1950 The conferees agreed to something and the Senators wanted the House to adopt it; the House did over my protest. Then the bill went back to the Senate and they postponed it from October 1949 un- til January 20,1950. Then so much was shown as to how devastating it would be to the antitrust and other laws that the Senate unanimously sent it back to conference and asked that the House appoint new conferees. That does not leave the House in a very favorable posi- tion; so I think it should be defeated, a new bill introduced, public hearings con- ducted, and then if any part of the bill can be justified the Congress can consider passing it. It is certainly a violation of the laws, rules, and regulations of our legislative system to pass a bill of such great magni- tude without committee hearings. 8. 1008 has never been considered by a committee of either during public hear- ings. Such a thing would not be noticed in a totalitarian government. In this connection, I wish to refer to a resolution signed by a majority of the members of the Select Committee on Small Business, of which I have the honor to be chairman, opposing this move to send the bill back to conference. This resolution points out that there have been no public hearings on this sub- stitute bill either by the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Com- mittee, and this resolution has been ap- proved in its entirety by the following members of the Small Business Anti- monopoly Conference, called together by me to confer on various subjects: Associated Retail Bakers of America. Congress of Industrial Organizations. Cooperative League of the United States. International Association of Machin- ists. National Association of Retail Drug- gists. National Candy Wholesalers Associa- tion. National Congress of Pctroleum Re- tailers. National Farmers’ Union. National Federation of Independent Business. National Food Brokers Association. National Grange. United States Wholesale Grocers As- sociation. The resolution reads as follows: RESOLUTION BY MEMBERS OF THE SELECT COM- MITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, HOUSE OF REPRE- SENTATIVES, IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL B. 1008 We, the undersigned members of the Select Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives, hereby resolve as follows: Whereas the Congress of the United States (2d sess., 80th Cong.; Ist and 2d sess., 81st Cong), has been tmportuned to enact legis- lation purportedly designed to clarify the Supreme Court decision in the Cement case (April 26, 1948), and other decisions dealing with collusive formula pricing and price discrimination under our antitrust laws; and Whereas various bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate in the nature of moratoriums and permanent legislation which, if enacted, would have the effect of weakening our antitrust laws and lessening the effectiveness of our Federal enforcement agencies; and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Whereas the bill 8. 1008, now before the Congress, was a substitute bill on which no public hearings were held by either the Com- mittee on the Judiciary of the Senate or the Committee on the Judiciary of the House; and Whereas the bill 8S. 1008 is designed as permanent legislation, amending our anti- trust laws, the effects of which are not gen- erally understood because there have been no full and complete public hearings there- on; and Whereas the proposals embodied in S. 1008 are opposed by many bone fide small-busi- ness organizations and by the members of such organizations as threatening their existence through the weakening of the anti- trust laws (Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act); and Whereas we believe the Congress of the United States has the duty and the respon- sibility in the public interest of holding full and complete public hearings on legislation affecting our antitrust laws; and Whereas one of the primary considerations of the Select Committee on Small Business is the protection of the small-business in- stitutions of our country and the preserva- tion of our free-enterprise system: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the undersigned members of the Select Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, urge the Members of the House to vote down the motion to again send the bill, 8. 1008, to conference in order that this legislation to amend our anti- trust laws may be considered only after full and complete public hearings by the appro- priate committees of both the House and the Senate. WASHINGTON, D. C., 8th day of February 1950. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and also to extend my remarks in the Recorp in two separate instances and include thercin certain statements and excerpts. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FOR THE NA- TION'’S RAILROAD WORKERS AFTER 30 YEARS OF SERVICE OR 60 YEARS OF AGE AT HALF PAY BASED ON THE FIVE HIGHEST YEARS OF EARNINGS, AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THEM—WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF AN IMPROVED RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO THE JOB-DIS- PLACEMENT PROGRAM OF THE WALL STREET RAILROAD BANKERS WHO DOM- INATE THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY, AND HOW CAN THE RAILROAD MEN PROTECT TH=IR JOBS? Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1949, after consultation with and at the express request of the Chicago Committee for Progressive Rail- road Labor Legislation, I introduced in the House of Representatives a bill (H. R. 2146) to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide full annuities, at compensation of half salary or wages based on the five highest years of earnings, for individuals who have completed 30 years of service or have attained the age of 60. Tens of thousands of railroad men, members of all 21 standard railroad labor organizations have supported this bill by petition since its introduction. These endorsements have come from 1,637 rail- 2025 road towns across the Nation on all major railroad systems. Great numbers of local and system officers of the brotherhoods, AFL and CIO railroad unions, as well as local lodges of these organizations, have endorsed and are advocating this measure as their own. I am speaking here in behalf of these railroad workers. From the tremendous and widespread support this bill is receiv- ing, I do not hesitate to say that the rank-and-file membership of the stand- ard railroad unions are practically 100 percent behind this measure. My bill has also the endorsement of the American Labor Party and the Pro- gressive Party of the United States in line with the railroad workers’ plank in the 1948 Presidential election platform adopted by that party in their national convention in Philadelphia on July 25, 1948, at the request of over 60 local lodge and system officers of the standard rail- road unions who were delegates to that convention. The petitioning railroad workers have endorsed and addressed the following message, now transmitted through me, to the Members of the Eighty-first Con- gress: We, the undersigned railroad workers, urge the Eighty-first Congress to enact into law H R 2146. Enactment of this legislation will enable thousands desiring retirement to apply for annuity, thus providing better job security for younger employees. The Eighty- first Congress will be serving the best in- terests of our Nation by taking this step to stabilize employment on the railroads. Rail- road workers are paying their own way for retirement benefits and it needs only the sanction of Congress to give them the retire- ment provisions stated above and now long overdue. Mr. Speaker, in the present critical job situation in the railroad industry, rail- road workers feel that the inclusion of @ provision of voluntary retirement after 30 years of service or 60 years of age at half pay is the next logical and neces- sary step in the improvement of their retirement system. Railroad workers are faced with the most dismal job situation in their history. They see another depression bearing down upon them. The fact of the mat- ter is that as far as the railroads are concerned 255,000 workers have Jost their jobs in the past 12 months. This jis a drop in railroad employment of 19 per- cent below October 1948. What is the meaning of these railroad layoffs? Are tens of thousands more to be squeezed out of the industry in the next few years? Where else are they to find employment? What are the aims of the job-displacement programs of the J. P. Morgan, Kuhn Loeb & Co., bankers of Wall Street who own and control the railroads, and how can the railroad men protect their jobs? These are the questions agitating the minds of the Nation's railroad men today and make the 30-year retirement pro- gram advocated by them imperative. SLAM-BANG SPEED-UP THROWING MEN OUT OF WORK There Is great dissatisfaction and un- rest among railroad men which links strong and positive feelings concerning
2026 retirement with their dread of unem- ployment because of a slam-bang speed- up campaign of the railroad financiers and a program of mechanization and modernization of equipment, including, notably, the introduction of Diesel power. With workers’ efforts being rapidly speeded up on new machinery and bigger and faster equipment that is throwing more men out of work literally by the hour, it be- comes obvious to them that one partial answer to this problem is the improve- ment of their retirement system that will make possible the voluntary retirement of the older workers to make way for the younger men. HIGH TAX JUSTIFIES DEMAND FOR HIGHER OLD- AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS NOW And when viewing the exceptionally large 6 percent tax which railroaders have to pay toward financing their old- age retirement system, compared with the 114 percent tax which most other workers now pay under social security, they cannot understand why more liberal retirement payments at an earlier retire- ment age cannot be established immed- jately to help meet this critical job situation. This tax burden is especially heavy to great numbers of men in both operating and nonoperating depart- ments who are now working part time— on the extra boards—many on a 5-hour day, who have a gross wage to begin with that is not enough to feed a family. No wonder, then, that these railroad men are demanding more progressive retirement measures at this time. In their desperate fight for jobs and old-age security they see clearly how the two are linked together—how a larger number of older men retiring from service would give, at the same time, more jobs to younger men raising famihes. PRESENT LOW PAYMENT MEANS LESS RETIRI- MENT The passage of the Railroad Retire- ment Act of 1937 was intended to provide railroad workers with old-age security, that is, with adequate pensions when they retire from railroad service But the defects of the act are now coming to the surface in the postwar economic cri- sis. After 13 years of its operation this law, meeting its first major test, is found wanting. Its main defect is that it fails to provide for adequate annuities to men desiring to retire on pension. The law, therefore, is now in need of further im- provement to bring it up to date and to increase its old-age benefit provisions in line with the present financial possibil- ities under the act. The exceptionally high proportion of older workers in this industry is common knowledge. Also well known is the diffil- culty which younger men experience in getting into the industry and of main- taining any semblance of steady employ- ment once they are in. Such problems are only accentuated for younger work- ers by the growing lay-offs and part-time employment, while older workers in de- clining health are forced to continue in their jobs because of retirement benefits that have always been extremely inade- quate and are now especially so in view of the present high cost of living. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE What should be done with these men who are too old to work and too young to die? AVERAGE MONTHLY RETIREMENT PAYMENT ONLY 683.98 The present Railroad Retirement Act provides for retirement with maximum benefits after the employee has reached 65 years of age. The average monthly payment to retired workers is now only $83.98—Railroad Retirement Board’s Monthly Review, November 1949, page 238. SOME REVEALING FACTS According to the direct testimony of Mr. William J. Kennedy, Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board, speaking be- fore the subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee in May 1948, less than one-third of those employees over 65 and eligible for retire- ment benefits have seen their way clear to quit railroad service and take their pensions because of the relatively low retirement annuities now being paid under the act. We quote directly from the testimony of Mr. Kennedy: LITTLE INCENTIVE TO RETIRE It is startling, but nevertheless a fact, that there are now more living persons over 65 who have credits under the Railroad Retire- ment Act, but who have not applied for an- nulties, than there were when the 1937 act was adopted. There are approximately 90,- 000 such persons, over 60,000 of whom are still working on the railroads. This is bound to create dissatisfaction. A retirement sys- tem normally is intended to enable the re- tirement of superannuated employees 80 as to provide opportunities for promotion of the younger men, otherwise, the industry would be burdened with an unduly large number of men in the older years’ I sub- mit that the present situation offers very little incentive for older men to retire from service. RAIL WORKERS TAKE UP THIS CHALLENGE Mr. Kennedy’s testimony reveals in a very mild way the fact that 60,000 of those presently working at the age of 65 or over cannot afford to quit and live on the retirement annuities at present pro- vided for under the railroad retirement law. This situation presents a challenge for improvement of their retirement sys- tem which the Nation’s railroad work- ers have taken up. The tremendous pe- tition Congress has received verifies the existence of the great dissatisfaction among railroad workers with the totally inadequate retirement payments now provided for, which Mr. Kennedy refers to. It also indicates that the act as it now stands has not removed the haunt- ing fears of insecurity of railroad work- ers during their remaining years of life, when they reach the age of retirement. It will be recalled that in recent years certain amendments have been made to the Railroad Retirement Act which were beneficial to the railroad workers, but these amendments did not remove the basic defect of the present law—they did not Jower the voluntary retirement age or provide a sufficient amount of annu- ity to enable those desiring retirement to apply for their pensions. THE REMEDY Therefore, the railroad workers have come back to Congress with a request to FEBRUARY 20 correct these defects in their retirement system. They call for positive and af- firmative action by Congress at this ses- sion for passage of my bill which has been designed to correct these very de- fects pointed out by Mr. Kennedy, defects which are so obvious to all rank-and-file Yailroad men. THIS BILL RAISES RETIREMENT PAYMENTS AND MEANS MORE RETIRED WORKERS My bill would meet and correct this situation in two ways: by raising the benefit payments to those who retire and by increasing the number of those who are eligible to retire. The proposed bill will very materially raise the average retirement benefit pay- ments of $83.98 a month now paid to retired workers by providing that monthly benefits be equal to one-half of the worker’s regular compensation as calculated by taking the monthly average of his five highest years of earnings, whether or not such years are consecu- tive, but not to include earnings of over $300 in any one month, since such earn- ings over $300 are presently not taxable. WOULD RAISE RETIREMENT PAYMENTS OF ALL This simple method, setting the amount of the retirement monthly pay- ments at half pay, would especially bene- fit the lower-paid worker. It would not substantially increase the retirement payments of higher-paid workers, how- ever, since the present maximum pay- ment of $144 per month would only be increased to $150 per month. Nor will my bill take anything away in future payments. The present system will per- mit an individual to receive over $150 per month after 1967. My bill will protect that feature. Such a system of retire- ment payment particularly benefits those most in need while at the same time raising the benefits of all retired railroad workers. These increased re- tirement payments will in themselves act to induce many more men than at pres- ent to retire voluntarily as they become eligible for full retirement benefits. MORE RETIREMENT ALSO BY LOWER RETIREMENT AGE Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that the bill will rreatly in- crease the number of workers eligible for full benefits by, in the first place, reduc- ing the voluntary retirement age from 65 to 60, and, secondly, by introducing an alternative opportunity for retirement after 30 years of service regardless of age. ONE-THIRD NEVER GET A CHANCE F.gures which have been released by the Railroad Retirement Board in its press release No, 48—5, dated April 12, 1948, reveal that out of 100 railroad men who are now 30 years old, 33 will not live to 65 years, that is, roughly one-third on the average of the industry’s workers never get a chance at retirement under the present law. These workers are making an investment in a nonexisting future under the present retirement system, TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND WOULD BE ELIGIBLE The proposed amendments will mate- rially help to alleviate that situation by making 225,000 men in the industry sti]
1950 under 65, but who have completed 30 years of service, eligible for immediate retirement along with all those men be- tween 60 and 65 who have less service. Another important matter which will be included in my bill when it comes up for action in Congress, is the waiving of the medical reexamination requirement for vocational disability annuitants who have 20 years or more service and are 55 years of age or over. BILL INCREASES EMPLOYMENT AND PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES The twin provisions of the proposed amendments to the present law, that is, of raising retirement benefits to half pay and of increasing the number of em- ployees eligible for retirement, would thus yield the obvious advantage of de- creasing lay-offs in the industry. provid- ing for steadier employment for younger workers, increasing opportunities for promotion, and giving greater security and a few more years of leisure to older workers before they are ready for the grave. INCREASED ANNUITI£S TO BE PAID FOR OUT OF CURRENT COLLECTIONS Mr. Speaker, critics of my bill have stated that retirement at half pay is impossible without raising the tax on the workers’ pay checks still more, or else otherwise leaving the retirement fund bankrupt. For the sake of their own selfish polit- ical ambitions or desire to curry favor with the right people in the right places they attempt to confuse and mislead railroad workers in their efforts to deny such workers the money which is right- fully theirs, and which they paid into the fund in all good faith in the belief that it would come back to them in old- age benefits. These critics of my bill know, as well as I know, however, that this good faith of the railroad men has been seriously taken advantage of, as huge unused funds rapidly accumulate year after year under the railroad retire- ment system instead of such money be- ing paid back in old-age security to the workers as they had naturally expected would be the case. Not even the most conservative person cun challenge the figures published by the Railroad Retirement Board in its own annual reports, which show that this un- used, so-called reserve fund, has grown over the years of the act, as follows: June 380, 1938_-......---.-.--. 860, 741, 671 June 30, 1947... 810, 253, 361 June 30, 1948.__--.._.-.. ~~ 1,382, 746, C64 June 80, 1€49....-.--.- ~- 1, 725, 095, 898 September —, 1949.-.-...... 2, 061, 690, 640 Figures taken from the annual reports of the Railroad Retirement Board, except figure for September 1949, which 1s taken from the Board's Monthly Review of November, page FIGURES SHOW PROVISIONS OF BILL CAN BE PAID OUT OF CURRENT COLLECTIONS These figures reveal the fact that the already huge unused surplus in the fund has far more than doubled in the past 2 years, and is still mounting. This un- used surplus is now accumulating at the rate of approximately $400,000,000 a year. This growing surplus is the result of the fact that only 45 percent of the money currently coming into the fund is being paid out in actual benefit pay- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ments to retired railroad workers and their survivors, while 54 percent js placed in the unused reserve. This is a situation that is obviously not keeping good faith with railroad workers for whose benefit the act was supposedly set up. Nothing is more clear from all this than the fact that much higher benefits could be paid retired railroad workers merely by making the money paid out of the fund equal to the money currently taken into the fund. The huge unused surplus already piled up also could be reduced to a considerable degree without jeopardizing the soundness of the system in any way. The fact of the matter is that the huge unused reserve of $2,061,690,640 now in the fund is greater than the whole amount of money paid out in all forms of retirement bene- fits in the entire 13 years the railroad retirement fund was in operation, which amounted to $1,872,956,093—Railroad Retirement Board’s Monthly Review, November 1949, page 239. Some of the critics of my bill and those who maintain the present act to be well- nigh perfect try to justify this huge sur- plus collected from the pockets of the railroad workers by hinting that some- how it is necessary to protect increased benefit payments in the dim distant future. All railroad workers can easily see, however, that with a continuously smaller labor force being employed on the railroads, there will, in all likelihood, be less money needed to pay future re- tirement benefits, rather than more. It {s also obviously ridiculous to contend that railroad workers will all suddenly reach the age of 65 and retire all at once and altogether demand their retirement benefits at the same time. To use such an argument to attempt to justify this huge surplus can never make any sense whatever to the workers on the railroads. THE BIG RETIREMENT SWINDLE OF THE RAILROAD CORPORATIONS The railroads perpetrated a monstrous swindle on all railroad workers at the inception of the present Retirement Act in 1937. For it was in this year that they saddled the entire cost of transferring 48,500 pensioners—1949 Report of the Retirement Board—of their former pri- vate pension systems onto the Federal retirement fund. This maneuver of the railroads simply has meant that all rail- road men have had to chip in since 1937 to help pay all the costs of former pen- sion systems set up and operated by the railroads to the tune of $222,539,972 to date—costs which were the sole obliga- tion of the railroads and should have been met entirely by them but which they neatly wiggled out of. Such an under- handed trick of the railroad corporations has never been pulled, to my knowlcdge, in any other industry. WALL STREET RAILROAD MAGNATES SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY It would only be just, therefore, fi the railroad magnates of Wall Street were made to pay back part of the retirement money, which they already owe the men working on the railroads by providing for benefits which went even beyond the scope of my Diil. The brazen falsehood of those who op- pose my bill that it would mean a higher tax on the hard-earned pay checks of 2027 the workers is thus shown up for what it is. The improved retirement provisions of my bill not only should be, but can be financed without raising taxes on the workers under the present Retirement Act. The Retirement Board’s figures show that funds are available to provide for retirement after 30 years of service or 60 years of age at half pay. With the nec- essary funds on hand in the United States Treasury already credited to the retirement fund, all that is required is the passage of my bill and the appropriation of sufficient funds by act of the Congress to be placed in the Railroad Retirement Account to be used for the payment of the increased benefits provided for in this i11. LAY-OFFS SWEEPING THE INDUSTRY Mr. Speeker, for tens of thousands of railroad men conditions in the industry are growing more desperate by the hour. The job situation is the No. 1 problem that must be solved on the railroads. Let us lock at a few cold-blooded facts to find out what is happening to rajl- road jobs. THE BEHIND-TIIE-SCENE PICTURE America’s railroad men are under ate tack. Their employment conditions, their jobs, their very well-being is at stake. Today in the lay-offs sweeping the industry railroad men are beginning to sce the clear outlines and feel the full effects of a 20-year onslaught against their jobs which is depriving them of their security, their skills, and for hun- dreds of thousands, their livelihood. In the past few decades, the entire rail- road employment picture has changed drastically. And what ts this picture? THE HUMAN PICTURE The railroads were once the Nation’s largest industrial employer. But here are the figures showing railroad employment cut-backs since 1820: 1920 October___----..--.-~.--... 2, 022, 000 1945 October_....--------..---- 1, 420, 000 1947 October......-...-.--.----- 1, 352, 000 1948 October._.-..--.---------.-- 1, 327, 000 1949 October_._...-.......------ 1, 089, 714 Here we see that over 900,000 workers have been driven out of the industry in the past 29 years. This huge displacement of Jobs has taken place while the volume of railroad traffic increased almost 90 percent, show- ing the tremendous increase in produc- tivity per worker. In other words, about half of the 1920 labor force today is han- dling almost twice as much traffic, which means the productivity per worker has increased almost three times. Of course, I must point out that “increased produc- tivity” is only a fancy word for speed-up. THE PROFIT PICTURE While 900,000 workers were being squeezed out of the industry, the Wall Street railroad magnates were reaping a golden harvest—they raked in bilhons. “All the traffic will bear and the public— and workers—be damned,” has ever becn their slogan. In 1948, for example, they hit at all- time high, the largest peacetime profit since 1920, many of the roads doubling and trebling thcir 1947 profits. Despite declining carloadings last year and slightly reduced net profits, the Wall
2028 Street railroad financiers look for plenty of gravy in 1950. They expect to extract it out of the hides of even fewer railroad workers and the public. STREAMLINED OUT OF JOBS All-Diesel railroading is likely within the next 10 to 15 years. With the Diesel the length of trains are doubled and trebled. They haul a hundred carloads of coal. Road and yard crews are cut in half. One train crew today does the work of two or three train crews of a few years back. “How does the board look this morn- ing?” “Who’s going to be furloughed next?” “How many crews were cut off today?” These are questions heard in every railroad yard office in the country, since the advent of the Diesel. How the Die- sels slaughter the jobs of road and yard crews can be seen at a glance at any railroad division point in the United States. What the Diesel is doing to the jobs of road and yard service workers it is also doing to the jobs of railroad shop work- ers. Plans now being perfected for the “package replacement parts” system of repairs for Diesel engines are completely revolutionizing railroad locomotive re- pair and maintenance practices. The plan is a standardized factory-made re- placement parts system, similar to that in the automobile industry. Under this system, heavy repairs, the removal of an entire power plant or generator in a Die- sel locomotive and the installation of a new one, can be made in a few hours’ time and the locomotive put back in serv- ice with little delay. Light or minor re- pairs can be made while the Diesel is in operation. This is doing away entirely with the old railroad practice of having skilled mechanics machine the parts to fit. It eliminates the need for the skill and craftsmanship that railroad loco- motive mechanics have spent years in acquiring. The steady increase in the use of Diesel power will doom the jobs of unnumbered thousands of railroad men, unless steps are taken to provide them with better job protection. SHORTER HCURS AND MORE RETIRED WORKERS WILL RFDUCE LAY-OFFS Tne men working on the Nation's rail- roads do not intend to suffer at the hands of specd-up and resulting lay-offs which the railroad corporations are even now inaugurating along with the 40-hour week in their efforts to get as much work from each man in 40 hours as he for- merly was able to do in 48 hours. These workers are fully aware that lay-offs are caused directly by speed-up methods on the job, by the lumping of many jobs into one job, by the introduction of labor- displacing machinery, and by the stepped-up consolidations of small lines and transportation facilities, as well as by the genera) falling-off of business. SHORTER HOURS FOR ALL It is only natural, therefore, in their efforts to protect their jobs that railroad men throughout the industry are asking in no uncertain terms for a genuine shorter workweek for all with no reduc- tion in present take-home pay and with no speed-up Strings attached; for na- tional full-crew and train-limit laws, and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE a third man on the huge multiple Diesel locomotives for safety reasons; as well as for an improved retirement system that will enable more men to take their pensions. Here it is necessary to cal) attention to the plight of the Negro railroad work- ers. Certainly the discriminatory prac- tices of the railroad corporations against these workers is only too well known. They are the last to be hired and the first to be fired. Consequently, like in all other industries, in the current railroad lay-offs and unemployment the Negro workers are hardest hit. They are de- nied employment in most railroad de- partments, as well as advancement and upgrading to higher paid jobs. In view of these facts, the present re- tirement pension is especially inadequate for the Negro railroad workers, who, be- cause of these discriminatory practices, earn low wages, are subject to greater periods of unemployment, and faced with higher living costs. It is necessary also to call the atten- tion of the Congress to the award hand- ed down in December 1948 by a Presiden- tial fact-finding board concerning rail- road dining-car workers, who are pre- dominantly Negroes. While other rail- road workers covered in this award were granted the 40-hour 5-day week, with time and one-half for overtime, dining- car workers were awarded a 205-hour month, with no overtime until after 240 hours’ work. This is one of the most shameful, discriminatory, Jim Crow awards ever handed down by a govern- mental body appointed by the President in the history of the railroads. I intend soon to introduce a measure establishing a 170-hour workmonth—this would be equivalent to a 40-hour week on a monthly basis—for dining-car workers and pullman porters who are now com- pelled to work such inhumanly long hours. Such evil practices on the railroads should be outlawed by act of Congress, and adequate measures taken to protect Negro railroad workers from them. Such action would basically improve and advance the conditions of all railroad workers—Neero and white. TO PREVENT LAY-OFFS, NO MEASURES ARE TOO EXTREME It is evident that my bill makes no pretense at solving the basic problem of lay-offs in the railroad industry in and by itself, but that it must be combined with these other current demands of the railroad workers in order to approach any effective solution of the menace otf unemployment on the railroads. These workers know from the misery of their sad exp¢rience in the last depression that no measures along these lines are too extreme in order to try to avoid an- other great era of poverty, and of fur- loughed railroad men by the tens of thousands walking the streets. There 1s nothing fantastic, visionary, or radical, about the railroad workers’ 30-year retirement proposal any more than there is about their other measures for protecting their jobs and combating lay-offs and unemployment in the in- dustry. To those who sneer at any sug- gestion of advances in the working con- ditions and job security of laboring men FEBRUARY 20 anywhere at any time, all such propos- als are fantastic, impossible, and radical. So was the railroad 8-hour day in 1916. So was the railroad workers original re- tirement bill in 1930. RETIREMENT FUND SHOULD BE USED TO BETTER SECURE RAIL WORKERS’ OLD AGE In summary of my bill, it must again be emphasized that the railroad workers are paying into the retirement fund a larger share of their hard-earned wages than any other single group of workers in any other industry in the country. Beca‘ise of their much larger contri- butions, the railroad workers are accu- mulating a fund which does enable the payment of proportionately larger bene- fits. It is this self-created retirement fund which the Nation’s railroad men desire to put to use to better secure their old age, rather than to have such a fund permanently at the disposal of the Gov- ernment through the device of Treasury bonds, as at present, available for the prosecution of the cold war and the Mar- shall plan dictatorship over foreign countries. The actual use to which the Government is currently putting this huge fund should be of the most grave concern to the Congress, just as it is to the railroad workers. It is high time that the Congress of the United States begins to play square with the railroad workers TRAIL BLAZERS The Nation's railroad men can justly pride themselves on being the pioneers in the field of social security and retire- ment pensions back in the late twenties and early thirties. The origina] rail- road-retirement law, passed in June 1934, was followed by the enactment of the Social Security Act more than a year later. Now the railroad workers are opening up a new frontier in this field and leading the workers of the entire Nation to a new social-security system of voluntary retirement at half-pay af- ter 30 years of service or 60 years of age. If they succeed, with the help of others, they will be blazing the trail for a simi- lar advancement by the workers in all other industries. More steady work and advancement for younger workers, more security for older workers and more jobs available to all, make this legislation as necessary to the general welfare of the Nation as it is to all railroad workers LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted to Mrs. Dovanas (at the request of Mr. Priest), for February 20 and 21, on account of official business. ADJOURNMENT Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accord- ingly (at 3 o’clock and 36 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 21, 1950, at 12 o’clock noon. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker’s table and referred as follows: 1236. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting a defl-
1950 clency estimate of appropriation for the fiscal year 1949 in the amount of $715 and supplemental estimates of appropriation for the fiscal yerr 1960 in the amount of 6111,- 216 for the legislative branch; (H. Doc. No. 471); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 1237. A letter from the Administrator, General Services Administration, transmit- ting the first quarterly report on the admin- istration of the advance planning program, authorized under Public Law 352, Highty-first Congress, approved October 13, 1949; to the Committee on Public Works. 1238. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting proposed amendments of H. R. 5472 relative to the Columbia River Basin; to the Committee on Public Works. 1239. A letter from the Secretary, Depart- ment of Agriculture, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill entitled “A bill to amend the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949"; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. 1240. A letter from the Director, Naval Petroleum Reserves, transmitting copies of agreements entered into pursuant to the act of June 30, 1938 (52 Stat. 1252), as amended by the act approved June 17, 1944 (58 Stat. 280); to the Committee on Armed Services. 1241. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting copies of legislation passed by the Legislative Assembly and the Municipal Council of St. Croix and the Mu- nicipal Council of St. Thomas and St. John pursuant to section 16 of the Organic Act of the Virgin Islands of the United States, approved June 22, 1936; to the Committee on Public Lands. 1242. A letter from the Chairman, Recon- struction Finance Corporation, transmitting ® report on operation of the Government- owned tin smelter at Texas City, Tex, and the program for the purchase and sale of tin metal during the 6 months ending De- cember 31, 1949, pursuant to Public Law 125, Eightieth Congress; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. 1243. A letter from the Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, transmitting the Fourteenth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board, for the year ended June 30, 1949, to the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor. 1244 A letter from tho Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, transmitting lists containing the names, salaries, and duties of all employees and officers in the employ or under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board for the year ended June 30, 1949; to the Committee on Education and Labor. 1245. A letter from the Comptroller Gen- eral of the United States, transmitting a report on the audit of Inland Waterways Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1949 (H. Doc No. 472); to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments and ordered to be printed. 1246 A letter from the Director, Adminis- trative Office of the United States Courts, trunsmitting statistical tables reflecting the business transucted by the bankruptcy courts, pursuant to section 53 of the Bank- ruptcy Act (11 U.S. C. 81); to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1247. A letter from the Secretary of Com- merce, transmitting the Thirty-seventh An- nual Report of the Secretary of Commerce, covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1248. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a report and findings on proposed improvements in the Columbia River Basin for development of the Pacific Northwest, pursuant to the Federal reclama- tion laws (H. Doc. No. 473); to the Commit- tee on Public Lands and ordered to be printed, with illustrations. XCVI 128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 1249. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated June 14, 1949, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and illustrations, on a cooperative study for beach erosion control of the shore line of the State of Con- necticut, area 2, Hammonasset River to East River. This investigation was made under the provisions of the River and Harbor Act approved on July 3, 1930, as amended and supplemented (H. Doc. No. 474); to the Com- mittee on Public Works and ordered to be printed, with 15 illustrations. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. McSWEENEY: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 479. Resolution for con- sideration of H. R. 3105, a bill to extend the benefits of the Vocational Education Act of 1946 to the Virgin Islands; without amend- ment (Rept. No. 1665). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. SABATH: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 480. Resolution for consideration of S. 2734, an act to promote the rehabilita- tion of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes of In- dians and a better utilization of the resources of the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 1666). Referred to the House Calendar Mr MADDEN: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 481. Resolution for consideration of II R. 874, a bill to provide for the demon- stration of public library service in areas without such service or with inadequate li- brary facilities, without amendment (Rept. No. 1667). Referred to the House Calendar. Mrs NORTON. Committee on House Ad- ministration. Senate Concurrent Resolu- tion 69. Concurrent resolution to print ad- ditional copies of immigration hearings be- fore a judiciary subcommittee, without amendment (Rept No. 1668). Ordered to be printed Mrs. NORTON: Committee on House Ad- ministration Senate Concurrent Resolu- tion 70. Concurrent resolution authorizing the printing of additional copies of Senate Report 1158, Eighty-first Congress, first ses- sion, entitled “Progress on the Hoover Com- mission Recommendations”; without amend- ment (Rept No. 1669). Ordered to be printed. Mrs NORTON: Committee on House Ad- ministration House Resolution 459. Res- olution providing for the payment of 6 months’ gratuity and $350 funeral expenses to Mrs Anna M Backof, widow of Henry J. Beckof, late an employee of the House; without amendment (Rept. No 1670). Or- dered to be printed. PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr ASPINALL: H.R. 7339. A bill to abolish the Holy Cross National Monument, in the State of Colo- rado, and to provide for the administration of the lands contained therein as a part of the national forest within which such na- tional monument {s situated, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. BARTLETT: H.R. 7340. A bill to amend section 5192 of the Revised Statutes, with respect to the re- serves of certain national banks; to the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency. 2029 By Mr. BEALL: H.R. 7341. A bill to authorize and direct the Commissioners of the District of Colum- bia to construct a bridge over the Anacostia River in the vicinity of East Capitol Street, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. By Mr. CASE of South Dakota: H R 7342. A bill to provide for the boun- dary adjustments of the Badlands National Monument, in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee: H.R. 7343. A bill to equalize taxation by imposing income taxes on cooperative cor- porations and on the business income of cer- tain other tax-exempt corporations and or- ganizations; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. FERNANDEZ: H R. 7344. A bill to authorize an appro- priation for cooperation with the Gallup Board of Education, New Mexico, for the con- struction, extension, improvement, and equipment of school buildings to be avail- able to both Indian and non-Indian chil- dren; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr HARRIS: H R 7345. A bill to designate the lake created by Narrows Dam in the State of Ar- kansas as Lake Greeson in honor of the late Martin W. Greeson, to the Committee on Public Works. By Mr. KEE: H.R 7846. A bill to promote the foreign policy of the United States and to authorize participation in & cooperative endeavor for assisting in the development of economically underdeveloped areas of the world; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. KEOGH: H.R.7347 A bill to permit certain war- service indefinite employees to acquire com- petitive civil-service status and permanent tenure by qualifying in noncompetitive ex- aminations; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. LANHAM: H.R. 7348. A bill to provide benefits for members of the Reserve components of the armed forces who suffer disability or death from injuries incurred while engaged in active-duty training for periods of less than 30 days or while engaged in inective-duty training; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. MILES: HR 7349, A bill to authorize an appro- priation for cooperation with the Gallup Board of Education, New Mexico, for the construclion, extension, improvement, and equipment of school buildings to be avail- able to both Indian and non-Indian chil- dren; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr MOULDER H R 7350. A bill to amend section 12B of the Federal Reserve Act, relating to the Fed- eral Deposit Insurance Corporation, to in- crease the maximum insurable deposit or trust fund and to provide for a lower assess- ment rate on insured banks; to the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency. By Mr. PETERSON: H.R. 7351, A bill to amend the Reclama- tion Project Act of 1839, and for other pur- poses; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr, RICH: H.R. 7352, A bill to guarantee to Amer- ican employers the free exercise of ceriain prerogatives in the selection of personnel for employment; to the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor. By Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts (by request): H.R. 7353. A bill to define service as a member of the Women's Army Auxillary Corps as active militnry service under cer- tain conditions, to the Committee on Vet- erans' Affairs.
2030 H.R. 7354. A bill to provide allowance of death pension when death in service is denied service connection; to the Commit- tee on Veterans’ Affairs. H.R. 7355. A bill to define misconduct for compensation and pension purposes under Jaws administered by the Veterans’ Admin- istration; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mr. SIKES: H.R. 7356. A bill relating to telephone and telegraph service for Members of the House of Representatives; to the Committee on House Administration. H. R. 7357. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, rela- tive to the peanut acreage allotment; to the Committee on Agriculture. By Mr. WITHROW: H.R 7358 A bill to provide for the pay- ment of severance pay to certain officers and employees separated from the service of the Federal Government or of the municipal government of the District of Columbia; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv- ice. H R.7369 A bill to establish the United States Air Force Academy at Camp McCoy, Sparta, Wis.; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. MILLER of California: H. R. 7360. A bill to amend the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act with respect to the definition of hotel, res- taurant, and table; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. By Mr. WHITE of Idaho: HR. 7361. A bill to amend the act of July 14, 1948, relating to the establishment of the George Washington Carver National Monu- ment, and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Public Lands. By Mr. HOLIFIELD: H J. Res. 419 Joint resolution creating a commission to investigate the measures which can be taken to insure the continuous oper- ation of the Government of the United States in the event of attack by a foreign power, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. RICH: H. J. Res. 420. Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for a term of 4 years for Representatives in Congress; to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SABATH: H.J Res. 421. Joint resolution to authorize the issuance of a special series of stamps commemorative of the one hundredth anni- versary of the birth of Thomas G. Masaryk; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. WOOD: H Res. 482. Resolution to authorize the ex- penditure of certain funds for the expenses of the Committee on Un-American Activi- ties; to the Committee on House Administra- tion. MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legisla- ture of the State of Massachusetts, relative to securing additional financial aid for the Waltham Watch Co. from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, relative to the re- moval of existing taxes on admissions to high-school athletic contests or athletic con- tests conducted by charitable and nonprofit organizations; to the Committee on Ways and Means. Also, memorial, of the Legislature of the Btate of South Dakota, requesting that an immediate, thorough, and exhaustive study and investigation be made of the loyalty of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the members, officers, and employees of the State Department; to the Committee on Un- American Activities. Also, memorial, of the Legislature of the State of South Dakota, requesting the enact- ment of the social-security bill, H. R. 6000, in such form as to extend Federal soctal se- curity to include State and loca) government employees; to the Committee on Ways and Means. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. ANDERSON of California: H.R. 7362. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Wil- lard Thulin (formerly Miss Jutta Mainke); to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mrs. BOLTON of Ohio: H.R. 7363. A bill for the relief of Suzuko Yagi and Anne Yagi; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin: H.R. 7364. A bill for the relief of Miss Jenny Irene Benson; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CASE of South Dakota: H.R. 7365. A bill authorizing the issuance of a patent in fee to Winnie Plenty Stars Crazy Hawk; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. CROSSER: H.R. 7366. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Helena Pinsecka; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H R. 7367. A bill for the relief of Doment- co La Torraca; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. By Mr, GARMATZ: H.R. 7368. A bill to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and enter fudgment on the claim of the P. Dougherty Co. for the value of three wooden barges, that the War Shipping Administra- tion of the Maritime Commission ordered be junked and destroyed in order to obtain from them the metal equipment for war purposes; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. By Mr, MICHENER: H. R. 7369. A bill for the relief of Ann Ar- bor Construction Co.; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. NIXON: H. R. 7370. A bill for the relief of Kiyoko 8. Barr and Harue Barr; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. ROOSEVELT: H.R.7371. A bill for the relief of John Fleckstein; to the Committee on the Judi- cilary. H.R. 7872, A bill to authorize the admis- sion into the United States of Robert Fred- erick Teitel, a minor; to the Committee on the Judiclary. By Mr. WALTER: H.R. 7378. A bill for the relief of Dr. Ger- ald K. Doo; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 1867. By Mr. GOODWIN: Memorial of the Massachusetts Legislature, relative to se- curing additional financial aid for the Waltham Watch Co. from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. 1868. Also, memorial of the Massachusetts Legislature, for Congress to remove existing taxes on admissions to high-school athletic contests or athletic contests conducted by charitable and nonprofit organizations; to the Committee on Ways and means. FEBRUARY 2] 1869. By Mr. HAGEN: Resolutions adopted by Simonson Betcher Unit, No, 26, American Legion Auxiliary, Ada, Minn., signed by Mrs. Joel W. Johnson, president, and Mrs. Del- ford Johnson, secretary, in opposition to any form of compulsory health insurance; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce. 1870. By Mr. JACOBS: Petition of the Council of Agencies of Disciples of Christ, through the international convention, to take any necessary action to give and to deliver to the peoples of the world the surplus food- stuffs which the Government now holds in storage; to the Committee on Agriculture. 1871. By Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts: Memorial of the General Court of Massachu- setts, memorializing Congress to remove ex- isting taxes on admissions to high-school athletic contests or athletic contests con- ducted by charitable and nonprofit organiza- tions; to the Committee on Ways and Means, 1872, By Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin: Petition of sundry residents and citizens of Beloit, Rock County, Wis., urging passage of House bill 5940, particularly relating to multiple sclerosis; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1873. Also, petition of Lake Geneva ‘Women’s Club, Lake Geneva, Wis., protesting against any form of compulsory health in- surance or any system of political medicine designed for national bureaucratic control; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1874. By Mr, WHITTINGTON: Memortal of the Mississippi Legislature, to put Ameri- can surplus agricultural products into world trade; to the Committee on Agriculture. 1875. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Dr. Joseph J. Tronolone, city clerk, Buffalo, N. Y., relative to naming a new veterans’ hospital at Buffalo, N. Y.; to the Committee on Vet- erans’ Affairs. 1876. Also, petition of W. J. Storie, clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Dela- ware, Delhi, N. Y., opposing the construction of a proposed fiood-control dam on the Char- lotte River in the town of Davenport, N. Y.; to the Committee on Public Works. 1877. Also, petition of Fred Correll and others, Miami, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2186, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1878. Also, petition of Josie B. Gardner and others, St. Petersburg, Fla., requesting pas- sage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1879. Also, petition of Mrs. R. M. Dillon and others, Miami, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2185 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1880. Also, petition of R. Burres and others, Miami, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. SENATE Tuespay, Fesruary 21, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, January 4, 1950) The Senate met at 11 o’clock a. m., on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer: Our Father God, O Thou by whom the meek are guided in judgment and light riseth up in darkness for the godly, grant us in all doubts and uncertaintles
1950 the grace to ask what Thou wouldst have us to do, that the spirit of wisdom may save us from all false choices; and that in Thy light we may see light, and in Thy straight path may not stumble. In all the deliberations of this day keep our motives clean, our vision clear, our Patriotism undefiled, our speech guarded, our appraisals fair, and our consciences unbetrayed. We ask it in the dear Re- deemer’s name. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Haypen, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, February 20, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT— APPROVAL OF BILLS Messages in writing from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced that the President had approved and signed the following acts: On February 17, 1950: §.1096 An act for the relief of Abe Lincoln and Elena B. Lincoln; and S. 2031. An act for the rellef of the Willow River Power Co. On February 18, 1950: 8.485. An act for the relief of Joyce Violet Angel; and S. 1604. An act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of F. DuWayne Blenkley. On February 21, 1950: 8 1353. An act for the relief of G H Laza- rus, Jr, and Jesse F Bewley. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Swanson, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 2328) to increase the number of examiners in chief in the Patent Office, and for other purposes, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: H.R 4316 An act to repeal the authority to assess certain owners of nonmilitary buildings situated within the limits of the Fort Mon- roe Military Reservation, and for other pur- poses; H.R 6539. An act to amend Public Law 626, Eightieth Congress, relating to the Army Institute of Pathology Building; H.R 6562. An act to amend the Veterans Regulations and the World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended, to provide additional compensation for the loss or loss of the use of a creative organ; and H R.7220 An act to expedite the rehabili- tation of Federal reclamation projects in cer- tain cases. REPORT OF AIR COORDINATING COMMIT- TEE—MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT (H. DOC NO. 476) The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, with the accompanying report, referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith for the informa- tion and consideration of the Congress CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Report of the Air Coordinating Com- mittee for the calendar year 1949. Harry 8. TRUMAN, Tue Waite Howse, February 21, 1950. COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING SENATE SESSION On request of Mr. HAYDEN, and by unanimous consent, the Committee on Foreign Relations was authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today. On request of Mr. Macnuson, and by unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce was authorized to sit during the session of the Senate today. On request of Mr. McCarran, and by unanimous consent, a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary was au- thorized to meet this afternoon during the session of the Senate. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. HAYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The rol] was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Alken Hayden McKellar Chavez Hendrickson Martin Cordon Holland Maybank Darby Ives Neely Donnell Johnston,S C O'Mahoney Downcy Kerr Schoeppel Dworshak Knowland Taft Flanders Leahy Wherry Gillette Lehman Withers Graham McFurland Mr. LUCAS. Iannounce that the Sen- ator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDERSON}, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Humpurey], the Senator from Pennsyl- vania | Mr. Myers], and the Senator from Florida {Mr. PEPPER] are absent on pub- lic business. The Senator from Oklahoma I[Mr. Tuomas} is absent by leave of the Senate. Mr SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BripcEs! and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youna] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Michigan | Mr. Van- DENBERG! is necessarily absent. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is not present. The clerk will call the names of the absent Senators. The legislative clerk called the names of the absent Senators, and Mr. FErcu- son, Mr. Hunt, Mr. JoHNSON of Texas, Mr. McCarran, Mr. McCLeELLAN, Mr. Rosertson, Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr, SparkK- MAN, Mr, THYE, and Mr. TosBEy answered to their names when called. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is not present. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Sena- tors. The motion was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sergeant at Arms will execute the order of the Senate. The following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names: Mr. Burton, Mr. CaprHart, Mr. Con- NALLY, Mr. FULBRICHT, Mr. Georce, Mr. Green, Mr. McManon, Mr. Tuomas of Utah, Mr. Typines, and Mr, WILLIAMS, 2031 After a little delay, Mr. BREwsTER, Mr. Bricker, Mr. Burier, Mr. Byrp, Mr. Cain, Mr, CHAPMAN, Mr. Dovua.Las, Mr. EAsTLAND, Mr. Ecton, Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. FREAR, Mr. Gurney, Mr. HicKENLOoopER, Mr. Hiu., Mr. Hoey, Mr. Jenner, Mr. Jounson of Colo- rado, Mr. Kerauver, Mr. Kem, Mr. KIiL- GorE, Mr. LaNcER, Mr. Lonce, Mr. Lona, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Macnuson, Mr. MALONE, Mr, McCartuy, Mr. MILLIKIN, Mr. MORSE, Mr. Munpt, Mr. Murray, Mr. O’Conor, Mr. RUSSELL, Mrs. SmitH of Maine, Mr. Smitu of New Jersey, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. Taytor, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. WILEY entered the Chamber and answered to their names. The VICE FRESIDENT. A quorum is present. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurte- nant dams and canals, and for other purposes. The VICE PRESIDENT. For the in- formation of Senators the Chair would like to make an observation concerning the application of the unanimous-con- sent agreement under which the Senate is now operating. Instead of providing a definite hour for a vote to be taken, it provides that not later than 4 o’clock the vote shall be had, but that no vote shall be had on any amendment earlier than 12 o’clock. The Chair interprets that to mean that at any time between 12 o’clock and 4 o’clock, if debate runs out, there may be a vote either on amend- ments or on the bill itself. No amend- ment can be offered which has not been presented and printed before today. The Chair has no way of knowing wheth- er there will be any vote before 4 o'clock, but under the unanimous-consent agree- ment, which is a little ditferent from the usual unanimous-consent agreement for a vote, a vote may be had at any time between 12 o’clock and 4 o’clock on any amendment or on the bill itself, if debate ceases. The time from now on is divided equally between Senators who favor Sen- ate bill 75, and those who oppose it, the time being controlled by the Senator from Arizona |Mr. McFarLanp] and the Senator from California [Mr. Downey]. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield as much time to the senior Sena- tor from Wyoming [Mr. O’MaHoNeEy] as he may desire. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, from which was rendered a favorable report, by au- thority of the committee, recommending the passage of Senate bill 75, known as the central Arizona project bill. I wish briefiy to explain, as I see them, some of the reasons why the committee acted favorably upon this measure. Throughout the discussion of the bill, there has been standing in the Senate Chamber a large map which shows the Colorado River Basin. That map, how- ever, does not indicate the fact that the problems of the development of the vast
2032 water resources of the Colorado River system have been before the Congress for 30 years and still remain unsolved. In 1922, by authority of Congress, commis- sioners from seven States, all of which, save California, have some portion of their area within the Colorado River Basin, met to work out an interstate compact by which the utilization of the water of this interstate stream could be equitably made for the benefit of all the States. Six years elapsed before there was written a compact which could win the support and approval of the Con- gress. The interstate compact for the Colorado River Basin was approved by Congress in 1928. Under the terms of that compact the basin was divided into two subbasins, the upper and the lower, by reason of tech- nical facts with respect to the flow of the stream and the distribution of the water. I think it should be pointed out, how- ever, Mr. President, that this river sys- tem encompasses, in the main stem and its tributaries, from the northernmost waters in the State of Wyoming to the headwaters of the Gila River in Arizona, a distance of almost 1,000 miles. The drainage of this basin covers 250,000 square miles, of which only 2,000 miles are outside the United States, in the Re- public of Mexico. These 248,000 square miles are distributed among the States of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mex- ico, Nevada, California, and Arizona, with Arizona having 102,900 square miles in the basin and California only 13,800. Next to Arizona, the State of Utah has the largest area, namely, 40,200 square miles. After the signing of that compact, the Congress authorized the building of what we call the Hoover Dam, behind which there has been backed up the great Lake Mead. Iremember 50 well, Mr. President, the occasion when I first had the oppor- tunity of traveling from Los Angeles to the Hoover Dam by airplane, covering this entire terrain. Building that river system from the Mexican border to Hoov- er Dam, I marveled at the ingenuity and the courage and the vision of the men who conceived the plan of develop- ing this water system for the benefit of mankind. To look down upon that river system and visualize what it was before the works of man had been constructed made one proud of the achievements of the men who saw what could be done and undertook to build the structures by which we have begun to harness that stream and transform it from a raging, destructive torrent to a servant of man. It happens that that system does not receive any of its supply of water from any part of the State of California. Eighty percent of the flow of that river rises in the upper basin States and passes down through the basin until it empties into Mexico. Congress authorized the construction of the Hoover Dam, as a result of which water from the Colorado River system is diverted into the State of California, as a result of which there is a tremendous output of power, elec- trical energy, most of which is also being used now in the State of California. De- velopments in the other States have been retarded. There was no development in the States of the upper basin because CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE California and Arizona were not agreed and because there had been no subagree- ment among those States as to the divi- sion of the water supply. The interstate compact authorized such subagreements for the upper basin and for the lower basin, It took a great deal of time and labor and the expenditure of much brain power to work out an agreement for the upper basin. Finally, last year a com- pact among those States of the upper basin was submitted to the Congress for approval. It was signed by commission- ers from all the States of the upper basin and it has been approved. I am happy to make acknowledgment here that much of the credit for the signing of the agreement goes to my friend and colleague the junior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Hunt! who at the time was Governor of the State of Wyo- ming, and who threw all his great influ- ence behind the effort to obtain a compact. Because there had been no compact, there was no development in the upper basin States embracing the States of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. There is still no development there. New Mexico with 13,500 square miles, Utah with 3,000, Nevada with 12,000, Arizona with 96,000, and California with 13,800 square miles, are all in the lower basin. To date, Mr. President, they have made no agreement among themselves. A controversy arose between the States of Arizona and California as to the mean- ing and effect of the original interstate compact, with respect to the distribution of the water supply available to the lower basin States. It is unnecessary for me in the short time that is available this morning to undertake to analyze the reasons for the failure of the lower basin States to agree. The important fact is, they did fail. And because they failed to agree, little has been done to save the Hoover Dam to uti- lize this vast resource of water, a great natural element for the improvement of the living standards of the people in the entire lower basin; just as nothing has been done as yet in the upper basin. UNITED ACTION NEEDED It was the conviction of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that it is essential to settle the controversy. If ever there was a time in the history of the United States when all the States and all the people of the United States should be working in harmony and in unity for the development of natural re- sources, this isthe time. We cannot pick up a newspaper in the morning or in the evening, we cannot turn on the radio, we cannot receive communication in any manner, without realizing that, mankind is today facing one of its greatest trials. The international dilemma in which our people find themselves—a people who are united in the desire of winning world peace, safety from destruction by the in- ventions of science—the dilemma, I say, which they face is one which makes them wonder how they can carry conviction to the people of other lands that America does not want war or conquest really is interested in building up the standard of living for all people here and elsewhere. We are being hurried along the road to war in an appalling armaments race. FEBRUARY 21 We talk about A-bombs and H-bombs. The people here are fearful, people every- where are fearful; and unless we are careful, it may be difficult to avoid drift- ing into a third world war that would destroy civilization. We wonder how to get behind the iron curtain with our message of peace. I have long been convinced, Mr. President, that the best way to get behind the iron curtain is for the people of the United States to cooperate in the stabilization of our economy here at home and in the building of a higher standard of living among ourselves here in the United States, by the development and utiliza- tion of all our resources. We cannot do it if we permit ourselves to become in- volved in endless battles over the distri- bution of the great rewards of industry, and the great opportunities aflorded by our natural resources, instead of uniting to make sure they are developed. I believe that the most effective contri- bution we can make to world peace is to improve and stabilize the economic con- ditions in the United States, because nothing, no iron curtain, can ever keep the information of our unity and our im- provement from the minds of people everywhere. It was thought we could retain the secret of the atom bomb. We know now that there is no way to place restraint upon the human mind and the communication of the ideas which are developed by the human mind. THE COMPACT MUST BE CONSTRUED So, Mr. President, in the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, we were concerned with taking steps that would promote the development of this great natural resource. What were the ob- stacles? The principal obstacle was the failure of the lower-basin States to agree upon a compact, and the failure of the State of California and the State of Arizona to agree upon the meaning of the existing compact. The State of Arizona three times sought to have the matter decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Three suits were filed, and three times the Supreme Court rejected the petition upon the ground that there was no controversy of which the Supreme Court could take cogni- zance. Resolutions were afterwards in- troduced in the Congress, in both the Senate and the House, by which it was provided that the controversy should be relegated to the Supreme Court and that the consent of the Congress should be granted to make the United States a party. The fact that the United States was not a party was one of the reasons why in one of the three cases initiated by the State of Arizona, the Supreme Court declined to take jurisdiction. So, after study of the measure, the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs decided that it would be well to have the question referred to the Supreme Court in such a manner that rejection of ju- risdiction would not be the result. The problem which was presented to us is easily explained by a glance at the Constitution of the United States. That document defines the original jurisdic- tion of the Supreme Court as including controversies among the States and be- tween the United States and the States.
1950 Section 2 of article IIT of the basic law of the United States, the Constitution, provides that the judicial powers shall extend to controversies to which the United States shall be a party, and to controversies between two or more States. The problem, therefore, is to de- fine what constitutes a controversy. The Supreme Court has clearly announced in case after case that a controversy is not a mere request for a judicial opinion as to the effect of any law or of any compact. A controversy is something very much more definite and complete. In the case of Missouri v. The United States (200 U. S., 496), at page 521, it was clearly held that the Court will not grant relief against a State unless the complaining State shows an existing or presently pressing injury of serious mag- nitude. Again, in the case of Alabama v. Ari- zona (291 U.S., 286) the Supreme Court said: The Court will not grant relief against something feared as liable to occur at some future time. This Court may not be called upon to give advisory opinions or to pro- nounce declaratory judgment. * * * Its jurisdiction in respect of controversies be- tween States will not be exerted in the ab- sence of absolute necessity. In the New River case, United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Company (311 U. S., 337), it was held: To predetermine, even in the limited field of water power, the rights of different sov- ereignties, pregnant with future controver- sies, is beyond the judicial function. It seemed clear, Mr. President, to the members of the committee that the Con- stitution of the United States has been correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court and that there was no possibility of obtaining an adjudication of the basic controversy between California and Ari- zona except by the authorization of the project. When that authorization is made and not till then, Mr. President, there will be a controversy within the meaning of the Constitution which the Supreme Court can adjudicate. The Congress cannot solve this problem; it cannot repeal the interstate compact which it has approved. The compact stands. The road to unity, the road to the settlement of the controversy, is the road which is provided in this bill by which authority to make the United States a party is granted, for lack of which the Supreme Court once declined to pass upon the case and by the authori- zation of the project which creates a constitutional controversy. By this bill, Mr. President, we provide that the com- pact may be construed by the Supreme Court. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. league. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, believing and knowing, as I do, that my colleague is perhaps the best informed authority in the United States on reclamation and interstate river compacts—— Mr. O'MAHONEY. No, Mr. President. There are many more able and more authoritative than I. I yield to my col- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. HUNT. Iam entitled to my opin- ion in the matter. I should like to ask my colleague if he sees any danger in this bill, if there is any remote possibility that the Supreme Court, by its decision, could in any way rule previous river com- pacts as between the upper and lower basin States and as between the four upper basin States null and void or in any way adjudicate water already di- vided among the States by compact. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I am very glad to be able to say to the Sen- ator that I do not think there is any such possibility. The action which has been taken by the committee in recommend- ing the amendments which are sections 12 and 13 as the bill was reported to the Senate, has been endorsed, without res- ervation, by the most eminent legal and reclamation lawyers in the upper basin States. There was filed with the com- mittee, and it will be found in the hear- ings at page 154, a resolution of this group urging the specific action of which I speak. I shall be glad to place in the Recorp at this point a resolution which has been adopted by the Basin States Committee, signed by Clifford H. Stone, chairman, and adopted unanimously on September 20, 1949, approving the action taken by the Committec on Interior and Insular Affairs and recommending that the Committee on Public Lands of the House take similar action. Mr. President, I ask that the resolu- tion may be made a part of the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Be it resolved by the Colorado River Basin States Committee, an organization composed of official representatives of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and open to the States of Calt- fornia and Nevada, in meeting assembled at Grand Junction, Colo., this 20th day of Sep- tember 1949, That— Whereas this committee approves the pro- visions of S. 75, as amended and reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs to the Senate of the United States on August 3, 1949, a bill authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam, and incidental works, in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Can- yon, together with certain appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes; and Whereas this committee is in full accord with the majority report of said Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on said S 75, as amended Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this committee commends the Committee on Interlor and Insular At- fairs of the United States Senate upon its thorough and careful consideration and re- port on 8 75, as emendcd; and be it further Resolved, That this committee uiges the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives to give favorable considera- tion to the provisions of said S 75 as amended by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in its consideration of H. R. 934 and 935; and be it further Resolved, That this committce respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take favorable action upon said S. 75 as amended by the said Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and reported to the Ecn- ate of the United States on August 3, 1949; and be it further Resolved, That the chairman of this com- mittee is requested to send copies of this 2033 resolution to the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate, to the chairman of the Sub- committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the Public Lands Committee of the House of Representatives, to the chairman of the said Public Lands Committee, to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and to each member of the congressional delegation of the par- ticipating States. Adopted unanimously September 20, 1949. Cuiirrorp H. STONE, Chairman. Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, I wish to express my thanks to my colleague for his answer to my question. His answer will, I know, be received very kindly by the four upper-basin States. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT NOT POSSIBLE Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, there is one decision of the Supreme Court which, it seems to me, is particu- larly pertinent. The suggestion was made that a declaratory judgment un- der a recent statute might be made by the Supreme Court. That precise point was raised in the case of the United States against West Virginia, which is re- ported at Two Hundred and Ninety-fifth United States Reports, page 463. In that case the Supreme Court dismissed a bill brought by the United States Govern- ment to enjoin West Virginia and certain corporate defendants to which the State had issued permits from constructing a hydroelectric dam in a river alleged to be navigable and for a declaratory judg- ment that the rights of the United States in the stream were paramount. The holdings of the Court is to be found on page 473 of the report. T read: There is presented here, as respects the State, no case of an actual or threatened interference with the authority of the United States Until the right asserted is threat- ened with invasion by acts of the State, which serve both to define the controversy and to establish its existence in the judicial sense, there is no question presented which is justicinbie by a Federal court. With respect to the power of the court to render a declaratory judgment, the Supreme Court said, at page 475, volume 395, United States Reports: No effort is made by the Government to sustain the bill under the Declaratory Judg- ment Act of June 14, 1934 (ch. 512, 48 Stat. 955). It is enough that that act is appli- cable only in cases of actual controversy. It does not purport to alter the character of the controversies which are the subject of judicial power under the Constitution. Mr President, it is utterly impossible, in my judgment, and in the judgment of the committee to expect a declaratory judgment. I may say that the distin- guished and able Senator from Colorado {Mr. MILLIaIn], who is a membe of the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs, shares that opinion, as is evidenced by the fact that the amendment, in the form of sections 12 and 13 of the bill, was worked out and presented to the com- mittee by the distinguished Senator from Colorado and by the chairman of the committee. The outstanding quali- fications of the Senator from Colorado as a lawyer are recognized by all.
2034 So, Mr. President, by providing for the authorization of this project, the com- mittee seeks to bring about the condi- tions which will in turn create a justici- able controversy which the Supreme Court can settle. Then we shall under- stand, clearly and definitely, and with authority, what the respective rights of California and Arizona are to this water. JUSTICE TO OTHER BASIN STATES The evidence before us is clear upon the fact that the State of California, while having enjoyed the benefits of power and water as a result of the con- struction of the Hoover Dam, has not yet used all the water which is acknowl- edged on every side, including the State of Arizona, to have been rightfully allo- cated to the State of California. All the rest of the basin, the States in which the water rises, may not successfully de- velop the possibilities, whatever they may be, until there is a settlement of this controversy. I remarked the other day to my dis- tinguished and able and eloquent friend the senior Senator from California [Mr. Downey], who is an ornament to the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs, as well as an ornament to the Sen- ate, that I was very much perturbed on reading the speech which he made a few days ago when I found, at page 1633 of the Recorp, that he stated—regretfully, he said—that in his opinion there is not @ feasible project in the whole basin. No one, it seems to me, could have visited the Hoover Dam; no one, it seems to me, could have gone into the power Plant in the Hoover Dam; no one, it seems to me, could have seen with his own eyes the great engineering feats by which the power and the water of this river sys- tem are transported hundreds of miles across the mountains and into the State of California, for the great benefit of that State and its people, without conceiving also that it is within the power of the American people, through their engi- neers and skillful workers, to make ad- ditional use of this water for the bene- fit of other States, as well as for Cali- fornia. Mr. President, we are in danger of hav- ing this great water resource, not a drop of which rises within the State of Cali- fornia, Jocked up forever for the sole and exclusive use, some time in the future, of the people who may be attracted to California by its undoubted and unques- tioned resources, and by the amiabilty of its people. But that is not the method by which we can provide for the utiliza- tion of the natural resources of the United States at a time when it is the greatest objective which we can carry out. We can do more to win permanent peace for all the peoples of the world by uniting to utilize our resources than we can by raising obstacles in the path of our neighbors and our neighboring States with respect to the development of re- resources which belong alike to all. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield to the Sen- ator from New Mexico. Mr. CHAVEZ. I hope the Senator from Wyoming as he proceeds will go a little more into detail as to where the waters of the Hoover Dam come from. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. O'MAHONEY. Iam glad the Sen- ator from New Mexico has mentioned that. I have already stated—the Sena- tor was otherwise engaged at the time— that 80 percent of the waterflow of this system comes from the upper basin. Mr. CHAVEZ. The upper basin States—— Mr. O’MAHONEY. That is correct. Mr. CHAVEZ. Which are interested in that water and under the compact are entitled to their share of it. There is no reason whatsoever why one State should get all the benefit of the project. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I am merely uttering a plea to the Mem- bers of the Senate to join with the con- sidered opinion of the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs and vote to authorize this project, in order that all the States of the Colorado River system may have an opportunity to see whether or not this water may not improve con- ditions within their borders. Mr. President, that Arizona needs more water,noonecandeny. The State is there, the people are there. That they chose to go to Arizona instead of into California was an exercise of their Amer- ican privilege. They are there. Ween- couraged many of them to go there. Shall we now undertake by obstructive tactics, by delay and harassment, by fail- ure upon our own part as Senators of the United States, to act positively, shall we thus puntsh them and deny the only means by which this controversy can be settled? Ah, Mr President, we are told that the cost of the project is fantastic. The cost is high, but the revenues will be high, too. The senior Senator from Arizona and the junior Senator from Arizona have already explained in detail what proportion of this authorized expenditure will go for the development of power and how much smaller an expenditure for irrigation. There is a market for power. There is a market for every kilowatt of power which can be produced in the Colorado River Basin under the pending measure. It will be wasteful, we are told, if any part of the power revenues is devoted to the diversion of Colorado River water to the dry acres of Arizona. Mr. Presi- dent, we tried to answer that question, too, because we provided in the amend- ment that no expenditure should be made for the irrigation features of the program if a suit were filled, and during the pend- ency of the suit. I think it is worth while reading this provision into the ReEcorpD at this point. It is as follows: Src. 18. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act: Provided, That no moneys appropriated under the authority of this act shall be expended for the construc- tion of works authorized by this act which are required solely for the purpose of divert- ing, transporting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial consumptive use in Arizona, dur- ing the period of 6 months after the enact- ment of this act and during the pendency of any suit or suits in which the United States shall be Joined as a party under and by vir- tue of the conscnt granted in section 12 of FEBRUARY 21 this act. The pendency of a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint shall be considered pendency of a suit or suits for the purposes of this act: Provided further, That power sales contracts shall be made with a view to the reservation of generating capacity sufficient for the operation of all features of the project and that rates for power shall be fixed in accordance with the Federal rec- lamation laws; and that revenues derived from the sale of power shall be credited in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 9, 1938 (52 Stat. 291, 818). Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O'MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. With reference to section 13 of the bill, which the Senator from Wyoming has just read, I should like to ask him a question. First, I will say I am not an attorney, but, speaking as a layman, I should like to have the Senator’s opinion as an attorney as to whether the language of section 13 is not so loose that in the event suit was filed and adverse decision was rendered as against the State of Arizona, under the wording of the section it would still not be an authorized project? I may say that I raised that question with the junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. Mc- FarRLAND] the other day and my inter- pretation of his answer was that in his opinion it would still be an authorized project, though he doubted whether the Congress would appropriate for it under those circumstances. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, the committee in drafting the amendment considered the inclusion of language which would in effect provide that in the event of an adverse decisicn no ex- penditure would be made. But, after study of the subject from every point of view, we came to what we believe is the inescapable conclusion that that would have killed the whole purpose of providing a justiciable controversy, because with such language in the amendment it would only be saying to the Supreme Court “Give us a declara- tory judgment.” That is the reason, I will say to the junior Senator from Cali- fornia, that the amendment has been presented just as it is. I have no hesitation in saying that this is an authorization—it must be an authorization if there is to be a judicial determination of the issue. Let me add, however, if the Supreme Court, after hearing the parties to this case, should decide that Arizona does not have the right to the water which it claims, it is beyond the possibility of doubt that the Congvess of the United States would not make the appropriation. It was precisely for that reason that we carefully drafted the amendment so as to make a clear authorization. We said in section 13: There are hereby authorized to be appro- priated * * * such sums as may be nec- essary— Then follows the proviso: Provided, That no moneys appropriated under the authority of this act shall be ex- pended- And so forth. So even though the Congress, under the _ authorization, should make an appropriation, neverthe- less we have said the moneys shall not
1950 be expended while this question is before the Court for determination. I think in all common sense we must come to the ccnclusion, as the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs did, with the excep- tion of my distinguished friend the Sen- ator from California [Mr. DOWNEY], that . this is a correct and proper and an apt method, in section 12 and section 13, of placing the interstate pact, which was approved by the Congress of the United States in 1928, before the Supreme Court for interpretation and construction. I had hoped we could have the support of both Senators from California in obtain- ing the submission of this case to the Supreme Court of the United States in the only manner in which, in the judg- ment of our committee, it is possible to get it there. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. Certainly. Mr. DOWNEY. Did the distinguished Sen-tor mean to say that the vote of the committee on this bill was unanimous except for the Senator from California? If so, that statement is made in error. Mr. O’MAHONEY. I did not say that. I did not mean that. Only the Senator from California signed the minority re- port. Two other Senators did not ap- prove the bill. HAVE FAITH IN THE FUTURE Mr. President, I think I have covered briefly the point of view which the com- mittee entertains. There are many things which could be said about this great project, and the need for the full development of the Colorado River. It is worthwhile, in looking at the map at the rear of the Senate Chamber which shows the central Arizona project in the Colo- rado River Basin, to remember what I said with respect to the origin and the flow of the waters, to bear in mind that this stream flows through an extraordi- nary area, one of the most extraordinary, one of the most stimulating that men could ever hope to see. I have told the Senate that these streams constitute a flow of almost a thousand miles. I recall to Senators the fact that that water rises at the upper reaches of the Green River in the State of Wyoming, and flows down the mountainsides through Colorado and Utah and the other States until it emp- ties across the boundary of Mexico. In its course, that water traverses much of the basin in canyons along the walls of which are exposed geological formations exceeding an aggregate thickness of 20,000 feet, almost 4 miles. The granites and sedimentary rocks through which the river has cut its channel are so varied in color and composition that their ex- posure by erosion has created an area of beauty and grandeur unsurpassed on this earth. The Grand Canyon National Park encompasses the finest portion of that canyon scenery. In this area there are great natural re- sources. There is no man who can en- vision what the engineer and the scien- tist can do with the resources of this vast area. There are three great river systems in the United States, the Missouri River system, the Colorado River system, and the Columbia River system. Icome from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE a State which contributes water to all three of these basins. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STennIs] opens his eyes. I will say to my friend from Mississippi that within an area of less than 20 square miles in my State water rises and flows into these three river systems. I can take the Senator to a spot in the State of Wyoming where a mountain stream reaching a rock divides in two, and one branch flows into the Pacific and the other into the Atlantic. I say to all Sen- ators that if they come to my Siate I will take them to the spot where they can kneel down and put their right hands into the waters that go into the Atlantic, and their left hands into the waters that go into the Pacific. Mr. President, we are dealing with great natural resources. The Commit- tee on Interior and Insular Affairs which asks Senators’ support of the bill, is look- ing forward to the future. With great regret I say that my friends from Cali- fornia are telling the Senate that there is no future for these other States in the basin; that only California can enjoy the triumph of engineering; that only Cali- fornia may have the water, that only California may have the power. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. O’MAHONEY. I yield to the Sen- ator from New Meyico. Mr CHAVEZ. The Senator from Cali- fornia would be making a correct state- ment if we were going to permit Califor- nia to have all the water that belongs to all the other States. In that event there would be no future for the other States, because we in the other States are de- pendent for development upon that nat- ural resource just as much as is Califor- nia. If we in the upper-basin States were to lose that water, or if any States within the basin werc to lose that water, naturally there would be no future for those States. Mr. O’'MAHONEY. I thank the Sen- ator from New Mexico. Mr. President, let not the Senate of the United States turn its back upon the States of the Colorado River Basin, Let us authorize the proposed project. Let us get the controversy settled. Let us have an end to the delay which has already lasted 30 years. Let us see what we can do with what nature has deposited in this great basin Let us move on, Mr. President, to the future with faith in ourselves, and faith in our capacity to work together, instead of at- tempting to throw obstacles into one an- other’s paths. Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, in con- nection with Senate bill 75, now being considered by the Senate, I ask unani- mous consent to have printed in the ReEcorp a letter dated February 21, 1950, addressed to me by J. T. Sanders, legis- lative counsel of the National Grange. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Frsruary 21, 1950. Hon, ALEXANDER WILEY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR WILEY: This letter is writ- ten in response to your telephone request for the views of the National Grange on the 2035 proposed Bridge Canyon project of the Colorado River. It is our Judgment that the authorization of this project at the present time is unjusti- fled for the following reasons: 1. There is no other major watershed in the United Statcs where the use cf water for irrigation power and other purposes is as im- portant to the welfare of the watershed as in the Colorado watershed. As yet there hasn't even been a pretense of a careful over-all study of the comparative economic uses Of water of the Colorado River in all its possible alternative uses. Until a careful study of the best potential use of the water reeources of the river is made no one will be able to judge soundly and wisely on such plecemeal projects as is proposed for the Bridge Canyon. Such a project if built, or if construction is begun, would establish ir- retrievable priority of water use that may or may not be the best possible use of the wa- ter. From the evidence presented, the Bridge Canyon irrigation use appears to be indeed among the most wasteful of possible uses of the resources of the river. The National Grange at its last annual session stated that “we recognize the urgent need for coordinated development and use of resources on major watershed area”; and we recommend that a watershed board be set up for each major watershed to coordi- nate the watershed planning and develop- ment and thus forestall Just such uncoordi- nated wasteful projects as the proposed ir- rigation portion of the Bridge Canyon proj- ect appears to be. We therefore believe that this project should not be authorized until it can be adequately studied and fitted into its rightful position in an over-all watershed plan of development for the Colorado. 2. We are also opposed to authorizing this project which involves the fixing of water usage rights between States that is still in bitter controversy. In our 1948 annual ses- sion we passed a resolution opposing the assignment of the use of water in controversy between States until the dispute had been referred to the Federal courts and adjudi- cated by them. In stating this we are aware of the amended provisions of the bill but fear that if the bill were passed appropria- tion might also be passed and irretrievable commitment of water might be made or wasteful construction might be started. 3. We are also Opposed to authorizing the {rrigation portion of the Bridge Canyon proj- ect because (1) it is reported that the actual cost of putting the irrigation water on the land would be over $1,700 per acre. If this is true it is in violation of our policy us passed hy the last annual session of the Na- tional Grange, that we are opposed to ap- proving any project for expenditure of funds unless a sound appraisal shows benefits in excess of costs. This applies both to a proj- ect as a unit and any integral part of a project. We are quite certain that the irri- gation portion of this project does not meet this important policy of requiring that bene- fits from the proposed works must exceed the cost of them. We would like to see both new authoriza- tion ‘and new construction of such major resources development be held to a mini- mum pending an effective balancing of the Federal budget and pending the develop- ment of an over-all plan of watershed devel- opment and administration that will pre- vent such uncoordinated authorization or commitments of vast sums as are '!nvolved in the Bridge Canyon project. Very sincerely yours, J. T. SANpERs, Legislative Counsel. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I yield unto myself whatever time I desire to take in making the remarks I shall pre- sent at this time.
2036 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from California is recog- nized. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, know- ing as I do the logic and the brilliant in- tellect of the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’MaHoneEy], I am not amazed that in almost an hour of discussion he dared not, by a single word, for 1 second of time, face the true issue here, namely, whether the taxpayers of the United States and the power users should be burdened down with a cost of thousands of dollars an acre for the benefit of 225,- 000 acres of rather inferior crop land. All the charts and all the arguments dis- play this project to be one of such waste and extravagance that if its principles were extended into the cther States of the Union, only national bankruptcy could be the result. So I am not sur- prised that my beloved and distin- guished friend, the Senator from Wyo- ming, was unwilling to bring his voice and his intellect to the evaluation of the economic benefits, such as they are, of this fantastic and wasteful project. I am glad to agree with my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, and I take it that all Senators within the sound of my voice likewise agree, that we are living now in a critical period; that the next decade will test to the very limit the en- during strength of our people and of our Government. Because we face the threat of great nations abroad, the dis- tinguished Senator from Wyoming ar- rives at the conclusion that we must unify ourselves, and that California must give way to Arizona. That may be de- sirable in a proper case; but what is the ultimate result in this case? The ulti- mate result is to spend the money and the material and the manpowcr of the Nation upon a project which at first glance is seen to be so absurd that it is remarkable to find it here before the Senate of the United States. I prophesied that because of the ex- travagant nature of this project, it would never appear on the floor of the Senate. I have been proved wrong, because here is this proposal. Let us analyze it; let us evaluate it. As I go through the figures which I shall present regarding it, every one of which I believe to be not only accurate but conservative, I ask for interruptions, in my time, if any Senator doubts that I can produce the certain proof, from the Bureau of Reclamation and from the Senators from Arizona, of what I have to say. We have attempted to tell this story as briefly as we can, Mr. President, by means of several charts. First, let me say to the Senators now present that the situation with which we are dealing is not a simple one. We are dealing, first, with a great hydroelectric development on the Colorado River, and then we are dealing with a proposec irri- gation development in central Arizona. Under the majority report and under the plan of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Government will advance more than $700,000,000 to construct the first phases of this project. All that money will come out of the Treasury of the United States. There is envisaged a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE secondary project, one for the construc- tion of canals, amounting to $550,000,000 more. Under the interpretation of reclamation law as espoused by Mike Straus, this bill provides, and the ma- jority report so sets forth, that the proj- ect, after construction, shall be liqui- dated, with a 10-year development period intervening, in 70 years. During that 70 years, the Treasury of the United States will waive all interest. So, in effect, in our present unfortunate financial condi- tion we shall borrow the $709,009,000, and later half a billion dollars more; and it will be used to construct the project. That project will continue for 70 years after the development period; and in that time the taxpayers of the United States, already heavily burdened, will have to pay all the interest on both the irrigation investment and the power in- vestment. Itis contemplated, then, that the interest upon the power development and the profits upon the power will be set aside to pay off the irrigation invest- ment. So Jet us remember, as we study this bill, that the interest on the entire amount, for a long period of time—not limited in the bill, but it might well be a century, and at least 90 years from now is contemplated—will be paid by the Treasury, and the principal indebtedness will be paid by the power users. I wish to say here—and I shall present the figures to prove it if any Senator de- sires to call for my authority—that the farmers of Arizona will not even be able to pay for their own distribution system. No one before now ever has had the temerity to seek to have authorized a reclamation project under which the farmers cannot at least pay for their dis- tribution system. No, Mr. President; those, like the great aqueduct and the dam, will be paid by poor Uncle Sam, by the taxpayers and the power users. The farmers are unable to pay a single dol- lar on the irrigation development. I know of no other project which remotely approaches this one, in respect to free- ing the farmers of all burdens, and plac- ing the entire burden upon the Treasury of the United States. Mr. President, figuring on a very con- servative basis the intcrest during the course of construction on the full $700,- 000,000, the interest during construction would be $129,000,000. That item alone approximates $600 an acre, to benefit land worth $150 or $200 an acre. That is the first item. Under the original bill the Government of the United States was to assume $75,000,000 of the cost of the dam because of scenic benefits and fish and wildlife benefits. The Senators from Arizona, being partly guided, I hope by what we from California have been saying, have submitted an amendment which provides that the obligation of the Federal Government to assume the non- reimbursable construction cost of $75,- 000,000 shall be eliminated. Let me say, however, that someone still has to distribute and invest that $75,000,- 000, and someone must pay for it. It will no longer be charged against the Federal Government as a principal item, but it will be put in with the rest of the investment, to run probably for 90 years; and the Government will have to pay the FEBRUARY 21 interest charge upon that $75,000,000, although by this method the Govern- ment will escape the principal charge, and the power users will have to retire the principal. So although the item of $75,000,000, under the amendment of- fered by the Senators from Arizona, would be stricken out, in lieu thereof there would be an interest item of about the same amount of money. Assuming a 70-year repayment period, and figuring the interest at 2 percent— which I think is too conservative—the interest to be paid by the Federal Gov- ernment on the average outstanding in- vestment would amount to $451,000,000 more. Our accountants have carefully checked these figures. If any Senator desires to have them verified, we shall be very happy to give him all the assump- tions of the Bureau of Reclamation, so he can easily verify the figures. So, Mr. President, for the initial proj- ect alone, the bill authorizes, as its main authorization, the construction of an 80-mile tunnel through the mountains, to carry water to 225,000 acres of grain and cotton land—an 80-mile tunnel. I know of nothing in the United States re- motely approaching that. I know tun- nels of 5 or 10 miles which have been con- sidered of enormous extravagance, but a tunnel of 80 miles to carry water from the dam to the Phoenix area is some- thing so amazing to me that I do not see how the human mind could contem- plate it. Mr. President, the interest figured on the average amount of investment during construction is $110,000,000. The inter- est connected with paying off the cost of the tunnel, which as I have said is $550,- 000,000, amounts to $385,000,000 more. As I shall later show, there is involved here only 225,000 acres. Dividing that into the contemplated cost of the tunnel and certain other facilities adjacent thereto, I think the one item alone comes to almost $3,000 an acre. It is merely one item of the cost. But figuring on the interest basis, the total obligation and interest payments over a period of 70, 80, or 90 years, which must be paid by the Government, will be $1,150,000,000, and that will end the obligation, unless we find that the power users cannot af- ford to pay off the principal. They are to be stuck on the principal of $1,200,- 000,000. That is the climax of the cen- tral Arizona project—more than $1,000,- 000,000 to be paid by the taxpayers in estimated interest, more than $1,090,- 000,000, by the power users. Mr. President, we are proposing to em- bark upon a plan which is so extrava- gantly foolish that it is not within my power to define it. Here we have a great public power plant that could do partly for us what has been done for the TVA in the Southern States. We are loading it down, making expensive power out of cheap power, to irrigate land, worth $200 an acre commercially, at a cost of several thousand dollars an acre. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. DOWNEY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I think the Senator is familiar with the telegram which has been sent I believe to most of the Mem- bers of the Senate. But since it relates
1950 to the power situation, I think it may be interesting to read it into the Recorp at this point. It is addressed to me, and it is signed by Mr. Carlton L. Nau, gen- eral manager of the American Public Power Association. The telegram reads as follows: Respectfully urge recommittal to commit- tee S. 75, central Arizona project, for follow- ing reasons: 1. Colorado River is glaring example of lack of over-all coordinated planning for most ef- fective use of resources of entire basin. Its development as a whole should be carefully studied by an impartial board to assure most economical use of all its resources. 2. Reclamation features of project contrary to power policy statement adopted by APPA. Power rates overburdened with #400,000,000 capital irrigation investment which irriga- tors cannot pay. Spending such vast sums to reclaim land to produce agricultural prod- ucts which now are surplus ts totally without economic justification. 3. President's Water Resources Policy Com- mission is currently studying need for sub- sidies for irrigation, feasibility standards, re- lation between water and hydroelectric pow- er, etc. The bill should not be approved until Commission has opportunity to study and report. CaRLTON L. Nav, General Manager, American Public Power Assoctation, I thank the Senator. Mr. DOWNEY. I thank my colleague for the introduction of the telegram into the REcorp. Mr. President, in our next chart we try to carry the melancholy information to the different States as to just what their share of this titanic burden will be. As we all know, the State of New York, with its huge taxes, would pay more than any other State. If the project is worked out according to the prognosis of the Bureau of Reclamation, the State of New York over the next 70 years will be paying for the benefit of Arizona the sum of $168,- 705,000, which is about $700 per acre for this cotton and grain land, of which we now have in the United States 35,000,000 excess acres. The Department of Agri- culture says that our economy will never be in proper condition until we reduce by 35,000,000 the present cotton and grain acreage. Half of this Arizona land is now in cotton; the great bulk of the re- mainder is in grain. Ninety percent of the land is in ordinary field crops. I do not know what attitude the Senators from New York will take, but if they can see any justification for their taxpayers paying $700 an acre to help land worth $150 or $250 commercially to produce crops already surplus, constituting a fur- ther burden on the Treasury, they, in my opinion, are very easy-going taxpayers. But anyway, Mr. President, here is the chart—chart B—in which we have at- tempted to set out the amount of money the various States of the Union, accord- ing to the taxes they have been paying into the Treasury, will have to pay upon this project. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, realizing that the project as an irrigation project is wholly indefensible, has in very extreme terms heretofore said to the Senate, ‘We have 650,000 or 750,000 acres of irrigated land around Phoenix. Our whole prosperity is dependent upon that land. If we do CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE not get this water, all that acreage is going out of cultivation. Two hundred and fifty thousand of our people out of 750,000 will be driven out of the State of Arizona by poverty and necessity, to be- come burdens upon the other States.” The truth is that the water which is in controversy will m2et irrigation require- ments for 225,000 acres. That is at the rate of about 5 acre-feet per acre for the water delivered at the end of the aque- duct. So if the calculations of the Bureau are correct—and we think they are far too favorable to the Arizona view- point—if the project is not built, a maxi- mum of 225,000 acres in the Phoenix area may go out of production. Observe the statement of the junior Senator from Arizona {Mr. McFaR.Lanp] upon which I stand. I can produce five other statements made at different times by the junior Senator from Arizona, innu- merable statements from the reports, showing that the junior Senator from Arizona, with precision and accuracy, has stated the ultimate fact. The junior Senator from Arizona testifying, as it appears on Senate bill 75, at page 35, spoke accurately and rightly—and I applaud him for his precise and accurate statement—as follows: According to the report, if this water sup- ply is made available for the project, 73,500 of the 105,790 acres formerly irrigated but now idle for lack of trrigation, can be irri- gated. In addition to this amount, as shown in table B-5 of the report, it would be pos- sible to sustain irrigation of an additional 152,520 acres which would otherwise have to be retired from irrigation. This would mean a total of 226,000 acres, which would other- wise be compelled to remain forever idle, could be maintained in production by this project, So, Mr. President, what we are deal- ing with here is not with the rescue of 750,000 acres of land, not with the 1rri- gation of that area of land; but with a quantity of water that would irrigate 225,000 acres. If that water is not made available, the junior Scnator from Ari- zona 1s correct in saying the land would otherwise be compelled to remain for- ever idle. Mr. President, let me say the 173,500 acres of this land have been idle for many years. The acreage that would have to go out of cultivation is perhaps 150,000 acres. Their local plans will take care of another 30,000 acres. So this rescue project is reduced to approximately 120,- 000 acres, constituting less than 20 per- cent of the arca, and as the land which would go out of cultivation would be the poorer, inferior land, it would amount to a reduction of approximately 10 per- cent of the farm output of the Phoenix area. That is according to the Bureau of Reclamation. Phoenix is one of the great tourist cities of the United States. It has large manufacturing, mining, and other in- come far exceeding all the income it re- ceives from all its agricultural products. To say that Arizona needs some kind of disaster relief is, to my mind, almost a stultification. I know the pioneer char-, acter of the able citizens of Arizona. The mere fact that they are going to lose a small amount of inferior land does not appall those pioneers of the West. Iam 2037 surprised that distinguished representa- tives of the State of Arizona would even argue that point. In the neighboring State of Nevada were great mines around which were im- portant cities. There were mines which provided huge amounts of gold and silver for the Federal Government in its hour of need. Many States of the Union have cut-over forest lands from which the topsoil has blown away, lands which have gone alkali, Jands on which there has been an overuse of water. To claim that the Federal Government at a cost of billions of dollars should step in to rectify a situation in which farmers have over- drawn their water supply, seems to me so extreme that it is difficult for me to realize how anyone could favor this bill. Mr. President, we come to chart D, the final chart on this side. In that we take only the irrigation features of the initial project, placed by the Bureau of Recla- mation at $392,000,000. We take the 225,000 acres of land, in round figures, which the junior Senator from Arizona says will go idle if this project is not de- veloped, and we find that the United States taxpayers will pay $1,650 an acre in the taxes which they will assume, and the power users will pay $1,750 an acre. Mr. President, those figures are so eX- treme that we can hardly comprehend them. But that is only for the initial project. Here are shown the total figures on a per-acre basis, to be paid, it is true, over 70 years by the power users and the taxpayers on both projects, the prelimi- nary and the final, coming to $8,000 an acre, As I have said, Mr. President, I stand here and invite interruption or challenge on the accuracy of these charts or on any fact which I may state. Mr. President, if it is agreeable to the junior Senator from Arizona, I shall yield 30 minutes of my time to the senior Senator from Nevada. Mr. McFARLAND. Certainly. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, may I ask how the time stands? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from California has 105 minutes’ unexpired time. Mr. DOWNEY. Will the Chair tell us how much time we have consumed? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The quorum call took 16 minutes of the time of the senior Senator from California and he has consumed 29 minutes. The Senator from Nevada is recog- nized. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, at the outset, let me say that it would be my desire to support this bill if it were properly protected and properly safe- guarded. Therefore, with a view of be- ing able to support it by my vote, I have had printed, and there are now lying on the desk, certain amendments which I shall offer and which I deem to be essential. Mr. President, as I pointed out in the statement which I placed in the Recorp yesterday, this bill, while its title speaks of “authorizing the construction, opera- tion, and maintenance of a dam and inci- dental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, to- gether with certain appurtenant dams
2038 and canals,” actually has as its main objective the authorization of the diver- sion of Colorado River water for an irri- gation and reclamation project in cen- tral Arizona, The Bridge Canyon Dam is a means to that end, but not the only means; its greatest usefulness in connec- tion with the central Arizona project would be for the production of power to be used for pumping water nearly 1,000 fect high, and it has not been demon- strated that the proposed Bridge Canyon Dam would be the only possible source of such power. Indeed, it has not even been demonstrated, and it may be ques- tioned whether it can be demonstrated, that the proposed Bridge Canyon Dam would even be the cheapest source of such power. This bill does not contain only author- ization for construction of the Bridge Canyon Dam; it also contains various other authorizations and grantr of au- thority, some of them extremely broad in their nature. Indeed, in some re- spects the language of the bill is so vague that it is difficult to say just what it does authorize. For example, the language contained in subparagraph (4) of section 1, begin- ning on page 2 of the bill, in line 22, and in subparagraph (4) of the same sec- tion, beginning on page 3 of the bill, in line 8, is susceptible of being construed as a tremendous grant of power to the Secretary of the Interior. Construction of this legislative language, if enacted, will rest, in the first instance, with the Secretary of the Interior, and past ex- perience leads us to belicve that the lan- guage in question, under such circum- stances, will not be narrowly construed. At this time, Mr. President, I invite at- tention to my amendment No. 1, reading as follows: On page 2, in line 22, after the word “plants”, insert the words “(other than steam plants for the production of electrical energy).” My amendment No. 1 will amend the language of subparagraph (4) of section 1, which, as I have pointed out, appears in its present form, to embrace authority for the construction of steam plants for the generation of electrical energy, with- out any limitation upon the number or capacity of such plants, so long as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem such plants to be incidental structures suit- able for the fullest economical develop- ment of electrical energy generated from water at the works constructed hereun- der. Senators will note the Secretary is not even required to find that steam plants are needed; he need only find that they are suitable. If it is not de- sired that the Secretary of the Interior be given authority to construct steam plants, this section of the bill should be amended as I propose. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. I should like to state very frankly that there is neither any necessity for the authorization nor any desire on the part of the sponsors of this bill to authorize the construction of steam plants for the production of electrical energy. If it is agreeable to the Senator from Nevada [Mr. McCarran], if he will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE offer the amendment we shall be very glad to accept it. Mr. McCARRAN. I send forward the amendment, which I understand the Senator from Arizona will accept. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leany in the chair). The clerk will state the amendment. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, in line 22, after the word “plants”, it is pro- posed to insert the words “(other than steam plants for the production of elec- trical energy).” Mr. HAYDEN. So far as I am con- cerned, we can vote on the amendment now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Ne- vada (Mr. McCarran]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, my amendment No. 2 goes to the question of what authority the bill shall give to the Secretary of the Interior to construct power-transmission lines. The language on page 3 of the bill, beginning in line 4, which reads, “including interconnecting lines to effectuate coordination with other Federal projects,” could be con- strued to refer to power-transmission lines. I believe it would be so construed by the Secretary of the Interior. Under this language, so construed, the Secretary of the Interior would have blanket authority to construct a network of power-transmission lines which would tie together the generators to be. installed at the Bridge Canyon project and those at Boulder Dam and at Davis Dam. He could even go further and extend the interconnecting network to tie in the power production at the Shasta Dam in northern California. Construction of such a tranmission-line network has long been an objective of the Interior Department, and the pending bill, if enacted without amendment, could be deemed to give the authority for such construction, which has hitherto been denied by the Congress. It might be a good thing to tie Boulder Dam power and Davis Dam power and Bridge Canyon Dam power together in a single system, so that power from Boulder Dam and Davis Dam might be supplemented with power from Bridge Canyon Dam. But there is nothing in the bill now pending before the Senate which would guarantee the accomplish- ment of that purpose. The objective of supplementing Boulder Dam power and Davis Dam power with power from Bridge Canyon Dam necessarily involves a flow of power from Bridge Canyon Dam toward Boulder Dam and Davis Dam, and an allocation of Bridge Canyon power to be pooled with the power from Boulder Dam and Davis Dam. But power-transmission lines work equally well in either direction, and it would be perfectly possible under the language of the bill, once such lines had been estab- lished connecting the three dams named, to turn the flow in the other direction and take power from the Boulder Dam and Davis Dam projects and allocate it for use or sale in connection with the Bridge Canyon project. This would involve violation of con- tracts already in existence providing for FEBRUARY 21 the disposition of power from Boulder Dam, and, in the opinion of the senior Senator from Nevada, that is exactly what would happen. On the basis of the estimates of power revenues, prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation, it seems perfectly clear that the Bureau intends to ‘firm up” Bridge Canyon power by supplementing it with power produced at Boulder Dam. Furthermore, it seems perfectly clear that the Bureau intends to accomplish this by simply transferring and crediting Boulder Dam power to the Bridge Can- yon project, and to do this without charging any of the cost of the Boulder Dam to the Bridge Canyon project, Such a plan necessarily entails a totally unwarranted invasion of the rights of those who have contracted for power from Boulder Dam. The rights of the State of Nevada to power from Boulder Dam are thus threatened, and that !s a matter which greatly concerns the senior Senator from Nevada. Such an extremely broad grant of authority for the construction of power- transmission lines is unjustifiable and indefensible. If that is the way the bill is intended to be construed, then the' bill should be defeated. If that is not the way the bill is intended to be con- strued, then the bill should be amended. My amendment No. 2 will give the Sen- ate an opportunity to express its will on this point, and I now offer the amend- ment. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. I should like to inquire of the Scnator whether he knows of any instance under any other reclamation project when there was a separate au- thorization for transmission lines? Mr. McCARRAN. Perhaps my answer should be “No,” because it does not come to my mind at the moment, but the rela- tionship of the power projects on the Colorado River is different from any other power set-up in the United States. It is entirely separate. Mr. HAYDEN. If the different power plants are operated as a unit, so to speak, just as now the Hoover Dam and Bridge Canyon Dam and Parker Dam are oper- ated as a unit, water can be released from one place at a time when it is needed at another place, and it is advantageous to do so. I have had 20 years’ experience with respect to reclamation authoriza- tions, and it has always been taken as an essential incident that power once generated can be transmitted without any special authorization by Congress being required for that purpose. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, does the Senator take issue with my state- ment that power may be transmitted in either direction, and could not the power from Boulder Dam be transmitted to Bridge Canyon Dam, and thus supple- ment the Bridge Canyon power; and could not the charge of the Boulder Dam thus be reflected to Bridge Canyon Dam, and could not it affect the rates for power which would be developed at Bridge Canyon Dam? Mr. HAYDEN. That would clearly violate the contract which the Secretary of the Interior has made with respect to
1950 the delivery of power at Boulder Dam. I do not see how it could possibly be done, Mr. McCARRAN. Then could my amendment do any harm? Would it not be a protection to the whole set-up? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes; it could do harm. It would require special authorization for any piece of transmission line. I do not know of any vast number of trans- mission lines either to be built or con- templated at this development. Some more wires may be hung on existing power lines, and I expect that all the dams will be connected, because that is best for management, but I sec no sound reason for requiring special authoriza- tion for transmission lines. Mr. McCARRAN. I send my amend- ment forward and ask that it may be considered. ! The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that unanimous con- sent would be required to take up the amendment at this point. ' Mr. McCARRAN. My undertsanding is that we can vote on these amend- ments at any time between 12 o’clock and 4o’clock. Am I correct? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the committee amendments have not yet becn agreed to. ' Mr. McCARRAN. Is the present or- der of business the consideration of the committee amendments? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is. Mr. McCARRAN. In that event I call attention to the fact that there are at present about six Senators on the floor. Any explanation that I have made, or which may be made by any other Sena- tor, will be lost to those who are not here. All we can do is offer amendments and remain silent, and no one will know what they really mean in the whole set-up. I do not like to be continually suggest- ing the absence of a quorum in my time, which is very much limited, but I see no other way of getting consideration. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a@ quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, js a motion in order that the order for a quorum call be rescinded and that fur- ther proceedings under the call be suspended? The PRESIDING OFFICER. A re- quest for unanimous consent to that effect is in order, before the announce- ment with respect to a quorum is made. Mr. McCARRAN, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for a quorum call be rescinded and that fur- ther proceedings under the call be suspended. | The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. McCARRAN. A point of order, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. McCARRAN. Am I to understand that I cannot offer my amendments at this time due to the fact that the com- The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE mittee amendments have not been acted on? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s amendments cannot be offered except by unanimous consent. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may pre- sent my amendments now seriatim, and that the Senate proceed to dispose of them as they are presented. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I am compelled to object, because I believe the committee amendments should be first disposed of. They have received careful attention by a committee of the Senate, and they deserve prior consideration by the Senate. Mr. McCARRAN. I may say to the able Senator from Arizona that the amendments I shal] offer have been care- fully considered also, and were prepared accordingly, and they are germane to the subject. However, if the Senator from Arizona objects, I can do nothing more than proceed, without having my amend- ments considered, which I am sorry to have to do. Mr. President, I understand unani- mous consent for the offering of my amendment has not been granted. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the amendments which I propose to offer, being 11 in number. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I may be entirely mistaken, but that violates all precedents of the Senate. Committee amendments are supposed, at least under the rules of the Senate, to deserve prior consideration to amendments offered from the floor. I rather doubt the wis- dom of substituting a new rule and per- mitting amendments which were pre- pared by a Senator, submitted over- night, which we have just had an op- portunity to look at in printed form this morning, to take precedence over the committee amendments. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, there is something in what the Senator from Arizona says. I do not desire to estab- lish a precedent or attempt to do so. If the Parliamentarian advises us that it is a precedent, as I take it to be, that the committee amendments be first con- sidered, I do not care to violate that rule, But I should like to have some conces- sion from the Senator, in view of the fact that, in connection with our procedure under the unanimous-consent agree- ment, we now have in the Senate Cham- ber only half a dozen Senators, for the consideration of a bill which involves a billion and a half dollars, more or less, and is vital to the entire economy of the country. It seems to me we should either have a quorum or have some change in the rule, The agreement is that we shall vote at not later than 4 o’clock. The Very small attendance now on the floor of the Senate seems to me to be rather out of line, but we cannot do otherwise, So I withdraw the motion. Mr. HAYDEN. I thank the Senator, because I am sure he would not want, any more than I would, to have established a@ precedent which would rise to plague us in the future. Mr. McCARRAN, That is my view, and that is exactly true, 2039 Mr. President, my amendment No. 3 is intended to limit the repayment period to a reasonable time. The last proviso in section 3 of this bill—on page 6, beginning in line 7— would give the Secretary of the Interior the absolute discretion to fix the repay- ment period for the costs of the project. The only limitation placed upon this discretion would be that the repayment period to be fixed by the Secretary should not excecd the useful life of the project. The question of how the Secre- tary determines the useful life of the project would be left to the Secretary. He would not be limited to the period within which it is probable the reservoir to be created by this dam would be en- tirely filled with silt. That might be anywhere from 30 to 50 years, depending on whether Bluff Dam 1s constructed; and let us remember that the construc- tion of Bluff Dam is prohibited under the Watkins amendment, which was adopted by the committee, and which consists of the matter in italics beginning on page 3, in line 20. In its estimates the Bureau of Reclamation has talked about a 70- year repayment period; but there is nothing in the bill which would limit the repayment to 70 years. As a matter of fact, it seems perfectly clear that the project cost could not be repaid in 70 years, and that undoubtedly some Jonger period will be necessary. The Secretary of the Interior could make that period 100 years, or 150 years, or 500 years, as he saw fit. I do not mean to be face- tious, but there is nothing in this pro- posed law which would prevent the Sec- retary of the Interior from determining that the dam had a uscful life of 1,000 years or 2,000 years, and making the re- payment period 10 centuries or more. I do not say he would do it, but he could do it under the language of this bill. Furthermore this bill applies the rec- lamation laws with regard to repayment, which means that during the entire pe- riod of repayment—whether it is 10 years, or 100 years, or 500 years, or what- ever it is—no interest is to be charged on the construction cost. There may be good justification for such a provision in the case of a project which is to be re- payable within 50 years, as the present reclamation law provides; but there is very little, if any, justification for it in the case of e repayment period which may be 2 or 3 or 10 times the period now provided for in the reclamation law. Mr. President, following the practice, I offer my amendment No. 3; and I un- derstand that, although it cannot be voted upon at this time, it will come up in the regular order. My amendment No. 4 is designed to provide for an equitable allocation of power by providing that power not need- ed in connection with the central Ari- zona project shall be divided equally among the States of California, Nevada, and Utah. The Bridge Canyon Dam and the cen- tral Arizona project are tied together in this bill because the construction of the dam will provide one means of generat- ing the huge amounts of power neces- sary for the successful accomplishment of the central Arizona project. Person- ally the senior Senator from Nevada
2040 would much prefer, and believes that other Senators would much prefer, to see the Bridge Canyon Dam constructed as a separate entity. However, this bill as it now stands does provide for tying to- gether the Bridge Canyon Dam and the central Arizona project; and it has the effect of earmarking approximately one- third of the power to be generated at the Bridge Canyon Dam to be diverted for the uses and purposes of the central Ari- zona project. If that is to be done, Mr. President, 1t seems only right and fair that the rights of other States to the re- maining power should be adequately protected. I now offer my amendment No. 4. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, to permit me to make an inquiry? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. I should like to know why the Senator did not include the States of Colorado and New Mexico, along with California, Nevada, and Utah. Mr. McCARRAN. Because this is a group of States that is interrelated. One-third of the power which is pro- posed to be generated will go to Arizona; and the other States which border on that region and belong to that region should have an equal share or at least an equitable share. California certainly is entitled to a share. Nevada is en- titled to a share. The dam would be be- tween Utah and Arizona; therefore, Utah would be entitled to a share. Mr. HAYDEN. I beg the Senator’s pardon. When we argued the Boulder Canyon Act, it was admitted that the dam site was located on the boundary between Arizona and Nevada and occu- pied a natural resource of the two States, a natural resource which, if developed by private enterprise, would be taxed. On that basis, we subsequently obtained for each State a payment in leu of taxes. Again, that was based upon a TVA precedent. But inasmuch as this site is wholly Jocated in the State of Arizona—neither the dam nor the reservoir touches any other State—it seems to me that argu- ment does not apply. Mr. McCARRAN. It certainly is be- tween the States of Utah and Arizona. Mr. HAYDEN. It is not; the boundary of Utah jis farther north. Mr. McCARRAN. If I read the map correctly, it is. Mr. HAYDEN. If the Senator will take a second look at the map, he will sce what the situation there is, Mr. McCARRAN. What is more, when the Boulder Dam project was au- thorized, there were no other dams or projects in that area. But now there are four projects there; and by means of this bill, all of them are to be united in the general production of power with- in that region, and all of them are to be united for the carrying out of the Bridge Canyon project. Mr. President, I must say to the Sena- tor from Arizona that I am limited in my time. I think the Senator from Arizona can answer these questions in his own time. I hope he will do so. Mr. HAYDEN. I did not want to have the Recorp contain a statement that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE dam is between the two States. The dam is wholly in Arizona. Mr. McCARRAN. The Senator from Arizona may be correct about that. My map does not show it. Mr. President, my amendment No. 5 is to guard against land speculation and unjust enrichment of landowners. It has already been pointed out in this Chamber repeatedly during the debate that this bill contains provisions for un- precedented Federal subsidies, amount- ing to hundreds of millions of dollars. The amount which is mentioned in the minority report, and which is referred to as an outright gift, is $850,000,000, If we are to authorize subsidies on any such scale—or, for that matter, if we are to authorize subsidies at all—we should write into the bill the strongest provisions we can to guarantee against land speculation or the unjust enrich- ment of those, if any there be, who may already have speculated in land, in con- templation of the possible enactment of this measure. Fortunately, we have a precedent in this regard, for provisions of this nature were written into the law when Congress authorized the reclama- tion of a large area in the Columbia Valley in connection with the construc- tion of the Grand Coulee Dam. My amendment follows the lines of that precedent. It will remove incentive for speculation in the lands proposed to be irrigated under the project which this bill would authorize. I respectfully refer to the statute in this connection, namely, Fiftieth United States Statutes at Large, at page 208. The language of my amendment is iden- tical with the language of the statute as applied to the Grand Coulee Dam. If there was good reason for putting that language in the Grand Coulee Project Act—as there was; and Congress so con- sidered it, and it was put into that act, after long consideration, in the first place, in the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys—certainly there is reason for including that language in this measure. Mr. President, at this time I offer my amendment No. 5. My amendments Nos. 6 and 7 con- cern the provisions respecting court ad- judication of Colorado River water rights. I have already pointed out the danger that the very enactment of this proposed legislation might itself have a bearing on the adjudications of the Supreme Court with regard to Colorado River water rights. To remove this dan- ger, sections 8 and 9 of the bill should be amended so as to make it perfectly clear that the Colorado River contract, the water-delivery contract between the United States and the State of Arizona, dated February 9, 1944, the Mexican water treaty, signed February 3, 1944, the protocol thereto, dated November 14, 1944. and the understanding recited in the Senate resolution of April 18, 1945, are to be controlling as construed by the Supreme Court through the adjudi- cation contemplated in section 12. My amendments Nos. 6 and 7 will accomplish this. I offer them. My amendment No. 8 is designed to protect the right of the State of Ne- FEBRUARY 21 vada to water from Mead Lake. There has long been substantial controversy over the rights of the several States to the use of water from the Colorado River. It has been the consistent contention of the State of Nevada, and of the senior Senator from Nevada, that under exist- ing law, the State of Nevada is entitled absolutely to 300,000 acre-feet of water annually from Mead Lake, primarily for the production of power at Boulder Dam. Other States have made other claims, but I shall confine myself at this point to the claim of the State of Nevada. It has been stated, most irresponsibly, that Nevada has no such right to water from Mead Lake. The senior Senator from Nevada is not content that this bill should be enacted without protecting Nevada's right to water from Mead Lake. Because the 300,000 acre-feet per year to which Nevada is now legally entitled, under existing law, is by no means the full amount of water to which the State of Nevada has an equitable claim, my amendment No. 8 specifies 1,000,000 acre- feet of water per year. I offer the amendment. My amendment No. 9 its intended to provide some safeguard against the pos- sibility that this new law itself might be construed as limiting or coercing the ac- tion of the Supreme Court in adjudicat- ing Colorado River water rights. Sec- tion 12 of the bill before us is deficient because it contains no provision which will protect the Supreme Court. In its adjudication of actions brought under authority of this section, from the pos- sible argument that Congress, by enact- ing other provisions of this very bill, has determined at least some of the issues involved. The committee amendment to the bill which is contained in section 12, begin- ning on page 9, line 16, purports to ac- complish the purposes of Senate Joint Resolution 4, by authorizing an original action in the Supreme Court to adjudi- cate claims of right to the use of waters of the Colorado River; and the succeed- ing section, which is section 13, also a committee amendment, purports to pro- vide a measure of protection by defer- ring the construction of works “required solely for the purpose of diverting, trans- porting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial consumptive use in Arizona” until after water rights have been ad- judicated under the provisions of sec- tion 12. There is grave doubt, however, whether the committee amendments actually do what they purport to do in this regard. Section 12 contains no provision pro- tecting the adjudication of Colorado River water rights by the Supreme Court, for which that section purports to pro- vide, from being affected by other pro- visions of the proposed legislation. Since the whole measure will become law at the same instant, the act will necessarily be effective before any action can be brought under the provisions of section 12; therefore, section 12 should contain some safeguard against the possibility that the new law itself might be con- strued as limiting or coercing the action
1950 of the Supreme Court in adjudicating Colorado River water rights. I offer my amendment No. 9. My amendment number 10 is designed to protect against a possible undesirable construction of the law, with respect to when construction shall start on works for the diversion of water into Arizona, and to leave no possible room for any construction difference from the con- struction intended by the Congress. Section 13 of the bill refers, on page 10, beginning in line 19, to “works authorized by this act which are required solely for the purpose of diverting, transporting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for benefi- cial consumption use in Arizona.” There may be some question whether the lan- guage includes the aqueduct from Lake Havasu to and connecting with the main canal, and the pumping plants to raise water from Lake Havasu, which are au- thorized in section 1 of the bill. Cer- tainly there should not be any such ques- tion, for it is obvious that these works are intended to be included in the Jan- guage quoted. As a matter of fact, they are the primary works which are intend- ed to beso included. But I say there may be some question whether they are in- cluded, because the language of section 1, cn page 4, does not mn terms provide that these works are to be “solely for the pur- pose of diverting, transporting, and de- livering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial con- sumptive use in Arizona.” What section 1 says, on page 4, 1s that these works are to be authorized “in order to provide a means of diversion of water from the Colorado River to the main canal pending the construction of said tunnel and said portion of the canal and’—Mr. Presi- dent, mark this language—” and for use thereafter as supplemental and stand-by works.” I cannot conceive what use the Secretary of the Interior might decide to make of the aqueduct and the pumping plants, except ‘“‘for the purpose of divert- ing, transporting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial consumptive use in Arizona”; but if such other use can be found, however inappropriate and un- economical it might be, the Secretary of the Interior would be in a position to con- tend that the works in question are not comprehended within the language of section 13. In fact, it might even be ar- gued that since section 1 contemplates that the canal and the pumping plants shall be used at some future time as “stand-by works,” it means that they are not to be used solely and forever “for the purpose of diverting, transporting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for benefi- cial consumptive use in Arizona”, and therefore that the works in question are not comprehended in the language of section 13. Since it is clearly intended that the construction of the canal and the pump- ing plants shall be deferred, pursuant to the provisions of section 13, until the ad- judication of any suit or suits which may be brought under the provisions of sec- tion 12, and since it can do no possible harm to guard against a possible mis- construction, my amendment should be CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE adopted. I offer the amendment. I take it the Senator from Arizona has consid- ered it, and I am wondering whether he is not willing to have it adopted. Mr. HAYDEN. I beg the Senator’s pardon. My attention was distracted. What is the number of the amendment? Mr McCARRAN. It is No. 10. My amendment No. 11 would further perfect section 13 of the bill. The sec- tion purports to defer construction of certain works during the pendency of any action brought under section 12; but it would permit the period of deferral to end as soon as the Court had handed down its opinion in the last of any suits so filed. This is a reasonable result only if the Court’s decision should give Ari- zona enough water to make the central Arizona project feasible. Obviously, if the Court should decide that Arizona does not have the right to enough water to make the project feasible, then the construction of works “solely for the pur- pose of diverting, transporting, and de- livering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial con- sumptive use in Arizona’ should either be deferred indefinitely, until the plan can be revised in line with the Court’s decision, or should not be authorized at all. The report of the Bureau of Reclama- tion shows that the central Arizona proj- ect, as now designed, will require a water supply of approximately 1,200,000 acre- feet per year. Adoption of the amend- ment, which I now send forward, would mean that if the final adjudication of the Supreme Court showed an available water supply materially less than 1,200,- 000 acre-feet per year, the project would be halted until it could be redesigned, and reauthorized by the Congress, to fit the available water supply, whatever that may be. Mr. President, the amendments which I propose to offer, and which I have dis- cussed here, are not suggested, and will not be offered, for any captious, or dila- tory, or obstructive purpose. The sole purpose of the amendments is to improve the bill, to guard against possible im- proper construction at some future time, and to erect safeguards which fairness and equity dictate. There is a reason for each of the amendments, and I have stated those reasons. I am not sure, Mr. President, whether I can bring myself to vote for the bill, in any event; but so long as there is any chance that the measure may be enacted by Congress, I feel it my duty to seek to perfect the bill in every possible way, because the interests of the State of Nevada, which I have the honor in part to represent in this honorable body, are vitally concerned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that after the committee amend- ments have been disposed of, the 10 re- maining amendments offered by the Sen- ator from Nevada be laid before the Sen- ate and voted on, in order. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, will the Senator yleld? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Will the Senator modify the unanimous-consent request 2041 to provide that his amendments shall be taken up after the committee amend- ments, plus the amendments to the com- mittee amendments, have been acted upon? Those have priority over every- thing else. There are few of them pend- ing. When we once dispose of the com- mittee amendments, we can take up amendments to the committee amend- ments Mr. McCARRAN. They have priority anyway. Mr. DOWNEY. But under the unani- mous-consent agreement they would not have priority. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, that is what disturbed me. The Senator from Nevada was asking preccdence for his amendments over committee amend- ments. Mr. McCARRAN. No; I do not desire to displace the committee amendments. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that three of the amendments printed as intended to be proposed by the Senator from Nevada are to committee amendments. They would take precedence over amendments offered by individual Senators to the bill itself. Mr. HAYDEN. That is correct. I be- lieve the Senator from California also has amendments to the committee amendments. Mr. McCARRAN. I take it, Mr. Presi- dent, that there is objection and that I do not have unanimous consent. I must take my chances and get my amendments in as I can. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, we have no objection to a unanimous-con- sent request under which, after the amendments to the committee amend- ments have been disposed of, the amend- ments of the Senator from Nevada may then be considered. Mr. KNOWLAND. Reserving the right to object, and I do not mean to object so long as one thing is clear, I would not want the unanimous-consent agreement to be understood as foreclosing a motion to recommit, which, in the normal course of procedure, under the rules of the Sen- ate, would have priority. Mr. McCARRAN. It may be that my request would be confusing, so I shall take my chances on the floor with re- spect to my amendments. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A motion to recommit may be made at any time before the passage of the bill. Is there objection to the unanimous-con- sent request? Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. McCARRAN. my request. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. request is withdrawn. The clerk will state the first committee amendment. The Curer CLERK. On page 3, line 20, after the word “affected”, it is proposed to strike out ‘Provided, however,” and insert: “Provided, That this authoriza- tion shall not include (a) any works, dam, or reservoir at the Glen Canyon site or any other site in the upper Colorado River Basin, or (b) any dam, reservoir, or works in the lower Colorado River Basin which would flood the Glen Canyon site.” I object. I have withdrawn The
2042 Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I have an amendment, which is numbered 5, to that committee amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the amendment of the Senator from California to the amend- ment. The Cuter CLERK. On page 8, line 25, after the colon, it is proposed to insert “Provided, however, That the construc- tion of Bridge Canyon Dam and of works for the utilization of the waters of the main stream of the Colorado River, herein authorized, shall not be com- menced unless and until the Congress shall have authorized the construction of reservoir capacity in the upper basin of the Colorado River in a total amount which the Secretary of the Interior shall find to be adequate to assure, by the con- trol] of silt, a useful life for the Bridge Canyon Reservoir not less than the re- payment period, and to assure river regu- lation required for the production of firm power during such repayment period in the annual quantities contemplated by the report of the Department of the In- terior on the central Arizona project contained in House Document No. 136, Eighty-first Congress, first session.” The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Cali- fornia to the committee amendment. Mr. HAYDEN. Mtr. President, we ob- ject to the amendment for the very sound reason that it is wholly unnecessary. It assumes that silt will be deposited above the reservoir at a much earlier date than has been estimated by the Reclamation Service. It is simply another Sllustra- tion, as I pointed out not long ago, of the fact that if the dam were built simply for power purposes we would hear noth- ing about any worry regarding silt, be- cause what everyone wants in that area is power, but when the power generated must be called upon to bear some part of the costs of irrigation, these objections are raised. I should like to address myself for a moment to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada which places a 40-acre limitation on lands which are to recelve water from the central Arizona project. It is very difficult for me to understand why the Senator from Ne- vada would want to apply it to land already in cultivation, the average acre- age of which, as it stands, is approxi- mately 100 acres to the farm. All lands were taken up under the homestead law. There were no Mexican and Spanish land grants such as existed in California and which have caused great difficulty in that State. One company in Kern County, Cahf., owns approximately 250,- 000 acres of land. When we apply the 160-acre limitation to it, it arouses great opposition from large landowners. The provision which the Senator quoted from the Columbia Basin Act ap- plies to raw desert land belonging to the Government of the United States. It is not in private ownership. The intrigu- ing thing, to my mind, is that the senior Senator from California has consistent- ly, through the years, opposed the adop- tion of the 160-acre limitation in the Central Valley project in California. A further intriguing thing is that the Sen- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ator from Nevada had enacted into law a bill which he introduced. The act was approved November 29, 1940, and reads as follows: That the excess land provisions of the Fed- eral reclamation laws shall not be applicable to land in the Washoe County Water Con- servation District, Nevada, irrigated from the Boca Reservoir, Truckee River storage proj- ect, Nevada, nor to the Pershing County Water Conservation District, Nevada, irrigated from the Humboldt River Reservoir, and he Sec- retary of the Interior is authorized to enter into a contract with said districts, amending, in accordance with this act, the contract of December 18, 1936, between the United States and the Washoe County Water Conservation District, and the contract of October 1, 1934, between the United States and the Pershing County Water Conservation District. The Senator from Nevada proposes to take the lid completely off, and water can be served to any area of land in those projects. I am very curious to know by what process of reasoning the Senator from Nevada can say that in Arizona the limitation shall be not 160 acres, but 40 acres. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. McCARRAN. Thcre was absolute- ly no opportunity for land speculation in that case. Those lands had all been taken up by pioneers in that section. There were farms already cultivated and in existence. There were water rights which had been adjudicated by the Fed- eral court to the respective water users. So there was no chance for speculation. What happened in the Grand Coulee? Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I should like to point out—— Mr. McCARRAN. No. I think the Senator should be fair. He asked for my reasoning, and I want to give it to him. In the Grand Coulec the matter was in controversy in this body, and the com- mittee carefully prepared this language: That every such contract with any district shall further require that all irrigable land held in private ownership by any one owner in excess of 40 irrigable acres, and all county and State lands which may be subscribed to or irrigated under this project, shall be designated as excess lands and as such shall not be entitled to recelve water from said project It also provided that no owner of any such excess lands on the project should receive water if and so long as he refused to sell any excess lands owned or held by him under terms and conditions satis- factory to the Secretary of the Interior and at prices fixed and approved as pro- vided. That was when speculation was rife in the lands surrounding the Grand Coulee. What is going on in Arizona to prevent similar speculation? What is to prevent, I ask, the buying up of great tracts of land? Is there any statutory provision? None whatsoever. Mr. HAYDEN. Yes; there is. There is the same 160-acre limitation which ap- plies to all the lands on the Salt River project and on the San Carlos project. That limitation is applicable at this mo- ment. In the second place, the average ownership throughout the project is less than 100 acres. In the Salt River proj- ect it is approximately 40 acres in owner- ship. So there is no great tract of land and there is no group of land speculators. FEBRUARY 21 All the land js now in private ownership. What we want to do is to supply the 30,009 farmers with water. There is no speculation going on at this time. Mr. McCARRAN. That is exactly the statement that was made with reference to Grand Coulee. It was made repeatedly before the committee when I was a member of the committee. I recall it distinctly. It was said there was no chance for speculation. But there was a chance for speculation, and Congress put up the barrier so that there could not be any. That is all we are asking here. Mr. HAYDEN. If it should apply in Arizona I cannot see why it should not apply in Nevada, and in California as well. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield myself a few minutes. I wish to place in the Recorp some letters which I have received in regard to the amend- ments proposed by my colleague [Mr. Haypen] and me. I understand that there is no objection to the amendments which we have proposed, and I therefore ask unanimous consent to take up the first one, which is numbered (b). I send it to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be taken up at this time. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. clerk will state the amendment Thre LeGIsLaTIVE CLERK. On page 2, line 11, it 1s proposed to strike out the word “less” and insert in lieu thereof the word “more.” Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, we did not hear the amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. clerk will state the amendment. The LeGIsLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, line 11, it is proposed to strike out the word “less” and insert in lieu thereof the word “more.” Mr. DOWNEY. We have no objec- tion. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the next amendment, which is marked (a), be considered. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. clerk will state the amendment. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 5, lines 8 and 9, strike out “silt control.” On page 5, line 9, strike out “river regulation.” On page 5, line 9, strike out “recre- ation.” On page 5, line 10, strike out “general salinity control.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the consider- ation of an amendment to an amendment of the committee which I now send to the desk. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will state the amendment to the amendment. The LscisuaTive CLERK. It is pro- posed, on page 12, line 2, in the amend- ment of the committee, after the word “properties”, to change the period to a colon and insert the following: Provided, That before designating any tribal lands, or any easements, rights-of- way, or other interests in tribal lands, the The The The
1950 Secretary shall make every reasonable effort to negotiate a contract for the purchase of such lands or interests on reasonable terms from the tribe of Indians concerned, and that the Secretary shall proceed with the designation of lands or interests under this section only if he finds that reasonable efforts to negotiate with the tribe of Indians concerned have been made, but have not resulted in, and are not apt to result in, a mutually satisfactory agreement, The Sec- retary is authorized to provide in any such contract for the payment of compensation in the same forms through which compensea- tion may be made pursuant to a designation under this section, and any tribe of Indians entering into such a contract is authorized to execute the conveyances or other instru- ments needed for its effectuation, notwith- rtanding any provision of law or of any tribal constitution or charter to the con- trary. On page 12, line 11, after the period following the word “act”, to insert the following: Any Indian tribe or individual Indian owning lands or interests designated under this section who is dissatisfied with the de- termination of compensation made by the Secretary shall have aright of action against the United States to recover such additional sums of money, if any, as may be requisite under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or under any treaty or agreement made by the United States, to provide just and equitable compensation for the taking of the lands so designated. Such action may be instituted in the United States district court for the district where the lands or interests are situated or in the Court of Claims, at the election of the plaintiff. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Ari- zona to the amendment of the com- mittee. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. Presiden, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a letter from the Acting Commissioner of Reclamation, which shows that with the elimination of non- reimbursable items, which were provided for in the second amendment, just agreed to, this project will pay out in full in 73 years. With the elimination of non- reimbursables, the project is wholly reimbursable, with the exception of $9,000,000. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the REcorp. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: UNrTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Burrav oF RECLAMATION, Washington, D.C., February 7, 1950. Jon. Ernest W. McFaRLAND, United States Senate, Washington, b.C. My Dear SENATOR McFaruanp: In response o your request, we have examined the pay- vut aspects of the central Arizona project, if 3luff Dam and Reservoir were not included n the project, 1f no nonreimbursable allo- ‘ations were made to allt control, recreation, alinity control, and river regulation. Under the above criteria, the total cost of he project, based upon unit prices of July 947, would be $708,780,C00. Our examina- tion and study indicate that the project, under these criteria, would be economically CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE justified and the reimbursable costs could be repaid in about 73 years. Sincerely yours, KENNETH MARKWELL, Acting Commissioner. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a letter from the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Recla- mation, dated February 7, 1950. I should like to read one portion of the letter, as follows: While some of our recent bids on canals show a decrease of more than 15 percent below the engineers’ estimates, there is still too little information to forecast whether this drop establishes a trend. I should like to have the letter printed in the Recorp in order to show that the costs are now 15 percent or more below the engineers’ estimates. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Unitrp STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Burrav OF RECLAMATION, Washington, D. C., February 7, 1950. Hon. Ernest W. MCFARLAND, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR MCFARLAND: In response to your request, I can advise you that the present trend in reclamation construction costs is slightly downward. While some of our recent bids on canals show a decrease of m.ore than 15 percent below the engineers’ estimates, there 1s still too little informa- tion to forecast whether this drop estab- lishes a trend. Any decrease will, of course, not. affect existing obligations but could well apply to potential projects. Sincerely yours, XENNETH MARKWELL, Acting Commissioner, Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a letter from Mr. Newton B. Drury, Director of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, in regard to the height or the dam. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Washington, February 7, 1950. Hon. ERNEsT W. MCFaRLanpD, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR MCFARLAND: I appreciate very much your calling me today concerning the Bridge Canyon Dam in Arizona, at which time you made inquiry as to its adverse effect on the Grand Canyon National Park. The purpose of this letter is to confirm my telephone conversation with you to the effect that if the Bridge Canyon Dam is constructed at an elevation of not more than 1,877 feet, which ts in accordance with the present plan, there will be no material damage to Grand Canyon National Park. While it would be preferable from a national-park standpoint to construct the dam at a lower elevation to eliminate all flooding of national-park lands, nevertheless, we have agreed to an elevation of 1,877 feet. Senate bill 8. 75 provides on page 2, lines 11 and 12“ * * * dam shall be constructed to an elevation of not less than 1,877 feet above sea level.” If no height limitation is placed on the reservoir, inesti- mable damage might be done to Grand Canyon National Park. 2043 In discussing this matter with representa- tives of the Bureau of Reclamation, we have been informed that they do not intend to construct a dam above 1,877 feet. With these facts in mind, I belleve that friends of the national parks would be relieved if 8. 75 definitely placed 1,877 feet as a maxi- mum elevation for the height of the dam. Concerning the recreational use of the res- ervoir, I believe you are familiar with the fact that the National Park Service did make a study of its recreational potentialities. The development plan proposed boat docks and related facilities 1n the vicinity of the dam, and we feel that sport fishermen would de- rive considerable enjoyment from the reser- voir. Boating, particularly in the spectacu- lar box-canyon section, should have appeal to many visitors. We deeply appreciate your interest !n this matter. Sincerely yours, Newton B. Drury, Director, Mr. HAYDEN. With respect to the height of the dam, Mr. President, I think there should be included also a letter from the American Planning and Civic Association, signed by Harlean James, the executive secretary, of which Horace M. Albright is the chairman of the board. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Recorp in connection with the height of the dam. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows: AMERICAN PLANNING AND Civic AssociaTION, Washington, D.C., February 13, 1950. Hon Car. HAYDEN, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My Dear SENATOR HAYDEN: I am very much pleased to learn that you and Senator Mc- FARLAND will suggest the proposed amend- ment to S. 75 changing the wording from “not less than 1,877 feet” to “not more than 1,877 feet" Very sinccrely yours, HARLEAN JAMES, Executive Secretary. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Rrcorp a resolution of the Huala- pai Indian Tribe, together with a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior in regard to this amendment. There being no objection, the resolu- tion and letter were ordered to be printed in the Reccnp, as follows: RESOLUTION 209 OF THE GOVERNING BoDY OF THE HUALAPA! TRIBE OF THE HUALAPAI RESER- VATION, A FEDERALLY CHARTERED INDIAN CORPORATION Whereas there is now pending in the Con- gress of the United States legislation known as Senate bill 75 covering the construction, operation, and maintenance of a dam on the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, and for other purposes; and Whereas in the event said Bridge Canyon Dam project should be constructed and op- erated, the lands and rights of the Hualapal Tribe would be materially affected in that the dam, and the townsite for the dam and @ great many of the rights-of-way would be on the Hualapai Reservation, and unless said lands and rights of the tribe are protected, the tribe and its members will be severely damaged; and Whereas there has now been proposed a compromise amendment to eection 14 of said Senate bill 75 which compromise amendment in substance meets the major requests of the
2044 Hualapa! Tribe for the protection of their rights and interests by giving the Indians a chance to negotiate a voluntary sale of their land and a right to a fair jury trial on com- pensation if no voluntary agreement is reached; and Whereas the Hualapat Tribe realizes the great importance of the Bridge Canyon proj- ect to the State of Arizona and in the interest of the people of the State of Arizona the Hualapal Tribe now desires to lend their en- dorsement and support to 8. 75 with the attached proposed amendment to section 14 being made a part thereof: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Hualapat Tribal Counctl in meeting assembled this 16th day of Febru- ary 1950, That it endorses 8. 75 as amended by the attached proposed amendment, and be it further Resolved, That the Hualapal Tribal Coun- cll, expressing deep appreciation for the sym-~- pathetic support for the protection of the tribe, given by civic and labor organizations, and by many Senators, respectfully urges Senate endorsement of S. 75 as amended; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the members of the Arizona Congressional Delegation and to other mem- bers of Congress and other organizations con- cerned with the protection of Indian rights. CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, as secretary of the Hualapat Tribal Council, hereby certify that the Tribal Council of the Hualapat Tribe js composed of nine members, of whom eight, constituting a quorum, were present at a meeting thereof this 16th day of February 1950, and that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by an affirmative vote of 8 members. Lro B. ANDREWS, Secretary. Unrrep STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., February 17, 1950. Hon. Ernest W MCFARLAND, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. My Dear Senator McFaruanp: Reference tgs made to the various conversations which you have had with representatives of this Department concerning the Indian land ac- quisition provisions of 8 75, a bill “Author- izing the construction, operation, and main- tenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain ap- purtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes.” Section 14 of this bill, in the form in which it was reported by the Senate Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, sets up acquisition procedures which give sub- stantial protection to Indian rights. How- ever, this Department is in accord with your thought that some revision of these provi- sions would be desirable in the interest of perfecting the safeguards which should be afforded the Indians. Accordingly, the fol- lowing amendments of section 1¢ would be acceptable to this Department: 1. Page 12, line 2, after the word “proper- ties”, change the period to a colon and insert the following: “provided, That before designating any tribal lands, or any easements, rights-of- way, or other interests in tribal lands, the Secretary shall make every reasonable effort to negotiate a contract for the purchase of such lands or interests on reasonable terms from the tribe of Indians concerned, and that the Secretary shall proceed with the designation of Jands or interests under this section only if he finds that reasonable ef- forts to negotiate with the tribe of Indians concerned have been made, but have not re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sulted in, and are not apt to result in, a mutually satisfactory agreement. The Bec- retary is authorized to provide in any such contract for the payment of compensation in the same forms through which compen- sation may be made pureuant to a designa- tion under this section, and any tribe of Indians entering into such a contract 1s au- thorized to execute the conveyances or other instruments needed for its effectuation, not- withstanding any provision of law or of any tribal constitution or charter to the con- trary.” 2. Page 12, line 11, after the period follow- ing the word “Act”, insert the following: “Any Indian tribe or individual Indian owning lands or interests designated under this section who 1s dissatisfied with the de- termination of compensation made by the Secretary shall have a right of action against the United States to recover such additional sums of money, if any, a8 may be requisite under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or under any treaty or agreement made by the United States, to provide just and equitable compensation for the taking of the lands so designated. Such action may be instituted in the United States district court for the district where the lands or in- terests are situated or in the Court of Claims, at the election of the plaintiff.” The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of the foregoing views for your consideration. Sincerely yours, C. Grrarp Davinson, Acting Secretary of the Intertor. DISPLACED PERSONS Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Ne- vada. Mr.McCARRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the body of the Recorp certain articles, editorials, letters, and resolutions bear- ing on the subject of displaced persons and the administration of the displaced persons law in the United States. There being no objection, the matters were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CHIcaGo, ILL, February 16, 1950. My Dear SENATOR: About 30 days ago I wrote you re DP’s; am enclosing clipping from Chicago Tribune, today's issue, relating this alarming situation and how this com- munity its being affected by this intrusion. Iam taking this liberty because I am a patri- otic American woman. I stand ready for or- ganization against the “leaky” immigration system. : Loyally yours, Mrs. Harriet Hornuna. [From the Chicago Tribune of February 16, 1950] LIBERTYVILLE FACES ARRIVAL oF 1,000 DP'’s— CounciL ArGuES HOUSING AND Joss IssuEs (By Leigh Atkinson) Problems of providing housing and em- ployment for 1,000 displaced persons were argued by Libertyville’s village board and a group of taxpayers Tuesday night in the village hall. The Europeans have been arriving in bunches in the suburban community under sponsorship of St. Sava Serbian Monastery on Milwaukee Avenue, near Libertyville. Some 250 persons, most of them single men, and all reported to be Serbians, have been received by the monastery. Some have been placed in temporary homes in the area and some are employed in local industry. Residents said Libertyville is a village of nearly 6,000, though the last census listed FEBRUARY 21 it at 3,000. Manufacturing plants number about 12, a businessman said. FEAR TOO MANY AT ONCE Plans are for all of the displaced persons to settle in other parts of the Middle West, @ spokesman for the monastery said. Lib- ertyville and the monastery are serving as reception center for the group. Because only a fraction of the expected 1,000 has arrived, the monastery fears that the remaining number might be shipped in groups too large to handle. Fearing this also are clergymen of the community and citizens who have organized to find places for the Serbians in private homes. It is this group the village board took issue with at its January 31 meeting, when It adopted a resolution criticizing “the groups sponsoring the movement in question.” ALREADY OVERCROWDED In the resolution it was pointed out that “Libertyville already has an overcrowded con- dition in housing”; that “scores of applicants, including numerous local residents, are now being refused employment daily by indus- tries’; and that “it seems highly question- able whether it is practicable or possible for this community to assimilate such large numbers of displaced persons.” The resolution was signed by John J. Jaeger, village president. Jaeger was not present at Tuesday's meeting. Board mem- bers attending were Francis Berry, Jack Dowden, J. C. Forney, A. J. Carstensen, C. L. Schaffer, and W. A. Nicholas. E. L. Badenoch, Libertyville resident, who is studying for the Episcopalian ministry, addressed both meetings in behalf of the churchmen who are helping place the Ser- bians. Badenoch said responses to pleas for living quarters for the DP’s have been encouraging. PASTOR FAVORS PROJECT The Reverend Paul Turk, pastor of the Methodist Church, said he approves heartily of the displaced-persons’ project. John Pyle, owner of & printing company, who has been working to find places for the Serbians, said he became tnterestcd in help- ing the people after listening to their stories of Communist oppression, All but 20 of the first 250 to arrive have been located away from Libertyville, he said. Guy Grinnell, poormaster and member of the Lake County Board of Supervisors, said he has no grievance with placing the DP's in Lake County. “They don’t become wards of mine,” he added. “The law re- quires that they be returned if they can’t support themselves.” CALLS PROJECT TOO BIG Arne Makela, a businessman, said the project is too blg for such a small com- munity. Miss Ila Haven, real-estate agent, seid she doesn't think the community can take care of the Serbians. “There’s unemployment herc as it 1s,” she declared. “As far as homes go, we turn away ® number of local people every day who are looking for places to rent. And who is to say,” she concluded, “that the displaced persons placed here temporarily will not stay?” LABOR LEADERS PROTEST Village Trustee Forney, personnel man- ager of a manufacturing company, pointed out that his firm has to reject several ap- plications from residents for employment every week. Percy Snow, president of the Lake County Central Trades and Labor Council, has pro- tested in the council publication the bring- ing of DP's into Lake County. ‘‘These people should not be taking jobs here at the ex- pense of American taxpayers,” he said.
1950 Snow said a large number of displaced persons has been employed by a Waukegan tannery. {From the Los Angeles Evening Herald and Express of January 31, 1950] WE ADMIT THOUSANDS OF DISPLACED PERSONS as JoBs Get SCARCER Strange policies are pursued by those who control our national economy. In one news item we read that a total of 2,418,000 persons in the United States today have claimed and are getting unemployment insurance from the Bureau of Unemployment Security. This total is an increase of 164,000 cases over the unemployment rolls of the pree ceding week. In a second news item, also emanating from Washington, we read that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has approved a bill to admit 820,000 displaced persons to this country by June 30, 1951. This bill requires that 30 percent of the displaced per- sons must be agriculturists and that 40 per- cent must be from occupied countries. The bill specifically bars Communists, Marxists, and persons who bore arms against the United States in the last war. These two news items are unrelated and yet the one definitely has a bearing on t 3 other. Even an economic dullard can see that un- employment in this country is rising and that more and more persons are finding it impossible to find work. Any taxpayer who studies the costs of county, State, and Federal government can see at a glance that one of our largest items in each budget is the money we must pay to give food, lodging, and clothing to those who can’t or won't support themselves. The taxes we pay to give a living to the unemployed is slowly wrecking the national economy. Rather than giving unrestricted entry to all, we should return to our long-established immigration policy of limiting, screening, and carefully investigating all who seek to make our country their country. We must take care of our problems here at home before we go too far toward saving the unfortunate of the world. MARYLAND BIBLE SOCIETY, Baltimore, January 23, 1950. Senator Par McCarran, Senator for the State of Nevada, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR McCarran: I wish to thank you for the pamphlet Displaced Per- sons: Facts Versus Fiction, which came to my desk this morning. I have long been aware of the serious threat to our country’s future welfare by the in- flux of undesirables from Europe. I know very well that there is one pressure group responsible for this. I am also deeply con- scious of the problem involved in stopping this flood; but, in the name of our American liberties, of our reformation heritage, and of all that our fathers have fought, bled, and died for, do everything in your power to stem this tide and to hold the quota to the lowest possible minimum. The rank and file of our people are hesi- tant about expressing their opinions, but I know you lawmakers desire us to do s0 and Iam 100 percent for clamping down on this impure stream that 1s flooding into our na- tional life and damming !t at its source. Thanking you again for this valuable bit of information and assuring you I am with you with all my heart and strength in the battle to stem this tide, I am, Sincerely yours, Epaar CoRDELL POWERS. XOCVI———-129 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE VETERANS OF FoREIGN Wags, DEPARTMENT OF New Yorx, FourtH DIstTRIcr, Watertown, N. Y., January 26, 1950. Hon. Pat McCarran, United States Senator, Nevada. My Dear Senator McCarran: I received your statement on displaced persons bill H. R. 4567, and I am enclosing copy of letter to Senators LeHMaAn and Ives of New York. Hope that they will take it to heart and act for the best. I have pointed out to them what over- crowding has done to New York City—no water. Seven or eight million people and water for three million. Three million men walking the streets looking for work and they, the sponsors of H. R. 4567, want to add more to the ranks. It just doesn’t make sense, and I will help all I can in my humble way. This bill stinks to high heaven. And I wish you all the luck there is in the world in its defeat. Sincerely yours, Harry J. MILLEN, Commander, Fourth District, Depart- ment of New York, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WarsS, DEPARTMENT OF NEw YorK, FourtH DIstrIictT, Watertown N. Y., January 26, 1950. Hon. Irvine M. Ives. Hon. Herpert H LEHMAN. My Dear SENATORS: May I ask your care- ful and honest consideration on the dis- Placed persons bill H.R 4567? And I ask this in the name of the Fourth District Department of New York Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States The fourth district of New York are the counties of Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Clinton, Essex, Franklin, and 8t. Lawrence. And we believe that if the bars were let down on immigration as H R 4567 indicates they would, the morale of all true loving Americans would be shattered and the faith we have placed in the men who we have sent to Washington would be gone. Let us look at what overcrowding will do. New York City out of water; one of God's great gifts to man and beast. There is Just as much water now as there was back in 1925 or 1930 but there are two times the population in New York City. Millions of men are walking the streets in our cities looking for work. Why do the sponsors of H. R. 4567 want to add more to ranks of unemployed? And it would make more sense to get more help for immigration officers and in- vestigators to stop the illegal entries into this country. We live in a great land, a vast big land, but do not overcrowd it. Sincerely yours, Harry J. MILLEN, Commander, Fourth District, De- partment of New York, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. —— AMERICAN LEGION, RuppER CLUB Post, No. 1444, Brooklyn, N. Y., November 14, 1949, Deak ComraDe CoMMANDER: VE-day in Eu- rope in 1945 meant freedom and a return home for many millions of DP Frenchmen, Belgians, Italians, ani others who had been forced into slave labor br the Nazis. Not so for nearly a million DP’s from the eastern European countries. These Poles, Lithua- nians, Latvians, Ukrainians, and others also 2045 were liberated by the western allies. But most of them had no desire to return to their homelands, then overrun by Soviet Russia, communism, and the Russian Gestapo known as the NKVD. Our great Republic, blessed by Almighty God with so much, provided food and shel- ter, clothing, and security for these homcless DP's. Together with our western allies and other free nations, plans were made for their resettlement lest they and their children live the rest of their lives in a state of de- pendency, maintained chiefly by American charity—and taxes. Since the war began in 1939, America has afforded asylum to hundreds of thousands of refugees or displaced persons, And, from the end of the war in 1945 until mid-1948, our country allowed an additional 44,000 to enter. Therefore, let no American who has the interests of our country and humanity at heart ever say that the Nation has not and is not now doing its share, and then some. The 1948 Displaced Persons Act provided for 200,000 DP entries by June 1950. This is a fair law despite much propaganda against it from pe.sons and organization’ who view the problem in a different light than the American Legion and most other veterans’ associations. The Lezion has O. K.’d 200,000 DP admissions but stands firm against any measures to increase that number For your information, we enclose copy of & resolution passed at our last regular meet- ing. It would be our recommendation that action along similar lines be taken by the energetic posts that make up the American Legion in Kings County. Yours for God and country, VINCENT A. PENNA, Commander. Whereas approximately 1 year ago, the post membership approved a resolution for an expenditure of funds to aid displaced per- sons; and Whereas under the displaced-persons law, which expires June 80, 1950, about 100,000 of the 200,000 persons authorized have been resettled in our country as of this date: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the members of Rudder Club Post, No. 1444, American Legion, De- partment of New York, meeting in regular session at 653 Hicks Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., on November 7, 1949, continuing our policy of helping to resettle some of these displaced persons throughout the United States, again do hereby approve of a contribution totaling $15 to be forwarded in equal amounts to the following three religious agencies assisting in this immigration program. 1. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, 425 Lu- fayette Street, New York City, N. Y. 2. National Catholic Resettlement Council, 149 Madison Avenue, New York City, N Y. 8. National Lutheran Council Resettlement Service, 12 East Forty-sixth Street, New York City, N. Y.; and be it finally Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent, for information purposes, to other American Legion posts in Brooklyn and for publication to various newspapers. Vautey Stream Counci., No. 41, Jr. O. U. A. M., INc., Valley Stream, N. Y., February 3, 1950. Hon. Par McCarran, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR: At a regular meeting of this council, held this evening, your report “Dis- placed Persons Facts Versus Fiction” was read and thoroughly discussed. We, as members of a patriotic native-born American organization are most grateful that you have taken up this cause and are backing