1950 He was kindly, and he was a gentleman in every sense of that term. He was one man who had a very Keen sense of justice and fairness. I cannot recall an in- stance under his chairmanship in which he did not make every effort to see that the witness appearing before his com- mittee had his day in court, so to speak. The country has lost a great states- man. The country has lost the kind of man we need in Congress, whether they come from the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. WuiteE]. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, it is with heartfelt sorrow that I have learned of the passing of Virginia’s able Representative, Congressman Bano. He was a grand American gentleman, an able legislator. He made a record in the service of his country in the Halls of Con- gress that is an inspiration to all of us. We shall long miss his presence and his wise and kindly counsel. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to his family. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentlewoman from Mas- sachusetts | Mrs. Rocers]. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I pay only a brief tribute to the gentleman from Virginia, Judge Buanp, I knew him and his gracious wife before coming to Congress. They were a very devoted and very splendid couple. Judge BLAND was my idea of a perfect Virginia gentleman, and what can you say of one more than that? He was courteous and friendly; a gentleman even when he was aroused to righteous anger when he thought a wrong had been done to his merchant marine, when he thought a wrong had been done to his State, when he thought a wrong had been done to his country. No matter how busy he was with affairs of state, he was never too busy to stop to talk to his friends and give them counsel. Although a Republican, I felt he gave me the same attention and the same inter- est he gave to one of his own party. I liked to appear before his committee. He, like all men of great stature, was very glad of any small bit of information re- garding his duty as a Member of Con- gress. As the gentleman from Tennes- see [Mr. Priest] has said, he was always here. Judge BLAnp was always here. But now he has joined other great states- men of Virginia who have gone to their reward. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Bonner]. Mr. BONNER. Myr. Speaker, my heart was saddened this morning when I was preparing to come to the Capitol and heard over the radio the announcement of Judge Biann’s death. Since becom- ing a Member of Congress it has been my honor and my pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the late Member from Virginia. I have never been given to eulogizing my friends after they die. It has always been my practice in life, and I have tried to lead my life so that I would express to my friends during CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE their lifetime my admiration for them and my feeling for them. My love for Judge BLanp can best be recorded in a House document which is now available. The occasion was the unveiling of a painting of Judge BLAND in the Merchant Marine Committee room. I am very proud now that I took the leading part in making possible the hanging of that portrait on the commit- tee-room wall. I had charge of the ex- ercises and presided over them. In that document I expressed then my admira- tion for Judge BLanp, though it was some years past. He was a strong leader. He was a fair chairman. He knew his sub- ject. His heart, his mind, and his soul and energy were devoted to the upbuild- ing of the merchant marine of America for purposes of commerce as well as for the purposes of national defense. He was very jealous of this very great or- ganization. He was very jealous of charges that may have been brought against it. So interested was he that it hurt him when anyone criticized the Maritime Commission of the Merchant Marine of America, He felt it was a reflection on the great service that they had endeav- ored to render and the great service which they did render and he took it to his heart personally and felt it deeply. I was very fond of him. I admired him, and anyone who knew him as I knew him must have admired him. He was a fine Christian gentleman, strong in determination and strong in charac- ter, yet down deep 1n his heart he was as gentle as any man you will ever find. He was a great husband. He loved his home. He loved his friends. From my personal association with Mr. BLAND I believe it was difficult for him to express to his friends his true feeling of the love and loyalty of their friendship. Yet I know it existed personally and deeply in his heart. I know his thought and his devotion and appreciation of friendship ever abided with him and went with him wherever he might be. To his family and his friends I express my deep sym- pathy and desire that they should know I feel I have lost a true and loyal friend under whose leadership I gained a great confidence in myself—an American who gave and gave freely to the causes of freedom and the causes that best served our country. I shall always remember him and shall always treasure in my heart the pleasure of having known him and to be able to call such a splendid man my friend. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Cox]. Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it is the di- vinity that stirs within us that gives to us the expressed appreciation of a great Virginian, which means a great Ameri- can, who had a moral cleansing in- fluence upon every living thing he touched. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Vir- ginia [Mr. STANLEY] is necessarily ab- sent today. I ask unanimous consent that he may extend his remarks at this point in the REcorpD, 1875 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Vir- ginia? There was no objection. Mr. STANLEY. Mr. Speaker, the death of our beloved colleague, the Hon- orable SCHUYLER Oris BLanp, has brought sorrow and sadness to his many friends and admirers and removed from the House of Representatives one of its most able Members. Mr. BLanp represented the First Con- gressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia continuously from July 2, 1918, until February 16, 1950. He was loved and honored by the people of the Tidewater, Northern Neck, Lower Pen- insula and Eastern Shore sections of Virginia, which made up his district, comprising the Counties of Spotsylvania, Caroline, Essex, Middlesex, King and Queen, Mathews, Gloucester, Westmore- land, Northumberland, Richmond, Lan- caster, York, Warwick, Elizabeth City, Northampton, and Accomac and the cities of Fredericksburg, Hampton, and Newport News. He was widely respected and greatly admired throughout the State of Virginia for his sterling qualities, meticulous ad- herence to duty, and outstanding record of public service. We recognized in him an authority on the maritime service, so important to our State and Nation. His legislative accomplishments in matters pertaining to commerce on the high seas will be a lasting monument to his abil- ity and untiring efforts. Iam aware of the great privilege which has been mine to have known Mr. Bianp intimately and to have enjoyed his warm, sincere friendship. I acknowledge with gratitude and appreciation the many acts of kindness and consideration he so gen- erously extended me. No Representative in the Congress ever applied himself more diligently and conscientiously to the discharge of his duties. His service to his district, State, and Nation has upheld the finest tradi- tions of the House of Representatives and of the constituency which so wisely elected him from time to time as its Rep- resentative in the Congress of the United States. To his beloved wife I extend my pro- found sympathy. Her sorrow is great but the memory of his noble Christian character, faithful devotion to duty, and long record of able public service is one upon which she can reflect with great pride and satisfaction. We shall miss Mr. BLanp very much, and, although conscious of a great loss, we are proud of his outstanding con- tribution to the welfare and progress of our beloved country, and we rejoice in the steadfast belief that his reward is that of a faithful public servant and fine Christian gentleman who stood for the right and kept the faith. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Mem- bers may extend their remarks at this point in the Recorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Vir- ginia? There was no objection. Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, they tell me that my friend of the long years,
1876 one SCHUYLER Oris BLAND, of Virginia, of the land of my grandchildren, is dead, whatever that means. It means little to me, for, so long as I live, he will live in my memory and the recollection of the days of our activity together, which tolerated no death. He came to Congress from that great State, the mother of Presidents, from Virginia, which he served so faithfully. He was named by his parents after one whose virtues he exemplified superbly and with respect to whose ability he played no second place as of his day and age. God grant him the rest given to tired and tried souls as he heard his Master say, “Well done thou good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of the Lord.” May the grace of God supply all those inadequacies for and of those of us who reverently pray. Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for all of us. While I think most of us had observed that our dear friend and colleague, Hon. SCHUYLER Orts BLAND, was failing in health, never. theless I for one was not prepared for his passing so soon. We are never ready to have those for whom we have great affec- tion depart this life. It has been my privilege to serve with Representative Brann for almost 32 years. I have found him to be at all times a man of courage and fidelity in the performance of his duties. I understand that his people regarded him so highly and with such a degree of affection that during his entire service in the House, from July 2, 1918, until the present time, he never has had a primary contest nor an election contest. His en- tire 17 terms in the House of Representa- tives was of extraordinary statesmanlike service to his constituents. There is lit- tle consolation that one can have unless we can find it in these words: Life is not merely a floating shadow, a momentary spark, a dream that vanishes, Nothing can be grander than a life filled with great and noble thoughts—with brave and honest deeds. Such a life sheds light, and the seeds of truth sown by great and loyal men bear fruit through all the years to be. I extend my heartfelt sympathy, in which Mrs. Reed joins me, to Mrs. Bland and to all the surviving members of the family of our departed colleague. Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, I was deeply shocked this morning when I learned of the death of our beloved col- league, the Honorable ScuvuyLerR OTIS Buianp, of the First Congressional Dis- trict of Virginia, who was affectionately known as judge to me and most of his colleagues in the House. I feel a keen personal loss in his passing, as he has been a real friend since I first came to the House and one whom I admired for his sterling character and lovable nature. Judge Briann was first elected to the Sixty-fifth Congress and reelected to each succeeding Congress. As chair- man of the Merchant Marine and Fish- eries Committee of the House he wielded 8 great influence in obtaining the pass- age of vital and important legislation and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE contributed immensely to the building of our American merchant marine, The judge’s kindly manner and sin- cerity of purpose won the love and re- spect of all of his colleagues in the House. The Congress and the people of Virginia have lost a skilied statesman whose good deeds and extraordinary rec- ord will long endure. His dear wife has my heartfelt sympathy upon her great loss. May he rest in peace. Mr, BREEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I arise today to express my sympathy to the family of the Hon- orable SCHUYLER Oris BLAND. Judge BLanp was certainly one of the outstand- ing Members of Congress and his loss will be keenly felt. One of the great pleas- ures I have experienced since being elected to the Eighty-first Congress has been the privilege of being associated with Judge Brianp during his chairman- ship of one of the committees in the House of Representatives. His loyalty to his country and his sound, solid thinking will certainly be missed by his colleagues who have known, respected, and loved him, Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad occasion when one who has been privileged to serve with our late distin- guished colleague, SCHUYLER OTs BLAND, must note his passing. He was above all & gentleman-—-a most capable represent- ative of his people and a public servant of rare type. I was privileged for a num- ber of years to serve under his inspiring chairmanship of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and I, there- fore, had many opportunities to observe his gentility,. courtesy, and kindliness especially to the younger Members. His memory will remain vivid with me for many years. The Congress and the country are better for his having lived. To his family I extend my deep and sin- cere expression of sympathy. Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, when the news of the passing of our beloved colleague, SCHUYLER Oris BLAND, reached the House of Representatives on Thurs- day morning it was received with gen- uine sorrow. No person could Know Mr, Buanp and not feel a sense of great loss that he would no longer answer to the roll call. For myself, I feel a deep per- sonal loss for I counted him a dear friend of 25 long years. Many years ago, when as a new and “green” Member of the House, feeling puzzled about a certain bill, and not having any deep conviction as to how I should vote, I asked his ad. vice. Although I was not aware of his having any personal interest in the bill until later, when I learned he was op- posed to it, his advice was purely objec- tive. I well remember his words, “If you believe in your heart that you should vote for the bill, do so; we all make mistakes but if they are honest mistakes there should be no cause for regret.” That, I think, summed up his philoso- phy. And he lived up to it in his long service to his district and to his country, His voice was strong. It carried con- viction, and you knew when you listened that whether or not you agreed with him, that here was a man you could trust, one who placed service to his country far above expediency. FEBRUARY 16 During the late war when our hearts rebelled at some of the laws it was nec- essary to adopt in order to keep faith with America and for our own safety, Congressman Buanp never flinched. He was there always to be counted as one of the strong supporters of all that was best in legislative procedure. I shall miss him. We all shall miss him but none so much as his beloved Mary, to whom our hearts go out in great sympathy, affection, and understanding. May his great soul rest in peace, and may the Bright Recorder place him among those who loved their fellow men. Mr. FUGATE. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of February 18 in Newport News, SCHUYLER OrTIs BLAND, who for al- most 84 years was a Member of this body, was buried in a most beautiful service. His neighbors and friends came by the hundreds to pay their respect. Few men have had the love, reverence, and esteem by their constituency as did Judge Biany. The huge floral gift was evidence of the people’s adoration. His passing brought deep bereavement to all Virginians. We express our love and affection for his wife, who is so uni- formly kind and considerate, and who was so helpful to her husband. The pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Rev. Paul K. Buckles, D. D., con- ducted the service. His eulogy was one of the best I ever heard. For the edifica- tion of this body and the people I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: “Good actions ennoble us, and we are the sons of our deeds.”” One of long ago wrote these lines. How fittingly they ap- ply to this great Christian statesman, humble child of God, and Christian gen- tleman. His shining shield carried the truth where all might see. “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” He was & Man among men, not a dreamer among the shadows. His life was a life of action and reality. He worked in his own sphere, nor wished it other than that, and he found his greatest happiness and his highest good in the service he rendered to his fellow man, and in serving him he served his God. The strength of a nation lies not in its armaments, aerial navies in the sky, or grim ships of battle in every ocean, but in the men it breeds. And the strength of a man is always measured by the strength of his faith in God. Long ago One walked in Galilee, climbed the hill to Calvary, and stretched himself on a lonely cross, and He said, “He that would be greatest among you, let him serve. The greatest of all is the servant of all.” In self-forgetful service he wore his life away, a casualty on the fleld of action for the sake of his brother man. His influence was always on the right side of any great moral issue. The humblest man had a place in his heart and in his life. There was nothing selfish about him. He was selfless in all of his actions.
1950 In the strength of God he followed the light of truth and with a courage that brooked no interference with his own strong convictions. He now takes his place among the great immortals who have made their country great. A nation can ill afford to lose one of such sterling faith, such mighty char- acter, who stood with the strength of the rock-ribbed hills of his native land in defense of the right, the champion of truth. God give us men. A time like this demands Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands. Men whom the lust of office does not kill, Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy, Men who possess opinions and a will, Men who love honor, men who cannot He. At the end of life so lived in simple faith he could say, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” And like the servant of old who lived in such close and intimate relationship with God that when traveling days were done, “He was not, for God took him.” One who never turned his back but marched forward, Never doubted clouds would break, Never dreamed, though right were worsted, Wrong would triumph, Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better, Sleep to wake. Mr. ALLEN of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay my respects to the memory of the Honorable SCHUYLER Otis BLanp, and to join with my col- leagues in the House in appreciation of the great character which he brought to us. In the nature of things his long mem- bership on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries put him in touch with those industries, and particularly with men engaged in the shipping in- dustry in all of its phases and in all places from which ships of our Nation sail. Over our whole Nation, on the Pacific coast as much as elsewhere, this gentle- man from Virginia was appreciated and revered for his untiring efforts on behalf of our Nation and its merchant marine. I shall always remember with deep appreciation his kindly way, his unfailing adherence to the principles in which he believed, his promptness, and the pleas- ure it gave one to be in his presence. Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when one ceases to breathe the air he loves; such a phe- nomenon befell ScHUYLER Otis BLANp, the dean of the Virginia delegation in the House of Representatives. The de- parture of Congressman Bianp from a troubled world did not go unnoticed. Just as his family before him believed in a special philosophy, so did one of my most respected colleagues cling to the principles he held dear. Mr. Bianp was the son of Schuyler Bland, a Confederate soldier, and Olivia CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE James Anderson Bland. His ancestors include Theoderick and Richard Bland who were Members of the Continental Congress. The illustrious forebears of ScHUYLER OTIS BLAND would never have been ashamed of him. His record is un- mistakably clear and defined. In reviewing the sketches from his life, one realizes his continual progress. Mr. Buanp practiced law until July 1918, when he was elected to the Sixty-fifth Con- gress to succeed William R. Jones, who died in office. Mr. BLaNp was reelected to the Sixty-sixth Congress and succes- sively to the Eighty-first Congress. Mr. Briann was chairman of the Mer- chant Marine and Fisheries Commit- tee of the House and was a recognized authority on the maritime service. I had the pleasure of serving on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- mittee with Mr. Brann. He was always prompt in calling committee meetings; he was friendly; he was helpful to all the members; he distinguished himself as a true servant of his country. Mr. Bianp was responsible for the Mer- chant Marine Act of 1936 and was a leader in framing the Ship Sales Act of 1946. Untiring in his efforts, always dil- igent, patient, and good natured, Mr. BLAND was an able administrator. ScHUYLER Otis Bianp died on Febru- ary 16, 1950, at the age of 77, but in that passing went the sympathy of many, many people. And though he has gone down the roadway of permanent sleep, that state of peace he now experiences is surely a token reward for the good things he did while he was with ‘he world in all its tumult. The far-reaching vision of ScHuyLEer Orrs Buanp is reflected throughout this Nation, and his actions affected the en- tire world, resulting in the betterment of mankind. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I present a resolution (H. Res. 476) and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read as follows: Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of Hon Scuuy- LER OTIs BLAND, a Representative from the State of Virginia. Resolved, That a committee of 10 Members of the House, with such Members of the Sen- ate as may be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral. Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provision of these resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid out of the contingent fund of the House. Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased. The resolution was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints as members of the committee on the part of the House to attend the funeral: Mr. SmitTH of Virginia, Mr, Hart, Mr. WEr- CHEL, Mr. Gary, Mr. STANLEY, Mr. HarrI- SON, Mr. Harpy, Mr. AsszTT, Mr. Burton, and Mr. FuGaTeE. The Clerk will report the remainder of the resolution. 1877 ADJOURNMENT The Clerk read as follows: Resolved, That as o further mark of respect the House do now adjourn. The resolution was agreec to; accord- ingly (at 1 o’clock and 33 minutes p. m.) under its previous order, the House ad- journed until Monday, February 20, 1950, at 12 o’clock noon. PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. BOGGS of Delaware: H.R. 7324. A bill to grant additional in- come-tax exemptions to taxpayers support- ing blind or aged dependents; to the Com- mittee on Ways and Means. By Mr. CHUDOFF: H.R. 7325. A bill to provide for the acqui- sition and operation of the Valley Forge General Hospital, Phoenixville, Pa, by the Veterans’ Administration; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. JAVITS: H. R. 7326. A bill to establish Federal edu- cation agencies and to eliminate segrega- tion and discrimination in opportunity for higher education; to the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor. By Mr. LANE: H.R. 7327. A bill to authorize delivery of surplus agricultural commodities for distri- bution to relieve hardship caused by unem- ployment; to the Committee on Agriculture. H R 7328. 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 Service. H R. 7329. A bill to recognize the Italian- American World War Veterans of the United States, Inc., a national nonprofit nonpoliti- cal war veterans’ organization, for purposes of bestowing upon it certain benefits, rights, privileges, and prerogatives; to the Commit- tee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mr. MARSHALL: H. R. 7330. A bill to authorize a survey, re- search, and construction necessary to de- velop the use of peat, and for other pur- poses; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. YOUNG: H.R 7831. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act, as amended, so as to extend and improve the unemployment insurance system, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin: H R. 7332. A bill to authorize an appro- priation for cooperation with joint district No. 5, towns of Almon, Barthelme, Morris, and Seneca, and the village of Bowler, Sha- wano County, Wis., for the construction, ex- tension, improvement, and equipment of public-school buildings at Bowler, Wis., to be available to both Indian and non-Indlan children; to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. RABAUT: H.R. 7333. A bill to repeal certain excise taxes imposed during the war, to reduce to prewar levels certain other excise taxes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr SCUDDER (by request) : H R. 7334. A bill to extend the basis for appellate reviews in Veterans’ Administra- tion; to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. By Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts: H. Res. 477. Resolution requesting the Sec- retary of the Treasury to furnish to the
1878 House of Representatives facts as to the number of watches, clocks, and parts of watches and clocks now being !mported into the United States and the number imported during each of the past 6 years; to the Com- mittee on Ways and Means. H. Res. 478 Resolution requesting the Sec- retary of Commerce to furnish to the House of Representatives facts as to the number of watches, clocks, and parts of watches and clocks now betng manufactured in the United States, the mumber manufactured during each of the past 5 years, and the names and addresses of the manufacturers; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. BARTLETT: H.R. 7335. A bill for the relief of Mrs Jessie K. Eyon; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. FARRINGTON: HR. 7336. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Fumie Ishibashi Akimoto; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H R 7887. A bill for the relief of Bella and Archie Kennison; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H R.7838 A bill for the relief of Asano Teramoto, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. WALTER: H.Con Res. 181 Concurrent resolution fa- voring the grant of status of permanent resi- dence to certain aliens; to the Committee on the Judictary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXTI, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 1859. By Mr. FELLOWS: Memorial of the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Maine, relative to the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of Maj. Gen. Henry Knox and requesting that the Congress pass legislation authorizing the issuance of a postage stamp showing the beautiful Mont- pelier with a portrait of Gen Henry Knox; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. 18€0 By Mr. HAYS of Arkansas: Petition to cense the exorbitant 20 percent Federal tax on theater tickets; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1861. Also, petition to cease the exorbitant ar percent Federal tax on theater tickets; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1862. By Mr. HUBER. Petition relative to & bill to prohibit the transportation of alco- holic-beverage advertising in interstate com- merce and the broadcasting of alcoholic-bev- erage advertising over the radio; to the Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1863. By the SPEAKER: Petition of C W. Wilson and others, Miami, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1864, Also, petition of H. H. Belcher and others, Orlando, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1865. Also, petition of Mrs. Josephine Hud- son and others, Sarasota, Fla., requesting passage Of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1866. Also, petition of Anna Lauridsen 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. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE SENATE Frinay, Fepruary 17, 1950 (Legislative day of Wednesday, January 4, 1950) The Senate met at 12 o’clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty God, in whose keeping are the destinies of men and of nations, in all our ways would we acknowledge Thee. It is Thou who hath made and preserved us a nation. Endue with Thy wisdom, we beseech Thee, our fallible minds. In these des- perate and dangerous days, confronted with solemn problems that almost con- found us, quicken in our hearts and minds every noble impulse and sanctify for Thy glory and for human good our best endeavors. God the all merciful, earth hath for- saken meekness and mercy and slighted Thy word; yet falsehood and wrong shall not tarry beside Thee. Give to us peace in our time, O Lord. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Gerorcz, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, February 16, 1950, was dispensed with, and the Journal was approved. MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writing from the President of the United States submitting nomi- nations were communicated to the Sen- ate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries. LEAVES OF ABSENCE On request of Mr. Hory, and by unan- imous consent, Mr. GRAHAM was excused from attendance on the session of the Senate today, because of public business. On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. THomas of Oklahoma was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate following today and during the coming week. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. GEORGE, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hendrickson Martin Anderson Hill Maybank Benton Hoey Morse Bricker Holland Mundt Chapman Hunt Murray Chavez Ives Myers Connally Johnson, Colo. O'Conor Cordon Johnson, Tex. O'Mahoney Darby Johnston,S C Robertson Donnell Kefauver Russell Douglas Kerr Saltonstall Downey Kilgore Schoeppel Dworshak Knowland Smith, N J. Fastland Lehman Sparkman Ecton Lodge Stennis Ellender Lucas Taft Ferguson McCarran Taylor FPrear McCarthy Thomas, Okla, Fulbright McClellan Thomas, Utah George McFarland Tydings Gillette McKellar Wherry Green McMahon Wiley Gurney Magnuson Williams Hayden Malone Withers FEBRUARY 17 Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Byrn], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Hum- PHREY], the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Lzany], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lonc1, the Senator from West Vir- ginia (Mr. Nes.y], and the Senator from Florida {[Mr. Pepper] are absent on pub- lic business, The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. GraHam] is absent by leave of the Senate on public business. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Brinces], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Capenart], ‘the Senator from Vermont Mr, FLanpers], the Senator from Iowa (Mr. HICKENLOOPER], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Lancer], the Senator from Colorado [Mr, MrLurx1n], the Sen- ator from Minnesota [Mr. Tuye], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Torry], and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. But- LER], the Senator from Washington [Mr. Cain], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. JENNER], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Kem1, the Senator from Maine [Mrs, SmitH], and the Senator from Utah [Mr. Warxins] are absent on official business, The Senator from Maine {Mr. Brew- STER] and the Senator from Michigan {Mr, VANDENBERG! are necessarily absent. Tke VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. EDWARD WOOLF—NOTICE OF HEARING ON 8S. 499 Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on the Judi- ciary, I desire to give notice that a pub- lic hearing has been scheduled for Tues- day, March 7, 1950, at 10 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, on S. 499, for the relief of Edward Woolf. Persons desiring to be heard should notify the committee by Saturday, March 4, so that a schedule can be prepared for those who wish to appear and testify. The sub- committee consists of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Ferguson]. MEETINGS OF COMMITTEES DURING SENATE SESSION On request of Mr. ConnaLLy, and by unanimous consent, a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee con- sidering resolutions with respect to for- eign matters was authorized to meet dur- ing 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 sessions of the Senate. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members of the Senate be permitted to submit petitions and memorials, introduce bills and joint resolutions, and present routine matters for the Recorp and for printing in the Appendix, without debate and without speeches, The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, it is so ordered.
1950 PETITIONS AND MEMORIAL Petitions, etc., were laid before the Senate and referred as indicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: The petition of Mrs. John Cumberworth, of Charlotte, Mich., praying for the enact- ment of Senate bill 1847, to prohibit the transportation of alcoholic-beverage adver- tising in interstate commerce; to the Com- mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. A resolution adopted by the Common Council of the City of Buffalo, N. Y., favor- ing the enactment of legislation to name the new veterans hospital at Buffalo the Buffalo Veterans’ Memorial Hospital; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The petition of Austin Joseph Holliday, of Hampton, Va., praying for a redress of grievances (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The memorial of Alene Lloyd, of Meade, Kans., remonstrating against the enact- ment of Senate bill 1103 and House bill 2945, to readjust postal rates; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. THE BUDGET—RESOLUTION OF CHAM- BER OF COMMERCE OF TAKOMA PARK, MD AND D.C. Mr O’CONOR. Mr. President, I pre- sent for appropriate reference a resolu- tion adopted by the Chamber of Com- merce of Takoma Park, Md. and D. C., urging the Congress to take steps to bal- ance the Federal budget and stabilize our currency. Because I feel it deserves the thor- ough consideration of Members of this body, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the ReEcorp. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency and ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: “RESOLUTION BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF TAKOMA PARK, MD AND D. C., AT ITS MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1950 “Whereas the Federal debt now excceds $250,000,000,000, and “Whereas the Federal budget of 1949-50 and budget of $42,400,000,000 for 1950-51 will according to conservative estimates in the aggregate increase the Federal debt by an additional 810,000,000,000; and “Whereas the annual expenditures of the Federal Government are now 40 times as great and the interest on the national debt is now 6 times as great as the annual cost of the United States Government prior to World War I; and “Whereas the increasing national debt and deficit financing not only threaten the American economic and political system but our security as a free people and an inde- pendent nation; “Therefore, we the members of the Cham- ber of Commerce of Takoma Park, Md. and D. C., believing that conditions admit of no delay, call upon the Congress of the United States at this session to pass legislation— “I. To stabilize our currency and prevent further devaluation of the dollar; “II. To reduce the cost of Government as recommended in the Hoover Commission re- port; “ITI. To balance the Federal budget, stop deficit financing, and reduce the crushing burden of taxes upon the American people. “Copies of this petition are to be sent to honorable Senators and Representatives of the State of Maryland with the urgent re- quest that they take all possible action in promoting and securing legislation at this session of Congress which will promptly and effectively attain the objectives of this pe- tition.” CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Fesruary 14, 1950. Senator Hersert R O'Conor. Dear Mr. O’Conor: The original petition was signed by over 40 members individually and was passed by unanimous vote of the Chamber of Commerce of Takoma Park, Md. and D. C., at its meeting February 8, 1950. Sincerely yours, L. V. LAMPSON, Chairman, Finance Committee, Chamber of Commerce of Takoma Park, Md. and D. C., Takoma Park, Md. INVESTIGATION OF LOYALTY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF STATE DEPARTMENT—CONCURRENT RESOLU- TION OF SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I have in my hand Senate Concurrent Resolu- tion 1, which has been adopted by both houses of the South Dakota State Legis- lature, which convened last week in spe- cial session, and which is still in session. It has been forwarded to me by the sec- retary of the Senate and the clerk of the House of the South Dakota Legislature, for filing in the ConcrEessionaL ReEcorp, for the purpose of calling it to the atten- tion of the Congress. It is a concurrent resolution memorial- izing the Congress of the United States and His Excellency the President of the United States to make an immediate, thorough and exhaustive study and in- vestigation of the loyalty of the mem- bers, officers, and employees of the State Department, and to take such further appropriate action to rid the Depart- ment of State of procommunistic em- ployees in order that the safety of the Nation will not be further endangered by men in high places who condone acts of treason which endanger the safety of the United States of America and the people. The memorial then gocs on to call attention to the conviction of Alger Hiss in the Federal court of the United States and to the activities of Supreme Court Justices Frankfurter and Reed in testify- ing as character witnesses for Alger Hiss. It also cites statements of the Secretary of State regarding Algcr Hiss. I ask unanimous consent at this time to have the entire memorial properly referred and printed in the REcorp. There being no objection, the concur- rent resolution was received, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and, under the rule, ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 Concurrent resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States; His Excel- lency the President of the United States, to make an immediate, thorough, and ex- haustive study and investigation of the loyalty of the members, officers, and em- ployees of the State Department, and to take such further appropriate action to rid the Department of State of procommu- nistic employees in order that the safety of our Nation will not be further endan- gered by men in high places who condone acts of treason which endanger the safety of the United States of America and the People Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of South Dakota (the House concuriing therein) — Whereas through the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee 1879 and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alger Hiss was twice tried in the Federal courts of the United States of America and convicted of the crime of perjury; and Whereas members of the United States Su- preme Court, Supreme Court Justices Frank- furter and Reed, voluntarily testified in the first trial as character witnesses, thereby breaking all of the precedents heretofore existing in reletion to our Federal courts, and creating in the minds of the American people a disregard for members of our Fed- eral judiciary; and Whereus upon the conviction by a Federal jury in a Federal court of the said Alger Hiss, Dean Acheson, Secretary of State of the United States of America, issued a prepared and considered statement in which he said, “I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss,” which statement was designed to bo- little the actions of an American jury in an American court and to raise in the minds of the American people a doubt as to the guilt of one of Dean Acheson's friends and former State Department employee in spite of, and in total disregard of results of a free and fair trial and a verdict rendered by a jury as provided by the Constitution and the laws of the United States: Now, there- fore, be it Resolved, That the Senate of the State of South Dakota, the House concurring therein, do memorialize the Congress of the United States and His Excellency the President of the United States to make an immediate check of the loyalties and beliefs of the men employed in the State Department of the United States from Dean Acheson on down to determine whcther or not the ideas and ideals of such individuals are such that the American people can have continued faith that such Department through its repre- sentatives will safely keep and guard the secrets of the United States of America from foreign enemies and that such Department and its employees in preparing and carrying out a foreign policy in relation to Russia and other foreign countries will adopt and carly out policies which are not contrary to the ideas and ideals of the American people as expressed by the Constitution of the United States and the laws adopted thereunder; be it further Resolved, That His Excellency the President of the United States make immediately avall- able to the House Un-American Activities Committee all secret files and lists and re- ports of investigations covering the loyalties and activities of any and all employees of the Government of the United States which in any way show or indicate disloyalty to the United States of America as expressed by Communist membership or otherwise; be it further Resolved, That copies of this concurrent resolution be forwarded to His Excellency the President of the United States, to United States Senator Cuan Gurnry, to United States Senator Kart Munprt, to Congressman Francis H. Casg, to Congressman Haroup Lovre, and to the Presiding Officers of both Houses of Congress. R Terry, Lieutenant Governor, President of the Senate. Attest: NIELS P. JFNSFN, Secretary of the Senate. A E. MuNCK, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Attest: W J. MATSON, Chief Clerk of the House. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Scnate mess1.cs from the Fresident of the United Siaies submitting several
1880 nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE As in executive session, The following favorable reports of nominations were submitted: By Mr. THOMAS of Utah, from the Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare: Paul L. Styles, of Alabama, to be a mem- ber of the National Labor Relations Board for the term expiring December 16, 1954; and Daniel J. Daley, and sundry other candi- dates for promotion in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service. BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. GILLETTE: 8.3055. A bill to amend section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act; to the Com- mittee on Agriculture and Forestry. By Mr. FERGUSON: S. 3056. A bill for the relief of Francesco Cantalini; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. By Mr. ECTON: 8.3057. A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee to Mrs, Florence Yarlott Doyle; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON—AMENDMENTS Mr. MCFARLAND (for himself and Mr, HayYpDEN) submitted amendments in- tended to be proposed by them, jointly, to 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 appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. LINCOLN DAY ADDRESS BY SENATOR HENDRICKSON [Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and ob- tained leave to have printed in the Recorp a Lincoln Day address delivered by Senator HENDRICKSON at the annual Lincoln Day Ginner of the Queens Village Republican Club, at Queens, N. Y., on February 11, 1950, which appears in the Appendix } LINCOLN DAY ADDRESSES BY SENATOR MARTIN (Mr. MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrecorp two Lincoln Day addresses delivered by him, one at the Lin- coln Day dinner sponsored by the Ward County Republican Executive Committee at Parkersburg, W. Va., Friday evening, Febru- ary 10, 1950; the other, at the Lincoln Day dinner of the Republican Club of Oakland County, Mich., at Pontiac, Mich., Monday evening, February 13, 1950; which appear in the Appendix. ] HAPPENINGS IN WASHINGTON—ADDRESS BY SENATOR MARTIN {Mr MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a radio address entitled “Happenings in Washington,” de- livered by him on February 13, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE—DISCUS- SION BY SENATOR PEPPER AND HAROLD STASSEN [Mr. MURRAY asked and obtained Jeave to have printed in the Recorp a discussion entitled “Do We Want National Health In- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE surance in the United States?” participated in by Harold Stassen, president of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania, and Senator Perpzr, on January 29, 1950, which appears tn the Appendix. ] LAW-ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS—AD- DRESS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [Mr. KEFAUVER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the address delivered by Attorney General McGrath at the Attorney General’s Crime Conference held in Washington on February 15, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] THE NEED TO COMBAT INTERSTATE CRIME AND RACKETS—STATEMENT BY MAYOR pDELESSEPS 8. MORRISON [Mr. KEFAUVER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp the address delivered by Mayor deLesseps Morrison, of New Orleans, at the Attorney General's Crime Conference held in Washington on February 15, 1950, which appears in the Appendix ] LABOR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION— ADDRESS BY MILLARD CASS (Mr. O'CONOR asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address on the subject of labor-management coopera- tion, delivered by Millard Cass, assistant to the Under Secretary of Labor, at Elkton, Md., on November 1, 1949, which appears in the Appendix.] THE PATRIOTISM OF A CATHOLIC—AD- DRESS BY JAMES A. FARLEY {Mr. O’CONOR asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an address on the subject The Patriotism of a Catholic, delivered by Hon. James A. Farley at the Hotel Astor, New York City, on February 12, 1950, which appears in the Appendix ] WHY I HAD TO STEP ASIDE—ARTICLE BY DR. EDWIN G. NOURSE {Mr. WHERRY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article entitled “Why I Had To Step Aside,” by Dr. Edwin G. Nourse, published in Collier’s maga- zine for February 18, 1950, which appears in the Appendix ] THE COAL SHORTAGE IN NEW YORK~— MESSAGE BY GOVERNOR DEWEY (Mr. IVES asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorD a message to the New York State Legislature by Gov. Thomas E. Dewey relative to a bill providing emer- gency measures for the controlling of coal supplies, which appears in the Appendix.| REPLY BY FACT-FINDING MISSION ON JERUSALEM TO ARTICLE BY DOROTHY THOMPSON [Mr. LEHMAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp a statement by the Fact-Finding Mission on Jerusalem in reply to an article by Dorothy Thompson regarding the visit of the mission to Israel and its report on the situation there, which appears in the Appendix. ] . LIGHTS STOP TRUMAN; HE'S LAW-ABID- ING MAN—TRUMAN FLITS PAST 20 RED LIGHTS [Mr. WILLIAMS asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Lights Stop Truman; He's Law-Abid- ing Man,” published in the Washington Post for February 16, 1950, and an article entitled “Envious Go Green as Truman Flits Past 20 Red Lights,” published in the Washington Post for Iebruary 17, 1950, which appear in the Appendix.] SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of FEBRUARY 17 Representatives {c the concurrent reso- lution (8S. Con. Res. 42) favoring the sus< pension of deportation of certain aliens, which were, on page 1, after line 8, insert: Perrieedi 60, Assali, Nicolau Salim, or Nick aali, On page 4, strike out line 14. On page 6, after line 9, insert: A-1865724, Matsukata, Miyeko (also Miye Matsukata). On page 6, after line 20, insert: A-6391186, McoIIhattan, Adriana, or Adri- ana Catri. On page 8, after line 16, insert: A~6388576, Tarabishy, Said Hassan or Tarabichi. On page 8, after line 24, insert: A-6018587, Wojciechowska, Maria Teresa. A-5468253, Wolfel, John, or Mike Deal or Joan or Johann Woifel. A-6610614, Wong, Lee Wal Lan (nee Wal Lan Lee or Wong Lee Shee). Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I shall move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House of Represent- atives to the concurrent resolution. By way of explanation, if one is neces- sary, let me say that this fs one of the deferral measures by which certain aliens have been deferred from deporta- tion. The House amended the concur- rent resolution by adding seven names and by striking out one name. We have screened the names which have been added by the House of Repre- sentatives by the amendments; and the one name which was deleted by the House of Representatives was withdrawn by the Attorney General. So, Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the amendments of the House of Representatives to the concur- rent resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada. The motion was agreed to. REMOVAL OF POTATO SUPPORT PRICES Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Maine [Mr. Brew- STER], I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp a letter addressed to the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] by Mr. Whitney Tharin, secretary of the National Potato Council, relative to the proposed removal of price supports on potatoes. I understand it is agreeable to the Senator from Illinois that the let- ter be printed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE NATIONAL PoTaTo CoUNCIL, Washington, D. C., February 16, 1950. Hon. Scorr W. Lucas, Majority Leader, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear SenaTor Lucas: Potato farmers re- spectfully urge you to withhold action on your proposal to precipitately remove price supports from potatoes, unless marketing quotas are fn effect, until after they have had an opportunity to be heard by the proper congressional committees. It has long been the established praetice of Congress, in any legislation as drastic as this, to give the persons involved a chance to present testimony and express their opin. jon. Attaching your potato proposal as a rider to the pending measure revising cot-
1950 ton-acreage allotments automatically pre- cludes the possibility of a hearing of any kind. In addition, adoption of your rider would have the effect of changing the rules in the middle of the game as the Department of Agriculture already has announced the price- support program authorized by Congress for 1950. Farmers regard this announcement, a copy of which is attached, not only as a com- mitment by the Congress and a commitment by the Lepartment of Agriculture, but also as a commitment by the United States Govern- ment. As of today, farmers in southern Florida already are harvesting potatoes planted un- der that commitment. In northern Florida the crop is up and well along. In the major early production areas of California the crop is all planted. The potato crop is also com- pletely planted in Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas. North Carolina is one-third through planting and will be 90 percent through planting within 10 days. Virginia has just started planting. The effect of your rider, as we understand the language, would be to permit these im- portant areas to qualify for price supports, but would deny support to those areas that planted after the enactment of this pro- vision. Potatoes are not a one-State or regional crop. To the contrary, they are one of the few crops grown commercially in every State in the Union, as you will note from the enclosed statistical shect giving the State acreage and production figures from 1945 through 1949. Would it be fair for the Congress to pro- vide support for part of the potato growers and deny it to the others? Would it be fair, in a national program, to provide support to the warm cli ate growers and deny it to New York, Idaho, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Colo- rado, and all of the other areas with colder seasons? Farmers, like any other businessmen, have to plan their operations as far ahead as pos- sible. In addition to dealing with the ordi- nary problems of business, farmers also have to arrange their plantings on a seasonal and rotation basis. Most potato farmers began making their plans for 1950 upon passage October 31, 1949, of the Agricultural Act of 1949. That act, passed October 31, 1949, was their basic guide- post for the plans they made for 1950. In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture has implemented that act with his official an- nouncement of the 1950 potato price support program. Does the Congress of the United States now intend to say to potato farmers that it is going to back down on the commitment the Congress authorized and the Secretary of Agriculture has offictally implemented? Does the Congress now intend to use potatoes to set a precedent for taking sup- ports from under all other crops, at any time, without even the formality of a hearing? Once such a precedent is established, there would be ample grounds for the precipitate removal of any of the other crops from price support. What would follow potatoes? Would some of the basics be next? Potato tarmers are berated for producing large yields per acre. The increased per acre yields have come in recent years not only in potatoes but in virtually every other crop grown in the United States. The develop- ment of mechanized farming, improved in- secticides, and of better fertilization, plus the general use of better land, has brought increased per acre yields in every section of the country. For example, one of the most spectacular per acre yield increases in recent years hag been achieved through the use of hybrid corn. Largely due to the hybrid varieties, our corn production in five recent years has ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ceeded 3,000,000,000 bushels, an almost un- heard of figure prior to the use of the hybrids. As a result, the per acre yield of corn has increased from a national average of 31.4 bushels in 1938-47, to an average of 40 bush- els for 1948-49, Incidentally, in spite of the greatly in- creased yields, the corn acreage over those two contrasting periods has shown only a slight decrease while potato acreage has been cut 43 percent. The increase in some of the individual States has also been impressive, Illinois, for example, having increased its average yield per acre from 48.3 bushels in 1938-47 to ap- proximately 60 bushels per acre in 1948-49, Illinois, incidentally, has increased its corn acreage by more than 1,000,000 acres, the figures being 8,250,000 acres for the period 1938-48, as compared with 9,252,000 acres for the perlod 1948-49. While we are considering corn, do you think it would be fair to have a corn price- support program for farmers in Iowa that did not apply to farmers in Illinois? As we have advised you previously, potato farmers share your concern over the cost of the price-support program and have been making major adjustments, such as reducing acreage 43 percent since 1943, and supporting a 60-percent support price instead of 90. These adjustments, as sharp as they are, have not been as effective as growers had anticipated and they are ready and willing to consider any additional steps that may be neeced to reduce both surplus production and the cost of the potato price-support program, However, they do feel that any additional steps that may be necessary should be taken in an orderly fashion, with all of the many factors involved carefully brought to the at- tention of the Congress. There is now pending in the Congress a bill which would, in effect, do all of the things you are seeking to accomplish with your rider and your own potato bill. This bill is S. 2634, introduced by Senator ELMER THomas, of Oklahoma, chairman of the Sen- ate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. This bill was introduced on October 4, 1949, but to date no hearings have been called on it. The Thomas bill, or any other similar bill, would provide the vehicle for hearings which would permit potato farmers to offer testimony, recommend changes, and express their opinion as to the type of legislation they believe best suited for their commodity. It has been the historic policy of the De- partment of Agriculture not to change a program in the middle of a crop season. The Department policy in this respect has been repoatedly stated by numerous high officials. The most recent official reiteration of rec- ord of the Department's policy was the testi- mony of Mr Ralph S. Trigg, Administrator, Production and Marketing Administration, and President of the Commodity Credit Cor- poration Mr Trigg, while testifying on September 19, 1949, before a Senate subcommittee hear- ing on S 2482, to repeal price support on potatoes and eggs, stated the policy of the Department, in reply to a question, in the following language. “If there are any ad- justments to be made, we think they should be made at the end of a marketing season of a commodity, whether it is a calendar year basis or another basis, but not in the middle of a program to the extent of removing supports entirely.” We have been assured today, by other top- ranking officials of the Department of Ag- riculture, that that policy has not been changed. In view of the fact that the Thomas bill, 8. 2634, is pending, and the further fact that your precipitate rider is directly contrary to the long-established policy of the Depart- ment of Agriculture in regard to changing programs in the middle of a crop season, we 1881 trust that you will withdraw your rider at this time and permit this legislation to pro- ceed in the orderly fashion which has long been the established democratic procedure of Congress. Respectfully yours, Nationa, Porato Covuncit, By WHITNEY THARIN, Executive Secretary. ANNIVERSARY OF INDEPENDENCE OF LITHUANIA Mr. O’CONOR. Mr. President, may I take the occasion to call to the atten- tion of the Senate the fact that yester- day, February 16, was Republic of Lithu- ania Day, a day to be regarded with approval by all who, like the people of Lithuania, regard the rights of the indi- vidual as sacred? The sad fact that the people of that brave country are now under the despotic rule of Communist Russia detracts in no measure from the high resolve that has always prompted their national and in- dividual feelings toward the safeguard- ing of individual rights. On many occasions in the past it has been my privilege to participate in the joyful celebrations of this day which memorialized the reestablishment of Lithuania as a free and independent na- tion. Today there is no reason for jubila- tion. However, Knowing the spirit of determination that still animates the people of that splendid country, I can at least join with them and with our American citizens of Lithuanian birth or descent in the fervent hope that, before too long a time has elapsed, the oppres- sion that now enslaves them may be lifted and their country restored to the condititon of freedom and progress which its people enjoyed in the happly interval between the two great World Wars. THE GREAT LAKES WATERWAY—STATE- MENT BY SENATOR WILEY Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a statement on the subject of the St. Lawrence seaway, which I ask to have incorporated in the CoNGrRES- SIONAL REcorD at this point. There being no objection, Mr. WILEY’s statement was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT ON THE GREAT LAKES WATERWAY During this Eighty-first Congress, as in past Congresses, we have been treated to the sorry spectacle of all sections of the Nation pleading for funds for what seem to be purely local improvement projects, many of those funds being not repayable at all to Uncle Sam. Next Tuesday, the Senate will vote on the central Arizona project which for a comparative small number of individ- uals in that area would appropriate $738,- 000,000—a mere bagatelle to the spenders, but an enormous amount to the taxpayers of this Nation. In contrast to this project, which affects @ handful of local Jandowners, there is still pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and before the House Public Works Committee a resolution for completion of the Great Lakes Waterway which involves a sum of $802,000,000 of which only 8573,- 000,000 in cost is allocated to the United States. These $573,000,000 are, in addition, entirely repayable through electricity charges and ship tolls. Through the expenditure of this amount, not only would the Nation be assured of the continued economic health of the 60,000,000 people of the valley of the Great Lakes, but there would be assurance
1882 of the economic health of our Canadian good neighbor and we would be providing for con- tinental defense, particularly in connection with utilizing Lubrador iron ore deposits. I URGE MIDWEST TO OPPOSE ARIZONA PROJECT I personally will oppose the central Ari- zona project, and I am hoping that every single colleague of mine in the Middle West will do likewise. It is not in the spirit of vindictiveness, and it is not with the idea that all the Arizona proponents should sup- port the seaway. (Actually, my good friend, Car, HaypbeEn, voted with us in 1948) Ra- ther, I will vote against 8. 75, on the firm conviction that first things must come first. The seaway should have number 1 national priority, while comparatively unnecessary projects such as the central Arizona bill should be assigned to the bottom of the list, if at all, because of its very doubtful merit. I urge my colleagues in the Midwest, more- over, to scrutinize all other proposed proj- ects in other areas of the country, not in the spirit of vindictiveness or in a spirit of asking favors for the Midwest, but on the firm basis that we must impress upon the Nation that we insist that other projects shall have the same high standards of na- tional usefulness as the Great Lakes water- way has. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY SQUANDERING Some of the most notorious of appropria- tion squandering is in connection with funds for alleged improvement of the Mississippi Valley area in which the Nation has poured and is being asked to pour literally billions of dollars, with very limited results in terms of national benefit. VALLEY JOURNAL ADMITS SEAWAY INEVITABILITY We recall that the Mississippi Valley group has always been in the forefront of the blind opposition to the seaway on the far-fetched ground that the seaway would harm the traffic going to the Gulf coast ports. This we have proved to be an absurd fear and yet it continues. Mississippi! Valley sponsors have consistently derided the seaway and have implied that all the Presidents of the United States and all of the outstanding Government experts who have approved it were unqualified to give such endorsements. I should like, however, to call the attention of the Senate, to this fact, that in the Janu- ary 1950 issue of a Waterway Journal pub- lished in New Orleans, called the Work Boat, there was contained a significant editorial pointing to the fact that the seaway will indeed be ultimately completed. This edi- torial was addressed to the annual meeting of the Mississippi Valley Association at Bt. Louis on February 6 and 7. I should like to quote from excerpts of that editorial. I be- lieve that this bare-faced admission on the part of the Mississippi Valley group will en- hearten all proponents of the Waterway, be- cause it shows that our enemies recognize in their hearts the fallacy of their cause and they recognize the justice of our plea. I urge those Senators who represent States in the Mississippi Valley area to cease their opposition to the waterway, and I urge the people of the Mississippi Valley to recognize that their higher national interest comes before their purely sectional fears. Here are the quotations from the Work Boat with its grudging admissions and biased slant: “Along with the making of more valley authorities, more Washington pressure may be expected for developing the St. Lawrence seaway, a project which—and this is a proph- ecy, make the best of it—sooner or later will come into being. Not that the Work Boat igs any particular adherent of the project, but this publication sees the St. Lawrence deal as one that ultimately will be carried through; it will be just too hard to Kill in the long run. And it is the counsel of the Work Boat to the Mississippi Valley Asso- ciation to do a little long-distance planning CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE in this regard; to continue the battle of presenting valley interests to press, public, and Washington in the meanwhile and post- pone the evil hour as long as practicable, and also to plan quietly and thoroughly as to what may be done after the seaway down the 8t. Lawrence is finally approved and in opera- tion. The thought may not be pleasant, but some timely planning at the present may more than make up for that ultimate defeat, “Concentration on valley development, the prompt conclusion of the seaway or tidewater channel to New Orleans and the hastening of the Cal-Sag Channel at Chicago which may bind the Great Lakes more firmly to the Mississippi and the Gulf outlet, will be of great value to the Mississippi Valley in de- fending itself against any future diversion of traffic and business via that St. Lawrence outlet.” LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Mr. HAYDEN obtained the floor. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, to permit me to make an announcement before he begins his re- marks? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to make an announcement which is rather important, so far as procedure in the Senate is concerned. As everyone knows, the unfinished business is Senate bill 75, which the dis- tinguished Senator from Arizona is about to discuss. The discussion of that bill had been temporarily laid aside in favor of the consideration of the resolu- tion dealing with small business. It was my hope that we could conclude consid- eration of the small business resolution as of this date. Apparently, we may not be able to do that. Yesterday the Committee on Agricul- ture and Forestry reported and there is now on the calendar House Joint Reso- lution 398, dealing with the cotton- and peanut-acreage allotments, marketing quotas, and so forth. Those who are in- terested in the cotton situation are urg- ing me to try to have the joint resolution passed by the Senate at as early a date as possible. I should like to serve notice on the Senate now that on Monday next we shall try to lay aside whatever busi- ness may then be pending before the Senate and take up the House joint res- olution, because of the emergency which exists with respect to the planting of cotton. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Where does that leave Calendar No. 568, Senate bill 1498, known as the Kerr bill, to amend the Natural Gas Act? Mr. LUCAS. I announced the other day that we would take up that bill, but we will have to change our procedure a little, because of the emergency which has developed in respect to the cotton il). Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, I may say I am not interested in when it shall come up, but what I should like to know, if the majority leader can advise me, is whether it might follow the so-called amendment to the Agricultural Adjust- ment Act. Mr. LUCAS. I rather think it will. FEBRUARY 17 Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. It is the under- standing of the majority leader, then, that the bill with reference to cotton acreage, which includes a potato amend- ment, will come up, and an attempt will be made to conclude it, on Monday after- noon? Mr. LUCAS. That is what I expect to do, I may say to the Senator from New Mexico. That is what I hope to do. Mr. ANDERSON. I hope it is the pro- gram. Mr. LUCAS. It will be the program, if I can get the Senate to go along with me, which I am sure I can, Senators representing the Southern States in which cotton is grown, are extremely in- terested in obtaining immediate action upon the proposed legislation. It is of an emergency nature. Of course, the amendment which was attached to the bill by the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, dealing with potatoes, is also an emergency amendment. So it seems to me we should consider the joint reso- lution on Monday, and I shall make that effort. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. SALTONSTALL. May I ask the majority leader whether he intends to have regular business in the Senate on Wednesday next, after the Senator from Maryland shall have read Washington's Farewell Address? Mr. LUCAS. Yes. I may say to the distinguished Senator from Massachu- setts we shall proceed immediately fol- lowing the address to discuss and debate any issues that may then be pending be- fore the Senate. Mr. SALTONSTALL. majority leader. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurte- nant dams and canals, and for other purposes. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, in the propaganda that has been used by the southern Californians to influence Sen- ators to oppose the enactment of the bill, S. 75, which would authorize the con- struction of the central Arizona project, no effort has been spared to repeatedly convey the impression that a very large sum of money is to be taken out of the Federal Treasury at a time when there is an insistent demand for economy in the operation of the Government. The size of the sum has been violently exagger- ated and the thought is conveyed that the whole amount is to be expended at a time when the budget is unbalanced and the national debt is not being reduced. Beyond doubt, $708,780,000 is a siz- able sum of money to be made available by Congress for any purpose if it was to be used in 1 year when there is a pros- pect that the Treasury deficit may I thank the
1950 amount to $5,000,000,000. But despite the propaganda to the contrary, such is not the fact because the bill as reported to the Senate delays any appropriation for irrigation works, estimated to cost $267,000,000, until after the Supreme Court of the United States has an oppor- tunity to pass upon the question of how much water is available in the Colorado River to irrigate lands in Arizona. There will be eight parties to that lawsuit, the United States and the seven States of the Colorado River Basin. Nobody knows how long it will take the eight of them to prepare for and argue the case and how long thereafter it will take the Supreme Court to decide it. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. ANDERSON. Does the Senator from Arizona not feel that the very cir- cumstance he has mentioned would justify even a very economy-minded Senator in voting in favor of the bill? Because it happens to be in my area, I have had the question put to me by Senators who are not familiar with the project, as to whether they should vote for it. I have tried to explain to them that the only way in the world the States of Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico will have a chance to participate in an equita- ble division of the waters of the Colorado is to get the matter before the Supreme Court. The interests of California and Arizona are sO paramount to ours, it is almost impossible for us to g+t into court. We want to get into court. Does not the Senator from Arizona believe that a Sen- ator interested in economy could still vote for the measure, even though he might think the expenditure a large one? I hope he will not think it large; but, even though he should, does the Senator from Arizona not think such a Senator might still vote for it as a matter of justice to those States who otherwise would never be able to obtain an equita- ble distribution of the waters of the Colorado River? Mr. HAYDEN. This is the first time when a committee of Congress has spe- cifically recommended that the United States permit itself to be made a party to a suit affecting Federal and interstate water rights, and that such a suit should be brought in the Supreme Court. As will be explained by the able lawyers on the committee. the terms of this bill rep- resent the only way in which a Supreme Court action can be obtained. The Senator from New Mexico is em- inently correct, that the water question should be determined, and that the only place to obtain an equitable apportion- ment of the waters of the lower basin of the Colurado River now is in the Su- preme Court of the United States. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will th Senator yield further? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. Is it not true that the States in the upper basin have reached an agreement among them- selves? Mr. HAYDEN. They did so, after long negotiation. In the lower basin we tried it with California over and over again, without success, An action in the Su- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE preme Court appears to be the only re- sort left to us. Mr. ANDERSON. Since the States of the upper basin have reached a volun- tary agreement, have there not been numerous efforts to reach a voluntary agreement among the States of the lower basin? Mr. HAYDEN. The Senator is cor- rect. Such efforts have extended over a period of many years, but with no suc- cess. Mr. ANDERSON. Has there been any real progress made toward peace? Mr. HAYDEN. Not at all. That is because of the directly divergent inter- ests of the States of Arizona and Cali- fornia. Mr. ANDERSON. As a matter of fact, as the consumption of water in Cali- fornia has increased, and the need of water in Arizona has increased, the fric- tion has become greater between the two States, has it not? Mr. HAYDEN. The controversy has become more accentuated. Mr. ANDERSON. In the opinion of the Senator from Arizona, there is, therefore, no basis of hope that the five lower basin States can ever reach har- monious agreement. Is that not correct? Mr. HAYDEN. Not within our life- time. Mr. ANDERSON. From the way things have been going, not in many life- times to come could they do that. Therefore, does not the Senator believe that, if we do not get the matter into the Supreme Court, a great deal of valu- able time will be wasted, and people will suffer by reason of their failure to obtain relief? Mr. HAYDEN. They are suffering now, and they will continue to suffer, as the water supply is further depleted. There can be no question about that. Mr.McFARLAND. Mr President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the senior Senator from Arizona yield to the junior Senator from Arizona? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. Ido not want the Recorp to appear as though our distin- guished colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, is of the opinion that a contro- versy exists between the States of Ari- zona and New Mexico. I think our States are in agreement. The enact- ment of S. 75 is the only way we can ever hope to obtain our equitable share of the water, and the only way New Mexico will ever get her equitable share. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the senior Senator from Arizona yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. I am very happy the junior Senator from Arizona made that observation. There was nothing in what I said which should have indicated that there was the slightest difficulty be- tween New Mexico and Arizona, or be- tween Arizona, perhaps, and Utah, or be- tween Arizona and Nevada. The diffi- culty is in the tremendous requirements of the States of California and Arizona, and, because of that difficulty, there seems little likelihood we can ever reach an agreement. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield to permit 1883 me to ask a question of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. Is there any difficulty between the States of New Mexico and California? Mr. ANDERSON. There could be. Mr. WHERRY. That is what I mean. Is there any difficulty now? Mr. ANDERSON. There could be, in this way—if the Senator from Arizona will permit me to reply-—— Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. If it should be de- sired to have California continue to use the tremendous amounts of water which she is capable of developing and using, because of her great population and her great need for it, and if Arizona should be granted all the water she needs, the States of Utah, Nevada, and New Mex- ico, minority States, in the lower basin, would be completely frozen out. te WHERRY. There is no doubt of at, Mr. ANDERSON. The distinguished minority leader, coming as he does from a State that has irrigation within it, recognizes the doctrine of prior applica- tion of water to beneficia] use, and we are afraid, if waters of the Colorado River are put to beneficial use within the States of California and Arizona, before the matter can be settled in the courts, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico may be greatly affected, though our lands may be very small, with a resulting injustice to the States of Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. I think the legislation should be passed, in order that we, with our rela- tively small amount of influence, might get into the Supreme Court of the United States and have a chance before that tribunal to stand up against a great State such as California, if that might be what we would have to do. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I appreciate the Sen- ator’s argument. Naturally, coming from the distinguished Senator, the ar- gument should be given consideration, I wondered whether there was any par- ticular dispute at this time between New Mexico and Califorma. If there is none other than what has been outlined, I think I understand it perfectly. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I shall place in the Recorp a table showing all of the irrigation features of the central Arizona project which are to be deferred, pursuant to the action taken by the com- mittee in recommending the adoption of an amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. O’MaHoney! and the Senator from Colorado {Mr. MILu1- xIn]. None of the features listed will be constructed if the Supreme Court decides against Arizona. The table is as follows: Havasu pumping plants._-.-.- $25, 973, 000 Granite Reef aqueduct_....... 131, 716, 000 McDowell Dam and Reservoir.. 3,346, 000 McDowell power plant.--...... 16, 326, 000 Salt Gila aqueduct._...._..... 34, 585, 000 Irrigation distribution system... 54, 086, 000 Total... esennnn wawwwne 267, 044, 000
1884 Mr. HUNT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. HUNT. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona, since the four upper Colorado basin States have agreed upon a division of the waters among those four States, above Lee’s Ferry, upon a percentage basis, could the anticipated suit in any way involve the compact now in ex- istence, entered into by the four upper basin States? Mr. HAYDEN. It is my understand- ing the agreement was very wisely made upon the basis of the percentage of water which may be available in the Colorado River and its tributaries at various times. All agree—at least we in Arizona agree— that the upper basin States are entitled to 7,500,000 acre-fect of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries. No one in Arizona disputes that. I doubt if the Supreme Court could find anything to the contrary. There are questions relative to depletion, evaporation, and consumptive use, that probably will have to be passed on by the Supreme Court, matters which in themselves will be of interest to the upper basin States. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the States of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico will become parties to the suit. Mr. HUNT. I should like to ask the distinguished Senator this further ques- tion: Does he believe that the anticipated suit before the Supreme Court could in any way upset the compact between the upper- and the lower-basin States? Mr. HAYDEN. I do not see how it possibly could. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. Has it not been con- ceded by the legal representatives of all the upper-basin States that this suit could not possibly prejudice our rights? I am quite confident that the upper- basin States are fully satisfied that the suit would not in any way prejudice their rights. Mr. HAYDEN. I have mentioned the sum of $708,000,000 in round figures. Deducting $267,044,000 leaves approxi- mately $441,000,000. That is, again a sizable sum to be principally devoted to the development of hydrolectric power on the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon. That dam is to be located a few miles above the backwater of Lake Mead, the reservoir which was created by the Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam, which was authorized in 1928, cost $174,000,000. It was completed in 1936, and practically all of the power from it then went into southern California which was at that time a great market for power as it is today. The Hoover Dam was constructed during the depression, when costs were very low. If that structure, with its tur- bines and generators were to be built to- day, at present prices, it would cost a half-bill’ »n dollars. The dam was built under a contract to repay its entire cost in 50 years, at 8 percent interest. As a banker’s invest- ment it has proved to be perfectly sound, because all payments have been made when due. The power produced there CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE energized industry in southern Califor- nia. It created new wealth in that area, the taxation of which by the Federal Government has paid the cost of the dam over and over again. The internal reve- nue collections in southern California, in 1936, were less than $200,000,000. In 1949, $1,410,000,000 was paid into the Federal Treasury by the collector of in- ternal revenue in Los Angeles who gath- ers the money, due from taxpayers to the Government, in the eight southern coun- ties of the State of California. I do not hesitate to say that if the Hoover Dam had not been built, the amount of reve- nues in southern California, in 1949, would have been reduced by the original cost of the dam. In other words, it has paid for itself year after year since it was placed in operation, and it will continue to do so for all time to come. So, while we may consider it as a banker’s invest- ment, the best way to look at it is that it was a capital investment which created wealth that becomes taxable, and that taxation will pay the cost of all such great projects. From the time it was authorized 8 years were required to build the Hoover Dam. It will probably take the same length of time to finish the construction of the great Bridge Canyon Dam, but when It is finished—and the demand exists, beyond any question—every kilowatt of power produced there will be promptly pur- chased. Bridge Canyon power is just as badly needed in California, Arizona, and Nevada as is the power from the Hoover Dam project. It will be another sound capital investment. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Recorp a table showing the features of the central Arizona project which the bill, S. 75, authorizes to be constructed. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Features of the central Arizona project primary value for silt and flood control and for the production and transmission of hy- droelectric power: Coconino Dam and Reservotr_.. Bridge Canyon Dam and Reser- voir ..-------~---------- ee ~ 191, 939, 000 $7, 487, 000 Bridge Canyon power plant_--. 73,419, 000 Horseshoe Dam (enlargement) and reservoir -...-..-...---- 1,078, 000 Horseshoe power plant.....-.-. 2, 628, 000 Buttes Dam and Reservoir_.-.-- 29, 037, 000 Buttes power plant....---.-.-. 1, 159, 000 Charleston Dam and Reservoir... 9, 270, 000 Tucson aqueduct ...------.---. 6, 401, 000 Safford Valley improvements... 4, 090, 000 Hooker Dam and Reservoir....- 15, 484, 000 Drainage system for salinity control ....------ +--+ ae 9, 973, 000 Power transmission system___-- 83, 771, 000 Total retained features.. 441, 736, 000 Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, ff all of the Arizona hopes are realized by a favorable Supreme Court decision the ultimate expenditures for the central Arizona project will be $708,780,000. I should now like to address the Senate with respect to similar sums of money appropriated for expenditure in the State of California which I consider to be good capital investments. I refer to appropriations for flood control. I have here a tabulation made by the Corps of Engineers which shows that there are now authorized for construction in the FEBRUARY 17 State of California flood-control proj- ects to cost $735,747,000. The amount so far appropriated by Congress for these projects is $195,084,000. The largest of the projects is the Los Angeles County drainage area involving approximately $301,000,000 of which $95,000,000 has been appropriated. There is also the Pine Flat Reservoir, costing $51,000,000, the Table Mountain Reservoir, to cost $55,000,000, and the Whittier Narrows Reservoir, to cost $36,- 000,000. The money thus made available has no strings attached to it. It is not reimbursable. It is, in one sense, a di- rect gift from the Treasury of the United States. It is true that each one of these projects has been carefully examined and recommended by the Corps of Army En- gineers, and it is true that the local com- munities make some contributions, but when it comes to returning money to the Treasury of the United States, the only way in which it is repaid {s through pro- tecting the taxable wealth or by creat- ing new wealth which becomes subject to taxation. That is exactly what is being done by the flood-control projects in California. That is why I voted to au- thorize practically all of them, and that is why I have supported appropriations to carry on their construction. California has a climate which is dry in the summer but torrential rains often occur in the winter. Flood damage to any person’s property is a deductible loss under the income-tax laws. If the tax- payer suffers a loss, the Federal Treas- ury suffers a loss along with him. That is why it is a sound and good business investment for Congress to make these flood-control appropriations. But the total amount of them, approximately $735,000,000, is a sum of money equiva- lent to the total sum of $708,000,000 to be appropriated for the central] Ari- zona project. The table ordered to be included in the Recorp is as follows: Authorized flood-control projects in the State of California Total eat: Amount mate appropri Name of project Federal ated to cost date Bear Creek. .....------------- $503, 000 $20, 000 Black Butte Reservoir. ...2..-] 11, 079, 000 $5, 000 Cherry Valley Reservofr. -} 8,000 000 1, 130, 900 Farmington Reservoir. 3, 721, 000 2,995 000 Folsom _Reservoir_ 50, 742, 000 4,62 000 Hogan Reservoir-. 11, 264, 000 TAB, 000 Isabella Reservoir. --{| 14, 300, 000 6, 208, 000 Los Angeles County drainage area (exclusive of Whittier Narrows Reservoir) .....--- |301, 605, €00 731, 200 Merecd County stream group.| 2, 700, 000 1, 730, 000 New Melones Reservoir..--.-. 38, 127, 000 100, 000 Pajaro River -- 26, BNO |...-------- Pine Flat Heservoir_....------ 61,121,000 | 13, 700, 000 Sacramento Kiver and minor and major tributarfos. ...--- 21, 620, 000 1, 035, 000 Salinas River.-...  .-..- -----| 8,515, 000 80, 000 Santa Ana River Basin (including San Antonio Dam).-.-.--.--------.------- 47,241,900 | 19, 919, 300 San Joaquin River and trib- utarfes.... ween eee ene 4,005, 000 90, 000 Santa Clara River. ...---...-- ee Stewart Canyon debris basin and channel. _........------- 880, 000 38, 600 Ruccess Reservoir. .---.-.---.- 11, 144, 000 355, 000 Table Mountain Reservotr....| 55, 228, 000 645, 000 Terminus Reservoir_..... -] 13,395, 000 335, 000 Ventura River. ....-... --] _1,350, 000 1,350, 000 Whittler Narrows Reservoir. .| 36, 320, 000 8, 104, 100 Eel River......------2-.---e0- 280, 000 |....-.------ Napa River_...-..------.-----} 6, 000 j--..-- Sacramento control profect 30, 706, 000 Total_..-. .-..-.--e----- 195, 084, 000
1950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 1885 Mr. HAYDEN. I should like to point quantities of water to the surface. A Government Printing Office, entitled out some other sizable appropriations magnificent civilization was developed in ‘The Central Valley Basin.” I should which are being made in California. With reference to reclamation appro- priations, there are authorized for ex- penditure in that State at the present time projects to cost $765,295,000. Of that sum there has heretofore been ap- propriated, up to June 30 of last year, $423,398,000. Most of that money is re- imbursable, as it would be in the case of the central Arizona project, and it is a good Federal investment. The following table, to be printed in the Recorp, lists the projects to which I have referred: Federal reclamation developments in California Funds ap- Projects authorized for Estimated peepee construction total cost June 30, 1950 All-American Canal project... _|$76, 993, 213 |! $58, 170, 162 Central Vallev project (exclu- sive of distribution) -..-.--.. 5OU, 386, 000 | 333, 693, 862 Central Valley project. irriga- tion distribution systems.___| 72, 500, 000 {-...----..-. Klamath project (California portion) _..------22-----.---- 26, 048, 867 | #5, 560, 000 Orland project. .._- a 2, 448, 670 2, 600, 000 Parker Dam and power plant project. ..---.----------.--- 16, 549, 947 | #15, 786, 682 Santa Barbara project (Ca chuma)-___----------------- 34, 189,000 | 1 6, 185, 000 Solano County growet wnenenee 45, 677, WOO |... 2. eee Yuma project (California por- thon)... 1, 602, 748 J, 602, 748 Total. 2... eee 765, 295, 445 | 423, 308, 454 1 Exclusive of contract authorization as follows All- American Canal, $975,700, Santa Barbara, $1,690,000) 4 One-third of total project based on approinate divi- sion of irripable acreage between Cahfornia and Oregon. 2 Exclusive of $7,256,555 of truct fnuds contributed by Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califormia and transmission line system in Arizona I have voted for legislation to author- ize many of these projects; I have voted to appropriate money to carry them on, ahd I shall continue to support them, because I believe they are intrinsically sound. When there is an area such as that in the Central Valley of California, which can produce crops valued at a billion dol- lars a year, and when there are areas in southern California in which agricultural production is tremendous, all brought about by the use of irrigation water, we can be satisfled that the Federal Govern- ment will get its money back a long time ahead of the ordinary repayment period by reason of the payment of income taxes by those persons who make a profit out of the use of the water to grow crops, and the corresponding development which goes on in the cities and towns. The Central Valley, Calif., project is a development in an area which is approxi- mately 500 miles Jong and 100 miles wide, comprising the valleys of the Sacramento River in the north and the San Joaquin River in the south. There is more rain- fall in northern California than there is in the southern part of the Central Valley. That region was settled in the early days, first, by Spaniards and Mexi- cans who obtained lJand grants in a cattle-grazing area. Later, irrigation development took place by taking water out of the streams. It was later dis- covered that there was an underground supply of water, and electric pumps have been used in recent years to bring large xCVI——119 that area. Crops of all kinds could be grown. But, as the well drilling con- tinued, the water table went down. The water table has dropped so low that hun- dreds of thousands of acres of hitherto valuable tax-paying land must be aban- doned. So there was conceived what was then thought to be a most fantastic project— to go to another watershed and bring water into the San Joaquin Valley. That is what the Central Valley project con- sists of—a great dam on the Sacramento River to impound the flood waters of that stream and to equate its flow so that it will be available when wanted. The power from the Shasta Dam will pump water up into the lower half of the San Joaquin Valley. By irrigating the lower area in the San Joaquin Valley with Sacramento River water, the water nor- mally flowing in the San Joaquin could be applied higher up. That 1s the plan which has been worked out. It is en- tirely feasible and justifiable, if for no other reason, because it saved a civiliza- tion. I am very familiar with the San Joa- quin Valley. My mother lived there be- fore she married my father. I have visited the valley many, many times. The agricultural production in the Val- ley is very much like what it is in central Arizona The climate is quite similar. The towns, such as Fresno, Calif., and Phoenix, Ariz., are comparable in the way they have developed. The Central Valley project was origi- nally initiated in 1935, not by an act of Coneress, but by an allotment of $12,- 000,000 from the Public Works fund. There were work relef appropriations in those days, and President Roosevelt allotted that sum of money with which to begin the project. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. CHAVEZ. In order better to identify the Central Valley project in California, would it not be correct to say that it is an empire in itself, about 100 mules wide and 600 miles long? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes. It is a vast agri- cultural area. Mr. CHAVEZ. There isa ercater pro- duction of farm food products in that area, on a percentage basis, than any- where else in the country, is there not? Mr. HAYDEN. I do not doubt at all that the most modern developments in agriculture are being practiced in the Central Valley in California. There is mechanized farming, and the greatest skill has been used to bring about the highest possible development and the greatest production possible. All that is needed is water. Mr. CHAVEZ. May I say to the Sen- ator from Arizona, knowing the Central Valley and the project which he is now discussing, that as much can be done in Arizona as has been done in California, provided water can be obtained. Mr. HAYDEN. There is no doubt about that. That is the comparison which I am making. I hold in my hand a report made in August 1949 and recently issued by the like to direct attention to page 79 of that report, which indicates the expected de- velopment in that area. It isa summary of benefits and costs. I read from the report: The following table summarizes the bene- fits and costs discussed in the foregoing para- graphs: Annual benefits New frrigation supply-.-------- $197, 880, 000 Supplemental irrigation sup- Ply_..------- ee eee 30, 220, 000 Salinity control.......---..-. 1, 600, 000 Municipal and misceilaneous water supply_.----__----_-- 8, 040, 000 Flood control. 7,949, 000 Navigation — - 1,314, G00 Power --_---~-.-..--.--.----- 28, 000, 090 Total_.--.------------. 275, 003, 000 Capital and annual costs Annual oper ition, mainte {tem Capital cost | nance, and re place- ment cost Blorage reservoirs 2.02.22... | 8849, 600, GO0 1$2, 310, O00 Canals and distnibution sys- tems__._--.-.--------------- 520, 500, 000 ]10, 640, 000 Power facilities. 2.222222. ----} 389, 700, GOW 415, 640, UOO Channel improvements and reser\ oirs predominantly for flood control, 2.22.2. ee 27, 000, 000) 200 000 Fish faewties 220022222 le 15, 000, G00 500, O00 ‘Total... -.-...--------|1, 810, 800, 000/29, 38), 000 Interest and amortization of capital cost in 50 years at 8 percent. 2.2.2.2. -------- eee nee eee eee 70, 380, 000 Total annual cost. -....-}----------..-- 99, 730, 000 Ratto of bencfits to cost, 2710 1. So the annual benefits to come from the expanded development of the Cen- tral Valley project will amount to $275,003,000 That development is to be brought about by a capital cost of $1,810,000,000. The only exception to be noted is that the figure of $1,810,000,000 was arrived at in 1942 Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. Iyield to my colleague. Mr. McFARLAND. Will the Senator state what the difference in the price would be? Mr. HAYDEN. I was just coming to that. The figures which I have here trom the United States Reclamation Serv:ce show that the difference between the 1949 prices and the prices when the figures were made for the central Arizona proj- ect is 2.15 to 1. Applying that rule to the costs for future development in the Central Valley project of California, or multiplying this figure of $1,810,800,000 by 2.15, we arrive at a total cost of $3,880,000,000. Mr.McFARLAND. Mr President. wil] the Senator yield further? Mr. HAYDEN. I yicld. Mr. McFARLAND. Those are 1647 prices? Mr. HAYDEN. Yes, 1947 prices. Mr. McFARLAND. Based on the same figure that the estimate for the cen- tral Arizona project? Mr. HAYDEN. Iam trying to compare the estimates. Bringing the 1940 figure
1886 for future construction of the Central Valley project down to 1947 prices, which were used to calculate the central Ari- zona project, the cost of the California project would be $3,890,000,000. Mr. McFARLAND. That is the cost of the California project. Mr. HAYDEN. That cost does not alarm me, because along with this in- crease in costs you have also an increase in the value of the products of the area. What it amounts to, if we look at it care- fully, is that the high construction costs are the result of the lowered value of the construction dollar. The power rates have remained about the same, but all the other products of the land have in- creased in value. Very few, if any, of the reclamation projects which were built in the past with high value dollars could now be shown to have a repayment period of anything like the 40 or 50 year periods which were calculated at that time. So far as the proposed expansion of the Central Valley project in Cali- fornia is concerned it would simply mean that the repayment period would have to be extended over a longer period of years, because the farmer can pay only in proportion to what he takes off his Jand each year. Judging from what has happened in the past I say that this pro- posal of California is sound, and I am ready to support it whenever budget estimates are submitted for undertaking any part of it, because I am fully con- fident that the additional wealth cre- ated in California will return the money to the Treasury of the United States. Mention was made in the beginning of the debate of the suit which the com- mittee has authorized to be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. I never was a law student, but in my early thirties I served for 5 years as the sheriff of my county which gave me an oppor- tunity to listen to legal arguments in the courtroom. It was firmly im- pressed upon my mind at that time that in a civil action one could not stay long in court unless he could show that some- thing was actually being done or quite certain to be done which was to his distinct disadvantage. Mr. President, more than 20 years ago the people of my State became convinced that there were powerful interests in California which desired to secure an unfair and undue share of the water of the Colorado River to the permanent detriment of Arizona. On three differ- ent occasions, in 1930 (283 U. S 423), 1933 (292 U. 8S. 341), and 1935 (298 U. 8. 558), the State of Arizona filed suits in the United States Supreme Court against the State of California in the hope that the Court might be willing to determine what would be an equitable apportion- ment of the 8,500,000 acre-feet of water assigned by the Colorado River Com- pact to the States of the lower basin of which Arizona and California are a part. Able lawyers were employed by Ari- zona, among them Dean Acheson, the present Secretary of State. In all three instances the Supreme Court declined to entertain a suit and in its first decision stated that— The contentions are based not upon any actual or threatened impairment of Ari- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE zona’s rights but upon assumed potential invasions (283 U. 8. 425). After three times resisting an Arizona effort to have the Supreme Court divide the waters of the Colorado River in the lower basin, the Californians quite re- cently have done an about face and now say that they want that Court to do that very thing. We in Arizona have good reason to suspect that this is but another scheme to postpone action. They say that they want such a lawsuit but do not say when. The committee amendment to S. 75 which provides for a Supreme Court de- termination of water rights was drafted by two able lawyers, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Manoney] and the Senator from Colorado \Mr. Mitirx1n], and I hope that the numerous other lawyers in this body will listen to their explanation of what it is intended to accomplish. To me, as a layman, it ap- pears certain to bring California up to the snubbing post where that State must promptly participate in an action before the Supreme Court and that is why the Californians do not like it. What they want is delay, delay, and more delay. Delay for many years to come in the hope that in the meantime more people will come to southern California and thereby build up a greater need for water. The effect of the committee amend- ment is to withhold any authorization for the construction of irrigation works in my State until the Supreme Court de- cides whether there is a supply of water in the Colorado River for the central Arizona project. The result is that at this time the total authorization in the bill is reduced by $267,000,000 but it is made clear that if the Supreme Court does, in due course of time, decide that Arizona has a right to the water which she claims, then construction of the irri- gation features provided for in the bull may proceed. The O’Mahoney-Millikin amendment, as recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, is designed to make certain that there will be what the lawyers call a justiciable issue. After three times successfully urging the Supreme Court to find that there was no such issue, the Californians now say that one exists despite the fact that there has been absolutely no change in the situation and will be none for years to come unless Congress authorizes the construction of the central Arizona project. I therefore urge the adoption of the committee amendment. Mr. McFARLAND. Along that line, will my colleague yield? Mr. HAYDEN. Certainly. Mr. McFARLAND. I think the Recorp should show that the resolution intro- duced by the California Senators would never bring about an adjudication of the rights of the States because a justiciable issue does not exist at the present time. Their resolution was introduced on the last day of the hearings on 8. 1175, the predecessor of Senate bill 8. 75, for the purpose of defeating the central Arizona project. Mr. HAYDEN. Ihave urged the adop- tion of the committee amendment, be- cause, having great faith in the able FEBRUARY 17 lawyers who devised it, I believe it will get the case before the Supreme Court, and that we can determine whether or not Arizona has a right to the water in the Colorado River which we say belongs to our State. If that determination is against us, then the money authorized in this bill for the construction of ir- rigation works will never be expended. If the decision is in favor of Arizona, then we will come back to see what the Congress will do about making the nec- essary appropriations. Mr, President, I want to clear up one other matter in respect to the central Arizona project because it has been re- peatedly alleged by the southern Cali- fornians that this water which Arizona proposes to take out of the Colorado River would benefit a comparatively small acreage of land and only a few farmers. What we have in central Ari- zona is 725,000 acres of excellent land all of which has been under irrigation— most all of it is now irrigated—but has a short water supply. As happened in California, we have exhausted the water in the streams by overexpansion of ir- rigation, and we have exhausted the un- derground water. Our case is identically parallel to that of the Central Valley project in California. Congress saved a civilization there. We ask the Congress to save a civilization in Arizona. Every precedent which has been established in connection with the central California project applies with equal force to the central Arizona project. Now what do we propose to do through the central Arizona project? In round figures 1t is to bring 1,000,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River into central Arizona, and that water is to be disposed of at $4.75 an acre-foot. That is a rather high rate for irrigation water because it really effectively bars the cul- tivation of new land; but as a supple- mental supply, just as it was in the case of California, and just as it was in the case of the eastern slope in Colorado, where water is brought through the Big Thompson tunnel for irrigation of lands out on the plains, the additional acre- foot, the final acre-foot, is the one on which profit or loss is made, and that is where a farmer can afford to pay a substantial price. The productivity of the irrigated land in central Arizona is so great—among the highest in the United States—that for that additional acre-foot of water the farmers can bear the charge without any difficulty at all. The arrangement is not that a contract will be made with some individual landowner that he will take a certain quantity of water. The con- tracts are to be made for payment to the United States for that water each year by organized water users’ associations or irrigation districts which, like regularly constituted municipal corporations, have the power to tax. They have another power which is even better than that. If a water assessment is not paid, the water user’s gate can be locked. That is the most effective way of obtaining payment anywhere in a desert region. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield.
1950 Mr. DOWNEY. Will not the Senator clarify his last statement to me? Is it not a fact that the farmers of the cen- tral Arizona project cannot pay one sin- gle dollar upon either the principal or the interest on the farm benefits charged to them? Is that not a fact? Mr. HAYDEN. It is not a fact the way I understand it. Let me repeat, my understanding is that approximately 1,000,000 acre-feet of water are to be conveyed from the Colorado River into central Arizona; that contracts are to be made with the water-use organizations there to pay for that water at $4.75 an acre-foot, or $4,750,000 a year. They are to make contracts to pay for that water whether they use it or not. If it happens to be a wet year they may not use the water. But we are in exactly the same situation, if I may say to the Sen- ator from California, as that which oc- curred recently in the State of Call- fornia. Congress authorized the con- struction of the Santa Barbara water project. Its construction was depend- ent upon contract for the repayment of the cost of the project, and Congress in the last Interior Department appropria- tion bill made it contingent that a suffi- cient number of the organized water users in and around Santa Barbara should obligate themselves to make an- nual payments for the cost of the project as determined by the Reclamation Serv- ice, and until those obligations were voted there was no appropriation made. Take the Solano project in California, @ magnificent development to my mind; no money has been appropriated for it because there has been no determina- tion yet as to who will pay its reimbursa- ble costs. We hear talk about a limited acreage and a small number of farmers. I wish to make the situation perfectly clear by saying that 725,000 acres of land will be benefited by the central Arizona project; that the 30,000 farmers who live on that Jand will be benefited; and that all that Jand will be included in contracts en- tered into by duly organized water users to pay $4,750,000 into the Treasury of the United States each year. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Let me say to the Senator the record clearly reveals that the farmers of central Arizona cannot pay one dollar upon the investment or one dollar upon the interest. The $4.75 they would pay is not sufficient to pay one-half of the annual operation and maintenance. The only way the main- tenance can be taken care of is by the virtual donation of one-third of the total power generated at Bridge Canyon, which the farmers will obtain practically at cost, and that the amount they would pay, $4.75, is not even sufficient to pay for operation and maintenance, and it is not contemplated it will pay one dollar, either upon the interest or upon the principal. All the interest on both the irrigation allocation of $400,000,000 and upon the power investment will be paid by the taxpayers of the United States over the 70 years, that will amount to more than $1,000,000,000, and all the principal upon both the power and the will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE irrigation investment will be paid out of the income from the power. Mr. HAYDEN. The senior Senator from California has made that assertion over and over again. In my judgment it is not borne out. There is no use now in arguing about it. The report of the United States Reclamation Service on the central Arizona project does not bear out the statement the Senator has made. The Senator can repeat it and repeat it indefinitely, but when the time comes for Congress to appropriate money for the construction of the irrigation works of the central Arizona project Congress will determine whether the Senator is right or whether I am right. I do Know that so far as the Central Valley project is concerned the cost to be paid by the irri- gation is not as great as the cost expected to be repaid into the Treasury from power. Whether the percentages in California and Arizona are the same is something else. The principle is the same, that a power subsidy is required to carry on the Central Valley project in California. The power generated at the Shasta Dam must bear a rate which, if there was no irrigation development, could be lower. Included in that rate is @ subsidy to irrigation. There is no question about that. Included in the Bridge Canyon power rate is a subsidy for irrigation. And included in every hydroelectric development in the West that is combined with irrigation there will be and has to be a subsidy. There is a subsidy in the Missouri Basin proj- ect. I can place in the Recorp these various subsidies—I shall be very glad to do so—and show where they are. It matters not where they are located, there will be no future irrigation of land, no future reclamation development any- where in the arid regions of the West that is not subsidized by power. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator in yielding. Let me say that on next Monday afternoon I shall be present upon the floor with the reports of the Bureau of Reclamation and the direct statements made by the junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFar.anp] to the effect that the farmers of central Arizona cannot pay one dollar toward either principal or interest, either of the power or the irrigation development, and that the $4.75 contemplated to be charged is not sufficient to cover by one- half the annual cost of operation and maintenance. Mr. HAYDEN. I shall, as always, listen with delight to the senior Senator from California. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. will my colleague yield to me? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. I have never made the statement the senior Senator from California has just attributed to me. I have at all times said that the $4.75 per acre-foot which the Arizona farmers will pay for operation and maintenance and part of the construction charges. That statement is made in the report of the Bureau of Reclamation. If my colleague wishes to have a com- parison of the subsidies placed in the President, 1887 Recorp, here it is: For the Central Val- ley of California there is a subsidy of sixty-eight one-hundredths of a mill. For the central Arizona project it will be seventy-two one-hundredths of a mill— or very little difference. Mr. HAYDEN. In the Columbia Basin it is smaller, namely, thirty-six one- hundredths of a mill. In the Missouri Basin it {s 2.7 mills of subsidy for irriga- tion. Mr, DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AIKEN in the chair). Does the Senator from Arizona yield to the Senator from Cali- fornia? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, in the Central Valley of California project, the amount paid by the farmers will pay more than one-half of the principal in- Gebtedness upon the amount allocated to farm benefits. I repeat that in the central Arizona project, according to the statements made by the farmers, by the junior Sen- ator from Arizona, and by the Bureau of Reclamation, it is admitted that the $4.50 will cover nothing more than op- eration and maintenance. In addition to that, in the Central Val- ley of California we pay 2% mills pe kilowatt-hour for project pumping. In the central Arizona project, the cost of the power, if sold commercially, would amount to $6,000,000 or $7,000,000. The people of Arizona will have to pay at the rate of a small fraction of 1 mill per kilowatt-hour, in order to pay for opera- tion and maintenance. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, if the senior Senator from California will just vote for the committee amendment, the matter of water rights will be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. If California can win in that lawsuit, no water will come to Arizona, and all the argument we have had today and all the argument which probably will be made hereafter with respect to irri- gation rights will be utterly wasted. So I suggest to the Senator from California that his approval of the O'’Mahoney- Millikin amendment would be an excel- lent way to bring the issue to a head. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN, I yield. , Mr. DOWNEY. Does not the Senator think there would be less waste of time and motion if we would first let the Su- preme Court decide these rights, and then attempt to pass upon this authori- zation? Mr. HAYDEN. Ientirely disagree with the Senator from California, because I do not believe that the Supreme Court will consider the case unless there is a real issue involved. However, that is a matter the Senator can debate with the lawyers. There is a further matter which I should like to mention. In the southern California propaganda against the cen- tral Arizona project, the statement is repeatedly made that Colorado River water is required to supply the needs of 5,000,000 people. What 5,000,000 peo- ple, Mr. President? Not the over 5,000,- 000 who now live in southern California
1888 because less than one-tenth of the water which they are now using comes from the Colorado River. I have before me a table of figures from the United States Geological Survey showing the actual diversions from the Colorado River through the metropolitan district aque- duct beginning with 30,700 acre-feet in 1941, increasing to 58,350 acre-feet in 1945, and to a maximum of 194,245 in 1948. The table is as follows: Diverted from the Colorado River at Parker Dam into metropolitan water district aqueduct which has a total annual capacity of 2,212,000 acre-feet Year. Acre-feet 1941__......-.---------------- 30, 700 1942__._.._.------------------ 31, 140 1943_..._.-.------------------- 34, 630 1944__._--_--.-22..---- 51, 633 1945__.....--.--.~------------- 58, 350 1946_...-----------~-.-------- 80, 395 1947.-_..--------.------------ 85, 356 1948___._.-...---------------- 194, 245 1949__...---.------------~---- 178, 597 Every year since that aqueduct was completed over 5,000,000 acre-feet has gone to waste out of that river into the Gulf of California. The water was there but it was not taken because it was not needed. It is perfectly evident from these facts that all this talk about the 5,000,000 people who need water has no legitimate relation to those who now live in southern California but is just camou- flage which is being practiced so that another 5,000,000 can be told that if they will come to southern California, there will be ample water for them. All this talk of the needs of 5,000,000 people is based upon delay, delay until more people do get to southern California; and if the authorization for the central Ari- zona project can be postponed long enough, the Californians, with their usual optimism, expect another 5,000,000 people within the next 10 years. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield Mr. CHAVEZ. Do I correctly under- stand the Senator from Arizona to mean that although at the moment the repre- sentatives of southern California would say, “We have to get some water from the Colorado River because of the fact that we have 5,000,000 people in southern California,” yet the record, as I under- stood the Senator from Arizona to say, indicates that very little of the water the representatives of southern California now are claiming would be water to be used by the 5,000,000 people; is that correct? Mr. HAYDEN. If they had needed it, they certainly would have pumped it out of the Colorado River, because it has been there every day since the metro- politan aqueduct was constructed. Mr. CHAVEZ. But they did not use it. Mr. HAYDEN. They did not use it— and why? Because they already had all the water that they needed from other sources than the Colorado River. Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. As I understand the argument of the Senator from Arizona, it is that the water comes over the mountains from Wyo- ming, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado. The representatives of California would say, “You cannot use any of that water CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE if you need it in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, or New Mexico, because California might need it for 5,000,000 people who might move to California in the future.” Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, of course, there is behind the 5,000,000 population argument this consideration: It is generally recognized that demands for water that is needed for human con- sumption have a priority over demands for water needed for irrigation and other uses. If there were in southern California sufficient human beings who were parched dry, for lack of water, un- doubtedly they would make the effort the Senator from New Mexico suggests, so far as the upper basin or elsewhere is concerned. Let us recall the case of the Owens Valley in California. There was in that valley an irrigated area. The city of Los Angeles, then having a popu- lation of about 200,000 people, decided it needed the water in the Owens Valley for its use, so Los Angeles proceeded to con- demn the agricultural land and take the water. The water was taken away from the irrigated land in Owens Valley be- cause there was a higher use for it, name- ly, for domestic consumption in the city of Los Angeles. Mr. CHAVEZ. But the same argu- ment would apply to the four upper basin States, as well; if they were to have increased populations which would need water, they would have a prior right to the water. Mr. HAYDEN. I shall not be at all surprised if, when the case gets to the Supreme Court, we will find the State of California urging that a mistake was made in the Colorado River compact, in the apportionment of the water among the States because that compact does not give due regard to the superior impor- tance of the domestic use, as against ordinary irrigation use. At any rate, the 5,000,000 people about whom the southern Californians have talked throughout all their propaganda actually do not now exist in southern California. Conclusive proof of that fact is that California has not felt com- pelled to come to the Colorado River to get water for the people who now live there. There is another question which I should like to ask. Why is it that the Californians seek delay® The answer is perfectly obvious, Mr. President: No substantial irrigation or power de- velopment can hereafter take place any- where on the Colorado River or its tribu- taries without aid from the Federal Treasury. That aid cannot be obtained except by votes in Congress and the ap- proval of the President. As a result of the 1930 census, California with a popu- lation of 5,677,000 had 20 Congressmen and 22 electoral votes, The 1940 census found 6,907,000 people in that State and its Representatives were increased to the present number of 23. The latest Cen- sus Bureau estimates indicate that Cali- fornia will have a population of close to 11,000,000 in 1950 which means that in 1952 there will be at least 30 California Congressmen and the State will certainly have as many as 32 electoral votes. As it now stands, California has a great advantag2, but if any additional FEBRUARY 17 use of Colorado River water can be post. poned until 1952 the probability of block- ing further development anywhere else except in California will be materially enhanced, If the central Arizona proj- ect can then be stalled off for another 10 years and the fully expected addi- tional 5,000,000 people come to Cali- fornia, the political power of that State will be further enhanced. In the mean- time, with the exhaustion of the under- ground waters, thousands of people will be compelled to leave Arizona and can- not be counted when the census taker makes his rounds. And also, as in the past, California will not be helpful to any additional diversion of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries in the Upper Basin States of New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Wyo- ming. The Californians want the water to come down the river so that they can get it. Those who speak for New Mexi- co, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, after many contacts and fruitless conferences with the Californians know just what motivates them. That is why the ac- credited representatives of those four States, as their interstate water commis- sloners, unanimously approved the reso- lution which I read into the Concres- SIONAL Record on February 8, urging favorable action upon S. 75, the pending bill to authorize the construction of the central Arizona project. The Senators from California have announced that they will propose a very cleverly designed amendment to delay building the Bridge Canyon Dam and hydroelectric power plant by postponing any construction until other dams are built upstream on the Colorado River which will catch the silt carried by its waters. What arethe facts? The Bridge Canyon Dam will back up the water in the narrow lower canyon of the Colo- rado, creating a lake 90 miles long. The Reclamation Service engineers, after carefully checking the annua] deposit of silt in Lake Mead, above the Hoover Dam, now estimate that it will take 30 years for enough silt to accumulate above Bridge Canyon to seriously interfere with the generation of electric power at that site. The southern Californians base their claim to a greater share of water from the Colorado River upon the needs of an ever-increasing population. The number of people in that half of the State has jumped from 2,932,795 in 1930 to 3,672,383 in 1940, and to a Census Bureau estimate of 5,600,000 in 1949, With true California optimism they con- fidently expect another 5,000,000 in the next 10 years. They therefore demand that Congress deny Arizona's claim to its share of Colorado River water or at least indefinitely delay any recognition of that claim until they will be in a better position to get it. Today there is an acute shortage of power in southern California, just as there is in Arizona. The 5,000,000 peo- ple who now live there would find no difficulty in making use of all power to be generated at Bridge Canyon. Cer- tainly the next 5,000,C00 immigrants who they are sure will come tnere will need power,
1950 If the southern Californians could be assured of control over all of the Bridge Canyon power, they would be enthusi- astically supporting appropriations by Congress for the immediate construction of that dam, silt or no silt. In proof of what I am saying, I read from the 1948 annual report of the Metropolitan water district: The department has maintained the posi- tion that no further Colorado River projects involving withdrawal of water from the lower basin should be authorized until the decision of the Nation's highest Court has finally determined the rights of the States. In the meantime, department engineers are continuing cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation in exploring dam sites, and in urging authorization by the Congress of development of hydroelectric .power. A suitable site already has been determined at Bridge Canyon, and drilling is being carried on at Glen Canyon to locate a satisfactory location. Power dams at Bridge Canyon and Glen Canyon, neither of which involve withdrawal of water from the river, and which were in- cluded in the original plans for the develop- ment of the Colorado, are needed to supply the constantly expanding markets created by the population and industrial growth of all three lower-basin States. The combined projects, which can duplicate the contribu- tion of Hoover Dam to the economy of the Southwest, without cost to the Government, will provide 1,535,000 kilowatts of generating capacity, and utilize water power equivalent to consumption of 15,000,000 barrels of fuel oil annually—energy that will flow on, for- ever wasted, until harnessed for the pro- duction of electricity. The people who live in southern Cali- fornia need power much more than they do water, and complete proof of that is that up to now not one-half of the 4,400,- 000 acre-feet of water which Arizona con- cedes to California has been put to bene- ficial consumptive use. No; it is only because a part of the power produced at Bridge Canyon is to be used to lift water from the Colorado River into Centra] Arizona that this de- laying amendment is suggested—an amendment which clearly deserves defeat. The southern Californians can cheer- fully envision another 5,000,000 people coming to settle among them, but it is impossible for them to conceive that there will be a spirit of enterprise in the States of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, where reservoirs will be established for power and irri- gation which will control the floods of the Colorado River and its tributaries above Pridge Canyon and thereby com- pletely solve the silt problem. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Speaking for Calfor- nia, let me say we are very anxious that the Bridge Canyon power plant be built, but we believe it can be a great economic factor for the Southwest and for the United States. We are unwilling to see one-third of that gigantic power dedi- cated to the job of pumping this water with very mcager benefit. We are un- willing to see the interest upon the great sums asked by the Government to build it, diverted to this farming enterprise. We are unwilling to see the power users of the Southwest burdencd with addi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tional sums to pay for this gigantic farm proposition. Mr. HAYDEN. Let us say it in an- other way. If there were no proposed irrigation developments which required pumping, if only gravity water were taken from the Colorado River, then none of the Bridge Canyon power would be used for that purpose. In that case there would then be no irrigation sub- sidy in connection with the Bridge Can- yon Dam, and if power from it could be obtained by southern California, it would be that much cheaper. If they could get power in southern California without the irrigation-subsidy burden, they would be glad to get it that much cheaper. I say the principle of an irri- gation subsidy from power is exactly the same at Bridge Canyon as it in in the Central Valley project in California, or in the Missouri Basin, or in the Columbia Basin, or anywhere else. It is impos- sible to nave any further irrigation de- velopment throughout the entire arid West without a power subsidy, and, so far as Arizona is concerned, the Bridge Canyon power site is wholly within our State. I can assure the Senator from California that so long as the State of Arizona is represented in the Congress, either in the Senate or in the House, if it is at all possible to use some part of the power generated in Bridge Canyon or elsewhere in the Grand Canyon region to help irrigate more land in Arizona, we are going to try to do that very thing, notwithstanding any protests which may come from California. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Iam totally unable to understand the statements made by the beloved senior Senator from Arizona. On the Colorado River, upon the power in- vestment in the Boulder Dam project, the Government receives 3 percent, which gocs back to the taxpayers and to the Treasury. That will not be true here. In Arizona, the interest will never go back to the Treasury of the United States. The Treasury will be out about $1,250,000,000. It will go to assist in the development of the irrigation proj- ect. In addition to that—if I may add this, and then I will conclude—the metropolitan water district and our farmers pay the full commercial value, about 5 mills, for the power they re- ceive and employ from Boulder Dam. Under this project, as conceived, the Ari- zona farmers will get a tremendous part of the power at about seven-tenths of 1 mill per kilowatt hour, which is about one-fifth of the amount at which it can be produced even in the Northwest, where we have the cheapest power. We have no such subsidies, in any part of the Colorado River, such as Arizona is here asking. Mr. HAYDEN. However that may be, the fact remains that, so far as the Hoover Dam project is concerned, if no interest had been charged, if there had been no reimbursement whatever to the Federal Government the total cost of the project would long ago have been paid. How? It would have been paid for by the increased prosperity in southern Cal- ifornia which resulted in more money 1889 being paid to the Federal Treasury by way of taxation. Mr. MCFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. In Just a moment. Bringing hydroelectric energy anywhere creates new wealth; and when that is done, the new wealth becomes taxable. I am just as confident, as I said before, that every year enough money is collected from the taxpayers of southern Califor- nia because of the power from Hoover Dam, completely to pay the entire cost of it. We in Arizona are desirous of maintaining the wealth of our State and of increasing it, so we may become heav- ier Federal taxpayers just as was done in California. I now yield to my col- league. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate my colleague upon the clarity of his statements of the issues involved in the pending bill. The Cali- fornia witnesses admitted that, at Icast to the extent that flood control was charged off in connection with the Boulder Canyon project, California power users were being subsidized by the Federal Government and were getting cheaper power. So far as the utilization of Colorado River water is concerned, it has been made very clear by the evidence and by the statement of the Secretary of the Interior that the lands of the east and w2st mesas in the Imperial Valley which have been referred to as an area to be irrigated, are in fact not irrigable. The Secretary of the Interior has refused to grant the turn-out gates for the irriga- tion of the east mesa land, which the University of California has determined to be land that is not fit to be irrigated. So my colleague has today developed the real issue here, and that is whether cer- tain interests in southern California are going to have cheaper power, or whether the economy of the State of Arizona is to be saved. I wish to congratulate my colleague upon his developing that and bringing it out on the floor of the Sen- ate Mr. HAYDEN. I thank the Senator. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. The Senator seems to be making the argument that if the Gov- ernment invests in this project $1,000,- 000,000 more or less, it will result in such activity in Arizona and such swelling of income taxes that the entire Nation will benefit. It is the same argument the eloquent and brilliant Senator from Ari- zona has made repeatedly. Let me say Arizona has about 750,000 people. There are 150,000,000 in the United States. Arizona has one-half of 1 percent of the population of the Nation. If we are to subsidize other regions of the United States, in order that they may develop more business and prod‘ice greater in- come, it would require $2,000,000,C00 As a matter of fact, the $1,000,000,000 of which the Senators from Arizona speak so casually represents approximately twice as much as the present assessed value of all the property in the State of Arizona. I fail to see how the State of Pennsylvania, whos2 taxpayers will pay approximately $75,000,000 or $100,000,000
1890 of the benefit, will gain anything com- mensurate, because Arizona may pay higher income taxes into the Treasury. Mr. HAYDEN. The Senator will not make that argument, the next time we have a bill under consideration in the Congress, authorizing the building of power plants, flood-control projects, or irrigation projects in California. The Senator from California will then adopt my logic and say whatever of that na- ture is done in his State will be a national asset, will create wealth to be taxed by the Federal Government, and the taxpay- ers of Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States will bear no extra burden. It depends entirely upon where the pro- ject is to be located, as to how the senior Senator from California applies his logic. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. I want to say to the Senator, that is just not correct, if he will pardon me. I am opposing the wasteful and extravagant projects pro- posed by the Bureau of Reclamation within the Central Valley, as well as elsewhere. Whenever the Bureau pro- poses for us a project that will cost $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 an acre, in order to produce irrigated lands worth a frac- tion of that, I shall be aggressively op- posed to them in California or in the State of Arizona. If this fantastic ex- travagant project were presented in the State of Calfornia, I should be just as aggressively opposed to it there as I am in central Arizona. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, Iam re- minded of an old saying, “Never bet against the future of the United States of America.”” Certainly, I would never bet against the future of the State of California. A State which can increase its population by more than 4,000,000 per- sons in 10 years, which can pay more than $3,000,000,000 into the Federal Treasury in 1 year, {s a good place for the Federal Government to make capital investments. I shall continue to support such investments, regardless of whether the senior Senator from California is in favor of them or not. I have always been in favor of developments of that kind, regardless of where they may he located. All I ask of California is that while she grows and prospers she will be generous and humane enough to let Arizona, one of her nearest neighbors, also have a fair opportunity to grow and to prosper, Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Iam directly thinking of the financial advantage of the State of Arizona. This project proposes to deduct one-third of the immense block of power which is going to be produced at Bridge Canyon for pumping the amount of water which has been mentioned, 1,000 feet, and conducting it 300 miles across the desert. In our opinion, formed by experts of the Federal Power Commission and the Department of Agriculture, that im- mense block of hydroelectric power would be worth five times as much to the State of Arizona in the production of wealth and employment as in utilizing it to irrigate common, ordinary field-crop land for principally cotton and grain. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE In this matter we think the State of Arizona is making an almost fatal error, if the Congress of the United States and the President should ever say, “Certainly, you can take this tremendous block of power to irrigate a comparatively meager amount of land.” We want to see Ari- zona prosper. We feel she is a sister State, but, unfortunately, she is now using an error of judgment, and we want to pre- vent her, so far as we can, from being im- provident and wasteful of tremendous sums of money in the Federal Treasury, and of tremendous blocks of hydroelectric power. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will my colleague yield to me? Mr. HAYDEN. I yield the floor. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I want to say that I wish again to congrat- ulate my colleague for bringing the is- sue right out into the open. It has been apparent, from the colloquy on the floor this afternoon, that the real issue in regard to the central Arizona project is whether the economy of the State of Arizona is going to be saved or whether the southern California power interests are going to get cheaper power. That is all there is to 1t. The record clearly shows that California has all the water she needs if the resources available to her are not wasted. RECOGNITION OF SERVICES OF JAMES BUCHANAN Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues a bill I have introduced to honor the mem- ory of a distinguished American whose service to Pennsylvania and to the Na- tion is worthy of recognition and praise. I refer to the fifteenth President of the United States, James Buchanan, the only Pennsylvanian elected to the office of Chief Executive of our Nation. During his lifetime and since, Presi- dent Buchanan has been the subject of much critical comment. But none of his contemporaries and likewise none of the historians who have recorded his life and works have questioned his sin- cerity or his integrity. It has been said that Buchanan’s char- acter, the breadth of his legal knowledge, and his experience as a Member of Con- gress, Cabinet member, and diplomat would have made him an excellent Presi- dent in ordinary times. Had Buchanan been President in any period other than the Civil War era, he undoubtedly would have served most effectively. It required a Lincoln to handle the Slavery and secession issues. Such a man comes along only once in a century. I should like to recall to the Senate some of Buchanan’s achievements. He was born near Foltz, Franklin County, Pa., on April 23, 1791. The bill I have introduced to authorize a com- memorative postage stamp would honor the one hundred and sixtieth anniver- say of his birth next year. Both of his parents were of Scottish- Irish Presbyterian descent. He graduated from Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., in 1809, thereafter study- ing law in Lancaster. Following his ad- mission to the bar in 1812, he served a term in the State legislature, FEBRUARY 17 During the period 1821 to 1831 he served in the United States House of Representatives and rose to the chair- manship of the House Judiciary Commit- tee. During his five terms he handled legislation of great importance. In the years 1832 and 1833, he served as our Minister to Russia where he nego- tiated an important commercial treaty. Elected to the United States Senate in 1834 and again in 1840, he served with distinction. An able orator, he partici- pated in many of the important Senate debates of that 12-year period. Buchanan became Secretary of State in the Cabinet of President Polk from 1845 to 1849. This period was marked by the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War, and negotiations with Great Britain on the Oregon question. In 1853 Buchanan was appointed by Presidet.t Pierce to serve as Minister to Great Britain. Returning from this important post in 1856, Buchanan became the Democratic candidate for the Presidency. He de- feated J. C. Fremont by an electoral vote of 174 to 114. On the expiration of his term of office March 4, 1861, Buchanan retired to his home at Wheatland near Lancaster, Pa., where he actively supported the Union until his death at the age of 77 on June 1, 1868. Few Presidents have held so many im- portant posts and none was of higher integrity or had a greater devotion for his country. George Ticknor Curtis, the principal Buchanan biographer, in the preface to his two-volume work on the fifteenth President, comments as follows: Mr. Buchanan's administration of the Gov- ernment during the 4 years which preceded the commencement of our Civil War is a topic upon which friends and foes have widely differed. But no unprejudiced person who now ex- amines the facts can doubt that, in many minds, injustice has been done to him. Per- haps this was inevitable, considering that a sectional civil war, of vast magnitude and attended with great bitterness, followed im- mediately after his retirement from office, when a political party which had been in opposition to his administration came for the first time into the full control of the Federal Government. I have found it an interesting task to trace the history of a man whose public and private character were always pure, whose patriotism was coextensive with his whole country, whose aims were high, and who was habit- ually conscientious in the discharge of every obligation, My estimate of his abilities and power as & statesman has risen with every investiga- tion that I have made; and it is, in my judg- ment, not too much to say of him as a Presi- dent of the United States, that he is entitled to stand very high on the catalog—not a large one—of those who have had the moral courage to encounter misreprecentation and obloquy, rather than swerve from the line of duty which their convictions marked out for them. I am hopeful that this proposed rec- ognition of James Buchanan will be given favorable consideration. PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF THE ACTIVITIES OF MICHAEL J. LEE Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that the man who heads the Far Eastern Branch of the
1950 Department of Commerce is a Man- churian-born Russian named Michael J. Lee who was taken into the Department by Henry Wallace when he was Secretary of Commerce. I am informed that Lee was turned down for United States citizenship three times—in 1935, 1937, and 1939—and that the grounds were, “Not good character, not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, in- competent witnesses.” My information is that in those years Lee’s real name was Ephraim Zinovi Liberman, and that he finally won citi- zenship, on his fourth try, after changing his name to Michael Lee and marrying an American-born woman. Lee is said to be the man whom the Chinese blame more than any other indi- vidual for deliberately delaying vital shipments of aviation gasoline and other supplies to Nationalist China until the Red hordes took over, It is interesting to note that he recently headed a special governmental mission to Japan and served as adviser on China and the Far East to the United States delegation at the United Nations. Several departments of government have had Lee’s loyalty and citizenship under investigation, besides which charges of maladministration were recently brought against Lee by other colleagues in the Commerce Department. Yet Lee is protected and kept on in one of the most strategic jobs in the whole Commerce Department, where he is in a position to block shipments to Nationalist China and facilitate shipments to Red- dominated areas of the Far East. ALGER HISS Mr. President, this matter comes on the heels of the conviction of Alger Hiss, who was, in reality, a traitor to this coun- try, although the charges had to be changed because of the original traitor charge having become outlawed. Mr. Hiss was an adviser to a President who, everyone knew, was failing rapidly at the time, and who probably paid not too much attention to the proceedings at Yalta. In those proceedings we gave Manchuria, the bread basket of China, to Russia, wihout any consent whatever from the Chinese Government, and forced China later to agree. The bread basket of China was turned over to Rus- sia, which gave Russia a foothold in China and in all of Asia. At the same time they turned over to the Russian Government the city of Ber- lin, without permitting us any means of access at all, which since has resulted in what we call the airlift, hauling coal in- to Berlin by airplane, at a cost of nearly $500 a ton, wrecking the equipment and killing our boys, an activity sold to this country as a great achievement, which would not have been necessary if we had had any adequate representation at Yalta. SHIPMENTS DELAYED Mr, President, at the very time these shipments to Nationalist China have been delayed and blocked, shipments au- thorized by the Congress of the United States, duly authorized and made avail- able, but delayed through such ma- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE neuvers as I have indicated, we have been making up the trade balance deficits of the 16 nations of Europe, through the ECA and the Marshall plan. They are in our budget, just as is the Department of the Interior, and we are giving them the necessary industrial machinery and money to buy raw materials, in fact, some of the raw materials themselves, yet following World War II, those 16 na- tions made 95 trade treaties with Rus- sia and with the iron curtain countries, furnishing them the processed and man- ufactured materials necessary to consoli- date their gains in eastern Europe and Communist China. The Members of the Senate can find @ complete list of these treaties by re- ferring to the CONGRESSIONAL REcorD of January 24 last, together with the de- tails and list of materials of several of them, SIXTEEN ECA NATIONS ARMING RUSSIA FOR WORLD WAR III Mr. President, the 16 ECA countries are helping the Russian Communists to consolidate their gains in eastern Europe and in China. Of course, it is history now that two of those nations have recognized Red China. Shipments go- ing through Hong Kong now have more than doubled over those of last year, Iam informed. They are being shipped every- thing they need to consolidate their gains in China, and also to consolidate their gains in eastern Europe and to fight world war ITI. On January 24 I introduced a joint resolution which would stop shipments and assistance to all nations which are helping Russia and eastern European countries and Communist China. I called upon the State Department to make the decision. In the event the State Department says that the cold war is still on, and that the spread of communism is still a threat to our own peace and safety, let us stop helping our enemies. But in addition to helping our enemies through shipping materials to Europe, apparently we have men in the Commerce Department who are block- ing legitimate help to Nationalist China, not at this time only, but they apparently did it before the Communists actually took over, Mr. President, the junior Senator from Nevada considers that this is one more link in the chain of all the maneuvers which tie up our national economy with Europe. CONGRESS ABROGATED AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE NATIONAL ECONOMY I wish to mention at this time the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, under which the Congress of the United States abdicated its constitutional authority over the na- tional economy in favor of the State De- partment. I consider that action an economic “Yalta,” and it will so be con- sidered generally in a very short time. The Congress of the United States is charged, by the Constitution, with the regulation of the national economy, but through the 1934 Trade Agreements Act abrogated that authority and trans- ferred it to the State Department. The 1984 Trade Agreements Act has been extended, and is now in full force 1891 and effect. That act gives over to an in- dustrially inexperienced State Depart- ment full authority over the domestic economy of this country, and puts into their hands the fate of every working- man’s job and every investment in this Nation. They can say, after perfunc- tory hearings, what industries in the United Statcs shall survive and what will be sacrificed. That is just a part of the whole picture. NEW YORK DAILY NEWS—-RUTH MONTGOMERY I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Rxecorp at this point an article by Ruth Montgomery, published in the New York Daily News on Decem- ber 6, 1949, which outlines some of the details in this regard. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the R&Ecorp, as follows: CAPITAL CIRCUS (By Ruth Montgomery) WasnuincTon, D C , December 5 —Who Is the man who controls the shipments of millions of dollars worth of food and vital war sup- plies to Nationalist China—at a time when we are losing the cold war in the Far East to Communist Russia? He is Russian-born Michael J Lee, who three times was turned down for United States citizenship on these grounds: “Not good character, not attached to prin- ciples of the Constitution of the United States, incompetent witnesses.” Incredible? That quotation is from the official Federal court records in Chicago, where Lee lost three successive petitions tor citizenship on August 12, 1935, October 29, 1937, and August 4, 1939. At that time his name was Ephraim Zinovi Liberman. This man—who is now Chief of the Far Eastern Branch of the Department of Com- merce—finally won United States citizenship on June 6, 1941, after marrying un American= born woman from Shanghal and changing his name to Michael Lee. Lee last month headed a spectal govern- mental mission to Japan, which dealt with foreign trade and economic matters. Re- cently he served as adviser to the United States delegation at the United Nations on reconstruction and rehabilitation for devas- tated areas in China and the Far East, CHINESE BLAME LEE FOR SHIPPING DELAY It 1s Lee, more than any other Govern- ment official, whom GOP Congressmen and the Chinese blame for delays in vital ship- ments of aviation gasoline and other sup- plies to war-swept China until too late for the Nationalist Government to use them effectively against the Reds. Representative WALTER Jupp, Republican, Minnesota, who repeatedly has urged the Department of Commerce to investigate Lee, charged “unconscionable delay” in aiding China “The China aid bill was passed by Congress April 3, 1947," Jupp, former medical missionary to China, declared. “It took until July to get the paper work set up, although when the British needed help after Dun- kerque, President Roosevelt hud ships loaded and moving in 8 days. No rcal maternal reached China until December—8 months after Congress authorized the aid” Jupp called it “suspicious and unjustifiable to have a foreigner of Russtan lineage and pro-Russian leanings heading exports to that strategic area.” “We are supposed to be in mortal combat with Russia in that area,” he continued, “yet a Russian controls our shipping there. On the basis of Lee’s slowness in executing the China-aid program—tf for no other—it would be bad judgment to keep him in that post.
1892 Who is his friend at court? An ordinary American works up to 20 years to head a divi- sion of government, This foreigner walked in at the top. We are taking unnecessary chances.” LEE'S CAREER IN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Lee, who earns in excess of $10,000 a year, was brought into the Commerce Department by the then Secretary Henry Wallace in January 1946, Previously his application for commissions had been turned down by both the Army and the Navy. In 1942 he joined the Board of Economic Warfare, which was later recognized and called the Foreign Eco- nomic Administration. Lee was its deputy director of far eastern and other terrl- tories in charge of economic programs When FEA folded up after the war, Lee was unemployed for a time unti] Wallace rescued him and took him to Commerce. Despite numerous protests from Senators and Representatives, Lee has been kept on in this strategic spot. It is known that a loyalty hearing on Lee was held early this year. Another department of Government has been investigating his activities for a year and a half. But time—ior China—has almost run out. Here is the background of the man who heacs the Department which controls all allocations and export licenses for China and the Far East: Lee was born of Russian parents in Harbin, Manchuria, in 1907 The birth date given on his citizenship application was June 24, 1907. His official biography records it as July 27. While very young he became the protege of a Manchurian Chinese official named Mo Teh-hui, who was Harbin’s chief of police. VISITED RUSSIA AS SECRETARY TO DELEGATE In 1929 Mo became president of the Chinese Eastern Railway and in 1930 was sent with the rank of ambassador to Moscow as Chinese delegate to the Sino-Russian conference. Lee, then named Liberman, went along as Mo’s secretary and interpreter. Friends who knew him during this period insist that they noticed a marked change in Lee’s politics after his stay in Russia, the fatherland of his parents. Lee came to the United States tn 1932, landing in Seattle, Wash., June 14. He ob- tained a law degree from the John Marshall Law School in 1935 and then began his four attempts to gain United States citizenship. Invited to address the National Foreign Trade Council in New York last year, Lee furnished that business organization with a biography which gave his birthplace as the United States But when this reporter was supplied with an official biography from his office last week, it read: “Born and reared in the Far East © * © Upon his return to the United States was graduated from the John Marshall Law School.” Actually, this was Lee's first arrival in this country. SENATE RESOLUTION 230 Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to sub- mit and to have referred to the appro- priate committee, a resolution for an investigation by the Interstate and For- eign Commerce Committee of the par- ticular act I have recounted on the part of the person I have just described. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The res- olution will be received and appropriately referred, The resolution (S. Res. 230) was re- ferred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, as follows: Resolved, That the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, in pur- suance of section 136 of the Legislative Re- organization Act of 1946 (Public Law 601, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 79th Cong.), is authorized and directed to make a full and complete study and investi- gation of the operation and administration of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Com- merce for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not that Bureau {ts being oper- ated in accordance with the law, the public interest, and the intent of the Congress. Such study and investigation shall in- clude, but shall not be limited to, an exam- ination into the qualifications, honesty, com- petency, efficiency, and loyalty of people em- ployed by the Department of Commerce, and particularly the qualifications, honesty, com- petency, efficiency and loyalty of Michael J. Lee, formerly known as Ephraim Zinovl Liberman, Chief of the Far Eastern Division of the Office of International Trade in the Department of Commerce. Sec 2. The committee shall report its find- ings, together with its recommendations for such legislation as it may deem advisable, to the Senate at the earliest practicable date. Sec 3. For the purposes of this resolution the committee, or any duly authorized sub- committee thereof, is authorized, during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Eighty-first Congress, (1) to make such expenditures, as it deems advisable, (2) to employ upon a temporary basis such tech- nical, clerical, and other assistants as it deems advisable; and (3) with the consent of the head of the department or agency concerned, to ut.lize the services, informa- tion, facilities, and personnel of any of the departments or agencies of the Government Sec 4 Expenses of the committee under this resolution, which shall not exceed $10,000, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, if the allegations are true, or any part of them, this man should be removed from the Commerce Department forthwith. If they are untrue, he should be cleared. The Department of Commerce has, from its inception, been Known as a thoroughly dependable branch of the Government. Let us Keep it that way. CREATION OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution (S. Res. 58) to amend the Senate rules by creating a standing Committee on Small Business. Mr. WHERRY obtained the floor. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may suggest the absence of a quorum? Mr. WHERRY. I shall be very glad to yield for that purpose. Mr. HOLLAND. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken George Lodge Anderson Gillette Lucas Benton Green McCarran Bricker Gurney McCarthy Chapman Hayden McClellan Chavez Hendrickson McFarland Connally Hill McKellar Cordon Hoey McMahon Darby Holland Magnuson Donnell Hunt Malone Douglas Ives Martin Downey Johnson, Colo. Maybank Dworshak Jobnson, Tex. Morse Eastland Johnston, 8.0. Mundt Ecton Kefauver Murray Ellender Kerr Myers Ferguson Kilgore O’Conor Frear Knowland O'Mahoney Fulbright Lehman Robertson FEBRUARY 17 Russell Stennis Tydings Saltonstall Taft Wherry Schoeppel Taylor Wiley Smith, N. J. Thomas, Okla. Williams Sparkman Thomas, Utah Withers The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPARKMAN in the chair). present. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. WHERRY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, before the Senator from Nebraska begins to speak on the pending measure, I should like to advise the Senate that those who are interested in the resolution pertain- ing to the creation of a standing com- mittee on small business have been dis- cussing the possibility of obtaining a unanimous-consent agreement to vote on the resolution on Monday. Therefore, I now propose the follow- ing agreement: I ask unanimous consent that on the calendar day of Monday, February 20, 1950, at the hour of 3 o’clock p. m., the Senate proceed to vote, with- out further debate, upon any amendment which may be pending or which may be proposed to Senate Resolution 58, amending the Senate rules by creating a standing committee on small business, and upon the final adoption of the reso- lution, provided, that no amendment which is not germane to the subject mat- ter shall be received; provided further, that the time between 11 o’clock a. m. and 8 o’clock p. m. on said day shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the resolution, and controlled respectively by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHErRY! and the Senator from IJJinois [Mr. Lucas]. A quorum is The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object—and let me say that I have the floor, I understand— I should like to suggest to the majority Jeader that I had agreed to have the Senate vote on the resolution at 3 o’clock on Monday, following the convening of the Senate at 12 o’clock noon on that day. I submit to the distinguished ma- jority leader that it is very difficult to have the Senate meet at 11 o'clock, for committee hearings are going on, and Senators who are in attendance at com- mittee meetings or who are otherwise engaged plan to be in the Senate Cham- ber at noon. I am not averse to having 4 hours devoted to debate on the resolution on Monday, if that is the wish of the Sen- ate; in fact, I would welcome it. But I submit to the distinguished ma- jority leader that if a 4-hour debate is what is desired, I believe it would work for the benefit of all concerned if the vote were taken at 4 o’clock on Monday, following the convening of the Senate at 12 noon. I know the majority leader realizes the difficulty of obtaining the at- tendance of a quorum of the Senate at 11 o’clock in the morning, for the com- mittees are working in the mornings. AS a result, very little time is saved by having the Senate convene at 11 a. m. I submit that it is agreeable to me to have the voting begin at 3 o’clock on
1950 Monday, {f 3 hours are to be devoted to debate prior to the voting; but if 4 hours are to be devoted to the debate, I believe the hour of 4 o’clock would be preferable, for all concerned, as the hour to com- mence the voting. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from Nebraska that I have discussed the matter with the Senator from Florida {Mr. Hottamp], the coauthor of the resolution we are now Gebating. He suggested that he thought 11 o’clock would be better. However, I told him that if the Senate convened at 12 o’clock on that day and the voting began at 3 o'clock, I would be willing to provide for him 30 minutes’ time from the time allotted to me under the pro- posed agreement. I assumed the Sena- tor from Nebraska would provide $0 minutes. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, at this time, I make no objection to that, but we are really considering entering into & Unanimous-consent agreement with only 2 hours on a side, !f 4 hours are al- Jowed for debate, and an hour and a half on a side, if $ hours are allowed. I do not wish to press the matter. I should be glad to have a vote at 3 o’clock, and, if the distinguished majority leader in- sists, I should be glad to have the Senate reconvene at 11 a. m. YI want to co- operate. However, I submit to the ma- jority leader that it does not save time to convene at 11 instead of 12. If the majority Jeader could see his way clear to allow debate from 12 o'clock to 4 o’clock, 1t would expedite matters, and, so far as Monday night session is con- cerned, after the vote has been taken on the amendments, I believe the Senate would be glad to remain in session until considerable progress had been made with the so-called cotton amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act. If the mafority leader feels that my suggestion is not in line, I shall not object to having the Senate meet at 11 o’clock. I submit, however, I think 12 o’clock would be the better hour. From 12 till 4 would give ample time for all Senators to be pres- ent without the necessity of a long quorum call. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, it is im- material to me. The only point I stress is that Senators who are vitally inter- ested in House Joint Resolution $98, af- fecting cotton, have been pressing the majority leader for action. The joint resolution was delayed for 2 or 3 days in the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, of which the majority leader is @ member. Time is of the essence, 50 far as the passage of the joint resolu- tion is concerned. I have no objection to changing the time, and allowing the debate to run from 12 o'clock until 4 o’clock, if the Senator from Nebraska prefers. I think probably there is much merit in his contention that we really do not get very much done when the Senate meets at 11 o'clock. However, I should now iike to make a further statement. When we begin the consideration of House Joint Resolution 398, on Monday, we may have to hold a night session. Because of the previous unanimous-consent agreement entered into to make disposition of Senate bill 15, which involves the controversy be- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tween Arizona and California over water rights, we shall probably not be able to transact other business. So, there may be a night session, in order to dispose of the joint resolution relating to cotton. I think it is a little unusual perhaps to heave a night session so early in the year, but there is an emergency in connection with cotton. Mr. President, I modify my unani- mous-consent request so as to make it read “between 12 o'clock and 4 o'clock,” instead of “between 11 o’clock and 3 o'clock.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent re- quest, as modified? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished majority leader for his consideration in fixing the voting hour at 4 o'clock, and the hour of convening at 12. I send to the desk a revised amendment to Senate Resolution 58, which is the pending business. I offer it at this time as a substitute to Senate Resotution 58. The PRESIDING OFFICER. ‘The Senator from Nebraska offers an amend- ment, which the Clerk will state. The Crier Cierx. It is proposed to strike out all after the word “Resolved”, and insert in Neu thereof the following: That there is hereby created a select cam- mittee to be known as the Committee on Small Business and to consist of 18 Senators to be appointed by the President of the Sen- ate as soon as practicabie after the date of adoption of this section and at the com- mencement of each Congress. It shall be the duty of such committee to study and survey by means of research and investigation all problems of American smali-business enterprises, and to obtain all facts possible in relation thereto which would not only be of public interest, but which would aid the Congress in enacting remedial legislation, and to report to the Senate from time to time the results of such studies and surveys. No proposed legislation shall be referred to such committee and such committee shall not have power to report by bill or otherwise have legislation jurisdiction. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask that the revised amendment be printed, so that Senators may have it on their desks Monday morning. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will lie on the desk, and be printed. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, it is very difficult to work out certain of the requests which have been made. If it is agreeable to the distinguished ma- jority leader, and if he feels that the time has come for a recess, I shall be giad to surrender the floor and to pro- eved with the argument on the creation of a standing committee on small busi- ness on Monday at noon. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry. Mr. LUCAS. What is the pending question before the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the amendment of- fered by the Senator from Nebraska in the form of a substitute for Senate Res- olution 58. 1893 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the Inquiry. Mr. LUCAS. Is the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska subject to per- fecting amendments? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is sub- ject to perfecting amendments. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. MURRAY. I send to the desk an amendment in the nature of a perfect- ing amendment to the amendment just submitted by the Senator from Nebraska. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana to the amendment of the Senator from Ne- braska. The LaGistative Clerk. On the first page, beginning with the word “rule” in line 1, it is proposed to strike out down through the word “standing” in line 4 and insert in Meu thereof the following: ‘<(a) a special.” On the first page, line 7, strike out “section” and insert in lieu thereof “res- olution.” On the first page, line 9, strike out the quotation marks. On page 2, strike out lines 6 to 11, in- clusive. On page 2, after line 11, insert the following: (c) For the purposes of this resolution the committee, or any duly authorined subcom- mittee thereof, is authorized to hold hear- ings, to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate during the Elghty-first Co igress and Eighty-second Congress, to employ such experts and clerical, steno- graphic, and other assistants to request such information from any departments and agen- ci.s of the Government, to require by sub- pena or otherwise the attendance of euch witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, and to take such testimony and to make such expenditures as it deems advisa- ble. The cost of stenographic services to report the educational matertal and data on such hearings shall not be in excess of 25 cents per 100 words. The expense of the committee, which shall not exceed §————— in any calendar year, shell be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouch- ers approved by the chairman of the com- mittee. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair may state to the Senator from Montana that, in the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is not drawn as an amendment to the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska, but it is really drawn as an amendment to the original resolution. ‘The Chair would suggest that the Senator from Montana consult the substitute which has been offered by the Senator from Nebraska, and make his amendment fit in with it, or that it be offered as a substitute for the substitute. Mr. MURRAY. I offer it as a sub- stitute for the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par- Namentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
1894 Mr. WHERRY. The Senator has a perfect right to offer a substitute to Sen- ate Resolution 58, but am I not correct that any amendment he offers must be in the nature of a perfecting amendment to the amendment I have offered to Sen- ate Resolution 58? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, after consultation with the Par- lhamentarian, announces that the Sen- ator from Montana may offer a substi- tute for the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska is treated as the original text, and the Senator from Montana modifies—— Mr. MURRAY. I modify that amend- ment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana does that by Offering a substitute. Mr. MURRAY. That is correct. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is, as a substitute for the amendment of- fered by the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. MURRAY. Exactly. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Montana will lie on the table, and be printed. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry. Mr. LUCAS. The amendment offered by the Senator from Montana in the nature of a substitute is now the pending question before the Senate, is it not? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is correct; it is the pending question. Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, the sub- stitute which I have sent to the desk, and which has now been read, changes the language of the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska to make the committee a special committee instead of a standing committee. In this way, it obviates the need of amending the standing rules of the Senate. The com- mittee would have the same effect as a standing committee, which the Senator recommends, without making it neces- sary to change the rules. The special committee is authorized under the ex- isting rules. Therefore, I submit that the substitute I have offered is the bet- ter procedure by which to handle the matter. A special committee has been in existence in the Senate for a great many years. It was set up originally in 1940, which was, of course, at the end of the depression, and the committee carried on extensive studies and research at that time, submitting a great many proposed amendments to laws. It was of great assistance to small business, especially during the period of rearma- ment, when it was found that small- business concerns were unable to con- tinue in business because of the lack of materials with which to carry on civilian production. They could not get into war production, because they were not equipped for the purpose. As a result of our studies, we set up a Small War Plants Corporation, which aided small manufacturers in extending their plants CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and making it possible for them to ob- tain necessary funds with which to en- gage in war production. As a result, production was greatly accelerated and the war effort effectively aided by mak- ing it possible for this country to pro- duce the armaments necessary to the successful conduct of the war. I do not want to take up too much time at this moment, because we shall be discussing this subject again later, but I should like to point out that as a result of that committee, we created in the minds of the various agencies of the Government a knowledge of the need for measures to protect small-business enterprises, At that time thousands of small-business concerns were going into bankruptcy, and we caused the procure- ment agencies to establish small-busi- ness units and to make every effort to mobilize small business in the war-pro- duction program, Subsequently, we sug- gested many other amendments to the laws of the country which made it pos- sible, for instance, for smal]]-mine owners to engage in the production of scarce metals and minerals which were so nec- essary to a successful prosecution of the war. We amended existing laws so as to enable small-mine owners in the West to produce manganese and many ether scarce metals which were so essential to the program. We also aided other concerns, which were affected by the stoppage of the production of automo- biles incident to the prosecution of the war. Asaresult of the stoppage of auto- mobile production 64,000 automobile dealers all over the United States were facing bankruptcy and ruin because they were unable to sell automobiles. As a result of the amendments we proposed at that time, those dealers were pro- tected and enabled to remain in busi- ness during the progress of the war. I could cite many instances of results accomplished by that special committee which, I think, would convince Senators that it is very important that a com- mittee of a similar character be reestab- lished at this period because of the dan- 8erous conditions which confront the Nation as a result of the growth of mo- nopoly and the concentration of owner- ship. Only a short time ago the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Standard Oil Co. against United States, which was decided on June 13, 1949, handed down an opinion which was writ- ten by Mr, Justice Douglas, and which has this to say: The increased concentration of industrial power in the hands of a few has changed habits of thought. A new age has been in- troduced. It is more and more an age of monopoly competition. Monopoly competi- tion is a regime of friendly alliances, of quick and easy accommodation of prices even without the benefit of trade associations, of what Brandeis said was euphemistically called cooperation. While this is not true in all fields, it has become alarmingly ap- parent in many. The lessons Brandeis taught on the curse of bigness have largely been forgotten in high Places. Size is allowed to become a menace to existing and putative competitors. Price control is allowed to escape the influences of the competitive market and to gravitate into the hands of the few. But beyond all that there is the effect on the community when FEBRUARY 17 independents are swallowed up by the trusts and entrepreneurs become employees of ab- sentee owners. Then there is a serious loss in citizenship. Local leadership is diluted. The decision goes on to recite the troubles and dangers which confront business enterprise in this country. I submit that it would be wise for the Senate to reestablish the committee to which I have referred. Mr. President, for the moment I with- draw the substitute which I have offered, and shal] submit it at a later time. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MURRAY. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator has not had time to read the revised amendment which I offered, and his remarks have been directed to the original resolution. The revised amendment which the junior Senator from Nebraska offers to Senate Resolution 58 does not amend the Stand- ing Rules of the Senate. It establishes, however, a continuing special committee, which, once approved, does not have to come back at each session of the Con- gress for its continuance. Outside of that, I do not think there is any impor- tant difference as between myself and the Senator from Montana. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. MAYBANK. Do I correctly understand that the Senate will vote on the resolution on Monday? The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 4 o'clock. Mr. MAYBANK. I heard the state- ment of the Senator from Montana to the effect that he was going to withdraw his amendment, or substitute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was a substitute for a substitute previously offered by the Senator from Nebraska (Mr, WuHerry]. Mr. MURRAY. I wish to withdraw it for the purpose of perfecting it during the intervening time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw his substitute. The pending question is the substitute offered by the Senator from Nebraska. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I understood the Senator from Montana to say that he was going to perfect his amendment. That would have to be done today, would it not, so that it may lie on the desk? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution is open to amendment up to the time the vote is taken. Mr. MAYBANK. In other words, the amendment need not be perfected until, say, 3:50 o’clock on Monday. The PRESIDING OFFICER. What the Chair meant to state was that the resolution would be open to amendment up to that time, but any perfecting amendment could be offered up to that time. No Senator is precluded from offering an amendment. Mr. MAYBANK. I thank the Presid- ing Officer. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator from South Carolina, however, that the Sen- ator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] and the President, a
1950 Senator from Nebraska (Mr. WHERRY] have control of the time on Monday from 12 o’clock until 4 o'clock. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. MAYBANK. If I should offer an amendment, I would have the right to perfect it, would I not, provided the Sen- ators in charge of the time would give me the right to do so? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would have a right to offer his amendment, regardless of the control of the time, but so far as debate is con- cerned that would be within the control of the two Senators to whom the Chair has referred. Mr. MAYBANK. I should like to ask the distinguished majority leader this question: If I should decide to offer an amendment, would it be possible to give me at least 5 minutes’ time? Mr. LUCAS. I will give the Senator 10 minutes. Mr. WHERRY. If the Senator desires any more time, I will give him 5 minutes also. Mr. LUCAS. I am always very gen- erous with the other fellow’s time. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, there seems to be a general consensus on the part of the Senators who have spoken on this subject that small business needs a special handmaiden in the form of a committee of the Senate of the United States, but the question seems to be, what kind of committee can best per- form the needed service? The Senate is aware of the fact that last year I was joined by the junior Sen- ator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY J in of- fering Senate Resolution 68, which was made the order of business and which now, as I understand, it is proposed to amend by the substitute which has been offered by the junior Senator from Ne- braska. I think it appropriate at this time to call attention to several matters in that regard which have changed the situation quite materially from what it was at the time Senate Resolution 58 was offered by the Senator from Nebraska and myself. In the first place, the Senate has acted on the question of what committee has the dominant interest in the field of leg- islative service to small business. The Senate will recall that when the refer- ence of Senate Resolution 29 came up in February of last year, the President of the Senate referred the bill to the Bank- ing and Currency Committee, that his reference was appealed from, and that the Senate was asked to express its view on that appeal, as to where properly the resolution should have gone, it being con- tended on the part of some Senators that it should have gone to the Committee on Rules and Administration, on the part of others that it should have gone else- where. However, the President of the Senate ruled that the proper reference for that resolution was to the Banking and Cur- rency Committee. The reason for his ruling was that under the appropriate section of the reorganization law he was directed in such cases to look to see what standing committee controlled the pre- President, a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE dominant part of the legislation arising in the fleld covered by the bill. The Sen- ate by an overwhelming vote approved the reference made by the President of the Senate, thus indicating by an over- whelming vote, that it was the sense of the Senate that the Banking and Cur- rency Committee does have, under the reorganization law, the dominant inter- est in this particular field of small busi- ness, and any legislation offered affect- ing the field of small business. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to also recall that later in the session of 1949 there was offered a resolution, S:nate Resolution 101, by which it was pro- posed to set up a fund of $60,000 out of the contingent fund of the Senate for the Banking and Currency Committee, through itself or by a subcommittee, to make a study of varios fields, one of which was the fleld of small business. The Senate will remember that at that time it was agreed that the small-busi- ness field was the largest field which was to be submitted to the Banking and Cur- rency Committee for its investigation under the terms of Senate Resolution 101, and that the budget submitted in connection with Senate Resolution 101 showed that it was intended to spend $30,000 out of the $60,000 in an investiga- tion affecting small business. The Senate is aware of the fact, of course, that a very important subcom- mittee was set up by the Banking and Currency Committee, consisting of 10 members of a total membership of 13 of the Banking and Currency Committee, and that in deference to the size of the business which would be handled and its importance, the chairman of the Bank- ing and Currency Committee, the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. May- BANK], became the chairman of that particular subcommittee, the Subcom- mittee on Small Business of the Com- mittee on Banking and Currency. Thereafter extensive studies were be- gun by that committee, and the Senate will recall that in this year, 1950, when it was apparent that the funds hereto- fore assigned to the small-business fleld were not sufficient, and when the time given to this study under Senate Resolu- tion 101 was about to expire, another resolution was introduced to extend the time, Senate Resolution 218, which was adopted by the Senate at this session. I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that by adopting Senate Resolu- tion 218 the time of service, as well as the fleld of service for this particular sub- committee of the Banking and Currency Committee of the Senate was extended until February 1951. What is of further importance is that at that time, by the passage of Scnate Resolution 218, to which was again attached a proposed budget, the Senate devoted more of the $60,000 which had been made available to this particular effort, more of it to the field of small business than had hereto- fore been made available for small-busi- ness investigations. I think the Senate will find that a total of $45,799.50 under this second budget, which was filed in connection with Senate Resolution 218, out of the total of $60,000, was made available solely for this study of small business and {ts various problems. 1895 Mr. President, that means that r_gard- less of what is done on the resolnion which has been offered by my friend the junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Wherry], in the nature of a substitute for the pending resolution, regardless of what is done on the resolution which has been discussed on the floor by my friend the Senator from Montana [Mr. Mur- RAY], in the event he offers his resolu- tion, as he said he intends to do, as a substitute for the resolution offered by the Senator from Nebraska, the Senate has already voted to set up a study com- mittee for small business and is com- mitted to that course and has appro- priated out of its contingent fund for that purpose to run the activity until February, 1951. So, I submit, Mr. Presi- dent, that thoughtfully and kindly though they may be suggested—-and sug- gested, I know, out of a real interest in the problems of small business—neither of the measures, neither the one sub- mitted by the Senator from Nebraska nor the one proposed to be submitted by the Senator from Montana, will at all clear up this situation. but, instead, either of them would leave it more mud- dled than it is now, by having two sep- arate committees given the same author- ity, with the necessity of double staffs and the necessity of making additional funds available for the functioning of whatever new committee would be set up. “That is a rather intolerable situation to leave here, and I think it: would mean that we would leave smal] business and the many people engaged in smal! busi- ness, whom all of us wish to serve better, in a worse situation than now, so far as knowing where they should go or which committee will handle their problems is concerned. Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLAND I yleld to the Sena- tor from South Carolina. Mr. MAYBANK. I merely wish to re- mind the distinguished Senator from Florida that in my judgment it is not so much a question of investigation as it is of legislation. A few moments ago the distinguished Senator from Montana (Mr. Murray] spoke of legislation which had been passed during the war years. Most of that legislation came from the Committee on Banking and Currency, because that committee had jurisdiction over the various control] agencies and the various war plants. I feel, as the Senator from Florida feels, that the Congress should do some- thing positive to help the small business- men by enacting legislation for his wel- fare, and not merely having it appear in the newspapers that we are going to in- vestigate something. The Committee on Banking and Cur- rency has before it many bills which have for their object assistance to small busi- ness, We are working, for instance, on & Reconstruction Finance Corporation bill introduced by the distinguished Sen- ator from Illinois, and bills to extend amortization periods. We hope the committee will report bills whereby Congress can legislate and something tangible can be accomplished