst this bill. I plead with you to give this bill fair consideration, and I believe that if you do you will support the bill. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Gladly. Mr. CANFIELD. I admire the distin- guished gentleman from Tennessee for the timely and courageous argument he is making in the well of the House today in behalf of Federal economy and the pay-as-you-go principle in Government. As @ member of the House Subcommittve on the Treasury and Post Office Appro- priations I have had to review this deficit year after year. I was quite surprised; yes, I was chagrined to learn in the hear- ings this year that the Hoover Commis- sion in appraising the functions and the problems of the Post Office Department steered away from the No. 1 problem of that Department, this ever-growing deficit. Newspapers have been mentioned. There are some newspapers in the coun- try who want to pay the freight, notably the Scripps-Howard newspapers. I like their editorial policy on this issue. What do they say? They say this: ‘We, as newspapers, are forever crusading against Federal subsidies, and yet we know we are subsidized ourselves. We are willing to pay the freight. Let the bill be brought out on the floor of the House and the Senate and be enacted into law.” We are challenged here to- day as advocates of Federal economy to Stand up and he counted. The gentie- man from Tennessee has given us our first real opportunity this year to vote yea or nay. I vote “aye.” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his valuable contribution. Mr. Chairman, this is a hard fight. It ds not easy for me to get on the floor and advocate a bill of this kind. I know it is not popular with some, but I know .t is right and it is just, and Iam not going to fall for this propaganda that is being distributed by some of the big users of the mail. Furthermore, I am just as much interested in economy as the Mem- hers on my left, and just as much in- terested in a balanced budget as they are. Let me say to you Members on the left where there is so much opposition to this bill, I know you are sincere, I know you want to reduce expenses, you want to
1664 get a balanced budget, but now I say here is your first chance, your first oppor- tunity in this session to come on and help reduce the deficit of our Govern- ment. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired, Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN (after counting). One hundred and seventeen Members are present, a quorum. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may desire. Mr. Chairman, representing the mi- nority on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, I was partly responsi- ble along with some other members of the committee, in preparing a minority report. We sent this to Members of the House the last 2 days, and no doubt you have received it. Many of you have studied this minority report on H. R. 2945; it is Report No. 1452, part 2. We are opposed to the bill funda- mentally for the reason that we believe that the Post Office Department is a serv- ice organization, set up for service to the American people. It is the only public agency in the Government today that serves all of the people. It never was intended that it should make a profit. The point is made that the Post Office Department should be run on a business and efficient basis. Of course, we all agree to that. It should be. But we do not agree that it should be run on any basis where it makes a profit or neces- sarily breaks even. To carry that point of view to a further length, you could say this: If the proponents of this bill have their way from now on, next year they will come in with another bill and in the future with other bills to try to increase rates so as to break even or make a profit on the Post Office Department revenues and disbursements. It would lead even- tually to eliminating rural free delivery, because that costs more money than it returns. It does not break even today. It loses money for the Department, but it is a fine service to the farmers of America. We are against the curtail- ment of rural-route service. We have all the third- and fourth-class offices in the country to serve, in the out- of-the-way places, and sometimes in the metropolitan areas as well. The Post Office Department serves the little towns with third- and fourth-class post offices. You would have to eliminate those, if you wanted to put the Department on a profit basis or even on a break-even basis. So the argument that the De- partment should break even or should pay a profit does not hold water, be- cause the Post Office Department is a service to the people of this country. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Kansas. Mr. REES. On that basis, would the gentleman advocate the lowering of postal rates in any of these categories as they now stand under the law? Mr.HAGEN. Weare here to fight any increase in rates. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. REES. I understand that, but on that basis would the gentleman ad- vocate the lowering of the rates? Mr. HAGEN. We have not advocated the lowering of the rates, no, not unless they are discriminatory or excessive or cause a lowering of revenue, and that has happened. We have in the past in- creased rates, and it has proven out that the business, the volume, and the reve- nue of the Post Office Department did not come up to what was expected, so they went back to the lower rates. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I re- member that last year when the bill to increase the salaries of postal employ- ees was under consideration only two Members of the House voted against the increase. Just how long does the gen- tleman think we can continue to in- crease the salaries of those who carry on this service, without taking additional money from the taxpayers? Is that what the gentleman advocates, that we should sort of subsidize the service more than we are now? Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CORBETT. I should like to an- swer the gentleman in this way, that certainly this Government cannot ar- range the salaries and working condi- tions on the basis of the revenue. If that is to be the rule, what are we to do with all the Federal employees in the Government, with a $5,000,000,000 defi- cit facing us? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. May I answer that? You might at least keep the postal employees on a comparative basis with the rest of the employees in their respective communities. They never quit. Mr. CORBETT. I think we all recog- nize that of all the large classes of em- ployees in the country, the postal and Federal employees have received the smallest increases in proportion to the increased cost of living. These other classes include the auto workers, the coal miners, the steel workers, and so on. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. All things considered, that is just nonsense. Mr. HAGEN. I decline to yield further. Mr. Chairman, there are no hearings available for us here today. The Mem- bers of the House do not have the hear- ings available so they can study this very important measure. This measure affects every person in America. The post office serves everyone. We should know the arguments and testimony pre- sented on this bill. Incidentally, no hearings have been held on this new, revised bill, the com- mittee amendment. The hearings that were held over many, many weeks were held on a much different type of bill. This new, revised bill was not presented to anyone for consideration, outside of the committee in executive session for just a short time. No American tax- payer or citizen or representative had My. FEBRUARY 8 the opportunity to testify on the bill that is presented to you today. Mr. REES. Ifthe gentleman will yield further, I am sure the gentleman wants to be reasonably fair about that. He knows that during the Eightieth Con- gress many weeks were spent in hear- ings on the general question of increased postal rates. I think the gentleman from Minnesota was present at least a con- siderable part of the time. He is also familiar with the fact that hearings were held again during 1949 on this subject. Mr. HAGEN. I think the gentleman misunderstood my remarks. No hear- ings have been held on this new, revised bill we are considering here today. Mr. REES. They were held on the general subject of increased postal rates. Mr. HAGEN. The hearings were held on the original bill, H. R. 2945, which is quite different from the bill we have here today. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I am sure the gentleman does not desire to create @ wrong impression about this. As chairman of the committee, I intro- duced a bill sent down to me by the Post- master General, calling for an increase of $253,000,000. We held hearings over 3 months. As a result this bill was in- troduced. Is that not a fact? Mr. HAGEN. That is right. I said that a hearing was held, but not on this revised bill, which was considered in executive session for a very short time. The hearings were held on the original bill, H. R. 2945, as originally introduced. The bill we are considering now is quite different and there were no hearings on this new bill. In fact, the executive ses- sion was very brief and less than 5 min- utes was taken in the consideration of class IV rates in the final executive ses- sion on this bill. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. CORBETT. Would the gentleman tell us whether any business firm or mail- order house or user of the mails has had an opportunity to present one bit of testi- mony as to how this bill will affect their mailing costs? Mr. HAGEN. No one had an oppor- tunity to present any information to the committee or at least not in a committee hearing on this new revised bill. Mr. MILLER of California. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. MILLER of California. There are two volumes of hearings which were held on H. R. 2945. What the gentleman is telling you is that two subcommittees were later set up to, in effect, mark up the bill. That is all the committees did. They marked up the bill and the bill that came out was so emasculated downward that you would hardly recog- nize it. Mr. HAGEN. That is exactly right. Mr. MILLER of California. And there are two volumes of hearings. Mr. HAGEN. The gentleman is right again. But this is a new revised and Mr. Mr.
1950 different bill and it should be recom- mitted for final, further study and con- sideration before a complete bill is brought out. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Myr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. A smokescreen has been thrown out here today and the inference has been made that postal employees are in jeopardy insofar as salary raises go if we vote against this bill. I would like to have the gentleman state the situation on that score. Mr. HAGEN. This bill has no connec- tion with salaries whatever. Both sides of the House will agree to that. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Never- theless, they are trying to infer that. Mr. HAGEN. There is no basis for that whatever. The membership on both sides of the House will say that. Mr, BREHM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. BREHM. It is true that the action which we take on this legislation will not affect salaries of the post-office em- ployees, but it could very well affect not only the salaries but even the jobs of thousands of the employees of the Rail- way Express Agency. Mr. HAGEN. That is right. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. The gen- tleman is most kind in yielding to vari- ous Members. I hope he takes more time because I believe we have used up his 10 minutes in asking him questions. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Morray] refused to yield to me when he was addressing the Committee. He sug- gested that they were offering an amend- ment to the bill which would take care of rural routes. The question I wanted to ask him concerning his amendment was whether it would take care of fourth-class post offices and star routes as well as rural routes. I wonder if the gentleman now addressing the Com- mittee could give us any information as to what the proposed amendment might do. Mr. HAGEN. I am not fully aware of exactly what the amendment might do. But if there are quite a number of amendments coming up, it is a further indication and proof that the bill ought to be recommitted. If any Members have amendments to offer to this bill at this time, which is of such great im- portance to the people, they should be considered at length and all amendments should be proposed and considered and adopted or rejected in committee. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. My amendment expressly covers both rural and star routes. Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. WITHROW. It might be well at this time to observe that on January 11, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1950, the other body recommitted their version of this bill to the committee for the reasons given by the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Hacen]. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed. We are talking about deficits in the Post ‘Office Department. Of all the wit- nesses who appeared before our com- mittee outside of the official family and a few on fourth-class mail, not a single one appeared in support of the increases proposed in this bill—not one. They were not special interests and they were not vested interests. They represented the American people. I will just give you the names of a few of them. Here ts a country newspaperman from Iowa. Here is Louis A. Lopez, of the In- ternational Pressmen and Assistants’ Union of North America, who strongly opposed the bill. Here is John B. Hag- erty, of the International Allied Printing Trades Association and International Brotherhood of Bookbinders Union Or- ganization. In fact, there are many, many union organizations which ap- peared with their representatives ex- pressing the strongest opposition to this bill. Some Members of Congress appeared. The International Brother- hood of Paper Makers had a repre- sentative Paul L. Phillips. The Paper Mill Workers Union had a representa- tive. The Boy Scouts of America ap- peared in opposition, as did the Christian Herald Association, and many others. Many religious and fraternal organiza- tions had representatives there. Many veterans’ organizations were on hand protesting. There was the Disabled American Veterans organization, the American Legion, the VFW, and others. Many farm publishing organizations appeared in opposition to this bill. Many business people, many small-business men were there in opposition to the bill. Mr. REES. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I would like to proceed now, if I may. The Farm Bureau people appeared; the Farmers Union, the National Grange, the Elks, the Eagles; and dozens of other groups appeared in opposition to this bill. Not a single representative of the Ameri- can public appeared for this bill except one or two who appeared for an increase in fourth-class rates, and members of the Post Office Department. Now let me proceed with reference to first-class mail. This bill proposes to increase the post card from 1 cent to 2 cents. That is a 100-percent increase. You can not increase charges 100 percent in any part of your business. No one can stand a 100-percent increase on its first-class mail charges. Mr. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. SUTTON. Could the gentleman inform some of us who do not know, what the penny post card costs the Govern- ment to print? Mr. HAGEN. It costs 2.6 cents to print, sell, and deliver, according to re- ports given out by the Post Office Depart- ment, 1665 Mr. SUTTON. That is without de- livery; is that right? Mr. HAGEN., No. That is the cost, ‘with delivery. The cost is proposed to be increased to 2 cents instead of 1 cent. That is 100-percent increase. That is too much. How about the millions of post cards used by veterans’ organiza- tions and farm organizations such as rural electrification groups, and all those organizations which use the 1-cent card for notices of all kinds. We proposed in the committee to raise the postal card put out by Uncle Sam to 2 cents, and continue the 1-cent rate on the private post card. Oh,no. They did not want that. You see, the Govern- ment is competing with every printing shop in America. Uncle Sam is com- peting with every printer in America by the practice of selling these postal cards in the post office. If they were increased to 2 cents and we maintained the 1l-cent charge for the private or personal mail- ing card, the business would go to private concerns and private businessmen would hire more printers and there would be more employment in this country. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I sield. Mr. KEATING. Would the gentle- man address himself to subsection (4), section 2, page 21, about these religious and other publications. There seems to be a special provision for them. I was wondering whether that was designed to meet the objections of various re- lgious and fraternal organizations which appeared in opposition to this legisla- tion. Mr. HAGEN. That matter will be dis- cussed by the gentleman from Minne- sota [Mr. McCarruy], who has an amendment along that line. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a moment? Mr. HAGEN. I would like to proceed, if I may. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. like to clarify this. Mr. HAGEN. Well, it can be clarified later. I would like to proceed now. The Post Office Department claims not to lose money on printed envelopes. They charge a person so much for print- ing envelopes. The extra charge for printing is only 44 cents more than for the unprinted envelopes. You can buy a thousand stamped envelopes at the postoffice and pay only 44 cents more to have them printed up. They have to send down to Ohio for the order and it comes back by parcel post. The parcel post alone on that 1,000 envelopes is 91 cents, plus the job and the costs of han- dling it up and down the line. The Hoover Commission says that any small Government purchase order, for in- stance, when you buy a pair of pliers, would cost $10 to handle it. So it surely costs $10 to handle this order of a thou- sand printed envelopes. Still they are selling them for only 44 cents more than you can buy the unprinted envelopes for. Bo here is a place for economy. But, no. They turned us down in the committee on that sort of thing. I would
1666 It has been said that the Scripps- Howard papers are supporting this pos- tal increase. They are ready and will- ing and anxious apparently to secure an increase in second-class mail. Do you know why? They hardly use the mails. The Scripps-Howard paper, here in Washington, the News, does not go through the mails to any extent. Only about 1 percent of their circulation goes through the United States mails. The ‘Washington Star has less than 2 percent of its circulation going through the mails. So some of these big metropol- itan newspapers are willing to increase the second-class rates, just like a ciga- rette manufacturer may be happy to see the tax on cigars go up, because he does not sell cigars, and the increase would not affect his business; may even increase it. But that is not all; it discrimi- nates against little weekly newspapers throughout the country, religious papers, veterans’ papers, labor papers, because 100 percent of their circulation goes through the mail. They will have to bear their full share of these increased charges on second-class mail. And that is not all; the Washington News, the New York News, the New York Mirror, the Washington Star, and these other big papers that do not go through the mails to any great extent will eventually mo- nopolize the publishing game in this country because the little papers which have to pay these increased charges to survive will have to raise their subscrip- tion price by mail. The result is that many of their subscribers, not being able to afford the increased-subscription rate, will then buy the big metropolitan papers instead, finding them cheaper, because they do not go through the mails. The result will be that the big papers will monopolize the newspaper field, and the small weekly paper and small-town dailies driven out of business. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. REES. The gentleman would have this Committee believe—and I do not think he wishes to get that idea across—that there is great discrimina- tion against religious publications by reason of this legislation. The gentle- man well knows that those publications have always been protected, and rightly so; and he also xnows that the increase in the rates here are comparatively small and tnat there are no increases for nonprofit publications in this class. For the record, let him state to the Com- mittee just how much more this increase is going to cost newspapers or magazines? Mr. HAGEN. The gentleman misses the point. I say it is discriminatory in- asmuch as the rate applies to the small newspapers and publications, which can- not avoid using the mails. The increases are not effective on publications and people who can get away from using the mails. Mr. REES. For the information of the Committee will the gentleman state the cost of the increase in this bill on religious publications; state the amount in money? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. HAGEN. The increase is about 50 percent on profit publications. Mr. REES. How much money? Mr. HAGEN. On a bill of $100 it would be a total of $150, or if the old bill were $10, the new postage bill would be $15. An increase of 50 percent on small weekly newspapers is a tremendous in- crease and puts them at a tremendous disadvantage with these big papers that are not compelled to pay it. This rate does not greatly affect the big papers but does directly fully affect their small competitors. Today the Post Office Department wants an increase in postage rates all along the line. It was not so in 1933, and the Democrats were in power then, too. It was the same sort of Post Office Department. Then they were opposing increases of all kinds. In a report sent to the Senate they opposed increases on second-class mail and other increases that were proposed. Let me show you a statement they made on December 8, 1933. I quote: There is no class of post-office business to which the law of diminishing returns ap- plies with greater force than second-class mailings, and the Department considers it to be beyond question that further advances in the rate of postage applicable to this class of mail matter will diminish, rather than in- crease, its revenues. In other words, the higher the rate on second-class she lower the revenue, the lower the volume of business. And what happens? A bigger deficit than you have now. it is just like the butcher; he loses money when he sells soup meat, but he is not going to throw the soup meat in the ashcan, he is going to handle it; he handles it however so that his deficit will be less than it otherwise would be or his profits greater than they would be if he threw the soup meat away. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield. Mr. REESE. The gentleman’s argu- ment is that if a man loses ¢5 on each suit of clothes he sells he should just go on selling suits anyhow. That is the effect of the argument of my friend from Minnesota, the greater the use the greater the deficit. Mr. HAGEN. But to get back to the second-class mail. The newspapers now perform most of the operations of the Post Office Department in the prepara- tion and mailing of second-class matter; most of them perform at least seven of the steps necessary in the mailing of newspaper material. These steps are performed by the weekly newspapers and the small-town daily newspapers for the Post Office Department. Many a post- master tells a newspaperman: “You are the best customer I have got; you do all the work; all I do is to receive your check every week.” Now going back to 1933, the Post Office Department quoted these figures which shows that their deficit gets larger with the increase of rates. On the rates in force in fiscal year 1932 the increases ranged from 33 percent to 67 percent over those in effect in the previous year. This resulted in a decrease in revenue FEBRUARY 8 of 15.3 percent. So if we increase the rates your revenue is going down. You may talk about the magazines paying a proper rate and they should pay their way, but what happens if you increase the rates on larger magazines? They take their magazines out of the mails completely. Right now they are experimenting, and very succesfully, with a plan of having men with jeep cars de- livering the publications 1 or 2 days a week throughout the larger populated areas of the country. The larger pub- lications, the big publications, will take most of their second-class mail from the post office if higher rates of this kind go into effect. You may say you are going to make the big newspapers and magazines pay this increased post- age but they will avoid it by new dis- tribution methods. This bill, on the contrary, will ham- per, harm, and injure the small publish- ers of the country, the farm press, edu- cation press, the veteran press, the labor press, and also all of the little publica- tions throughout the country which we need more than ever before. As a mat- ter of fact, the weekly newspapers grad- ually are going out of existence now and with another impact of increased cost there will be another large percentage of weekly papers folding up. The weekly press of this country is the backbone of the Nation and we need more of them instead of less. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Minnesota. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. In con- firmation of what the gentleman said, the weekly newspapers in my congres- sional district during the past 8 years have dropped from 104 down to 87 in number on account of increased costs. Mr. HAGEN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. MACK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. MACK of Washington. A Hoover task force in examining the Post Office Department came forth with a report that if certain modernization of equip- ment and methods was installed the De- partment could save $180,000,000 a year. To the gentleman's knowledge, has any- thing been done by the Post Office De- partment to bring about any of those savings recommended by the Hoover report? Mr. HAGEN. We have not received any information on that. We under- stand something may be forthcoming however. We understand there are some savings expected to come out of the effort now being made by the Post Office Department. Mr. MACK of Washington. Does not the gentleman believe that the Post Office Department should make a sincere and determined effort to decrease costs before increasing the cost of the service to the users of the postal service? Mr. HAGEN. Yes, any business does that. If a business finds it is losing money it starts cutting corners and tries
1950 to be more efficient in order to save money. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that a number of people appeared before us, representing the labor unions, the farm organisations, business and fraternal or- ganizations and others. They said in effect that “We know there is a deficit so far as the post office is concerned, but the Post Office Department is a service organization to all of the people and it tries to give a mail service at the least possible cost commensurate with the greatest service. We are willing to pay the deficit through taxation. We are paying the deficit that way now.” All of these enterprises, all of these business people, all of these individuals are paying for the deficit now through income-tax payments and other taxa- tion. They would rather have it paid that way than by increasing the postal rates at this time. In the case of third-class mail the bill proposes that the rate be raised from 1 cent to 14% cents. That is a raise of 50 percent. Mr. FERNANDEZ Mr.Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. FERNANDEZ. They are not pay- ing the deficit by paying it through an increase in the income tax. We are pay- ing it by issuing more notes and in- creasing the public debt. Mr. HAGEN. Yes. The people who testified before our committee said: “We know this deficit must be paid but we are willing to pay it the usual way, through taxation, and not by soaking the little fellow and increasing the rates where it’ cannot be taken into consideration with- out effecting a tremendous impact on business and labor and the welfare of the country.” Mr. Chairman, there will be many, many thousands of people thrown out of work if the increase goes into effect. Many, many specialty houses and other manufacturing houses who depend on the third-class mail will have to go out of business. Their traditional way of do- ing business through 1-cent post cards will be broken up and they will have to start a new pattern, a new tradition, a new development ir. their business. Mr. JACKSON of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Washington. Mr. JACKSON of Washington. In all fairness, has there not been an increase in the price index in the last 10 years and what increases have been made to compensate for the general price increase throughout our entire economy? Mr. HAGEN. They are not objecting so much to some sort of increase, but these gentlemen who came in here and testified state that a 50-percent or a 100- percent increase—and the original bill provided up to a 600-percent increase— is too much of a jump, too much of an increase. They might be willing, some of them, to say, “We will take 10-, 20-, or even a 30-percent increase”; but when you hit 50 percent and 100 percent, that is quite an impact on their business, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE everyone, labor and management alike, suffers. Mr. JACKSON of Washington. One last question. In this bill, have they made provision for a uniform increase in all categories of mail? Mr. HAGEN, No. Each class is charged a different percentage, but I will not have time to go into that, But it is not the same at all. Mr. JACKSON of Washington. The gentleman, then, feels that the increases are inequitable in the various classes? Mr. HAGEN. To some extent they are. Of course, I think they are too high in many cases, and I think the in- creases will result in a less volume of business and a greater deficit to the Post Office Department. And what will be done if that happens? Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. KEATING. I might say to the gentleman from Washington, apparently from page 3 of the report it appears that on January 1, 1249, there were rate in- Creases at that time totaling more than $125,000,000 annually. I do not know what those were, but I think that par- tially answers the gentleman’s question. Mr. HAGEN. On that very point, the proposed increase represents 50 percent in some cases, and all at one time. There are many publishers of farm and other newspapers and magazines, who have subscriptions ahead for 3, 4, and 5 years, subscriptions that are paid for on the basis of an old rate, so that if any in- crease is provided it should be stag- gcred for 3 or 4 or 5 years ahead of time instead of all at one time. Mr. JACKSON of Washington. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we all know that there have been general increases in the cost of doing business in the past decade. What I am trying to find out is what is a reasonable adjustment to meet those in- creases that have resulted by reason of your over-all] increase in your price in- dex? My. HAGEN. That is something the committee has to go into. That is why we want this bill recommitted so that we can study those factors that should apply in the consideration of a bill of this ind. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. The gentleman mentioned these 50-percent increases. According to my figuring, the proposed total cost of the penny post card represents a 100-percent increase. Mr. HAGEN. That is correct. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. CORBETT. I would like to re- mind the gentleman that there are many Members that feel like the gentleman does, that this bill should be recom- mitted, and they would like to be yielded some time. 1667 Mr. HAGEN, I will be glad to yietd at this time. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. CHURCH. The gentleman has said that we had a new unconsidered bill before us. The gentleman from Mis- sissipp! [Mr. Cotmer] was interested in how long we would spend our time in dis- cussing this umconsidered bill. The other body, I understand, has deferred action on this very same bill. When is a motion to adojurn today in order? When do we come to recommit this bill to save our time instead of going through this shadow boxing on an unconsidered measure this way? Mr. HAGEN. Well, I think the bill should be recommitted, and at the proper time we expect to make a motion to re- commit. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAGEN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CRAWFORD. I would like to ask the gentleman from Minnesota, a mem- ber of the committee, what there is in the proposal now, together with the amendment that is to be offered, which protects people who live on the farm and away from railroad facilities in the or- dering of heavy parcel-post packages? The railroads cannot give the service, the Railway Express Agency cannot give the service by truck or rail. The people are entitled to a nearby delivery service ata price. Now, a lot of the good farm- ers in my district are willing to pay an increased fee for mail-box delivery; they do not think they should have the serv- ice for nothing; they do not expect peo- ple to subsidize it. But, they are very critical on the proposition that they fear the Congress may take the privilege away from them of ordering packages sent to their mail boxes on the theory that the railroads or express agency may induce us to vote along that Hne. Would the gentleman comment on that proposition and make it clear as to what this bill does? Mr. HAGEN. This bill increases the rates on parcel post. It does not limit the service any compared to what we have now, except what may happen be- cause of the increased rates and limita- tions on mailing. Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentleman means as to size and weight of package, Mr. HAGEN. As to size of package, there is a limitation both as to weight and dimensions. In other words, if this bill passes, the parcel will have to be much smaller than it is at this time. There is a further limitation on size and weight of parcels going through the mail, according to this new bill. Mr. CRAWFORD. With the amend- ment that is to be proposed? Mr. HAGEN. I understand someone will propose an amendment to reduce that Hmitation so that the limitations will not be as great as the bill proposes. Mr. CRAWFORD. I want to be sure on this because we are going to vote
1668 on this. Does the chairman’s amend- ment bring this bill in conformance with present law as to size and weight of parcel post? Mr. HAGEN. The chairman will have to answer that himself. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. My amendment would provide that the pres- ent weight and the present size shall continue to apply to all parcels addressed to or from any rural route anywhere. Mr. CRAWFORD. That is the ques- tion I am raising. So the gentleman’s amendment will bring this bill in con- formance with present law. Mr. HAGEN. I am sorry, I cannot yield any further, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, all segments of Ameri- can life are opposed to this bill, business- men, farmers, union labor, and the gen- eral public. If you vote for a bill of this kind, you will be voting against the best interest and the welfare of the American people. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gen- tleman from California (Mr. MILLER]. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. FORD. Can the gentleman tell me if the Hoover Commission recom- mends certain rate increases? Mr. MILLER of Californie. The Hoover Commission as such does not recommend specific increases in postal rates. However, since the gentleman has asked the question, let me answer one of the arguments that has been made here in connection with the Hoover re- port, in answer to this argument that the bill should be recommitted. The Hoover Task Force Report, appendix 1, on page 29, states: Until it is in position to prove what rea- sonable costs of its services are, the Depart- ment's rate recommendations to Congress cannot carry proper weight. When it is in this position the Department should have a strong voice in the determination of its rates. I yield to Now, get the next language: In the meantime, however, necessary re- visions of rates should not be postponed. If the gentleman will read the report of the committee he will find the same thought restated in another way. We spent a great deal of time, for this is a complex problem, and we are asking for a minimum increase at this time, only $15,000.000, in second class, a total of $131,000,000 against a deficit of $500,000,- 000. But the committee in its report recommends that immediately after the adoption of this bill it should start re- studying this question in order to bring in new rate recommendations to bring them up to a proper standard. Mr. FORD. The Hoover Commission did not make any specific recommenda- tions for rate increases of one sort or another? Mr. MILLER of California. No; the Hoover Commission made no such specific recommendations. The Hoover Commission did not make recommenda- tions as to dollars and cents. It leaves that in the hands of Congress. May I say to my friends on the right that this is the administration’s bill, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The administration is behind this bill. It wants this bill in order to help cut down the deficit that has grown up in the Post Office Department as the result of creeping subsidies that overwhelm it. I wish to compliment the gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the committee, on the vigorous defense he has made of this bill and the fine ex- planation he gave of it. Of course, I understand why those people who are publishers or who are connected with the publishing industry are concerned about the proposed rates on second- and third-class mail. They have their hands in the public pocket now. They have been bleeding Uncle Sam to the tune of nearly a half billion dollars a year and they do not want to let go of those sub- sidies. If you mean to have economy and you want economy, then here is one opportunity to practice what has been preached. So far as I am concerned, I adopt this philosophy: That where a man uses the postal services for business and for profit, he should pay the cost of that service. There is a twilight zone some place in this whole fleld where the Government should carry part of the load in the interest of dissemination of information. That is important and we recognize it. But where a profit motive enters into it I believe that the man making the profit should pay the cost. Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairmun, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. WIER. One thing about this leg- islation which interests me and is of great concern to me is the fact that in my dis- trict I have a large number of Lutheran, Catholic, and other religious publications which have no other purpose except the dissemination of news. Then, I have the farm organization papers—all threc of them, the Farmers’ Union, the Farm Bu- reau and the Grange. Then we have fraternal organizations, We have three veterans organizations and we have the religious papers. Are the rates going to be increased for religious papers and so forth under the bill H. R. 2945? Mr. MILLER of California. Those pa- pers are not being increased under this bill if they are religious, fraternal, labor, agricultural, or scientific papers and if the profit made does not accrue to any individual. If it goes to a charity, then it is not subject to a raise in rates. Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. HARRIS. What about charitable institutions and nonprofit institutions? Mr. MILLER of California. If they are charitable institutions or if profit does not enter into it, they are excluded. After the conclusion of the hearings on H. R. 2945, which as the chairman has indicated, lasted for a period of 4 months, two subcommittees were appointed to recommend to the committee rates based upon the views as expressed by the mem- bers of the committee and the views re- ceived from the Postmaster General and those who testified at the public hearings. I was named as chairman of the subcom- mittee to consider second- and third- class mail. Our subcommittee had numerous meet- ings before submitting its report to the FEBRUARY 8 full committee. Asa result of these con- ferences, it became apparent that the entire second class rate structure re- quired overhauling. The last complete revision of the second class was made in 1879. Because of the extremely low rates that have been provided for second-class mail through the years, many publishers have revised their publication distribu- tion methods in order to take advantage of this low rate. Examples have been shown the committee of all types of pub- lications that are now going as second class mail—many of these spend more money in obtaining the subscriptions than the cost of all other expenses of publication. This is largely because of the low rate that can be obtained if there is a subscription list as compared to a publication that does not have a sub- scription list. Because we have consistently favored second-class mail rates as compared to other mail rates we have fostered an un- fair competition between those who do have a subscription list and those who do not have one. For example, in the rate bill passed last Congress, you will re~ call that the leadership directed that the second-class mail rates be excluded from the postal rate revision bill before it would be permitted to come before the House. Even the rates in that bill were merely token increases raising second- class mall less than one-tenth of the deficit for that class. At the same time other users of the mail were being called upon to provide $145,000,000 annually in revenue, As for second-class mail, we are not doing much better in this bill. We will ° agree that the rate increases provided here represent a very minimum increase, Many publications will receive no in- creases at all. Publications of religious, educational, philanthropic, fraternal, and so forth, organizations, for cxample, will not recelve any increases unless they happen to be paying less than one- eighth cent per copy, which is approxl- mately one-fiftieth of what they would pay for comparable service on first-class mail. I do not believe they can expect much more of a concession than that, although I notice that the munority views express a concern over this one- eighth-cent minimum. Weekly, semiweekly, and triweekly newspapers having less than 5,000 circu- lation will not receive any increases at all other than the redefinition of free- in-county. Under this definition of free-in-county we are eliminating the free-in-county privilege where there is an actual delivery made to the patron by either a rural carrier or star-route carrier, The way the present free-in- county works out now there 1s no post- age charged for the delivery to a patron on a rural route when that rural route emanates from a post office which does not have city letter carrier service. On the other hand, 1 cent a pound postage is charged for delivering such publica- tions to a patron living on a rural route which happens to come out of a post office where there is city letter carrier service. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER] has expired.
1950 Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman five additional minutes. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that there is no quo- rum present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. {After counting.] One hundred and sixteen Members are present; a quorum. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California, I yield. Mr. KEEFE. In the report and in the statement of the chairman of this com- mittee, the statement is made that the jast fiscal year ended with a deficit of approximately $550,000,000. It is stated that under the terms of this proposed legislation there will accrue additional revenue to the Treasury of about $131,- 715,000. Thus it is anticipated that the deficit may be reduced by that amount. That is what it is hoped. I understand that the gentleman's committee has re- ported to the Congress, and the bill is now pending before the Rules Commit- tee, H. R. 87, which proposes to extend military service credits to the employees of the Postal Department. I have been advised that over a period of time that legislation will impose additional burdens upon the Post Office Department, aggregating some $400,000,000 at its peak. I ask the gentleman whether or not his full committee gave considera- tion to the possible impact of that legis- lation upon the efforts which are being made in this bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit in the Post Office De- partment. Mr. MILLER of California. First, let me say to the gentleman and that as far as the pay and remuneration of the postal employees is concerned, it is im- possible to tle them into the postal deficit because neither the Post Office Depart- ment nor anyone else has any control over them. The Congress of the United States is the one that fixes both rates of service and rates of pay. We cannot say to a man that he has got to work for a substandard wage because the Congress has not the courage to wipe out the postal deficit. It is our responsibility to fix salaries and postal rates. The esti- mate of the cost of H.R. 87 that he uses— $400,000,00@—is questionable. Some of us figure from other sources that the cost of the bill would be about $22,000,- 000 a year over about a 10-year period. Mr. KEEFE. I am interested to ask this question because the gentleman stated that this particular bili was an administration bill supported by the administration. Is H. R. 87 in that same category? And Js it an administration bill as far as the gentleman knows? Mr. MILLER of California. As far as I know I have never seen a favorable re- port from the administration on the bill H.R. 87. It is a bil] which was reported hy tire committee. Mr. KEEFE. It is opposed by the Post Office Department. Mr. MILLER of California. It is op- posed by the Post Office Department. I may say to the gentleman from Wiscon- sin that the original bill, the predecessor of this one, called for about $303,009,000 a@ year instead of the small amount of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE $135,060,000 that we are reporting to the House. Mr. KEEFE. It isa mere partial effort to deal with what is a very pressing and important problem. Mr. MILLER of California. Yes. A partial effort, because, as I have said be- fore, many people have predicated their business activities on these low rates that they have enjoyed for a number of years, and it would not be just to pull the carpet out from under them overnight, leaving them greatly embarrassed and harassed in their business. But if the gentleman reads the report he will see that in the report we serve notice on them that after this bill is passed we are immediately going to consider new legislation and then over a period of years we hope to bring these rates up to their proper level without adversely affecting business; we give them a chance to adjust themselves. Mr. KEEFE. I thank the gentleman and ask his indulgence for just one fur- ther question: The chairman of the committee indicated that he intended to offer an amendment to take care of some of the criticism that had been directed toward this bill with respect to the re- ceipt and delivery of parcel post on the farm. Mr. MILLER of California. That 1s right. Mr, KEEF®. amendment? Mr. MILLER of California. That will be offered by the gentleman from Ten- nessee and supported at least on my side of the committee. Mr. KEEFE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MILLER of California. I yield. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. What will be the net effect as far as the budget is concerned of the bills reported from this committee in this Congress on the one hand raising postal salaries or increasing compensation, and on the other hand bills increasing revenue; what will be the net balance? Mr. MILLER of California. If we pass this bill I presume there will still be a slight minus balance. On the other hand, as we go forward into the years to come correcting this thing gradually we will wipe that out. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Does the gentleman know what that balance is? Mr. MILLER of California. No; I do not. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from California three additional minutes. Mr. MILLER of California. While there are those who object to this change, pointing out that it will result in some high increases for certain pub- lications if there is such an increase, it only means that we are practically car- rying their entire distribution free. In every instance today where city letter carrier service is established for the first time, the same change takes place that we are providing in this bill as far as the postage bill of the newspaper is con- cerned. In a town or city where there is no city letter carrier service, the pub- Is that a committee 1669 fisher finds that when that service is established he then has to pay 1 cent a pound for the delivery of his publication on rural routes where previously he did not pay anything. You will find that the newspapers and magazines take the position that if there is a subsidy to second-class mail because of the low rates, it is a subsidy to the subscriber and not to the publisher. I do not know of one single publication thai selis their newspapers cheaper to the man living on the rural route, which is presently delivered free-in-county than he does to the man living on the rural route where he has to pay a cent @ pound. Incidentally, the average four- page newspaper weighs 2 ounces. If there is a substantial increase to any particular publisher, as I have said, it only means that we are now carrying a@ large number of his copies free. Look- ing it over from the standpoint of indi- vidual copies, the increased cost per copy will be one-eighth cent. If it is the small newspaper that they apparently like to talk about. This means that on the weekly newspapers, the annual increase will be 7 cents. That means that the reader on the rural route will still re- ceive delivery to his mail box of 52 is- sues for 7 cents, which is a pretty rea- sonable rate considering the service per- formed. Most of the increases provided in the bill are in the zone rates. These zone rates apply only to the advertising por- tion and, in a sense, should be based largely on an ability to pay. The com- mittee, in making the recommendations for second-class mail, wanted to be cer- tain that there would not be such a bur- den on any publication that they would be forced out of business. These rate increases represent on the average an increase of 8344 percent over the present rates paid. The other ex- penses of the publishers have certainly been increased to a much greater degree and did not affect their discontinuance of publications. As a matter of fact, we are in an ali time high with respect to the volume of second-class mail. Pub- lishers have increased the newstand and subscription prices of their publications @ number of times. Again, this has not reduced their circulation. The Satur- day Evening Post, for example, was tra- ditionally a nickel but today it is 15 cents on the newsstand, or an increase of 800 percent. The same is true of Collier’s and many other popular maga- gines. Certainly the rate of increase of 33% percent is pretty small compared to the 300 percent of selling-price increase. I believe it is fair to point out as well that the postal service not only helps the publishers from the standpoint of second-class rates but, as you have ob- served in your mail, that most publishers have gone to third-class mail and other losing services aS a means of promoting the sale of additional subscriptions for second-class mail. In fact, one publisher stated that their postage bill for second- class mail was $377,000 a year, while their postage bill for third-class mail was $1,- 250,000 a year. So you can see that we are not only subsidizing the publishing industry by low second-class rates but they are also getting a pretty substantial
1670 subsidy from the losses of the Depart- ment in handling other classes of mail. Many are of the view that a higher postal rate may mean a loss of jobs. It may well be pointed out that this low third-class rate has cost the job of many a salesman because business now prefers to use this subsidized service rather than pay the salesmen’s commission. The rates recommended in H. R. 2945 for second-class mail follow the tradi- tional pattern of existing rates. The minority views that have been filed have criticized these rates from the stand- point that there are more increases to some users of second-class mail percent- age-wise than to others. The reason for this apparent discrimination is largely because of concessions in rates to special groups which were insisted upon by the very people who are now criticizing the rate structure recom- mended. For example, there are no in- creases provided for publications of reli- gious, fraternal, education, philan- thropic, and so forth, organizations. There are no increases provided for the small weekly and daily newspapers. There are no increases provided for pub- lications within the county of publica- tion. I think that with these concessions it is bound to cast the heavier burden on publications sent to subscribers out- side the county of publication and on the advertising portion. While it is true that publications that find it necessary to use the mail nearly 100 percent for distribution will receive a greater increase in their over-all costs, it should be pointed out that these very same publications are actually receiv- ing a much greater contribution toward their costs than the others, since we are charging less than 25 percent of the cost of handling second-class mail. They will still be receiving a much greater propor- tional share of the $175,000,000 deficit in second-class mail. There are those who say that the cost ascertainment is not properly set up for rate-making purposes, I believe this bill recognizes that almost to a fault. If cost ascertainment were recognized as a means for setting these second-class rates, we would be coming before the House today with rates that would raise $175,000,000 a year instead of $15,000,000 a@ year. I might also say, that the rates we are recommending as a committee repre- sent a tremendous difference from the rates recommended by the Postmaster General. Under the rates recommended by the Postmaster General, there would have been a rate increase in second-class rates of $75,000,000 the first year and $50,000,000 the second year, making a total of $125,000,000 a year. We are raising, in this bill, only $15,000,000, or just a little more than 10 percent of what the Postmaster General felt should be raised from the second-class mail. We have not had an unrealistic ap- proach to the problems of the publisher nor have we been unsympathetic to the American reading public. We recognize the tremendous contributions of the pub- lishing industry. We want to keep it strong and we want it to continue as a major force in our economy. But, as so many publishers have often said in their CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE editorials, we cannot expect a strong publishing industry nor o free press if they are going to have to rely almost entirely upon a Federal subsidy for their existence. For example, the subsidy paid to second-class mailers is more than losses experienced under agricultural price-support programs in 1949—$170,- 000,000. Yet, columns and columns of newsprint have been spent deploring the cost of that program. In conclusion, I would like to state again that these rates are completely fair. I have talked to many individual publishers, particularly to publishers of small newspapers, and when the rates in this bill had been explained to them, they were satisfied. I have found, how- ever, that the people who form the na- tional policies for them with respect to lobbying against any increases whatso- ever, prefer to keep them in the dark with respect to the big concessions made in the committee recommendations as compared to the recommendations of the Postmaster General. Many of them are still talking about the 400-percent and 600-percent increases which would have resulted from the Postmaster General's recommendations when realistically, of course, the increases in H. R. 2945 are slightly more than 30 percent. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, there has been some in- quiry as to whether the administration favors this bill. The President has sent repeated messages in favor of increased rates. The Postmaster General has told me that he is for this bill. The admin- istration not only thinks this is a good bill but is in favor also of raising further revenues from our postal business. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentle- man from New York [Mr, K1LBurn]. Mr. KILBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the Post Office Depart- ment get on a sound basis so that its in- come will equal its expense. I feel that advertisers using the mails should cer- tainly pay their full share of the cost, also magazines and other classifications. The only exception, in my opinion, is the small-town newspapers and this par- ticular class of postal users it seems to me ure in an entirely different category than the others. The postal expense to a small country newspaper is one of their largest items. They have no large com- plicated system of distribution as the big city newspapers and magazines have. They do not use trucks to deliver to wholesale distributors who in turn use their trucks to deliver to the news stands. These small newspapers have to depend almost entirely on mail. Most of them have little working capital and a raise in their postal rates would put many of them out of business automatically. On the other side of the ledger, they contribute, in my opinion, more to the welfare of the country in proportion to their use of the mails than any other segment of our whole business structure. If this bill in its final form exempts country newspapers so that they do not get any raise in their postal rates I will then vote for it and will, of course, sup- Mr. FEBRUARY 8 port any amendment to that effect. If, however, the bill as presented comes to a final vote with that provision affecting small newspapers still in it I will vote to recommit and if that fails vote against the bill. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Gavin]. Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Chairman, this bill, H. R. 2945, is entitled “A bill to readjust postal rates” But we cannot act on it intelligently without knowing what its objectives are and whether and how well they will be accomplished. The gentleman from California admits the bill has been emasculated beyond recognition from the original bill. It is claimed that the bill has two primary purposes. The first is to pass on to users of the mails a larger part of the cost of handling the mail, Presum- ably it is intended that this would be done in a fair and equitable manner. The second purpose is to increase the revenues of the Post Office Department for the declared objective of offsetting a part of its current deficit. But let us see whether this bill will actually fulfill either one of these intended purposes. One of the principal features of this bill is the increase in the third-class rates. It increases the third-class bulk rate from a minimum of 1 cent per piece to a minimum of 1% cents per piece. This is a 50-percent increase. The ma- jority report says that it is a mild and reasonable increase. But it is not mild and it is not reasonable. From the standpoint of users of the mails such an increase is devastating and destructive of their business. Third-class bulk mail is the small- business man’s chief selling and adver- tising tool. It is the only medium open to him by which he can do business with customers in other cities and other States. It 1s one of the very keystones of the free-enterprise system by which anyone, even if he has but a few dollars capital, can found a business or expand a business already established. Thou- sands of businesses have been started in this country since the 1-cent third- class bulk rate was established, busi- nesses which, in many cases, have used no other means of securing orders. Most of them started as a l-man or jJ-woman business selling some wanted article or service by third-class 1-cent mail. Many such businesses have grown to the point where they employ hun- @reds of workers, use the services of an untold number of printers, paper and envelope makers, manufacturers of all kinds of merchandise, suppliers of all kinds of materials and services. Are you going to tell all these people that now they can do something else for a living? That they can lay off their employees, cancel their orders with their far-flung suppliers, close their doors, and quit? Are you going to tax them out of business by suddenly jump- ing the cost of their major sales source by a ruinous, prohibitive 50 percent. Are you going to say to the young men and young women of today and tomor- row who want to start like businesses of their own that the road is blocked, that such opportunities no longer exist for
1950 them? Are you going to tell the thou- sands of manufacturers and suppliers who serve these little businesses that you do not care what happens to them or to their employees whose jobs this bill would destroy, because the Post Office Department wants to increase the third- class bulk rate minimum a full 50 per- cent from 1 cent to 144 cents per piece, regardless of the impact on them and on the whole national economy? Unless you have had occasion to make a special study of postage rates and their effect on users of the mails, you may not know what users of third-class bulk mail are required, by the very nature of their business, also to be large users of both first-class and fourth-class mail. This is true because the orders produced by their third-class circulars are re- ceived by first-class mail on business re- ply postcards or envelopes, the postage for which is paid by the seller. These same orders are then, in turn shipped to the purchasers by fourth-class mail— parcel post—and this postage is usually prepaid by the same third-class adver- tiser. Thus, when you increase post- card rates you are automatically increas- ing the postage costs of third-class mail users, and the same thing is true when you increase parcel-post rates. Third- Class mail users are actually the source of a tremendous volume of both first- class and fourth-class mail. I understand and I believe Iam correct when I say the Eightieth Congress in- creased parcel-post rates by 28 percent, which became effective only last year— in 1949. A large share of that increase was and is being borne by third-class mail users. Now, this bill would pile on another 12-percent increase in parcel- post rates, in addition to doubling the postcard rate, and in addition to a huge 50-percent increase in the third-class bulk rate itself. Third-class mail users would be expected to pay all three of these increases—one on top of the other. In many cases this accumulated pile-up of postage increases could amount to more than the total earnings of third- class users, and in many other cases third-class mail users would have no other course left but to close up shop. Mr. Chairman, if this bill is enacted as written and the proposed third-class rates go into effect, every Member of this House can expect to hear from the people back home who will be hit hard by its effects. You will not hear just from big business or medium-sized business or small business, though you will find them all well represented. You will also hear from millions of plain people in all walks of life—in all sections of the country. They are people who, though they may not fully realize it now, will soon wake up to the fact that they have jobs that depend on 1-cent third-class mail. This bill, which some of you may think js aimed only at those who use the mails for business purposes, let me say, concerns all Americans. Its effect will reach into every home and every business in the Nation. If for no other reason than the unfair- ness of it, this bill should be returned to the committee for further study. Does any single Member of this House really CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE believe that this is an equitable bill? Can any Member back up the assertion that there is even a vestige of fairness in it? Let us look at the facts. The brunt of the increases proposed by this bill would be borne by the third- class mail users. This bill proposes to exact another $23,600,000 in postage revenue from users of third-class mail. This is over 23% percent of the deficit which the Post Office Department says is chargeable to third-class mail. Is that fair? Is that an equitable dis- tribution of the postal deficit among all the users of the mails? You know as well as I do that it is not. This bill would saddle the greatest burden of postage increases directly on the backs of third-class mail users—the people who use the mails to produce business, to make jobs, to meet pay rolls, and pay taxes into the Federal Treasury. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill as now written, in my opinion, is a vote against the best interests of all the people. Members of the committee which re- ported the bill may tell us that “This is the best bill we could work out in com- mittee,” but that does not mean that it is an equitable adjustment of postal rates. On the contrary, it is discrimina- tory, and the House ought to reject it entirely. How about the second avowed purpose of the bill? Will it increase the revenues of the Post Office Department? The hard facts are that it. will not pro- duce additional postal revenue that it is expected to produce. It is my opinion it will result in decreased revenue and an even larger postal deficit. That would be inevitable, if this bill were passed, be- cause the proposed increases would make postal rates unjustifiably excessive. The 50-percent boost in the third-class, single-piece rate is especially unreason- able. These new rates are so excessive that mail users will be forced to cut down their use of the mails and mail volume will drop off sharply. This is not mere idle speculation. I understand it has happened before when postage rates were raised too high, in 1917 and again in 1925, and it will happen again in 1950 if this bill is passed. It is up to you to answer that question by the way you vote on this bill. Every Member who has looked carefully into this question of postal rates knows that this bill will not result in a fair and equitable distribution of the postal deficit, but will both add to the deficit and place the heavy burden of exorbitant increases on those least able to bear it. It will not be a move toward Govern- ment economy, but in my opinion will cost the Government many millions in lost revenues from postage and taxes. It is unthinkable that this bill should be passed in its present form. It should be recommitted for further study by the committee, Serious thought needs to be given to the economic repercussions which would surely follow excessive and unreasonable rate increases, and the present bill's glaring inequities and dis- crimination against third-class mail ‘users must certainly be eliminated. I urge my colleagues to vote to recommit this bill or defeat it. 1671 Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gen- tleman from Missouri [Mr. Karst]. Mr, KARST, Mr. Chairman, I served as a member of a subcommittee which made the recommendations for increases in third-class mail rates. The major increase in third-class mail is the increase in the minimum rate for bulk mailings from the present rate of 1 cent to 1% cents. This same iacrease applies to catalogs of 24 pages or more. There are no increases in the regular third-class mail rate. You will recall that regular third-class mail was in- creased by Public Law 900, Eightieth Congress. There will be no increase un- der this bill for the sending of seeds, bulbs, scions, and so forth. As I have stated, this increase is com- paratively simple to understand from the standpoint of the rate change. I would like to just briefly summarize some of the objections to the bill and present the committee’s views. Those who are ob- jecting to the bill state that some third- class mailers will be receiving an in- crease of 50 percent while others, those using the pound rate on bulk mailings, will receive a reduction. The chairman has already indicated that he will offer an amendment which will leave the pound rate at the present rate and not result in a reduction. I might say that we used as a pattern the Senate bill reported by the Senate sub- committee at the time we were consider- ing this bill because we believed the House recommendations should be some- what in harmony with those made by the Senate. As the Senate subcommittee recommended it, the 2 cents reduction in the pound rate was an oversight. Leaving the rate as it is in the bill will be consistent with not decreasing any rates in a general rate increase bil! and will remove the objection that has been voiced that while some are receiving in- creases in third class, others are receiv- ing decreases. Third-class mailers say that the cost ascertainment system does not properly show the deferred service given to third- class mail or service performed by third- class mailers. While this may be true, as far as the cost ascertainment is con- cerned, we have not used cost ascertain- ment as a hard and fast guide for set- ting these rates. If we had, we would have adopted the Postmaster General’s recommendations which would have eliminated any concessions to bulk mail- ers. When compared with the first-class letter rate of 3 cents, under the rate Tec- ommended of 1% cents, we will be allow- ing a 50-percent reduction to third-class mailers to cover the service performed by them as well as deferred service. Third-class mailers state that we should recognize bulk mailings as a byproduct and charge less for handling them. Again, this rate, which ts one-half of the first-class rate, represents a byproduct rate. In my opinion, the committee's recom- mendations have given substantial rec- ognition to business and other organiza- tions using the third-class bulk mailing privilege. Some few have stated that there will be a reduction in mailings if these increases go into effect. Looking
1672 back into experience, we can Point out that this was not the case when all other segments of third class were raised last Congress. It should be remembered that the users of the l-cent minimum rate, along with the users of second class, did not receive any increases in the $145,- 000,000 increases given mailers in Public Law 900, Eightieth Congress. These in- creases, of course, became effective on January 1, 1949. May I emphasize the committee has not been without concern to the implica- tion of postal rates on our business econ- omy and it is because of that concern that we have recommended a bill so dras- tically modified from the rccommenda- tions of the Postmaster General. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. REEsS). Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. REES. I would like to yield to the gentleman, but as ranking member of the committee on my side of the House I have been allowed only 5 minutes to try to discuss a very long and important piece of legislation. Mr. WIER. But there is one phase here that has not been touched upon to which 7 would like to get an answer. Mr. REES. I yield to the gentleman briefly for a question. Mr. WIER. That is in the cost of the operation of the mail service. We are talking about increasing the rates and we are talking about wages yet to come. But nothing has been said here of any attempt of the Post Office Department to save some money from the tremendous amounts that are spent in the way of subsidies to the Air Force and to rail companies and steamship companies. Has any review been made of the cost in the respects which I have mentioned? Mr. REES. I must say to the gentle- man that that is a separate matter from what we are considering here, but con- sideration has been given to those ques- tions by our committee. We agree there have been subsidies and increased sub- sidies because of increased costs. ‘That is what we are doing here today. We have an increased cost for carrying this mail. That is what you have. That is what you are talking about. Are you willing to go along and let these individ- uals and these groups who use the mail for business purposes pay a part of that increased cost, or do you want to go ahead and charge it to the taxpayers and to the Treasury. Of course, after all this is a service rendered to the people. I agree to that. But how far, how much service do you want to render free? That is the question as I see it. I want to briefly call your attention to just a few things. The administration bill did ask for $395,000,000. That wastoomuch, Iopposedit. This bill is for $130,000,000 or less. I just cannot see how Members of the House who are advocating economy and who say we want to save here and insist on reducing appropriations would turn this legisla- tion down. If you look it over as care- fully as you ought to look it over, most of you who are going to vote against it are going to vote against it because some particular group or some person has told CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE you not to support it. I agree with you that it is a great deal easier to vote against this bill than it is to vote for it. But let us stand up and do what we re- gard the right thing by the people of this country. If it is right, let us vote for it, and if it is wrong, then, of course, turn it down. That is our privilege. It has been said on the floor of the House that business concerns would lose business because of this legislation. Not at all. If I thought anyone would be injured I would not support this bill. There were some increases in the last Congress, the EHightieth Congress; there were little increases, but there was not any business lost through the mail. But these people who use the mail have in- creased their own costs. They are pay- ing more in salaries. They are paying more for materials. They charge more for advertising and they charge more for subscriptions. They ought to be willing to go along and pay a part of this in- creased cost. This bill does not require them to pay nearly all of it. This is only asmall part of the increased cost of the postal service. As someone has sug- gested, the over-all increase on this thing is between 6 percent or 7 percent. The original recommendation, as I said a moment ago, was something over $400,000,000. This provides for only a small part of that amount. Someone said that there would be so much dis- ruption. There were some increases in 1945 and 1947 and 1948, but there was no disruption and there will be none under this proposed legislation. It has been said that there has not been a great flock of people who came before our committee to insist on rate increases. This House supported and I supported and worked for an increase for postal employees, which, of course, increases the cost of government. I think it is the experience of most of our committees that they are not crowded with people demanding legisla- tion that might save costs to the people of this country. I feel that if the mem- bership of this House does not approve the legislation they are not in such good shape to demand economies and savings. I realize this item is only $130,000,000; but if we can save that much for the tax- payers without injury to anyone, it seems to me we ought to do it. I realize, too, the administration is asking for $400,- 000,000. I do not go along with that proposal. I think it is too much. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas has expired. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman one additional minute. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman one additional minute. Mr. REES. There is a great deal be- ing said about the minority report, and that there were not proper hearings held on this particular bill. For 3 months hearings were held on this bill that was submitted to our committee. Then the bill was submitted to a subcommittee to write up a bill. They brought in a much more moderate bill than the one that was before us in the first place. Fur- thermore, those of us who are concerned about patrons who are getting their parcels on rural mail routes will be in- FEBRUARY 8 terested to know that the distinguished chairman of our committee at the proper time will submit an amendment that will take care of this. I am in favor of the amendment. I do not want to increase costs against anybody any more than you do, but I think what is fair is fair and what is right isright. I think you ought to read this bill. It has been before you a long time. You have had a chance to study it. I regret that we do not have a rule, but, nevertheless, it is here under rules of the House, and it is my judgment that you should support it. Something was said about those who do support the measure. I do not have time to read this entire list of names, but I will submit it for the Recorp: Marion B. Folsom, treasurer and director, Eastman Kodak Co. Beardsley Ruml, committee. John D. Biggers, president, Libbey-Owens- Ford Glass Co. Philip L. Graham, president and publisher, the Washington Post Ernest Kansler, chairman of the board, Universal CIT Crodit Corp. Fred Lazarus, Jr., president, Federated De- partment Stores, Inc. J. Cameron Thomson, chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary and Fiscal Policy and president of the Northwest Bancorpora- tion. James F Brownlees, member of the com- mittee. W. L. Clayton, chairman of the board, An- derson, Clayton & Co. S. Sloan Colt, president, Bankers Trust Co. Gardner Cowles, president and publisher, Des Moines Register and Tribune. Chester C. Davis, president, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Clarence Francis, chairman of the board, General Foods Corp. John M. Hancock, partner, Lehman Bros. George L. Harrison, chairman of the board, New York Life Insurance Co. Robert Heller, president, Robert Heller & Associates, Inc. Jay C. Hormel, chairman of the board, George A. Hormel & Co. Amory Houghton, chairman of the board, Corning Glass Works. Eric Johnston, president, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. Meyer Kestnbaum, president, Hart, Schaff- ner & Marx. Robert A. Lovett, partner, Brown Bros., Harriman & Co. Fowler McCormick, chairman of the board, International Harvester Co. W. A. Patterson, president, United Air Lines. Philip D. Reed, chairman of the board, General Electric Co. Harry Scherman, president, Book of the Month Club. H. Christian Sonne, president, Amsinck, Sonne & Co. W. Walter Williams, CED, chairman and president of Continental, Inc. Theodore C. Yntema, vice president in charge of finance, Ford Motor Co. Mr. Chairman, I have no personal feeling with regard to this bili, I want to do the thing that is just and right, and perform my duty as I see it. Asa member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, I have attended all hearings and have spent a great deal of time and energy in desling with this problem. I am giving you my personal opinion only when I tell you that I be- lieve in the interests of the people of vice chairman of the
1950 this country this legislation should be supported. I do not believe that those who use the mail for business purposes really want the Government to subsidize their business. This will give them an oppor- tunity to pay a small share of that sub- sidy but not nearly all of it. I should add one thing more. It has been suggested the Hoover plan should be studied first. Iam certainly in favor of studying the Hoover plan, but that does not deal with mail rates. If it is approved, I think the maximum amount would be $140,000,000. ‘You can see there would still be a considerable amount that would have to come from the Treasury. I agree with those who say the Post Office Department is a service agency, but I do think that those who use the service for profit should want to pay a part of the increased costs. The rate increases in this bill will not even pay for the costs of the postal em- ployees salary increase passed during the last session and which is presently in effect. Nobody likes to raise postal rates or raise taxes. We have all talked a great deal about taking off certain obnoxious taxes placed on business during the war. In my judgment, we are dealing with a problem right now that will have an effect on whether we shall be successful in eliminating these taxes. I believe that people would prefer to pay the proper postage for the services they receive from the Post Office Department than to be paying wartime excise taxes. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Penn- sylvania (Mr, Davenport]. Mr. DAVENPORT. Mr. Chairman, yesterday’s editions of the Washington Star carried a story setting forth the de- tails of a transaction under which the Department of Agriculture hired an air- plane at $450 per hour to distribute grass- hopper bait. Now I do not doubt that grasshoppers are a menace in certain parts of the country and may even call for such heroic measures. At the same time I consider them far less a threat to the general welfare of this Nation than the kind of thinking which permits us to condone the pay- ment of $450 per hour in a local war against grasshoppers when we are con- sidering a discriminatory increase in postal rates under H. R, 2945—a measure which would be against the public in- terest. Mr. Chairman, as a newspaperman of many years’ experience, I rise to tell you that this increase in the second-class mail rates will seriously affect newspa- pers, both large and small. I consider the Post Office Department our most important branch of the Gov- ernment. I do aot believe that its mem- bers are overpaid. There is no one who can find fault with the service which it renders to the Nation, yet we are con- stantly hearing demands for pay-as- you-go operation by the Post Office De- partment, when an honest analysis of the budget would show that a large por- tion of the post-office costs should be charged against Government services— mail service and manifold other services CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE to other departments, which also serve the people and are fully supported for that purpose. What is proposed under H. R. 2945, among other cost increases, exactly doubles second-class mailing costs for magazines and many newspapers of gen- eral circulation. It would curtail and restrict the publication service and mail delivery of papers to persons in rural areas, Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DAVENPORT. I yield. Mr. FULTON. I believe the gentleman is correct, that instead of a small in- crease, there is a 48- or 50-percent in- crease in certain second-class mailing privileges, and also a decrease in the ex- tent of coverage generally coming into the rural areas. Mr. DAVENPORT. The _ increase would be particularly burdensome on morning newspapers, which have a large rural circulation and it is going to drive some of the smaller newspapers out of business. Rather, we should be here passing resolution commending its splendid per- formance and memorializing its accom- plishments in all the branches of this Government. None has ever surpassed it in satisfactory stewardship. But I say here that if this bill is passed it is going to affect seriously newspapers both large and small; it is going to cut down their circulation. I rise against this bill; I think we should defeat it. Perhaps we have already forgotten that it was the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt who had enacted the pres- ent low-cost book rate so that reading matter and knowledge would be denied to no one in the United States. Perhaps we forget that magazines and newspapers are a great source of public enlightenment; a democratic privilege which distinguishes us from censor-rid- den Russia. Perhaps the committee has overlooked these and some other considerations which make this bill a measure contrary to pubHc interest. It would rob the people of much education, enjoyment, and convenience to pay a part of the legitimate cost—not so-called deficit— of a department which serves other Gov- ernment departments and the public, and I move that it be recommitted for further study. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wis- consin [Mr. WirTHROWw]. Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Chairman, Iam opposed to this legislation on the ground that it has not been properly considered by the Congress, and on the ground that the Congress has not sufficient informa- tion at hand to consider it as it should be considered and do justice to all con- cerned. First of all I should like to say that the present bill does away with the free- in-county privileges that are granted to newspapers of the type I find in my dis- trict. The mortality rate amongst those weekly newspapers has been very, very high, Their profit margin is very small; as a matter of fact, during the past 10 years, in the Third Congressional Dis- 1673 trict of Wisconsin, more than 35 percent of the rural papers have closed their doors or changed hands. However, whenever the employees of the Post Of- fice Department ask for an increase of wages based upon the cost of living, im- mediately the terrible deficit is brought up as an argument against that increase. Today this rate increase is predicated almost entirely upon the fact that we have a terrible deficit in the Post Office Department. I say this in all respect to the Members of this Congress, but I do not believe there is a man in this Cham- ber who knows exactly what the postal deficit was for 1948. The reason is that the true facts are not reported to the Congress. The Hoover Commission has shown that the annual post-office deficits are mainly due to inefficient, bureaucratic business methods. Dr. Robert L. John- son, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, has said: Adoption of the Hoover Commission rec- ommendations, vigorously executed, can cut the postal deficit by 6250,000,000 a year. The chairman of the committee men- tioned penalty mail and franked mail. This makes up only part of the free serv- ices rendered by the Post Office Depart- ment to other departments of the Gov- ernment and for which they receive no credit at all, and there is no report avail- able to the Congress that will give the true picture as to the services that other departments of the Government receive from the Post Office Department. I do want to make it perfectly clear that I am not arguing against the ren- dering of these services to the other de- partments of government by the Postal Department. I know that most of them are necessary. My criticism is of the method of bookkeeping and the charge of extraordinary annual postal deficits, when in reality the cost should be spread out and charged to the other depart- ments of government which receive the services. The details of the rate in- creases have been discussed by several of my colleagues who are members of the committee. However, I want to add, as forcibly as I can, the warning that there will be terrible impacts if this measure is enacted as it is proposed today. I have at hand a telegram which I wish to be made a part of the Recorp; it is typical of the sincere anxiety being felt by men in legitimate business as to what this measure will do to them: We urge you to vote to recommit bill H. R. 2045 to committee for full intelligent appraisal of post-office finances as recom- mended hy Hoover Commission. Most news- papers favor a fair increase but it is our be- lief that present proposal is discriminatory and excessive and does not allow sufficient time to adjust current mail subscription prices, which in our case have been kept at a low level in spite of incrensed costs of pro- duction. Wr.tiam T. BuacEss, Publisher, La Crosse Tribune, La Crosse, Wis. When I attended school, one of our professors whenever the Post Office De- partment was mentioned, expounded at great length on its accomplishments, the fine services of the Department, its many contributions to the development of our
1674 country. Then he always made clear one thing and that was that the rate structure was merely a means of pre- venting abuses of those services, I am in entire agreement with him. I believe that the Postal Department has done more to develop this great Nation of ours than any other one agency of govern- ment. If we are to subscribe to the theory that the Postal Department should balance its own budget, then in fairness that same yardstick should be used on every other department of our Government. I want to emphasize the fact that there is not one department of our Government at the present time that has a balanced budget. At the proper time I shall attempt to amend the measure now being con- sidered so that those newspapers which are now enjoying the free-in-county privileges will continue to enjoy that privilege. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. (After counting.J One hundred and thirteen Members are present, a quo- rum. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time on this side to the gentleman from Pennsylvania |Mr. CorsetTtT!. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, al- most since the inception of the Post Office Department in this country there has been some controversy and some discussion as to whether or not our post office should be regarded as a business to split even or to make a profit; or should it be considered as a service. When the committee opened hearings on postal rates last January the question was raised as to whether or not this Depart- ment should render a service to the American people and to American busi- ness. It was pointed out repeatedly that we could not intelligently proceed with the business of rate making until we had settled that basic bit of philosophy. But to this day we do not know whether we are trying to run a business or trying to run a service and the Members of this Congress are being asked to vot: on a hastily thrown together rate raise bill without having any basic understanding of what they are doing. Now then, we have heard the discus- sion brought up that because of the postal deficit, therefore we must raise the rates in order to meet that deficit. Well, who knows what the deficit is? As the gen- tleman who preceded me pointed out you have a mess of subsidies in there; you have penalty mail, you have frank mail, you have all kinds of services performed by the people in the Post Office Depart- ment, and we do not know whether the deficit is in the neighborhood of two, three, or five million dollars. But, when they get up here and plead that this is an economy measure, this is the way to save money, goodness knows it is just an easy way to cover up increased inefficiency by levying another tax on American busi- ness and the American public. There has been no plea from this committee or from its leadership to cut down the ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE penses of the Post Office Department which the Hoover Commission recom- mended couid be cut by $140.000,000. No; carry on with the inefficiencies; carry on with an overstaffed pay roll, and then to make up the deficit, whatever 1t is, add some more taxes. We are hearing from all over this country that business is hurt; that busi- ness is suffering. Mark this well, all of the publication business, your printing business, your newspapers, your small business, your mail-order groups, and all the rest have gone along and set up their business programs for a period of years based on what they thought their postage charges would be. We had a parade of businessmen and groups com- ing before us and saying to the commit- tee that if you pass this postal-increase bill they are going out of business These are the people we have to call on for $44,000,000,000 worth of income taxes, if we can squeeze it out of them this year. Now, do we want to destroy their budget arrangements on which they hope to make some profit in order to pay part of their tax? Therefore I say to this com- mittee that if we pass this particular bill we have, in effect, levied a tax to cover up the inefficiencies and the subsidies which the Post Office Department in- dulges in, and therefore I believe this bill should be recommitted. There is another reason that is more important why it should be recommitted, or of equal importance. While we did have hearings at length on the general subject of rate increases on this particu- lar piece of legislation, we not only did not conduct hearings and give people an opportunity to tell us how badly it was going to hurt them, but when the sub- committees were appointed there was an agreement, aftcr the subcommittee that I served on met, that we would meet with the other subcommittees and see if the raises that were agreed on were out of line with the raises that the other sub- committee agreed on. No such hearing was held. We went into executive ses- sion and reported this bill out and, be- lieve me, I am sure that there are mem- bers on the committee not really fa- miliar with the provisions of the legis- lation. Mr. DAVENPORT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. DAVENPORT. I just want to ask one question for clarification. On the point of periodicals, is it not true that there are two types of charitable period- icals, one for profit and one not for profit, and therefore it is true that those nonprofit periodicals are penalized under the bill. Mr. CORBETT. Well, I think the gen- tleman's point is simply this, that where the publication itself is of a charitable nature, while it is profit making, the profits go into a charitable organization. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr, FULTON. Is it not true in quite a few instances that this is an increase in postal rates in various categories of FEBRUARY 8 48, 50, and 60 percent, so it is not a small increase? Mr. CORBETT. It is a very grievous increase which upsets their budgetary plans for the year. I want to say in closing that I believe this committee will be doing the people of America a great favor and will be aiding this committee in its work if it recommits this bill for further consideration and study. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. HEr- LONG]. Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, H. R. 2945. It is not anything new for the Post Office Department to have a deficit. It would really be news if the Post Office Depart- ment was breaking even, or making money, so I do not believe there is any objection to a moderate deficit in the Post Office Department. It is not in- tended that this raise or any raise in postal rates cover the money that is ex- pended by the Post Office Department for air-mail subsidies or for Government mail. Our distinguished chairman has pointed out to you already that the total cost in air-mail subsidies and for Gov- ernment mail is approximately $122,000,- 000. This increase raises the gross rev- enue $131,000,000. We have a deficit of $550.000,000. Add to that deficit the raises we have given to the employees this year in the Postal Reclassification Act. Add to that the raises that will probably be voted under H R 87, if and when it comes up, and you will have the deficit in the Post Office Department reaching astronomical figures. It can easily go over a billion dollars a year if we do not do something about it. You say the answer to that is, let us quit voting these raises, but are you go- ing to do it? If memory serves me cor- rectly, there were only two Members of the House who voted against the postal reclassification bill. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. WHEELER] and the gentleman from Michigan |Mr. Horr- MAN] were the only two who voted against it. So if history repeats itself, we are going to have more pay raises instead of cutting down on them. Mr.CARROLL. It would be very help- ful to those of us who have not yet made up our minds if the gentleman could give us some idea, going back 2 or 3 years, as to what have been the deficits of the Post Office Department. The gentleman says it was $500,000,000 in the last fiscal year. Mr. HERLONG. That was in the fis- cal year 1948. It was $550,000,000. It was about the same in 1949. Mr. CARROLL. What was it in 1946 and 1947, does the gentleman have any idea? Mr. HERLONG. I do not have the figures now. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. If the gentleman will yield, in answer to the question of the gentleman from Colo- rado I may say that in 1946 it was $148,- 000,000; 1947, $263,000,000; 1948, $308,- 000,000; and 1949, $551,000,000. Mr. CARROLL. In other words, in the past 5 years it has progressed from $100,000,000 to $500,000,000, and in view of the pay increases the gentleman says
1950 it may approach nearly a biHion-dollar deficit. Mr. HERLONG. It is entirely possible; yes. Mr. CARROLL. The bill now before this body, as I understood the remarks of the gentleman from California, by the raises you are attempting to effectuate here asks for only approximately $135,- 000,000? Mr. HERLONG. That is right. We have not gone nearly as far as we should have gone. Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HERLONG. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. CORBETT. May I say to the gen- tleman from Colorado that the figures he was given on the deficit are figures of the Department which do not include the amount of money given in subsi- dies, penalty, and franked mail, and other things, so that if the cost ascer- tainment were correct and the charges were allocated where they should be al- located, there would not have bcen any deficit recorded in a number of those years. Mr. CARROLL. I am searching for information Is it not a fact that the deficits of the Post Office Department in the last 5 years have progressed from $100,000,000 to $500,600,000? Mr. CORBETT. The actual recorded deficit which has been made up by ap- propriation has increased and a great part of that increase is an increase in subsidies and in the use of the postal department for other purposes than de- livering the mail. Mr. CARROLL. If the gentleman will yield further, I was very much impressed by the remarks the gentleman from Pennsylvania made on the question of whether or not we are trying to operate this as a business or as a service. Some of us have the opinion that somewhere in between, while we are making this great decision, there ought to be a bal- ancing-off point. That is why I am a little bit surprised that even here we are only meeting it with $135,000,000. Mr, HERLONG. I thank the gentle- man. I cannot yield further at this time. I just want to say that any way you look at this thing, it all adds up to a lot of red ink. Actually there is so much red ink over there in the Post Office De- partment, that I am afraid some people are liable to accuse the Postmaster Gen- eral of being a Communist, because that is what they say every time they hear the word “red.” Seriously this is a situation that we can do something about. Is the Post Office Department a service institution, or is it a business institution? I think that each one of the Members who has spoken on this bill today is correct in saying that it is a service institution. But there is no reason for its being run on other than a business basis. There ig no reason for us to run this deficit up to astronomical figures just because it is a service institution; because if that argument were carried to the extreme, there should be no need to charge any- thing for any of the postal services but just make them all free services to all CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the people. I say it was never intended for some of our classes of mail to ever pay their own way. The law requires that some of them, such as parcel post, pay their own way. Now, as to the cost of handling the different classes of mail, I would not be fair with the Members if I did not admit that there was some crit- icism of the cost-ascertainment system of the Post Office Department in our committee. But let me give you the background on that. The system we use was adopted on February 25, 1925; the Seventy-seventh and the Seventy-eighth Congress each appropriated $50.000 for a further study and revision of the cost- ascertainment system used by the Post Office Department. With that back- ground of effort on the part of the Con- gress and on the part of the Post Office Department to develop a better cost- ascertainment system, I think in all fair- ness we must admit that the cost figures we have arrived at under the system which we have, are at least reasonably accurate. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HERLONG. I yield. Mr. YATES. The gentleman from Pennsylvania made the point that in the event the Hoover Commission recom- mendations were adopted by the Post Office Department some one hundred millions of dollars would be saved through operating efficiencies. Can the gentleman inform us whether, even in the event those operating efficiencies were undertaken by the Post Office De- partment and resulted in that saving, would not the sum total of that caving, plus the amount of increases on these rates still be less than the deficit? Mr. HERLONG. The gentleman is entirely correct. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HERLONG. I yield. Mr. CARROLL. The gentleman from Pennsylvania made a very good observa- tion. I would like to have information from him or from some member of the committee. The question is how much of the subsidies that are given to the air- lines and other groups are now included in the $500,000,000 deficit. Mr. HERLONG. Fifty million dollars & year. Mr. CARROLL. Is that all of the sub- sidy? Mr. HERLONG. That is the air-line subsidy. Mr. CARROLL. How about the other subsidies? Mr. HERLONG. Can the gentleman from California give us a figure on that? Mr. MILLER of California. There are a whole series of subsidies. If you mean direct subsidies to the air lines, it is about $60,000,000 a year. This is the situation. We subsidize the railroads. If a car of fruit is shipped from California east, we pay the freight on the car one way. If a car of mail is shipped from Washing- ton to California and there is no back mail, we pay the backhaul on that car. That is a subsidy. Mr. CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. HERLONG. I yield. 1675 Mr. CARROLL. The reason I ask the question, if the gentleman from Cali- fornia will help me out a little further, is this: How much of the subsidies have increased the deficit? The reason for that is this: If it comes as a result of the subsidies obviously we should not load it on some other group. That is why I askcd the question. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Myr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HERLONG. I yield. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Under the Kelly law passed by the Congress in 1930, the Postmaster General is required to make a report to the Comptroller Gon- eral as to the amount of free mail, franked mail, and of subsidies. A report was made on December 9, 1949, and the total cost of the subsidies is $120,118,000. So, taking that off of the deficit, there is stall $431,000,.000 deficit. Mr. HERLONG. We have heard & great deal of talk about balancing the budget, and we have heard many people say that we must not spend more money than we take in. I plead guilty to hav- ing made that statement and I mean it when I say it. I am one who wants to balance the budget Consistent with that position, I am going to vote for this bill and I urge that you do the same. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired. All time has expired. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, ete.— FIRST-CLASS MAIL Section 1. The rate of postage on postal cards (including the cost of their manuface- ture) and on private mailing or post cards (conforming to the conditions prescribed by the act entitled “An act to amend the postal laws relating to the use of postal cards,” ap- proved Muy 19, 1898 (U S C., title 39, sec. 281)), shall be 2 cents each: Provided, That the rate on each portion of double postal cards issued and sold under the provistons of the act of March 3, 1879 (ch 180, 20 Stat. $62; U 8. C., title 39, sec. 358), shall be 2 cents. With the following committee amend- ment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: “FIRST-CLASS MAIL “SxecTIon 1. (a) The rate of postage on postal cards (including the cost of their manufacture) and on private mailing or post cards (conforming to the conditions pre- scribed by the act entitled ‘An act to amend the postal laws relating to the use of postal cards,’ approved May 19 1898 (U.S C, title 89, Bec 281), shall be 2 cents each: Promded, That the rate on each portion of double postal cards issued and sold under the pro- visions of the act of March 3, 1879 (ch 180, 20 Stat. 362; U. &.C., title 39, sec. 358), shall be 2 cents. “(b) Except as provided in subsection (a), the rate of postage on mail matter of the first class when mailed for local delivery, at post offices where free delivery by carrier is not established, and when the matter is not collected or delivered by rural or star route carriers, shall be 2 cents for each ounce or fraction thereof. “SECOND-CLASS MAIL “Sec. 2. (a) In the case of publications entered as second-class matter (including sample copies to the extent of 10 percent of the weight of copies mailed to subscribers
1676 during the calendar year) when mailed by the publisher thereof from the post office of publication and entry or other post office where such entry is authorized, or when mailed by news agents (registered as such under regulations prescribed by the Post- master General) to actual subscribers there- to or to other news agents for the purpose of sale, the rates of postage per pound or fraction thereof computed on the bulk weight of each mailing and based on the eight postal zones established for fourth-class matter (act of August 24, 1912, U. 8. C., title 39, sec. 292), except as otherwise herein provided, shall be as follows’ “(1) The rate of postage on that portion of any such publication devoted to matter other than advertisements shall be 2 cents per pound, or fraction thereof. “(2) On that portion of any such publica- tion devoted to advertisements the rates per pound or fraction thereof for delivery within the eight postal zones established for fourth- class matter shall be as follows: “For the first and second zones, 24, cents. “For the third zone, 314 cents. “For the fourth zone, 4, cents. “Ror the fifth zone, 514 cents. “For the sixth zone, 64, cents, “For the seventh zone, 8 cents. “For the eighth zone, 10 cents. Provided, That publications having over 75 percent advertising 1n more than one-half of their issues during any 12 months’ period shall not be accepted for mailing as second- class matter and thetr entry shall be revoked. “(3) The rate of postage on publications in which the space devoted to advertising does not exceed 5 percent of the total space shall be 2 cents per pound. “(4) The rate of postage on publications maintained by and in the interests of reli- gious, educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, labor, or fraternal organizations or associations, not organized for profit and none of the net income of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or in- dividual, shall be 1% cents per pound or fraction thereof when mailed for delivery outside the country where published and en- tered as second-class matter, and the pub- lisher of any such publication, before being entitled to such rate, shall furnish to the Postmaster General, at such times and under such conditions as the Postmaster General may prescribe, satisfactory evidence that none of the net income of such organization or association inures to the benefit of any pri- vate stockholder or individual. “(5) That in the case of weekly or semi- weekly newspapers having a total circulation of not exceeding 5,000 copies and daily news- papers having a total circulation of not ex- ceeding 10,000 copies, the rates of postage shall be the same as authorized by existing law, when mailed for delivery outside the county where published and entered as second-class matter “The term ‘newspaper’ as used herein shall include publications issued weekly or more frequently and having the characteristics of publications commonly recognized and re- ferred to as ‘newspapers’ and which are cir- culated in the main locally or within a county, State, or corresponding area, and the con- tents of which publications shall consist in the main of current news, editorials, articles, and items of current interest to the general public and shall not be devoted to a particu- lar trade, industry, occupation, or profession. “(6) The free-in-county mailing privilege and the rates of postage on copies of pub- lications of the second class when addressed for delivery within the county in which they are published and entered as such shall be the same as authorized by existing law: Pro- vided, however, That no copies shall be ac- cepted free of postage when addressed for delivery by rural or star-route carriers: Pro- vided further, That copies of a publication CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mailed at a post office where it is entered, for delivery by letter carriers at a different post office within the delivery limits of which the headquarters or general business Office of the publisher is located, shall be charge- able with postage at the rate that would be applicable if the copies were mailed at the latter office, unless postage chargeable at the pound rates from the office of mailing is higher, in which case such higher rates shall apply. “(7) In no case, except where the free-in- county matling privilege is applicable, shall the postage on each individually addressed copy be less than one-eighth of 1 cent. “(8) The rate of postage on copies of pub- lications having second-class entry mailed by others than the publishers or authorized news agents, sample copies mailed by the publish- ers in excess of the 10-percent allowance entitled to be sent at the pound rates, and copies matied by the publishers to persons who may not be included in the required legitimate list of subscribers, shall be 2 cents for the first two ounces and 1 cent for each additional two ounces or fraction thereof, except when the postage at the rates pre- scribed for fourth-class matter is lower, in which case the latter rates shall apply, com- puted on each individually addressed copy or package of unaddressed copies, and not on the bulk weight of the copies and packages. “NOTICES TO PUBLISHERS “Src. 8. The charge for the notices re- quired by the act entitled ‘An act making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, and for other purposes,’ ap- proved May 12, 1910, as amended by the act entitled ‘An act to provide a postage charge on notices to publishers regarding undeliv- erable second-class matter,’ approved July 21, 1932 (U. 8S. C., title 39, sec. 277), to be sent to the publishers of publications of the sec- ond class concerning copies of such publica- tions which are undeliverable as addressed shall be 4 cents each. “THIRD-CLASS MAIL “Src 4 The rate of postage on third-class matter shall be 2 cents for the first two ounces or fraction thereof, and 1 cent for each additional ounce or fraction thereof up to and including eight ounces in weight: Provided, That upon payment of a fee of $10 for each calendar year or portion thereof and under such regulations as the Postmaster General may establish for the collection of the lawful revenue and for facilitating the Nandling of such matter in the mails, it shall be lawful to accept for transmission in the mails, separately addressed identical pieces of third-class matter in quantities of not less than 20 pounds, or of not less than 200 pieces, subject to pound rates of postage applicable to the entire bulk mailed at one time: Pro- vided further, That the rate of postage on third-class matter mailed in bulk under the foregoing provision shall be 12 cents for each pound or fraction thereof with a minimum charge per piece of 1, cents, except that in the case of seeds, cuttings, bulbs, roots, scions, and plants the rate shall be 10 cents for each pound or fraction thereof with a minimum charge per piece of 1 cent: And provided further, That pieces or packages of such size or form as to prevent ready facing and tying in bundles and requiring indl- vidual distributing throughout shall be sub- ject to a minimum charge of 3 cents each. “FOURTH CLASS (PARCEL-POBT MAIL) “Sec. 5. (a) On fourth-class matter (not exceeding 72 inches in girth and length com- bined and limit of weight over 8 ounces to 40 pounds in the first and second zones and 20 pounds in the third to eighth zones) the rate of postage except as herein provided for catalogs (limit of weight over 8 ounces up to and including 10 pounds), shell be by the pound as hereinafter provided, the post- FEBRUARY 8 age in all cases to be prepaid by stamps affixed thereto or as otherwise prescribed by the Postmaster General. “(b) The rate of postage on matter of the fourth-class shall be as follows: “(1) On all matter mailed at the post office from which a rural route starts, for delivery on such route, or mailed at any point on such route for delivery at any other point thereon, or at the office from which the route starts, or on any rural route starting there- from, and on all matter mailed at a city- carrier office, or at any point within its de- livery limits, for delivery by carriers from that office, or at any office for loca! delivery, the postage shall be 15 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof, 1 cent for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 40 pounds. “(2) For delivery within the first and second zones, except as provided for in para- graph (1), and except when the distance by the shortest regular mail route from the Office of origin to the office of delivery is 300 miles or more in which case the rate of postage shall be the same as for delivery within the third zone, 16 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof, 2 1/10 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 40 pounds. “(8) For delivery within the third zone, 16 cents for the first pound or fraction there- of, 8 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 20 pounds. “(4) For delivery within the fourth zone, 17 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof, 414 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 20 pounds, “(5) For delivery within the fifth zone, 19 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof, 6 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 20 pounds. “(6) For delivery within the sixth zone, 21 cents for the first pound or fraction there- of, 7% cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 20 pounds. “(7) For delivery within the seventh zone, 23 cents for the first pound or fraction there- of, 914 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 20 pounds. ‘(8) For delivery within the eighth zone, 25 cents for the first pound or fraction there- of, 114% cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof up to and including 20 pounds. “(c) Catalogs and similar printed adver- tising matter in bound form weighing more than 8 ounces but not exceeding 10 pounds shall be subject to postage rates based on the eight parcel-post zones as follows: “(1) When mailed at the post office from which a rural route starts, for delivery on such route, or mailed at any point on such route for delivery at any other point thereon, or at the office from which the route starts, or on any rural route starting therefrom, and when mailed at a city-carrier office, or at any point within its delivery limits, for delivery by carriers from that office, or at any office for local delivery, the postuge shall pe 8 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof and ‘1 cent for each additional pound. “(2) For delivery within the first and sec- ond zones, except ar provided for in para- graph (1), and except when the distance by the shortest regular mail route from the Office of origin to the office of delivery is 300 miles or more in which case the rates of postage shall be the same as for delivery within the third zone, 9 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof and 1% cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof. “(8) For delivery within the third zone, 10 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof and 24 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof.
1950 “(4) For delivery within the fourth zone, 11 cents for the first pound or fraction there- of and 3 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof, “(5) For delivery within the fifth zone, 13 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof und 4 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof. “(6) For delivery within the sixth zone, 14 cents for the first pound or fraction thereof and 6 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof. “(7) For delivery within the seventh zone, 15 cents for the first pound or fraction there- of and 6 cents for each additional pound or fraction thereof. “(8) For delivery within the eighth zone, 16 cents for the first pound or fraction there- of and 7 cents for each additional pound or traction thereof. “SPECIAL DELIVERY “Src. 6. Mail of any class shall be given the most expeditious handling and transporta- tion practicable and immediate delivery at the office of address when, in addition to the regular postage, a special-delivery fee is pre- paid thereon by means of special-delivery stamps or ordinary postage stamps, or in such other manner as the Postmaster General may prescribe, in accordance with the fol- lowing schedule: Matter weighing not more than 2 pounds, if of the first class, 20 cents; if of any other class, 30 cents. Matter weigh- ing more than 2 but not more than 10 pounds, if of the first class, 30 cents; if of any other class, 40 cents. Matter weighing more than 10 pounds, if of the first class, 40 cents; if of any other class, 50 cents. “PposTAL NOTES “Src. 7. Subsection (a) of section 207 of the act entitled ‘An act to provide for per- manent postal rates and to provide pay in- creases for Government employees,’ approved ‘uly 3, 1948 (62 Stat. 1264), is hereby amend- ed by deleting the sentence reading ‘The fee for issuance thereof shall be 8 cents each’ and by inserting 1n lieu thereof a sentence to read as follows: ‘The fee for issuance thereof (postal notes) shall be 10 cents each,’ “NOTICES CONCERNING UNDELIVERABLE THIRD- AND FOURTH-CLASS MATTER “Src. 8, The charge for the notice fur- nished to the sender of ordinary mall of the third and fourth classes, pursuant to regu- lations prescribed by the Postmaster General, when the matter is not deliverable as ad- dressed, shall be 5 cents. “REGISTERED MAIL “Sec. 9. (a) Mail matter shall be registered on the application of the party posting the same. The registry fees, which shall be in addition to the regular postage, and the lim- its of indemnity therefor within the maxi- mum indemnity provided by this subsection, shall be as follows: For articles having no intrinsic value and for which no indemnity is payable, 27 cents; for registry indemnity not exceeding $5, 30 cents; for registry in- demnity exceeding $5 but not exceeding $25, 40 cents; for registry indemnity exceeding $25 but not exceeding $50, 45 cents; for reg- istry indemnity exceeding 850 but not ex- ceeding $75, 65 cents; for registry indemnity exceeding $75 but not exceeding $100, 65 cents; for registry indemnity exceeding $100 but not exceeding $200, 80 cents; for registry indemnity exceeding $200 but not exceeding $300, 95 cents; for registry indemnity exceed- ing $300 but not exceeding $400, $1.10; for registry indemnity exceeding $400 but not exceeding $500, 61.25; for registry indemnity exceeding $500 but not exceeding $600, $1.35; for registry indemnity exceeding $600 but not exceeding $700, $1.45; for registry indemnity exceeding $700 but not exceeding $800, $1.55; for registry indemnity exceeding $800 but not XCVI——106 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE exceeding $900, $1.65; for registry indemnity exceeding 8900 but not exceeding 81,000, $1.75: Provided, That for registered mail hav- ing a declared value in excess of $25 a regis- try fee of not less than 45 cents shall be paid. “(b) For registered mail or insured mail treated as registered mail having a declared value in excess of the maximum indemnity covered by the registry or insurance fee paid there shall be charged additional fees (sur- charges) : Provided, That for registered mat! or insured mail treated as registered mail handled at less than the maximum risk the Postmaster General may fix by rules the rates at less than 100 percent of the declared value in excess of the maximum indemnity covered by the registry or insurance fee paid. The paaitional fees (surcharges) shall be as fol- OWS: “When (a) the declared value, or (b) the amount based on less than 100 percent of the declared value of registered mail or insured mail treated as registered mail handled at less than the maximum risk at the rates fixed by rules prescribed by the Postmaster General exceeds the maximum idemnity cov- ered by the registry or insurance fee paid— “By not more than $50_---.-..---.--.. 2 “By more than $50 but not more than “By more than $100 but not more than $200 _.---. oe eee “By more than 6200 but not more than $400 _... 2 “By more than $400 but not more than $600 __-_-----__----------- ~~ e “By more than 8600 but less than §800__ “By more than $800 but less than 81,000. 10 “If (a) the declared value, or (b) the amount based on less than 100 percent of the declared value of registered mail or insured mail treated as registered mail handled at less than the maximum risk at the rates fixed by rules prescribed by the Postmaster General exceeds the maximum indemnity covered by the registry or insurance fee paid by 61,000 or more, the additional fees for each $1,000 or part of $1,000 on articles destined to points within the several zones applicable to fourth-class matter shall be as follows: ecovdwt Oo ef» 0 Cents “For local delivery or for delivery within the first zone__-__--__-------_-------- 11 “For deliverey within the second zone. 12 “For delivery within the third zone_... 14 “For delivery within the fourth zone... 15 “For delivery within the fifth or sixth ZONES__..-- 2 ne eee nee ne een ee 16 “For delivery within the seventh or eighth zones....----.--..-..-------. 18 “FEES FOR INSURED MAIL “Sec. 10. The fees for insurance, which shall be in addition to the regular postage, and the Mmits of indemnity therefor within the maximum indemnity provided by this section, shall be as follows: 5 cents for indemnification not exceeding $5; 10 cents for inaemnification exceeding $5 but not ex- ceeding $10; 15 cents for indemnification ex- ceeding $10 but not exceeding $25; 20 cents for indemnification exceeding $25 but not exceeding $50; 30 cents for indemnification exceeding 850 but not exceedinr $100; 35 cents for indemnification exceeding $100 but not exceeding $200. “FEES FOR COLLECT-ON-DELIVERY MAIL “Sec. 11. The fees for collect-on-delivery service for sealed domestic mail matter of any class bearing postage at the first-class rate and for domestic third- or fourth-class mail matter shall, in addition to the regular postage and any other required fees, be as follows: 25 cents for collections and indem- nity not exceeding $5; 35 cents for collections and indemnity exceeding $5 but not exceed- ing $10; 40 cents for collections and indem- 1677, nity exceeding $10 but not exceeding $25; 60 cents for collections and indemnity ex- ceeding $25 but not exceeding $50; 60 cents for collections and indemnity exceeding $50 but not exceeding $100; 70 cents for collec- tions and indemnity exceeding $100 but not exceeding $150; and 80 cents for collections and indemnity exceeding $150 but not ex- ceeding $200. “REGISTERED COLLECT-ON-DELIVERY MAIL “Src. 12. (a) The fees for collect-on-deliv- ery service for registered sealed domestic mail of any class bearing postage at the first- class rate shall, in addition to the regular postage and any other required fees, be 65 cents for collections and indemnity not ex- ceeding $10; 85 cents for collections and in- demnity exceeding $10 but not exceeding 850; $1.10 for collections and indemnity exceed- ing $50 but not exceeding $100; and 61.25 for collections and indemnity exceeding $100 but not exceeding $200. The maximum amount of charges collectible on any registered sealed domestic collect-on-delivery article shall be $200. “(b) When indemnity in excess of $200 is desired, the fees for such registered sealed domestic collect-on-delivery mail shall, in addition to the regular postage and any other required fees, be $1.50 for indemnity exceeding $200 but not exceeding $500; 81.90 for indemnity exceeding 8500 but not ex- ceeding $1,000. “CERTIFICATES OF MAILING “SEC. 18. Upon request and payment of a fee of 3 cents for each article described, the sender shall be issued a certificate as evi- dence of the mailing of ordinary mail of any class, or copy of the receipt issued as evi« dence of the mailing of registered, insured, or collect-on-delivery mail: Provided, That the sender shall, upon request and payment of an additional fee of 1 cent for each arti- cle described, be issued copies of certificates for ordinary mail, or additional copies of re- ceipts for registered, insured, or collect-one delivery mail. “Sec. 14. All existing laws or portions thereof, inconsistent or in conflict with this act, are hereby amended or repealed, “SEc. 15. This act shall take effect on the first day of the third calendar month follow- ing the calendar month in which it is en= acted, except the rates herein provided for second-class mail shall take effect on the first day of the second quarter beginning after the approval of this act.” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee (inter- rupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the bill and that it be open to amendment at any point. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ject. I think the Members should read this bill and know what is in it. (The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill.) Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Enowin Agrnur Hay, of New York: On page 1, line 1, strike out the enacting clause. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to get recognition on this bill for some time. I want to deal with some phases of it which I think are worth while and which we should all consider carefully. In the first place we have labored for 5 weeks in this session of the Congress, and there has been nothing but procrastinating tactics indulged in until today. We are
1678 victims of filibuster by points of no quo- rum. Then we are presented with this bill and it is rammed down our throats without an opportunity to consider It. Mr, CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I yield. Mr. CHURCH. Does the gentleman mean including today? Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I have not noticed very many delaying tactics on the floor today. We seem to be pro- ceeding a little too fast. In fact, this measure is being rammed through. Mr. CHURCH. This bill is being rushed through. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I will agree with the gentleman from that standpoint. This bill also includes the doubling of the penny postcard rate and although my statement was met with loud guf- faws on the floor at a time previously when I talked about it, I still feel taking this action is a drastic mistake. The general public ought to be able to send a postcard for a penny instead of being charged two cents. Furthermore, I think the gentleman from Minnesota and his minority group are deserving of the highest praise for their submission of their report which is valuable, indeed, to the consideration of this bill. I, for one, am going to join him and others along with him in vot- ing against this bill because I think it ought to be defeated. I think the penny postcard increase is a stab in the back to the public, but that is only a part of it. The rate on the penny postcard should certainly never be raised to 2 cents by the Congress. The Congress should not permit it. I think that the other proposals in this bill are wrong to a considerable degree. Mr. REES Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I yield. Mr. REES. I assume the gentleman has very carefully read the majority re- port as well as the minority report and that he is quite familiar with all of the Getails. Is that correct? Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. That is correct Mr. REES. With respect to second- Cis. mail, what is the problem there which seems to disturb the gentleman from New York? Let us just have that for the record so that we will know how he feels about it, because I know the House is anxious to know his views with respect to each particular feature of this legislation. Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Since the gentleman has asked me that ques- tion point-blank, I will say that I have been criticized by some newspapers for abusing the franking privileges. I took them to task in answer to that and found that I had sent out in 1949 about a ton and a half of free mail. I observe some of the Members are mirthful. That ton and a half of free mail is the average for a Congressman. We are all in this thing togetier, if you would like to know. I went through the Post Office reports and I found that one of the same news- papers which jumped on me for abusing CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the frankine privilege, shipped 225 tons of free mail in the same period of time. I think the average Member of Congress ought to be able to enjoy a ton and a half as against such a fantastic abuse of free mails. Mr. REES. How does the gentleman feel about the third-class mail? Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. So it seems to me that we have a lot of things to consider in this bill. It seems to me we ought to take our time to carefully consider the raising of these rates and when it comes to doubling the rate on the penny post card and putting it on the shoulders of the general public we ought to stop, look, and listen. Mr. REES. But the gentleman’s mo- tion would strike the entire bill out and that would be the end of it; so far as he is concerned, is that the way he feels about it? Mr. EDWIN *RTHUR HALL. The gentleman recognizes that I have had quite a lot of competition here and I have been trying to be heard on this bill. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. I yield. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. I under- stand the gentleman is not seeking seriously to have his amendment adopted to strike out everything after the enact- ing clause, but he merely wanted to get 5 minutes’ time to speak, is that it? Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. The gentleman is being facetious. I will in- form the gentleman that I am going to vote against his bill. I can tell him that. I can also tell him that in some in- stances his bill does not go far enough. Some of the daily newspapers have de- lighted in harpooning me for using my legal and proper right of franking mes- sages and mail the length and breadth of my district. Much to my amazement, I find these newspapers are using free mail to a much greater extent than I could if I stayed in Congress 50 years. I find that these newspapers in ques- tion overlook this brazen abuse they im- pose upon the taxpayers. How can they have the gall to find fault with a Mem- ber of Congress in the limited amount of franking he does, while they enjoy un- fathomable lHcense to free mafl? This bill, therefore, is not tough enough. There should be twenty times more penalty on these newspapers than is here imposed. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. These newspapers had better soft-pedal trying to put me in wrong with the folks back home for do- ing something they are far more guilty of doing. They are way out on a shaky limb. As for me, you may he sure I am going to town with a real franking program. It is my legal right, and I expect to serve the people of my district just as long as they want me to with a lot of messages, letters, data and answers for their bene- fit and mine. I repeat, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The CHAIRMAN, The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. The question recurs on the preferen- tial motion offered by the gentleman FEBRUARY 8 from New York [Mr. Epwitn Hay). Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be again reported. There being no objection, the Clerk again reported the preferential motion. Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, & parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The will state it. Mr. MICHENER. Was that motion in order, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not have to pass upon that question at this time. The parliamentary inquiry comes at an improper time. Mr. MICHENER. I was just thinking of the precedents. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Epwin ARTHUR Hay. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. HacEn) there were—ayes 23, noes 86. So the motion was rejected. Mr. MURRAY of ‘Tennessec. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which is at the Clerk’s desk. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment to the committee amendment offered by Mr. Murray of Tennessee’ On page 22, line 3, strike out the word “country” and insert in Neu thereof the word ‘‘county.” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. That ts just a correcting amendment, changing the word “country” to ‘‘county.” The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further amendment to the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment to the committee amendment offered by Mr. Murray of Tennessee: On page 22, line 11, strike out the words “weekly or semiweekly” and insert in Neu thereof the following: “weekly, semiweekly, or triweekly.” The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further amendment to the committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Morray of Tennessee to the committee amendment: On page 25, line 12, strike out “12 cents” and insert in lieu thereof “14 cents.” The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. Hacen) there were—ayes 76, noes 21. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. RANKIN. <A quorum fs not neces- sary to vote in the Committee of the Whole and a vote in the Committee of the Whole cannot be forced by a point of no quorum. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Mississippi that the rules require a quorum of a hundred in the Committee of the Whole. ARTHUR gentleman
1950 Mr. RANKIN. But the gentleman ob- jected to the vote on the ground there was no quorum present. Mr. HAGEN. There was not a quo- rum present as disclosed by the an- nouncement of the vote. Mr. RANKIN. It is all right to make a point of no quorum; that is one thing; but to object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present is something else. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. [After counting.] One hundred and sixty-six Members are present, a quorum. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Murray of Tennessee to the committee amendment: Page 26, line 1, insert after the words “eighth zones” a semicolon and the follow- ing: “except that in the case of parcels (1) mailed at any post office or on any rural or star route for delivery at any third- or fourth- class post office or for delivery by any rural or star route carrier, or (2) mailed at any third- or fourth-class post office or on any rural or star route, the limit of size shall be 100 inches of girth and length combined and the limit of weight shall be over 8 ounces to 70 pounds ” Page 26, line 18, and page 27, line 2, strike out the words “up to and including 40 pounds” Page 27, lines 5, 8 and 9, 12, 15 and 16, 19 and 20, and 23 and 24, strike out the words “up to and including 20 pounds” Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment I men- tioned briefly during general debate on this bill. This amendment would con- tinue the present maximum weight of 70 pounds and the present size limit of combined length and girth of 100 inches on all parcels sent to or from a rural delivery route from any office, first, sec- ond, third, or fourth class. This, there- fore, takes care of those residing on rural routes anywhere; and it also provides that the same weight and size limitations shall apply to parcels sent to or from the small post offices, the third- and fourth- class offices. I am sure the Members have received more mail on this one matter than anything else in the bill, and I believe there is no objection to the amendment. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessce. I yield. Mr. DONDERO, Will this in any way change the rate on parcel post? Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Yes. There is a small increase in parcel post. The objection is not to the increase; the objection is to the reduction in the weight and size limit on rural deliveries. Mr. DONDERO. I may say that last year when the Commissioner of Public Buildings came before the Public Works Committee he said that the Post Office Department could operate with its pres- ent physical facilities 1f it was not for the parcel post. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. true. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. That is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Myr. Chairman, I am for this amend- ment and I shall support this bill unless there are some very bad changes made in it. The railroads of this country are con- tinually having to discontinue railroad service, which means that the train cars do not carry tonnage for the post office or for the people generally. So if the trains do not run by reason of a shortage of coal or otherwise, where passenger trains are eliminated as a result of the competition of busses and airplanes, touring cars, and so forth, certainly the express packages will not be delivered to the destination point by rail. There is considerable involved in this whole situation as evidenced by letters we have received from employees of the Railway Express Agency. They take the position that the Congress has been sup- porting a situation where employees of the express agency have to subsidize, through the payment of taxes, tonnage moved through the mails for the accom- modation of farmers and others at less than the handling cost. I can under- stand that kind of an argument very well. I replied to some of my friends who work for the express agency that based upon my limited knowledge of han- dling tonnage over the rails and over land, there 1s no way the express agency can give this service to people who live out in the country. I have a direct case which happened only last week. Driving in from my farm out here I picked up an elderly lady who was walking along the highway with a little fellow about 3 years of age. I asked her where she was going. She said, “I am going to the express office.” She got in the front seat of the car with me and I opened up the conversation. I found she was the mother of 13 chil- dren and that this was the youngest child. This lady lives out beyond Oxon Hill. Her son had sent her an express pack- ave instead of sending 11 by parcel post. She lives 9 miles from the express agency over here back of the Union Station. She has to make an 18-mile trip to get the package. She has no bus service on the road on which she lives; so it is bum a ride or walk to the end of the bus line. The Yellow Bus Co. does not want to serve the people out in that section of Maryland. I use that as an illustration of what can happen all over the United States if we legislate in such a manner that large packages cannot be delivered at the rural delivery box in the farm areas. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of every person paying his direct cost in trans- portation. I do not care whether it is a newspaper publisher or the farmer or the shipper of packages that move through the mail or otherwise. Let them pay those direct costs as best they can be determined. I do not want one group of shippers or one group of people to sub- sidize at a low freight rate or carrying rate a shipment of goods by reason of the rate differential that applies. In other words, if you ship sugar, let us have sugar carry its full traffic cost. If you ship potatoes, let potatoes carry its sharc, 1679 steel carry its share, cotton carry its share, peanuts carry its share, and so on down the line. But do not ship pea- nuts below cost, then make the freight rate so high on some other item that the fellow who ships the other item will sub- sidize the movement of peanuts. Do not ship mail packages at so low a cost that somebody else has to subsidize that cost. That is the point I am making. Here is the situation where, as I un- derstand the chairman, he brings this bill into conformance with present law with respect to the size of the package and the weight of the package, and if that is what this amendment does, I am for it, because I want those people to be able to receive those packages at the rural-delivery box so that they do not have to get into a car and drive 15 miles or 30 miles or perhaps 80 miles round trip in order to get a piece of merchan- dise at the express agency. That would force an over-all cost that would be pro- hibitive. Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to make an inquiry of the chairman of the great Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service. Inasmuch as I have had a great many telegrams and letters from operators of chicken hatcheries in Connecticut complaining about this par- ticular phase of H. R. 2945, I would like to ask the chairman if his amendment would provide for the continuation of the shipment of baby chicks in like con- tainers through the mails as used here- tofore. Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. It would, I will say to the gentleman from Con- necticut. Last week I explained the amendment to the head of the Hatchery Association, and he said he belheved it would take care of their case. Mr. SADLAK. Ithank the gentleman, Mr. COMBS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this op- portunity to say a few words regarding the committee. I had the privilege of serving on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service for 4 ycars, and have a very high regard for the members of that committee. Iam sure they have done a conscientious job in bringing before us a bill to produce some additional revenue that 1s badly needed in the Post Office Department and without doing any harm to the users of the mails or making them pay too much for the service they get. I am strongly in favor of the pending amendment and endorse what the gen- tleman from Michigan said that these people who live in rural areas need the parcel post as is, with its larger packages, to meet a very real need of theirs. But, there is no excuse, there Js no justification for turning the Post Office Department into a freight and express aecncy in competition with the existing private agencies on the basis of subsidiz- ing the shipment of large packages at public expense. It was my privilege, during my service on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to spend a day at Dallas, one of the largest post offices in our section of the country. I went down to the termina! station in the