1448 which provides that authorizations once granted by the Conegrcss and for which appropriations are not granted will be reviewed periodically by the Armed Serv- ices Committee This section provides that all public works authorizations granted by the Congress and for which appropriations have not been granted are rescinded. I hope I make that plain. If projects have been authorized in the past, as many have, and if the authorizations are still in existence, and there is no money appropriated, the bill rescinds all those authorizations, so that no one has the authority, if there is still some loose money retained, to proceed with any- thing except the bare essentials of na- tional defense. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. I should like to ask the Senator whether the statement just made pertains to some of the installa- tions which were deactivated by the mil- itary not so long ago. Mr. TYDINGS. It would apply to them if authorizations were passed for their improvement or retention and no money was appropriated. The authori- zations are wiped off the books by the bill. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I have only one more paragraph. If the able Senator from Missour1 would mind if I finish, then I shall be glad to yield to him. It is further provided that the Sec- retary of Defense at the beginning of each session will submit to the Congress a list of all public-works authorizations for which appropriations have not been made, together with the justifications for the continuing need of these author- izations. ‘The committee put that pro- vision in the bill with the thought that we should have the Secretary tell us every year respecting authorizations made by Congress of which he was not able to take advantage, why they should be continued and not wiped out. These will be reviewed by the Armed Services Committee and only those authoriza- tions required in the light of conditions at that time will be retained. This will provide the Congress a continuing re- view of all public-works authorizations granted to the military. I now yield to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I un- derstood the Senator, in one sentence, in regard to the rescissions affected by section 408, to use language which, un- less I misunderstood him, is somewhat broader than he probably intended. The language, as I understood him, was not limited by any particular date or Congress. As I understand, the author- ity rescinded by section 408 is that which is conferred by any act of Congress en- acted prior to the beginning of the Eightieth Congress, Mr. TYDINGS. I think that {s correct, because it has not been possible, in some few cases, because of conditions which need not be described, to carry out an CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE authorization for which money is avail- able. Mr. DONNELL. The sole purpose of my inquiry was to make it perfectly clear that the bill contains the provision that the authority which is rescinded was that which was conferred by any act of Congress enacted prior to the Eightieth Congress. Mr. TYDINGS. I stand corrected. The Senator from Missouri is correct, and I thank him for calling that to my attention. Mr. SMITH of New Jerscy. Mr. Pres- ident, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. There Is a discussion going on now with regard to the removal of the Watson Labora- tories in New Jersey, and their consoli- dation with a project in New York. Is that involved in this bill? Mr. TYDINGS, I think it is. I will say to the Senator that the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee had in his State one of the three largest camps in America, Camp Bainbridge, which was comparable to the Great Lakes camp and the San Diego camp. He has lost that camp, 5 miles from his home. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. We had understood that the Watson Laboratories issue was to be postponed pending fur- ther investigation. I wonder if that is possible Mr. TYDINGS. I am _ sympathetic with the request of the two New Jersey Senators for a further review of that question. When the bill goes to the House it will be reviewed in its entirety, and I shall be glad to take it upon myself to write to the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House, calling his attention to this specific siiuation, and asking that the two Senators from New Jersey and any others who desire to be heard be given an opportunity to be heard; also that the House give the question further study. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. At the present time this particular transfer 1s involved in the proposed legislation. Mr. TYDINGS. It is authorized, but no money is appropriated for it. This is only an authorization. There will be an opportunity for review in the House It will also be in conference. So we shall have two cracks at the authorization, and one at the appropriation. I will say that the rights of the Senators from New Jersey will be protected when the matter comes before the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. I should like to ask a question somewhat along the same lines as the question asked by the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. SmitH]. The Sen- ator from Maryland promised the Sena- tor from New Jersey that when this question is taken up the rights of the Senators from New Jersey will be pro- tected. Mr. TYDINGS. The same right will be extended to the able Senator from New York, so that he may look after his President, will FEBRUARY 3 interests while other Senators are look- ing after theirs. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS, I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Mary- land whether he intends to press for a vote on the bill this afternoon? Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to con- clude consideration of the bill today. I do not know of any opposition to it. I am hoping that it will be passed in the next 5 or 10 minutes. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me express to the distinguished Senator from Mary- land my sincere hope that he will not press for a vote this afternoon. In par- ticular, I should like to invite his atten- tion to section 405 of the bill, on page 23. By section 405 there is permitted a cost of $14,000 for construction of a family unit, plus a cost of $2,500 for site devel- opment and outside utilities, or a total of $16,500 per unit. No limit is placed on the number of such family units which can be constructed. Mr. TYDINGS. I will say to the Sen- ator that the figure he has mentioned is simply a top figure. These installations will be built in various places, The costs will vary greatly, depending upon the location. Before the Armed Services Committee evidence was produced as to the type of house which is to be built. No matter where it is to be built, the type will be uniform. It is a composite of the architectural designs of many conccrns which cooperated in an effort to design the smallest, most economical house which could be built for a small sum of money. The reason for establishing the top figure is that if some of these houses are to be built in Alaska or in other places where costs are high, it is necessary to set the figure at the highest cost. Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is aware, of course, that under the provisions of the latter part of section 405 the costs in Alaska may be double the costs under the first part of the section. The cost may go up to $33,000 a unit in certain areas. Mr. TYDINGS. That illustrates my point, which I was coming to. We cannot fix a ceiling for all the projects in the United States on a basis of equality for each community, any more than we can fix a ceiling in Alaska, where the trans- portation costs of lumber and cement are prohibitive, and the difficulties are very great. However, I may say to the Senator that the type of house which is to be built will cost very much less than $14,000 practically anywhere in the United States. We set a top figure to take care of those places where otherwise the cost would make impossible the erec- tion of an adequate house. The type of house to be built is rela- tively small. I think it contains only six rooms. A ceiling was established so that there would be a top limit. We could not fix it on the basis of equality as between the various States and local- ities. The committee went thoroughly into the subject. We had before us models
1950 of the houses. For example, possibly seven of them will be built in a row. There will be a heating plant in one end, and all seven houses will be heated from the same plant. The laundry facilities will be consolidated, so that in many cases the families in the seven houses will use one laundry. The house itself is of a modest type. We examined the plans and saw the models. I can assure the Senator that there is no ground for his fear that these are to be elaborate houses. That fear is not supported by the facts, although his question is very pertinent. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me say to the able Senator that I saw some figures on the cost of military housing in my own State at Scott Field and at Chanute Field. I was shocked at the estimates of cost which were made. I am very much afraid that there is a general tend- ency in government to treat a maxi- mum figure as a common or prevailing figure. Mr. TYDINGS. In order to avoid that contingency, we asked for information as to the type of house which the Army is to build on all reservations. There will be some slight modifications because of the difference in thickness of walls in cold climates as compared with the thickness of walls in warmer sections. Various other factors are involved in connection with houses in a cold climate as distinguished from houses in a warm climate. Basically, the house to be built is only a six-room house of very modest dimen- sions. Every facility is to be central- ized for use by all seven of the families in the row, whereas in the case of the houses to which the Senator refers there is the same equipment in practically every one of them. In my judgment—and the testimony before the committee substantiated it— most of these houses will be built at a cost far below the figure which is estab- lished as the top figure which might have to be spent to build a house in a climate or in a community where such e house could not be built for $8,000 or $10,000, as could be done in some other community. Mr. DOUGLAS. As the Senator well knows, there is a gradation in the qual- ity of housing, dependent upon the rank of the family of the person to be housed. Mr. TYDINGS. There is no grada- tion here. Mr. DOUGLAS. Do I correctly un- derstand that the same house is to be constructed for a general officer as for an enlisted man? Mr. TYDINGS. No; I would not say that. However, there is not a great deal of difference. If the Senator could see the models and plans showing the type of house which is to be constructed un- der the provisions of this bill, he would not consider it very much of a house. As a matter of fact, I did not think it was very much of a house, and ques- tioned in my own mind whether we were not really being penny-wise and pound- foolish to some extent in confining the quarters in many cases to the type of house which I have indicated, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. DOUGLAS. When a similar bill was before the Senate last summer I offered an amendment which I believe was accepted, and was in the bill when it went to conference, providing differ- ing ceilings dependent upon the rank of the person to be housed. No one wants better housing for enlisted men than does the junior Senator from Illi- nois, having been an enlisted man him- self. But I think it is true that in many cases, if we authorize $16,500 for a six- room house, and that amount is spent, it will provide about as expensive hous- ing as I know of anywhere in the coun- try. It would be far more expensive, as a matter of fact, than current costs in many areas justify. Mr. TYDINGS. If the Senator will turn to page 23, section 404, he will find that the committee tried to control the cost of the houses by the following re- striction: No family quarters shall be constructed under the authority of this act which are in excess of a net floor area of 1,080 square feet per unit. If the Senator will take the square root of 1,080, roughly, he will find that that would provide a house approxi- mately 30 feet by 30 feet. A house 30 feet by 30 feet is not a very large house. If there are three rooms on each floor, the house is smaller in floor space than the average reasonably priced residential house in Washington occupied by the ordinary wage earner. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this is @ difficult subject upon which to pass judgment quickly. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask the Senator to permit me to finish this statement first, please. It seems to me there is a contradiction between section 404 and section 405. Section 405 authorizes costs pcr family unit within continental United States of $16,500, including the cost of the land. Section 404 limits the floor space of such houses to 1,080 square feet per unit. I should like to get the comparative figures on costs for different sections of the country assembled; but it seems in- conceivable to me that there can be legiti- mate costs of $16,500 for a house of only 1,080 square feet, with only six rooms. I wonder whether the Senator from Maryland would consider including a lower ceiling—not a lower ceiling for the houses, but a lower ceiling in the authorization. Mr. TYDINGS. the Senator yield? Mr, DOUGLAS. Gladly. Mr. TYDINGS. When the witnesses came before our committee, we were in- clined to fix the ceiling at less than that set forth in the amendment in the na- ture of a substitute, which now is before the Senate. We likewise were inclined to fix the ceiling for the cost of each lot at less than the $2,500 figure now set forth in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Some of these quarters are to be built on land which is more ex- pensive, understandably than the land on which other quarters are to be built. Mr. President, will 1449 So what we had to do in this measure was provide for the maximum. But in order to follow the same reasoning which the Senator from Illinois is now pursu- ing, the committee felt that we could nevertheless keep the project within reason by limiting the amount of floor space. Further than that, we asked a great many questions concerning the type of construction in various parts of the country, what would go into the houses, and how much they would cost when built here, there, and the other place. The only reason the ceiling is included in this measure is that it represented the highest price, probably which would have to be paid anywhere in the United States for a lot and the highest price, probably, which would have to be paid for a house bullt anywhere in the United States. But not being satisfied to leave that figure in the measure, for fear it would be seized upon by everyone as the amount which could he spent, we then conceived the provision to limit the amount of floor space; and we saw the models, and were assured by the Army that the houses would be uniform. The houses are not to be built for high- ranking Army officers; they are to be built for low-ranking Army officers and enlisted men. They are to be row houses. Practically all of them, where the situation will permit, are to be built in units of seven, with the heating equip- ment or furnace installed in only one house, and with the laundry machinery in only one house, and the facilities are to serve all the people who live in the row of houses. The Senator can see from that de- scription that every conceivable way to obtain more housing for the same amount of money has been adopted in this measure and in this program. I can assure the Senator from Illinois that we went into this matter most thor- oughly, pursuing the very philosophy he expresses. Mr. DOUGLAS. Let me say to the Scnator from Maryland that the maxi- mum figure of $16,500 per unit—— Mr. TYDINGS. That is for both the land and the house. Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes; with a floor space of 1,080 square feet. That comes to an average cost, assuming the maxi- mum is used, of $15 a square foot. Al- thouth I do not have in mind the detailed figures for FHA construction and VA construction, my memory is that in gen- eral such housing is constructed at a cost of not far from $10 a square foot, where- as in the measure now before the Sen- ate there is provision for a 50 percent greater cost. I think those of us who in the past have watched the costs of construction of military and naval installations know that the figures for such construction have been extraordinarily high, I may say shockingly high. I do not believe sufficient safeguards are included in sec- tion 405 to prevent the payment of higher costs than are justified in par- ticular localities. I would appreciate it very much if the Senator from Maryland would be willing
1450 to let this measure go over until tomor- row, so that we may see whcther we can arrive at language which will more ade- quately protect the Treasury. Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator from Maryland thinks the Senator from Illi- nois has a good point and a good case. But does the Senator from Illinois really beheve that if a house contains only 1,080 square feet of floor space, it is likely to cost $14,500, exclusive of the land? Let me say to the Senator that the houses provided for by this measure rep- resent about 10 percent of the total re- quests for projects which came to the board which reviewed them. Many of the requests were in respect to housing. The projects were screened twice. Then they were reviewed by the committee. But not being satisfied to take the word of the authorities that they would build as many houses as they could with the moncy provided for them, we asked them to bring the models and the plans and the blueprints before us and put them on the committee table. That was done, and we looked at them and calculated on them. After we had inserted the amendment providing the top lmit of $14,500, because some of the houses would cost that much, when built in particular localities where the costs of transporta- tion and other costs may be very expen- sive, we then searched around for a formula which would compel the author- ities in charge of the work to build the houses according to the models and plans and blueprints they showed us. Therefore, we hit upon the floor-plan provision which will compel them to build a small house, such aS was ex- hibited to us by means of the models and plans and blueprints. This measure will not take care of all the housing needs of the armed services, of course. I am as certain as I can he that the entire purpose of the men who came before us and who urged this ap- propriation is to build the kind of rea- sonably safe house they can build for the moncy appropriated, rather than to build a few extraordinarily good houses. This measure is for the construction of quarters tor lJow-ranking officers and en- listed men. The bill does not cover the construction of any large, separate houses Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SPARKMAN. I should like to say to the able Scnator from Maryland, the chairman of the Armed Services Com- mittee, that I am very much in favor of his bill. I personally know of the need for many of the projects provided for in this measure, and I know the con- struction of such projects has been long delayed. But I likewise share the concern ex- pressed by the Senator from Tlinois [Mr, Dovucias!, who is a very able and dili- gent member of the subcommittee on housing. Of course, as the Senator from Maryland knows, we have encountered these problems a great many times. Mr, TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to interrupt him at this point? Mr. SPARKMAN, Yes. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. TYDINGS. I wonder whether it would meet with the approval of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Alabama, in order that the Sena- tor from Maryland may cooperate with them, if I were to propose a unanimous- consent agreement to have the Senate vote at 1 o’clock next Monday on the bill and on all amendments thercto, so that the two Senators and any other Senators who are interested in the mat- ter could pursue it and could draw up and present appropriate amendments. If that is done, with the result that tighter, more restrictive language can be placed in the measure in order to safcguard the American taxpayers, the Senators will not have the opposition of the Senator from Maryland, but he will speuk for, and will request the adoption of, such an amendment Eowever, T do not wish to let the bill continue indefinitely, over the week end, because it has been on the calendar since last August. The pressure on me for the passage of this measure has been ter- rific, and I do not wish to let the bill re- main on the calendar for months more without some action. With such an understanding as I have suggested, I should be glad to mect the viewpoint of the Senator from Illinois Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I was not going to request a postponement In fact, I was going to ask the Senator from Maryland a question which I hoped would clear up this matter. For instance, when we were consider- ing the public-housing bill, even though we there had a maximum Imitation, just as this measure has, we knew how many units would be built, and therefore we knew what would be the average cost. I was going to ask the Senator from Maryland whether he could assure us what the averese cost of the housing would be. Mr. HUNT. Nine thousand five hun- dred dollars. Mr. TYDINGS. I could not do that, because we do not have figures for the whole country that would give a fair an- Swer. Mr. GURNEY rose. Mr. SPARKMAN. I may say, merely as an analogy, that in the case of pub- lic housing, where the floor space is ap- proximately the same as the maximum here provided, we know that those houses must be built at an average cost of $8,500. Those houses I think will represent better housing—— Mr. TYDINGS. What is the floor space in those houses? Mr. SPARKMAN. Approximately the same as in those provided for by this bill. Mr. TYDINGS. Is it more or less? Mr. SPARKMAN. No; it varies, but the average would be approximately the same, Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. If the Senator from South Carolina will first allow me to yield to my colleague on the committee, I shall then yield to him. Mr. GURNEY. I think I might make an observation on the question raised by the Senator from Alabama. Under the Wherry bill, a numbcr of agencies ale FEBRUARY 8 having houses built for certain units on a different basis. At present their pro- gram contemplates the building of about 50 sets of houses at that many bascs. I beleve that is the program of the Air Force. In continental United States, they have a top limit of $8,100, which has to include the cost of the land and facilitics. Mr. SPARKMAN. From that state- ment I gather that the top limit of $16,- 500 would be the exception rather than the rule. Mr. GURNEY. That is correct, and I think we can see that they are operating within a very reasonable limit I know we received information during the last few days that at 50 bases at which they were going to build houses, 12 or 14 houses have already been approved at an £8,100 limit Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Before! yield further, I should like to say this 1s a Senate bill and must go to the House. I am willing to err on the side of economy, and, if we hit upon too low a figure. I assume the House will make revision of it in due course, and we shall have another chance to consider it, I should be glad to accept an amendment, or to propose one, my- self, fixing the cciling at $9,000. I do not feel at liberty to fix a ceiling on the lots at lower than $2,500, because I believe that in some cases where the lots are in cities it is possible that their cost may be such that houses cannot be built on them, within a lower lmit, even after we ap- propriate the money. At any rate, the matter will go to conference, where it can be reviewed by the House, and, later on, by the Senate Mr. MAYBANK and Mr. MAGNUSON addressed the Chair. The FRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield first to the Senator from South Carolina, who has been on his feet a long while, asking me to yield. Mr. MAYBANK. I merely wanted to make a brief statement. The Scnator from Maryland knows that last year when the bill was being considered I dis- cussed it with him. It was then that the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Maryland, and myself introduced a bill, the so-called Wherry-Tydings bill, to let the armed services, on a 90-percent basis, build certain houses and give cer- tain concessions. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr. MAYBANK. It is my judgment that the armed services have not used the bill as much as they should have. Iam not opposed to the Senator’s bill, but I merely want to make my position clear. In many instances, if whoever was in charge of the housing under that bill had gone ahead, I think the housing con- struction would have been much further advanced than itis. On the other hand, when the last bill on the subject was under considcration by the Appropnia- tions Committee, we found that the engi- neers had approved apartments to be built in the Canal Zone at a cost of $50,- 600 exch. That was brought cut at that
1950 time in the presence of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKetzar]. I am, first, last, and always, in favor of adequate housing for the Army, but I should like to make sure that the taxpayers of the country get the same treatment as that which the Army and the Navy receive. That is all I wish to say. Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, before yielding to anyone else, knowing this is a Senate bill which will have to go to the House, I am going to propose that the figure “$14,000” be stricken out and the figure “$9,000” inserted. But I want to be perfectly candid with my col- leagues. It may be that in certain sec- tions of the country that figure will be prohibitive, but, inasmuch as the bill must go to the House Armed Services Committee for further determination, they will have an opportunity to deter- mine whether it should be raised. If, however, the houses can be built for $9,000, no one will be happier than I. Mr. MAGNUSON and Mr. DOUGLAS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield first to the Senator from Washingion, who has been wanting me to yleld for a long while. Mr. MAGNUSON. It seems to me the entire question can be solved very sim- ply, if we are going to put ceilings on mil- itary housing. When the military un- dertook to build the housing units them- selves, they went hog-wild in certain cases, as the Senator from Dlinois has mentioned. But now, most of this con- struction work, in fact, all of it, with rare exceptions, is done on bids. The contractors who are vitally interested in the housing are going to bid the prevail- ing price. Mr. TYDINGS. The contract will, of course, be let to the lowest bidder. Mr. MAGNUSON. It will be let to the lowest bidder, and in line with the price prevailing in the community. With re- spect to section 404, if it costs but $9,000 to buila a house in Ilinois, that is what the bid will be. Contractors are scram- bling for the contracts. The problem will solve itself, on the basis of the bids. Mr. TYDINGS. I think the sugges- tion of the Senator from Illinois is a very worthy and timcly one, and I am willing to reduce the amount from $14,000 to $9,000, knowing the matter will be re- Studied in the House. If the cost can be held that low, I shall be as happy as the Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. LODGE, and Mr. HENDRICKSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield, and if so to whom? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield first to the Senator from Illinois, then I shall yield to the two Senators on the other side of the aisle. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may say I am greatly pleased at the courtesy of the senior Senator from Maryland in being willing to reduce the amount, but I should like to suggest that the impor- tant consideration is not the maximum but the average cost. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. TYDINGS. If it is fixed at $9,000, the average is going to be something less than that, certainly. Mr. DOUGLAS. What I should like to see placed in the section is a provi- sion that the average cost shall not ex- ceed a given figure. It would then be possible to have a variation between lo- calities, but the maximum would not be used as the minimum, which may some- times happen. I may say that, while I am very young in this body, I have noticed frequently that when clauses are taken to conference they are sometimes stricken out on the insistence of the other body, and the final conference fig- ure comes back with a much higher cost figure than we had originally intended. Therefore, I should like to ask the Sen- ator from Maryland whether he will not give most careful consideration to the idea of an average cost figure, which would be included in section 495. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I shall yield, in a moment. That would be a little difficult, because, first of all, none of the houses have been built. The second point is that it would be pretty hard to average the projects for all the various localities from Okinawa to Hawaii and all the way round, some of them having already been authorized in Alaska and Hawaii. Mr. DOUGLAS. I may call the atten- tion of the very able Senator from Mary- land to the fact that so far as Okinawa and Alaska are concerned, they are al- ready given a limit twice that fixed for the continental United States. So it is unnecessary to bring in the high cost of construction in Alaska and Okinawa to justify high cost inside the continental United States. Mr. MAYBANK and Mr. HENDRICK- SON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maryland yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. TYDINGS. I promised to yicld to the Senator from New Jersey, next, andI shall yield to the Senator from South Carolina next, after that. Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, both the senior Senator from New Jersey and the junior Senator from that State are very much concerned about the pro- posed removal of the Watson Labora- tories from New Jersey to Rome, N. Y. We are therefore very much interested in the idea of a unanimous-consent agreement to vote on Monday. That would give us time to confer with im- portant members of our House delega- tion and make necessary inquiries, as we should like to do, in order to be pre- parcd to vote properly on the bill, I wish the Senator from Maryland would renew the proposal of a unanimous- consent agreement to vote at 1 o'clock on Monday. Mr, CAPEHART and Mr. MAYBANK addressed the Chair. Mr. TYDINGS. Just a moment. I hope the Senator from Illinois will re- main while we are on this subject. There are many projects in the bill for Alaska. As a matter of fact, Alaska gets almost more money than any other place men- tioned in the entire bill, outside Cali- 1451 fornia. In view of the fact that Alaska and many outlying places are on the list, including even Greenland, I do not know how much the average cost will be. I think we may defeat our own purposes if we tie ourselves too tightly. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. MAYBANK. I should like to re- mind the Senator that last year we passed the Alaska housing bill which was sponsored by the Senator from Wash- ington |Mr. Macnuson] and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Kem]. I am for the Senator's bill. Iam hoping that a satis- factory provision can be worked out. I think the Senator made 8 most reason- able request when he suggested a vote be taken at 1 o’clock on Monday, and in the meantime we study the bills and, if necessary, prepare amendments. Mr. TYDINGS. I should hke to say, before I yield to the Senator from New York, that the hearings were held ap- proximately 8 or 9 months ago, and as I speak many things come to mind of which I did not originally think. One of the things we did—I have forgotten the formula we used—was to figure how we could hold the unit costs down to the lowest possible point and, at the same time, construct. houses which would not be a disgrace to the country. We placed a limit on the cost of a six-room house to be built in places other than Alaska and Greenland, and then fixed the floor space. We had the architects come be- fore us. and all the houses are to follow a specific, definite pattern. The heating vnit is not placed under each house, There is a heating unit under the sev- enth house, and it heats all seven houses. There is not a wash tub under each house. There are wash tubs and other laundry arrangements in the basement of one house, and the occupants of all seven houses use that equipment. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the Senator from Indiana. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I am beginning to get a little suspicious of this bill, because I find that the authoriza- tion asked for is something less than $600,000,000. Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; and we have nearly that much in sensitive and val- uable equipment which is deteriorating in many places. I shall be glad to bring photographs, if the Senator wants to see them, of some very expensive equip- ment, costing millions of dollars, which is exposed to the weather, and if it is allowed to remain as it is much longer it will be useless and will have to be replaced. Mr. CAPEHART. My point is that the bill covers approximately $600,000,- 000, and the only portion of the bill in which Senators seem to be interested is the human element—housing the soldier or the marine or the Navy man. I want to see some money taken from the ap- propriation. Mr. TYDINGS. Where? Mr. CAPEHART. I am wondering if we should take it away from the housing,
1452 Mr. TYDINGS. The Senator has not heard a bit of the testimony with refer- ence to any one of these projects. What does he want to take out? Mr. CAPEHART. Why do we talk about the small end of it, which is the provision for housing for the armed services, whereas we do not seem to be at all interested in whether barracks are going to cost too much, whether the warehouses are going to cost too much, or whether a dozen and one other things will cost too much. We simply talk of the houses we are going to build for our soldiers. I do not quite understand the reasoning. Mr. TYDINGS. I do not believe the Senator was present when I made my opening statement and told the Senate that a ercat many of these proposals came from the Research and Develop- ment Board. Mr. CAPEHART. I appreciate that. I am for the bill, but I cannot quite understand the reasoning of Scnators who would vote for an expenditure of $600,000.000, and then talk about— what? What is the total housing cost involved? Mr. TYDINGS. The committee sat for a month. The Senator can well un- derstand that the projects were taken up one at a time, and the question was asked, ‘‘Why do you have to have that?” The man who was responsible for that particular activity had to make out a case, Mr. CAPEHART. What is the total amount for housing for the personnel? Mr. TYDINGS. I do not know. Mr. CAPEHART. Is it not a small amount compared with the total? Mr. LUCAS. Mr President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. ator from Ilnois Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, it secms to me, in view of all the questions asked, we should try to agree upon a time to vote on Monday, Ict us say, at 2 o’clock. I hope we can do that and take a recess uniil that time A number of Scnators aic on their feet and a number of them Gesne to interrogate the Senator froin Marviand, and the first thing we know we shall be here for another hour. Many Scnators are anxious to ro home, and I want to accommodate everyone Mr. TYDINGS. Mr President, I may say to the Senator from Illinois that the Senator from Maryland will be glad to accommodate, with any reasonable cx- tension of the time, those Senators who Want to prepare amendments or who want to inquire further into the subject, but it would be appreciated if the re- quests did not encompass too long a time, because I should like to have the bill passed in whatevcr shape it is to be passed, because there is immediate need for many projects which it con- tains. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. Mtr. President, it seems to me the main difference at the moment is whether the figure which the Senator has named is to be $9,000 as the top, or whether we should follow the sugges- tion of the Senator from Illinois {Mr. I yield to the Sen- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Dovetas)] that the figure be $9,000 on the average. Mr. DOUGLAS, Or some average fig- ure, Mr. TYDINGS. I would accept the $9,000 average. Mr. LEHMAN. The Senator places a top figure of $9,000. The average would be less than $9,000. Mr. DOUGLAS. agree to $9,000 average. less. Mr. TYDINGS. I should like to say to the Senator from Illinois that I would not make that proposal if this were a House bill and this were our last chance at it, but, being a Senate bill, there will be hearings on it, and the $9,000 figure will be reexamined. I thought if I were willing to go along with the Senator to the point of fixing a $9,000 top, which would be $9,000 under the present top, ceertainly it could not be less than that, unless the intention is to build the houses for nothing. Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the distin- guished Senator from Maryland also ad- dress his remarks to the site develop- ment and outside utilities which are fixed at $5,200? Yam not sure whether that would include the cost of the land. Mr. TYDINGS. It includes sewerage and lights. Mr. DOUGLAS, Does it include the cost of the land? Mr. TYDINGS. No Mr DOUGLAS. Without the cost of the land, that figure is certainly exces- sively high. Mr. TYDINGS. I misunderstood the Senator's question. It does include land, sewerage, water, lights, and all the other site necessities. Mr DOUGLAS. How many houses of this type could be placed on an acic of land? My. TYDINGS. I believe the Senator is a pretty good expert on housing, but we cannot take housine slone and not consider the sewerage, water, and other facilities It will be found that in many localities that 1s a very expensive under- takng We are not building all these houses on the outskirts of Baltimore and Washington, but at some places far re- moved from the source of supply, where seware disposal 1s not always as casy as it locks to be. Mr. DOUGLAS. cost would be less. Mr. TYDINGS. From the Senator's experience, what would he suygest? Mr. DOUGLAS. At this hour of the day, obviously one cannot suggest a defl- nite figure, but I would suggest to the distinguished Senator from Maryland that he also take into account the cost of site development as well as the cost of construction, and make some effort to fix a lower maximum which will better protect the taxpayers. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland yield? Mr TYDINGS. I yield to the Senator from Indiana Mr. CAPEHART. The total cost of the housing is a hundred million, or something in that neighborhood, and the total appropriation in this bill is in ex- cess of five hundred million. My ques- tion is, Why are we more interested in I do not necessarily It might be In those cases the FEBRUARY 3 questioning the housing in which the servicemen are to live than in the ware- houses in which, for instance, barrels of oil are to be stored? Here is authoriza- tion for $450,000,000, or a sum in that neighborhood, for warehouses and ma- terial things, and a hundred million or a little over for housing for the service- men. Mr. TYDINGS. No one wants to get a dollar taken off more than does the Senator from Maryland, but I do not want to defeat the purpose of the bill by cutting so much off that it will be im- Possible to do the work which ought to be done. In the event the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois is followed, if any Senator will come forward with an amendment, which is founded on com- mon sense and reason, and which will protect the taxpayers and the Govern- ment, he will have not only my coopera- tion, but. if it is permitted, under the rules of the Senate, my applause. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield to the Sena- tor from Massachusetts. Mr. SALTONSTALL As a member of the Senator’s committee, and working with him on this matter, I wish to say that some months ago we went into the question of the housing, very carefully. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr.SALTONSTALL. It is my memory that we got the costs down as low as possible. Mr. TYDINGS. That is correct. Mr SALTONSTALL. Perhaps we can fet them lower, but I say to the chair- man, respectfully, that I think he should not agree to any amendment tonight, until we really have a chance to study the matter further. Mr. TYDINGS If the Senate is to recess until Monday, I should wish to withdraw my amendment, because I know the House will go over the matter. Theiefcre 1 withdraw the amendment and yield the floor, and I hope the pro- posal] of the majority leader for a vote on the bill at some hour on Mondny, which will give us all a chance to pre- pares amendments, will be accepted. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, in the hope that, I may get a unanimous-con- sent agreement, I shall plac? one before the Sonate. I see the Senator from Cregon on the floor. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I am a member of the committee, and I am for the unanimous-consent agreement, and for the bill, but there is a matter of pol- icy to which J think we should conform. I think in this particular instance no Senator, if he were present, would want to object, but the policy the junior Sen- ator from Oregon has consistently fol- lowed will be followed now, namely, I shall ask for a quorum call before the agreement is entered into. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rules of the Senate it is necessary to have a quorum called for the submission of a unanimous-consent agreement of the kind proposed, unless there is a waiver by unanimous consent. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I cannot get a waiver by unanimous consent, as a@ result of what the junior Senator from Oregon has said, and therefore I shall
1950 not try to secure an agreement. Conse- quently, the bill will have to go over until Monday. As it has been agreed with the two Senators from Arizona to take up Senate bill 75 Monday morning, we will have to come back to the bill now pending some other time. If we are to resume consideration of the bill on Mon- day, no one Knows how much time it will take. I was sure, from what the Senator from Maryland said, that the bill could be passed in 25 minutes, and that is why I consented that it be taken up at 5 o'clock. Now it is 5 minutes past 6, and more questions have been asked about the bill than about any bill we have had before us for a long time, and I daresay it might take two more days to pass the bill, judging from the qucstions which have been asked. So it seems to me we should follow the order of business we have heretofore dis- cussed. I do not believe the Senator could get a vote on his bill tonight, and I am going to ask that the Senate pro- ceed to the consideration of Senate bill 75. Mr. TYDINGS. Before the Senator makes the motion, I should like to be recognized. Mr. LUCAS. I withhold the motion. Mr. TYDINGS. If the action proposed by the leader were taken, it would dis- place the bill now pending, which has been on the calendar since last August, and as it cannot be passed on the con- sent calendar, it would mean that no one could know when it would come up again. We should not shed too many tears about the servicemen in Alaska, and the conditions under which they are living, and the conditions under which other servicemen are living, without the full knowledge that they will continue to live under those conditions if we post- pone final action on this bill, I should hke to suggest to my col- Jeacues that the bill has been on the calendar since last August. Three or 4 dnys ago notice was given by the Jeader on the majority side that the bill would be taken up, and, with all due respect to Senators who have taken part in the colloquy, it seems to me that, with that knowledge, they should be prepared with amendments to support whatever contentions they think are appropriate in connection with the consideration of the bill. I am not worried about the cost limit, because I know that when the bill goes to the House of Representatives all the matters which have been submitted to us will have to be reproved, and it seems to me that in the case of housing, if I were to offer an amendment myself for a $9,000 hmit, the Senator from Illinois should be satisfied with that, because the House of Representatives will have to reconsider it, and if the House dis- agrees with the Senate, the question will be in conference. I was going to sug~ gest that I reframe my amendment, which the House will have to consider anyway, to read, “not more than an average price of $9,000.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Will the Senator say “not more than an average construction cost of $8,500"? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes; I will settle for $500 less. XCVI——92 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Maryland will not ac- cept the amendment with the idea he can get an immediate vote. Mr. TYDINGS. I am trying to dis- pose of one phase of the matter only. Mr. RUSSELL. Very well. Mr. DOUGLAS. I appreciate the very cooperative spirit of the Senator from Maryland. I now wonder if he would be equally cooperative in dealing with the question of site development and outside facilities. Mr. TYDINGS. If the Senator will name his price, I will settle. |Laughter.] Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate that the Senator 1s in a yielding and in a genial mood, but I call his attention to the fact that I am afraid he is going to make some of the proposed developments com- pletely impossible if he yields too much on the point raised. Mr. TYDINGS. Iet me say to the Senator from Florida that if this were a House bill I would be unable to yield, in heht of the information at my dis- posal. But I know that the House Armed Services Committee is going to give the bill high priority, and that the figures in the bill will be reviewed in the Hight of present-day evidence If the figures are too low, I know the House will raise them, and that we will get back to what it is possible to do with the money that is fixed in the hmitation. Mr. HOLLAND If the Senator will permit me to complete my statement, there is one project in the bill about which I know something. It is not one about ‘which I appeared before the com- mitiee, but I presume it was asked for by the Air Force. Mr. T'YDINGS. It was. Mr. HOLLAND. It has to do with Eghn Field. That is a community far remote from any town or ciiy Those interested prefer to have the housing on the reservation rather then in the near- by town. They are going to have to build a water tank and water-distribution facilities, and are going to have to do such paving as will be necessary to reach and afford access to the houses. They are going to have to bring Jn elec- tric power lines, and other utilities, be- sides doing the things which have been mentioned here already, in the way of providing central laundry stations, cen- tral-heating plants, and the like. I do not desire to see the Senate do something which will make the neces- sary construction, or construction which the Air Force says is necessary, an im- possibility. Ido not claim to know about other projects, there may be many in the same condition, and there may be some that are in even more desperate condi- tion—— Mr. TYDINGS. There are. Mr, HOLLAND. I should not like to see the snap judgment of the Senate substituted for the mature judgment and reasoning of the committee, which I am sure has passed very deliberately and justly on the request. I should dis- like very much to see such a@ yielding by the Senator from Maryland as would 1453 make impossible some of these projects, which, as I say again, have not been asked for, certainly so far as the one I mentioned is concerned, and I am sure that is true as to every other project, ex- cept by the services involved, and they have asked for them because they need them, and need them badly. I hope the Senator will not yield on this point. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I should like to ask a question of the Sen- ator from Illinois. In the event the mo- tion is adopted and the bill is displaced, when in his judgment can it be brought up again for action by the Senate? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I cannot tell the Senator that. It seems to me this is probably one of the bills which would be objected to on the other side of the aisle. Mr. TYDINGS. It has been objected to each time it has been reached on the call of the calendar. Mr, LUCAS. It has been objected to each time jt has been reached on the call of the calendar. The Senators on the other side of the aisle are getting ready to go away to cclebrate Lincoln’s birthday, and try to raise a little money and elevate the spirits of the members of their party. During the time they are away we probably will not be able to bring up the bill. So I cannot say when it can be brought up. I have made a definite agreemcnt with the Senator from Arizona |Mr. HayDEN] that Sen- ate bill 75 shall be brought up for con- sideration on Monday. It is apparent we cannot have action taken on the pending bill now, so I am in favor of taking a recess at this time. Mr. TYDINGS. I wanted the Sen- ator from Illinois to give me a reply to the question. I should like to say something while I have the floor. Mr. President and Sen- ators, it is perfectly apparent to me that some of uS aic not really interested in our great armed services. We love them in time of war when the shells are flying all around, and the wounded are coming back, and we ect a mournful thrill when visiting the graveyards of our great heroic soldicrs, and reflect upon the sac- rifices they have made. We stand with bowed heads at their graves. We have soldiers in Alaska who are living 1n such conditions, that, if the son of any Senator were there we would hear some of the finest oratory we ever have listened to on the floor of the Sen- ate. They are living in most crude con- ditions there, far away from all amuse- ments, in the Arctic night, which is very long. They are living there without proper housing, without proper recre- ational facilities. Photographs brought before the committee show that millions of dollars’ worth of valuable and sensi- tive equipment are there unprotected. Such photographs were exhibited to the members of the committee. It is allright, Mr. President, to go forth at election time and tell the men who wore the uniform, members of the Ameri- can Legion, or the Veterans of Foreign Wars, or the Disabled Veterans, how we love them, but in my opinion it is better for us to put some time on this bill and build up in the men who stand between
1454 us and a possible attack by some great instrument of destruction the morale which comes from having a decent place in which to live. Here we are quibbling 6 months after a bill has been reported to the Senate by the Armed Services Committee, a bill re- ported unanimously by that committee, which has a membership of six Repub- licans and seven Democrats, one of them being Harry Byrd, of Virginia, who cer- tainly does not have a reputation of be- ing a spendthrift with Government funds. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Yet every time the calendar is called and the bill is reached we hear “I object.” The chairman of the committee, or whoever is in charge of the bill, is sometimes not even given the courtesy and privilege of making a 5-minute explanation. Mr. President, we are sitting here warm and well clothed in an air-condi- tioned Chamber. Our soldiers in Green- land and Alaska have natural air condi- tioning. There we find two of the most ageravated situations which are taken care of by the bill. Mr. SCHOEPPEL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. Now let us cease the talk about our love for the servicemen. I think it is an outrage to put men in the neighborhood of the Arctic Circle or above it and not give them decent places in which to live and not afford them rea- sonable recreation. They are standing on the frontier of civilization prepared to fight the battle for all mankind. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] knows that to be so. He has brought up that subject many times in the committee, I think the time has come when we should face this situation and not put off con- sideration of the bill. We should stay here tonight, if necessary, to work out the bill upon the anvil of the legislative process. . Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I do not belicve we are loyal to these men to the degree we should be if we pass this bill over and let it take its chances of passage on some future date. We are here now. We can legislate now. Amendments can be of- fered now. They can be voted on now. For 4 or 5 days notice has been served that the bill would come up today. Any- one who is critical of the bill should be prepared, in my judgment, to have the facts and amendments available so we will not need to put off consideration of the bill any longer. Arctic blizzards can- not be put off. Servicemen in the far north are living under Arctic blizzard conditions now. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, TYDINGS. tion. Mr. MORSE. I wish to say that I completely agree with the Senator from Maryland that the bill should not be displaced. There are two ways of pro- ceeding, under either one of which the bill can be acted upon. There are now 80-some Senators in the Chamber. I think a quorum of 49 Senators can be 1 yield for a ques- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE produced and we can dispose of the bill tonight. However, if we cannot dispose of it at this time in that way, I do not see why on Monday, at the opening of the session, the majority leader cannot ask for unanimous consent to vote on the bill at 2 o’clock on Monday. It seems to me it is merely a matter of procedure. I believe the rules of pro- cedure of the Senate should be rigidly adhered to, namely, that if a request for unanimous consent is made, there should be a quorum call. A quorum should be ascertained to be present before request for unanimous consent is made. I am in favor of staying here tonight and act- ing on the bill, or having the majority leader, the first thing after the Senate convenes on Monday, make a unani- mous-consent request to vote on the bill at 2 o’clock on Monday. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I think we have reached the Rubicon. In the future it ought never to be of- fered as an excuse in this body that legislation must be postponed merely be- cause some Senator is not present. A Senator is elected and paid to be pres- ent here on the floor. Days go by, weeks go by without action being taken on some measures because Senators have said they will be away from the Senate Chamber for 2 or 3 days. When they accept engagements they must take the risk of action being taken on pending legislation while they are away. We have too large a calendar to keep delaying bills when they are reached on the cal- endar, particularly b:lls dealing with the defense of the Nation, in view of the new developments which take place every 24 hours. . Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr, TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. CAPEHART. Who is it that held up the bill this afternoon? Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I am not naming any names. I am not being personal I am speaking in the abstract, not in the concrete. Mr. President, I think the bill before us is of transcendental importance. It ought to remain before us until we dis- pose of it. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. CAPEHART. The Senator has been addressing himself to this side of the aisle with respect to the bill. My suggestion is that he address himself to the other side of the aisle, when speak- ing of the bill having been held up this afternoon. Mr. TYDINGS. I am facing toward the other side of the Chamber, because there are more desks toward that side of me than there are on the other side of me. I do not wish to turn my back on the majority of the desks in the Chamber. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. TYDINGS. Yes. Mr.SALTONSTALL. The senior Sen- ator from Arizona [Mr Hayprn] is pres- ent. The junior Senator from California [Mr. KNowLaNp] is also present. The question I address to the Senator from FEBRUARY 3 Maryland is as follows: Is he willing to ask the two Senators if they will agree to give at least 2 hours for discussion of the bill on Monday, thus releasing the majority leader from that much of the agreement he has made? Mr. TYDINGS. I am willing to enter into any reasonable agreement, which will not result in the bill being thrown again into the wastebasket. Senators, I do not want to be emotional about this matter, but there are men in the service waiting on this legislation. We are sitting in this Chamber and are quite warm. At the same time, other men are quite cold. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I wish to ask the majority leader if he is willing to ask the Senators from California and Ari- zona if they will release him from the agreement that has been made, at least to the extent of 2 hours on Monday be- ing made available for consideration of the pending bill? Mr. LUCAS. I am sure we can be afforded 2 hours on Monday for that pur- pose if we can secure & unanimous-con- sent agreement. That, however, cannot be reached tonight, and I do not know whether it can be secured on Monday. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senate could recess tonight with no understand- ing respecting a unanimous-consent agreement, but, as I understand the rules, the Senate can, by unanimous- consent agreement, displace the Dill which it is proposed to consider on Mon- day. Thus we can recess at this time with the idea of endeavoring to secure unanimous-consent agreement for at Jeast an hour or 2 hours of discussion of the bill on Monday, and thereafter be guided by circumstances. Mr. LUCAS. As I said before, I am sure the distinguished Senators from Arizona [Mr. Haypen and Mr. McFar- LAND] and the distinguished Senators from California |[Mr. Downey and Mr. KNnowLanp] would agree to do that. I have not talked with the Senator from California [Mr. KNOWLAND]. He has a problem, too. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I have the floor, but I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. Let me suggest that a motion be made to take up Sen- ate bill 75 not later than 2 o’clock on Monday. That would be agreeable to us. That would allow the 2 hours de- sired. Promptly at 2 o’clock the Senate could begin the consideration of our bill. If consideration of the pending bill is not concluded today, the majority leader could ask unanimous consent on Monday to conclude it by 2 o’clock. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I will accept that arrangement. I shall do something which probably has not here- tofore been done in this body. I ask my colleagues if we cannot have a gentle- men’s agreement or understanding rather than a unanimous-consent agree-
1950 ment, that we shall finally act on the bill prior to the hour of 2 o’clock, when the majority leader will make a motion to take up the other bill. That would not bind any Senator. We all want the bill to go through. Such an arrange- ment would conform to the point of vicw of the Senator from Oregon. It would not bind any Senator. It would not be a precedent. I should like to hope that we could obtain a gentlemen’s agree- ment, and that at the proper time on Monday we could proceed to vcte on the bill and all amendments. I would rather have a gentleman’s agrecment than a unanimous-consent agreement. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. In view of the rule, and in view of the feeling of some Members on this side of the aisle, I hope the Senator from Maryland, who is the chairman of the committec, will not press his suggestion, but will leave the situation as it was before. Mr. TYDINGS. I am not pressing 1t. I am merely making an observation. There seems to be a spimt of good humor in the Chamber at this time. Iam hop- ine that it will prevail on Monday, and that we can get together, pass the bill, and send it to the House, where it must go throunh the mill. Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield Mr DOWNELL. I appreciate the fine spnit of the Senator irom Maryland in moking this suggestion, but it seems to me that it would be a mistake for this body, with only approximately 30 Sen- ators in the Chamber, to enter into any such understanding. Sixty-six Sena- tors are absent. Mr. TYDINGS. Tassume that the ab- sentlees are gentlemen. Mr. DONNELL. I have no doubt that they are. Also there is one lady, but she is present. It seems to me that a gen- tleman’s agreement, 1f it means any- thine, means just as much as a unani- mous-consent agreement. Mr. TYDINGS. It means more. Mr. DONNELL. I think 1t would be very unfortunate to place any Member of the Senate who is absent this afternoon under the obligation of a gentleman's agreement. I think we ought either to have a unanimous-consent agreement, or not have a unanimous-consent agree- ment. A moment ago, before the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McFartanp] spoke, I was about to make a suggestion. Perhaps my suggestion is now out of order, but I should like at least to mention it. We are proceeding here on the theory that we must take a recess from today until Monday. There is one more day this week. Personally I would have no objection to takine a recess until to- morrow, instead of Monday, so as to con- tinue consideration of the pending bill. However, if the Senators from Arizona end the Senators from California are willing to agree to some other course of action, I shall not press the suggestion. If they are not willing to do so, I shall offer the suezes.tion that the Senate take a recess until tomorrow. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I am satisfied that they could not accept the suggestion, because under the practice which has prevailed they could not do so without consulting Senators who are ab- sent. Again we defer to absent Senators. Why do we do so? Why must we always consult Senators who are not in ther seats? When I expect to be absent from the Senate I never ask that proposed legislation be laid aside or deferred. I am absent more than perhaps any other Member of this body, because Maryland is next door. I take my chances. When I am present in the Chamber I do not like to have a rule applied to me which does not apply to every other Senator. Mr. DON..ELL Will the S:rator yield? ir, TYDINGS. I yield. Mr. DONNELL. Dol correctly under- stand the statement of the Chair to be that a unanimous-consent asreement of this tyne cannot be entered into with- cut. a cuorum call? The SIES!L’NG OFFICER That 1s the statemeny of the Chair. Mr, DONMELL. In view of the state- ment ot the €enator from Meryland, I respectiully suggest that the majority leader consider the advisability of re- eessing until 11 o’clocz: tomorrow morn- ing, at which t1me we may resume con- sideration of the pending mcasure Mr. WXYDINGUS. Mr. President, this ts probobly one of the most impoitant bills whith will come before this Congress. The amount of money it authorizes 1s large. The cxtent of 1t is large Its relationship to our national defense 1s Jarge “he men who need it are con- sideruble in number. It is very odd, Mr. President, that durmg the consideration of a bill of this magnitude so few Sen- ators cre present in the Chamber, and that we cannot act on the bill because of the absence of Senators. That is a rather sad commentary. Mr DCNNELL. Will the Senator yield? Mr. T¥YDINGS. I yield. Mr DONNELL. If the Senator will permit, me to do so, I now most respect- fully suggest to the distinguished major- ity leader that we take a recess at this time until 11 o’clock tomorrow morning. Mr. TYDINGS. My. President, I do not want to Jose the floor at this time, but I will yield to allow the Senator from Missouri to ask the majority leader a question, if that is satisfactory. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, if I make that kind of motion, the absentee Sen- ators whom the Senator is now discuss- ing will be here tomorrow and I shall be charged by them with holding Saturday sessions when I should not do so, and when some Senators have made arrange- ments to be absent. Senators will talk all day long if they do not want to vote on the bill. I do not believe it can be done by simply coming back here in the morn- ing at 11 o'clock. I talked informally with the Senator from Georgia |[Mr. RusseLtt}. I do not believe he will let us vote on Monday at 2 o'clock. I am not sure about that. At any rate, he has submitted an amend- ment to the bill and he will have some- thing to say about it. As other Senators enter the debate on the bill, apparently 1455 they will have much to say about it. I should not like to recess until tomorrow and have to listen to debate all day long without getting anywhere in connection with a vote, and then have Scnators charge me with Simon Legrece tactics. Mr. TYDINGS _ I shall not press the suggestion further. It is perfectly ap- parent that we have reached an impasse and that nothing 1s going to be done. I will offer this amendment to every bill the Senate considers from now on until the end of the session. I will get some consideration for it. Mr. DONNELL. the Senator yield? Mr. TYDINGS. I yield. Mr.DONNELL. Will the Senator per- mit me to ask the distinguished majority Jeader whether or not there is any com- mitment to any Member of the Senate that a session will not be held tomorrow? Mr LUCAS. Ihave made no commit- ment Mr. DONNELL. sense of the Senate Mr. LUCAS I hope the Senator will not do thet. Ido not want him to take the leadership away from me. Mr. DONNELL. I am not going to take the leadership away from the ma- jority leader, but I know of no other way of testing the sense of the Senate. Mr LUCAS) Mr. Presidcnt, I demand the regular order. Mr. DONNELL I move that the Sen- ate take a reecss until Lomorrow morning at. 11 o’ciock a.m. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I demand the rcgulor order. Mr. TYDINGS Mr. President, it is perfectly apparent that we cannot dis- pose of this bill tonight. I1 is going back on the calendar. The Senator from Maryland will offer the bill as an amend- ment to every single, solitary piece of legislation in this session of Congress, and J hope one way or another to get consideration for 1t. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Maryland will not carry out the suggestion he has made. Not jong ago we had a Democratic confer- ence and we virtually agreed that non- germane amendments would not offered to any legislation pending before the Senate. Iam sure that we can pass this bill sooner or later. The House has not acted on it as yet. It 1s a Senate bill. Apparently the House has not been too much disturbed about the provisions of this measure, or they would have actcd on a similar measure before this time. Mr. President, I am willing to have the Senate recess until] Monday at noon and to leave this bill on the calendar. Pecr- haps between now and Monday we can obtain an agreement to vote on the bill by 2 or 3 o'clock. I shall take that chance with the Senators from Arizona and the Senators from California, with whom I have a definite agreement to take up Senate bill 75. I will not permit the Senator from Missouri to move that we recess until tomorrow. I propose to control that myself. I now move that the Senate take a recess—— Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr LUCAS. I will yicld for a ques- tion, but not tor a specch. Mr. President, will In order to test the
1456 Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I think the Senator could yield for some remarks, without losing the floor. Mr. DONNEUL. Mr. President, a point of order. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LUCAS. I yield for a question. Mr. MAGNUSON. I wish to ask the Senator if he thinks it is possible that within the next week, under the agenda now before the Senate, we could dispose of this bill. I pose the question for rea- sons similar to those set forth by the Senator from Maryland. I pose the question for the further reason that last year the same thing happened in refer- ence to the Alaskan housing bill. After it got out of committee, it took us until the end of the session finally to pass the bill. All that time the troops in Alaska had been living in tar-paper shacks, with outside lavatories—conditions under which we would not have a dog live. If this is going to be the same situa- tion—— Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I yielded for a question. Mr. MAGNUSON. I ask that ques- tion, and I preface it by saying-——— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois yielded only for a question. Mr. MAGNUSON. I ask the Senator if he realizes—and I know he does—that if we do not pass this measure within the next 2 weeks, the same situation as the one I mentioned in regard to the Alaskan housing bill last year will develop, be- cause the season is short, and there will be no opportunity for the building of quarters for our troops in Alaska. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I think I am as cognizant of what goes on around the Senate as is any other Senator, and I realize the implications of this measure. But I wish to say that I am not going to be rushed from here on, on an im- portant bill involvin, a half billion dol- lars, on the theory that it can be passed in 20 minutes. We are going to take our time on a measure of this kind. I thought probably we could dispose of it in that length of time, and that is the reason why we took it up at 5 o'clock today. But we have not been able to pass it within that period of time. There are a number of important con- siderations involved in this bill, as is ap- parent from the questions which have been asked by Senators on both sides of the aisle. I do not think any Senator is trying to delay the measure for the sole sake of delaying it. Senators have a right to ascertain what is provided by the bill. They have a right to interrogate the members of the committee. They have a right to offer amendments from the floor, if they so desire. I do not believe any Senator on either side of the aisle is at- tempting to pursue dilatory tactics merely for the sake of delaying the bill. A moment ago suggestion was made that perhaps it woulc be possible for the Senate to consider this measure follow- ing the disposition of Senate bill 75. As I now recall, perhaps there was some discussion of that in the meeting of the policy committee last week. If we can- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE not dispose of it on Monday, I should be happy to try to take it up following—— Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, LUCAS. from Georgia. Mr. RUSSELL. I should like to say that I think the Senator from Illinois is eminently fair in the position he takes. In my judgment, it would have been a mistake to have passed a bill of this mag- nitude in 20 or 25 minutes. It is an ex- tremely important bill. Although I am for the bill and al- though I support it, and supported it in the committee, yet there are some amendments which I hope the Senator will consider adding to the bill. We are not considering here, today, the bill re- ported by the committee last summer, and lying upon the calendar all last fall, but we are considering the substitute, which was printed only on February 2. I have observed the substitute, and I see that some items in the committee print have been eliminated and others have been changed. Certainly I should like to have time to look into projects in my State which are covered by this measure. I think they are likewise vital to the national defense, and involve the care and wel- fare of the soldiers of the Republic. I also intend to look into the provi- sions of the substitute for the Marine Corps, because I do not think either the bill or the substitute takes proper cog- nizance of the Marine Corps. I had to go to the unusual length of requesting, over the heads of the Department, that the Quartermaster General of the Marine Corps be permitted to come before the committee to make a case for an item which I thought much more meritorious than many others provided for in this mcasure. I do not think it is at all possible to obtain a vote on the bill by 2 o’clock on Monday. This measure can be consid- ercd in order, after the consideration of other measures. I do not recall that any Member of the Senate pressed for action on this measure until the meeting of the policy committee on Tuesday of this week. This bill can be considered in due time. I hope the Senator from Maryland was speaking in jest when he said he intended to offer this measure as an amendment to every bill which comes along, because if the Senate were to pass it under such circumstances, it would not go to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives, but would go to some other House committee. The bill should be considered and should be passed, but it should receive the consideration which its importance demands, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. DOUGLAS. I should like to be permitted to make a brief statement, in view of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I am well aware of the keen interest the Senator from Maryland has in pro- viding proper housing for our military ersonnel, I wish to pay tribute to him, I yield to the Senator FEBRUARY 3 not only for his ability but for his zeal in behalf of and his interest in the mem- bers of the armed services. I hope he did not draw the inference from what I said that those of us who are presenting amendments pertaining to the costs of construction meant to delay the passage of the bill or to force officers or enlisted personnel to live in improper quarters. I wish to assure the Senator from Maryland that I have, I hope, these causes as much at heart as he has, and I have no desire whatever to slow up tha Passage of the bill. Let me say to the Senator from Mary- land that, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to stay here until midnight tonight, but I also have a concern for the taxpayers of the United States. I da not think it is improper to raise questiong regarding the expense in connection with items of military installations or any other items in the budget. I may say that my attention was first called to this matter last summer when, jn House bill 4766, authorization was requested in the amount of $1,167,000 for 48 units at Scott Air Force Base, in my own State. I may say that this same itera seems to be carried on page 19 of the substitute reported by the distinguished Senator from Maryland, and it is also contained on page 20 of the bill as reported by the committee last summer. At the time when this matter came up last summer, I analyzed the estimate in some detail. I found that of the esti- mated cost of $1,167,000, $375,000 was set aside for land and $792,000 for construc-~ tion and utilities for 48 units. A total of 650 acres was to be acquired: the average cost of acquisition per acre was something over $500. I paid a visit to Scott Field, at Belle- ville. I inspected the field; I went about the surrounding countryside, and took informal testimony from a number of persons in Belleville. It was my conclu- sion that a cost of $500 an acre was great- ly in excess of the fair value of the land. Furthermore, I was not at all cer- tain that we should buy as much as 650 acres for the initial construction of only 48 units—or an average of nearly 14 acres per unit. I found that the cost for land alone, at least as it was proposed ta be acquired so far as the 48 units was concerned, was $7,800 per unit, and that there was an allowance of $2,500 per unit for outside utilities, making a total of $10,300 for land and outside utilities per unit. When this is added to the $14,000 cost of construction, the initial construction cost would come to $24,300 a unit. To put it quite mildly, this seems to me to be entirely too extravagant. There are many questions connected with this installation and similar in- stallations all over the country. I simply wish to ask the Senator from Maryland whether, upon more mature reflection, he does not think it proper for a Senator of the United States to try to protect the taxpayers in these mat- ters, as well as to hasten construction of the installations. I ask the Senator from Maryland with all kindness to him and with all respect for his distinguished ability and his great service to the coun-
1950 try, whether a Senator should be branded on the floor of the Senate as trying to interfere with installations merely be- cause he Is trying to save the taxpayers some money? Mr. TYDINGS,. Mr. the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Sena- tor from Maryland? Mr. LUCAS I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I am absolutely as- tounded at the remarks of the Senator from Illinois. I have never branded him or anyone else on the floor of the Senate for improper conduct in attempting to save the taxpayers’ money. I associated myself with him, and I cannot under- stand where the Senator’s hearing is, if he drew any different inference from what I had to say. I tried to cooperate with him by making suggestions, the merit of which I doubted, in order to associate myself with his effort. But I want to say to the Senator, I do not take second place to any one in this Chamber in trying to save the taxpayers’ money. I want the Senator from Illinois to know it, and not to assume that I am attack- ing him because he is trying to save money. I also want the Senator from Illinofs to know that my remarks were directed primarily to the absentees, whom I men- tioned several times, because we could not get a unanimous-consent agreement, because we could not get a sufficient number of Senators on the floor to pass the bill. It seems to me, with men on guard on the very frontiers of civiliza- tion, in Alaska and Greenland, in the prevailing cold, lacking heating facili- ties, and compelled to run from their little shacks to outhouses across the snow, that on Friday night at 6 o'clock enough United States Senators could show up to legislate on a matter of this importance. My remarks were not di- rected to anyone on this floor, by reason of anything he said. I resent the im- putation, because it is purely assumed and has no basis in fact. I repeat my statement, I think it is an outrage that a bill of this significance should be de- layed because, at 6 o’clock on Friday night, there are not enough United States Senators in the Capitol to transact business, while housing is needed every- where on our far-flung line of defense. Mr SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Docs the Senator from Illinois yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Tllinois will allow the bill to retain its present status and will now move a recess of the Senate until Monday. I assure the Senator from Maryland, as one member of his com- mittee—and there are four members of his committee on this side of the aisle— that we have the same feelings he has with respect to getting the bill through in an orderly and proper way. I do not think we can do it tonight. I do not know whether we can do it Monday. But I hope it will retain its present status, President, will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and I hope the majority leader will let us go home to our suppers as soon as rossible. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until Monday next at 12 o’clock noon. The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 43 minutes p m.) the Sen- ate took a recess until Monday, Feb- ruary 6, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATION Executive nomination received by the Senate February 3 (legislative day of January 4), 1950: DIRECTOR OF THE CENSUS Roy Victor Peel, of Indiana, to the position of Director of the Census. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 3 (legislative day of January 4), 1950: MuTUAL DEFENSE ASSISTANCE John Hallowell Ohly to be Deputy Direc- tor, Mutual Defense Assistance. In THe ARMY APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES Maj Gen Edward Fuller Witsell, 03455, for appointment as The Adjutant General, United States Army, and for appointment as mujor general in the Regular Army of the United States TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT IN THE ARMY OF TIIF UNITED STATES Brig. Gen William Edward Bergin, O7127, for temporary appointment as major general in the Army of the United States APPOINTMINTS IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES The following-named officers for appoint- ments in the Regular Army of the United States to the grades indicated under the pro- visions of title V of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 To be major general Maj Gen Robert Battey McClure, 010356. To be brigadier generals Brig. Gen Edward Elliott MacMorland, 04653 Brig. Gen. Joseph Pescia Sullivan, 05328. Gen Kirke Brooks Lawton, O6805. Gen. Stanley Raymond Mickelsen, Brig Brig. ©7042 Brig Gen. John Kay Christmas, 07144. TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES The following-named officers for temporary appointment in the Army of the United States to the grades indicated under the provisions of subsection 615 (c) of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947: To be major generals Brig. Gen. Aaron Bradshaw, Jr., 05290. Brig. Gen. Laurence Bolton Keiser, 05316. Brig. Gen. Willard Wadsworth Irvine, 05838. Brig. Gen. Ward Hale Maris, 06718 Brig. Gen. Ralph Julian Canine, 07154. Brig. Gen. John Kirkland Rice, 07183, Brig. Gen. Williston Birkhimer Palmer, 012246. Brig. Gen. Edward Elliott MacMorland, 04653. Brig. Gen. Joseph Pescia Sullivan, 05328. Brig. Gen. Kirke Brooks Lawton, O6805. Brig. Gen. John Kay Christmas, 07144. 1457 To be brigadier generals Col. Selby Harney Frank, 03546. Col. Joel Grant Holmes, 05272 Col. Alfred Marston Shearer, C6772 Col Ray Maxey Hare, 06943. Col Evcrett Busch, O7260. Col. Norman E. Waldron, 07331. Col John Hamilton Hinds, 012106 Col Bertram Francis Hayford, 012272 Col Edward Haviland Lastayo, 012660. Col Rex Van Den Corput, Jr, 012700 Col. Leslie Earl Simon, 015567. Col Luke William Finlay, 0288773 APPOIN’ MENTS IN THE REGULAR ARMY The following-named dis. nguished mile tary students for appointment in the Regu- lar Army of the United States in the grude of second Heutenant, effective June 15, 1950, under the provisions of the Officer Person- nel Act of 1947 (Public Law 301, 80th Cong ), subject to designation as distinguished mili- tary praduates, and subject to physical quale ification Frank W Abernathy Franklin E Allard Olin J Baird, Jr, O9602¢9 Clyde E Bantz, O978818. Gllbert M Beatty Bruce K Bepasse Howaid J Blumhardt. Lawrence C Bogenschutz. Clarence A Bohleber Gordon R_ Borcherding, 0972375 Willlam F Branigan Walter I Brent, 0930894 Adrian W Brown. James L Brown. Louis Brown Robert L Brown, 0974178 Robert F Burt Rodney T Carlson Richard L Cary Dan C, Cavanaugh, 0971021 Cnarles N Childers Bruce N Christy James J Clark, Jr. Charles L Clifton. Junie L Clough. Leonard J Corsentino Frank R_ Costello Donald W Coulter Charles E Cunningham Howard C Current Fiank W Cushing, Jr. L Conrad Davis Richard F Daykin. Thomas J DePasquale Chatles R. deZafra, O975140 John F Dickson, Jr. Richard J Dobmeter. John G Dowd Neil B. Downey. Robert C Ebersberger, C9C€9°3 Jack Elliot, Jr Georrce H Ensley. Albert J. Fiorella Edward M Ford, Jr Traveise S Foster, Jr. Eugene J Friedmann Maurice A Gainey, Jr., O966928 Wilitam C Gallivan Riehard E. Galvan, 0968/12. Jerry R Germaine, 0972637. John D Giannini, 0972640 Joseph Glickel. Raymond L Gloeckler Newcomb Green, 0973336 Albert G. Greene, Jr. Conrad A. Giondin Robert H Gulley, 0960111 Richard N. Hammond James D Harvey Ferdinand H. Hauser. William D Haven Robert T. Hayes, 0948460 Richard i' Hirsh. Bruce K Houston. Robert R Howard James A Howden, 0960057.
1458 Carl H. Hudson. John E. Hudson, 0978517. Robert C Hunt, Lorus D. Jewkes. E:ward L Johnson. Rodney W Johnson. William E Johnson, Jr. Jumes A Jolley. Carlton A Judice. Robert S Keller Preston J Knight, Jr Charles A. Kray. Eenjamin 8. Lancaster Fied M. Lang, Jr William J Latzko. James M. Leahy, 0978626. Robert L Leighton, Jr. John L Lillibridge John R Longenecker. Edwin K Lucas James E. Marck Royce L McClure. Claude L, McIntyre. James E MeNiff. Thomas F Meagher. Philip H Mecom, Jr. Edward H Metzger, Jr Walte: C Moorman. Kevin J Murphy. Henry C Newell. Donald L Niehaus. Leo W. Nielsen, 0967023 Emanuel Nobile, Jr Robert P. O'Beirne Charles D. Parker, Jr Frank M Pender, 0855683 Alvin A Poog, Jr, 0974881. Norman G Pohler. Albert G Ponte John F Porter, Jr. Richard J. Potter. Charles D Pratt, Jr Loren E Radford. James A Ralph. Gecrge Regas Rodney R_ Rehfeld Richard T. Replinger, 0967290 Robert W Rettzer William A Ritchey. Charles R_ Roberts, 0967679 Walter R. Roemer. Aubrey L Romine. Al S Rosin Richard W Ruehe, 0973632 Gordon C Russell Homer E Schott, Jr. Lionel Z Schubert. Donald G Schuerman. Sherman M. Seltzer Richard P Shyvers, 0978734 John W Simmons. Willtam P Smyth Robert E Soden, 0957738 Wallace H. Spauling, Jr Dantel C Stamer Charlies D. Stampley, 0971389 Robert G Steinhoff John A Stevenson. James W Stewart, 0954516 Hans W Stiohm Borlyn K Sutton. Bobby R Sykes. Hugh P Tomlinson. Rulph 8. Treadwell, 0954126. Harry E. Ulmer. Edmund L Upp, 0917395 Joseph W. Urbanek, 01848201. Paul D, Van Gelder. Spencer B. Vay, 0977887. Charlies G. F. Wahle, 0968719. Charles Waldon. James W. Ward. Solomon Welnherg. Rex G. Welty, Jr., 0977634. Landon P. Whitelaw. Howard D. Wilson. Wallace L. Wilson. Marion T. Wood. Francis J. Woods, Leigh 8S. Woodward. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE John F. Wortman. Bruce ©. Young, Jr., 0068054, Fletcher R. Young, Jr. Harold D. Yow. The following-named distinguished mill- tary students for appointment in the Regu- lar Army of the United States in the grade of second Heutenant, under the provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 (Public Law 881, 80th Cong.), subject to designation as distinguished military graduates, and subject to physical qualification: Clarence E Apple, 0978925. Erwin F. Bauer, 0973641. Phillip C. Bowser. John A Bryan. Charles W. Cadrecha. James J. Cassidy George W. Curran James H Davis, 0978303 John P. Dobbins. William H Drisko, 0969163 John W. Ekey, 0370762 Charles G. Ferguson, O967459 Williom E. Franklin, 0956147 Cecil R. French Willlam W. Gilleland. George B Harvey, Jr. James B Hatch. Harry C Henkhaus, Jr. Fred 8. Jones, 0976745. Frank 8. Klein. Robert A Lettas, 0573647. Henry J. Nachtsheim, Jr., 0966817 Fiederick T. O'Neill. Donald J Opitz Russell Ferry, 096.930 William M. Perry, 0975749. William D Walker George W. Weider, 0955674. The following-named persons for uppoint- ment in the Reyular Army of the United States in the grade of second lieutenant, un- der the provisions of the Oiticer Personnel Act of 1947 (Public Law 381, 50th Cong.), subject to physical qualification: William L Brown. James F Exley. Harry & Hover, Jr James C. Rives, 0412993. APEOINTMENT, BY TRANSFER, IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT SPECI- FICATION OF BRANCH, ARM, OR SERVICE First Lt George Raymond Krough, 038580, Medical Service Corps, United States Army. PROMOTIONS IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES The nominations of Louis Russell Del- monico, 017287, and other officers for pro- motion in the Regular Army of the United States under the provisions of sections 602 and 509 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on January 25, 1950, and ap- pear in full in the Senate proceedings of the CONGRESSICNAL Recorp for that day, under the caption ‘‘Nominations,” beginning on page 909 with the name of Louis Russell Del- monico and ending on page 911 with the name of Frances Mary Yontack, L157, In THE UNITED STaTes Am Force The nominations of Henry Eugene Abbott, Jr, and others, for promotion in the United States Air Force, which were confirmed to- day, were received by the Senate on Janu- ary 25, 1950, and appear in full in the Senate proceedings of the CoNGRESSIONAL REcorp for that day, under the caption ‘‘Nominations,” beginning with the name of Henry Eugene Abbott, Jr., on page 911, and ending with the name of Mary L. Boman, AJ10, on page 919. IN THE NAVY Admiral William H. P. Blandy, United States Navy, when retired, to be placed on the retired list of the Navy with the rank of admiral, FEBRUARY 6 In THE Navy aNp MARINE CorRPs The nominations of Dale E. Barck and others for promotion in the Navy and in the Marine Corps, which were confirmed today, were received by the Senate on January 23, 1950, and appear in full in the ConGREsSIONAL Recorp for that day, under the caption “Nom- inations,” beginning with the name of Dale E. Barck, which appears on page 767, and ending with the name of WilHam R. Lem- mon, which appears on page 768. SENATE Monpay, Fesruary 6, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, January 4, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o’clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown arris, D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty and everliving God, as we bow in this quiet moment dedicated to the unseen and the eternal, confirm our abiding faith, we beseech Thee, in those deep and holy foundations which the fathers laid, lest in foolish futility we attempt to build on sand instead of rock. May we match ercat days with spacious thinking. Through the lips that speak in this forum of freedom, above all dif- ferences may there be heard by a listen- ing world the solemn summons to men of good will, of all colors and all nations, to @ new commonwealth of all peoples in which power shall be administered as a sacred trust dedicated to the common good In the Redeemer's name, we ark it. Amen, THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Lucas, and by unani- mous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, February 3, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the President of the United States submitting nomina- tions were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his sccretarics. LEAVE OF ABSENCE On request of Mr. Hory, and by unani- mous consent, Mr. GRAHAM was excused from attendance upon the sessions of the Senate this week, because of official business. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Donnell Hayden Anderson Douglas Hendrickson Brewster Downey Hill Bricker Dworshak Hoey Bridges Ecton Holland Butler Ellender Humphrey Byrd Ferguson. Hunt Cain Flanders Ives Capehart Frear Jenner Chapman Fulbright Johnson, Colo. Chavez George Johnson, Tex. Connally Gillette Johnston, 8. 0. Cordon Green Kefauver Darby Gurney Kem
Kilgore Martin Sparkman Knowland Maybank Stennis Leahy Millikin Taft Lehman Mundt Taylor Lodge Murray Thomas, Okla. Lucas Myers Thomas, Utah McCarran Neely Tobey McCarthy O’Conor Tydings McCleilan O'Mahoney Watkins McFarland Robertson Wherry McKellar Russell Willlams McMahon Schoeppel Withers Magnuson Smith, Maine Young Malone Sinith, N.J. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut |Mr. Benton], the Senator from Oklahoma IMr. Kerr], the Senator from Louisiana |Mr. Lonel, and the Senator from Florida |Mr. Peprer! are absent on public business. The Senator from Mississippi |Mr. Eastianp! is absent on official business. The Senator from North Carolina I|Mr. Granim! is absent by leave of the Senate on official business. Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. H1cKENLOoPER], the Senator from North Dakota IMr. Lancer! and the Senator from Minne- sota {Mr, THyE! are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Oregon (Mr. Morse! is absent on official business. The Senator from Michigan IMr, VANDENBERG! is necessarily absent. “che Senator from Massachusetts {Mr. SALTONSTALL] is detained on official busi- ness The Senator from Wisconsin IMr. Wuiryl is detained because of a tempo- rary illness. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GiL- LETTE in the chair). A quorum is pres- ent COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION On request of Mr. MayBank, and by unanimous consent, a subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency was authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate today. Cn rcquest of Mr. Lucas, and by unanimous consent, a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations was authorized to meet during the sessions of the Senate this week. ORDER OF BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is Senate bill 2440, to authorize certain con- struction at military and naval installa- tions, and for other purposes. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, last Fri- day before the Senate took a recess we were debating Senate bill 2440. From conversation since that time with the dis- tinguished Senator from Maryland (Mr. Typines], chairman of the Armed Serv- ices Committee, and other Senators, it is now apparent that it will be impossible to make proper disposition of this measure before late in the afternoon. Under those circumstances, it 1s more or less agreed that we shall proceed to the con- sideration of Senate bill 75, as hereto- fore announced by the Senator from Illinois, and that following the disposi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tion of Senate bill 75 we shall then return to Senate bill 2440. Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Sena- tor from Maryland? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. TYDINGS. I wish to thank the majority leader, and also to cxpress my appreciation for the cooperation of the minority leader in trying to bring Senate bill 2440 before the Senate at an early date. I concur in the majority leader’s statement that in view of the many items in the bill and the discussion on Friday it is doubtful whether we could dispose of it in the next 2 or 3 hours. Therefore I think his suggestion is timely, and I hope Senators will all agree to go along with the program he suggests. Before taking my seat I wish to thank the Senators from Arizona |Mr. HaybDEen and Mr. McFaruann), as well as the Senators from California |[Mr. DowNEry and Mr. Know.anp], who were Kind enough, notwithstanding the unanimous- consent agreement to procced with Sen- ate bill 75 today, to agree to a postpone- ment of their bill. It was not practical to give proper legislative approval to the mihtary bill. Nonetheless, I want them to know that I appreciate their coopera- tion. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the considera- tion of Senate bill 75. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be stated by title for the information of the Senate. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 75) authorizing the construction, operation, and maimtenance of a dam and inciden- tal wo1ks in the main stream of the Colo- rado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Scnator from ihnois? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, I understand that that is the bill to which the distinguished Senator from Maryland has just referred, and that there is complete agreement among all members of the Armed Scrv- ices Committee, so there will be no objcc- tion on my part. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request of the Senator from Illinois? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 75) authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and inciden- tal works in the main stream of the Colo- rado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes which had been reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with amend- ments, 1459 TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members of the Senate be permitted to present petitions and memoriais, introduce bills and joint resolutions, and offer other routine mat- ters for the Recorp and the Appendix, without debate and without speeches. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. AMENDMENT OF SECURITIES EXCHANCE ACT CF 1934—COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT (H. COC. NO 464) The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the President of the United States, which was read and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency, as follows: THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, February 6, 1950. Hon. ALBEN W. BarRKLEy, President of the Senate of the United States. DEAR MR, VICE PRESIDENT: The Securi- tics und Exchange Commission has rece ommended to the Congress an amend- ment to the Securitics Exchange Act of 1934 which would extend to investors in certain unregistered securities the pro- tections now enjoyed by investors in se- curities which are registered by their issuers wilh that Commission. I believe that the reports on this sub- ject. made by the Commission on June 20, 1946 (II. Doc. No. 672, 79th Cong.), and on January 9, 1950, clearly demonstrate a need for the proposed legislation. The value of the protections afforded inves- tors in registered securities has been thoroughly proved since 1934. There is no good reason why these protections should continue to be denied to investors in other companies which do not Ust their securities on the exchanges. I hope that the Congress will give favorable consideration to the legislation which has been recommended by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sincerely yours, Harry 8. Troman. PROTESTS AGAINST COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION Mr. O’'CONOR. Mr. President, two leading socicties in the field of den- tistry—the Maryland State Dental Asso- ciation and the Southern Maryland Dental Society—have gone on record in resolutions opposing enactment of legis- lation containing the principles of com- pulsory health insurance. Along this same line there has come to me a joint resolution adopted by the House of Delegates of the Maryland Leg- islature and a resolution from the Balti- more Association of Accident and Health Underwriters which expresses the oppo- sition of the members of the association to any form of compulsory disability benefits, medical care, and hospital care programs, under Federal control. I send the resolutions to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be ap- propriately referred and printed in the REcORD, There being no obiection, the resolu- tions were referred to the Committee on
1460 Labor and Public Welfare and ordered to be printed in the RecorpD, as follows: Whereas the American dental and medical professions have established the world's highest standard of dental and medical Care, thereby helping the United States to become the healthiest major nation in the world; aed Whereas the experience of all countries where government has assumed control of dental und medical services has shown that there has been a progressive deterioration of health care to the detriment of the people; and Whereas this problem was adjudged s0 serious by the people of Maryland that the State legislature, in its last session, insti- tuted Joint Resolution No 11, to memorialize the Congress of the United States not to federalize the practice of medicine; and Where*s tho great advances which have been made in the profession of dentistry uuder the stimulus of private practice would be impeded by enactment of a Federal sys- tem of compulsory health insurance: Now, therefcre, be it Tesolwed That the Southern Maryland Pentul Society does hereby memorialize the Congress of the United States not to enact any legislation containing the principle of compulsory health insurance; and That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, to cach Senator and Representative now in the Con- frecs of the United States, and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Fresident of the Senate of the Congress of the United States. RvusSELL P Kitcer,D D.8, President. Hanouip H. Conner, D.D.S, Secretary. Silver Epring, Md., dated this 5th day of December 1949. Whereas the American dental and medical professions have established the world’s high- est standard of dental and medical care, thereby helping the United States to become the heaithiest major nation in the world; and Wherezs the experience of all countries where government has assumed control of Genial ond medical services has shown that there has been a progressive deterioration of heilth care to the detriment of the people; and Whereas this problem was adjudged 80 tcrious by the people of Maryland that the State legislature, in {its last session, insti- tuted Joint Resolution No. 11 to memortal- ize the Congress of the United States not to {cderalize the practice of medicine; and Whereas the great advances which have been made in the profession of dentistry un- der the stimulus of private practice would be impeded by enactment of a Federal system of compulsory health insurance: Now, there- fore, be tt Resolved, That the Maryland State Dental Acsociation does hereby memorialize the Con- ercss of the United States not to enact any legislation containing the principle of com- pulsory heelth insurance; and That a copy of this resolution be for. warded to the President of the United States, to each Senator and Representative now in the Congress from this State and to the S-eaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of the Congress o1 the United States. B. 8. WELLS, D. D. 8., President. E. L. PESSAGNO, Jr., D. D. 8., Secretary. Baltimore, Md., dated this 6th day of De- cember 1949. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Joint Resolution 11 Joint resolution memorlalizing the Congress of the United States not to federalize the practice of medicine Whereas the American people now enjoy the highest level of health, the finest stand- ards of scientific care and the best quality of medical institutions thus far achieved by any major country in the world, and Whereas the great accomplishments of American medicine are the results of a free profession working under a free system un- hampered by Government control; and Whereas the experience of all countries where government has assumed control of medical care has been progressive deteriora- tion of the standards of that care to the serious detriment of the sick and the needy: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the General Assembly of Mary- land, That the Congress of the United States be and is hereby memorialized not to enact legislation that has been proposed the effect of which will be to bring the practice of medicine in this country under Federal di- rection and control; and be it further Resolved, That the Senators and Repre- sentatives from Maryland in the Congress of the United States be and they are hereby re- spectfully requested to use every effort at their command to prevent the enactment of such legislation; and be it further Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be transmitted by the secretary of state of Maryland, under the great seal of this State, to the President of the United States, to the presiding officer of each branch of the Con- gress, and to the Members thereof from this State. RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BALTIMORE ASSOCIA- TION OF ACCIDENT AND HEALTH UNDERWRITERS AT THEIR MONTHLY MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 1949 Whereas under the American voluntary enterprise system there has been developed the highest standards of health and medical care of any world nation; and Whereas medical and hospital facilities have been made available to the people of the United States on a budget basis through voluntary income replacement, medical-care, surgical-care, and hospitai-care insurance; and Whereas there is nothing which Govern- ment can do for the American family in the realm of insurance protection which volun- tary commercial carriers cannot do better and at less cost; and Whereas compulsory disability income, medical-care and hospital-care insurance, oftentimes grouped together under the term “compulsory health insurance,” would de- stroy the existing plans of voluntary come mercial insurance carriers, which plans rene der the best service for the least cost: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Baltimore Association of Accident and Health Underwriters does hereby go on record in opposition to any form of compulsory disability benefits, med- ical-care and hospital-care programs or any allied system of political medicine or political health care designed for Federal bureaucratic control. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, to each Senator and Representative in Congress, and that such individuals be and are hereby respectively requested to use every effort at their command to prevent the enactment of such legislation. T. KENNETH MERSEREAU, President. F.C. Cmaney II, Secretary. Dated this 15th day of December 1949. FEBRUARY 6 EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr, WATKINS: 8.2989. A bill to provide an accelerated program for surveying and mapping of the United States, its Territories and posses- sions, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Mr. TYDINGS. At the request of the Department of Defense, I introduce for appropriate reference two bills. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bills will be received and appropriately referred, By Mr. TYDINGS (by request) : 8 2990. A bill for the relief of Amy Louisa Shier; and 8 2901. A bill for the relief of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacitic Railroad Cu; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. KEFAUVER: S. 2992. A bill exempting admissions to activities of elementary and secondary schools from the tax on admissions; to the Committee on Finance. 8.2993 A bill to amend the Railroud Re- tirement Act of 1937, as amended, to restore to certain persons who were in a furlough status with respect to carriers on August 29, 1935, their eligibility for annuities under such act, to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. By Mr. JENNER: 8.2994. A bill for the relief of Jacob FP, Hutt; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. LODGE: S. 2995. A bill to provide for a preliminary examination and survey for the construction of a breakwater for Hull, Mass , and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Works. By Mr. MAGNUSON: §. 2996. A bill to authorize loans to make available in any area or region credit for- merly made available in such area or region by the Regional Agricultural Credit Corpora- tion; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. By Mr. MAGNUSON (for himself and Mr. BRIDGES) : §. 2997. A bill to authorize an annual ap- propriation to aid the Arctic Institute of North America in its scientific research ac- tivities in North American Arctic areas; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, (Mr. McCARTHY introduced Senate bill 2998, to remedy the existing waste in Gov- ernment purchases of surplus food commodi- ties; to provide adequate diets for those who ere in need; to assist in maintaining fair prices and incomes to farmers by providing adequate outlets for agricultural products; to prevent burdening and obstructing chan- nels of interstate commerce; to promote the full use of agricultural resources; and for other purposes; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and appears under a separate heading.) By Mr, JOHNSON of Colorado (by re- quest): 8.2999. A bill to amend the act to author- ize the Department of Commerce to make special statistical studies upon payment of the cost thereof, and for other purposes, ap-
1950 proved May 27, 1985 (49 Stat. 292, 15 U. 8. C. 189a, 192, 192a), as amended; to the Commit- tee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN SURPLUS FOODS Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I introduce a bill entitled ‘A bill to rem- edy existing waste in Government pur- chases of surplus food commodities.” Very simply stated, Mr. President, this bill embodies a plan for the disposal of all foods which are in surplus supply un- der the farm price-support program, having in mind especially, of course, sur- plus potatoes, surplus butter, surplus eggs, and the other edible surplus prod- ucts. The bill provides that instead of per- mitting those products to go to waste, they shall be made availabie to families in the lower-income groups, the amount to be made available to each family to dcpend upon the size of the family. By such means, for example, instead of having egzs spoil in the limestone caves of Kentucky, and subsequently be dumped into the ocean, they will be used by the families who need them. There being no objection the bill (S. 2598) to remedy the existing waste in Government purchases of surplus food commodities; to provide adequate dicts for those who are in need; to assist in maintaining fair prices and incomes to farmers by providing adequate outlets for egricultural products; to prevent bur- dening and obstructing channels of in- terstate commerce; to promote the full use of agricultural resources; and for other purposes, introduced by Mr. Mc- CaRTHY, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. PRINTING OF REPORT OF NATIONAL SO- CIETY OF DAUGHTERS OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION Mr. HAYDEN submitted the following resolution (S. Res. 225), which was re- ferred to the Committee on Rules and Administration Resolved, That the fifty-second annual re- port of the National Society ot the Daughters of the American Revolution for the year end- ing April 1, 1949, be printed as a Senate document, PRINTING OF PAMPHLET ENTITLED “EM- PLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT" Mr. O'MAHONEY submitted the fol- lowing resolution (S. Res. 226), which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration: Resolved, That the committee print en- titled “Employment and Unemployment,” prepared for the use of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, be printed as a Senate document. CONSTRUCTION AT MILITARY AND NAVAL INSTALLATIONS—AMENDMENT Mr. RUSSELL submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the amendment in the nature of a sub- stitute to the bill (S. 2440) to authorize certain construction at military and naval installations, and for other pur- poses, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE AMENDMENT OF DISPLACED PERSONS ACT—AMENDMENTS Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I submit amendments intended to be pro- posed by me to the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, which is on the Senate Calendar. The amendments deal exclusively with the situation of the so-called white Russians or non-Communist Russians who were on the island of Samar and were forced to evacuate from Shanghai. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ments will be received, printed, and lie on the table. PRINTING OF PAMPHLET ENTITLED “THE FEDERAL BUDGET IN BRIEF” (8 DOC. NO 131) Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed as a Senate document, with illustrations, a pamphlet entitied “The Federal Budget in Brief,” fiscal year ending June oO, 1951, transmitted to the Congr‘ os by the Presi- dent of the United States on January J, 1950. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. GOVERNMENT FINANCING AND SFEND- ING—ADDRESS BY SENATOR BYRD [Mr BYRD asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorp an address de- livered by him before the National Industrial Conterence Buard in New York, Jenuary 20, 1950, winnich appears in che Appendx | ADDRESS BY SENATOR BEN'ON BEFORE CONNECTICUT EDITORIAL ASSOCIA- TICN |Mr. MCMAHON asked and obtuined leave to have printed in the Recoxp an address de- liveicd by Senator Benron before the Con- neclicut Editorial Association at Waterbury, Conn, on February 4, 1950, which uppeals in the Appendix ] MINNESOTA WELCOMES THE PRESIDENT— SPEECH BY SENATOR HUMPHREY AT TRUMAN DAY CELEBRATION, ST. PAUL, MILAN, [Mr HUMPIIREY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the krconrp a speech de- livered by him at the Truman Davy celebra- tion at the Lowry Hotel, St Paul, Minn, on November 3, 1949, which appears in the Appendix J] FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN POLITICS—EDI- TORIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON POST |Mr HUMPHREY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Employees in Politics,” published in the Washington Post of February 1, 1950, which appears in the Appendix | PRICE SURVEY COMPARISON [Mr. HUMPHREY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a study by the Bureau of Education on Fair Trade, of New York, on the subject of fair trade laws, which appears in the Appendix.} THE COAL SITUATION AND 1952 POLI- TICS—EDITORIAL FROM THE OMAHA EVENING WORLD-TELEGRAM [Mr. WHERRY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial en- titled “Into 1952 Politics,” published in the Omrha Evening World-Herald of February 1, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] 1461 RELATIONS BETWEEN COAL OPERATORS AND COAL MINERS—LETTER FROM THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA [Mr. NEELY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a letter from the Negotiating representatives of the United Mine Workers of America, by John L Lewis, to the President of the United States, regard- ing conditions in the coal mines, which ap- pears in the Appendix | TRIBUTE TO HARRY HOPKINS BY WINSTON CHURCHILL [Mr MCMAHON asked and obtained leave to huve printed in the Reconp a tribute to Hariy Hopkins by Winston Churchill, pub- lished in the New York Times of January 23, 1950, which appears in the Appendix | PROPCSED FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRAC- TICES LEGISLATION—EDITORIAT, FROM THE NEW YORK JOURNAL-AMERICAN {Mr STENNIS asked and obtained leave to heve printed in the Recorp an editorial regarding Fair Employment Praciices Coni- mission legislation, which appears in the Appendix | POLICY STATEMENT BY NEW YORK YOUNG REPUBLICAN CLUB [Mr IVES ashed and obtained leave to have printed in the REcory the sections on labor, health, old-age penstons, education, end housing, trom a policy statement by the New York Young Republican Club, which appear in the Appendix ] EDITORIAL COMMENT ON THE HISS CASE [Mr CAPEHART asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp four editorials on the subject of the suggested resignation of the Secretary of State, namely, an edito- rial entitled “Acheson Should Resign,” from the Indjanapolis (Ind.) Star, January 27, 1950, an editorial entitled “They Must Le Impexched,” from the Tulsa (Okla.) Tribune, Jauuary 28, 1950, an editorial entitled “A Dramatic Scene From the ‘Inside’ at Yalta,” from the Wheeling (W Va) Intelligencer, January 27, 1950, and an editonal en- titled “How Naive You Can Be” trom the Indignapohs (Ind) Star, January 29, 1950, which appear in the Appendix | WELCOME TO WHITE COUNTY—ARTICLE FROM THE WHITE COUNTY DEMOCRAT [Mr CAPEHART asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Ricorp wn article en- litled “Welcome to White County,” puhb- Ushed in the White County Drmocrat, of Monticello, Ind, September 8, 1949, which appears in the Appendix ] VALUE OF HIGH DAMS—EDITORIAL FROM THE PARIS (TENN) POST-IN- TELLIGENCER {Mr KEFAUVER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrcorp an editorial entitled “Value of High Dains,” published in the Paris (Tenn ) Post-Intellipencer of Jan- uary 18, 1950, which appears in the Ap- pendix | TRIBUTE TO LT. COL. ALBERT L. VREELAND {Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RecorD an announce- ment of a presentation of the Army's com- mendation to Lt. Col. Albert L. Vreeland, of the Organized Reserve Corps, which appears in the Appendix.] COOPERATIVE NATIONAL HEALTH PRO- GRAM OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, the great issue of how adequate
1462 medical care can be made available to all Americans is still before us. It has Jong been my conviction, and that of many other Senators, that the final answer to that question depends not simply on the action of the Federal Gov- ernment but also—indeed, primarily—on the action of the States, the local com- munities, and the voluntary and profes- sional groups of the Nation. I am also convinced that the only wise Federal legislation in this field will be that which seeks to stimulate, not to replace, the creative and inventive capacities of the people. It is, therefore, a particular pleasure to me to note that the Medical Socicty of New Jersey, which, incidentally, is the oldest State medical society in the United States, issued on January 30 a coopera- tive national health program recom- mending 12 specific, positive lines of action in the field of health. By an- nouncing this program I feel that the Medical Society of New Jersey has made a distinct contribution to the considera- tion of this vexing problem and has shown that it is willing to assume its share of responsibility in devising an over-all solution. I call attention to the fact that the New Jersey program is based primarily on the extension and improvement of voluntary nonprofit prepayment plans, It is my belief that this rapidly growing and evolving voluntary system is a major national asset in our attack on the health problem, an asset which must be ex- tended and perfected and not frustrated or replaced by a Federal compulsory system. Without endorsing in detail each of the recommendations of the New Jerscy plan, I wish to express my hearty ap- proval of its general approach. It af- fords concrete evidence of the construc- tive interest which the medical profes- sion is taking in the economic problems of national health. I commend it to the careful attention of the Senate. Mr. President, in behalf of my col- league from New Jersey {Mr. HENDRICK- son! and myself, I ask unanimous con- sent that the text of the New Jersey Medical Society’s announcement be printed in the Recorp as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the an- nouncement was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp, as follows: PROPOSALS OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM A 12-point cooperative health program, in which National and State governments may participate without endangering individual initiative, personal freedom, or scientific progress was set forth on January 30, 1950, by the Medical Society of New Jerscy. The program was revealed by Dr. James F. Norton, of Jersey City, president of the State Medical Society and vice president of the American Medical Association. In introduc- ing the Medical Society’s proposals, Dr. Nor= ton said: “We believe this positive cooperative health plan constitutes a standard to which all men of good will can repair. We pro- pose to seck endorsement and active sup- port of this program from every private and public organization in the community. “Wo are convinced that people working together can solve their social problems, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE acting through the many volunteer organ- izations that already have accomplished so much in making life sufer, healthier, and happier for everyone. “Government—local, State, and National— has a part to play, but it should seek to pro- mote and supplement the efforts of free citi- gens, not to supplant or supersede those ef- forts. We have tried in this statement to define the proper role of government and to show how voluntary agencies, including the medical profession, can exert the leadership that the public expects of us.” Text of the society’s statement follows: “The Medical Society of New Jersey favors, and always has favored, a constructive ap- proach to the solution of the national health problem, particularly as it applies to the citizens of New Jerrey. The solution of medical and health problems should be un- dertaken in a realistic, scientific spirit Moreover, since the health of the people transcends all political considerations, it must be considered On a nonpartisan basis. “In view of the fact that the Congress of the United States and the State legislatures are considering various extensions of the health program, the Medical Society believes that the following statement, presented as a definite and comprehensive program of ac- tion, will be helpful at this time. “The Medical Society of New Jersey be- lieves there are lorge areas in which govern- ment may beneficially cooperate with the citizens, individually or acting through vol- untary associations, in furthering a health program—in the interest of all the people, and without jeopardy to individual liberty. It ts generally recognized that voluntary cooperative effurt should have priority at all times, Government should seek to promote and supplement the eftorts of free citizens— not to supplant or supersede voluntary ac- tion—whenever voluntary cooperative effort can mcet the need “Any constructive approach to solution of the health problem must take into account the several classifications of those who re- quire medical care, namely: “1. Those not employed, but able to sus- tain the full cost of providing for hospital and medical care. “2. Those who are employed. “3, The medically indigent, whose income does not suffice to meet the costs of cutas- trophic illnesses “4. The totally indigent, who are on pub- lic assistance rolls. “5. The chronically 111. “Any adequate program to meet health needs should include medical and hospital care. Insofar as possible, such care should be so inclusive that everyone may budget in advance against the flnanctal burden of sud- den illness. In addition, the program should assure every community of basic health pro- tection through well-organized professional public-health departments. “No matter what program ts devised, it should be experimental, flexible, and evolu- tionary in character. It should be suffi- ciently concrete as to be readily understood and practically adaptable everywhere. “The Medical Society of New Jersey, there- fore, offers the following proposals for a co- operative health program, in which National and State Governments may participate, without endangering individual initiative, personal freedom, or scientific progress. The sequence in which this program its set forth does not necessarily indicate the relative im- portance of its parts. “1. Voluntary nonprofit organizations should be used as the best means of budget- ing hospital and medical service for the in- dividual and his family. “(a) The Blue Cross movement, providing for hospital care on a nonprofit, minimum cost basis, is recognized as the outstanding development in this direction. First estab- lished in New Jersey less than 20 years ago, Blue Cross has extended to nearly every part FEBRUARY 6 of the United States. There are now 96 Blue Cross organizations with a combined en- rallment of more than 35,000,000 people. In New Jersey, approximately one-third of the population now enjoys this protection. “(b) the Blue Shield movement, launched within the past decade, has made possible the prepayment of medical care on a budget basis, which in some areas means that the doctor’s bill for eligible care is covered in full for 80 percent of subscribers and their dependents, of whom there are now more than 12,000,000 persons enrolled throughout the United States. Blue Shield in New Jer- sey has enrolled 350,000 people in only 7 years. “2. For ‘persons not employed, but able to meet the cost of enrollment in such volun- tary nonprofit organizations, we propose that the premiums be made eligible for deduction for income-tax purposes, regardless of the financial status of the subscriber or the amount of the premium paid. “such deduction is equitable, Inasmuch as employers who pay or contribute to the en- rollment cost for their employces are already permitted to deduct these costs for income- tax purposes, in cases where the latter enters into the computation of Federal-income tax. “3 For employed groups, it is encouraging to note the growing practice of the employer contributing toward the cost of health and welfare programs for his employees and de- pendents. As mentioned, such payments are usually tax deductible as part of the cost of production, and are being increasingly recog- nized as a legitimate part of that cost. “4. AS an immediate encouragement to- ward employer contribution toward the en- rollment cost of hospital and medical pro- tection, Government, at every level from municipal to national, should promote the program of such protection for its own em- ployees, by assuming either a part or all of the cost of enrollment in voluntary prepay- ment plans. “5, As rapidly as possible, consistent with actuarial experience and sound administra- tion, the services eligible under such volun- tary nonprofit organizatiors should be ex- tended to cover all nonchronic ailments on an inclusive basis. An encouraging step in this direction is the decision of the Blue Shield plan in New Jersey to provide com- plete coverage (within the €5,000 annual in- come limitation) for maternity services, in- cluding delivery and pre- and post-partum care, in the hospital, the home, or tho phy- sician's office. “6, After sufficient enrollment is attained, we recommend that consideration be given the practicability of providing medical-care protection on an inclusive basis to subscrib- ers in voluntary, nonprofit plans, regardless of the financial status of the subscriber, and with no salary Mmitation for over-all inclu- give service, “7. We propose that immediate study be given the possibility of providing voluntary, nonprofit protection for those who are medi- cally indigent though not on public assist- ance rolls, through the use of State and local funds for the purchase of such protection. As arule of thumb to determine medical in- digency, the criterion might be the question whether one's taxable income is such as to exempt him from payment of Federal in- come taxes. “g, For the medical and hospital care of persons on public-assistance rolls, we recom- mend the providing of service through State- county-municipal funds, with such Federal aid as may be found necessary or may be pro- vided from time to time, perhaps utilizing on a cost basis the voluntary nonprofit organizations for the actual provision of the required services. “9. There is no actuarially sound basis yet established for treating the chronically ill as aninsured group. We suggest, therefore, that study be given to providing care for needy
1950 persons suffering from chronic illness, on a cost basis at State level, again with the possibility of utilizing the facilities of volun- tary nonprofit organizations. “10. The need for better local public health service in most areas of the United States has long been recognized, but progress in providing it has been discouragingly slow. We recommend that every State govern- ment—particularly our own in New Jersey— adopt such legislation as may be needed to permit consolidation of local health jurisdic- tions into districts having sufficient size and resources to support at least a minimum staff and facilities for complete modern basic pub- lic health protection. “11. There are numerous areas in certain States where the private practice of medi- cine is economically or professionally imprac- tical, because the areas will not sustain a sufficient number of capable physicians on a fee-for-service basis, or because hospital facilities are inadequate or lacking. Progress is boing made under the Hill-Burton Hosnital Survey and Construction Act toward meeting the deficit of hospital accommodations We suggest exploring the possibility of the United States Public Health Service providing com- petent physicians to such areas when re- quested by State or local agencies “32 Such a cooperative health program us js here envisaged may require a considerable increase tn the number of physicians, health officers, nurses, and other medical personne! Ideally, every qualified person desiring to enter the field of medicine and public health should be able to dv so. We support a pro- gram of Government subsidy, where needed, to assist quahfied individuals in obtaining professional training und to expand profes- sional training fecilities where it is found possible to expand existing schools or to establish new ones. In this connection we renew our plea for early action looking to- ward establishment of a medical school in New Jersey. We believe that any pfovern- mental subsidy that may be provided for these purposes should be granted uncondi- tionally to approved institutions “The Medical Society of New Jersey sub- mits that through such volunvary coopera- tive action, the problem of attaining an ade- quate national health program can and will be solved. ‘This suggested program 18 not intcnded as a nebulous proposal for the in- definite future, but might well be inaugu- rated within the present year” INJUSTICE IN TRIAL AND IMPRISONMENT OF CARDINAL MINDSZENTY Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, just 1 ycar ago today, freedom-loving peo- ple of the world were shocked by revela- tions of the trial in Hungary at that time of the honored and beloved Josef Cardi- nal Mindszenty, primate of that country. As the sequel to that trial on trumpeda- up charges, Cardinal Mindszenty was sentenced to life imprisonment. In the intervening year, according to reliable reports, he has suffered untold indigni- ties, humiliations, and mental torture. Every well-informed American, if questioned on the subject, would declare his or her abhorrence of communism. Nevertheless there is not the deep-seated detestation of Communist aims and prac- tices that such aims and practices dc- serve. Why? Simply because, shel- tered as Americans are, so far from any real efiects of war or attack of any kind, and blessed by divine providence as we have been more than have other peoples of the world, with material benefits and conveniences, our people simply find it impossible, to envisage what it would CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATIN mean to be subject to Communist domi- nation, Lest we ignore, by reason of our dan- gerous oversupply of material benefits, the very real danger to the personal freedoms and even the lives of every individual American inherent in commu- nism, I think 1t appropriate to recall that just 1 year ago today the whole worid was aroused over this evidence of Com- munist savagery and terrorism. The Cardinal Mindszonty tral was an absolute travesty of justice, as has been clearly shown by the record. The charges, as a high representative of the Department of State declared at the time, were “patently false.” The special tribunal which had been set up for the trial was composed entirely of judges whose hopes for advancement rested solely upon their subservience to the Communist regime. Furthermore, the sentence of hfe imprisonment which quickly followed had been determined, the record again has shown, at a meet- ing of influentsal Communist Icaders be- fore the tnial began. The official publi- cation from the Communist regime, which has since come into my possess'on, printed before the tral bean, clearly indicates that the fate of the cardinal was sealed in advance of the mock trial. The treavment of Cardinal Mind- szenty, before the alleged trial and sub- sequently, was denounced by Protestant clergy and other leadcrs of the various religious groups working in Europe. As was the case 1n the arrest of other reli- gious leaders of different faiths through- out Communist-dominated countries, 1t was then asserted, and the record has proven, that all these acts were consist- ent with the policy of the government in question to dominate and control not only religious but every phase of living among their citizens. The world is prone to forget even the rankest injustices when they do not touch immediately home. The indigna- tion and disgust which our own people here in America felt and gave voice to at that time have subsided. Yet the Communist hordes which admittedly have as their final objective the extermi- nation of religion and the imposition of such indignities upon the people of our own country are rolling ever onward. If stopped in Europe, they redouble their efforts and their achievements in Asia, Unless our people can keep in mind symbolic events such as the arrest and imprisonment of Cardinal Mindszenty, communism never will be stopped, be- cause the deep-seated determination to fo all out to halt its spread will not be found in the hearts of our countrymen. America may be too prosperous for its own good at the present tune. As long as our citizens can overlook the wrongs being suffered by other peoples in other parts of the world, so long will we be in danger of facing ultimately the same indignitics and injustices ourselves. Cardinal Mindszenty in prison is as much a challenge to the security and the freedoms of freemen cverywhere as was Cardinal Mindszenty on trial. The people of Amcrica would do well to re- member and to resolve ancw that what- 1463 ever it takes, America will willingly do and give, to stop and finally to destroy the dread fungus which has fastened upon the ideological life of the would. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDCE CANYON The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurte- nant dams and canals, and for other purposes. Mr. McFARLAND My. President, Senyte bill 75 authorizes the construc- tion of a multi-purpose project known as the Bridge Canyon project, or the cen- tral Arizona project, which includes a dam and othcr works on the Colorado River in northwestern Arizona and cen- tral Arizona, and a dam and works in New Mexico. The primary purposes of the proposed Iegislation are to provide weently needed supplemental irmgation watcr for more than 725,000 acres in An- zona and New Mexico, and to furnish an installed capacity cof approximately 770,109 kilowatts of hydroelectric power needed for domestic, commercial, and pumping purposes, thereby reducing a present power shortage in that area. Mr EKEFPAUVER. Mr. President, will the Ecnator yield for a question at this point? Mr. McFARLAND. I yield. Mr. KEFAUVER. I wish to ask the Senator if the 770,100 kilowatts of hy- droelectric power to which he has re- ferred 1s prime power. Mr. McFARLAND. I presume the Senator means firm power. It 1s not firm power to the extent to which the Senator is referring It would be firmed by other dams Mr. KEFAUVER. I thought that point should be cleared up. Mr. McFARLAND. ator. Mr. President, this project was ap- proved by the Department of the Inte- rior, and has been exhaustively studicd by the committee during 15 days of tcs- timony in the Eightieth Congress on 4 predecessor bil) and joint resolution (38. 1175 and S. J. Res. 145), and 20 days of additional testimony in the present Con- gress, as well as exhaustive hearings in the House of Representatives on the same subject. In the Senate committee hearings alone, more than 100 witnesses were heard; and the printed record com- prises several thousand pages of testi- mony, tables, charts, and diagrams. After careful consideration, the project was recommended by the commitice by a vote of 9 to 3. These hearings con- vinced the committee not only that the preject proposed to be authorized rep- resents one of the most important recla- mation programs in the entire United States, but that the economy of much of the State of Arizona is largcly depend- ent upon its completion. Thousands of farmers live on the 725,000 acres in Ari- zona, practically all of which would re- ceive irrigation water from the project. Additional thousands of families, mer- chants, suppliers, and workers on these I thank the Sen-
1464 farms are directly dependent for their very existence on the continued produc- tion of these areas. Senate bill 75 authorizes the construc- tion of a dam and incidental works, in- cluding a generating plant, at a dam site known as Bridge Canyon, which is just above Hoover Dam and Lake Mead on the Colorado River; also a related system of conduits and canals for the transpor- tation of water to the project area. It Includes a tunnel and main canal from the reservoir above the dam at Bridge Canyon to the Salt River above Granite Reef Dam; a canal from the Salt River to the Gila River above the town of Flor- ence, Ariz.; and canals and laterals to supply the water to the lower Gila area; a dam at what is known as the Hooker site in New Mexico; and such other dams. canals, and other works as may be neces- sary for the transportation of water and the effectuation of exchanges of water between the users in the lower regions of the Salt and Gila Rivers and the users on the higher elevations of such rivers which cannot be reached by the gravity flow of the Colorado River. These ex- changes would permit the supply of Col- orado River water to lower lands now receiving water from the Salt and Gila Rivers and their respective tributaries, thereby releasing the demands upon such latter waters in the lower areas, and making the released water available for use on the higher lands. An increased water supply would thereby be made pos- sible for most of the lands now being ir- rigated in central Arizona and the lands frrigated from the Gila River in New Mexico. The bill also provides for the construc- tion of complete hydroelectric plants, transmission lines, and incidental works suitable for the fullest economic develop- ment and delivery of electric energy for use in the operation of the project and for sale in accordance with Federal recla- mation law. The construction of the tunnel and that portion of the main canal from the reservoir above the dam at Bridge Can- yon to a point of junction with an aque- duct provided for in the bill is specifical- ly deferred until Congress expressly de- termines that such construction is justi- fied by economic conditions. The Dill authorizes the construction of an aque- duct for the transportation of water from Lake Havasu, above Parker Dam, to the main canal, and incidental pump- ing plants required to raise the water from the lake to flow by gravity through the aqueduct. The pumping plants and the aqueduct would constitute an ade- quate interim means for the diversion of water, and would be appropriate sup- plemental and stand-by works after construction of the tunnel. The objectives of Senate bill 75 are best understood if considered against the background of the long and toilsome bat- tle Arizonians have waged to reclaim des- ert land and to convert it through the magic of irrigation to productive abun- dance. To preserve and maintain the rewards of this monumental struggle, we are now in mortal necessity of a supply of water wherewith to supplement such CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE inadequate stores as nature and terrain have made available, which stores are depleted to an extremely critical point. THE NEED OF WATER FOR CENTRAL ARIZONA We in Arizona have a high apprecia- tion of the value of water and its proper and conservative use. Probably no State in the Union has produced more with the amount of water available than has Arizona, There are approximately 725,- 000 acres of irrigated land in central Ari- zona, practically all of which would re- ceive supplementai water from this proj- ect. In addition, Arizona has irrigated from the Colorado River approximately 60,000 acres of the original Yuma proj- ect lands, and certain other small areas which would not be benefited by this bill. As pointed out in the report of the Bureau of Reclamation, the central Ari- zona project is “essentially a ‘rescue’ project designed to eliminate the threat of a serious disruption of the area’s econ- omy.” The existing agricultural development in Arizona has made it a rich agricul- tural empire, founded upon frrigation, playing a considerable part in the econ- omy of the Southwest. The remains of irrigation facilities found by early set- tlers are evidence of an extensive pre- historic agricultural development, which was abandoned because of water short- age. Our present irrigation work started in Arizona as far back as the 1860's. I should like to state at this time that when I served on the superior court bench in Arizona I tried water cases which involved, directly, or indirectly, practically all the water rights of the State. I heard witnesses tell the story of the pioneers coming to Arizona. They did not come equipped with modern ma- chinery such as is available today, but employed horsepower; and with little more than their bare hands they pio- neered the irrigation of the fertile val- leys which are now cultivated. It is the results of the work and toil of those pio- neers of the State which we are trying to save through the pending legislation. In general, we think of our principal irrigation systems as falling within two areas traversed by the Gila and Salt Rivers and their respective tributaries. Our present sources of water supply for central Arizona consists of gravity water from the Salt and Gila Rivers and their tributaries, and water pumped from underground. The first major dam for the storage of water to be built in Arizona was the Roosevelt Dam, on the Sait River, which dam has a storage capacity of approximately 1,637,000 acre-feet of water. Its construction was begun in 1903 and was completed about 1910 or early in 1911. Since that time, there have been constructed three other stor- age dams on the Salt River and two stor- age dams on the Verde River, a tributary of the Salt River. The resultant total capacity of all reservoirs for the Salt River is somewhat in excess of 2,000,000 acre-feet of water. Within the borders of the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association project, there are 242,000 acres of irrigated lands, Adjoining this FEBRUARY 6 project there are several smaller ones. Some of these lands are irrigated entirely by gravity water, some by pumped water, and some both by gravity and pumped water. The total irrigated area of these smaller projects, some of which are be- low the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers, is about 200,000 acres. On the Gila River, we have the San Carlos project which comprises about 100,000 acres, half of which are Pima In- dian Reservation lands. It is irrigated in part by pumped water and in part by water impounded at the Coolidge Dam, which has a storage capacity of 1,200,- 000 acre-feet of water. There are also in Pinal County, adjoining the San Car- los project more than 100,000 acres of lJand irrigated entirely by means of pumped water. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Scnator from Arizona yield to the Sena- tor from New Mexico? Mr. McFARLAND. JI yield. Mr. CHAVEZ, For the benefit of Sen- ators who are listening to the fine argu- ment being made by the Senator from Arizona, I think it would be proper to identify the Pima Indians who will be beneficiaries of a part of the waters im- pounded by the dam of the San Carlos project. The people residing in that par- ticular area had been irrigating the lands locally for years before the white man came, and they are now making their living from the soil by means of irriga- tion. They are good citizens, We remember the heroism of our Ma- rines in the taking of a hill at Iwo Jima. A very fine photograph of the Marines in action on that occasion raising the American flag has been made the basis of a monument to them. One of the heroes of Iwo Jima was a Pima Indian from Arizona. The Pim .s are the peo- ple who are to benefit by this project. Mr, McFARLAND. I thank the Sen- ator for his remarks, and for his helpful- ness in this regard. The Pima Indians have always been a friendly people. They have always tried to assist the white man in every possible way, par- ticularly in the early days of the settle- ment of my State. They are deserving of every possible consideration. Their need of water today cannot be overempha- sized. Further upstream on the Gila River, there is the Upper Gila project, in Gra- ham and Greenlee Counties, comprising some 40,000 acres, which are dependent entirely upon the normal flow of .the river and upon pumped water. It is essential to bear in mind that although the capacity for the storage of water is commensurate to the need thereof, the supply of water required for these areas is woefully inadequate. The need for additional water for this area arises from an overdevelopment, which has resulted from two causes: First. In the early days of the Bureau of Reclamation, it was estimated that the annual per-acre requirement at the farms was 3 acre-feet, and the water supply was estimated accordingly, This
1950 was based upon general farming prac- tices at that time. The chief crops were grain and alfalfa. Grain requires a rela- tively small amount of water. But with the development of irrigation, it was found to be more profitable, because of highly fertile soils and the long growing seasons permitted by favorable climatic conditions, to grow specialized crops out of season to most of the Nation, and multiple crops per year. This provides fresh foods to the Nation at times they are otherwise not available. However, it requires a high duty of water, and it is now found that 4 acre-feet of water per acre at the farm is required to main- tain such production. Second. Pumping first started prin- Cipally because some of the lands were waterlogged; but with the increased effi- ciency of pumping and lower power costs, pumping increased because it was very profitable for irrigation. The net result is that pumping has been overdeveloped, and the underground water supply is be- ing exhausted. This overpumping from the basins underlying the central Avi- zona projcct area was estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation to be 468,400 acre-feet a year from the period 1940 to 1944, inclusive. Even with the water developed from Overpumping, much of the lands in some seasons, has been out of cultivation. The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that between 1940 and 1944 an average of 115,790 acres was out of cultivation due to water shortage. The number of acres irrigated each year depends upon the water supply. The farmer must make this dete1mination from the amount of water in s.orage in the reservoirs at the beginning of the season, and, where sup- plemental pumped water is used, the amount, he can reasonably expect to pump during the season. In some years this condition was even worse in some of the areas than it was in 1944 to 1946. For instance, according to the testimony of K. K Henness, a farmer and county agriculvural agent, of Casa Grande, Ariz., during the year 1847 there was only one- fourth enough water for the irrigation of land in the San Carlos project, and up to June of that year, at the time of the hearings on Senate bill 1175, only eighty- five one-hundredths of an acre-foot of water had been allotted to the farmers. This meant that the farmers could not adequately count on irrigating more than 25 percent of their land, which was about the percentage farmed in that area in 1947, While the Salt River Valley water- users’ project, which has the more ade- quate water supply, was not in as bad a condition, it likewise was very short of water. Mr. Victor I. Corbell testified in behalf of the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association in the 1947 hearings: The history of the project has been that the amount of water available in any given year may range from a full supply down to 2 acre-feet per acre per annum, such as has been the case in the year 1947. In only 2 years in the past 25 years has a full supply been available. Based on rainfall records, tree-ring records, and other records and data available, tt can be said that. the rainfall has been normal the last 25 years, therefore, the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE unescapable conclusion is that there is more land within the project than that for which there is an adequate supply of water. The need for the central Arizona proj- ect is shown by paragraph 9, page 2, of the Report of the Bureau of Reclama- tion, which reads as follows: In spite of the developments now available, there is an acute water shortage in the proj- ect area, The 1940-44 average annual surface water supply was 1,076,600 acre-feet. This figure includes some reuse of surface water. To supplement the surface water supply an average of 1,163,000 acre-feet annually was pump2d from the ground-water basin during the same period This pumpage ts estimated to be about 468,000 acre-feet in excess of the safe annual yleld of the underlying ground- water basins Oviously continued pumping at the present rate will lower the water table to such a point that many of the Wells will become dry. The wells on the edge of the water basin could not be rehabilitated by deepening because the perimeter of the water-bearing strata will be constricted as this process continues, I should like to invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that the surface- water supply, which is estimated by the Bureau at 1,676,600 acre-feet per annum, includes reuse water, and, according to the report, this amount is comparable to the average over longer periods of time. For example, generally all the water in the river is diverted at Granite Rect for irrigation of Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association lands. There is a re- turn flow to the river, all of which is rediverted for the Buckeye project lower down the river, and the water which returns to the river from irrigation in the Buckeye project is again rediverted fo: the Arlington project, and the return flow from the Arlington project is redi- verted at Gillespie Dam for irrigation below that dam. The Bureau of Reclamation in its re- port on the central Arizona project, page 4, estimates that in order to obtain the needed water for the project it will be necessary to divert 1,200,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, which will deplete the main strcam flow 1,077,000 acre-feet. The balance will be returned to the river. This, together with a small de- velopment from other dams, would make up the supplemental water supply for the central Arizona project. This new water made available for diversion at the head- gates of the irrigation districts each year would be sufficient to, first, replace the overdraft on the ground-water basins; second, permit the drainage of excess salts out of the areas and maintain a salt balance; third, provide supplemental water supply for practically all the 725,- 000 acres, which do not have an adequate supply; and fourth, increase the water supply for the city of Tucson. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to place in the Recorp the tables and reports of the Bureau of Reclamation with reference to the present supply and the supply which is needed. There being no objection, the tables and reports were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Table 5, found on page R~31 of the Bureau of Reclamation Report, shows the new sur- face water needed at the district head gates 1465 to be 1,082,000 acre-feet, which needs are set forth in the following table: Water needed—Ultimate development Acre-feet a year New surface water at district head gates__.--.----- ee 1, 082, 000 Pumpage in excess of safe annual Yield. ee 468, 000 Increase in safe annual yield of ground water due to Colorado River water diverted to area...- 400, 000 Net reduction in pumping... 68, 000 Outflow to maintain salt balance. 876,000 Net reduction tn pumping available for irrigation... 444, 000 Reduction in water at farm head gate, assuming a 15-percent loss for pumped water... .----.-- 377,000 Surface diversions required to re- place 377,000 acre-feet a year, as- suming losses of 30 percent for diverted water____-..--------.- 539, 000 Supplemental water required for lands now irrigated_..-_______- 113, 000 Water required for municipal supply -.---------------.-----e 12, 000 Subtotal_-..--22- 664, 000 Water available for lands formerly _ irrigated but now idle for lack of water_.__-.22 22-2 eee 418, 000 The new surface water to be developed to meet these needs is set forth in table 4, p. R-28, of the Bureau of Reclamation Re- port, as follows: New surface water developed by Cential Art- zona project—Ultimate development Acre-feet a year New water avuilable- Diverted from Colorado River_ 1, 200, 000 Developed by Horseshoe Dam enlargement__..----_.---- 42, 000 Developed by Buttes Reser- voir eee eee 64, 000 Developed by upper Gila River developments -__---------- 19, 000 Channel losses conserved by Charleston Reservoir..._.-- 7, 000 Gross new surface water... 1, 332, 000 200, 000 50, 000 Losses Granite Reef aqueduct__..- Losses Salt-Gila aqueduct__.--... Total aqueduct losses_.-... 250, 000 Now surface water at district i head gates.-.-.-- 22-22. 1, 082, 000 Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, the need for this additional water for irriga- tion in Arizona cannot be overempha- sized; and the only remaining source is the main stream of the Colorado River; all other cources have been exhausted. As has been shown by the Bureau of Reclamation tables, Arizona is over- pumping her present underground water supply to the extent that if she does not get relief, it will mean disaster. The underground water supply is dropping lower each year, and with the use and reuse of this water its salinity has be- come greater—to the extent that in a matter of time much of it will not be usable. I should like to point out the fact that this is not a simple proposition of taking a part of the land out of cultivation.
1466 That cannot be done; and without this supplemental water, the farmers would continue to farm their lands with an in- adequate water supply. The water they would have available would be of high salt content, and under these conditions they could not produce anywhere near the maximum amount of crops their land is capable of producing. So, practically all the farmers of the State would in time become bankrupt and those depend- ent upon them would be unable to pay their portion of the bonded indebtedness for the schools and other improvements built unon the present cconomy. It would mean that thousands of peo- ple would lose their homes, and this would affect the bankers and business- men and break down the whole economy of the State of Arizona. But that is not all. It would mean that all these people, farmers and businessmen, would lose their buying power. They could not continue to purchase manufactured ar- ticles and supplies from other sections of the United States; and perhaps most significant of all, it would mean that the present sum of bank dollars paid annu- ally in income taxes to the United States Government would dwindle to practically nothing. The mines and other indus- tries of the State would be saddled with all the bonded indebtedness of the State and its subdivisions and the added bur- den of all the costs of State government including the support of the schools. Thus, the whole cconomy of Arizona would be seriously affected. It has been estimated that a quarter of a million people would actually have to leave the State. There can be no question that Arizona needs this water to maintain her econ- omy. Witnesses representing California interests acknowledge the existence of Ar.zona’s needs, but question the ex- tent of water necessary to meet such needs. In addition to the need for water, there is likewise a need for hydroelectric power. There is unanimity as to the need for additional electric energy in this area. The situation is well summarized by ex- cerpts taken from the Report of the Re- gional Director of the Third Region of the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Re- port of the Bureau of Reclamation, respectively. Mr President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the excerpts from the report be printed in the Recorp at this point as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the ReEc- onp, as follows: There is an urgent and measurable need for additional electrical energy in Arizona, southern California, southern Utah, and southern Nevada. Studies by the Federal Power Commission, power distributing agencies, and the Bureau of Reclamation in- dicate that the present power load in this area, already taxing existing facilities, will double in the next 10 or 15 years. The major potential sources of electrical energy to serve these requirements are hydroelectric devel- opments on the Colorado River and steam or Diesel developments. Steam and Diesel gen- erating power plants consume natural gas, oll, or coal. Diminishing natural gas and oll supplies in southern California have already caused major concern. There are no sources CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of inexpensive coal available to the power- market area, These natural resources should be conserved by utilizing hydropower whenever practicable (p. 115, H. Doc. No. 136). An examination of the marketing possi- bilities in the lower basin power-market area for energy produced by the potential power developments of the central Arizona project indicates that an ample market would exist for the output of these plants when they are completed. As previously noted, the rapidly expanding economy of the area has created @ tremendous demand for electric energy. This condition, combined with the drought of recent years and the lag in the installa- tion of new generating facilities during the war, has caused a power shortage in the area. This shortage 1s particularly acute in Arl- zona and seems likely to continue for some time. Generating equipment planned for installation in the near future will elimi- nate most of the deficiency, but large-scale additions to the system will be needed to continue meeting the rapidly growing load. The two most important tactors causing the rapid increase in total energy require- ments have been tndustrial expansion and population increase. During the war the growth in these phases of the economic life was very rapid. In the postwar period the growth has continued, with the result that total energy requirements in the ares are greater than during the last year of the war. The States of Nevada, California, and Ari- zona are among the States experiencing the grentest percentage increase in popwiation during recent years. Both Arizona and Cali- fornia have recorded gains exceeding 25 per- cent. Postwar building construction and in- dustrial expansion in the urban areas of southern California has been unprecedented in the market area. The metropolitan area of Los Angeles is now rated as the second largest manufacturing center in the Nation. TABLE E-8.—Summary of power features aa = 8 Annual firm aa a energy at plant g 5 m nihon L. Ps kilowatt bours oy | on Ye ao}, te A Power plants 2s [4 a (gels } g2 82/5 |ESE/8, 2 Salsa Pa 7 aaa = 4S jO JR ja |b Bridve Canyon_......-- 764), O00) G11, B75) 4, 805}4, 114 Horseshoe... ol. .{ 10, 000) 14! 49 40); 40 MeDawell_ -| 4,100) Fay 98 2l 19 Buttes. 22.22. 6, QU0) 144 35 a5 85 Total... 2222... 1770, 100)... 4,773) 4, 491}4, 208 Energy replacement at stewart Mountain....|---..--[e---+ 25 24) 81 0 hs en 1, 748) 4, 463)4, 177 Fnergy requirements Havasu and McDow- ell pumping plants....].-..... a eeee lf, 154) 1, 86311, 633 Firm commercial onerpy.---------}.------|----- 3, 594} 3, 070|2, 644 In addition to the growth in population and industry, several other flelds of activity have contributed to the increased demand for electric energy. Among these are agri- cultural expansion and new industrial uses. Increased irrigation pumping, added farm use, and the use of electrometallurgical proc- esses In the mineral industry have all caused an increase in the total requirements. Rest- dential use of electricity has greatly increased in recent years not only because of the in- creased population but also because of the trend of increased per capita use (pp. 180- 181, H. Doc. No. 136). The demand for electric energy in Arizona, southern California, and southern Nevada is increasing at an estimated rate of 1,000,- FEBRUARY 6 000,000 kilowatt-hours annually, The area is looking to the Colorado River for energy to meet that increasing demand, and to forestall the requirements for burning oil and natural gas reserves in meeting those demands (p. 191, H. Doc. No. 186). Mr. McFARLAND. Witnesses testify- ing as to Arizona’s need for additional electric energy have stated that there will be a demand in the State for all the elec- tricity generated by the project by the time it is completed, and they introduced as evidence an application of the Ari- zona Power Authority for the acquisition of all such electricity. FEASIBILITY OF THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT It is estimated in the Bureau of Recla- mation’s report on this project, on fac- tors prevalent July 1, 1947, that the proj- ect here recommended would cost $708,~ 780,000, which cost is broken down in the table of items found on page 15 of the report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the table be inserted in the RecorpD at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Construction costs Coconino Dam and Reservoir... $7,487,000 Bridge Canyon Dam and Res- ervOjl i. ....-- 2+ -- eee 191, 939, 000 Bridge Canyon power plant... 73, 419, 000 Havasu pumping plants 25, 975, 000 Granite Reef aqueduct___--__-- 131, 716, 000 McDowell pumping plant and canal _-.---.--..---- eee eee 3, 346, 000 McDowell Dam and Reservoir_.. 16,326,000 McDowell power plant__--.-.-- 1, 012, 000 Horseshoe Dam (enlargement) and Reservoir_..-----.-.---. 7, 078, 090 Horseshoe power plant... 2, 628, 000 Salt-Gila aqueduct_--._-- 34, 585, 000 Buttes Dam and Reservoir__.-.- 29, 037, 000 Buttes power plant_-------__.. 1, 159, 000 Charleston Dam and Reservoir... 9, 240, 0CO Tucson aqueduct...---..--.--- 6, 401, 000 Safford Valley improvements_.. 4, 090, 000 Hooker Dam and Reservolr.._.- 15, 484, 000 Irrigation distribution system... 64, 086, 000 Drainage system for salinity control...-. .~-~------------- 9, 973, 000 Power transmission system 83, 771, 000 Total -----------.------- 708, 780, 000 Mr. McFARLAND. The report of the Bureau of Reclamation definitely shows that the central Arizona project is both engineeringly and financially feasible under the provisions of Senate bill 75, and that it could be reasonably expected to repay the reimbursable portions of the construction costs well within the use- ful life of the project. It has been found that $4.75 per acre-foot, which local in- teresis have indicated they are willing and able to pay, would more than pay the operation and maintenance costs and re- placement costs allocated to irrigation and part of the construction cost. It has also been found that a charge of 15 cents per thousand gallons for municipal water would fully repay all costs allocated to that purpose and would be equally ad- vantageous to the municipal water users. The power rate necessary to accomplish 6 repayment of all reimbursable costs as- signed to be repaid from power revenues would be extremely reasonable. Such low-cost power would represent a distinct advantage to power users in that area— pages 7 and 8, report.
1950 The project represents a sound invest- ment in that the tangible benefits of the project would exceed the total cost in the ratio of 1.63 to 1. Furthermore, there would be innumer- able intangible bencfits accruing to the State of Arizona and to the Nation as a whole as a result of the central Arizona project—pages R-73 to 77, report. AVAILABILITY OF WATER FOR THE PROJECT When speaking of the availability of water, one must remember that there is the separate item of the physical quanti- ties which may be available, and the dis- tinct but related item of legal entitlement to the use of water. I say with positive assurance that there is adequate water in the Colorado River fully to supply the central Arizona proj- ect and that Arizona is clearly entitled, as a matter of right and justice, to the exclusive use of that water. Moreover, such use will not interfere with or burden any other right of use existing in law. The long-term—1897-1943—average annual flow of the Colorado River under virgin conditions at Lee Ferry was 16,- 270,000 acre-feet; at the international boundary it was 17,720,000 acre-fect. The feasibility of any project naturally depends on the availability of water for the project. In this case, the question of availobillty of water involves mixed considerations of law and fact The computation of the Bureau of Reclama- tion—page 151, House document No. 136—plainly shows the presence in the river of a sufficient quantity of water to supply the central Arizona project. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that this computation be printed in the Recorp as a part of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leany inthe chair). Is there objection? There being no objection, the compu- tation was ordered to be printed in the REcorpD, as follows: Acre-feet @ year Division between upper and lower basins and Mexico. Virgin flow of Colorado River at international boundary. 17, 720, 000 Apportioned to the upper basin by art IIIT (a) of Colorado River compact... Apportioned to lower basin by art ITI (a) and (b) of Colorado River compact 8, 500, 000 Allocated to Mexico by terms 7, 500, 000 of Mexican treaty_.---- 1, 500, 000 Subtotal_.----2 17, 500, 0CO Total surplus to be allo- cated under the terms of art IIT (f) of Colo- rado River compact... 220, 000 Water available to Arizona: Apportioned to lower basin under art III (a) and (b)- 8, 500, 000 Apportioned water for Cali- . fornin under Limitations Act .--.--------+---------- 4, 400, 000 Nevada contract...--..-.-- 300, 000 Lower basin uses by New Mexico and Utah..... 130, 000 Subtotal_..---.---------- 4, 830, 000 Remainder.....---------- 3, 670, 000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Acre-feet Water available to Arizona—Con. a year To be allocated to Arizona under art. III (f) of the compact ~..-.----------.- 55, 000 Available to Arizona... 3, '725, 000 coms, ss Disposition of water available to Arizona (present  irriga- tion depletions) : Little Colorado River Basin. 69, 000 Virgin River and Kanab Creek Basins__----------- 5, 000 Williams River Basin...... 3, 000 Gila River Basin_...------- 1, 135, 000 Colorado River Indian Reser- vation ~---~------------- 15, 000 Gila project_....---------- 34, 000 Yuma project..--.--------- 157, 000 Subtotal___---.---------- 1, 408, 000 Losses from reservoirs on or ben- efiting main-stream develop- ments of Colorado River pres- ent and future; estimated total lorses 900,000 acre-feet Aa yer, Arizona charged with propo- portion based on ultimate use of main-stream Colorado River water -----.----------------- 313, 000 Iucreased depletion by potential projects: Snowfinke project -.--.--.- 10, 000 Hurricane project..-------- 12, 000 HBassayampa project.-..---. 20, 009 Colorado River Indian Res- ervation.....------------- 285, 000 Gila project. --------------- 566, COO Central Arizona project.-... 1, 077, 000 Unassigned water... -..-- 34, 000 Subtotal ----------.----- 2, C04, 000 Total, all uses_.......---- 3, 725, 000 Mr McFARLAND. Mr. President, these figures cannot be successfully chal- lenged or disputed. ‘The testimony clearly establishes the fact that this quantity of water is now flowing in the river wasted and unused. Arizona would only be using her just share of the cight to ten million acre-feet now annually flowing and wasting into the ocean. We now come to the question of Ari- zona's legal right to use this water. This phase of the case may be much more readily presented and grasped by a re- vicw of matters leading to our present situation. In the year 1922, the States of the geo- graphical area described in the testimony as the Colorado River Basin, were striv- ing among themselves to arrive at an agreement leading to the beneficial use of the waters of the Colorado River for irrigation and the generation of clectric power. The delegates from these States proposed the now renowned Colorado River compact. <A controversy arose over the inclusion of the waters of the Gila River within the Colorado River system and hence with those to be appor- tioned by the compact, a move unalter- ably resisted by the Arizona delegation because the waters of the Gila had long been put to beneficial use by the citizens of our State, and because the waters of the Gila enter the Colorado at a point so southerly as to prevent the enjoyment thereof by any of the basin States other than Arizona. 1467 In fine, Mr. President, the Gila was no part of the Colorado waters which were the proper subject of apportionment. The Arizona delegates were agreeable, however, to the provisions of article III (a) of the compact, which proposed the annual apportionment to the upper basin, and a like apportionment to the lower basin, of 17,500,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River if the waters of the Gila were reserved for Ari- zona. As a consequence, and in order to compensate Arizona for the inclusion cf tne Gila waters in the Colorado River system, the delegates agreed upon article III (b) of the compact, which reads as follows: (b) In addition to the apportionment in paragraph (a), the lower basin is hereby given the right to Increase its beneficial con- sumptive use of such waters by 1,000,000 acre- tect per annum. This quantity of 1,000,000 acre-feet per annum corresponds to the then esti- mated annual flow of the Gila River at its mouth where it empties into the Colorado That this 1,000,000 acre-feet of water provided for in article III (b) of the Colorado River compact was intended by the framers of the compact for the use of Arizona to compensate her for the inclusion of the Gila waters in the Colo- rado River system is established by the testimony of witnesses who testified at the hearings, such as Ralph Meeker, who was engineer adviser for the State of Colorado, and who was present at the compact sessions and of his own personal knowledge is familiar with the back- ground of the compact. At the hearings he quoted from statements made by Frank C Fmerson, commissioner for the State of Wyoming, and from a citation by Reue] Leshe Olson showing that this was understood by L. Ward Bannister, special representative for Colorado at the negotiations. A letter to W S. Nor- vicl, from the Honorable Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, who rep- resented the Federal Government and presided at the compact sessions, which was placed in the record of the hear- ings; statements of Thomas E, Camp- bell, former Governor of Arizona, W. S. Norviel, Arizona’s commissioner at the compact sessions, and C. C. Lewis, an- other of the Arizona members at such sessions, which were placed in the record during the hearings on S. 1175 and S. 15, disclosed the same understanding. Many other witnesses corroborated this view 1n their testimony. When Arizona’s delegate signed the compact in November 1922, he did so with the clear understanding and agree- ment that the States of Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Nevada would enter a tri- State agreement which, among other things, would apportion to Arizona the exclusive beneficial use of all water of the Gila River, the equivalent of the 1,000,000 acre-feet of water apportioned in article III (b) of the compact—see pages 222, 225-226, 228-229, hearings on S. 1175. Thereafter, California would not agree to a just division of the water of the Colorado River which had been apportioned to the lower basin; so the
1468 people cf Ar:zona would not ratify the compact at that time. The Colorado’s uncontrolled flow proved increasingly harmful as well as wasteful of potential benefit. Califor- nio’s anxiety to avoid floods along neigh- boring California lowlands and to pro- cuwe water and electric energy for her coastal communities made her especially anxious to harness and utilize the Colo- rado. Further interstate negotiations having proved unavailing, congressional ection for the construction of Boulder Dam was inaugurated. This led to the passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat 1057, Public Law 642, 70th Cong.) on December 21. 1928. I shall not take the time of the Sen- ate to reiterate the long history of this fight, as I think that the act itself is plain in its terms, and that, coupled with the California Self-Limitation Statute, it clearly establishes Arizona’s right to the use of this water. I should lke to call attention to the fact that the act by its own terms—sec- tion 4 (a)—was to become effective upon either of two conditions. The first of these was ratification of the Colorado River compact within 6 months by all seven of the States affected. The second was ratification of the compact by six of the interested States, including Cali- fornia, and the irrevocable and uncondi- tional enactment by the legislature of the latter State of a statute in conform- ance with the Boulder Canyon Project Act. I now quote the exact language of section 4 (a) of that act: shall agree irrevocably and uncondition- ally with the United States and for the benefit of the States of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as an express covenant and In consideration of the passage of this act that the aggregate annual consumptive use (diversions less re- turns to the river) of water of and from the Colorado River for use in the State of Cali- fornia, including all uses under contracts rmiade under the provisions of this act and all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist, shall not exceed 4,400,000 acre-fcet of the waters apportioned to the lower basin States by paragraph (a) of article III of the Colorado River compact, plus not more than one-half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by said com- pact, such uses always to be subject to the terms of sald compact. California promptly enacted a stat- ute—act 1492, California Statutes, 1929, page 38—sometimes spoken of as the Self-Limitation Act, the pertinent part of which 1s verbatim the language just quoted from the Boulder Canyon Project Act. In view of the extremely liberal quantity of water specified as a maxi- mum, and in view of her need for flood control, water, and electrical energy, California’s willingness to adopt her Self- Limitation Act is quite understandable. Section 4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act also unequivocally voiced the permanent intention of the Congress to define and limit California’s maximum rights, and California irrevocably and unconditionally agreed to that limita- tion. Having limited California to 4,400,000 acre-feet per annum of the 17,500,000 acre-feet apportioned by article II (a) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the Colorado River compact, as I have already shown, and having further lim- ited California to half of any excess or surplus waters unapportioned by that compact, Congress further provided that— The States of Arizona, California, and Ne- vada are authorized to enter into an agree- ment which shall provide (1) that of the 7,500,000 acre-feet annually apportioned to the lowcr basin by paragraph (a) of article III of the Colorado River compact, there shall be apportioned to the State of Nevada 300,000 acre-feet and to the State of Ari- zona 2,800,000 acre-fect for exclusive bene- ficial consumptive use in perpetuity, and (2) that the State of Arizona may annually use one-half of the excess or surplus waters unapportioned by the Colorado River com- pact, and (3) that the State of Arizona shall have the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of the Gila River and its tributaries with- in the boundaries of said State, and (4) that the waters of the Gila River and its tributaries, except return flow after the same euters the Colorado River, shall never be subject to any diminution whatever by any allowance of water which may be made by treaty or otherwise to the United States of Mexico. The foregoing factors plainly define the congressional purpose. Mr. President, I wish to point out that this provision is an interpretation of the Self-Limitation Act which California en- acted before the Boulder Canyon Project Act became effective. It was an inter- pretation that the specificd amount of water was to be left available for the other States; otherwise Congress would not have placed such a provision in the measure which provided for the ratifica- tion of a compact for that amount of water. Congress manifestly intended that of the 7,500,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water apportioned by article III (a) of the compact, Nevada is to receive 300,000 acre-feet; Arizona not less than 2,800,000 acre-fect; and California not to exceed 4,400,000 acre-feet. It is also clear that Arizona should receive, in addition, all the waters of the Gila River, both because of the previously mentioned insertion in the compact of its article ITI (b)—which apportions 1,000,000 acre-feet per annum to the lower basin to compensate Arizona for inclusion of the Gila in the Colorado River system—and because of the spe- cific authorization (in sec. 4 (a) of the Boulder Canyon Project Act) of the agreement whereby Arizona is to receive all the water of the Gila and its tributar- jes within Arizona's boundaries. From the mere reading of the language of the Boulder Canyon Project Act it is evident that Congress proposed to Cali- fornia the terms of a contract for the ex- plicit benefit of Arizona, Nevada, and the other interested States. The contract thus proposed was as follows: Of the 7,- 500,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water apporttoned to the lower basin by article II (a) of the compact, California should have not to exceed 4,400,000 and that California could use not more than one- half of any water in excess of or surplus to the water apportioned by the compact, which might be available in the lower basin. California, by adopting its Self- Limitation Act, unequivocally and un- FEBRUARY 6 conditionally accepted this proposal and thereby completed a binding contract. As California may not have more than 4,400,000 acre-feet of the water appor- tioncd by article ITI (a) of the compact, the remainder is for Nevada and Arizona; and Congress has in terms indicated its intent that Nevada have 300,080 acre- feet and Arizona not less than 2,800.000 acre-feet. This intent has been exe- cuted. The water involved in article III (b) of the compact not only is appor- tioned water, but is in effect apportioned to Arizona for the reasons shown. The Colorado River water which is available in the lower basin in excess of, or surplus to, that apportioned by articles III (a) and III (b) of the compact is to be equally divided between California and Arizona. This contract between the State of California and the United States—for the benefit of the States of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming—just as completely settled California’s rights as any compact could do. Congress, by approving in advance @ compact between Arizona, California, and Nevada, definitely gave its interpre- tation of the California Self-Limitation Act, which is the one Arizona now relies upon; and California by adopting the act accepted and agreed to this interpreta- tion. Arizona, relying on the protection thus afforded her, adopted and ratified the Colorado River compact. A large num- ber of people of Arizona believed that Congress had not required California to limit herself to a small enough quantity of the waters of the Colorado River. However, Arizona had little choice, as the rights of the States were well defined in the Boulder Canyon Project Act. She has entered into a contract with the Sec- retary of the Interior, which contract calls for delivery of 2,800,000 acre-feet of Colorado River main-stream water per year, plus one-half of the excess or sur- plus water unapportioned by the com- pact which may be available in the lower basin, less one twenty-fifth of such sur- plus water, to be used by Nevada. The contract appears at pages 240-243 of the hearings on S. 1175. California admits that she is bound Ly the California Self-Limitation Act and is not entitled to more than 4,400,000 acre-feet of III (a) water and one-half of any excess or surplus water unappor- tioned by the compact. However, in an effort to procure more so-called surplus waters, thereby in actuality reducing the quantity of apportioned water to which Arizona is rightfully entitled. Certain witnesses representing some California interests have elected to pursue a strata~ gem based largely upon two patently strained and inequitable constructions of the wording of the Colorado River com- pact. Ina general way, these false con- structions may be stated as follows: (a) The water described in article III (b) of the compact is water unappor- tioned by the compact. (b) A definition of “beneficial con- sumptive use” which would charge Ari- zona with the total water reaching the Gila watershed rather than with the amount by which she depletes the waters
1950 of the Colorado River at the mouth of the Gila. I should like to invite attention to the fact that these two strained con- structions are particularly beneficial to the State of California, because she has no tributary to the Colorado River. She has no watershed. She furnishes no measurable amount of water to the Colorado River. Therefore, some of the witnesses from California would like to Place these strained interpretations upon the interstate compact. Califor- nia is already getting more than the lion's share of the water. Neither of these contentions is sup- ported by the intentions of the framers of the compact or by those of the Congress. As to the contention that the water embraced in article III (b) of the com- pact is not apportioned, and therefore falls within the class of surplus or un- apportioned water, of which California may have half under the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, I think I have pointed out sufficient facts to demonstrate its utter fallacy. Congress, in effect, has indicated its intention as to the division of the waters appor- tioned by article IIT (a) of the compact, namely, California, not more than 4,- 400,000; Nevada, 300,000; Arizona, not less than 2,800,000; total, 7,500,000. As shown, the ultimate purpose of article Itt (b) was to apportion the waters of the Gila to the lower basin for use by Arizona, and Congress explicitly recog- nized this apportionment by express language in the Boulder Canyon Project Act. It is therefore clear to anyone who cares to see, that the waters upon which article III (a) of the compact is effec- tive, namely, 7,500,000 acre-feet of Colo- rado River water and those upon which article III (b) is operative, that is, in final effect, the 1,000,000 acre-feet of the Gila which was thought to be substan- tially all thereof, are apportioned water. The excess or surplus waters above such apportioned water are for equal division between California and Arizona. The record abounds with proof, both within the context of the compact and of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, as well as in collateral circumstances, thoroughly establishing Arizona’s posi- tion. There is nothing more indicative of a stubborn intention to gobble up much more than the lion’s share of the water than the stand taken by certain wit- nesses representing some California in- terests upon the question of evaporation losses. That State contributes nothing to the Colorado, as I have previously pointed out, and she is far and away the greatest beneficiary thereof. Yet they would have California bear none of the loss by evaporation, and would foist that, too, upon her sister States. Arizona favors an equitable distribution of these losses in proportion to the bene- ficial interests. The record of the hearings shows that Arizona’s position on these three prin- ciples is supported by the disinterested witnesses from other States. I call at- tention to the testimony of such eminent lawyers as Judge Clifford H. Stone, di- xXCVI——93 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE rector of the Colorado Water Conserva- tion Board and commissioner for Colo- rado for the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact Commission; Fred E. Wilson, member of the Colorado River Basin States Committee, representing New Mexico; Jean 8. Breitenstein, of the Colorado Water Conservation Board; and Judge J. A. Howell, of Utah, chair- man of a special legal committee of the Colorado River Basin States Committee. Arizona’s position is also supported by the Colorado River Basin States Com- mittee, an organization composed of offi- cial representatives of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, and Arizona. I wish particularly to emphasize the concluding remarks of the Honorable Clifford H. Stone, during the hearings on S. 1175, in which, after minutely re- futing the arguments of California, he used the following language: Then, in conclusion, the Congress, we believe, will not approve an unconscionable position in interpreting the Colorado River compact for the purpose of proposed legis- lation. Nor would a court give approval to any interpretation of a solemn agreement among States which would be inequitable. It cannot be assumed that the compacting States intended to apportion water between the upper and lower basins of the Colorado River by terms and conditions the interpre- tation of which would limit one of the States to its existing uses of water when the com- pact was made, with a comparatively small opportunity for future development. We submit that the States did not do so. These are the words of Judge Stone, an eminent lawyer from the State of Colo- rado and an outstanding authority on water law. It is our contention that these rights are fully established and fully settled by Congress, and that it is the duty of Con- gress to protect them and not to permit a State, because of her size and power to take the very lifeblood of her neigh- bor. Certain witnesses representing some California interests have used these strained constructions in order to set up a claim for this water, and in order to prevent the enactment of this legisla- tion. On the last day of the hearings on S. 1175, they had introduced a resolution calling for Htigation upon this subject. It was developed by the testimony of able and recognized lawyers, including wit- nesses from Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, who came before Con- gress opposing such resolution, that there does not exist at the present time a justiciable issue; that the only effect of the passage of resolutions such as Senate Joint Resolution 4 and its predecessor, Senate Joint Resolution 145, would be to delay action, until the water could all be put to use in certain areas in southern California so that they could use the ad- ditional argument that we cannot take water away from the people who are now using it. The courts have held that there must be an existing injury of serious magni- tude, or an immediately threatened in- jury of the same type, before there can be a justiciable controversy. Neither California nor Arizona is using the amount of water to which they are re- 1469 spectively entitled. It is therefore clear that there is no present injury. It is equally clear that there is no threatened injury. There is no project under construction or authorized in any part of the Colo- rado River Basin which would in any way threaten to reduce or diminish the flow of the river so as to make less water available to California. The only proj- ect which has thus far been tangibly put forward is the central Arizona project. But unless and until the project is au- thorized, it cannot be said that such project constitutes a threat to the State of California. A threat, not coupled with an actual, or apparent, or probable ability to ef- fectuate such threat is in law no threat at all. Without the authorization of the cen- tral Arizona project, Arizona has abso- lutely no physical means whatsoever wherewith to divert water to an extent which would in any way impinge upon rights claimed by California. The con- verse is true in regard to California. Without the passage of this bill authoriz- ing the central Arizona project, there is no Arizona project which would be threatened by California’s immediate or future use of the water. So, the committee in considering both S. 75 and Senate Joint Resolution 4, in authorizing the central Arizona project bill as amended, has found that no justi- ciable issue exists which would merit the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 4. On the other hand, the committee has taken the position that this project should be authorized. But in fairness to the States of California and Nevada, the committee felt that those States should have an opportunity to present claims to the Supreme Court, and that in deference to the allegations that the United States is a necessary party, consent should be given to the joinder of the latter to the litigation. As a tangible expression of its views, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming (Mr. O'MAHONEY] and the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN] was adopted by the committee. This amendment provides that if any State or States within 6 months after the effective date of this act shall begin a suit or suits in the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the right to the use of the water for diversion from the main stream of the Colorado River for the central Arizona project, consent is given to the joinder of the United States of America as a party to such action or actions. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. Mr. McFARLAND. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield for that purpose, without jeopardizing my right to the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the ouorum call be rescinded, and