1950 these troublous times. Yesterday I lis- tened with interest to the able and dis- tinguished chairman of the Armed Serv- ices Committee. He commented on cer- tain past policies of this our Govern- ment. He particularly pointed out our pursuit of the calculated risk. He em- phasized the fact that we needed more calculation and less risk. If one can give credence to the com- ments in the press and on the air one reaches the conclusion that those in high place fear a total mobilization because of the possible impact on the American economy and consequently the recovery effort of all freedom-loving war-torn na- tions.’ Mr. Chairman, we still face a calculated risk. I for one prefer the eco- nomic risk to the military risk. I have full confidence in the will to produce so characteristic of this country. To an extent that will today lies dormant. Action by this Congress is required to give it full expression. Let us go, Mr. Chairman, Are we seriously worrying about an economic impact at the expense of our military security? If so, our economy may well be dictated in the years to come by the men in the Kremlin. Taxes, allocations, price controls, regimentation, rationing, @ 48-hour week—all are unpopular but the people are ready—they are far ahead of us. Again I say: “Let us go.” Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, no person whom I have ever seen has greater distrust and dislike for socialism than I, and certainly I am not going to approve Government com- petition with private enterprise. Gov- ernment with competition is good for good government; I think it is good for good business. I think that the fears of many of the Filipinos and their friends here—and all of us are their friends— are really unfounded. In the time I am taking I want to read two paragraphs from our report, and we are indebted to our able, hard-work- ing staff member, Robert Smart, for this language. JI quote from page 3 of the report: In approving the proposed legislation, the committee wishes to emphasize that it does so on the basis that the legislation is re- quired in the interest of national defense. It is on that peg alone that we hang this bill, and that is the only reason that the Government is justified in spending $35,000,000 as we were justified in spend~ ing $700,000,000 to produce synthetic rubber without depending upon a source many thousands of miles away that could be cut off in time of war. I continue reading from the report: The committee has fully considered the possibility that the Government project in Central America might become unduly com- petitive with Philippine abacé and thereby operate to the detriment of Philippine econ- omy. While there are those who express this fear, the proponents of the bill express the opinion that there will be a ready market for all of the abacé which the Philippines can produce, and that the competitive fea- ture is more fancied than real, The come XCVI——701 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE mittee takes the position that there are so many intangible considerations that no one can accurately forecast the end results of this undertaking. I wish the Members to pay particular attention to the following paragraph: The bill contains certain safeguards which fre calculated to prevent this situation from arising. It authorizes the President to ter- minate any contracts for Central American aback production, allowing only such addi- tional time as is necessary to liquidate the operation. The committee has added an additional safeguard in that it has amended the bill to provide that the Congress, as well as the President, shall have the authority to terminate the contracts, The btll requires that a report be submitted to the Congress at the close of each fiscal year, and it is the intent of the committee that the matter Bhall be followed closely in order to deter- mine at the earliest practicable date any effects which may be unduly detrimental to the Philippine economy, and to take such cor- rective steps as the circumstances may re- quire. So I think if anyone reads the bill, reads the report, really understands the intent of the committee, he can have no reasonable objection to this measure. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michi- gan | Mr. Crawrorpl, Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, in the fall of 1935 I went to the southern part of Mindanao and brought back to Manila the first official record of the back-door intrigue into the Philippines by the Japanese who went in there and settled those great abaca plantations. Since 1935 I have watched the produc- tion and distribution of abacé through- out the world with a great deal of in- terest without one penny of financial in- terest, directly or indirectly, in the busi- ness. During the Eightieth Congress I had the pleasure of introducing and having this great committee approve a bill deal- ing with the question of rubber supply for the United States which was referred to by the gentleman from Missouri { Mr. SHortT] a few minutes ago. That plan, supported by this committee, has saved the consumers of this country literally tens of millions of dollars in the rubber which they have consumed in the last 4 or 5 years. Here is a bill which has to do with the cordage supply. Subparagraph (c) which I hope to strike from the bill with my amendment if I can get the neces- Sary votes, takes the RFC out of the busi- ness of carrying stocks of this stuff and selling it to private industry. If $35,- 000,000 is to be taken from the taxpayers to do this in the name of national de- fense and with our stockpiles almost ab- sent, why in the name of goodness do we not put this production in the stockpile? If it 1s to be 3 years, as the subcommittee chairman has pointed out, before you have any production from the new acreage, by all means your production from the acreage, now running around 30,000,009 pounds per year, should go into the stockpile and not into the chan- nels of commerce, That is the purpose of the amendment which I ahall offer when the bill is read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. 11133 The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur- ther requests for time, the Clerk will read the bill for amendment. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the “Abacé Production Act of 1950,” DECLARATION OF POLICY Src. 2. Whereas abacé, a hard fiber used in the making of marine and other cordage, is a highly strategic and critical material which cannot be produced in commercial quantities in the continental United States, and of which an adequate supply 1s vital to the in- dustrial and military requirements tor the common defense of the United States; there- fore, it has been the policy of the United States to continue the program for produc- tion and sale of abacaé in which it was en- gaged at the termination of hostilities of World War II, and it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to encourage abacé production throughout the world, and in that connection to further the develop- ment and maintenance of abacé production in the Western Hemisphere through aid and supplementation of opcrationg under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (60 Stat. 586) and the national security and common defense. PROGRAM Sec. 8. (a) Production of abach in the Western Hemisphere shall be continued by the United States Government: Provided, That the total acreage under cultivation shall not exceed the aggregate under cultivation &s of the close of the month next preceding the date upon which this act shall become effective, except that additional acreage may be added in the Western Hemisphere at the direction of the President and reduction of acreage under cultivation to abacé under this act shall be effected whenever the President shall so direct: And provided further, That in no event shall the total number of acres under cultivation to abac& under this act at any one time exceed 50,000. (0) Such surveys and research may be undertaken as are necessary or desirable to obtain the best available land in the Western Hemisphere for the production of abacé, the best development of abac&é and development and maintenance of the plantations for the production of abacd established on such land, and the most economical and practical processing and disposition of such fiber and byproducts as result from the production of abaca on such land. (c) Abacé fiber, produced under this act, which from time to time is not needed for stockpiling under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (60 Stat. 596), as amended, may be sold otherwise than for stockpiling under such act. ADMINISTRATION Sxc. 4. (a) The President may issue such rules and regulations and make such deter- Minations as he deems necessary and appro- priate to carry out the provisions of this act. (b) All contracts entered into and all ac- quisitions of property effected under this act shall be in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the President shall de- termine. (c) The President may exercise any or all of the powers, authority, and discretion con- ferred upon him by this act through such departments, agencies, officers, Government corporations, or instrumentalities of the United States, whether or not existing at the date of the enactment of this act, as he may direct. (ad) The President may transfer to the de- partments, agencies, officers, Government corporations, or instrumentalities of the United States, or to any of them, which he directs to exercise the powers, authority, and discretion conferred upon him by this
11134 act, such factlities, personnel, property, and records relating to such powers, authority, and discretion, as he deems necessary; and he may so transfer all appropriations or other funds available for carrying out such powers, authority, and discretion, (c) The financial transactions authorized by this act shall be subject to the Govern- ment Corporation Control Act, as amended, and other laws specifically applicable to wholly owned Government corporations as & class. FINANCING Sec. 5. (a) For the purpose of carrying out tho functions authorized by this act, there is hereby established in the Treasury, & revolving fund which shall consist of (1) such amounts as the Congress may appro- priate thereto, which appropriations are hereby authorized, (2) such amounts as may be paid into the fund pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, and (3) amounts re- ceived in connection with any transfer pur- puant to subsection 4 (d) of this act. (b) Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the President, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to make advances from the fund not to exceed a total of £35,000,000 outstanding at any one time. There shall be added to such advances and tioated as advances an amount equal to the net value of asscts of the program for the prcdvction and sale of abacé as held by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation on the effective date of this act. (c) Interest shall be paid on each out- standing advance at such rates as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be appropriate in view of the terms for which such advances are made. (d) Appropriations are hereby authorized for payment in the form of a grant, in such emounts as may be estimated in the annual budget as necessary to cover losses. The annual budget program shall specifically set forth any losees sustained in excess of the grant previously made for the last completed fiscal year. Appropriations are hereby au- thorized for payment to cover such additional losses incurred. (e) Receipts for each fiscal year may be used for payment of the costs incurred in connection with projects and activities au- thorized by this act. After providing out of such receipts for necessary working capital requirements, any amounts in excess there- of shall be paid annually into the fund. Buch payment shall be applied to reduce the amount of advances outstanding, and any remaining payments shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. (f) Until such time as the appropriations herein authorized are made, such of the powers, authority, and discretion provided for in this act as the President. may delegate to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation may be exercised by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation under the authority con- ferred by former section 5d (3) of the Re- construction Finance Corporation Act, as amended (54 Stat. 573, 961; 55 Stat. 249); joint resolution approved June 380, 1945 (59 Stat. 310); and section 12 of the Recon- struction Finance Corporation Act, as amended (61 Stat. 207), with funds recovered or recoverable from its national defense, war, and reconversion activities, DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY Sec. 6. Whenever the President shall de- termine that any property is excess to the purposes of this act, or that adequate sup- plies of abac& will be available from other sources within the Western Hemisphere on a basis acceptable to the United States, prop- erty held for the purposes of this act may be disposed of in such manner and on such terms and condition as the President may prescribe. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE REPORTS Src. 7. Within 6 months after the close ot each fiscal ycar a report shall be submitted to the Congress on the activities under this act. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION Sec. 8. This act shall become effective on April 1, 1950, and shall remain in effect for 10 years thereafter, unless the President shall direct earlier termination of operations, and for such further period as is necessary to the earllest practicable Nquidation of operations under this act. With the following committee amend- ment: Page 7, line 13, after the word “the”, in- sert: “Congress or the.” The committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Crawrorp. On page 3, line 9, strike oul subparagraph (c) and insert the following: “(c) All abac& fiber produced under this act shall be utilized solely to fulfill the ob- jJectives for stockpiling under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Pile Act (60 Stat. 596), as amended, and when the ob- jectives of such act as amended have been fulfilled, report shall be submitted to Con- gress. Nothing herein shall prevent rota- tion of such fiber as produced under this act where necessary to prevent deterioration, as provided in section 3 (d) of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Pile Act (60 Stat. 596), as amended, but such rotation shall be effected only after research and de- terminations under section 3 (b)*of this act.” Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to refer to line 9, page 3, of the bill, subparagraph (c) which provides that— (c) Abac4 fiber, produced under this act, which from time to time is not needed for stockpiling under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (60 Stat. 596), as amended, may he sold otherwise than for stockpiling under such act. This fiber is now being sold into the channels of trade. Of 3,000 bales offered just a short time ago, some 2,800 went into the channels of trade. This fiber, with our now critical situation, is not going into stockpiling, because it can be sold into the channels of trade. The channels of trade reach for it, naturally, because it is right here at their back door. They do not have to carry the ordinary or war risk insurance or inter- est risk from the Far East to the Atlantic seaboard, Naturally those private con- sumers of cordage fiber will support a proposal wherein the taxpayers, operat- ing through the RFC, will carry those stocks for them and sell them to these individual users. The amendment which I offer here does nothing in the world except pre- serve this production, financed with tax- payers money, for stockpiling purposes, plus, it provides for the rotation, so that the fiber carried over a period of time will not deteriorate. As our subcommit- tee has pointed out, it will be 3 years before you get production from this new acreage—not from the old acreage: do not get confused on that now— produc- tion from the new acreage, which means JULY 26 to say that if you are going to have any substantial consumption of fiber, you are going to be buying fiber from the Philip- pine Islands for stock-piling, which means to say that as you bring it in you can rotate it with the production of Central American fiber under this bill and prevent your deterioration. I cannot imagine on any ground how @ person can oppose this amendment. Iam not up here shedding salty tears for the protection of the people in the Phil- ippines, as much as I like them, and as much as I respect them and as much as I have worked with them; I am talking about the defense of the United States first, because if the United States is defended, the Philippine Government and the Filipino people will have a chance for a place in the sun, and if we do not defend ourselves, what chance have the Philippines got? The Philip- pines are a Republic today because the Congress of the United States gave them their independence. And, incidentally, we did not give it to them with my sup- port, because I refused to go along with that proposition, because I believed they could not stand on their own feet. Of course they cannot stand on their own feet, and we have to protect them. And, I repeat, 1f we go out of the Philippines, we will go out of the Far East; you can rest assured about that, This amendment of mine should be adopted. It in no way interferes with this program except it interferes with the selling of this production subsidized with taxpayers’ dollars into the private channels of commerce, and it has got no business there at the prescnt time espe- cially; it has no business there so long as the world is short of this type of fiber as it is today. We should adopt the amendment not just because somebody says something about the Philippines, but because it is good, ordinary horse sense and in defense of the United States todoso. This amendment will give pro- tection in the price levels. It will en- courage those people in the Philippines who are now geared and ready for pro- duction to go ahead and get the stuff out in the market and into the channels of trade, and it has the same effect with respect to sisal fiber that the operation of synthetic rubber plants have in this country with respect to giving us a supply of rubber. Those plants should be stepped up in production with respect to rubber, and I would support that. But, I think everyone understands the amendment. I do not want to take any more of your time, and I hope the amendment will be adopted. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is not at all agree- able to disagree with my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Craw- Forp!. However, the Department of De- fense and the Munitions Board vigorous- ly oppose any amendment to this meas- ure that would require them to convert all Central American abaca production to the stockpile. The price of abaca be- fore World War II was 7 cents a pound, Last week it was 24 cents a pound. To- day it is 26 cents a pound. If all Central
1950 American abacé production is put into the stockpile, the cordage industry in this country, that must be kept in a healthy condition, will be at the complete mercy of the abaca dealers in the Philippines, Iam not questioning the motives of our Philippine friends, but I submit to you that it is a pretty bad thing for any nation to have a monopoly on any stra- tegic material in this world. It certainly would be a dangerous thing for us to have to rely upon one source of supply that is so distant from the continental United States. If this amendment is adopted, no one here can tell where the price of abacd would stop. Every cent of increase in price would come out of the pockets of the American taxpayers. Like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Crawrorp],I have only the kindliest feeling and good will toward our Philip- pine friends. I do not think I ever had a& more enjoyable time than I had in Manila in 1946. I have also had the privilege and pleasure of visiting Guate- mala and other Central American coun- tries. I like those countries, too. This is a matter of business, not senti- mentality. This amendment should be defeated. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Committee will vote down the amendment. Sup- pose we were to adopt a similar policy on all of our strategic and critical materials that are bought and put into the stock- pile, for instance, rubber. All of these materials have what we call a life ex- pectancy. Some may last 2 years, some 3 years, some 10 years: and some of them, of course, are permanent. But to apply this restriction and not permit this abacé to go into the channels of trade would mean this: We hope to have peace here some time in our lifetime, and certainly we do not want to be sitting here with a frozen stockpile of billions of dollars’ worth cf stocks on our hands and not be able to sell them into the channels of industry in peacctime. If you will read the Stockpiling Act, Public, 520, you will find that it laid down that principle to begin with. We have carried out that principle probably too far in the last 4 or 5 years because industry in this country has been run- ning at a very high level. I think we have exercised wise judgment most of the time, but some of the items probably we have sold down to too small a stock- pile. We would run into the same difficulty if we were to tie down every one of them and adopt such a policy as this in our strategic Stockpiling Act. I certainly hope the House will vote down this amendment, Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DURHAM. I yield. Mr, COLE of New York. I have been favorably disposed toward the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Crawrorp], but I am disturbed by the situation that is pointed out by the gentleman from Missouri CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE (Mr. Sxorr], the possibility that we might permit ourselves to be victimized by unscrupulous Philippine operators. Iam wondering if that market condition could not be corrected by the Govern- ment’s disposing of such portion of the stockpile as might be necessary in order to level off the market price. Mr. DURHAM. I would like to be able to assure the gentleman that if that could be done today it would please me very much, to say that we are in that position. But I cannot say to the gen- tleman that we can do that at the pres- ent time. Mr. COLE of New York. Does the law give to the Munitions Board or to the Defense Department authority to sell out of the stockpile into the channels of normal trade and into the normal market? Mr. DURHAM. Yes; Public Law 520, Mr. COLE of New York. But in the opinion of the gentleman there are other factors involved which deny the Gov- ernment the opportunity of correcting market conditions through the sale of Government stocks into the general market? Mr. DURHAM. Yes, because if this Stockpile Act was used to go out and sell everything we had in a general market it would affect the market materially, or if we went out and purchased everything we needed tomorrow, it would be vice versa, so it has to be handled in a very careful manner. The gentleman knows those figures are all confidential. Mr. COLE of New York. I realize that. In a general way I would assume that if the Government stocks were ap- proaching the figure sought by the Gov- ernment, then the Government would be in a position to release some Govern- ment stocks into the general market, but until that time is reached by the Gov- ernment it would be dangerous for the Government to dispose of its own stocks just for the purpose of correcting mar~ ket conditions. Mr. DURHAM. If I were convinced that the stockpile is adequate, I would not be here today asking for this legis- lation. I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing out the points that he has. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DURHAM. I yield. Mr. CHAWFORD. The chairman read previously from the reports of the other body and this body and the hear- ings are full of information. Yet, with a shortage of production of sisal cordage all over the world here we are involved in this thing with the front-line pages of the newspapers calling for total mo- bilization and this committee at this very moment sits here and recommends that we turn these stocks into private channels. Where is the defense of the United States? Mr. DURHAM. I do not believe the gentleman wants to force us into the situation where we would be paying 40 cents for cordage material to go into the stockpile. Mr. CRAWFORD. Let us take charge of the stocks and hold them for the de- 11135 fense of our own country and let us tell the consumers to cut out the consump- tion of goods until we win this fight. Mr. DURHAM. I am sure the gentle- man also recognizes the fact that the industrial production in this country is probably one of the greatest things to- day that Stalin has in his mind. Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DURHAM. I yield. Mr. SHORT. No Member, Mr. Chair- man, should have the fears expressed by the gentleman from Michigan. Cer- tainly this Government, the Department of Defense, and the Munitions Board will take all of the Central American abacd for defense purposes for our stock- pile if we need it. Bear in mind that if we had not had a synthetic rubber in- dustry in this country today, we would perhaps be paying twice as much for rubber tires as we have been paying since the close of the last global conflict. Mr. DURHAM. I might say to the gentleman today that we would extend our contracts for as long as 10 years if it would assure us of securing abac: for the stockpile and secure our national defense. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Michigan [Mr. Crawrorp|. The question was taken; and on a di- vision (demanded by Mr. Crawrorp) there were—ayes 12, noes 58. So the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Lyncn, Chairman of the Committze of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committce, having had under consideration the bill S. 3520, pursuant to Hous? Resolution 117, he reported the same back to the House with an amendment adoptcd in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. The bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES ACT OF 1950 Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 729 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 9038) to authorize the Presi- dent to determine the form of the national
11136 budget and of the departmental estimates, to modernize and simplify governmental ac- counting and auditing methods and pro- ceduies, and for other purposes. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Expenditures in the Exec- utive Departments, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amend- ments thereto to final passage without inter- vening motion except one motion to recom- mit. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown]. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, this bull, H R 9038, cn which we are now ask- ing for a rule, is for the purpose of mod- ernizing and simplifying the account- ing, auditing, and other methods and procedures involving our Federal book- keeping. It authorizes the President to determine the forms to be used for the national budget anc the departmental estimates. Title 1 of this bill provides for a mod- ernized budget and accounting pro- cedure. It authorizes the establishment of a balanced, coordinated accounting program. Title 3 of the bill provides that no request for legislation authorizing sub- sequent appropriations for the depart- ments or establishments of the Govern- ment shall be transmitted to the Budgct Bureau, the President, or the Congress without prior approval of the heads of the departments or establishments. Title 3 repeals a number of provisions of the existing law which are obsolete or in conflict with the provisions of this bill. Mr Speaker, this legislation, if en- acted into law, will fulflll a long-wanted necd in the operations of the fiscal department of the Federal Government. We are now operating under the old Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, and a mass of earlier legislation which 1s out- moded, due to the tremendous growth of our Government in the past 30 years. Title II further provides that no re- quest for any kind of legislation would authorize any subsequent expenditures which, if enacted, would be a change from the present method. It also pro- vides that under the present situation different departments of the Govern- ment in outlying branch offices over the country can have spot sampling of their expenditure vouchers and papers with- cut sending them in to Washingtop which, in turn, would be a great money saver and also a great time and labor saver in the matter of the operations of the fiscal department of our Govern- ment. Mr. Speaker, this bill has the support of the Commitiee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr Brown], who 1s a member of the Hoover CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Commission, and the other members of the Commission, went over this legisla- tion very thoroughly. The bill came out of the Rules Committee unanimously. I believe it is a piece of legislation that the Government has been very dilatory in not presenting and having enacted into law before this. Mr Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio |Mr. Brown]. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume, Mr BROWN of Ohio. Mr Speaker. as the gentleman from Indiana [Mr, MAppEN] has so ably explained, House Resolution 729 makes in order under an open rule and 1 hour of general debate, the bill H. R. 9038, to authorize the Presi- dent to determine the form of the na- tional budget and of departmental esti- mates, to modernize and simplify gov- ernmental accounting and auditing methods and procedures, and for other purposes. This bill comes from the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments and amends quite a number of old laws now on the statute books, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 so ato modernize our budget and accounting procedures. It is about 90 percent in line with the Hoover Com- mission recommendations; in other words, it accepts and puts into effect a great proportion of the recommenda- tions made by the Hoover Commission in connection with budgeting and ac- counting methods and procedures within the executive branch of the Government. Mr CASE of South Dakota Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr BROWN of Ohio, I yield. Mr CASE of South Dakota Can the gentleman state whether the bill in the form it now is with the amendments that are proposed by the committee will provide for submission to the Commit- tee on Appropriations of the so-called green sheets, that is, sheets that pin down the classifications of appoint- ments? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am glad the gentleman asked that question. I will touch cn that in just a moment The Hoover Commission recommended we have what is known as a perform- ance budget rather than the present type of budget. A performance budget is one which will permit the collation, or the putting together, of all appropria- tion items for a given agency or activ-~ ity in one place or section so we can find and look at it, and know the full proposed cost of that governmental agency, operation, or activity, instead of being required, as is now too ofven the case, to search through a great many different pages of the budget in an en- deavor to find this, that, and the other cost of a given operation, only to per- haps miss a few items and so not ascer- tain just what that agency does cost. I recall one of the activities of the Government which the Hoover Commis- sion studied in connection with the budget. Most of us know that great in- stitution, the Naval Medical Center. It 4s a very worth-while hospital and Gov- JULY 26 ernment activity. But as a Member you would find the requested appropriation items dealing with the Naval Medical Center in 27 different places in the budget. If we did not look under this classification, or that classification, in the budget we would not have the com- plete picture as to the cost of operating the Naval Medical Center. Under the performance budget arrangement pro- vided by this bill we can turn and find the Naval Medical Center requests, and have listed in a single place all the var- ious costs of operation for that particu- lar institution, The Hoover Commission also recom- mended that we set up a new general accounting officer in the Treasury De- partment This bill does not go that far, but it does provide—and I want the gentleman from California and the gen- tleman from Missouri to correct me if Iam wrong—for the decentralization of accounting down into the various agen- cies and departments, as the Hoover Commission has recommended. Mr KARSTEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. gentleman from Missouri Mr. KARSTEN. It does provide for agency accounting systems. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. This is in line in gencral, with that one exception, of all the Hoover Commission recommen- dations So far as I know, and I do not want to speak out of turn for every mem- ber of the Commission, but those mem- bers on the Commission with whom I have discussed this matter are in favor of this legislation. Mr. JENSEN Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa Mr. JENSEN. Is this legislation in line with the recommendations of Lindsay Warren, the Comptroller General? Mr BROWN of Ohio. Yes. Mr, War- ren helped prepare this legislation and has approved this measure, which seems to be agreed to by all of the different Officials of Government who are inter- ested. I refer to the Bureau of the Budget and the Treasury Department, in which the accounting officer would have been placed, if we had followed the en- tire Hoover Commission recommenda- tion We have agreed this bill will do practically the same thing as our rec- ommendation would have done. Mr. JENSEN. What proof do we have that 1f this legislation is made law it will save money? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. that in a moment. Mr. JENSEN. I do want to say that certainly our governmental bookkeeping system needs a lot of correcting. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am sure no one knows that better than the gentle- man from Iowa (Mr. JENSEN], who has served so ably and so well on the Appro- priations Committee. Mr. JENSEN. I thank the gentleman. I remember in 1947 when the Bureau of Reclamation claimed that the Central Valley project was out of money, We I yield to the T will discuss
1950 spent everything we had, so they said. Several large projects were stopped, but lo and behold when we investigated and went into the books we found that there was $7,000,000 plus unexpended. Mr. BROWN of Ohio, I remember that incident quite well, and I feel this bill may be of some benefit in prevent- ing such a situation in the future. Mr. JENSEN. That is one incident 1 can cite. I can stand up here and cite dozens of instances where they have no idea what they have as a balance, what hey have spent, or what they have spent or, Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. I will comment on that in just a moment. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ma- jority floor leader. Mr. McCORMACK. I may say that the gentleman ‘s correct when he says that the Comptroller General, Lindsay Warren, is in favor of this bill. I may also say that the gentleman {ts correct in saying that Secretary Snyder is in favor of it, Mr. BROWN of Ohio. And also the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. McCORMACK. Yes. Secretary Snyder personally called to see me a few days ago and expressed the strong hope that the bill would be reported out of committee and passed. Mr, BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. Mr, McCORMACK. Isay that for the Recorp to confirm everything the gentle- man from Ohio has said. Mr. BROWN of Ohio, I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make this statement: The gentleman from South Dakota asked me a moment or so ago as to the green sheets carrying the schedules of estimates to accompany ap- propriation requests. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Taser] appeared before the Committee on Rules and dis- cussed with the Committee on Rules and with the members of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments the need of the Committee on Appropriations and Members of Con- gress generally to have the green sheets breaking down the estimated expendi- tures and appropriation requests for dif- ferent agencies and departments. There was some discussion as to whether these green sheets should be prepared by the departments, based upon their requests, or by the Bureau of the Budget. As I understand and am informed, inasmuch as the gentleman from New York made a rather strong case for his position, and inasmuch as the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments had not gone thoroughly into the need for these green estimate sheets which he brought to the attention of the Com- mittee on Rules, there has been an agreement reached so that an amend- ment will be offered which will assure that these green sheets will be furnished as @ part of the budget when it is sub. mitted to Congress each year. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr, BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I note that section 204 reads: Except as otherwise provided in this act, the contents, order, and arrangement of the proposed appropriations and the statements of expenditures and estimated expenditures contained in the budget or transmitted un- der section 203, and the notes and other data submitted therewith, shall conform to requirements prescribed by the President. As I understand the amendment that fs to be proposed, it provides that the estimate shall be accompanied by in- formation as to personal services and other types of expansion in the same manner as for fiscal 1950, but the point is, in saying that this “shall conform to requirements prescribed by the Presi- dent” will that be interpreted to defeat in any sense or modify the right of the Committee on Appropriations to ask for such supplemental information, in such form as they may need for consideration of the estimates? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I cannot say as to what anyone may interpret anything to mean, but it is my understanding this bill will not interfere with the rights of the Committee on Appropriations to get additional information. Mr. KARSTEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we have every de- sire to cooperate with the Committee on Appropriations in obtaining this infor- mation. The language that we have agreed upon will insure that the infor- mation will be furnished along with the budget, so it will be here in time to be available to the Members so that they can use it intelligently in analyzing these requests. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. In the consideration of the budget estimates from time to time instances arise where they desire that information, and I sim- ply want the record clear that in saying “shall conform to the requirements pre- scribed by the President” it does not op- erate in any way to defeat the request by the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. KARSTEN. This will in no way preclude any members of the committee from requesting information. Mr. BAILEY. Myr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia. Mr. BAILEY. I would like to inquire of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio if this pending legislation contains any provision for preexpenditures or in- cumbrance controls of legislative appro- priations. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I do not think it does. I would not want to make a positive statement, but it is my under- standing it does not. Mr, BAILEY. I think the Congress could well give attention to some means that would create controls. I think there are entirely too many unjustified and uncalled for deficiency appropria- tions considered by this Congress. Mr. TABER, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 11137 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. TABER. I think I ought to say to the House at this point that I have very grave doubts about some of the provi- sions in this bill, I have been over the situation with the gentleman from Mis- souri [Mr. Karsten], the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Harvey], and the gentle- man from North Carolina [Mr. Bonner], and other members of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart. ments. I have been over the matter with the Comptroller General and the Director of the Budget. We have arrived at an agreement which I think protects the situation of the Congress and the Appropriations Committee, and would enable the Congress to get the informa- tion it needs and require the budget to get it together and furnish the green sheets at the time the appropriation estimates are sent up by the President, 50 that those green sheets would be available to the committee just as soon as the budegt was available. Therefore, the Appropriations Committee would be able to use them to the very best pos- sible advantage. I would not want the committee or any of its members feel that anything connected with the budget would pre- vent the Appropriations Committee from obtaining any information, either along the line of the present budget or a fu- ture budget, that they felt was neces- sary for consideration of a budget item that was before them. They are in a position where they can refuse to appro- priate or to bring in a bill until the in- formation that is necessary is furnished, Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am sure the gentleman from New York is entirely correct and that this legislation will in no way affect the right of the Appro- priations Committee or the Congress to get additional information relative to appropriations requests that are received as a part of a budget. I do believe the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taser] has rendered a very worth-while service to the Congress and to the country in the suggestions he has made. I think he convinced both the Rules Committee and the members of the Committee on Expenditures that his suggestions should be written into the bill as amendments 50 as to protect fully the rights of the Appropriations Committee, so as to guar- antee the additional information which is needed on the green sheets will be furnished. Of course above all else, one of the important features of a performance budget arrangement is that the average Member of Congress as well as the specialists—for I call the men who serve on the Appropriations Committee specialists—will be able to interpret and Know something about what these ap- propriation requests really mean, and to be able to and find in the budget the in- formation they seek. Certainly I do not want to see any sort of a budget arrange- ment set up where we will not get the detailed information we need and desire as individual Members of Congress, or that is needed and desired by the Ap- propriations Committee, which of course
11138 must do the great mass of the work on these appropriation bills. Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. gentleman from Vermont. Mr. PLUMLEY. I think the gentle- man’s statement was ill-considered when he undertook to say the Appropriations Committee did not know what they were doing when they came to the Rules Com- mittee. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I certainly made no such statement. Instead I paid them and Mr. Taper a very high compli- ment, or I attempted to do so. I must apologize to the gentleman if I failed to make myself clear. If he could under- stand me, I am sure it was my fault, not his, for he is a very learned, able, and distinguished Member of this body. I assure the gentleman from Vermont I was attempting to pay a very high compliment to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Com- mittee on Appropriations because he did call to the attention of the Committee on Rules, and to the Committee on Expend- itures in the Executive Departments, the weakness in this bill; and as a result of his splendid testimony before our committee certain amendments were prepared and agreed to, which will strengthen the measure, will protect the rights of the individual Members of Con- gress to get necessary information, and the right of the Committee on Appropria- tions to have the green estimate sheets. So my words were actually quite compli- mentary to your committee, sir. I fear the gentleman, who is usually correct, did misunderstand what the gentleman from Ohio said. Mr. PLUMLEY. If I misunderstood the gentleman, of course, I regret it, but I doubt that I did misunderstand him. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I have been talking this over with other mem- bers of the committce here. The thing that disturbs us a little bit is that sec- tion 204, as amended, reads: That the content, order, and arrangement shall conform to requirements presciibed by the President. We have no objection to the President having in the budget what he wants, but I would like to read this language which we would lke to have in the bill. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The committee has some additional amendments and, of course, the gentleman may offer amendments if they wish. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. May I read some language here that we have been talking over which we would like to have considered? My. BROWN of Ohio. Iam sorry the gentleman from South Dakota was not before the Committee on Rules and did not discuss this with the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart- ments so that we could have had these amendments considered at this time. If the gentleman will wait until the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union T yield to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE for the consideration of this bill, he can ascertain what amendments will be of- fered, and perhaps may find that his ob- jections have been met fully. At least I hope so. Of course we cannot amend the bill while we are considering the rule. Mr. CASE of South Dakoia. Of course, we all understand that; but we are discussing the background of the bill. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is right. Mr. CASE of South Dakota It has occurred to some of us that language like this might help a good deal: And provided further, That nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the authority of committees of Congress to request and receive such information in such form as they may desire in consideration of and action upon budget estimates. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Iam sure that amendment could be offered by the gen- tleman. But I believe the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taser] made it very clear there could be no question as to that right existing However, if the gen- tleman wishes to offer his amendment in the Committee of the Whole, I certainly would have no objection to it, because we want to make this bill as strong and as good as wecan. Iam just as anxious to protect every right of the Committee on Appropriations, and every right of each individual Member of Congress, to be completely informed on all appropria- tion matters as he. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Does the gentleman think it is the funda- mental function of the Congress or does he think that it 1s the fundamental function of the President to determine the details of the budget? This bill gives that authority to the President Mr. BROWN of Ohio. To answer the gentleman very plainly, under the law it is the duty and responsibility of the President to submit a budget, but it is the responsibility and duty of the Con- gress, under the Constitution, to deter- mine whether appropriations shall be made 1n line with, or contrary to, that budget Mr. PHILLIPS of California. The gentelman from Ohio did not quite un- derstand me. As to the form and detail of the budget this bill gives all that au- thority to the President. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Well, someone has to set up the structure of the budget itself, as to the form and detail, under the direction of the Congress. I do not believe the Committee on Appropriations or the Congress has ever sot up the form and detail of the budget itself in the past, or that it could do it in the future. Therefore the Bureau of the Budget, working under the direction of the Pres- ident, has to do 't. There has to be some agency, some administrative individual to do such spade work. But the Congress itself continuously keeps control over what is appropriated under the budget. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio, I yield, JULY 26 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I notice on page 7, under Government Statistical Activities, that: The President, through the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, is authorized and di- rected to develop programs and to iesue reg~- ulations and orders for the improved gath- ering, compiling, analyzing, publishing, end disseminating of statistical information for any purpose by the various agencies in the executive branch of the Government. Should that not also be subject to the action of the Congress? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I presume it will be, I believe the Congress directs what shall be done and gives that au- thority. But granting authority to the President is generally an order in effect. Again, let me say, the Congress is not an administrative agency, but the execu- tive branch is designated to carry out the will and instructions of Congress. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. It is a very important field which the Appropria- tions Committee is continually getting into. This gives me the impression that it is being taken out of the hands of the committee. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I say, again, the Appropriations Committee can and will control that, absolutely. May I also say, in conclusion, that I feel this measure is a long step in the right direction. It is more than a step. It puts into effect somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the recommenda- tions of the Hoover Commission on these matters. I want to be very frank with the House in saying that this is a much better bill, and goes much further in car- rying out the recommendations of the Hoover Commission in this particular field of activity, than I thought we would be able to bring before this Congress, 50 I hope we will pass the bill. This measure is designed to give us a better budget and a better accounting system It 1s designed to decentralize some of the accounting, and to give an opportunity to the Congress to be better informed upon the cost of government and what we are appropriating for when we pass upon an appropriation bill. It is designed to bring greater govern- mental economy and efficicncy, if it is properly administered. . If there has ever been a time in the history of this country when we should make every attempt to obtain greater economy and efficiency in the conduct of public business, it is right now. Any step we can take, any legislation we can enact, which will help reduce the cost of government, especially on the home front, at this time, when we are strain- ing the resources of the Nation to meet the needs of national defense, is one which should be taken. Certainly the time is at hand when this Congress should follow, and follow closely the policy the gentleman from New York (Mr. WapswortH] and myself. and some of the others on the Rules Committee, announced many months ago, that we would refuse to vote for or favor any bill which would establish any new govern- mental project, activity, or agency, not of absolute necessity to the security of this Nation, and which would require any
1950 increase in or new Government expendi- ture, so long as we had to borrow the money to meet such an expenditure, Bo I hope this legislation will result in the submission of a better budget: that the passage of this bill will result in a better accounting system; that we will all be better informed—not just the Ap- propriations Committee alone, but every Member of Congress—so we may be able to find and weed out any waste or ex- travagance which may exist in any budget. We must have a complete over- all picture as to what Government activ- ities are actually costing, we must be in better position to judge their value and decide how the public money should be spent on that particular activity in the best and most economical way. I am hoping that as a result of the passage of this legislation, through the watchfulness of the Appropriations Committee, and through our own efforts, we may have much better control over future public spending, and that we may be able to reduce the cost of government, at least on the home front. Certainly we should be able to reduce many, many of the expenditures we are now making on the domestic or civilian activities of our Federal Government. Let me point out we are now spending approximately $5,000,000,000 more on the operation of the civilian affairs of the Federal Government each year than were appropriated by the Republican Hightieth Congress 2 years ago. The Nation had pretty good government services then, from the various depart- mental agencies. There were no great complaints that any essential service had been destroyed or disrupted. Cer- tainly we can find a good deal of the money we need to meet this increased cost of our new national defense effort by reducifg or eliminating the waste, the extravagance, and the unnecessary expenditures which have existed in re- cent months and years in the operation of the civilian features of the Federal Government. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. Mr, KARSTEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 9038) to authorize the President to determine the form of the national budget and of departmental estimates, to modernize and simplify governmental accounting and auditing methods and procedures, and for other purposes, The motion was agreed to. 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. 9038) mod- ernizing and simplifying governmental accounting and auditing methods and procedures, with Mr. Enaig of California in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Karsten] will be recognized for 80 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Horrman] for 30 minutes Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Harvey] will control the time on this side. Mr. KARSTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Ho.irizvp]. Mr, HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the bill H. R. 9038, the Budget and Account- ing Procedures Act of 1950, is a technical measure. I am sure some of the techni- cal details will be ably presented by other members of the committee, but I hope that these details will not obscure the paramount importance of the meas- ure as a whole. The bill was introduced by the gentle- man from Missouri (Mr. Karsten], chair- man of the Public Accounts Subcommit- tee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. The gen- tleman from Missouri has for a long time been familiar with Government account- ing from the congressional standpoint; for, as you know, before he became a Member of Congress he has connected with the Committee on Accounts for many years under the leadership of our beloved late Member from Missouri, Mr. John Cochran. The bill is identical, with the exception of amendments recommended by the committee, to a bill introduced by 11 of the 13 members of the Senate Expendi- tures Committee and recently reported out unanimously by that committee. It has been called by our agent, Comptrol- ler General Lindsay Warren, the most forward-looking and important measure in its fleld since the Budget and Ac- counting Act of 1921. The provisions of this bill grow out of the experience of the last 29 years in budgeting and accounting in the Govern- ment. They embody the principles and objectives of the joint program which has been carried on for the past 3 years by the Comptroller General, the Secre- tary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to improve the Government’s accounting. This pro- gram is a splendid example of coopera- tion between the executive and the legis- lative branches toward the common goal of better accounting and financial re- porting in the Federal Government. All three of these officials appeared at the hearings on H. R. 9038 and strongly en- dorsed the bill. The bill specifically declares the policy of Congress that the three officials continue this program which they have already instituted. The great need for this legislation is underscored just at this time in view of the large sums which the Congress is going to be called on to authorize for expenditure for national defense. We do not want to repeat the mistakes in the past caused by lack of proper controls over the expenditure of the public funds. With the budgetary improvements and accounting systems contemplated by this 13139 bill, much better machinery will be avail- able for keeping the Congress advised of what the money is being spent for and to aid detection of improper disbursements. There is also a great need for the sim- plification of accounting procedures con- templated by this bill. While all the im- provements contemplated by the bill can- not be accomplished overnight, the bill provides the necessary legislative basis for instituting those improvements. The bill incorporates all of the recom- mendations of the Hoover Commission report on budgeting and accounting with a single exception, that for the appoint- ment of an Accountant General in the executive branch with authority over the prescribing of accounting systems and the supervising of accounting operations. That recommendation is contrary to a consistent congressional policy that the Comptroller General, as the agent of the Congress, prescribe accounting require- ments for the executive agencies so that appropriate audits may be made of the agencies and that the Congress may exercise control over appropriations and expenditures. We knew because that had been at- tempted before. In 1932 and in 1937, I believe, such @ proposal was attempted legislatively and was turned down by the Congress. We members of the commit- tee knew that the Congress would not relinquish this arm of the Congress, and the Comptroller General is the arm of the Congress, the watchdog of the Con- Bress on expenditures in the executive departments. Therefore we did not in- clude that one provision in this bill. We knew we could not pass it if we did in- clude it in the bill because 90 percent of Congress, and I believe 100 percent of the members of the Committee on Ex- penditures, would have voted against that one thing. Therefore, the committee has rejected this recommendation just as similar rec- ommendations have been rejected on numerous occasions in the past by the Congress. The bill does provide a com- plete framework of responsibility and authority for development of accounting systems in each executive agency and a system of central accounting and re- porting in the Treasury Department, all under principles and standards laid down by the Comptroller General to in- sure proper financial information and control for the agency heads, the Presi- dent, and the Congress ir: fulfilling their respective responsibilities. The whole reorganization program will be implemented by the adoption of this legislation. It is basic to all of the improvements for which we are striving in the management of the executive branch. It will provide a solid founda- tion for the best attainable budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, and auditing for the Federal Government, all in proper relationship. It will do all of this without weakening any essential controls by the Congress over the public funds, Again I wish to stress the fact that Mr, Lindsay Warren, our present Comp- troller General and a former Member of
11140 this body, Mr. Snyder, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Mr. Fred Lawton, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, have given their wholehearted approval of this bill. The bill was drawn jointly by these three agencies of Government which have to do most exclusively with the budgeting of accounts. I trust the House will pass this important legisla- tion unanimously. Mr, PHILLIPS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gen- tleman from California. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. The gentleman has laid a great deal of em- phasis on the fact that the budget forms are to be determined by the Comptroller General. My interpretation of the bill does not support that. The Comp- troller General is the agent of the Congress. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I believe section 103 of the bill provides the point I was mak- ing, that the budgeting and accounting procedures of the different executive branches shall be prescribed by the Comptroller General. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. That 1s not the point Iam making. The point I am making, so that the gentleman from California will understand, he thinks and he is saying that the Comptroller Gen- eral is the one who will determine the form of the budget, but the wording of the bill we are acting upon says that it is the President, and that means the Bureau of the Budget Under this bill that we are acting upon today, the form of the budget that comes to us could be completely changed, not by the Comp- troller who is our agent, but by the Presi- dent of the United States acting through the Director of the Budget, who is his agent. I question whether the Commit- tee in bringing it out intended to put the power, not of making the budget, but in determining the form of the budget, in the hands not of the Congress, but in the President of the United States. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I was mistaken in the section I referred to. I meant to refer to section 112 on page 10, where it says: The Comptroller General of the United States, after consulting the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget concerning their accounting, financial reporting, and budgetary needs, and considering the needs of the other ex- ecutive agencies, shall prescribe the prin- ciples, standards, and related requirements for accounting—— Mr. PHILLIPS of California. May I interrupt the gentleman briefly just to say that that power the Comptroller already has, and that is merely in order to provide a uniform accounting system between the various agencies of govern- ment, something we never had up to about three and a half years ago. Mr. HOLIFIELD. But the Comptrol- Jer General at the present time, if I am not mistaken, has been doing this as a matter of voluntary agreement between the three branches. | Mr. PHILLIPS of California, No, he has it by authority and by instructions CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE given him through the Committee on Appropriations. This bill does not have to be passed in order to give him author- ity, except to have it in writing, perhaps. That is in existence today. Mr. HOLIFIELD., As appropriation language? Mr. PHILLIPS of California, Yes. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, there are sev- eral things in the bill, I might say, that have been taken from appropriation acts and are now made into basic law. Mr. PHILLIPS of California, To pur- sue the point further, section 112, which the gentleman read to me, is antagonis- tic to section 103 and to section 201, which is the second part of section 102, which says that the President, the Direc- tor of the Budget, shall do these things. The gentleman is interpreting the last two to mean that the Comptroller shall do it but I contend that section 112 re- fers to a different subject matter. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Section 103 that the gentleman refers to, in my opinion, 1s an authorization for the President through the Bureau of the Budget to develop pro- grams and to issue regulations and orders for the improved gathering, compiling, analyzing, publishing, and dissemination of statistical information for any pur- pose for various agencies In the executive branch of the Government Mr. PHILLIPS of California. That is the basis upon which the budget Is made. The gathering of those statistics begins in August of each year and extends through until the presentation of the Presidential budget on the first Wednes- day in January. This bill gives the Presi- dent and the Director of the Budget, the authority to determine the form in which those facts shall be gathered and pre- sented Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is the prelim- inary gathering of information. Mr. PHILLIFS of California. That is the same as is going on now, except this bill gives authority now not to the Con- gress, where I hold 1t should rest, but to the President through the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think the Presi- dent has that power now in the Bureau of the Budget. The Bureau of the Budget is the arm of the President, and he cer- tainly has the power to issue rules and regulations for the administration of the function of the Bureau of the Budset. So there is no change there that I can see. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. There is this change, to the extent that this in- creases the power, and now it may be done by the Bureau of the Budget more or less in a routine way. Now it is defi- nitely placed in this bill in the hands of the Bureau of the Budget and taken out of the hands of the Congress and out of the hands of the Comptroller General. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, HOLIFIELD, I yield to the gen- tleman from Indiana. Mr. HARVEY, It might be illuminat- ing, and I approach this with hesitancy because of the great knowledge I know both gentlemen from California have in this field, but I would say in nailing down effectively the authority of the JULY 26 Comptroller General to defining the ac- counting procedures of every depart- ment, that all these costs and estimates and statistics must come from those figures. So that when you start with the base of a uniform accounting system pre- scribed by the Comptroller General, all statistics and information must be de- veloped from that initial information. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- fornia [Mr. PHILLIPs], Mr. PHILLIPS of California Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this time to continue the discussion which the gen- tleman from California and the gentle- man from Indiana were carrying on. If the gentleman from Indiana is correct in his statement, which would be an en- tirely satisfactory statement to me as a budget maker for perhaps 30 years, Just why are the other sections in this bill at all? Why was it necessary to put what I call antagonistic sections in the bill, if the objective was the one which the gentleman from Indiana has just discussed? I also call attention to what may have been overlooked in the committee; it may have been entirely harmless in in- tent. Section 202 on page 19, line 13, recites that the balance of any money remaining in the appropriation of an agency or a section of an agency, if the establishment or section is transferred, may, with the approval of the President, be transferred to the receiving agency. I point out, Mr. Chairman, that in the past we have been rather careful, where money is left over in any budget, that it should come back and go through the Appropriations Committee again. We are the only control the people have over the expenditure of money. . I think that was a power given the Bureau of the Budget which the commit- tee may not have intended to give. You see, Mr. Chairman, this is a practical matter with us who work on the Appro- priations Committee. Analyzing a budget is a difficult matter at best when it gets into billions of dollars. This year for the first time we operated under a budgct which, in some of the agencies, approached the budget which is contem- plated in this bill. I say without any hesitation that we had more difficulty this year in getting detailed information regarding the budget items than I have had in the preceding 3 years I have been on the committee. I think that should be taken into consideration. We had to send deliberately in many instances for information which this bill automatically leaves out of the budget. In addition, we had to ask the agencies for informa- tion which they themselves felt under this type of budget was no longer neces- sary. We may not be getting a simpli- fled budget in this new bill; we may be getting a budget in which it is more diff- cult to trace the money and more dif- ficult to protect the taxpayer. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PHILLIPS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California,
1950 Mr. HOLIFIELD. First, I should like to address myself to the point of the so- called green sheets to which the gen- tleman refers. We realize that the Ap- propriations Committee has had trouble during the last year and a half on that. Because of the advice of the gentleman from New York {Mr. TasEr] before the Rules Committee, and in conference with the members of our committee, we do have an amendment which we will offer which will remove that difficulty you have had the last year and a half and restore it to its previous condition when the green sheets were available. We think we have covered that. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. I am glad to hear that. That would remove that part of my objection. Mr. HOLIFIELD. If the gentleman will now let me speak on his reference to section 202, under the Presidential re- organization plans that have been sent up to us, and more will possibly be com- ing in in the future, there has been a re- organization of agencies and shifting of them from one executive department to another. I recall as an example the shifting of Public Roads from the old Public Works Agency to the General Services Administration, and then the shifting of it into Commerce, This sec- tion provides that where such a func- tion or activity is transferred or as- signed from one agency within a depart- ment or establishment to another agency the balance of the appropriations will be transferred along with it. But it goes on to say in lines 19 and 20 that “said function or activity is transferred or assigned for any purpose for which the said funds were originally avail- able.” So it does not change the use of the funds. It retains the use of the funds for the original purpose, but it merely takes care of the housekeeping point of transferring it so as to be available to the agency or the new department. Mr PHILLIPS of California. I re- spect that statement and agree with it so far as it goes, but the gentleman does not understand that we deal in big fig- ures, and very often in lump figures. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. PHILLIPS of California, I will discuss this later. . Mr KARSTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, in presenting this bill to the House I have in mind the Hoover Commission report on budgeting and ac- counting, in which it is pointed out to the Congress that the present governmental accounting, auditing, and budgeting methods controlled by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 are cumbersome, uninformative, and outmoded, More important, however, these old methods do not provide the Government, nor the taxpayer, with accurate and complete information as to revenue received and expenditures made by the Government. There is a great need for simplification and modernization, The provisions of this measure call for the same philosophy enunciated in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the Hoover Commission report on budgeting and accounting. The bill is Gesigned to accomplish practically all of the major objectives and recommen- dations made by the Hoover Commission with the exception of establishing the post of an Accountant General under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury. Proposals to establish an Accountant Ceneral have been before the House in the past. As I recall, the last bill on this subject was in 1938. It was over- whelmingly defeated, and for very good reasons Historically, Congress has control of the purse strings of the Nation. As a necessary adjunct to that power, we have c Comptroller General who is an agent of the Congress to audit the accounts of the executive branch of the Govern- ment. He determines the legality of expenditures and the proper application of funds appropriated by the Congress, In fact, he is a definite part of the legis- lative branch of the Government. To establish an Accountant General under the Secretary of the Treasury and superimpose him upon the Comptroller General would seriously weaken the con- trol of Congress over appropriated funds. An Accountant General would be re- sponsible only to the President. Con- gress would lose control over the Na- tion’s purse and surrender it to the ex- ecutive branch of the Government. Because this historical legislative juris- diction of the Congress would be seri- ously impaired by virtue of creating an Accountant General in the Treasury De- partment, this recommendation of the Hoover Commission is not included in the legislation. For over 2 years the Comptroller Gen- eral, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget have engaged in a voluntary joint ac- counting program to improve and mod- ernize Federal fiscal operations. I mention this because it is the first time in history that the three major fiscal agencies of our Government have volun- tarily joined in a common effort, draw- ing on the technical resources of their respective agencies, to make accounting, financial reporting, budgeting, and audit- ing the greatest value to the Govern- ment and the taxpayer. Under this program all have agreed that current accounting and financial reporting are proper functions of the executive branch and accounting sys- tems should be in recognition of this principle. Auditing, independent of the executive branch, is a function of the legislative branch of the Government through the Comptroller General. Prop- erly designed accounting systems are a vital factor to the effectiveness of inde- pendent auditing, and accounting sys- tems should be developed as a coopera- tive undertaking to meet the needs and responsibilities of both the executive and legislative branches of the Government. The bill we have before us implements by legislation the voluntary joint pro- gram which I have described. It em- bodies all the fundamental fiscal re- 11141 quirements which the General Account- ing Office, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of the Budget have agreed upon as being necessary and essential to effectuate thelr common goal for im- proving governmental budgeting, ac- counting, and auditing methods. As urged by the Hoover Commission the bill provides a complete framework for bringing the budgeting, accounting, and auditing procedures of the Govern- ment up to date. It will set up a fiscal system patterned after sound commer- cial practices and I believe it will pro- vide much better control over all Federal funds. The bill contains three titles. Title I on budgeting and accounting is divided into two parts The first, on budgeting, clarifies the Budget and Accounting Act to emphasize authority for moderniza- tion and simplification of budget pro- cedures It is patterned after sound commercial practices and supplements existing authority for presenting finan- cial information in terms of functions and activities of the Government. Tech- nical amendments to the Budget and Accounting Act are made to develop budgetary information in the manner best suited to present the financial pro- gram of the Government. Increased emphasis is placed on the development by the President through the Bureau of the Budget of plans for better organization, coordination, and management of the executive branch. The paragraphs on statistical activities will provide better coordination in the gathering, compiling, analysis, and pub- lication of statistical information by the executive branch. This supplements existing authority relating to these mat- ters, Part 2 of title I comprises a complete Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950. It embodies, as I have stated previously, the principles and objectives of the co- operative program which is being con- ducted under the leadership of the Comptroller General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to improve the Government’s accounting, financial re- porting, and auditing. The provisions of this part will also facilitate the at- tainment of budgetary improvements provided for elsewhere in the bill. It spells out clear-cut responsibilities and duties while at the same time providing for their exercise in proper relationship and cooperation toward the common goal of making accounting, financial report- ing, budgeting, and auditing of the greatest value. The careful allocation of responsibil- ties is designed to produce an integrated accounting system for the Government as a whole. Emphasis is placed on the development and use of agency account- ing systems as the foundation for finan- clal control and the production of neces- sary financial information. Provision is made for progressive improvement and simplification of present accounting sys- tems. A specific basis is laid for more comprehensive and selective perform- ance of the independent audit by the
11142 General Accounting Office to the fullest extent practicable at the site of opera- tions. The legislation will provide flex- ibility that is urgently needed for put- ting into effect more economical and efficient accounting and auditing pro- cedures in order to obtain maximum benefits from work now going forward under the joint accounting program and lays a solid foundation for carrying out the policies and objectives of the pro- gram. Title IZ provides that requests for legislation involving authorization for appropriations shall have prior approval of the head of the department or cs- tablishment concerned before such re- quest is transmitted to the Bureau of the Budget, to the President, or to the Congress. Title III repeals over a hundred acts or parts of acts relating mainly to the compilation of the estimates and the furnishing of certain financial data, most of which have been superseded or rendered outmoded by other existing pro- visions of law. The Budget and Ac- counting Act of 1921 superseded prac- tically all of these proposed repeal pro- visions. The Comptroller General in the hear- ings before the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments en- thusiastically urged passage of the bill. He said that the traditional control of Congress over appropriated funds is not only maintained but is actually strengthened by the measure. Iam sure that every Member of the House re- spects the opinion of Lindsay Warren in these matters. The bill also has the unqualified sup- port of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, both of whom attended the hearings. In addition, it has the en- dorsement of eminent accountants who have knowledge of the Government's fiscal problems. I would like to call attention to three committee amendments to the bill which prohibit (1) authority to adjust and transfer funds between appropriations within a department during the transi- tional period of conversion to the new accounting methods contemplated by this measure; (2) the 5 percent interchange- ability clause affecting transfers between appropriations within a department for the purposes of economy and efficiency; (3) the authority of the President to es- tablish reserves from appropriations when he determines that purposes in- tended by the Congress will be accom- plished by the expenditure of amounts less than the amounts appropriated. The committee concluded that these three provisions should be omitted from the bill and left to the Congress for con- sideration when annual appropriations are provided for the departments and agencies. No attempt should be made to enact these provisions into permanent legislation. They have always been pe- culiar to the annual appropriation acts and should be continued on that basis. For these reasons the committee adopted the three amendments to the bill. These CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE amendments strengthen the bill and I believe are a great improvement, Some opposition to a few provisions of the first title of the bill on budget pro- cedures has been voiced by Members of the Committee on Appropriations. This opposition has been based largely on a fear that the Appropriations Committee might be deprived of certain information relative to salaries paid Federal person- nel, In the past it has been customary to submit with the budget, statistical de- tailed information showing justifications for Federal salaries which has been known as “green sheets.” I have no de- sire to deprive the Congress of any in- formation it is entitled to receive and I intend to propose an amendment which will provide that this statistical infor- mation must be furnished along with the budget in order that it will be available to members of the Appropriations Com- mittee. I am also going to offer some other minor amendments to the budget sec- tion of the bill which have been sug- gested by members of the Appropriations Committee. I have the assurance of the Bureau of the Budget as well as the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller General that these minor amendments will not in any way impair the purpose and objectives of the bill, and I believe the few changes I am sug- gesting will meet the objections that might otherwise be raised. I hope these minor amendments will be adopted. This legislation is tremendously im- portant to the three fiscal agencies of our Government in aiding them to take positive action in modernizing and sim- plifying Federal fiscal requirements. Not only do I urge passage of the bill because its enactment is of the utmost importance to the progress the agencies will achieve in discharging their respec- tive obligations and duties, but I ear- nestly urge passage of the bill because I believe that it will provide a solid basis for furnishing the Congress and the President the information and means of control they need for the efficient man- agement of our enormous Federal fiscal Structure. Just as important, however, if not more so, it will provide the tax- payers with full disclosure of the finan- cial operations of the Government, Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KARSTEN. I yield, Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Looking at the committee report and the present law and the proposed changes in that law, I notice that under section 201 (e) of the present law—— Mr. KARSTEN. Are you talking about the bill now? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Of the pres- ent law. That apparently is to be deleted. Mr. KARSTEN. I suppose the gentle- man is reading from the report. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That section of the present law reads as follows: The amount of annual permanent and other appropriations including balance of appropriations from prior fiscal years avall- JULY 26 able for expenditure during the fiscal year in progress as of November 1 of such year. Mr. KARSTEN. That is amounts which have already been obligated; 1s that what the gentleman is talking about? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. No; I am talking primarily about annual and per- manent appropriations, the necessity for reporting which to the Congress would seem at first glance to be deleted by the striking of that paragraph from existing law. Mr. KARSTEN. The balances the gentleman speaks of are obligated bal- ances, Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. No; these are permanent appropriations that go on year after year subject to modification by the Congress. Mr. KARSTEN, Imay say to the gen- tleman that the President in submitting his annual report is required to submit requests for these appropriations in the budget. They will be in the budget and are covered by sections E, G, and H of the bill. Under these provisions full in- formation with respect to existing and proposed appropriations will be shown for the budget year, for the year in progress, and for the fiscal year last completed. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What I want to get a very clear understanding on is that the gentleman as chairman of the subcommittee feels that there is no intention to relieve the President of reporting those annual and permanent appropriations in the future just as he has in the past. Mr. KARSTEN. No: it would be in- cumbent upon him to do so under the provisions of the bill. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Now I wish to ask the gentleman a similar question in respect to section 204 (b) of the pres- ent law which provides that— Estimates for lump-sum approprtations shall be accompanied by statements showing in detail the manner of expenditure— And so forth. Mr. KARSTEN. This information will be furnished as it has in the past. Iam going to offer an amendment which will provide for this. I have discussed the matter with members of the Committee on Appropriations and it is at their sug- gestion I am proposing the amendment. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. There is no intention on the part of the committee to relieve anybody of the responsibility of making the report. Mr. KARSTEN. The Appropriations Committee has to analyze these requests. It is the desire of the Committee on Expenditures to see that members of the Appropriations Committee have full information in order that they can in- telligently analyze these requests for ap- propriations. That is fundamental. I believe the members of the Executive Ex- penditures Committee see eye to eye with the members of the Appropriations Com- mittee on this matter. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I merely wanted to get both those points clear in the Recorp,
1950 Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taper]. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I have been over the budget features of this bill as carefully as I have been able to in the time I have had. I have felt that there should be certain amendments and have taken them up with the committee and with the Rules Committee. I wish to ask the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Karsten] at this time if the committee has adopted and in- structed the gentleman to offer as com- mittee amendments the several amend- ments that he and I talked over. Mr. KARSTEN. I cannot speak for other members of the committee, but I have the assurance that they will agree to the amendments that we discussed up in the Rules Committee. Mr. TABER. And the gentleman in- tends to offer them. Mr. KARSTEN. Yes; I intend to of- fer them. Mr. TABER. I would think that this bill with the four amendments that the gentleman from Missouri told us he in- tended to offer, eliminating certain pro- visions of the bill, would make the bill an improvement over present law. Those amendments would do away with the requirement that it be a performance budget. It would also require the green sheets to be furnished. With that we can count upon a budget which would give the Appropriations Committee an opportunity to find out what it needs, with reference to the things that will come before it, I think I can see no objection to the bill. Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TABER. I yield to the gentle- man from Missouri, Mr. CANNON. I desire to join in con- gratulating the gentleman from Mis- souri [Mr. KARSTEN] on the care and ef- fectiveness with which this bill has been prepared. The bill fills a long-felt need, May I also express appreciation of the consideration shown the Committee on Appropriations in formulating the bill and the opportunity afforded the com- mittee to study the subject and collab- orate with him in drafting the measure? It modifies a number of defects in the law which have long needed attention and is one of the best pieces of legisla- tion introduced during this session of the Congress. Mr. TABER, I thank the gentleman. I do not think I have anything more to say except that the members of the com- mittee have been most cooperative in trying to arrive at a bill which would accomplish what we need, Iam assured by the Comptroller General, and I think I ought to say this, that he expects as a@ result of the accounting provisions that are placed in here to be able to give the Appropriations Committee more detailed information as to the operations and spendings of the various bureaus and agencies than we have ever had before from the Budget or from the depart- ments, and that he will be able to keep up to date with his audit, something that has been absolutely impossible under the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE old method of procedure. I hope that these things will result in great improve- ment and in savings. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rees], Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the members of the committee in charge of this legislation for their dili- gence and their efforts in bringing this measure, to provide a Budgeting and Ac- counting Procedures Act, to the House for its approval. I am glad to be advised that the meas- ure has at least 90 percent of the recom- mendations of the Hoover Commission. I am particularly interested in being assured that this legislation has the ap- proval of the Comptroller General, Mr. Lindsay Warren. The Comptroller Gen- eral is the official who will have, more than anyone else, to do with carrying out the intent and purpose of this proposed legislation. Lindsay Warren commands the respect and confidence of the Mem- bership on both sides of the aisle. I feel that so long as Lindsay Warren is in charge of the Comptroller General’s Of- fice and is permitted to exercise the authority that we expect to be granted in this bill, we will have better conditions in respect to accounting and budgeting in our Government. Mr. KARSTEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REES. I yield to the distin- guished chairman of the subcommittee in charge of this measure, the gentleman from Missouri Mr. KARSTEN. The bill has the un- qualified support of the Attorney Gen- eral. He enthusiastically urged the com- mittee to pass it because he said it will provide him with the tools and imple- ments he needs to carry out, this pro~ gram. That appears on page 17 of the report. Mr. REES. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I am giad to know also that it has the approval of the Secre- tary of the Treasury, Mr. Snyder. It is good to observe that it has the approval of the committee on both sides of the aisle, and I am especially gratified to know that the very hardworking gentle- man from New York [Mr. Taser], ap- proves the bill provided certain amend- ments he has suggested are adopted. I know of his deep concern in securing improved budget and accounting pro- cedures in our Government. I hope the approval of this legislation will bring about more efficiency and more economy than we have had in the past. I believe that if the intent and purpose of this legislation is carried out, we can have some degree of economy and efficiency. The House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, of which I have the honor to be 8 member, has shown a deep interest in legislation that would bring about more efficiency and the cutting out of a lot of duplication and multiplication of effort now being carried on in Gov-~ ernment. Mr, H.CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REES. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, who is also a member 11143 of the Committee on Appropriations, who has given a great deal of attention to the problems involved in this legisla- tion, and who has been outstanding in his demand for economy in Government expenditures. Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. While the gentleman from Kansas is on the floor, I want to compliment him for the efforts he made the other day in preventing the construction of a $15,000,000 building which was entirely unnecessary at this me. Mr REES. That, of course, is sepa- rate legislation. I thank the gentleman for hiscomment. I should add the gen- tleman was also active in support of my efforts. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. REES. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, who is also one of the hard. working and effective members of the Appropriations Committee of the House. Mr. JENSEN. I do want to say to the gentleman that the reason it appears that most all of us members of the Com- mittee on Appropriations are for this bill js for the simple reason that we are quite sure that it cannot make matters worse than they are now 1n the Account- ing Office and the way the budget is pre- sented to the Committee on Appropria- tions. We certainly feel that there 1s no way this thing can go after this bill becomes law than the good way, because it is just as bad now as it possibly can be. Mr. REES. I trust that the approval of this legislation by the Congress will bring about a little more efficiency and economy that is so much needed in our Government, especially at this time. Mr. JENSEN. We hope it will. Mr. REES. And I know about the concern of the gentleman from Iowa with this problem as an active mem- ber of the committee, and he has made a great contribution to Congress and to the country. At this crucial hour and in view of the impending crisis, this Congress ought to reappraise and reexamine its expend- itures and authorizations with a view of cutting out all unnecessary non- defense charges against our Government, I believe as much as $5,000,000,000 could be saved from expenditures already appropriated and authorized if we could get the nondefense agencies to cooper- ate. It ought to be done now. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield $8 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. ScRIVNER]. Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask some questions to see if I can get some information. I agree with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr, JENSEN] that all we can do is hope that this will make the situation better I was glad to have Mr. Taper's reassur- ance that this measure may help. But, in looking over the bill and the report I would like to ask someone to tell us where this new legislation is going to bring economy in Government, where it is going to bring us greater efficiency, and how it will solve a practical situation with which the members of the Committee on Appropriations are faced.
11144 For instance, coming in as agency heads do, with a lump-sum figure, we ask some details about “What are you £0- ing to use that money for?” They break down a list of items and say, “We will spend it for this, we will spend it for that, and we will spend it for this other.” The next year when they come back in they have more requests, and lo and behold we find the same items, and we say, “Well, gentlemen, that 1s what you said you were going to spend the money for last year. What did you spend it for?” “Well, we spent it for something else.” Is there anything in this bill that will prevent anything like that happening? Mr KARSTEN Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think very defi- nitely this bill will help correct the sit- uation that the gentleman mentioned. Mr, SCRIVNER. Then we find an- other situation arising. For instance, in the 1949 appropriations we granted a certain sum of money for a certain ac- tivity. All of that money was not used With some of remainder they started an entirely new activity about which they said nothing when they previously ap- peared before the committee. Now, is there anything 1n this bill that will stop that? Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have tried to correct that situation, and in section 202, on page 19, we say. When under authority of law a function or an activity Is transferred or assigned from one agency within any department or es- tablishment to another agency in the same department or establishment, the balance of appropriations which are determined by the head of such department or establishment to be available and necessary to finance or dis- charge the functions or activities so trans- ferred or assigned may, with the approval of the President, be transferred to, and be avail- eble for use by, the agency to which sald function or activity is transferred or assigned for any purpose for which said funds were originally available. Mr SCRIVNER. That will not cor- rect the situation about which I have been talking. This section has nothing to do with that, for transfer is not in- volved. For instance, we can take an activity in any one of the departments. Maybe they have asked for $100,000. They use only $75,000 for that activity, so they have $25,000 left, and they start something entirely new, about which nothing has been said to the Appropria- tions Committee or the legislative com- mittee, yet under the general power they claim the right to do it. Mr. HOLIFIELD, That is illegal un- der present basic law, if I am not mis- taken, and we affirmatively say here that the transfer and use of the funds shall be for the purpose originally intended. Mr. SCRIVNER. There is no trans- fer involved in this. They just have the money left, they did not spend it all, so they start something new. Then they come to us and say, “We have to have $25,000 more this year because this pro- gram has already been started, it is al- ready under way.” Mr. HOLIFIELD, I am under the im- pression that there is a basic law in re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE gard to the expenditure of funds for the purpose which Congress intends. Mr. SCRIVNER. But they do it. I trust this bill will stop that practice. Mr. ‘HOLIFIELD. Certainly we are not changing the basic law. The Comp- troller General has the authority to dis- allow such expenditures, Mr. KARSTEN. Mr, Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bonner]. Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, for 20 or 30 years there has been discussion whether the function of prescribing ac- counting systems of the Government should be in the executive or legisla- tive branch. The framers of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 placed this function, though not on a complete basis, with the Comptroller General of the United States, an agent of the Congress. This gave him a positive means of seeing that the accounting machinery provided an effective basis of control over the ex- penditure of public funds. Repeated at- tempts were made to shift this function from the legislative to the executive branch on the ground that accounting was an essential tool of management, These were vigorously resisted and de- feated by the Congress on every occasion as an unwholesome encroachment on congressional control of the public funds. There is no question that the develop- ment of accounting in the Government, from the standpoint of usefulness to management, has lagged. This is at- tributable at least in part to the fact that in arguing about where the functions should be performed not enough time and energy was devoted to getting to- gether and getting the accounting job done properly from all viewpoints in- volved. There should be no question in anybody's, mind that accounting needs to be developed and established in the Government both from the standpoint of being a useful tool ta good manage- ment and to provide a sound structure for control of the public funds and full disclosure of the results of operations— in individual agencies and for the Gov- ernment as a whole. About 3 years ago the Comptroller Gencral, representing the legislative branch, and the Secretary of the Treas- ury and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, representing the executive branch, got together and organized a joint program to improve accounting throughout the Government, This pro- gram recognized the multiple purposes accounting must serve and was dedi- cated to the idea that legislative and executive functions in connection there- with had to be performed in proper re- Jation, Notable progress has been made as a result of the cooperative work done under that program. Reports of that progress were filed in the hearings on this measure. The present bill recog- nizes the need for placement of responsi- bility in the executive branch for the establishment and maintenance of ade- quate accounting systems. At the same time it retains in the Comptroller Gen- eral authority to prescribe the basic ac- counting requirements. It thus main- tains in an agency of the Congress the JULY 26 means for making the accounting struc- ture of the Government serve as a basis for effective control over the funds which Congress provides and as a means for seeing to it that the wishes of the Con- gress are carried out and that there will be full disclosure of the uses of public funds. The allocation of functions be- tween the Comptroller General, the in- dividual executive agencies and the cen- tral fiscal agencies in the executive branch is the result of actual experi- ence and extensive work under the joint accounting program. The Comptroller General is given the authority and responsibility by this bill for prescribing basic principles and standards to be observed by the execu- tive agencies 1n connection with their accounting systems, after considering their needs. The Comptroller General's requirements will provide a basic frame- work for the Government’s over-all ac- counting They will, however, enable the individual agencies to develop their detailed accounting procedures so that they will most effectively serve their management needs and be adapted to the particular kind of operations for which they are responsible. It is obvious that these two sets of responsibilities must be exercised in proper relation to each other. In recognition of this the bill provides that the Comptroller Gen- eral shall cooperate with the executive agencies in the development of their ac- counting systems. When agency ac- counting systems comply with the Comptroller General's basic require- ments, they will be approved by him. Systems in operation will be reviewed by the Comptroller General, and the re- sults of such reviews will be made avail- able to agency heads, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Budget, and the Congress. Effective provision is also made for tying in accounting in each executive agency with the central requirements of the executive branch. The Comptroller General, in prescribing principles and standards and related requirements, is required to consult with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. Likewise, such basic requirements must provide for suit- able integration between agency and Treasury accounting. Also, the Comp- troller General is required to cooperate with the Treasury in the setting up of the Treasury's system of central account- ing and reporting. In these ways the bill recognizes the need, not sufficiently satisfied under present conditions, for accounting in all agencies to form part of an integrated pattern which will make it possible for the Treasury Depart- ment to readily prepare over-all state- ments on the financial operations and condition of the Government. These provisions represent an exten- sion of the principles of the Federal Property Act of 1949. The Comptroller General is directed to continue to exer- cise the authority given him by that act with respeci to property accounting, and, to the extent he deems necessary, the authority he has under section 309 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 over
1950 appropriation and fund accounting. Any such exercise of authority {s to be con- sistent with the pattern laid out in this bill, of consultation with the other cen- tral fiscal agencies, and consideration of the needs of all the executive agencies, The Comptroller General will thus be able to exercise all this authority over accounting systems in terms of prescrib- ing principles, standards, and basic re- quirements, and cooperative develop- ment of systems. He will not have to go down to the point of minor procedural details in those cases where the agencies assume their proper responsibility as out- lined in the bill, but will be able to exer- cise a guiding hand over the general de- velopment of a sound accounting struc- ture, in all its phases, for the entire Government. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly very pleasing to both sides of this aisle, I am sure, and to me as a member of this committee, to see cooperation on the part of the leadership on the left side and the leadership on the right side in endeavoring to work out here a piece of legislation that will be satisfactory to all. The chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings on this bill was certainly fair in inviting and giving notice of the hearings to all who desired to appear before the committee and giv- ing them ample time. There appeared before the committee the Secretary of the Treasury. The Budget was repre- sented, as well as the Comptroller Gen- eral. All were unanimous in their ap- proval of the bill and in the fact that the bill was satisfactory to each department. It so happens that on the Expenditures Committee there are very fine men who are the ranking members of the com- mittee on both the Republican side and the Democratic side. After the hearings were completed and we went into execu- tive session, three sections of the bill were questioned. The gentleman from Michi- gan (Mr. Horrman], who is a diligent worker and a splendid member of the committee, expressed himself to the ef- fect that if sections were deleted it would be perfectly satisfactory to him. The Bureau of the Budget had some question or objection to one section. So the com- mittee deleted all three sections. Then, no one else desiring to appear before the committee and no one being in opposi- tion to the proposed legislation, the bill was reported favorably. After that it came to the attention of the committee thet the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Tazgr], for whom this House has the highest re- gard and respect, had certain ideas about changes in the bill. So anxious was the chairman of the subcommittee to meet all objections and get a piece of legislation that would do the job and meet the objections of both the majority and minority that he agreed with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tasgr] to insert certain amendments and to make certain changes in the bill, and particularly to provide the worksheets that come down from the various depart- ments and the Budget. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE T have noticed distinguished members of the Committee on Appropriations have taken active part on the floor in asking questions about the bill, That is a wholesome thing. I have watched the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WiceLeswortH], whom I admire greatly, make his observations. Now that the bill is all clear, I want to say this, and it is the first time I have had the op- portunity or taken the opportunity with reference to the kind remarks that are continuously made here about a very close friend of mine—a very dear friend of mine—a splendid public servant, Those remarks are most pleasing to me, coming from the type of men that they do on both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives, men who are respected throughout the Nation. The Comptroller General of the United States is a fine man; he is a great citi- zen; he is a great leader; he is a true American; and it is pleasing to me to hear the high compliments that are paid him on account of my association with him since boyhood and also by virtue of my working with him for 16 years and then succeeding him in the House. Mr. Chairman, I had prepared a state- ment to deliver on this legislation, but after seeing the unanimous agreement that we have reached on both sides, I have come to the conclusion that the less said about the bill after agreement had been reached on it would be the best. I am delighted to have had a part in working out the agreements that we have reached. I admire the manner in which the leading minority member of the Committee on Appropriations appeared before the Committee on Rules and ex- pressed himself about the bill. As it now stands, it is my opinion that we will have a piece of legislation which will enable the Comptroller General and the other officials of the Government to make a clearer and more rapid report to the Congress of the expenditures of funds, and save the taxpayers of Amer- ica many dollars. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, the budget and ac- counting processes of our Federal Gov- ernment need an overhauling and I think this is an example of a job that has been long overdue. - One of the most frequent criticisms I have heard, even long before coming to Congress, is with reference to the tremendous amount of red tape in- volved in the fiscal processes of our Gov- ernment. I realize the Government of the United States has grown and that it is never going to be a simple process, but I do think {t could be much more efficient and economical. We have had the example of the Hoover Commission giving a great deal of study to this par- ticular program. H, R. 9038 does con- form almost entirely, while not entirely, to the Hoover Commission recommenda- tions. I quote from their statement: The citizens committee— Which was a committee set up to pro- mote the enactment of the Hoover report— The citizens committee does not want to oppose major reorganisation measures which 11145 are only in partial accord with the Commis- sion'’s recommendations or which differ in only one or two particulars, And to further quote: The task of the citizens committee ts to analyze reorganization measures and to point out how they differ from the recommenda- tions of the Hoover Commission, Now listen to this carefully: The major difference between the recom- mendations of the Hoover Commission and that of this bill is that this bill places the authority for the accounting procedures and auditing in the Office of the Comptroller General, an agent of the Congress, rather than tn a new office which the Hoover Com- mission suggested be called the Accountant General to be placed in the Department of the Treasury, The Congress has been, and I think rightly so, very zealous of the fact that the Office of the Comptroller General remain an arm of the Congress. Cor- roborating what my good friend the gen- tleman from North Carolina [Mr. Bon- NER] has said, Lindsay Warren, the present Comptroller General and former Member of this House, has been an ex- cellent administrator. He has saved the country millions of dollars. Even more important, through advice to the various Federal agencies concerning proposed expenditures, he has carried out the intent of the Congress. Without impugning the motives of either the author of the bill, because he has been very cooperative, or the chair- man of the committee, I do feel that the bill was reported out with insufficient hearings. The bill was drafted, accord- ing to the testimony—at least the basic philosophy of the bill—by the Secretary of the Treasury Snyder, Budget Director Lawton, and Comptroller General War- ren. They were the only witnesses who were called to testify upon the bill. It would seem to me that members of the Appropriations Committee who are so intimately concerned with this measure should have been notified and given an opportunity to present their views. Con- gress should not lightly consider legisla- tion that will have far-reaching effects upon fiscal affairs. Many of the phases of this bill are noncontrovessial, and I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Karsten] is to be congratulated upon presenting the legislation. I want also to suggest that he has been very co- operative in accepting amendments. Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? , Mr. HARVEY. I yield. Mr, BONNER. With respect to re- porting the bill out, of course it hap- pens I made the motion to report the bill out. I have the highest regard and respect for the gentleman from Indi- ana. So much so that he will remember once on a subcommittee, of which I am chairman, a controversy arose about a matter in his State, and, demonstrating my confidence in respect to the ability of the gentleman, instead of sending a three-man subcommittee to Indiana, I sent the gentleman, who is now speak- ing, to Indiana and told him to come back and whatever his decision was about the matter would be adopted by
11146 the committee. So I certainly tried to pay my highest respect and show my confidence in the gentleman. The point I want to make, the three gentlemen you spoke of are the only cnes who appeared to testify about this legislation before the committee. I asked the question whether or not anybody else wanted to testify, and there was no one else there. I took it for granted that the matter had been on the com- mittee calendar that hearings would be held, and that if anybody was opposed to any portion of it they would certainly have expressed themselves. AS soon as we found out that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taser] had some views and observations about it and desired to change certain sections, we met his ob- Jections. Mr. HARVEY. The gentleman inter- rupted me before I had an opportunity to complete my statement, because I in- tended to say that even in spite of this fact Mr. Karsten and the committee had keen cooperative in accepting proposed amendments to make the bill a better and more satisfactory piece of legisla- tion. I thank the gentleman for his contri- bution. A performance budget would be simpler, for the usual breakdown of the budget into personnel, supplies, and travel expenses of any given department or agency would be eliminated. The cost would be given in lump sum. The costs would be broken down, if requested, into so-called units, such as average cost for maintenance and travel of employ- ees. The breakdown, however, would not give the subcommittees of the Ap- propriations Committee the necessary and vital information. For example, in considering the budget for any given segment of an agency or department, one of the most important estimates is the number of employees contemplated, and the rate of pay. This figure—and I am speaking to members of the Ap- propriations Committee—you certainly would like to have the figures in any given segment for the number of per- sonnel involved to compare with the pre- vious year and the year before that. Without a breakdown into the number of personnel you are not in a position to give a constructive appraisal of the ap- propriation bill. I think that has been corrected in the so-called “green sheet” that will be sent up, and which the gen- tleman from New York [Mr. Taber] has suggested as a method of meeting that point. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. HARVEY. I yield. Mr, HOLIFIELD. We were very glad, as the gentleman said, to have the gen- tleman from New York [Mr. Taper] make this suggestion, because we all re- spect him and we know that he has the job of working with the Appropria- tions Committee and he needs every bit of information that is available. We went to the trouble of asking the Bureau of the Budget to give us an estimate of how much it would cost them to make these green sheets available, It was a very modest sum, and all of the mem- .Worklead in his office. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE bers of the subcommittee felt that that expenditure would be more than justi- fied in getting this valuable information to the members of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. HARVEY. Yes; I am glad the gentleman from California has re- emphasized that because I think it will very possibly allay some of the suspicions that the members of the Appropriations Committee may have had that the per- formance budget would not give them the facts that they should have in con- sidering appropriation bills. Let me say also that the author of the bill has been very cooperative in revising the language of the bill so that the so- called performance budget will not be mandatory. The amended provision will take care of that. We all recognize the fact that the performance budget even as the omnibus appropriation bill, is purely experimental and if it should not prove as workable as we hope and think it will, we would certainly want to have an optional provision so that we would not be, as he expressed it, stuck with it. Some of the desirable objectives of this legislation are to streamline the accounting and auditing procedures; and these features are in line with the Hoover Commission report. The powers given to the Comptroller General would cen- ter responsibility for accounting to an extent that is lacking at present. One significant feature that should produce great economy is the proviso that would eliminate the necessity of sending mil- lions of vouchers and supporting evi- dence to Washington. The auditing could be done just as well at various sub- stations at a great saving. Mr. Warren has also testified that the warrant sys- tem is outmoded, no longer serves a use- ful function, and should be abandoned, Also that many accounts his office is required by law to carry are no longer necessary and only serve to increase the Mr. Warren, however, had no estimate as to the num- ber of such accounts subject to elimina- tion. In the hearings I asked him whether it would mean 2, 20, or 500. Mr. Warren replied: We would have no idea in the world of that until we got the figures. The following questions and answers followed on this subject: Mr. Harvey. To go ahead regarding this section 116, would you have any estimate as to the number of ledger accounts that would be eliminated if the authority were given to the Comptroller General? Mr. Warren. None whatever. Mr. Harvey. Would it be 2, 20, or 500? Mr. Warren. We would have no idea in the world of that until we got the figures. Mr. Harvey. It could be as many as 600, co ld it? Mr. WarREN. Yos. Mr. Harvey. How many ledger accounts do you carry? Mr. Wasren. They would run up to the thousands. Mr. Harvey. Could you give me an example of one that might well be eliminated under this? Mr. WARREN. Mr. Weitzel, I wish you would give an example of that. Mr. WeirzeL. Mr. Harvey, one of those would be limitation accounts which are kept JULY 26 in the General Accounting Office, where there is a limitation of so many dollars un- der a particular appropriation, for example, on how much can be spent on personal serv- ices in the District of Columbia. We keep in the General Accounting Office a limitation account for each of those, and there are hundreds of those. The agencies keep those accounts, and we have found from long years of experience that the effective way of audlt- ing to see whether the agency keeps within those limitations is right within the agency itself. We have had a system under which the agencies furnish us information from their records, which we post on those ledger ac- counts. But we have no way of verifying whether that information is correct without inspecting agency accounts. I do not want to discount the value of that under the present system, but as we go out and work with the agencies in setting up proper controls and prescribe certain related accounting-system requirements and make comprehensive audits of the agencies right at the site of their operations, that is the place where we can check whether they are keeping within their Mmitations. In that event, the Hmitation accounts in the General Accounting Office may not only become nonessential but wasteful. The Citizens’ Committee for the Hoover Report says that this bill gives the Comptroller General even greater powers than he has previously held, in that he is empowered to prescribe ac- counting practices for branches of the executive, With this objection, I do not hold. It would seem to me that some one person in authority should have the right to prescribe a uniform accounting system so that the auditing will be easier. After all, accounting is not a policy de- cision, but a mechanical device to keep a record of expenditures. There can be no valid reason for the many Federal agen- cies to use different types of systems. Sections 201 and 203 of the bill give great powers to the President to modify appropriations made by the Congress, and I think it was agreed that these sections would be stricken by committee amendment. We were assured by the Comptroller General's testimony that this problem would be adequately cov- ered by section 1111 of the omnibus ap- propriation bill, By the same testimony section 103 could be eliminated. This section gives great leeway to the various agencies in making the transition to the performance budget. My greatest disappointment in this legislation is that it does not promise to alleviate the greatest evil of the fiscal affairs of our Government, which is de- ficiency appropriations. There are un- doubtedly circumstances under which an agency would find added duties or unex- pected costs would make its appropria- tion inadequate. But far too often an agency simply does not take seriously the will of Congress, goes right ahead spend- ing and hoping that Congress will bail them out rather than close down the services. None of the three who testi- fied, Mr. Lawton, Snyder, or Warren of- fered that this bill would help alleviate this condition, except under certain cir- cumstances when an approaching de- ficiency could be detected sooner. In conclusion may I suggest that mem- bers of the Appropriation Committee give this legislation their careful scrutiny for
1950 their committee is most intimately in- volved, Ths committee has a very great function to perform for the Congress and taxpayers. It is a very difficult assign- ment, involving hours of labor, too often unappreciated. It is my hope that this legislation will prove beneficial to the Ap- propriations Committee, the Congress, and to the people. Mr. KARSTEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Beck- WORTH]. (Mr. BecKworTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks and include extraneous matter.) Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, on tomorrow some very important agri- cultural legislation will be considered by the House. As a part of my remarks, and for the information of the House, I wish to in- clude the following letters and statis- tics: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING, ADMINISTRATION, Firip SErvice BRANCH, Tyler, Tez, Representative LinpLeEy BECKWoRTH, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: This is written to acquaint you with the thoughts of the farmers of Smith County in regard to the very small cotton allotments that have been given to the farms that were classified as new growers, due to the fact that they had no cotton history for the years of 1946, 1947, and/or 1948, I am sure that you will be hearing from a certain percent of them and thought information from this office would be of assistance in an- swering their inquiries. As you well know, the allotment for this county was very small and tnadequate con- sidering the trend back to cotton. Our al- lotment being only 14,500 acres for 19650, where it was 76,000 acres prior to the war. The county committee (composed of farm- ers) were allowed, under the law, to set aside a certain percent of the county allotment for reserves. This was done, but reserves of sufficient size couldn’t be set up to give the desired relief. In fact, we had many com- plaints from farms that varied greatly in size and in the amount of acres allowed for cotton. We have just mailed to the farmers that made application as new growers their al- lotments. The reserve that could be set aside for this croup was 607.8 acres, for this acre- age we had 450 applications. The allotments being so small that many say that they can't afford to fool with it, to get ready to plant and cultivate such a small crop would cost more than could be realized out of the crop. These allotments varying in size from 0.01 acre to 6 acres, and to get a 5-acre allotment it had to be 4 very large farm. The people of this county, who were look- ing to cotton for a cash crop, something that they could depend on, are certainly dissat- isfied with the present cotton-allotment law. Tt is their belief, everyone that has expressed theif opinion to me, that they as individuals and Smith County as a whole have been dis- criminated against. The way to make a liy- ing for their family is a thought and a ques- tion mark forever present in the minds of the small farmer of this county and this section of the State of Texas, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE This letter is not written in criticism but merely to convey to you the feelings of the farmers of this county. Yours truly, Dan G, Owen, Secretary, Smith County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, . PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTEATION, Canton, Tez., March 20, 1980. O. L. Hapronsrauy, Fruttvale, Tex. Dear Sir: This is to advise that the county committee finds it necessary to set up a zero allotment on the above farm serial number. Since we had 600 applications for new grower allotments and only 427.7 acres of cotton, you can see that the average allotment would have been 0.7 of an acre if all approved for allotments. The county committee ap- proved 257 farms for new grower allotment with an average allotment of 1.7 acres. In view of the above facts we cannot see that you have been done any disservice by disap- proval of your application. Any appeal from the above must be made within 16 days from the date of this notice. Your application was disapproved for one of the reasons set out below. 1. Work stock and equipment not avall- able. 2. Has a cotton allotment on another farm. 3. Cotton allotment not necessary to live- lihood of operator. 4. Land not adapted to production of cot- ton. §. Allotment which could be set up too small to be of possible benefit to farm operator, R. W. Brown, N. L. CrmatHaM, J. M. STEPHENS, County Committee, Van Zandt County PMA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Canton, Tez., April 11, 1950. Hon, LINDLEY BEckKWwoRTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. 0. Deak Mr. BecKkwortn: The county com- mittee has requested that I give the follow- ing answers to the questions asked in your letter of April 3, 1950. 1, Six hundred and forty-two farms re- ceived 5 acres or less in Van Zandt County. 2. Approximately 600 farmers made appli- cation for new grower allotments. 3. There were 427.7 acres of cotton to dis- tribute to new grower farmers in this county. 4, Each farm which received an allotment received from 0.4 acre to 4.5 acres. The al- lotments averaged 1.7 acres. 8. It was necessary that a considerable number be given a zero allotment. 6. The committee regards approximately 70 percent of the applicants genuine farmers, Very truly yours, James C, Hopcr, Secretary, Van Zandt County PMA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Decatur, Tez., July 17, 1950, Livpizy Becx wortn, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mz, BecxwortH: The information shown below was requested by you under the dates of May 8 and May 16. We regret very much that we were unable to furnish you with this information sooner. The Wise County PMA committee, composed of G. A. Collier, Chico; C, W. Slay, Rhome; W. D. 11147 Phillips, Decatur, has asked me to expreas to you their appreciation of your efforts in behalf of the amall cotton and peanut pro- ducers. We have 601 cotton producers in Wise County; 170 of these received less than 5& acres of cotton; 27 new producers applied for acreage. There was 90.5 acres to dis- tribute to these new producers; 72.3 acres of this was distributed. None obtained zero acres. We consider 100 percent of these ag genuine farmers. The recent cotton amend- ment helped our new producers to the amount of 75.3 acres. It helped the old ones to the amount of 388.2 acres. Ninety-five percent of our producers receiving less than 5 acres probably will grow no cotton; none will cease to farm for themselves, We have 928 peanut producers in Wise county. Ten is the least number of acres a farmer can afford to economically grow. Four hundred and sixty-two producers re- ceived allotments of less than 10 acres. Sixty-five producers received allotments less than 2 acres. All of the producers receiving allotments of less than 2 acres will cease to grow peanuts None will cease to farm for themselves. Thirty-six producers applied for peanut acreage in 1950. The new pro- ducers allotments were received from the State reserve. These 36 new producers ree ceived 130.1 acres. Yours very truly, F. P. Martin, Secretary, Wise County PMA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Gohad, Tez., May 10, 1950. Hon. Linpiey Becxworrn, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Beckwortu: In reply to your let- ter of May 6, 1950, we are listing below what we consider is an accurate estimate of the information you desire. ashe of cotton producers in county: Farmers receiving less than 6 acres of cotton: 49 old growers and 27 new growers. Number of new producers applying for cot- ton acreage: 55. Acreage available for new producers: 150. Acres allotted to each new producer: An average of 4.2 each. Number receiving zero acres: 19, What percent regarded as genuine farmers: 100 percent. Recent cotton amendment helped new producers by how many acres: None. Helped old growers by how many acres: 1,206.7, Number producers receiving less than 8 acres that will grow no cotton: 5 percent. Number producers who will cease to farm tor themselves: None. R. J. ARNOLD, Chairman, Goliad County PMA Come« mittee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND Mar- KETING ADMINISTRATION, Quitman, Tex., May 29, 1950. Hon. Livo.tey Becxworrs, New House Office Butiding, Washington, D.C. Deag CONGRESSMAN: This is in reference to your letter, dated May 13, 1960, to the Wood County PMA Committee. We have approximately 400 peanut pro- ducers in the county. The least number of acres each producer can afford to grow is 2 acres. We have about 150 producers who received allotments of less than 2 acres. Of those growers having allotments of less than 2 acres, there will be about 25 or 50 who will cease to grow peanuts. I do not
11148 believe there will be any to cease to farm for themselves, The number of new proe ducers were 35 and the number of acres dis- tributed was 21.4 acres and the average to each was 0.6 of an acre. The excess acreage (for oll) up to the 1947 picked and and threshed will help at least 150 or 200 producers in Wood County, (I am told today, June 6, 1950, by Mr. Akers, that peanuts for edible purposes are worth $200 to 8220 a ton and for ofl purposes from $100 to 8120 a ton.) Part added in paren- thesis by Lindley Beckworth. Hoping the above is the desired informa- tion, lam Yours very truly, Roy E. BARNETT, Secretary, Wood County PMA Committee, DEPARTMENT oF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND Mar- KETING ADMINISTRATION, Quitman, Tex., April 10, 1950. Hon. Lanpiey Beck worth, House Office Building, Washington, D. C, Drag CONGRESSMAN: This is in reference to your letter of April 5, 1950, to the county committee, (1) The number of farmers receiving 5 acres of cotton or less was 1,248, (2) The number of new producers that applied for allotments was 340. (3) The acreage that was available to distribute among the new producers was 300. (4) Each producer re- ceived from 1 acre to 1.1 acres. (5) The number of zero allotments was 10. (6) The percent of new producers regarded as gen- uine farmers was 83 percent (300) applica. tions. The number of applications left from item 2, less item 5, less item 6, consisted of 80 applications that did not meet the necessary eligibility requirements. If you desire further information please advise. Yours very truly. Roy E, BaRNETT, Secretary, Wood County PMA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRONUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, De Ridder, La., May 22, 1950. Mr. LinpLey ExckworrtH, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ConcrsssMan BecxwortH: In refer- ence to your letter of May 18, 1950, lsted below is a tabulation to your questionnaire. Thank you for your interest in peanut and cotton farmers. Very truly yours, T. SHetpy OAKEs, Administrative Officer, Beauregard Parish Production and Marketing Administration. Peanuts, 1950 Number of peanut producera_........-. 67 Number of peanut acres he can economl- cally grow..._---.-..-----+------. + 5 Number of producers received allotment less than 6 acres__..... --.-.----.---- 60 Number of producers received allotment less than 2 acres.......-.-.-------.-. 47 Number of producers received less than 2 acres that will cease to grow peanuts_......--...----------------- 26 Number of producers that will cease to farm for themselves......-...-..-.. we Number of new producers applied for allotment in 1960.....----.----...- 8 How many acres did you have to distribute . 22.2 eee enn - 59 Approximately how much did they re- ceive (all 8)... n-ne nee ene 89 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, De Ridder, La., June 1, 1950. Dear Sm: Please find enclosure for your attention. Yours very truly, T. SHELBY OAKES, Parish Administrative Officer, County Committee of Beauregard County. Cotton, 1950 1, Cotton producers in Beauregard Parish ..........---.-.--..-.- 807 2, Farmers receiving 5 acres of less of cotton......-.--- 22. 272 8, New producers applied for acreage. 150 4, Acreage to distribute among new producers... --....-.-------- 415 5. Acreage each received..-....--... 2,0-3.4 6. Farmers receiving zero acreage_.. 13 %. Percent of new producers regarded as genuine farmers__......---. 90 8. a. Acreage the new cctton amend- ment helped new producers___. 0 b. Old ones 22 - een ee 0 9. Number of producers receiving less than 6 acres that will probably grow no cotton___...-.--.--... as 10, Number of farmers that will cease to farm for themselves......... © eencee DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Montague, Ter., May 9, 1950. Re letter dated May 6, 1950. Hon. Linpiry Beckworts, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: In Montague County we have ap- proximately 700 actual cotton producers. We have 266 farmers in the county who received allotments of less than 5 acres under the original cotton law. Of course some of these figures were raised to more than 5 acres under the new 65~45-percent provision. We had 139 applications for new grower cotton allotments in Montague County, and only 100 acres reserve was available for allo- cation to these applicants. These new pro- ducers received allotments from 0.5 to 2.7 acres, but none received a zero allotment. We estimate that 86 percent of these new producers are genuine farmers. The recent cotton amendment did not help new cotton producers in our county since we did have enough acreage returned to the com- mittee to cover the additional required for old producers under the 65-45-percent provi- sion. However, the county did receive 1,244.3 acres additional allotment under the new law to ald the old producers. We estimate that at least 50 to 60 percent of the 266 farmers receiving less than 5 acres probably will grow no cotton in 1960. Approximately 20 percent of this number will cease to farm for themselves. Yours truly, Bue. E. Wricut, Secretary, Montague County PMA, — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Covington, La., May 9, 1950. Representative LinpLey BeckwortTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Beckwortuw: In reply to your re- quest of April 29, 1950, the following is for your information. 1. There are 221 cotton producers in this parish. 2. One hundred and fifty-four received less than 65 acres of cotton. 8. Fifty-one applied as new producers, JULY 26 4. There were 141 acres to distribute among new producers, 6. Each received a percent share accord- ing to cropland and requested acreage. 6. Nu producer received zero acres, 7. About 75 percent of new producers are genuine farmers, 8. The recent cotton amendment helped none of our new producers. The frozen acre- age amendment gave us 4 acres for new pro- ducers, 9. The recent cotton amendment helped none of our old producers. The frozen acre- age amendment gave us 18.1 acres for old producers. 10. About 16 of our producers receiving less than 5 acres will probably grow no cotton. 11, A very small percentage will cease to farm for themselves, Very truly yours, Bert N. BRUMFIELD, Parish Administrative Officer. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Amite, La., May 9, 1950. Hon Linpiey BeckwortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: We acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 28, 1950. We submit the following information: Cotton producers in Tangipahoa Parish: 817, Farmers which received less than 8 acres of cotton: 444, New producers who made application for cotton: 103. Acreage distributed to new producers: 303.2. Did any receive zero acreage: Yes. New producers regarded as genuine farm- ers: 75 percent. Recent cotton amendment which helped new producers: 9 acres, Recent cotton amendment which helped old producers: 34.6 acres. Estimated producers receiving less than 8 acres, who will grow no cotton: 25 percent, Estimated number who will cease to farm for themselves: 2 percent, Yours very truly, Murpuy J, Burcn, Parish Administrative Officer. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Seguin, Tex., July 22, 1950. Hon. LinpiEy BeckwortuH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean Mr. Beckwortu: In reference to your letter of May 6 concerning cotton acreage allotments in Guadalupe County, I am list- ing below your questions and our answers, which in some cases are estimates: How many cotton producers are in your county: 1,200. How many farmers received less than 6 acres of cotton: 186. How many new producers applied for acreage: 108. How much acreage was there to distribute among the new growers: 373.0. How much did each get; 3.5 acre average. Did any receive zero acres: Yes, 3. What percent: 0.C8 percent. What percent of the new producers do you regard as genuine farmers: 90 percent. How much in acres did the recent cotton amendment help your new producers: None. The old ones: 4,740, How many of your producers recetving less than 6 acres probably will grow no cotton: 25 percent,
1950 How many will cease to farm for them. selves: 10 percent. Thanking you for your interest in this matter, I am Yours very truly, R. E. Horrmay, Chairman, Guadalupe County PMA Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MArKrTING ADMINISTRATION, Seguin, Tex., July 22, 1950, Hon. LINDLEY BECK WwoRTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Beckworttt: In reference to your letter of May 15 concerning peanut acreage allotments in Guadalupe County, I am list- ing below your questions and our answers, which in some cages are estimates: Number of pzanut producers in Guada- lupe County: 424. Generally, in thinking of your average farmer and producer, what is the least num- ber of acres he can afford to grow or eco- normhically grow’ 5 acres. How many producers in county received allotments less than the number of acres mentioned above: 105. How many peanut producers received al- lotments of less than 2 acres: 43, Of the number of peanut farmers receiving allotments of lecs than 2 acres, how many will cease to grow peanuts: 75 percent. How many new producers applied for pea- nut acreage in Guadalupe County in 1950: 30. How many acres did you have to distribute to them: 61 4 acres. Approximately how much did each receive: 2 acre average, Thanking you for your interest in this mat- ter and Guadalupe County, J am Yours very truly, R. E. HoFFMAN, Chairman, PMA Guadalupe County Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Ficydada, Floyd, Tez., June 30, 1950, Hon Linoiey EscKwcrra, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dsar Mr. ReParsentaTive: In reply to your note of May 6, 1950, I will submit answers to your questions. I regret that I was unsble to answer prior to this time, but we were prohibited from replying by Mr. Frank K. Woolley, Deputy Administrator, PMA. How- ever, he has now removed the prohibition. There are 1,268 cotton prcducers in Floyd County. There were 49 new growers and 11 old growers that received less than 5 acres of cotton. There were 271 applications for new growers acreage. There were 3,703 acres to distribute among new growers. Each new grower received 0.5476 of the indicated acroage (what the old grower received, which was 0.2623 of tilled acreage adjusted). No new producer received zero acreage. Of the applications received, less than 50 percent are genuine farmers. The new growers were not helped by recent cotton amendments. The old growers were helped to the extent of 6,911 acres additional cotton allotment, This was allocated to 339 farmers. There were 796 farmers who applied for adjust- ments, but only 389 received any relief. Of the producers receiving less than 5 acres only about 25 will actually grow cotton. There will be none to cease farming because of the allotment reductions, XCVI-~——-702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE At present time the total county allotment 4s 51,803.8 including all adjustments, Very truly yours, Ray S. McENTing, Secretary, Floyd County PMA. DrPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, May 9, 1950. Hon Linpiey BeckwonrtuH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: Below ts the report of the infor= mation called for by you for Geneva County: How many cotton producers are in your county: 2,142. How many farmers in your county received Jess than 5 acres of cotton: 191. How many new producers applied for acres age: 72, How much acreage was there to distribute among the new producers in your county: 811. How much did each get: B-23, 4.5; B-145, 1.4; C~235, 83; D-168, 4.5; E-62, 1.2; E-167, 02; F-4, 4.5; F-36, 22.3; F-133, 0.7; F-139, 0.3; F-146, 3.3; F-147, 0.5; G~12, 2.6; G-20, 9; G-85, 3; G-103, 45; G-128, 55; G-105, 2.7; H-26, 3.4; H-53, 5 9; H-92, 6.5; H-93, 2.1; H-95, 25; H-97, 2; H-101, 3; I-113, 5.8; I-114, 4.1; I-108, 4.5; 1-135, 8.7; I-139, 1.5; I-145, 2; 1-154, 3.9; I-160, 7.2; I-161, 4.9; J-23, 45; J-35, 5 4; J-39, 4.5; J-45, 4.2; J-86, 3.6; K-42, 4.5; K-55, 45; K-78, 3; K-123, 4.5; K-180, 0.3; K-131, 0 6; K-138, 116; L-19, 2.9; L-21, 9; L-35, 8; L-42, 4.5; L-51, 45; L-55, 5.4; M-43, 5.5; M-50, 6 3; M-51, 45; M~70, 4; N-56, 3.4; N-83, 3.7; N-09, 84; N-106, 3.6; N-129, 2.7; N~-130, 3.8; N-132, 4.5; N-134, 1.5; O-12, 2.7; O-30, 1.9; O-38, 3.6; 047, 2.8. Did any receive zero acres: No. What percent of new producers do you re- gard as genuine farmers: 90 percent. How much in acres did the recent cotton amendment help your new producers: None. The old ones: 306.9, How many of your producers receiving less than 5 acres probably will grow no cotton: 28. How many will cease to farm for them- selves: 100 in 1951; beyond 1951 we would not know how to predict. Very truly yours, F. W. BoLin, Vice Chatiman o} Geneva County PMA Committee. C. Rirxy Brown, Member of Geneva County PMA Committee, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Bay Minette, Ala., May 8, 1950. Mr. LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean Mr. Beckwortm: As requested in your letter addressed to the Baldwin County PMA Committee, I wish to advise thet we have approximately 600 cotton farmers in this county. About 300 of these farms received Jess than 6 acres allotment. We only had about 180 acres to distribute to new growers; therefore they received an acreage from 0.1 up to 10 acres. We did not have any pro- ducers who filed for an allotment who did not get his percent. The recent cotton amendment only helped five farmers in this county with a total increase of 15 acres. I will say that approximately one-half of them will plant no cotton at ail due to the fact that their allotmen’, is so small. I am gure that none of them will cease to farm for themselves; although they cannot grow 11149 cotton, they will produce some other crop instead. Yours truly, ‘Wooprow W. Boots, . County Administrative Officer, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AN) MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Brewton, Ala., May 8, 1950. Linpity Beckworrt, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. De.rn CONGRESSMAN BrckwortH: I appree ciate your letter of May 5, 1950, and am list- ing below information as requested: Cotton prodvcers in the county: 1,554. Farmers receiving less than 5 acres: 478. Aprlicants for new growers allotments: 90. Acreage distributed for new growers: °62. Each new grower received some acreage. Percent regarded as genuine farmers: 50. Acres to mew growers hy recent cotton amendment: 0. Acres to old growers by recent cotton amendment: 75 percent. Producers receiving less than 6 acres who probably will grow no cotton: 250. Producers who will cease to farm for them- selves: 5 percent. Very truly yours, E, N. McCatt, Chairman, Escambia County PMA Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MA8KETING ADMINISTRATION, Fresno, Calif., July 14, 1950. Re: Cotton Allotment Data, Fresno County, Calif. Congressman LinpLey BecKworrit, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN BecKwortH: The following is the information requested con- corning cotton allotment in Fresno County: How many cotton producers are in your county: 3,674. How many farmers in your county received less than 5 acres of cotton: 311. How many new producers applied for acreage: 484. How much acreage was there to distribute among the new producers in your county: 7,000. How much did each get: Unable to state— acreage is varied greatly. Did any receive zero acres: Yes, 220. What percent of the new producers do you regard as genuine farmers: All regarded as such. How much in acres did the recent cotton amendment help your new producers: Not applicable to new producers, The old ones: 302.2 acres. We have answered all those questions for which the county committee can supply a reasonably accurate answer. Very truly yours, Frank LONG, Chairman, PMA County Committee, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Chatsworth, Ga., July 18, 1950. Drar Mr. Beckwortu: This is in regard to your letter of May 4, 1950, concerning cotton allotments in Murray County. 9 1. Number of cotton producers in county: 39, 2. Number of allotments for less than 5 acres: 226. 8. Number of new producers applying for acreage: 5&7,
11150 4. Acreage distributed among new pro» Qucers: 141.3 6. Acreage each was given: 141.8. 6. Did any receive gero acreage: No. 7, Percent of new producers regarded as farmers: 10. 8. Number of acres the recent cotton amendment helped new growers: 0; old growers, 379.2. 9. Farmers receiving less than 6 acres who will probably grow no cotton: 22. 10. Farmers who will cease to farm for themselves: 25. Yours very truly, 8 C PutorT, County Administrative Officer, Mure ray County, Ga. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRoDUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Poteau, Okla., May 8, 1950. Hon. Linptey Beck wortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Deak Mr. Beckwortn: In reply to your letter of May 4, we are Nsting below the answers to your questions for LeFlore County, 1. Total cotton farmers in county: 2,155. 2. Number of farmers receiving less than & acres; 408 farms. Number of farmers re- ceiving exactly 5 acres: 864 farms. 3. Thirty-five new growers applied for acreage. 4. Fifty-one acres were avaHNable for new growers’ requests. 5. Each new grower averaged only 1.5 acre per farm. 6. One hundred percent of new producers regarded as genuine cotton farmers. 7. Recent cotton amendment helped new growers receive an increase of 157 acres. 8. Recent cotton amendment helped old growers receive an increase of 820 acres. 9. Probably 60 percent of growers recelv- ing less than § acres will grow no cotton. 10. Probably only about 2 percent will cease to farm for themselves. In this county there 4s quite a lot of diversified farming. We appreciate your interest in these prob- Jems and please feel free to call on us at any time that we can furnish you with informa- tion, Very truly yours, A. H. Miter, Chairman, LeFlore County PMA Come mittee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Beaufort, §.C., May 5, 1950. Linoiry Beck wortn, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: With reference to your letter of May 2, 1950, the inquiries listed therein are answered below: How many cotton producers are in your county: 660. How many farmers in your county received less than five acres of cotton: 600. How many new producers applied for acre- age: 57. How much acreage was there to distribute among the new producers in your county: 69.5. How much did each get: From 0.3 to 8.8 acres, Did any receive zero acres? No. What percent of the new producers do you regard as genuine farmers: 90 percent. How much in acres did the recent cotton amendment help your new producers: None. The old ones; 30. How many of your producers receiving less than & acres probably will grow no cotton: 50. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE How many will cease to farm for them- selves: None. Very truly yours, M. L. Bosticr, County Administrative Officer, PMA. — COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Work IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME Economics, Strate oy FLORIDA, Blountstown, Fla., May 10, 1950. LINDLEY BECK WORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: There are 69 cotton producers in our county; 43 farmers received less than 5 acres of cotton, in our county; 15 new pro- ducers applied for acreage. There were 6 acres to distribute among the producers in our county. Each new producer got from 0.3 to 0.8 acres. None received zero acres. I regard the new producers to be 100 percent genuine farmers. The recent amendment helped our new producers zero acres. The old ones 4 acres; 25 producers receiving less than 6 acres will probably grow no cotton. None will cease to farm for themselves. Yours very truly, J. GREEN, Administrative Officer, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Propucrion AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Quincy, Fla., May 8, 1950. Mr. Linpiey BeckworrtH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: This is the information you re- quested on cotton from Gadsden County, Fla: There are only 13 cotton producers in the county; 12 farmers received less than 5 acres of cotton; $ new producers applied for cot- ton acreage; 0.7 was the acreage to distribute among the new producers; one got 0.2, one 03 and another 0.2 acre; none received zero acres. All producers are genuine farmers. The new amendment did not help the new or old producers. About two-thirds of the producers receiving less than 5 acres will not grow cotton. None will cease to farm for themselves. Trusting this is the information you de- sired, I am, Yours very truly, Brernaro H. Craax, Administrative Officer, —_—— DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINIBTRATION, Purvis, Miss., May 5, 1950. Mr. LINDLEY B-2KWoRTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Becxwortn: With reference to your letter of May 2, 1950, in regard to cotton acreage of Lamar County, I am listing below the requested information: Cotton producers in Lamar County: 1,200. Farmers receiving less than 6.0 allotment: New producers applying for an allotment: Amount of acreage available to new grow- ers: 680 acres. Each new grower received approximately 8.8 acres. Number of new growers receiving sero allotments: 11. Genuine farmers: 80 percent, Several new growers recetved help from the law recently passed by Congress from excess acreage which was turned back in by farm- ere that would not plant cotton this year, Approximately 70 acres was given to new growers and 450 acres given to old growers, Approximately 100 farms received less than JULY 26 5.0 as allotment will not plant cotton this year. About 25 farmers will cease to farm for themselves. Trusting this the desired information. Yours very truly,- Frep K. RopErts, County Administrative Officer, Lamar County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Lucedale, Miss., May 4, 1950, Mr. Linpiey BEecKWoRTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Stix: In answer to your recent letter we wish to advise that we have 410 farmers in George County with cotton allotments, 180 of that amount being applicants for a new-producer allotment. There were 262 farmers received an allotment of less than 5 acres. This county received 465.7 acres for the new producers and as we were able to raise them to 3.8 no matter what the factor gave them, the majority received the 3.8 allot- ment, None received zero allotments. Most of the ones asking for new allotments had been doing war work and ere now want- ing to start up farming operations again. The recent cotton amendment helped only 5.1 acres in this country on the old allotments but none on the new producers except that the released acreage for reapportionment will bring them up to 40 percent of their crop- land. Most of the ones who received allotments and did not release are intending to plant all they are allowed, but a few say that they did not receive enough to plant. Very few will cease to farm for themselves. I hope this information will help you. Please feel free to call on us at any time, Yours very truly, B. ALron Gavin, County Administrative Officer, George County PMA. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Burgaw, N. C., May 5, 1950, Hon. Linney BeckworrtsH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sim: In reply to your inquiry about cotton producers in our county, we enclose & copy of the information which you ree quested. We trust that this anewers your questions completely. Very truly yours, T. W. Garriss, Secretary, Pender County PMA. 1. How many cotton producers are in your county: 348. 2. How many farmers {n your county re- ceived less than 6 acres of cotton: 267. 8. How many new producers applied for acreage: 23. 4. How much acreage was there to dis- tribute among the new producers in your county: 16.6. 5. How much did each get: Average of 1 acre. 6. Did any receive zero acres: 6. 7. What percent of new producers do you regard as genuine farmers: 100. 8. How much in acres did the recent cot- ton amendment help your new producers: ‘one. 9. How ‘much in acres did the recent cot- ton amendment help your old producers: 11 acres. 10. How many of your producers recelvy- ing less than 6 acres probably will grow no ootton: 25.
1950 11, How many will cease to farm for theme selves: None, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Taylorsville, N. C., May 4, 1950. To: Mr. LINDLEY BECKWoRTH, House of Repre- sentatives. From: G. R. Fulbright, secretary, Alexander County Production and Marketing Com- mittee. Subject: Cotton acreage allotments. We are listing below information requested by your recent letter. 1. Number of cotton producers in Alex- ander County: 1,128. 2. Number of farms in county for which the cotton allotment is less than 5 acres: 940. 3. Number of new producers applying for acreage: 49. 4, Acreage available for distribution among new producers in county: 90. 5. Average allotment received by new pro- ducers: 1.8 acres. 6. No zero acres received 1. Percent of new producers regarded as genuine farmers: 100 percent. 8. Acreage added by recent cotton amend- ment: None. | Only two producers in county were eligible for increase in their allotment under recent amendment. These two producers would have been eligible for a total of 0.8 acre. 9. Estimate of number of producers recelv- ing less than 5 acres that will probably grow no cotton in 1950; 100. G. R. FULBRIGHT. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Pittsboro, N. C., May 8, 1950. LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Third District, Tezas. Dear Sir: In reference to your letter of May 2, 1950, concerning information on cotton in Chatham County, N. C., it is as follows: (a) 920 cotton producers; (b) 857 received 5 acres or less; (c) 72 new producers applied for cotton acreage; (d) 50 acres to distribute to new producers; (€) each re- ceived from 0.1 to 2 acres; none received zero allotments; (f) about 75 percent genuine farmers; (g) the recent cotton amendment did not help new growers any. One old farm received increase of 1.1 acres from this amendment; (h) there probably will be 25 percent of the growers that received less than 5 acres will not plant any cotton because the allotment 1s too small. Very truly yours, R. O. FEARRINGTON, Secretary, Chatham County PMA Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Wilson, N. C., May 8, 1950. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: In reply to your letter of May 3 the information you asked for is listed below: 1. Number of cotton producers in Wilson County: 2,006. 2. Number of farms receiving less than 5 acres: 1,389. 3. Number of applications for new growers allotment: 33. 4. Acreage available for new growers: None, &, Acreage issued new growers, 46.3. 6. Number receiving zero acres: None, 7. Percent of new growers considered gen- uine producers: 100 percent. 8. Acreage old growers benefited by recent cotton amendment: 448.3. 9. Acreage new growers benefited by recent cotton amendment: None. 10. Number of producers receiving less than 5 acres that will not plant the cotton: 150 (estimated), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 11. Number of producers ceasing to farm for themselves in 1950: 20 (estimated). Sincerely, Matiz Storr, Secretary, Wilson County PMA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Lawrenceville, Va., June 30, 1950. Mr. Linpiex Beck worrTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: In reply to your letter of May 3, tn regard to cotton acreage in Brunswick County: 1. Number of growers: 2. Less than 5 acres: 3. New growers: 79. 4, Divided among them: 10.3 acres, 6. Zach got: From 0.1 to 0.4 acre, 6. Zero allotment: None. 7. Regarded as genuine farmers: cent, 8. Amendment helped new producers; None; old ones: 359.3 acres. 9. Will grow no cotton that received less than 5 acres: 150, Yours truly, 1,446. 1,151. 50 per- W. P. House, Secretary, Brunswick PMA County Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Dinwiddie, Va., July 7, 1950. Mr. LinpLeY BECKWORTH, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. EeckwortH: Listed below you will please find the questions with applicable answers contained in your letter of May 3, 1950, requesting certain cotton data for Din- widdie County, Va.: 1. How many cotton producers are in your county. Answer. Number allotments, group I and IT, 266. 2. How many farmers in your county re- ceived less than 6 acres of cotton? Answer. 258. 3. How many new producers applied for acreage? Answer. 26. 4. How much acreage was there to dis- tribute among the new producers in your county? Answer. 2.9 acres. 5. How much did each get? Answer, About 0.1 acre. 6. Did any receive zero acres? Answer, No eligible new grower applicant received no allotment. 7. What percent of the new producers do you regard as genuine farmers? Answer. 100 percent. 8. How much tn acres did the recent cot- ton amendment help your new producers? Answer. None. 9. The old ones? Answer, 26.1 acres. 10. How many of your producers receiving less than 5 acres probably will grow no cote ton? Answer. 650 percent. 11. How many will cease to farm for them- selves? Answer. None. With best wishes, I am, Yours very truly, F. W. Younse, Secretary, Dinwiddie PMA County Committee. _—_— DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, State College, N. Mez., July 21, 1950. Hon. Joun E. Mires, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Deak Me. Mites: This is in reply to your letter of June 28 addressed to Mr. Leslie Mar- tin, chairman of State PMA committee, wherein you requested that we submit cer- 11151 tain data regarding the 1950 cotton acreage- allotment program. The following is a tabulation by county of the information requested: Number | Number Numbor | of new ° « County “tore r receiving |producers nah cers S acres or | applying enuino leas for farmers acreage Chaves... 1 54 34 ry Curry. ...... I] [enn e nn. -[ewewnae ==] eemmewans = De Baca... oA 40 40 48 Dona Ana... 1, 834 326 re 23 Eddy. .. ... 653 27 26 25 Harding. ..-- 0 4 foe e w]e emwee eee Hidalgo...... 100 14 25 2h ] 450 12 166 160 Luna . 225 2 21 al Otero... 41 7 2 - 381 18 145 145 Roose 872 7 185 Sierra... 125 7 12 12 Rocorro 107 54 100 VL Valencia 10 8 10 lu Average Acreage acreage acres increase County for new received | because of producers by new Public producers | Law 471 Chaves 2, 002 61 782 Curry. es Seen 36 Do Baca. 202 Dona Ana 450 Eddy-. 120 Harding... weweeee--- wnnnee Hidalgo... 418 Len... 3, 404 Luna... 375 Otero . - 18 Quay-..... 1,951 . Roosevelt 449 5 6, 812 Sierra... 67 5 Socorro - 680 Valencia........-- 100 The acreage was distributed to new pro- ducers on the basis of a factor applied to the cropland acreage, not to exceed the amount requested by the new producers. The only producers receiving zero acreage were those which were not considered to be genuine cotton farmers by the county committee. New producers were not benefited by the increase in acreage because of Public Law 471. All producers receiving a cotton allotment on 5 acres or leas received such an allotment on basis of past cotton history. It js there- fore anticipated that these producers will plant cotton since they are established cot- ton farmers. Very truly yours, ARCHIE M. VANCE, Executive Officer, State Committee, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Columbia, S.C., May 31, 1950. Hon. JosreH R. BRYSON, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dzar Mr. Bryson: I wish to thank you for your letter of May 25 asking for certain data on cotton-acreage allotments in South Caro- lina. Enclosed is a tabulation giving answers to most of your questions. Repeating your questions: 1. How many cotton producers are in each county of South Carolina? See column 1. 2, How many farmers in each county re- ceived less than 5 acres of cotton? See col- umn 2. It might be added that 19,000 farm~ ers in the State received an acreage allotment of exactly 5 acres. Changing your question then, there are 39,908 farms in the State ree ceiving an allotment of 5 acres or less,
11152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Cotton acreage allotment data, South Carolina 8. How many new producers in each county applied for acreage? See column 3, 4. How much acreage was there to dis- tribute among the new producers in each county? See column 4. (ty Allotment | Smallest and est “July 26 ®) (6) 5. Tow much did each get? See column County Number ores) ment (acres) lot- Acros To 5. In answering this question, we have given gotton ted to lunder cotton the smallest acreage allotted to any one farm new ontton amendment in the county and the highest acreage al- farms lotted in the county to any one farm. It should be understood that many farmers re- — ahyheville.....--.--------e+ 1, 608 8 13.0 557 ceived new grower allotments between these = Aiken, ..-.....- 2,379 2 10.6 3, 471 two figures. Allendale.....- 674 8 17.0 1,003 6. Did any recetve zero acres? All appli- Anderson. ----- fas i an? 1,727 cants for new grower allotments that were = yarnwell_._.... 1334 2 300 20 eligible under the regulations did receive an = Beaufort... 714 3 38 2 allotment. Berkeley... 2, 006 7) 171 au 7 What percent of the new producers in (alhoun.... 1, 069 13 0.8 1,801 each county do you regard as genuine farm- — (horokeo._. 2, Bh 9 87.5 1,426 ers? I have no data on which to answer this = Chester... 1,40 1.0 14.3 1,611 question. Chester fleld 2, 825 9 x8 2, 574 8, How much in acres did the recent cote Clarendon. Petr i? 1, 089 ton amendment help your new producers — poarjington. 2" 108 63 ” 008 county by county? The recent amendments Dillon wesees 1,375 14.6 2 ses did not help new cotton producers in any orchester. OF fl ip county due to the fact that new cotton pro- Edgefield ....-- pane 2.3 1,838 ducers were not eligible to receive any addi- = Fjgrance.... 3, 681 58 4,410 tional allotment under the amendments. Georgetown. - x22 3.0 102 The amendments were based solely on his- Greenville, t a ‘ yo 1,805 tory of cotton production and the new cotton Hampton. : 116 7 a5 te producers did not have any cotton history. Horry..-..- 2, 437 7) 45 60 9. How much in acres did the recent cotton —Jasper-.---- 727 1.6 8.9 60 amendment help old cotton producers? See Kershaw... 1, 023 1.0 150 1,984 Lancaster... 1, 700 1.4 9,5 a4 column 6. Laurens-_..- 231 2 52,4 2, 518 10. How many producers, county by Joe. _.__.. 1, 537 1.5 8.6 4,621 county, receiving less than 5 acres probably = Lexington.. 008 15 16.3 2, 349 will grow no cotton? I have no data on MeCormick. . 1 ns “4 10.8 198 which to base an answer to this question. Marlhoro.. 1) 188 3.5 36 4 8,343 11. How many will cease to farm for them- = Newberry 1, 781 2 243 537 selves county by county? I have no data  econec.._ 2, 402 7 26 4 443 on which to answer this question. Cranget re pate “4 8.3 3 0s If there is any additional information that — Richland... 1, 562 ts 183 330 you think we may furnish you we will be very = Sajuda... 1, 680 8 93 1, 384 glad, indeed, to hear from you. Hon YD 46.1 2, 158 With kindest regards, I am 076 is i 3 1, fat Very truly yours, 3, B86 “4 es 1,340 R. W. HAMILTON, q . , Chairman, South Carolina State PMA 91, 712 8 8 67, 247 Committee, County 0.1 to 4.9 5 Appling.......22...-eeee- Atkinson... Baker . Baldwin. Banks... Ratrrow.. Bartow. Ren Hin. Berrien... Bibb. wl. Bleckley... Brantley. Brooks... bryan .. Bulloch... Rurke......- Butts...... Calhoun... Camden... Candler... Carroll... Catoosa . Charlton. __.. Chatham. Chattahoochee. Chatooga... . Cherokee... Clarke . Colquitt. 5.1 to 10 | 10,1 to 15 | 15,1 to 25 | 25,1 to 50 | 60,1 to 75 |75,1 tol 200.1 to 300 Columbia Cook. ... Coweta . Crawford. Crisp. . Dade __ Dawson... ...... naaee Decatur. ....2..-seccneneee eweecewene eecmemens. COO) CO i a horas Ot wewalas semsewnn menvsveons|neonnenns- pane eawenalanenenennel-nneenannalencnenenacloccenannen! 1
1950 County De Kalb ...222 2.2... wees Dodge. Dooly. -- Dougherty. Dourlas . Farly .. FKehols - Effingham. Elbort Emanuel, Evans. Fayette Franklin. Fulton. Qilmer Greene IIIT Gwinnett. Hahersha Haralson. -.... 2.2 eee eee Tart Irwin. Jett Davis .- Jefferson. . Jenkins... Jones. - Lamar... Tanien .. Laurens. . Lee... Liberty Lincoln Long . Towndes McIntosh Mnueon -. Madison. Marion... Meriwether Miller Mitchedl._- Monroe. - Montgomery Morgan ..- Murray... Muscogee Newton. Qconce - -. Oglethorpe - Faulding Peach. Pickens Pierce. . Polk Putnam.- Pulaski - Quitman... Randolph. . Richmond. Rockdale. Sominolo. Spalding. Stephens. Stewart. Sumter... Talbot... Taliaferro Tattnall. Taylor. ‘Telfair. Terrell... Thomas. Tift... Toombs. Treutlen. Troup... Turnet . TWIHRS. 2. Upson. ...... alker...... Walton... Ware. ...-- Warren . .. - Washington... 2... annoee 0.1 to 4.9 276 fe 270 2u) 249 60 5.1 fo 10 | 10.1 to 15 | 18.1 to 25 | 25.1 to 50 | 60.1 to 75 a 86 480 212 196 Seemann nel aeeneee--~|saenauasen 4 h 158 2 3 3 3 1 0 1 7 6 4 1 5 5 1 43 37 <a a bo ce tcere, rey CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Number of 1950 cotton farms by acreage ranges, Georgia—Continued 100.1 to | 150.1 to | 200.1 to 75.1 to 100 140 200 800 11155 300 1 to 500 4 5 2 13 CO a et ee 3 1 19 6 13 ary y] Benen een 500 and over Total
Wayne ....-..2--..------- Webster. Wheeler... White Whitfield Wilcox. Wilkes Wilkins Worth ...-. Btate total_. 23,208 | 21, 500 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Stillwater, Okla., June 16, 1950. Hon. Tosy Morris, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN Morris: This is tn re- ply to your lette: of May 29, 1950, requesting certain information with respect to 1950 cotton-acreage allotments in Oklahoma. We are enclosing a tabulation which shows, by counties, most of the data requested in your letter. We are unable to furnish you with a count of the number of cotton producers in each county; however, we have listed in column 1 of the enclosed tabulation the number of cotton-acreage allotments in each county, which will represent approximately the number of producers in each county. Column 2 of the tabulation shows the acreage allotment determined for each -county {n accordance with the provisions of Public Law 272, Eighty-first Congicss. In establishing these county allotments, the State committee held out and used for ad- jJustments the maximum 15 percent pro- vided in the law and, in most instances, county committees in Oklahoma reserved and uscd the maximum acreage provided for in the Jaw for making adjustments in indi- vidual farm allotments. Columns 6 through 10 show the effects of the application by the county committees of the provisions of Public Law 471, Eighty- first Congress. The application of these pro- visions resulted in a net increase in the State allotment of only 26,000 acres, al- though approximately 40,000 acres were granted under the 66-45-40 provision of the Number of cotton farms District} County Mts... Harper. we Garfield. Grant... Kay... Major... Nohte . Woods ._- Woodward... enna n ene eeeneneee 38) Craig 1 Provisions of Public Law No. 471. 5.2 to 10 | 10,1 to 15 | 18.1 to 25 | 25.1 to 50 | 50.1 to 75 (78.1 to 100 1 172 359 450 85, 894 TOXOS ..1neecensneee eee ee ene neewrneeenee| ones wee AMAIA 2 eee eee nena nese cnee weneeeee 170 877.8 481 2, 847.0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Number of 1950 cotton farms by aoreage ranges, Georgia—Oontinued 15,617 | 11,040 | 6,282 law, and 26,000 acres were reallocated from the acreage rcleased. In some counties, the acreage required to provide the minimum (65-45-40) exceeded the acreage released, in which cases there was no acreage available for reapportionment to hardship cases and now farms. In other counties the county committees were not able to reallocate all of the acreage available because of the two limitations (40 percent of the cropland and past production of cotton) which were placed on the county committee in the law. The 40-percent provision prevented the county committees from allocating additional acreage allotment to some farms on which a large percentage of the cropland had been de- voted to cotton in the past and on which the county committces felt that the allotment was inadequate in view of the past produc- tlon of cotton. The “past production of cotton” limitation prevented the county committees, in many instances, from allocating additional allot- ment to farms on which there is little or no cotton history but which have been acquired through purchase or rental by cotton farmers who have the equipment, experience, and de- sire to grow more cotton. This provision also eliminated ‘war crop credit” from considera- tion in determining the maximum acreage which could be allocated to a farm. You will recall that Public Law 272 pro- vided for the determination of farm allot- ments on the basis of a prescribed percent- age of the cropland on the farm, provided the acreage allotment so determined did not exceed the highest planted cotton acreage for the farm during the base period. In Co- manche County, for example, of the 1,488 cot- ton allotments established, 162 farms re- ceived an allotment equal to the highest 1950 cotton allotments, Oklahoma Acreage of new grower allotment Number | Number under new 5 acres growers Original allotment 00.1 to 50 Acreage released ! Wenn --elamene 150.1 to | 200.1 to | 800.1 to | 500 and 200 300 acreage planted in any year during the base period, which represented no reduction in the acreage for these farms and resulted in further reduction in the acreage on all other farms in the county. Concerning your question as to whether any person received a zero allotment who made application for a new-grower allotment, the county committees established a new- grower allotment for each applicant who was eligible under the provisions of the law. You will notice that columns 9 and 10 are incomplete. You have not obtained that in« formation for all counties as yet. There may be some minor changes in some of the items on the enclosed tabulation; how- ever, there will be no substantial change in any of the county totals. We are unable to answer all of the ques- tions in your letter at this time, For ex- ample, we shall not be able to determine the number of producers who received allotments and who planted no cotton until after all cotton acreages have been measured. The eligibility provisions, the determination of allotments based on percentage of cropland, and the war crop credit provisions, as pro= vided in the law, did result in the establish- ment of allotments on a considerable num- ber of farms on which the producers had no intention of growing cotton in 1950. We appreciate your intorest in this matter and your efforts in connection with cotton legislation. We hope that this information will be helpful and that you will call on us for any additional information which you desire. Very truly yours, CrarLes T. CAMERON, Chairman, Oklahoma State PMA Committee, Number now Number old growers growers Toceiving | receiving additional | additional allotinent '/ allotmont ! Acreaga required under 65- 45-40 Provision } Acreage reappor- tioned !
1950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 11155 1950 cotton allotments, Oklahoma—Continued Acreage id Number Number | Number | Asteage required | Acreage new ° District County of cotton anginal, under new eee under | reappor- reoelving reoiving farms Sacres | growers | allotment O5-45-40 | toned | additional | additional Bp allotment | allotment ' Wagoner....... - . 2,112 30, 250 7 Washington... - 1 300, 7 Total district 3.....2- 2. nee 6, 345 7005.7] 1,203] BIA | AB] 4,680 8 | 2198.5 | 2,028.9 |__| eee 4] Beckham... 221.22 e twee e eee een eee 2,072 66, 243, 2 Blaine 2. -- 931 12, 671,1 Custer... -- 1,073 18, 879, 2 Dewey... o 840 76106} = B40 NB AAT Pe 10.8 ff ketene | ewan ceeee Roger Mill “- 1,300 10, 745 0 Washita.- 22-22-22 eee een ene ene e eee eee 2,711 86, 064 3 Total district 4.20.00 .-eeneeceenee 8,927 | 231,222 4 5B) Canadian....-.0.2. 2. eee seen eee eee ~ 040 | 12,468 5 Cleveland. 863 6,115.7 Creok.. - 18,625, 6 Grady... 34 2 a ee weeeene Tancoln. 2.2.2... Logan... McClain .. Okfuskeo Okluboma Tayne.. .2- .. Pottawatonuc.._. Seminole ....0 2-2 eee ee eee eee Total, district 5.....2..--.-eee eee _ 16, 327, 7 a | See “33 M1 A Cherokee... . 245 1,327.3 Tlaskell.. 1,390 11,484 7 Hughes... 2, 227 18, 200 6 McIntosh... 2, 952 34, 631.6 Muskogee... 2, 949 50, ORV 6 Okmulgee... 2, 346 33, 063 8 Pittsburg. .2... 1, 849 19,873 4 Sequoyah... 2.02. eee ene ee een e ewww eee 927 7,304 9 Total district 6... ccceeneneeeneee= 14, 918 175, 587. 4 7| Caddo... ween ee eee eee Comanche. “ Cotton... (troer_ Harmon. Jackson... 62, 074.3 8 6,001 1 202.9. Ft ee Dene Bene 28, 88, 6 2,500.9) 1,397. 5 8 8, 160, 3 142.0 258.8 16, 39.0 |. 50 K, 436 2 66.0 79 0 183 0 643.0 123 16, 495 7 407.7 512.2 128.4 244.9 105 27, 3% 3 32 0 220 8 4, 605.3 ]...----.- 318 : 678 7 88 219, 0 1,798 6 $23 J 10, 222 | 1, 418.2 9, 207. 4 9 | Choctaw. ....--c-cceeeerecaneceeeeeeees 1,760 | 14,500 7 M10] 2 466, 1 195 8 Latimer... : 492 2,244 9 97.0 v1 33, 4 Le Flore. oo ..6 2, 122 17,621.7 fl 0 3, AOA. 7 20) 6 MeCurtain ... . 1, 590 22, 588 9 28). 0 2,088 4 325.7 Pushmatnha..._-...----2-2-.----e eee eee 606 3, 264.3 103.0 327.6 23.3 Total, district 0......-ssscenasnee- 6,570 | 60,264 5 672.0 | 8,720.2 #08 8 Stale. oo ocecccecececenncnnneeesenceeeee- 56, 285 11, 248, 295. 0 18,255.1 | 60,235.6| 39, 250,2 Mr. KARSTEN, Mr. Chairman, I has diversified its activities. I have @ proach to improvement of accounting and yield the balance of the time to the auditing for the Federal Government. It brother who is a certified public ac- is complete consistent and incorporates into gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Gary]. Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, shortly after my daughter first entered school I met her teacher on the street one day and she told me laughingly: “Several days azo I asked your daughter a ques- tion. She said, ‘I do not know the an- swer but my Daddy does and I will find out tonight and let you know to- morrow.’” I am a lawyer and I do not know all of the answers about this accounting procedure. The Gary family, however, countant and who had the privilege of serving as Executive Assistant and Di- rector of Research of the accounting phase of the Hoover Commission investi- gation. He is now engaged in the in- stallation of a new accounting system in the Coast Guard which will conform with the recommendations of that Commission. So I turned to him for information on this bill, and this is what he said: There is no doubt in my mind but that H. R. 9038 representa the best possible ap= law the features of the accounting improve- ment program that is being conducted in the Coast Guard and other agencies of the Government under the joint program. In addition, it provides for the elimination of duplicate and cumbersome procedures which not only have made the installation of the accounting system in the Coust Guard more difficult, but also will effect economies in the handling of routine transactions. It ig my opinion that this proposed bill 4s all of the major legislation that is required to do the complete accounting and auditing
11156 improvement job for the entire Federal Gov- ernment. I remember that some time ago you asked me why legislation was not de- veloped that would write into law the ap- proach to this problem that is being made by the joint program. This legislation does just that. Mr. Chairman, the critical situation which we face today not only requires that we drastically curtail nonmilitary expenditures and eliminate all non- essential expenditures, but that we util- ize the most modern budgeting and ac- counting procedures available to super- vise and control the vast expenditures which we must authorize. This bill also does that and I hope it will be enacted into law. The CHAIRMAN. All time having ex- pired, the Clerk will read the bill for amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Be tt enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the “Budget and Accounting Pro- cedures Act of 1950.” Tirte I--BuUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING PART I—BUDGETING Definition Sec. 101. Section 2 of the Budget and Ac- counting Act, 1921 (42 Stat. 20), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: “The term ‘appropriations’ includes, in appropriate context, funds and authoriza- tions to create obligations by contract in ad- vance of appropriations.” Performance budget and regulations SEc, 102. (a) Section 201 of such act is amended to read as follows: . “Sec. 201. The President shall transmit to Congress during the first 15 days of each regular session, the budget, which shall set forth his budget message, summary data and text, and supporting detail, The budget shall set forth in such form and detail as the President may determine— “(a) functions and activities of the Gov- ernment, constituting a performance budget; “(b) @ segregation of operating, and of capital and investment programs: “(c) any other desirable classifications of data, “(d) a reconciliation of the summary data on cxpenditures with proposed appropria- tions; “(e) estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations necessary in his Judgment for the support of the Government for the en- suing fiscal year, except that estimated ex- penditures and proposed appropriations for such year for the legislative branch of the Government and the Supreme Court of the United States shall be transmitted to the President on or before October 15 of each year, and shall be included by him in the budget within revision; “(f) estimated receipts of the Govern- ment during the ensuing fiscal year, under (1) Jaws existing at the time the budget is transmitted and also (2) under the revenue proposals, if any, contained in the budget; “(g) actual appropriations, expenditures, and receipts of the Government during the last completed fiscal year; “(h) estimated expenditures and receipts, and actual or proposed appropriations of the Government during the fiscal year in prog- reas; “(1) balanced statements of (1) the con- dition of the Treasury at the end of the last completed fiscal year, (2) the estimated con- dition of the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year in progress, and (3) the estimated condition of the Treasury at the end of the ensuing fiscal year if the financial proposals contained in the budget are adopted; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE “(J) all essential facts regarding the bond- ed and other indebtedness of the Govern- ment; and “(k) such other financial statements and data as in his opinion are necessary or de- sirable in order to make known tn all prac- ticable detail the financial condition of the Government.” (b) Section 203 of such act is amended to read as follows: “xc, 203. (a) The President from time to time may transmit to Congress such pro- posed supplemental or deficiency appropria- tions as in his judgment (1) are necessary on account of laws enacted after the trans- mission of the budget, or (2) are otherwise in the public interest. He shall accompany such proposals with a statement of the rea- sons therefor, including the reasons for their omission from the budget, “(b) Whenever such proposed supplemen- tal or deficiency appropriations reach an aggregate which, if they had been contained in the budget, would have required the Pres- ident to make a recommendation under sub- section (a) of section 202, he shall thereupon make such recommendation.” (c) Section 204 of such act is amended to read as follows: “Sec. 204. Except as otherwise provided in this act, the contents, order, and arrange- ment of the proposed appropriations and the statements of expenditures and esti- mated expenditures contained in the budget or transmitted under section 203, and the notes and other data submitted therewith, shall conform to requirements prescribed by the President.” (d) Section 205 of such act is amended to read as follows: “Sec 206 Whenever any basic change is made in the form of the budget, the Prest- dent, in addition to the budget, shall trans- mit to Congress such explanatory notes and tables as may be necessary to show where the various items embraced in the budget of the prior year are contained in the new budget.” (e) The last sentence of section 207 of such act is amended to read as follows: “The Bureau, under such rules and regulations as the President may prescribe, shall prepare the budget, and any proposed supplemental or deficiency appropriations, and to this end shall have authority to assemble, correlate, revise, reduce, or increase the requests for appropriations of the several departments or establishments.” (f) Section 214 of such act is amended to read as follows: “Sec 214 The head of each department and establishment shall prepare or cause to be prepared in each year his requests for regular, supplemental, or deficiency appro- priations.” (g) Section 215 of such act is amended to read as follows: “Sxc. 215. The head of each department and establishment shall submit his requests for appropriations to the Bureau on or before a date which the President shall determine. In case of his failure to do so, the President shall cause such requests to be prepared as are necessary to enable him to include such requests with the Budget in respect to the work of such department or establishment.” (hn) Section 216 of such act is amended to read as follows: “Bec. 216. Requests for regular, supple- mental, or deficiency appropriations which are submitted to the Bureau by the head of any department or establishment shal! be prepared and submitted as the President may determine in accordance with the pro- visions of section 201." Transitory provisions Sec. 108. In order to expedite the conver- sion from present budgeting and accounting methods to the performance type of Budget JuLY 26 contemplated in the amendments made by this part, the head of each department and establishment in the executive branch of the Government, with the approval of the President, is authorized and directed, until the end of the second full fiscal year follow- ing the date of the enactment of this act, to make such transfers and adjustments within his department or establishment between ap- propriations available for, obligation by such department or establishment in such manner as he deems necessary to cause the obliga- tion and administration of funds and the reports of expenditures to reflect the finan- cial requirements of the functions and activ- ities of the department or establishment. Reports of transfers and adjustments made pursuant to the authority of this section shall be made currently to the President and the Congress. Government statistical activities Src. 104. The President, through the Di- rector of the Bureau of the Budget, is au- thorized and directed to develop programs and to issue regulations and orders for the improved gathering, compiling, analyzing, publishing, and disseminating of statistical information for any purpose by the various agencies in the executive branch of the Gov- ernment. Such regulations and orders shall be adhered to by such agencies. Improved administration of executive agencies Src. 105. The President, through the Di- rector of the Bureau of the Budget, ts au- thorized and directed to evaluate and de- velop improved plansefor the organization, coordination, and management of the execu- tive branch of the Government with a view to efficient and economical service, Business-type budgets Sec. 106. The first two sentences of sec- tion 102 of the Government Corporation Control Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 597), are amended to read as follows: “ach wholly owned Government corporation shall cause to be prepared annually a business-type budget which shall be submitted to the Bu- reau of the Budget, under such rules and regulations as the President may establish as to the date of submission, the form and content, the classification of data, and the manner In which such budget program shall be prepared and presented.” PART I1—ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING Short title Sec. 110. This part may be cited as the “Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950.” Declaration of policy Sec. 111. It is the policy of the Congress in enacting this part that— (a) The accounting of the Government provide full disclosure of the results of fnan- cial operations, adequate financial informa- tion needed in the management of opera- tions and the formulation and execution of the budget, and effective control over in- come, expenditures, funds, property, and other assets. (b) Pull consideration to be given to the needs and responsibilities of both the legis- lative and executive branches in the estab- lishment of accounting and reporting sys- tems and requirements. (c) The maintenance of accounting sys- tems and the producing on financial reports with respect to the operations of executive agencies, including central facilities for bringing together and disclosing information on the results of the financial operations of the Government as a whole, be the responsi- bility of the executive branch. (ad) The auditing for the -Government, conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States as an agent of the Congress be directed at determining the extent to