1950 orously examined by both the House and Senate in the Eightieth and Eighty- first Congresses, and has undergone per- fecting amendments to eliminate ob- jections made by witnesses and perceived by the committee members who have considered the bill. A word as to the need for the bill: In 1938, the Congress enacted amend- ments to the Bankruptcy Act designed to offset the unfortunate consequences of several earlier Supreme Court deci- sions enlarging unduly the degree of protection extended to preferential liens against estates in bankruptcy. In an effort to correct these consequences, the 1938 amendments had the unintended ef- fect of operating in such a restrictive fashion that many types of liens acquired in good faith were invalidated, contrary to accepted custom and usage in business and financial circles. Recent Supreme Court decisions have brought the defi- ciency in the 1938 amendments to focus and, because of an even later decision of a circuit court which was not appealed and which went further than the Su- preme Court decisions, a state of un- certainty exists in the courts of the Jand as to what the law is, and doubt attaches to the validity of many bona fide business transactions. Others to speak on the measure will describe its technical features. I merely wish to lend my support to the bill be- cause I am familiar with the background Circumstances impelling its passage. From close study, I can assure my col- leagues in the House that the amend- ments proposed will correct the short- comings of the law without endanger- ing the rights of creditors of bankrupt estates. The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. The committee amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed. The title was amended So as to read: “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to establish a uniform system of bank- ruptcy throughout the United States,’ approved July 1, 1898, and acts amenda- tory thereof and supplementary thereto.” A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. PERMISSION TO REVISE AND EXTEND Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, may I supplement that by asking unanimous consent that all Members may extend their remarks immediately preceding the passage of the bill, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Youne] is recognized for 10 minutes, xCVI——97 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE REPEAL OF EXCISE TAXES Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I voice disappointment over some omissions on the subject of repeal of excise taxes in the recommen- dation made by Secretary of the Treas- ury Snyder to the Committee on Ways and Means. At the outset let us get this fact straight: That if and when 3 or 5 or 10 or more of the majority members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and when scores and scores of the majority Members of this House voice their judg- ment that wartime excise taxes should be repealed, we are not joining with the Republican Party nor following Repub- lican leadership. Let us get that fact straight. For example, last session, when the question of imposing the ob- noxious and atrocious sales tax of 2 per- cent in the District of Columbia was de- bated and voted on, on the floor of the House of Representatives, it was votes of the majority Members of the House which were cast against that, and very few votes from the minority side were against that obnoxious tax which now oppresses all of us in the District of Co- lumbia and all of our constituents who visit here. It is a fact that the Demo- cratic national platform has time and again voiced disapproval of the national sales tax. There are on the Committee on Ways and Means majority members, such as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] and others, who time and time again have expressed disapproval of the wartime excise taxes and expressed themselves in favor of repealing them. As a matter of fact, in January 1947, President Truman recommended to the Congress that it continue the wartime excise taxes for a period of 1 year only. That was during the Republican Eighti- eth Congress, and the Eightieth Con- gress denied the President’s request. Instead, the last Republican Congress voted for legislation continuing perma- nently the wartime excise taxes which have proved so oppressive to our people. We are not joining the “Johnnie come lately’s.” Many minority Members are going along with us. We propose to eliminate some excise taxes and greatly reduce others commencing next July 1. In particular I denounce the war- imposed 20-percent tax on movie admis- sions. This tax bears heavily on amuse- ment, relaxation, and recreation costs of our people. This tax is responsible for a decline in attendance of movies. It is responsible for huge losses in a hereto- fore profitable business. It is responsible for the dismissal of employees in moving-picture theaters. This particular tax is not only restric- tive of business but it is an indefensible tax on the poor man’s entertainment and the pleasure of children. Attending movies is the principal form of relaxa- tion and recreation in many of our com- munities. I cannot believe the financial solvency of the United States will be im- paired by removing this 20-percent tax paid on admissions and, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I expect to vote in committee to remove these excise taxes on admissions or at least cut them in half. 1533 I denounce them as restrictive, regres- sive, obnoxious, and atrocious. During World War II excise taxes were imposed upon 40 products. Excise taxes are sales taxes. They were imposed upon transportation to bring in revenue and to discourage travel, upon communi- cations to discourage long-distance tele- phoning and sending of telegrams which might delay necessary wartime com- munications. In addition, excise taxes were imposed upon baby oil, powder, movie admission tickets, leather goods, photographic suppHes, furs, jewelry, and so forth. These taxes, now that the war is over, are unfair and discriminatory. They are restrictive of business and have been the cause of unemployment in the jewelry, entertainment, fur, and other industries. If Congress were to repeal all these taxes the net revenue falling off would approximate $2,000,000,000, but the actual loss in tax revenue to our Gov- ernment would be but a fraction of this sum. Employment would be increased. Therefore, more income taxes would be paid by more individuals. Also, there would be increased corporate taxes. Corporations now pay out substantial amounts in excise taxes. Their net earn- ings would go up as these taxes went down. We must eliminate this wartime hang-over of burdensome excise taxes. Sometimes they are spoken of as luxury taxes. Is having a baby a luxury? Is it &@ luxury for children to attend a movie? This Congress owes a duty to the American people to eliminate or greatly reduce troublesome wartime excise taxes, Women have good reason to feel ag- gravated over the taxes levied on cos- metics and handbags. Businessmen have reason to complain about taxes on telegraph messages, railway travel, and telephone calls. These are troublesome taxes and the cost of collection cuts deep into the amount obtained. Such taxes are unsound from an economic stand- point. It is unfortunate that more people are not conscious of how burdensome high taxes are, and the threat this situation raises to our national economy. Many who pay little, or no, income taxes are disinterested, because they erroneously believe they do not contribute and, there- fore, are not affected. But they do con- tribute and their welfare is affected. Do you driveacar? If you do, you pay a Federal tax of 114 cents on every gal- lon of gasoline you buy, plus whatever State tax your State demands. In some States this runs as high as 4 or 5 cents per gallon. Not much, you say? How many miles do you drive ina year? Now figure up how many gallons of gasoline you use, and you will be surprised at how much the Federal and State governments take from you for the privilege of driving. Do you smoke? Every time you buy a pock of cigarettes, you pay Uncle Sam 7 cents for the privilege. How many packs do you smoke yearly? Figure it out. Every time you go to a ball game, Uncle Sam demands a 20-percent tax on each ticket. Your children have to pay the same 20-percent tax when they go to the movies. Every time you ride a train, or intere city bus or airplane, you pay a Govern- ment tax in addition to the price of your
1534 ticket. Every time you send a telegram or make a Jong-distance call, in addition to the regular charge you pay an extra 25 percent for the Government’s tax. In addition, there are sales taxes and special excise taxes in many States on some of the same items on which Con- gress has imposed a Federal excise tax. Where will it end? Taxes are neces- sary, of course, to maintain Government, whether it be Federal, State, or city. But there is a limit to the tax burden people can stand. I favor reducing expendi- tures and cutting taxes. Except for taxes imposed before the war on liquor, cigarettes, tobacco, and gasoline, all other excise taxes should be greatly cut or eliminated altogether. Having a baby, or going to the movies are not luxuries. Your Government will remain solvent if we remove taxes on movie admission tickets, baby powdcr, baby oil, and so forth. I voted against imposition of a 2-percent stales tax in the District of Columbia. Sales taxes such as we have in Ohio and such as these Federal excise taxes place the heaviest burden upon the poorest people. They are the opposite of income taxes. Excise taxes and sales taxes against the necessities of life burden most those who have least. The tax on transportation costs our citizens $600,000,000 a year, yet this tax Was never intended as a revenue meas- ure. It was passed as a war measure to discourage unnecessary travel, to free the railway systems for the transportation of troops and supplies. No one objected to the transportation tax in time of war. We have been at peace since 1945 and yet this burdensome nuisance tax still exists as a hangover from the war. The Eightieth Congress should have repealed it. It failed todoso. In fact it extended it permanently. Excise taxes, or sales taxes, are regres- sive. They fall hardest upon the poor. They increase in their burden with the number of children in the family. They reduce the family purchasing power. The much ballyhooed ease of adminis- tration is greatly exaggerated. Alleged low-collection costs overlook industry- compliance costs. These are not luxury taxes. Goods of universal consumption can hardly be cor- rectly labeled luxuries. A fur coat cost- ing possibly $200, which the purchaser intends to wear for 5 years or longer, can hardly be considered a luxury. Imposing a tax burden at the same rate on poor and rich alike is unjust. Poor people spend a major portion of their income on the necessities of life. The more children there are in a family the more likely it is that the total in- come will go for bare necessities. Per- sons on relief, the unemployed, young veterans, newly married or about to be married, retired employees, all would be especially burdened by a sales tax. In- stead of exempting amounts considered necessary for subsistence, as the income tax does, the retail sales tax exempts amounts saved and taxes what is spent for subsistence. It is in effect a tax with no exemptions, except for the rich who are exempt on what they save. So-called luxury taxes are misnomers now. The movies, automobiles, electric- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ity, radios, electric-light bulbs, clocks, telegrams, long-distance telephone calls, and so forth, have long since passed out of the luxury class. Whatever has be- come standardized and of universal con- sumption by the bulk of the population is no longer a luxury. Taxes such as these are not levied with the thought that consumption of the commodities taxed will be reduced. A 20-percent sales tax on admissions is indefensible and one that bears heavily on the amusement costs of the people. As applied to the legitimate theaicr, musical concerts, and the like, it places the United States in a position of taxing an industry that other nations consider a proper subject of state subsidy. As for taxing the circus and the movies— the chief form of relaxation many peo- ple in rural areas have—the tax is on the poor man’s entertainment and the pleasure of children. The tax is in part responsible for the decline in theater at- tendance. In failing to distinguish be- tween the low-priced suburban or coun- try movie and the big high-priced first- run city theaters, an injustice is worked to the masses, the laboring people, the women and children. Taxing admissions to agricultural fairs is to put a tax on education of farmers. The tax on furs has thrown many busi- nesses into bankruptcy and has caused the dismissal of some 8,000 employees in the fur industry. This tax discriminates against one article of clothing, which certainly is no luxury, at least in the North. It has severely hurt the indus- try, which has suffered a greatly reduced volume of sales. An expensive coat, even though it has no fur, is tax-exempt. Se- rious problems of equity have developed. The clothier making nontaxed articles has been able to take a higher mark-up in tax-exempt but inferior garments. There are those who defend the 20- percent tax on jewelry, stating that jewelry is clearly a luxury. Examina- tion of this tax shows in a large measure that tax becomes one on wedding eufts, graduation presents, and so forth. Are clocks jewelry? They are taxed as such yet are they not in fact in the category of household furniture? If oriental rugs and expensive bric-a-brac ornaments are tax-free, how can one justify singling out clocks for taxation? To apply the tax, as the Bureau of Internal Revenue does, to ornamental buttons on women’s dresses has gone far beyond the intent of Congress. The 20-percent rate on re- tail sales of jewelry discriminates in fa- vor of much lower rates on jewelry’s principal competitors such as dealers in radios, musical instruments, and so forth. It is indefensible discrimination against such items as fountain pens, compacts, and so forth, simply because they have a little gold or silver in them. This tax and the tax on luggage, leather goods, purses, toilet cases, and so forth, should be eliminated. A lady wrote me the other day, “Are your pants pockets a luxury?” She pur- chased a leather handbag and was com- pelled to pay the exorbitant tax. One cannot blame this lady for being angry. Handbags are essential items for wome en’s wear. Women are paying $48,000,- 000 yearly in taxes and the leather« FEBRUARY 6 pocketbook industry has suffered terrific losses. Seven thousand employees have been thrown out of employment. Our Government has lost the pay-roll taxes they would have paid as industrial workers. Beardsley Ruml, author of the pay- asS-you-g0 Income-tax system now in use, urged repeal of excise taxes, which most people agree are obnoxious. Beardsley Ruml’s proposal merely echoes views held by many progressive forward-looking Congressmen. Excise taxes, such as those imposed upon sales of electric bulbs, cosmetics, baby powder, trans- portation, and so forth, burden most those who have least. Whether you call it tax evasion or tax avoidance, as long as income taxes have to be high as they now are it is essential that everybody pay his fair share. If loopholes in the present law permit some to evade paying the proper amount of taxes, Congress must correct this. It 1s also our job to see that fraud in the filing of dishonest-tax returns is summarily punished. This we can do by expanding the enforcement staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In 1947 President Truman recom- mended to the Congress that it continue wartime excise taxes for the period of 1 year only. The Republican Eightieth Congress denied his request. Instead it voted up legislation continuing perma- nently the wartime excise taxes which have proved so oppressive to our people. My predecessor as Ohio Congressman at Jarge, who incidentally is a candidate seeking to defeat me this November, voted in favor of making these obnoxious and atrocious Federal excise taxes per- manent. I condemn him for voting for the permanent extension of these inde- fensible taxes on the necessities of life. Although the Republican Eightieih Congrcss was willing to pass a rich man’s income estate and gift-tax reduction bill, the only action taken with respect to excise taxes was to make these wartime levies permanent. The Democratic Party is committed to opposition to a general Federal sales tax; and these excises on many of the neces- sities of life directly conflict with our party platform. These taxes must be repealed as of next July 1. In my opinion we can do this without complicating our problem of maintaining the fiscal solvency of the Nation. By making sure that we collect all taxes due, we will strengthen the equity and fairness of the income-tax system, in addition to repealing these onerous, unfair, and regressive excise taxes. It is certain that the committee bill, which we hope to enact into law, will embody many of the cxcise tax reduction provisions in H. R. 6641, introduced by me on January 6, 1950. My bill gives top priority to the repeal of war taxes on to.let preparations, furs, leather goods, jewelry, passenger fares, and telephone and telegraph bills. It provides for complete repeal of the excise taxes imposed against baby oil, baby powder, and toilet preparations used for the care of infants, women’s handbags, electric-light bulbs, cooking and heating stoves, matches, and trailer coaches used
1950 by many low-income families as resi- dences. It provides cutting in half movie ad- missions and other burdensome taxes and greatly reducing many others. I favor elimination of all wartime imposed excise taxes but know this is impossible of achievement during the present ses- sion. Enactment into law of the provisions of my bill will save American taxpayers approximately $999,000,000 this year Next year we can make further exami- nation of excise-tax problems and pro- vide elimination of other of these bur- densome taxes. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YOUNG. I yield. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Iam delighted to hear the statement of the gentleman from Ohio. I wish to ask him if he does not agree that we have got to act very early on these excise taxes or we will defeat the very ends we seek. At the present time, as the gentleman from Ohio I am sure well knows, factories are closing. People are not buying many of these so-called luxury items because they hesitate to purchase under present con- ditions. I hope the gentleman from Ohio will join with the Republicans on that committee and bring this bill out quickly, If the committee would divorce the tax revenue feature suggested by the Presi- dent that feature could be considered later. I suggest this inasmuch as the President does not, as the gentleman well knows, expect to get any revenue from it this year. We ought to, therefore, act on the question of excise taxes first and bring up the revenue measure later. Mr. YOUNG. What the gentleman says regarding a buyers’ strike being in effect is probably true. My view is that even with the exercise of the utmost dili- gence the earliest we can reasonably ex- pect elimination of the most obnoxious excise taxes such as taxes on transporta- tion, baby oil, baby powder, leather goods, admissions, and so forth, is commencing next July 1. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous special order of the House, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. ANGELL] is recognized for 20 minutes. URGENT: CALL A PSYCHIATRIST FOR UNCLE SAM Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am sug- gesting that we immediately call a psy- chiatrist for Uncle Sam unless steps are taken at once to restore him to sanity. Uncle Sam is buying great quantities of foodstuffs with your tax dollars, and ig inaugurating a program to destroy them. Billions of bushels of potatoes, tons and tons of dried eggs and milk, butter, and many other foods unknown to the taxpayers. Is this not a crazy idea? I am unalterably opposed to the destruction by our Government of any edible foods needed by our people to sus- tain life. Millions of aged and disabled are in dire need of these food products to sustain life. Let us demand that these foods be made available to the needy, the aged, the disabled, and the handicapped. Worst of all, Uncle Sam is now plan- ning to dump or destroy 50,000,000 bush- els of potatoes. He has spent some CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE $100,000,000 buying up potatoes under the potato program to be taken out of the market for human food, and thereby boost the price to the consumers, Last June the Commodity Credit Corporation’s price-support inventories amounted to a billion dollars plus, and by next June they are expected to be two and two-tenths billion for purchases of other commodities such as corn, cotton, flaxsecd, and dairy products. Uncle Sam has no program or sane course of action as to what he will do with these immense stores of necessities of life, which he has gone out into the market and purchased with your tax dollars in order to take the products out of the market so that the housewife and other consumers will have to pay in- creased prices for these necessities. The taxpayer is the fall guy because his tax pays for these products to be destroyed or wasted and his money pays for the increased prices of similar prod- ucts in the market which he has to buy. Furthermore, the aged and those depend- ing on annuities or small incomes are penalized by having to pay the artificial high prices forced upon them by Uncle Sam himself with the use of their tax moncy. Uncle Sam has expended overseas in the 4 years after VJ-day through June 30, 1949, through 22 programs $27,100,- 000,000 which averages $18,500,000 per day or $750,000 per hour, or $12,500 per minute, or $200 every time your watch has ticked since the last gun was fired. Uncle Sam is now proposing to spend in this fiscal year under the budget of the President $42,000,000,000 plus, the biggest peacetime budget in all history, some five or six billions more than will be taken in in taxes, it is estimated. The public debt is increasing by leaps and bounds, now being over $252,000,000,000. Uncle Sam under the ECA and other foreign programs is using your tax dol- lars to purchase flour, lumber, and other products produced in Canada and other foreign markets. Similar products are produced in America and are now in surplus supply and are being bought up under the suport program with your tax dollars. Thus Uncle Sam is playing both ends against the middle. I have received many wires and com- munications from my congressional dis- trict in Oregon stating that the flour mills will have to close down and throw out of employment thousands of laborers unless this foreign-aid program is modi- fied so as to permit American millers to compete on an equal basis with foreign producers of similar products. I include as a part of these remarks two telegrams I received just today urging immediate action to prevent closing of the flour mills: PorRTLAND, ORrEG., February 4, 1950, The Honorable HoMER D. ANGELL, United States House of Representatives, House Office Building: Most urgent subsidy on flour be granted to countries outside International Wheat Agreement to prevent flour mills from shut- ting down in Pacific Northwest and relieve surplus wheat piling up. Why cannot some- thing be done to help immediately? Please do your utmost to relieve situation. Crown MILLs. 1535 PorTLAND, OreG., February ¢, 1950, The Honorable Homer D. ANGELL, United States House of Representatives, House Office Building: Reference our wire of January 25, why must we wait indefinitely for some action by the Secretary of Agriculture and his board in granting some relief to grain and milling interests of the Pacific Northwest to enable us meet Canadian and Australian competition? We have lost a large portion of our export trade already through the inac- tivity of our Department of Agriculture and will have our flour mills completely out of production, with the loss of jobs to several thousand millworkers, and a resulting ac- cumulation of wheat which must move in volume before another harvest. W. H Youncer, President, Terminal Flour Mills Co, In the Northwest lumber trade disas- ter is facing the mills as their export trade is being wrecked by the ECA pro- gram. Under it American tax dollars are being supplied to purchase lumber in Canada to the extent of 95 percent of the purchases whereas only 5 percent go to American exporters. In the adminis- tration of the program the bids of the exporters are so manipulated as to put out of the running the American pro- ducers. I am just in receipt of a lettcr from a heavy exporter of lumber prod- ucts from the Northwest, a resident of my district, in which he sets forth clearly the effects of the ECA program in wreck- ing the lumber business not only of the Pacific Northwest but of the Nation. I quote from this letter, as follows: The compilation you sent recently from the ECA relative to lumber transactions was not a list of the bids and bidders. It is sim- ply the excuse that the British make for Placing the business in Canada. In order to make a fair comparison between the Ameri- can and the Canadian bids, we should have the exact prices per 1,000 feet f. a. 8. vessel British Columbia ports and f. a. s. vessel American ports for each individual item and species. Until we have this we have no ac- curate basis of comparison, We cite below a glaring example of dis- crimination, in ttem 517, timbers. 7 Quantity | Price | Quantity Name of fim quoted quoted | awarded Scabcard, MacMillan Feet Feet & Alasha Pine ....... 8, 0), 000 | $47 32 | 0, O80, 000 Morrison Export Co_...| 1,400 000 | 48 09 | 1, 400, 000 East Asiatic Co... 2..-] 1,400,000 | 48 23 | 1,400 000 Dant & Russell, Inc...-} 14,000,000 | 47.15 | 2, 200, U0 All the above except Dant & Russell, Inc., are Canadian bidders. The Canadian cartel should not be entitled to 1 foot of this lumber business as it is our understanding that Congress is opposed to cartels partici- pating in ECA business. The reason given for not awarding the total amount to Dant & Russell, Inc., was that the cost of loading in Canada was presumed to be $2 per 1,000 feet less than in the United States of Amer- ica. The cost of loading is only part of the cost of freighting lumber, and freight rates to all parts of the world from British Colume bian ports have always been the same as from United States North Pacific ports. This can easily be checked with the Pacific Coast European Conference, whose freight rates to all of Europe with the exception of United Kingdom ports are the same from either British Columbia or United States North Pacific ports. Canadian funds may be used for payment of freight, but in this event the money is at the current discount rate. The only reason that United Kingdom rates have
1536 heen thrown open on direct instruction from London is to further the opportunities for finagling by the British. Not cn” more cent of ECA money should be given to England for the purchase of any commodity, because the funas are used in discrimination against American interests, If Conwress is going to continue to permit this misuse, then American industry should be relieved of the taxation required to sup- port ECA allocations. I am aware that this may seem a ridiculous conclusion, but I am definitely of the opinion that the whole ECA program its directly forbidden by the Con- stitution of the United States. The idea that American firms may be taxed to death to support socialistic Governments in Europe is beyond all reason, Congress should im- mediately declare an end to the emergencies under which the robbery of American tax- payers {s carried on, and payment should be refused for the British lumber purchases presently authorized by the ECA. If the ECA insists on paying for this last British order and for the previous one, which is even more indefensible, then such action should be taken against the ECA as is pre- scribed in the laws under which ECA exists. A further violation is that apparently not 1 foot of the British lumber order 1s going to be shipped by American tonnage. This certainly is contrary to the intent of Con- gress, and the provision for shipping 50 per- cent of all ECA commodities by American tonnage should in itself assure at least 50 percent of the lumber ordered coming from the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, is it not time for the Members of Congress who represent the people and who provide Uncle Sam with the tax dollars, the machinery, and the power to wreck our own American econ- omy as shown by the instances I have cited—is it not time for Congress to act? I most sincerely urge that the Congress without delay put into effect a common- sense forthright program, based on cs- tablished American doctrines, to plug up the holes in the Treasury, cut out the enormous waste and profligate spending, reduce the budget, do away with the war- time excise taxes and bring our expendi- tures and receipts into balance, and help Uncle Sam to show to the world that he is mentally sound and that his affairs need not be put under the control of a spendthriit trust. UNCLE SAM ITAS BILLIONS FOR WAR AND WASTE— NOTHING FOR THE AGED Mr. Speaker, again I want to call the attention of the House to the utterly in- defensible position of this great Gov- ernment in failing to provide for the aged of our Nation. We have spent $27,100,- 000,000 overseas since war ended in for- eign programs, averaging $18,500,000 per day, $750,000 per hour, $12,500 per min- ute or $200 per second. Uncle Sam has a $100,000,000 plan for buying up potatoes in order to prevent their use as human food, forcing up the price of the remaining potatoes to the consumers, The American consumer is hit twice by this program—first he pays high taxes to the Government to buy the potatoes and secondly he pays higher prices to the merchant for the potatoes he needs for his own use. The President is proposing to spend over $42,000,000,000 for 1951 fiscal year which it 1s estimated is over $6,000,000,000 more than he will receive. The Federal debt is now in ex- cess of $252,000,000,000 and is increasing by leaps and bounds, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. Speaker, notwitlstanding these enormous expenditures, many of them sheer waste, the United States continues to refuse to provide a program that will permit the aged of America to have an- nuities affording a minimum for food, shelter, clothing, and medicine to keep body and soul together in their declining years, Their meager income has been split in two by reason of the inflationary period we are in with a dollar worth only 50 cents and as a result many are in dire need for the bare necessities of life. I call to your attention Discharge Peti- tion No, 15 to bring up for consideration the o)d-age security program set forth in H. R. 2135 and my companion bill, H. BR. 2136, which would provide adequate annuities for the aged of America. As you know H. R. 6000 providing for the amendment of the Social Security Act was considered in the House under a gag rule and we were not permitted to make any amendments to it. If amendments had been permitted we would have of- fered the provisions of H. R. 2135, the Townsend plan, as amendments to this bill. With a number of other of our House colleagues, I recently appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and urged that that committee include the provi- sions of H. R. 2135 as amendments to H. R. 6000 and I repeat here some of the arguments I presented to the committee in support of this proposal. I am urging that the provisions of H.R. 2136 and its companion bills be em- bodied as amendments to H. R. 6000. If this were done we believe that many of the social-security problems for the aged and disabled would be solved. It is conceded by all that the existing social-security program is not meeting the needs of America’s aged, neither in coverage of the needy aged nor in the amounts of the monthly annuities being provided to the recipients. Ina letter to the distinguished chairman of this com- mittee on April 6 last, ex-President Hoover, Chairman of the Commission for the Organization of the Executive De- partments, said: I wish to say at once that I strongly favor Government provision for protection of the aged and their dependents. The problem before the Nation is to obtain a workable system, with a minimum of bureaucracy, adjusted to the economic strength of the country which gives rn assur- ance of security to this group. In my view, we have not yet found that system. The testimony of Mr. Arthur J. Alt- meyer, Commissioner of the Social Se- curity Administration, before this com- mittee shows that the present system is woefully lacking in providing adequate protection to these worthy citizens who, by reason of age or disability, are unable to receive sufficient funds to meet their minimum needs. The fact-finding board appointed by President Truman recently, to consider the wage dispute between the United States Steel Corp. and its workers, re- ported as follows: The concept of providing social insurance and pensions ior workers {n industry has be- come an accepted part of modern American thinking. Unless Government provides such insurance in adequate amount, industry FEBRUARY 6 should step in to fill the gap. Government * has fatled to provide social insur- ance for industrial workers generally, and has supplied old-age retirement benefits in amounts which are not adequate to provide an American minimum standard of living. Mr. Chairman, the Advisory Council on Social Security to your own Senate Com- mittee on Finance reported that it found three major deficiencies in the old-age and survivors insurance program which I quote verbatim: 1, Inadequate coverage—oniy about three out of every five Jobs are covered by the pro- gram. 2. Unduly restrictive eligibility require- ments for old workers—largely because of these restrictions, only about 20 percent of those aged 65 or over are either insured or receiving benefits under the program. 3. Inadequate benefits—retirement bene- fits at the end of 1949 averaged $26 a month for a single person. In fact, almost without exception qualified experts who have examined into this old-age security problem facing our Nation have reported the deficiencies of the present system and the need for major overhauling or substitution of a new system therefor. We in America can be justly proud of our achievements in the development of our industrial production which enables us to stand in the forefront of all nations in the ability to produce food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life in abundance, not only for our own people but to help other nations in nced. This was a major factor in winning the war. However, with machine labor and mass production, we have found that the elderly people of America, by reason of the very success we have achieved in production, are outcasts and have been deprived of remunerative employment in their declining years and many of them are in dire need. Exisiing social and economic condi- tions force upon us the complex question of security for the individual in our mod- ern industrial civilization. Since 1919 the number of self-employed individuals in the United States, including farmers, has remained fairly constant at about nine or ten milion. During the same period the number of employees in the Ameri- can labor force has risen from 32,600,000 to over 60,000,000, almost double. Since population has been increasing during this entire period, the percentage of self- employed persons in the United States has declined from about 22 percent in 1919 to about 17.2 percent in 1849, In other words, we are facing an age-old problem under rapidly changing condi- tions. The young and vigorous are on the pay rolls of this machine age and the elderly citizens are relegated to the side lines. As a result of this maladjustment, we find the aged unemployed increasing in numbers and in want, and we are faced with the problem of social security to meet the needs for livelihood of this large group. To meet this problem the Seventy-fourth Congress passed Public Law 271 setting up a social-security pro- gram not only for the aged, but for the blind, dependent, crippled children, and with certain assistance to maternal and child welfare and public health. The Seventy-sixth Congress made extensive
1950 amendments to the law, and as a result we now have two major programs gov- erning social security—title I providing grants to States for old-age assistance, and title II setting up a program for Federal old-age and survivors-insurance benefits. For over 10 years now these laws have been in operation and we find that they fail, in many important par- ticulars, to meet the problems we are seeking to solve in providing adequate social-security for the aged and disabled. In order to remedy these deficiencies, your advisory council recommended that the coverage be extended to include the self-employed, farm workers, household workers, employees of nonprofit institu- tions, Federal civilian employees, rail- road employees, members of the armed services and employees of State and local governments, all of which are now ex- cluded from the benefits of the act. The council further recommended extending greater liberality in eligibility and in- creased benefits and survivors protec- tion. H.R. 6000 contains some of these recommendations. The findings of this council clearly disclose that the present social-security program is basically in- adequate and must be completely over- hauled or supplanted by a more effective program. There were more than 100 bills pend- ing in the Eightieth Congress proposing changes in the social-security law. Sev- eral sought to increase old-age and sur- vivors insurance. Forty-one urged in- creases in old-age assistance, 13 dealt with aid to dependent children. The problem of caring for the aged, the disabled, and dependent children, as seen today in the eyes of proponents of the Townsend plan and others, is that there are millions of such persons in need among us who are not now, and cannot in the future, be cared for in an honorable and just way by the present system of social security. Under this system, millions of old people receive either no support or hopelessly inade- quate support. The system which has been set up is extremely complicated and its administration costly. To rectify these deficiences we propose H. R. 2135 and H. R. 2136. The philosophy and objectives of the Townsend proposal as compared with the existing system have much in com- mon, but there are marked differences. Our proposal would give recognition to the past labors of the aged and would Offer them dividends from the wealth they helped to create. It would give this as a matter of right without any direct relation to specific monetary contribu- tions. The existing old-age and sur- vivors insurance program gives benefits as a matter of right but ties them to a principle of insurance—something that each prospective annuitant and his em- ployer buys as he participates in the pro- ductive processes of the country. Fi- nally, old-age assistance is provided to the aged who, because of the lateness of starting the program of old-age and sur- vivors insurance or because of inade- quate coverage or benefits, are in need and should be helped. We believe that annuities should be offered with neither the stigma of char.y CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE nor of poverty. They should be offered as a matter of right as dividends from the national wealth the aged have helped to create. A system should be adopted to replace the complicated, arbitrary, and inequitable provisions of the existing law. It should be one which will have a stimu- lative effect upon our economy and one which will help to make available jobs to all the young who will replace the aged as the latter move into retirement at a decent standard of living. Only a noncontributory plan will meet the needs of those now grown old who are in need because of past neglect in providing an adequate contributory re- tirement system. Since, at the time the system was adopted, most of the States were financially unable to assume the burden of so many aged who moved on to Federal relief rolls, it was deemed proper to continue to provide Federal aid to States to provide relief to those aged who were in need. Much of the argument in support of the Townsend plan stems from the limited coverage and inadequate benefits of the present system. For example, most of today’s aged who are not work- ing left the labor force before they could build up rights to benefits under OASI. And even among the young and still em- ployed, under the present OASI system, there is no coverage for jobs in agricul- ture, domestic service in private homes, Federal, State, and local government employees, and workers in religious, charitable, and certain other nonprofit organizations, the self-employed, and others as well. About one-third of the workers engaged in employment are not covered by the system; and of the 78,- 900,000 living persons with OASI wage credits at the end of 1949, about 35,500,- 000 were neither fully nor currently in- sured on the basis of their wage records, and hence were not protected under the programs. In the Federal Security Agency, Social Security Administration Annual Report, 1947, section 1, page 7, it is said: Under our present provisions it would be possible for an individual to work at some time during the course of his working life in jobs covered by Federal old-age and survivors insurance, the Railroad Retirement Act, the Civil Service Retirement Act, and the retire- ment plan of a State or locality. According to the length and timing of such employ- ments he might become eligible to receive retirement benefits under one or more or all of these plans. Another man, with similar carnings under several of the programs, may go through a working life without ever ac- quiring retirement rights under any. Con- ceivably the survivors of a worker who dies might be eligible for benefits under a Federal old-age and survivors insurance system as well as under a State workmen's compensa- tion law and under general veterans’ legisla tion. Another family, equally in need of in- come to replace the father’s earnings, may have had no opportunity to gain protection under any of these programs, No Federal provision is made to care for the disabled other than the needy blind. In the same report, pages 21 and 22, it is said: The United States 1s unique among major industrial nations in its lack of a general disability-insurance system. Compensation for wage loss due to incapacity is confined 1537 in this country to work-connected accidents or diseases in industry and commerce, to service in the armed forces, and to employ- ment in the railroad industry or by Govern- ment. Two States provide benefits for tem- porary disability under arrangements similar to unemployment insurance and with the game coverage. In June 1947 these special systems, in the aggregate, reached very few of the 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 persons disabled on an average day and recently in the labor force, who but for their incapacity would be working or seeking work. Under the existing law under old-age and survivors insurance the average benefits are about $26 per month accord- ing to the latest data available from so- cial-sectrity records. To obtain this paymeni the worker and the employer would heve to make contributions over a long peiiod of time. On the other hand the average of old-age assistance—not available to those under the retirement plan but given only on a claim of need is about $16 more per month than the old- age and survivors insurance payments. According to late figures payments in Colorado reached $78.29, in California $61.25, and in Washington $60.33. It is thus shown that those receiving assist- ance who did not contribute to the pro- gram received very substantially more than those who through the years con- tributed taxes based on monthly incomes. Recipients of relief exceed by nearly 1,500,000 the insured workers who are drawing benefits, according to recent reports. This ex, erience is directly opposite to that contemplated when the Social Secu- rity Act was enacted. It was believed that gradually all old-age beneficiaries would come under the provisions of the old-age and survivors insurance pro- gram and those receiving assistance on the basis of need would be gradually re- duced and eventually eliminated. A major defect in the present system is the smallness of individual payments and their inadequacy in providing a de- cent standard of living. The old-age in- surance program is based, in respect to the payments to the recipients, upon the contributions made by the workers, the employees, and their employers. A vast actuarial plan has been set up, requiring the attention of highly trained actuaries. Almost endless files are required to house the data collected. At the end, the aver- age worker comes out with about $26 a month, far less than he would get if he were under the old-age assistance pro- gram. This plan actually contemplates that these actuarial calculations will be- come effective against a worker 16 years of age who is in a covered occupation, and that for 50 years until 65 years of age is reached the Social Security Board will keep track of the employers and of the tax payments made from wages; as @ result of those calculations, it will de- termine what the worker will receive 50 years from now. The sad and pathetic aspect of it is that these payments will amount to only approximately $10 a month, which is the minimum, or up to approximately $60 a month, which is the maximum under the existing law. As a matter of fact, these payments are so meager the recipients are unable to sus- tain their lives in decency and health,
1538 We are experiencing today, with the depreciated dollar, the futility of at- tempting to determine a fixed dollar in- come for retirement pay 10, 20, or 50 years in advance. The dollar today will purchase little more than half what it did when these payments were sched- uled. Annuitants with fixed income based on prewar values are able to buy only about one-half of the food, cloth- ing, and other necessities their meager annuities would provide before the war. It is rash to attempt to fix by statute and provide through reserves the pay- ments that will be paid many years hence. Changes in the purchasing pow- er of the dollar are so great that at- tempts of one generation to set mini- mum decent standards of living for suc- ceeding generations cannot but prove fruitless and just wasted motion. The Townsend plan is flexible and would change with the changing condi- tions and purchasing power of the dol- lar. It would also do away with the end- less bookkeeping and statistical work and filing routine and office space needed to keep the accounts of 75 to 100 million workers. It is not possible to estimate definitely the per capita annuity that would be available under the Townsend proposal should it be enacted. Its virtue is its elasticity, the monthly payments keep- ing pace with the purchasing power of the dollar. The tax formula could be changed by the Congress from time to time to meet the existing needs. Since the amount of the monthly payments for the beneficiaries depends upon the tax collected and the number of eligible citizens who apply for the annuities, it is not possible to determine with any de- gree of accuracy what these payments would be without knowing the national gross income and the number of recipi- ents. However, amounts payable under the Townsend plan will be found by sub- tracting administrative costs from tax receipts and dividing the remainder by the number of beneficiaries. A major objection to the public-assist- ance programs now in operation is that, being State administered, amounts paid vary greatly not only as between States but also as betwcen localities within the same State. The Bureau of Internal Revenue is to collect the tax undcr the proposed Town- send plan law. Every person having a personal income in excess of $250 and all other persons or corporations having any eross receipts would be required to make monthly returns. Much of this work of collection could be eliminated if some method of collection at the source were devised. Another administrative problem would be the sending out of the checks each month to the pensioners. A similar problem is now being met under the Social Security Act. Under old-age and survivors insurance, the Social Security Administration in the ederal Security Administration admin- isters the payment of benefits, while the Bureau of Internal Revenue collects the tax. The cost of administering this pro- gram is now running around $53,000,000 per year. Total costs through 1949 were about 12 percent of benefits paid out and @ littie more than 2 percent of total re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ceipts—taxes plus interest on assets. For the fiscal year 1949, administrative costs were 3.1 percent of receipts and 9 percent of benefit payments. Part of the admin- istrative chore is keeping the wage rec- ords of 78,900,000 living persons and de- termining the amount of benefit each— and his family—is entitled to, if and when he or they become eligible for a benefit payment. Though old-age and other public-as- sistance plans are State administered, the Federal Government contributes to the administrative costs. The Federal contribution is one-half the cost of these programs. The total Federal and State administrative costs in the fiscal year 1949 ran approximately as follows: Old- age assistance, $66,028,000; dependent children, $31,918,000; needy blind, $3,- 046,000. The tax proposed to finance the ToWn- send plan is a gross income tax. Prac- tically every argument that can be raised against this tax can be raised against nearly every other tax in force today. Two strong counter arguments, however, do exist against the so-called regressive nature of the proposed tax. The first is that no tax should be considered apart from the use to which the revenues de- rived are to be put. While sales taxes are objectionable the laudable purpose of this tax overcomes the objections. Second, experience demonstrates that the people of more than half the States have sales taxes dating back to the dc- pression of the thirties. But to return to the first argument, it is apparent that persons in low-income groups will re- ceive annuities in their old age at small cost. Persons in upper- and high-income brackets will have paid more for their annuities than the low-income groups. Yet, all will receive the same annuity. Thercfore, instead of being regressive, the tax is in effect progressive. And further, it is not improper to suppose that the burden of the tax—to the ex- tent they are not dissipated by the posi- tive stimulus that currently paid annui- tics will have on the economy, will be borne willingly by all in the realization that by paying a tax today they will guarantee themselves an honorable and just annuity when they, too, are disabled or reach the age of 60. All wages in excess of $250 a month would be taxed 3 percent. There would be no other deductions. The tax on wages and other income would be justified by this direct benefit of an annulty to every taxpayer upon quahfying. The thought behind this proposal is that in the years before the war people in general tended to hoard their earn- ings. Consumption did not keep pace with the ability of the economy to pro- duce. The result was that we had un- derproduction, underconsumption, and unemployment. Today we produce more goods that the market will absorb. The Townsend plan would help to utilize this oversupply, such as we now have in eggs, meats, cotton, and other staples. There will be no incentive for elderly people of limited income to hoard their meager earnings as the haunting fear of old age and destitution will have been removed. The proceeds of the tax will go to people who will move out of employment. They FEBRUARY 6 will be required to spend the proceeds of their annuities within 30 days. This will stimulate production, production will promote employment, the younger will move into jobs vacated by the aged, and we will have prosperity. The old-age and survivors insurance program, being a contributory plan based upon contributions by both em- ployers and employees, each paying a tax of 1% percent on the first $3,000 of wages to be increased to 2 percent in 1952. Wages must be based on take- home pay if families maintain an ade- quate standard of living. The plan gives inadequate relief to those covered and is unjust to those not covered. These taxes go into what is called a trust fund which, on December 31, 1949, amounted to $11,815,921,753.51. The Government spends the trust funds as received for the regular expenses of government, and replaces the funds with Government se- curities bearing interest paid by the Government, which encourages deficit spending. It follows that when these funds are needed, in lieu of the bonds, the Government will be obliged to levy an- other tax on all taxpayers to meet the de- mands upon the fund. Notwithstanding this huge balance in the trust fund on December 31, 1949, there had been paid to beneficiaries under the program up to that date only $2,995,769,618.86. The old-age assistance program under the present social security law 1s also wholly inadequate to provide a decent annuity to old people of our Nation who come within its provisions. It is a star- vation allowance. There is little uni- formity in the payments made in the several States. Many old-age annui- tants are suffering from malnutrition and starvation. If we are to preserve the American way of life and our economic and demo- cratic processes under free enterprise, we must find a solution not only for our unemployment problems but also for the problems of providing adequate care for the aged and disabled. With an accel- erating advance in technology in the postwar era, and with the commercial development of atomic energy presaging more rapid transitions in mass produc- tion, the social risks and hazards of un- employment and old age are increased. Rather than see workers pushed from active labor force, hit or miss, the logical policy tc follow is one of selection. The older group has earned retirement. Many of them are not covered by the Social Security Act. By covering the en- tire group, the whole process of business activity will be stabilized. Retirement payments will provide continuous buying power, will provide the needed balance in market demand, and will help to pro- vide mass consumption without which our mass-production economy cannot function successfully. The aged, through no fault of their ovn, through the fiat of industry, are denied a part in production. They toiled the longest in production and should not, when old, be deprived of taking part in consumption. They are the victims of an industrial system for which they are not responsible. Society owes a duty to these old folks, and it can only perform this duty by establishing a national an-
1950 nuity system providing against the haz- ards of old age and disability. There are millions among us, 60 years of age and over, who are not now being cared for in an honorable and just way by the present system of social security, and are receiving no support from any source or hopelessly inadequate support. I most sincerely and respectfully urge that this great committee give heed to the needs of this large segment of our population by adopting the provisions of H. R. 2135 and H. R. 2136 as amend- ments to H. R. 6000. Mr. Speaker, I most respectfully urge all of my colleagues who are interested in providing for our aged in a manner that is in keeping with the American standards of life and which will enable them to live in decency and health in their declining years, to sign discharge petition No. 15 and bring this legislation on the floor of the House for considera- tion and passage. SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. MARCANTONIO asked and was given permission to postpone his special order for today until tomorrow to ad- dress the House for 20 minutes following disposition of matters on the Speaker’s desk and at the conclusion of any special orders heretofore entered. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of ab- sence was granted as follows: To Mr. Hanp (at the request of Mr. HeEseE.tTon), for today and tomorrow, on account of death in family; To Mr. PaSsman (at the request of Mr. Atuen of Louisiana), for Monday and Tuesday, February 6 and 7, on account of official business; To Mr. ALLEN of California, for 10 days, beginning February 9, 1950, on account of official business and other purposes. ADJOURNMENT Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Speak- er, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 36 minutes p. m.), under its previous order, the House ad- journed until tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb- ruary 7, 1950, at 11 o'clock a. m. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker’s table and referred as follows: 1202. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill entitled “A bill for the relief of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co.”; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1203. A letter from the Administrator, General Services Administration, transmit- ting the Tenth and Final Annual Report of the Federal Works Agency, covering the fiscal year July 1, 1948, through June 30, 1949, to the Committee on Public Works. 1204. A communication from the Prest- dent of the United States, transmitting a revision of a proposed provision relating to an appropriation of the Railroad Retirement Board for the fiscal year 1950, in the form of an amendment to the budget for the fiscal year 1961 (H. Doc. No. 462); to the Commit- tee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 1205. A communication from the Prest- dent of the United States, transmitting a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE supplemental estimate of appropriation for the fiscal year 1960 in the amount of 830,000 for the legislative branch, House of Repre- sentatives (H. Doc. No. 463); to the Commit- tee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. 1206. A communication from the President of the United States, recommending favore able consideration to the legislation recom- mended by the Securities and Exchange Commission providing for an amendment to the Securtties Exchange Act of 1934 which would extend to investors in certain unreg- istered securities the protections now en- jJoyed by investors in securities which are registered by their issuers with that Com- mission (H. Doc. No. 464); to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and ordered to be printed 1207. A lotter from the Administrator, Fed- eral Security Agency, transmitting the An- nual Report of the Office of Vocational Re- habilitation, Federal Security Agency, for the fiscal year 1949; to the Committee on Education and Labor. 1208. A letter from the Administrator, Fed- eial Security Agency, transmitting the An- nual Report of St. Elizabeths Hospital, Fed- eral Security Agency, for the fiscal year 1949; to the Committee on Education and Labor, 1209 A letter from the Comptroller Gen- eral of the United States, transmitting a re- port on the audit of the United States Mari- time Commission for the fiscal years ended June 80, 1948 and 1949 (H. Doc. No 465); to the Committee on Expenditures in the Ex- ecutive Departments and ordered to be printed. 1210. A letter from the secretary, Na- tional Park Trust Fund Board, Department of the Interior, transmitting a report cov- ering the fiscal year 1949 pursuant to piovi- sions of section 6 of the act entitled “An act to create a National Park Trust Fund Board, and for other purposes,” approved July 10, 1935 (49 Stat 477, 16 U. 8. C. 19); to the Committee on Public Lands. 1211. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated Feb- ruary 28, 1949, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers, on a preliminary examination of Guamani River and tribu- taries, Puerto Rico, authorized by the Flood Control Act approved on August 18, 1941; to the Committee on Public Works. 1212 A letter from the Acting Secretary of Commerce, transmitting a copy of a pro- posed bill entitled “A bill to authorize the construction, protection, operation, and maintenance of a public airport in or in the vicinity of the District of Columbia, to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. BARTLETT: H.R. 7146, A bill to amend section 3 of the act entitled “An act to provide for the dis- posal of materials on the public lands of the United States,” so as to provide that moncys received from the disposal of material from reserved school section lands 1n Alaska shall be credited to the Territory, to the Commit- tee on Public Lands. By Mr. DAVIS of Georgia: H.R. 7147. A bill to change the effective date of the act of June 19, 1948, relating to the Fire Department of the District of Co- lumbia; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. By Mr. FORD: H.R. 7148. A bill to amend Public Law 439, Eighty-first Congress, cited as the “Agricul- tural Act of 1949"; to the Committce on Agriculture, 1539 By Mr. HORAN: . H.R. 7149. A bill to authorize loans to make available in any area or region credit formerly made available in such area or region by the Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation; to the Committee on Agricule ture. By Mr. NORBLAD: H.R. 7150. A bill to prohibit commercially sponsored radio broadcasts on streetcars and busses in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on the District of Columbia, By Mr. PATTERSON: H.R.7151. A bill to suspend certain im- port taxes on copper; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. WILLIAM L, PFEFFER: H R.7152. A bill to provide that the high- est temporary rank of the commissioned of- ficers directing the various women's corps of the armed forces of the United States shall be “brigadier general" or “rear admiral lower half,” and for other purposes; to the Com- mittee on Armed Services, By Mr. POULSON: H R.7153 A bill to authorize the Secre- tary of the Interior to accept voluntary con- veyances of lands owned by Waccamaw In- dians in North Carolina and to issue trust patents for such lands, and for other pure poses, to the Committee on Public Lands. By Mr. SIKES: H R 7154. A bill to amend the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act of 1938 with respect to cigar-wrapper type 61 tobacco and cigar- wrapper type 62 tobacco; to the Committce on Agriculture. H R 7155 A bill to authorize the Secre- tary of Agriculture to cooperate with the States to enable them to provide technical services to private forest landowners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agrie culture By Mr SMATHERS: H R 7156 A bill to amend the Recon- struction Finance Corporrtion Act, as amended, in order to provide more effective financial assistance for small business, to the Committee on Banking and Currency, By Mr STOCKMAN: H R 7157 +A bill to provide for the design and construction of highway bridges neur certain dams, to the Committee on Public Works Mr ZABLOCKI: H R 7158 A bill to repeal certain miscel- laneous excise taxes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. BARRRETT of Pennsylvania: H R.7159. A bill to prevent military pcr- sonnel from replacing civilians in the Depart- ment of Defense; to the Committee on Armed Services. By Mr. BARDEN: H.R 7160. A bill to provide for Federal financial assistance to the States and Terri- tories in helping to establish and maintain an adequate minimum program of education and in attempting to more nearly equalize educational opportunities in public elemen- tary and secondary schools; to the Committce on Education and Labor. By Mr. BARTLETT: H R.7161. A bill to authorize an annual appropriation to aid the Arctic Institute of North America in its scientific research ac- tivities in North American Arctic and sub- Arctic areas; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. By Mr. COUDERT: H.J Res. 414. Joint resolution proposing @n amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the election of President and Vice President; to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. By Mr. EBERHARTER: H. Res. 461, Resolution authorizing a sur- vey of the feasibility of constructing a con= veyor belt between the House Office Build- ings and the Capitol; to the Committee on House Administration,
1540 MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of rule XXII, memo- rials were presented and referred as follows: By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legis- Jature of the State of Virginia, requesting the return of certain property for exhibition at the Appomattox Surrender Grounds Park; to the Committee on House Administration, PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. ANGELL: H.R 7162. A bill to exempt from customs duty the cembalo of Reed College, Portland, Oreg., and to provide for the refund of cus- toms duty previously paid thereon; to the Committee on Ways and Means. By Mr. BARTLETT. H R 7163. A bill for the relicf of Mar- shall B. Ross; to the Committee on the Ju- diclary By Mr. BEALL: H. R 7164, A bill for the relief of Edward E Harriman, to the Committee on the Ju- diciary By Mr. BREEN: H R.7165 A bill for the relief of Mrs. Orinda Josephine Quigley; to the Commit- tee on the Judiciary By Mr. BYRNE of New York: H R 7166. A bill for the relief of Amy Louisa Shier, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. CHESNEY: H.R 7167. A bill for the relicf of Mrs. Rozalia Sutor-Hozak; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. COUDERT: H R 7168 A bill for the relicf of Mis. Radigunde Gruber; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H R. 7169. A bill for the relief of Anna Jarfas, to the Committce on the Judiciary. By Mr. FORD. H R.7170. A bill for the relief of Tryntje Bierema; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HELLER: H.R 7171 A bill for the relief of Rocco Giannetti; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. H.R. 7172. A bill for the relief of Eliza- beth Pick; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. By Mr. JONES of Alabama: H.R. 7173. A bill for the relief of Toshiko Ono; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. MULTER: H R.7174. A bill for the relief of Jakub Wolf, to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. NICHOLSON: H.R. 7175. A bill for the relief of Mitsuko Yano Kingman and William Leo Kingman, Jr.; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. O'NEILL: H R. 7176. A bill for the relief of Domen- ica Fontana; to the Committee on the Ju- diciary. PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule SXTI, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk’s desk and referred as follows: 1789. By Mr. GRAHAM: Petition of the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association, Inc., protesting Government invasion and dicta- tion of the conduct of business as proposed against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1790. By Mr. KEARNEY: Petition of sev- eral residents of Worcester and Westford, N. Y., advocating passage of H. R. 2428, a bill to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of alcoholic-beverage advertising CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and stop its broadcasting over the alr; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 1791. By Mr. PETERSON: Petition of Mrs, G. C. Meyer and other citizens of New Port Richey, Fla,, in support of House Joint Reso- lution 181; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. 1792. Also, petition of W. E. Page, of Wau- chula, Fla., and approximately 40 other citi- zens of that area, in support of the Town- send plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means, 1793. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Ambas- sador V. K. Wellington Koo, Chinese Embassy, Washington, D. C., transmitting a statement by the Control Yuan of China requesting and appealing for aid against Sovict Union im- perialist aggression; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 1794, Also, petition of Chayhin Martinez, arent, Moro war-damage claimants, Jolo, Sulu, Philippine Islands, requesting imme- diate and favorable action on a list of 25 Moro claimants for war-damage payments, to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1795. Also, petition of Graciano Abad, Pan- tabangan, Nueva Ecija, Philippine Islands, requesting action be taken on his claim for materials furnished guerrilla or armed forces of the United States during the Japa- nese occupation; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 1796. Also, petition of J Kennedy Can and others, Dayvona Beach, Fla, rcquesting pas- sage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1797 Also, petition of Mrs T. J Bryan and others, Lakeland, Fla, requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Towneend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means 1798 Also, petition of John Paul Chapman and others, Miami, Fla, requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the ‘Townsend plan, to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1799. Also, petition of J P Fleming and others, Montverde, Fla, requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1800 Also, petition of C. C Clifton and others, New Smyrna, Fla , requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1801. Also, petition of Mrs Minnie Newhart and others, Orlando, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 1802. Also, petition of Mrs Josephine Hud- son and others, Sarasota, Fla, requesting pacsage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Wavs and Means. 1803 Also, petition of Mary R. Dowling and others, Tampa, Fla., requesting passage of House bills 2135 and 2136, known as the Townsend plan; to the Committee on Ways and Means. SENATE Trespay, Fespruary 7, 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: Father of all mercies, away from Thee all is darkness and death. In the midst FEBRUARY 7 of world conditions that baffle us, swift social currents which sweep away our strongest bulwarks, we confess that the world in which our Jot is cast is too much for us; we must find a strength not our own or our feet will slip in this whelm- ing flood. To Thy sustaining grace we would lift up, in this hallowed moment, the thronging duties which haunt us day and night, the grievous problems affect- ing Thy children in all the world for which our human wisdom finds no an- swer. Heal the divisions which shorten the arm of our national might in this mo- mentous hour. Spurning and scorning the unworthy may we rejoice only in the fair and fragrant virtues of an honor untarnished. We ask it in the dear Re- deemer’s name. Amen. THE JOURNAL On request of Mr. Downey, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, February 6, 1950, was dispensed with. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Swanson, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 88) to amend scc- tion 60 of an act entitled “An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,” approved July 1, 1898, as amended, with amend- ments, in which it requested the concur- rence of the Senate. The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: H R 33. An act to authorize Joe Graham Post, No 119, American Legion, upon cer- tain conditions, to lease the lands conveyed to it by the act of June 15, 1933; H R 1151. An act to umend the act estab- lishing prades of certain retired noncommis- sioned officers; H R.1941. An act to provide for limiting particiuution as beneficiary under the Na- tional Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, and for other purposes, H.R 5101. An act to provide .or the trans- fer to Pierce County, Wash., of certain sur- plus land in the Fort Lewis Military Reser- vation; H R 5282. An act to amend section 3 of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico; H R 5503. An act to authorize the Secre- tary of the Alr Force to release and quitclaim a portion of a right-of-way easement to Langley Air Force Base, Va.; H R 5921. An act to terminate lump-sum benefits provided by law to certain Reserve Officers of the Navy and Air Force; H.R.6077. An act to clarify the status of inactive members of the Naval Reserve re- lating to the holding of offices of trust or profit under the Government of the United States, H.R 6406 An act providing procedure for claimants of mining claims in the United States obtaining credit tor assessment work performed during the year ending July 1, 1949, under the provisions of Public Law 107, Eighty-first Congress; H.R. 6552. An act to correct a clerical error in section 2 of the act of January 16, 1883, an act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, as amended by Public Law 425, Eighty-first Congress; H.R. 6553. An act to provide for the pro- motion of carriers in the rural delivery serve ice in recognition of longevity of service;
1950 H.R. 6559 An act to amend the Veterans Regulations to provide a minimum rate of compensation for World War II veterans who have arrested tuberculosis; H.R. 6603. An act to provide that certain service performed in the custodial service and in the mail equipment shops of the Post Office Department shal be credited toward promotion to the meritorious and longevity grades established for the postal fleld service; and H. R. 6673. An act to amend title III of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, by providing for treble-damage actions. The message further announced that the House had agreed to a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 97) to provide for a single supply catalog system, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the Vice President: 8.1282. An act to authorize grants under the Federal Airport Act for minor projects at major airports, and for other purposes; and H R. 4106. An act for the relief of certain officers and employees of the Foreign Service of the United States who, while in the course of their respective duties, suffered losses of personal property by reason of war conditions. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND OBJEC- TIVES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the body of the Rrecorp at this point the statement of principles and objectives adopted by the Republican Members of the Senate and House of Representatives on February 6, 1950, with the concur- rence of the Republican National Com- mittee. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES ADOPTED BY THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS CF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THF SENATE, AND CONCURRED IN BY THE MEMBERS OF THE RE- PUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 6, 1950 To win lasting peace, to build a country in which every citizen may make the most of his skill, initiative, and enterprise, and to hold aloft the inspiring torch of American free- dom, opportunity, and justice, assuring bet- ter and happter life for all our people, we dedicate our efforts and issue this statement of principles and objectives supplementing the Republican platform of 1948. We shall not passively defend the prin- ciples stated here, but shall fight for them with all the vigor with which our forefathers fought to establish what we now seek to ad- vance and perpetuate—human liberty and individual dignity. We pledge that in all we will advocate and in all that we will perform the first test shall be: Does this conduct enlarge and strengthen or does it undermine and lessen human lib- erty and individual dignity. FOREIGN AFFAIRS The American people face the hard fact that though they won the war nearly 5 years ago they have not yet won the peace. We offer them leadership in new efforts to achieve this vital end. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE We favor a foreign policy in which all Amelicaens, regardless of party, will join to assure peace with justice in a free world while maintaining the independence and the rights of the American people. We insist. upon restoration of our foreign agreements to their proper place inside the Constitution and we insist that the United States shall not be bound to any course of action unless the spirit and letter of our con- stitutional procedure are followed. We oppose secret commitments and we denounce the refusal of the administration to furnish accurate and adequate informa- tion to the Congress. Under our indispensable two-party system, we shall be vigilant in critical exploration of administration foreign policy. We favor con- sultation between the Executive and mem- bers of both major parties in the legislative branch of Government in the initiation and development of a united American foreign policy, and we deplore the tragic conse- quences of the administration’s failure to pursue these objectives in many fields, par- ticularly in the secret agreements of Yalta, subsequently confirmed at Potsdam, which have created new injustices and new dangers throughout the world. We favor full support of the United Nations and the improvement of its Charter so that it may be an effective international organi- zation of independent states prepared to mobilize public opinion and the armed forces of the world against aggression. We favor full support of the inter-American system as an integral part of the international organization and of our treaty obligations in the North Atlantic community. We advocate a strong policy against the spread of communism or fascism at home and abroad, and we insist that America's efforts toward this end be directed by those who have no sympathy either with commu- nism or fascism. We support aid to those states resisting communism, but such aid should be given only if it is essential to our national secu- rity, if it is within the total limits which the American economy can afford, if it will be effeotive, if it is beyond the ability of the aided nation to supply for itself, and if there is a program for progressive reduction. The Republican Party has always believed in a strong national defense. We must main- tain our armed forces at a strength com- pletely adequate for the security of our people. We favor the promotion of world trade on the basis of fair and reasonable competition, and we assert that this can be done within the republican principle that foreign prod- ucts of underpaid foreign labor shall not be admitted to this country on terms which imperil the living standards of the Ameri- can workman or the American farmer, or threaten serious injury to a domestic indus- try. A strong American economy 1s a vital factor for our security. DOMESTIC AFFAIRS The major domestic issue today ts liberty against socialism: Whether we shall remain in this country a free people tn constant con- trol of our governments, or whether we shall delegate to an all-powerful Federal Govern- ment with unlimited power to tax and spend, the rights to direct and operate our agricul- ture, industry, labor and local communities and “he daily lives of our citizens. We be- lieve there 1s no frontier beyond which devo- tion to the American system may not in- crease our knowledge, character, and material welfare; but we believe these goals can only be secured in a framework of liberty, equal- ity and justice, with adequate incentive and rewards to workmen and to industry for ability, knowledge, character, hard work, dar- ing, and genius. Basic American principles are threatened by the administration's program for a planned economy modeled on the Socialist 1541 governments of Europe, including price and wage control, rationing, socialized medicine, regional authorities, and the Brannan pian with its controls, penalties, fines, and Jail sentences. This program is dictated by @ small but powerful group of persons who belteve in socialism, who have no concept of the true foundation of American progress, and whose proposals sre wholly out of ac- cord with the true interests and real wishes of the workers, farmers, and businessmen. As the tron curtain descends on half the globe, and as nation after nation samples the drug of totalitarianism, the Republican Party is the champion of human liberty and the essential dignity of the individual. To it falls the task of offering not only its opposition, but of proposing a program to restore faith in free institutions, and bring about stability, opportunity, and progress. We hold that government can use its just powers to foster national health, promote real security for the aged, develop sound agricultural and labor-management policies, and advance civil rights. These ideas are in keeping with the earliest and finest Repub- lican traditions, and can be achieved without establishing socialism or discipline or de- pendence. The Democrats have also pro- fessed these ideals, but the stark truth is that after 18 years of Democratic control end endless talk, they have reduced this whole field to confusion and futility The admin- istration is seeking to make demagogic ap- peals rather than enact sound legislation, It seeks to Keep glittering goals intact to Ture votes in anticipation of favors to come, Such a cynical procedure raises the naked issue of sincerity, of responsibility, and of achievement. To achieve our objectives, we offer certain fundamental proposals, and constructive undertakings to rebuild a prosperous and progressive America: I, The economy Liberty cannot breathe the air of bank- ruptcy and live. Reckless and extravagant spending by the Federal Government, as now advocated by the Democratic administration, with recure ring annual deficits or continually increase ing taxes, can result only in disaster and ruin for our country. It will further cheapen the dollar, rob the wage earner, impoverish the farmer and destroy the savings, pensions, insurance, and investments of millions of people. Therefore we urge: A. An end of deficit spending and a return to a balanced budget. B. That Federal spending be materially re= duced. C. The achievement of efficiency and econe omy in Government especially by adoption of measures along the lines of the Hoover Report. D. A policy of general tax reduction to be accomplished as rapidly as reduction in Fede eral expenditures will permit. We favor im- Mediate repeal of oppressive wartime excises and reduction of taxes on small business to stimulate new industry and growth. This will create new jobs, new wealth, and even- tually greater tax revenue. It will provide opportunity for youth, furnish incentives for stable employment and retention of older employees, and encourage lower prices. E. Strict enforcement of the laws against monopoly and unfair competition. F. Establishment of a nonpartisan come mission to study and recommend a sensible redistribution of governmental! functions and sources of revenue between the Federal, State, and local entities, to secure the sovereignty of the several States with as much decentral- ization as is compatible with the national welfare. Wl, Agriculture A prosperous agriculture is fundamental to &@ prosperous America. We join farm organ- izations in condemning the Brannan plan
1542 which would regiment our farmers, cost un- told billions of the taxpayers’ money, and would mean the ultimate nationalization of agriculture. Its inefficiency and increased costs would adversely affect both the pro- ducer and the consumer. It would place every farmer in a state of complete depend- ency on Government for a large part of his income from uncertain annual congressional appropriations. We deplore the maladmin- istration for political purposes of the pres- ent agricultural law by the Department of Agriculture. We will continue to work with the farm- ers, farm organizations, and all friends of agriculture to bring about a sound solution of the many problems confronting the farm- ers of this country. Such farm policies must be developed in the interest of the farmer, the consumer, and the national economy Agriculture is a growing and dynamic indus- try undergoing constant change and im- provement. No farm program can succeed which is not in harmony with this concept. Specifically we propose the following: A. A program to provide a fair price for the farmers’ products in the market place aided by a system of price supports and by pro- tection against the dumping of competitive commodities produced by underpaid foreign labor, to the end that the farmer's standard of living will be in line with the contribution he makes to the national economy. B. Continue and enlarge programs of re- search and eduvation, hoth in production and marketing, with particular attention to cheaper and more effective production, a bet- ter and more effective marketing system es- pecially for perishahle commodities, sound cooperative marketing, and the develop- ment and expansion of industrial uses for agriculiulal products and byproducts C. Continued development and restoration of our soil and water resources thiough soil conservation and reclamation D Expansion of animal agriculture as a menns of reducing surpluses, 1ebullding the soll, and providing a better diet fol our people. E Special encouragement for the develop- ment and ownership of family-sized farms, improvement of rural living conditions, and completion of the rural-electrification pro- gram. F. Development of export markets for the surplus crops which can be efficiently pro- duced in this country II. Labor-management relations Industrial harmony and justice are essen- tial to the country’s well-being. To that end, government should encourage and pro- mote free collective bargaining. On manage- ment and unions falls an equal responsibility to act in good faith toward each other and toward the country. We favor: A. Continuation of the Taft-Hartley law because it has restored equality between em- ployer and employee, guaranteed the right of collective bargaining, the recognition of unions and the right to strike, while pro- tecting the righis of the public and the union members, Under this law union mem- bership has increased to new highs, wages have risen to record levels, and strikes have decreased, B Continuation of our efforts to enact such improvements in the law as have been shown to be necessary to accomplish its pur- poses more effectively. We deplore the action of the administration in playing politics in this vital area of human relations, there- by blocking the cnactment of necessary amendments to the law—many of them pro- posed by labor organizations. IV. Civil rights The right of equal opportunity to work, to vote, to advance in life and to be protected under the law should never be limited in any individual because of race, religion, color, or country of origin. Therefore, we shall con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE tinue to sponsor and support legislation to protect the rights of minorities. V. Social responsibtlity The obligation of government to those in need has long been recognized. Recognizing the inequities and injustices of the present program of social security, we urge: A. The extension of the coverage of the Federal old-age and survivors insurance pro- gram, reduction of eligibility requirements and increase of benefits to a more generous level, with due regard to the tax burden on those who labor. B. A thorourch-going study of a program of more nearly universal coverage including the principle of pay as you go. Cc. Federal aid, where the need is clearly demonstrated, to States and through States to their subdivisions, to assist them in af- fording subsistence, shelter, and medical care to their citizens who are unable to provide for themselves. Such aid, including unem- ployment compensation, must be based on State and local initiative, operation, con- tribution, and responsibility, without Fed- eral bureaucratic interference. It must avoid socialization of the medical profession or of any other activity. Federal aid must be in amounts which do not impose an un- reasonable burden of taxation on the Ameri- can people who pay the bills, VI. Velerans A grateful Nation demands that those who fought in its defense, their widows and orphans, must never be forgotten We urge. A Continuing and sympathetic consid- eration of the rizhts and deserts of the vet- erans und their dependents B Prompt and efficient handling of claims and other problems of veterans. VII. Loyalty Communism is an international conspiracy aiming at world-wide dictatorship and the suppression of religious, political, and eco- nomic freedoms throughout the world. It cu... upts ideals, corrodes basic religious teach- ings, destroys the fiber of man and denies the existence of God. It Is imperative that the nations of the world develop new ‘methods to offset this frontal attack on civilization. We condemn the failure of the adminis- tration to recognize the full implications of this threat to our security. We deplore the dangerous degree to which Communists and their fellow travelers have been employed in important Government posts and the fact that information vital to our security has been made avallable to alien agents and persons of questionable loyalty. We de- nounce the soft attituce of this administra- tion toward Government employees and ofti- cials who hold or support Communist atti- tudes. We pledge immediate action to bring about: A Tho complete overhaul of the so-called loyalty and security checks of Federal per- sonnel. B The prompt elimination of all Com- munists, fellow travelers, and Communist sympathizers from our Federal pay roll, C. Closer coordination between our intel- ligence agencies, with full use of the facilities of the FBI for protecting our security. CONCLUSION To this program we subscribe, confident that the overwhelming majority of Americans cherish our heritage of freedom and will join us in this crusade to see that it shall not perish from the earth. Our people must arouse themselves to pre- serve our precious liberties and freedoms— the right to worship God in our own way; to speak freely our minds without fear; to con- duct our lives and our affairs without offi- cious meddling by too powerful government. We must revivify those qualities of diligence, economy, courage, initiative, and patriotism which enabled our forefathers to make this Nation great. FEBRUARY 7 This Republic is the custodian of human liberty. The Republican Party will endenvor to see to it that we are worthy of this guard- lanship. REJECTION OF FORMER PRIME MINISTER SPAAK TO BE HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COOPERATION Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, in com- mon with most American observers of the European scene, I was startled to read the other day in the newspapers that former Prime Minister Spaak had been rejected for the position of head of the Office of European Economic Coop- eration. It is said that the Labor Gov- ernment of Great Britain is responsible. In common with most Americans, I feel that Mr. Spaak is certainly one of the ablest, if not the very ablest, politi- cal leader in western Europe today. I had applauded the report that President Truman had decided to advance his name for this position of leadership. In fact, on returning from Europe myself, in September, I had made a similar sug- gestion, It seemed to me that Mr. Spaak was the man who could provide the dy- namic leadership necessary to the inte- gration of western Europe. I cannot, therefore, resist the feeling that the ob- jections to him cast a cloud over the whole future of economic cooperation, I hope I may be wrong. Because of the importance of the sub- ject, I ask unanimous consent that there may be printed in the Recorp an illu- minating editorial entitled “The Case of Mr. Spaak,” which appeared in the Washington Post on February 2, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed 1n the Rrecorp, as follows: THE CASE OF MR. SPAAK The British explain their rejection of Paul-Henri Spaak as head of the OEEC in Paris as due to Mr Spaak and not to the idea of giving OEEC wu direction. What is Mr. Spaak’s offense? So far as we can make out, it is some plain talking in which he in- dulged while he was recently in America. The former Belgian Prime Minister spoke in Philadelphia on January 14 on the British attitude toward continental Europe. It was a repetition of a speech he had already given in London, The pith of his address was this: “There is, today, no really great power tn Europe. A balance-of-power policy has be- come impossible. Great Britain can no longer be the beam of a balance of the scales which no longer exist; she must be herself, & positive and active element in Europe, “Dare I say it, with all the admiration and friendship I feel for her. She must beware. If Great Britain turns away from continental Europe it will be a great misfortune for the latter, but, in the long run I am convinced that it will be a misfortune for Great Britain, too. “The Europe I am speaking about is a mutilated Europe. We no longer have any contact with eastern Europe, nor with the greatest part of central Europe. We can- not, therefore, deprive ourselves of all that represents the Anglo-Saxon influence. If Europe has to be made without Great Britain, I believe she will be made, neverthe- less, but she would be nothing more than a caricature. “In that Europe, Germany will play a con- siderable part, I do not hesitate to say, too considerable. I am ready to look at the German problem with an open mind, and to forget everything it is possible to forget, but to make in Europe the necessary coun-
1950 terbalance to the inevitable German influ- ence, Great Britain’s presence is more than indispensable. “Those who hesitate in Great Britain, often mention their ties with the Common- wealth to support their attitude. Reason or pretext, I do not know.” This is merely an excerpt from a speech in which Mr. Spark dealt with the problem of Europe. It was the excerpt which the newspaper reporters used and upon which the copyreaders built their headlines. The British are giving the impression in their umbrage that Mr. Spaak is anti-British. Only a person who has been asleep for the last 20 years would dub Mr. Spaak antipa- thetic to Britain. The evidence of his dis- tinguished career—as a Socialist leader, as Belgium's Premier, as a European figure—is all to the contrary. Mr. Spaak in his visits to America has gone out of his way to speak with sympathy and understanding of Britain and of the problems of its Labor government. Many Washingtonians can testify to the readiness and persuasivencss with which he gratuitously comes to the support of Brit- ain’s Labor Government in conversation, Mr. Spaak spoke in Philadelphia as a European. This is what he is, first and fore- most. He is entitled to think that his record as a statesman and his prestige as a Euro- pean should both have saved him from the narrowmindedness of nationalistic touchi- ness. The fact is that the Belgian statcs- man 1s, after Mr. Churchhill, the most elo- quent and stanchest champion of a real in- stead of a phony organization of Europe. He was a pillar of strength before and dur- ing the convocation of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg in behalf of a united Europe. By acclamation he was made the first prest- dent of the Europenn Consultative Assembly, the moral parliament of Europe. He still is its president. The British, to absolve themselves from the reproach of turning their backs on Europe, have proposed in place of Mr. Spask the Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr. Dirk U. Stik- ker. And Mr. Stikker has now been ap- pointed. For the Dutch minister we enter- tain the highest respect. But Mr. Stikker 1s - not Mr. Spaak. Mr. Stikker is an office- holder in his own country, and can give only part of his time to the job which is now called, of all things, “political con- ciliator” of OEEC. Mr. Spaak, however, no longer holds office tn Belgium. He would have been able to devote all his time, as well as his talents and his passion, to the eco- nomic organization of Europe. His role was to be the director-general of OEFEC, viz, its coordinating and driving force; and in this capacity he would have been empowered to talk to the governments of Europe free of any affiliation except to Europe, It is im- possible to escape the conclusion that Mr. Spaak was vetoed not because he 1s anti- British, but because he is too strong a man and too ardent a European to trust in a job that looked as if it might acquire signifi- cance in the task of pushing integration. ECA has been put in jeopardy by British action in turning down an architect of Europe. CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. DOWNEY. 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 Capehart Dworshak Anderson Chapman Ecton Benton Chavez Ellender Brewster Connally Ferguson Bricker Cordon Flanders Bridges Darby Frear Butler Donnell Fulbright Byid Dougics George Cain Downcy Gillette CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Green Leahy Robertson Gurney Lehman Russell Hayden Lodge Saltonstall Hendrickson Lucas Schoeppel Hickenlooper McCarran Smith, Maine Hill McCarthy Smith, N.J, Hoey McClellan Sparkman Holland McFarland Stennis Humphrey McKellar Taft Hunt McMahon Taylor Ives Magnuson Thomas, Okla, Jenner Martin Thomas, Utah Johnson, Colo, Maybank Tobey Johnson, Tex. Millikin Tydings Johnston, 8.C. Mundt Watkins Kefauver Murray Wherry Kem Myers Williams Kerr Neely Withers Kilgore O’Conor Young Knowland O'Mahoney Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EastTLanp] is absent on official business. The Senator from North Carolina | Mr. GraHaM] is absent by leave of the Senate on official business. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone] and the Senator from Florida (Mr. PEPPER] are absent on public business. Mr SALTONSTALL. ‘announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. LaNcER] and the Senator from Minne- sota |[Mr. THYE] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MorRSE] are absent on official business. The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Van- DENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] is detained because of a tem- porary illness. The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. LEAVE OF ABSENCE On his own request, and by unanimous consent, Mr. FeRcUSON was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate from tomorrow until Monday of next week. On his own request, anc by unanimous consent, Mr. AIKEN was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate until Wednesday of next week. COMMITTEE MEETING DURING SENATE SESSION On request of Mr. Downey (for Mr. ConnaLLy), and by unanimous consent, the Committee on Foreign Relations was authorized to meet this afternoon during the session of the Senate. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will take the liberty of suggesting that, without objection and without speeches or debate, the Chair will recognize Sen- ators who wish to present matters for the Recorp or introduce bills or resolutions. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: REPORT AND FINDINGS ON IMPROVEMENTS IN CoLuMBIA River BAsIN A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, his report and findings on proposed improvements in the Columbia River Basin for the development of the Pacific Northwest (with accompany- 1543 ing papers); to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF CERTAIN PUBLIC Works A letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a letter from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, dated February 1, 1950, together with drafts of proposed amendments to the bill (H. R. 6472) au- thorizing the construction, repair, and pres- ervation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, fiood control, and for other purposes (with accompanying pa- pers); to the Committee on Public Works. REpPorRT oF NATIONAL Park Trust FUND BoarD A letter from the Secretary of the National Park Trust Fund Board, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Board for the fiscal year 1949 (with an accompanying report); to the Com- mittee on Interlor and Insular Affairs. DISPOSITION OF EXECUTIVE PAPERS A letter from the Archivist of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a lst of papers and documents on the files of sev- eral departments and agencies of the Gov- ernment which are not needed in the conduct of business and have no permanent value or historical interest, and requesting action looking to their disposition (with accom- panying papers); to a Joint Select Committee on the Disposition of Papers in the Execu- tive Departments. The VICE PRESIDENT appointed Mr. JoHNston of South Carolina and Mr. LANGER members of the committee on the part of the Senate. ALLEGED AGGRESSION BY SOVIET UNION AGAINST CHINA—LETTER AND STATE- MENT FRO? CHINESE AMBASSADOR The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from V. K. Wellington Koo, Chinese Ambassador, transmitting a statement of the Control Yuan of China, relating to alleged imperialist ag- gression by the Soviet Union against China, which, with the accompanying statement, was referred to the Commit- tee on Foreign Relations. PETITIONS AND MEMORIAL Petitions, etc., were laid before the Sen- ate and referred as indicated: By the VICE PRESIDENT: A resolution adopted by Horace F. Ortt Post, No. 540, Veterans of Foreign Wurs, of Dixon, Ill., favoring the discharge of the Committee on Finance from further consid- eration of House bill 4617, to Mberalize the requirement for payment of pension in cer- tain cases to veterans and their widows and children, and urging its prompt enactment; to the Committee on Finance A resolution adopted by the women’s board of Huron Road Hospital, East Cleveland, Ohio, protesting against the enactment of legisla- tion providing compulsory health insurance; to the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare. REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE The following reports of a committee were submitted: By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary: 8.1510. A bill conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the Mid- dle District of North Carolina to hear, deter- mine, and render judgment upon the claim of James I. Bartley; with amendments (Rept, No. 1254); 8.1838. A bill to amend title 28 of the United States Code relating to fees of United States marshals; without amendment (Rept. No. 1255;
1544 §.2338 A bill for the rellef of J. M Ar- thur, without amendment (Rept. No. 1256); 8 2807 A bill for the relicf of Sgt Blaine W Hughes, without amendment (Rept No. 1257), S 2064. A bill to authorize certain admin- istrative expenses for the Department of Justice, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No, 1258); H.R 1056. A bill to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear and determine the claim of Preston L. Watson, as adminis- trator of the gocds and chattels, rights, and credits which were of Robert A. Watson, do- ceased: with amendments (Rept. No. 1259); H R.3536 A bill for the relief of Mrs. Nora Johnson; with an amendment (Rept. No. 1260) ; H R 5769. A bill for the relief of Doris M. Faulkner, without amendment (Rept No. 1261); and BH R 4411 A bill for the rclief of Mrs E:iz- abeth Mary C Mangle; without amendment (Rept. No. 1262) SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported an original concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 73), submitted a report (No. 1253) thereon, and the concurrent resolution was or- dered to be placed on the calendar, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the Howse of Representatives concurring), That the Con- gress favors the suspension of deportation in the case of each alien hereinafter named, in which case the Attorney General has suspended deportation for more than 6 months A--6244779, Bertagni, Hugo or Ugo Bertagni. A--2651565, Bochicchio, Cristino or Nick De Mario or Nick DiMario or Nicola De Maria, A-6321689, Clurisse, Abraham Anthonie. A-~4668634, Diet], Marta Maria or Martha Maria Diet! A-6570621, Dolan, Hilda Ena Louise (nee Phang), formerly Orinitcheff, A-5661548, Ehlers, Mary Helen. A-5324917, Harvey, Fredrick Herbert or Frederick (or Fredrick), Herbert Harvey or Fred Harvey. A-1701581, Hriczo, Yanos Ferencz or John Frank Hriczo or Janos Wriezo or John Kriszo. A-(989363, Latoff, Catherine Hage A-3448878, Lyras, George Nicholas or Geor- gios Nicholas Lyras, A-5569906, Lyras, Angeliki George, or An- gela Lyras (nee Angela Joan Lyras). A-4638126, Kong, Leet Tung or Lee Chung Kwong A-5316626, Lee, Mary Anne or Kwan Chong Yen (maiden name). A-6214506, Mercer, Clare Nelson. A-6887754, Moran, Mary Joyce Rooney) A-6825230, Nowitsch, Silvia Marianna A-8799268, Prideaux, Charles Stephen Anstice A-1812178, Siiskonen, Evert. A~6389051, Szefner, Feliks or Felix Shafner. A-6389052, Szefner, Paulina or Pauline Shafner (nee Geszychter). A-4224669, Tang, Doris or Chu Pul-Fong or Tang Pui Fong. A- 5995999, Tang, Harry, Tang Kim Man or Tang Kim-Man. A-5995002, Tang, Ruth or Tang Wan Yin or Tang Wan-Yin. A-4324670, Tang, Paul or Tang Sik-Pui or Tang Sik Pui. A-50994998, Tang, Peggy or Tang Wan-Yon. A-b995001, Tang, Helen or Tang Wan-Yim. A-5€96000, Tang, Andrew or Tang Sen- Man. A-5903987, Tigeletro, Jose. A-6018586, Wojciechowska, Zcfla Jadeiga. A-6018587, Wojciechowska, Maria Teresa. (nee CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE A-6018588, Richard. ADDITIONAL PFRSONNEL FOR COMMIT- TEE ON THE JUDICIARY Mr McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported an original resolution (S. Res. 228), which was re- ferred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, as follows: Resoived, That in holding hearings, re- porting such hearings, and making investiga- tions as authorized by subsection (g) (2) (B) of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, or any other duties imposed upon it, the Committee on the Judiciary, or any dauly authorized subcommittee thereof, 1s authorized during the period beginning on March 1, 1950, and ending on January 31, 1951, to make such expenditures, and to em- ploy upon a temporary basis such investi- gators, and such technical, clerical, and other assistants, as it deems advisable. Src 2 The expenses of the committec under this resolution, which shall not ¢x- ceed $80,000, in addition to any unexpenced balance under Senute Resolution 177, Eighty- first Congress, first session, agreed to October 13, 1949, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the committee or sub- committee, as the case may be. EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A COMMITTEE As in executive session, The following favorable reports of nominations weve submitted: By Mr. McCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary David L Bazelon, of Illinois, to be judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Clarence U Landrum, of Minnesota, to be United States Attorney for the district of Minnesota, J Vincent Keogh, of New York, to be United States attorney for the eastern district of New York; John A. Carver, of Idaho, to be United States attorney for the district of Idaho; Edward Lawrence Burke, of Vermont, to be United States marshal for the district of Vermont; and Everett M. Evans, of Idaho, to be United States marshal for the district of Idaho. By Mr. JENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary’ H Nathan Swaim, of Indiana, to be Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit BILLS INTRODUCED Bilis were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: (Mr. ANDERSON introduced Senate Dill 3000, to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and appears under a separate heading.) By Mr MILLIKIN (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado) : S 3001 A bill to expedite the rehabili- tation of Federal reclamation projects in certain cases; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. By Mr. MAGNUSON: 8.3002. A bill for the relief of the Inland Petroleum Transportation Co., Inc.; and 8.3003. A bill tor the relief of Howard Roy St. Vincent; to the Committee on the Judi- ciary. By Mr. HOEY: 8.3004. A bill for the relief of Nabiha Elias Audl; and S. 3005. A bill for the relief of Olga Had- dad; to the Committee on the Judiciary. WojJciechowska, Christopher FEBRUARY 7 AMENDMENT OF WAR CLAIMS' ACT OF 1948 Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I in- troduce for appropriate reference a bill to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, and I ask unanimous consent that the bill, together with an explanatory state- ment by me of the bill, be printed in the REcoORD. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred, and, without objection, the bill and ex- planatory statement wil: be printed in the Recorp. The Chair hears no objec- tion. The bill (S. 3000) to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, 9s amended, intro- duced by Mr. ANDERSON, was read twice by its title, referred to the Commitiee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Be it enacted, etc, That section 6 of the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 896, 80th Cong; 62 Stat 1240), as amendcd, be amended by striking therefrom part 4 of subsection (c) and inserting in leu thereof: “(4) Parents (in equal shares) if there is no widow, dependent husband, or child.” The explanatory statement presented by Mr. ANDERSON Is as follows: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF BILL PROPCSED BY SENATOR ANDERSON TO AMEND WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1948 The purpose of the bill I have just intro- duerd is to amend section 6 ot the War Claims Act of 1948 (Public Law 896, 80th Cong, July 3, 1948), as amended, by sub- stituting a new subsection (c) (4) in section 6 Such an amendment would have tho effect of removing the requirement of de- pendency, upon which entitlement of parents to benefits under section 6 of the act is now p-edicated. ‘This legislation would, if en- acted, also expedite and facilitate the work of the Commission in the adjudication of claims under section 6 of the War Claims Act by eliminating the necessity of proof of de- pendenoy of surviving parents. Section 6 of the War Claims Act is that section which authorizes the payment of compensation to any regularly appointed, en- rolled, enlisted, or inducted member of the military or naval forces of the United States who was held as a prisoner of war for any period of time subsequent to December 7, 1941, by any government of any nation with which the United States has been at war sub- sequent to such date. Such compensation is payable at the rate of $1 a day for each day of imprisonment on which such enemy govern- ment failed to furnish such prisoners of war the quality and quantity of food to which they were entitled as prisoners of war under the terms of the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929. It should be noted that not only is de- pendency difficult to prove, but it also con- sists of varying elements such as the health of the individual, his ability to earn a living, the opportunity which he may have to exer- cise that ability, the location in which he lives, and his general economic status. Moreover, a large percentage of the mili- tary personnel imprisoned by the German or Japanese Covernments or their allies, were young, unmarried men, whose only sur- vivors are parents. It seems inequitable, therefore, to require such surviving parents of those men to prove their dependency, This argument is made yet more forcible by the fact that surviving widows of deceused prisoners of war do not have to prove do- pendency and yct in many instances these widows may have remarried or he more quali- fin) Lo suppore tucdiseives tnan the surviving Fes C103,
1950 In considering this proposal, it should be remembered: (a) That claims are now being received by the Commission from persons who may be affected by this amendment; (b) that many surviving parents are unable to file due to lack of proof of dependency, and (c) there is a statute of Nmitations on the time for filing such claims with the Commission. STRENGTHENING OF UNITED NATIONS Mr. FERGUSON (for himself, Mr. GraHAM, and Mr. KEFAUVER) submitted the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 72), which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: Whereas the United Nations is the world’s best hope for the maintenance of interna- tional peace, security, and justice; and Whereas in the 4 years of its experience the United Nations has both demonstrated strength and revealed weaknesses; and Whereas in the light of this experience the United Nations can be made stronger by development of its powers, its proce- dures, its facilities, and policies of its mem- bers: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- resentatives concurring) — 1. That the Congress reaffirms its faith in the United Nations as the cornerstone of the international policy of the United States, and that the President be advised that it 1s the sense of the Congress that the United States should cooperate with other govern- ments for the strengthening of the United Nations, by interpretation of the Charter, by action taken or usages developed under the Charter, by supplementary agreements among nations who desire thus to further the purpose of the Charter, or ultimately, if necessary, by amendment of the Charter. 2. That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should cooperate with other governments in steps for the strength- ening of the United Nations, in particular: (a) “Voluntary agreement to remove the veto from all questions involving pacific set- tlements of international disputes and sit- uations, and from the admission of new members,” Senate Resolution 239, June 11, 1948. (b) effort to achieve immediate member- ship of all states qualified for membership under article 4 of the Charter to the end of making the United Nations universal. (c) elimination of the reservations made by the United States to its acceptance of the optional clause of the Statute of the Inter- national Court of Justice; and acceptance by all states of the optional clause without res- ervations, 80 as to give the Court compuleory Jurisdiction in legal disputes as defined in article 36 of the statute. (d) further development of the armed guard force and field service under the Sec- retary-General in order to assure adequate protection and assistance to missions of the United Nations in the normal course of their operations, (e) renewed efforts at a political level to secure agreements for the contribution of forces and assistance under the provisions of article 43 of the Charter. (f) utilization by all members of the United Nations of suitable measures for col- lective self-defense under article 61 of the Charter as necessary to maintain peace and security. (g) direct administration by the United Nations of certain disputed areas where such direct administration would contribute to the peace of the world. (h) passage of appropriate legislation to facilitate the provision of independent sources of revenue for the United Nations in addition to the revenue provided by contri- butions made by members, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE (i) support the principles of the United Nations Charter respecting fundamental freedoms. (j) preparation by the International Law Commission of the United Nations of an in- ternational criminal code and of a statute for an international criminal court. (Kk) carry out as far as possible, through the United Nations, the program of technical assistance to underdeveloped countries. AMENDMENT OF DISPLACED PERSONS ACT—AMENDMENTS Mr. HUNT submitted amendments in- tended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 4567) to amend the Displaced Per- sons Act of 1948, which were ordered to lie on the table and be printed. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS—AMENDMENTS Mr. GREEN (for himself, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. McMauon, Mr. BENTON, and Mr. LEAHY) submitted amendments intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to the bill (H. R. 5472) authorizing the con- struction, repair, and preservation of cer- tain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood control, and for other purposes, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED The following bills were severally read twice by their titles, and referred, as indicated: H.R.83. An act to authorize Joe Graham Post No. 119, American Legion, upon certain conditions, to lease the lands conveyed to it by the act of June 15, 1933; H.R.1151. An act to amend the act estab- lishing grades of certain retired noncom- missioned officers; H R 5101. An act to provide for the trans- fer to Pierce County, Wash., of certain sur- plus land in the Fort Lewis Military Reserva- tion; H.R. 6503. An act to authorize the Sec- retary of the Air Force to release and quit- claim a portion of a right-of-way easement to Langley Air Force Base, Va.; H.R. 5921. An act to terminate lump-sum benefits provided by law to certain Reserve officers of the Navy and Air Force; and H.R 6077. An act to clarify the status of inactive members of the Naval Reserve relat- ing to the holding of offices of trust or profit under the Government of the United States; to the Committee on Armed Services. H.R. 1941, An act to provide for limiting participation as beneficiary under the Na- tional Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, and for other purposes; and H R. 6559. An act to amend the Veterans Regulations to provide a minimum rate of compensation for World War II veterans who have arrested tuberculosis, to the Committee on Finance. H.R. 5282. An act to amend section 8 of the Organic Act of Puerto Rico; and H.R. 6406. An act providing procedure for claimants of mining claims in the United States obtaining credit for assessment work performed during the year ending July 1, 1949, under the provisions of Public Law 107, Eighty-first Congress; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 6552. An act to correct a clerical error in section 2 of the act of January 16, 1883, an act to regulate and improve the civil serv- ice of the United States, as amended by Pub- lic Law 425, Eighty-first Congress; H.R. 6553. An act to provide for the pro- motion of carriers in the rural delivery serv- ice in recognition of longevity of service; and H. R. 6603. An act to provide that certain service performed in the custodial service 1545 and in the mail equipment shops of the Post OfMce Department shall be credited toward promotion to the meritorious and longevity grades established for the postal field serv- ice; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. H.R 6678. An act to amend title ITI of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, by providing for treble damage ac- tions; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED The concurrent resolution (H. Con, Res. 97) to provide for a single supply catalog system, was referred to the Com- mittee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. THE STORY OF BOSTON—EDITORIAL FROM THE BOSTON POST [Mr. LODGE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rwcorp an editorial re- lating to Boston, Mass., entitled “Only the Big Ones,” from the Boston Post of February 1, 1950, which appears in the appendix.] IMPLEMENTATION OF HOOVER COMMIS- SION REPORTS AND RECOMMENDA- TIONS—REPORT OF STAFF OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES 'N THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS {Mr. McCLELLAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Rrcorp a memo- randum prepared by the staff of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, dated February 3, 1950, on the subject of implementation of the Hoover Commission Reports and Recommendations, which appears in the Appendix.] BUDGET PRUNING—EDITORIAL FROM THE WASHINGTON POST [Mr. McCLELLAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an edl- torial entitled “Budget Pruning,” published in the Washington Post of February 7, 1950, which appears in the Appendix } THE NATION’S CAPITAL AND THE MAN WHO PLANNED IT—ARTICLE FROM FREEDOM FAIR NEWS [Mr. MARTIN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled ‘The Nation's Capital and the Man Who Planned It,” published in the Freedom Fair News, issued by the National Capital Sesquicentennial Commission, which appears in the Appendix.] FAIR DEAL MATHEMATICS—ARTICLE BY VERMONT ROYSTER {Mr. MUNDT asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “2x2=6," by Vermont Royster, from the Magazine of Wall Street, ‘-vhich appcars in the Appendix ] 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 appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I was not surprised yesterday to hear the elo- quent junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFarLanp] express the deep sense of gratitude of himself and his colleague {Mr. HaypEn] to the people of the State
1546 of California for the proposed author- ization which is now pending before the Senate. This bill, in my opinion, would, if enacted—and I believe I can corrob- orate it by facts—constitute the greatest present ever given by one person to any other person. It would place a burden of a billion or two billion dollars upon the taxpayers of the United States and the power users of the Southwest. The Senators from Arizona may well express their gratitude to the committee which reported the bill for the munificent gift which is contemplated. Unfortunately, gifts must be paid for by someone. I do not think that the Treasury of the United States or the taxpayers of the United States are in any condition to give improvident and extravagant sums to any State or to any person. However, we may love the senior Senator and the junior Senator from Arizona, I do not believe that love is enough to justify a gift in the sum of a billion or two billion dollars. I should like very briefiy and quickly to review the costs which are involved in this incredible and fantastic proposal. The Bureau of Reclamation postulates the sum of $738,000,000, both for power and for irrigation. This amount is al- most wholly to be used for the irrigation of a meager amount of land which is not worth one-twentieth or one-fortieth as much as the sum involved. It is or- dinary land, producing principally grain and cotton. It produces crops which can be produced only by virtue of a further subsidy from the taxpayers of the United States. Mr. President, the sum which is sug- gested here—and it is only the begin- ning—is $738,000,000. According to the Bureau’s own figures, there will be irri- gated only 225,000 acres. Therefore, we have a per acre cost at the very begin- ning, according to the Bureau's own fig- ures, of from three to four thousand dollars an acre. Similar land can be bought in the Mississippi Valley and in the Delta of the South for $150 or $200 an acre Mr. President, there are many hidden costs. Under the Bureau of Reclama- tion’s formula, which I myself support and which I believe to be all right in a@ proper case, the Treasury of the United States pays the interest on the total investment during the period of con- struction. Ordinarily the interest on the investment, while the project is being built, is not a very large item; but here we are dealing with an admitted figure of $738,000,000, which I think will mush- room into a figure of $1,500,000,000 or $2,000,000,C00. We are dealing with a project which will take substantial proportions of the amount of money provided for reclama- tion and irrigation in the West. We are dealing with complicated financial and legal conditions. So if we essume— I think it is a fair assumption—that it will take 20 years to build this project, and if we assume a 2 percent interest rate on the average amount of the out- standing investment, and figure the 2 percent for, not 2 years, but 20 years, or a@ total of 40 percent on the investment during the course of construction, we get a figure of $150,000,000, and that is $600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE an acre for land which can be purchased today for $100 or $150 or $200 an acre. One hundred and fifty million dollars will merely be the interest on the invest- ment during the course of construction. Is any of that money to be paid by those who will use the power generated at the project? No. Is any of that money to be paid by the farmers in the State of Ari- zona who will benefit from the project? No. There is an item of $150,000,000 which will come directly out of the Treasury of the United States. How the committee could justify even the $600 an acre, representing the interest on the investment during the course of con- struction, remains beyond my compre- hension; and we have not even yet begun to compute the cost of the project. Mr. President, I must admit that Iam not one of the older Members of the Senate, but I have been here 11 years. In all my experience I never have seen liti- gation and vast sums of money dealt with so carelessly and so casually as they are dealt with in this measure. In this bill there is an authorization, additional to that for the $738,000,000, for a tunnel 80 mules long, with canals and facilities. We do not know how much they will cost, because the committee approving those tunnels never got a report from the Bureau of Reclamation as to their cost. It is our belief that the cost for the tunnels and the allied facilities will go at least to $550,000,000. That is the best figure we can arrive at from the reports of the Bureau. But, Mr. Presi- dent, in the record there is not one word about that from the Bureau or from the proponents of this scheme. We are left with an authorization which, so far as we can tell, is bounded only by the blue sky above. What a strange thing is this authori- zation. We first approve a plan which, adding to the $738,000,000 the $150,000,- 000 of accumulative interest, will cost approximately $1,000,000,0C0. We first approve that, and then we give a blanket authorization for the tunnels, which alone will cost somewhere in the neigh- borhood of $2,500 an acre to irrigate land worth $150 or $200 or $250 an acre. Mr. President, later I shall attempt to be a clairvoyant and to express my ideas as to why the Bureau has slipped into this bill this kind of an authorization for another half billion dollars. Mr KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. An- DERSON in the chair). Does the senior Senator from California yield to the junior Senator from California? Mr. DOWNEY. I yield, gladly. Mr. KNOWLAND. Yesterday when the junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFartanp} had completed his address to the Senate, as set forth at page 1472 of the CONGRESSIONAL REcorp for yester- day, I raised this point with him, namely, that instead of being a $708,000,000 bill, as reported by the committee, or a $738,- 0C0,000, as introduced by the Senator from Arizona, actually it was greatly in excess of those amounts, because without any further congressional authorization, end merely by the appropriation of a nominal sum, the authorization would jump, by a chain reaction, so to speak, FEBRUARY 7 another $550,000,000. In response to that question, I think the Senator from Arizona clearly admitted that the amount would jump, but he used a figure of $200,000,000. I did not have handy at that moment any specific figures; but I have been told that the only available figures—which were not presented to the committee, but which had been pre- sented at other times—showed that the big, Main tunnel would cost approxi- mately $489,500,000 and the miscellane- ous tunnels would cost approximately $60,500,000, or a total of approximately $550,000,000. I wonder whether the Senator can enlighten us on that point. Mr. DOWNEY. Yes; and I may say it is a somewhat ambiguous situation. I cannot agree with the junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McFarianp], but I can understand his viewpoint. The sur- veys for this tunnel and the allied facili- ties were made in 1942, 1943, and 1944. The Bureau of Reclamation in computing at that time the cost for this particular undertaking, reached a figure of approxi- mately $225,000,000. Applying the Bu- reau’s formula to present-day prices, that tunnel as of today would cost approxi- mately $550,000,000. Let me very briefly advert to the rather mysterious explanation of this entire matter, which I shall later cover at some length. I wish to say, Mr. President, that I invite interruptions or questions or corrections; and I stand prepared, I think, to present from the record cor- roboration of every statement I shall make. Mr. President, why is there such vagueness about this matter? What 1s the mystery about it? At a cost of ap- proximately $400,000,000 it is proposed that the Government build this immense pumping plant, which will pump 1,200,- 000 acre-feet of wate: out of the Colo- rado River, with a 300-mile aqueduct to Arizona. That will cost in the neigh- borhood of $400.000,000. The bill contemplates, and the junior Senator from Arizona corroborates this, that probably that will be merely a tem. porary arrangement, and that later on, when it is deemed that the time is eco- nomic, the plan is to build the 80-mile tunnel, a tunnel so much longer than any other irrigation tunnel in the United States that it will simply stand in a unique class, by itself. Why is that? Mr. President, here is the reason: 1,200,- 000 acre-feet of water is a body of water covering an acre in area, and rising 1,200,000 feet into the air—a tremendous body of water, which is to be lifted ap- proximately 1,000 feet. It is immedi- ately apparent that only a tremendous volume of electric power can, day after day, year after year, lift that immense body of water 1,000 feet into the air. As a matter of fact, Mr. President— and I now challenge contradiction—the evidence shows that the hydroelectric power, 1,500,000,000 kilowatt-hours, re- quired to pump that water would be worth five times as much in the State of Arizona in the creation of employment and wealih as would the crops of grain and cotton which will come from a very modest acreage. Yes, Mr. President, what we are proposing to do by this proj-
1950 ect is to dedicate 1,500,000,000 kilowatt- hours to the irrigation of a rather small area of land. We are proposing to dedi- cate power which, in the production of wealth and labor, would be worth five times as much as would the crops them- selves to be grown on the land thus to be irrigated. We are in this bill very much like the man who burned down his man- sion to roast a pig. The dedication of that immense block of power to the pro- duction of a rather insignificant amount of cotton and grain is so ridiculous that it is surprising any committee would give its approval to it. But, having gotten the authorization for that, and presumably having erected this immense pumping plant, we are then going to junk all that investment; we are going to build gravity tunnels which will bring the water from the res- ervoir by gravity down to Phoenix; and then we are also going to have 1,500,000,- 000 kilowatt-hours of electric current to use cheaply in Arizona. The only un- happy part about it is that here is an- other $550,000,600, giving the project a cost which is so incredivle that I hate even to state it, of $5.000 or $6,000 an acre for common ordinary cotton and grain land. Yet that is the authoriza- tion reported by the committee. Mr. President, at some later point I shall present statements from the Fed- eral Power Commission and the Bureau of the Census showing the tremendous value of this power in mining, municipal uses, manufacture, and transportation— uses 50 much more valuable than the meager irrigation use that, as I have said, it exceeds it more than five times over. But Arizona and the Bureau of Reclamation have worked out this meth- od of giving one immediate authoriza- tion for $750,000,000, and then later, ex- pecting to add to that by the expense of the construction of the canals. Mr. Presideat, let me say that besides these items of cost, there are many other concealed items which will place an addi- tional burden upon the taxpayers of the United States. According to the calcu- lations of the Bureau of Reclamation and the proponents of the bill the develop- ment of Bridge Canyon will produce 4,500,000,000 kilowatt-hours. The dis- tinguished Senator from Tennessee [ Mr. KEFAUVER] yesterday brought out by questioning that it is not firm power. As a matter of fact, it is very infirm power. ‘That power, standing by itself, would do none of the things anticipated, but would be practically worthless, be- cause i, could not be relied upon. That power would be produced only by the in- termittent and uncertain flow of the Colorado River. It would not be firm power on which industries and munici- palities could rely. It could be made of great value by firming-up the power. That could be done by integration with Hoover or Boulder Dam, but only at a co:isiderable cost, running into many tens of millions of dollars, and the pur- chase of large amounts of new ma- chinery, together with the building of addi.’onal transmission lines. There is not one word in the testimony or in the evider ze of the Bureau of Reclamation as to what that additional cost would be. We io not know whether it would be CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE borne by the taxpayers or by the power users. It would not be borne by Arizona or the farmers of the Salt River Valley. But here again is another hidden, uncer- tain, but very substantial cost that some day someone will have to pay, before the project ever works out into solvency. Mr. President, there are many, many ways by which to figure the cost to the taxpayers and the power users of the United States of this project, if it is ever undertaken. Let us, Mr. President, if you please, start with the most moderate estimate. According to the Bureau of Reclamation—and I shall later read statements into the Recorp to this effect—the total amount of land which will be irrigated by the entire project, including not only the water of the Colo- rado River but also water from local sources, will be 225,000 acres. If we divide the total amount of the cost of the project, $738,000,000 by 225,000, we get a cost per acre of between $3,000 and $4,000. The Bureau does not calculate that way. The Bureau takes the $7°8,- 000,000 and allocates about $400,000,000 against irrigation and $300,000,000-plus against power. It then divides the $400,- 000,000 of farm benefits by 225,600, wl.ich gives a cost of about $1,735 an acre on the m:st modest calculation which can be made, on the Bureau's own figures—$1,700 or $1.800 an acre, on their own admission, to produce cotton and grain on land worth $150, $200, or $250 an acre. Yes, Mr. President; the cost per acre, on the most moderate basis, is approxi- mately seven or eight times as much as the commercial value of the land. I am wondering if we have reached a point in the financial condition of the Nation when we can afford to irrigate grain and cotton land at a total cost of seven or eight times the amount the land is com- mercially worth or could be purchased for at any place in the Mississippi Val- ley where the bulk of our American cotton is grown. In making that com- ment, I am taking the figures of the Bureau of Reclamation showing a cost of between $1,700 and $1,800 an acre to irrigate land. But I say, Mr. President, that when this whole incredible plan is revealed we are not justified in mercly hmiting the cost per acre to the irriga- tion benefits. We have to figure the en- tire cost of $738,000,000, which amounts to an acre cost of approximately $3,500. Why do I say in this particular case that, morally, equitably, and logically, we must charge the Arizona farmers for the whole cost? Let us see. The farmers will not pay $1 of principal or interest on any of this vast sum of money. They will not even pay enough money per acre to pay their irrigation and maintenance costs, So far as the farmers are concerned, not $1 of the interest or principal of the $738,000.000 will be repaid by them. Let us see what will happen to the power end of the investment. As Sena- tors know, under the reclamation law, the principal of the money advanced to farmers for farm use only is repayable without any interest. In other words, under our reclamation projects in the West, if the Government advances $100,- 000,000 for irrigation benefits, the farmer is supposed to repay the principal over 1547 the course of 40 or 50 years, but without any interest. The taxpayers of the United States lose the interest. We in the West—I do not know whether we have had the statutory authority to do it—have supplemented that, and now we take the vast sum that will come in as interest on the power end of the invest- ment, and over the period of time it may run—in this case approximately 75 years—that huge sum of 2 percent on the power investment is likewise turned into the general fund to help pay the cost of the undertaking. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc- CurLLan in the chair). Does the senior Senator from California yield to the junior Senator from California? Mr. COWNEY. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. There is some mis- understanding regarding some of the projects. The Senator has mentioned 2 percent interest on certain of the power developments. Is it not a fact that un- der the Boulder Canyon Project Act, in accordance with the terms of which the great Hoover Dam was constructed, be- fore the construction was undertaken it was required that there be firm contracts for the power, and that both the munici- palities and the privately owned com- panies had to guarantee to take the power, whether they had use for it or not—at that time the situation was a very serious one, and now there is a shortage of power generally—and the interest rate was 3 percent? Is that the Senator’s understanding? Mr. DOWNEY. That is correct, Un- der that act the entire principal of the power investment is being repaid, to- gether with, originally, 4 percent inter- est, and now 3 percent interest. But in the projects which are now being pro- posed in the West the interest upon the power investment no longer goes into the United States Treasury, but is turned into the general fund to help finance the farmers’ costs. In this case, Mr. Presi- dent, it is admitted that it will take ap- proximately 70 years to pay out. That is the estimate of the Bureau of Recla- mation. We think it will take 100 or 150 years, but in any event the 2-percent charge upon the power investment will not go into the Treasury of the United States, but will be turned into the gen- eral fund to help pay out the farmers’ costs. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield, if he does not mind the interruption? Mr. DOWNEY. ILyield. I invite inter- Truption. Mr. KNOWLAND. The Senator has made it very clear that the former yard- stick, under the reclamation law, pro- vided that 40 years’ time—or, taking the additional time they now have, 50 years’ time—was allowed for the repayment of interest. Bearing in mind that no inter- est is paid, that yardstick is completely thrown away in the bill which is now pending before the Senate. There is no yardstick. It is left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. He can make the time 70 years, or he can make it 80 years, or, perhaps, 100 years. The only limitation, apparently, is that it
1548 shall be paid during the lifetime of the project. A ycar or two ago I happencd to be in Italy and saw certain of the old Roman highways and aqueducts which have been in existence for many hundreds of years. Under some such theory the Bu- reau might extend the period of time for this particular project. Does not the Senator agree that if this bill shall be passed, destroying, as it would, the only yardstick we have heretofore had, it will be difficult for the Congress of the United States to turn down future proj- ects and attempt to apply a yardstick? Mr. DOWNEY. Yes. I am very much in agreement with the Senator’s state- ment. It is my hope that the Commis- sion which has been appointed by the President of the United States to in- vestigate these issues will formulate some general rules and principles un- der which we can determine how long a time irrigationists shall be given to amortize projects. Mr. President, to sum it up briefly, the taxpaycrs of the United States will be compelled, either out of taxes or throuzh increasing deficits, to meet the 2 percent interest upon the total invest- ment of $738,000,000, except to the ex- tent that the Government assumes di- rectly certain of the costs as reimbursa- ble. That accumulating intercst over the period of 70 years suggested by the Bureau, I think, as to both power and irrication, goes up to approximately $700,000,000. Let us not delude our- selves in this matter. The power users are not going to pay that titanic sum. That sum of remitted interest is going to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States. Mr. President, I am therefore still making the point that practically this entire project, including irrigation and power, amounting to three-quarters of a billion dollars, according to the Bureau’s own figures, is dedicated wholly to the conservation of this very modest acre- age of grain and cotton land. Not only will the farmers not pay one cent upon principal or interest of the great invest- ment, but they will hardly even pay their own operation and maintenance. How is the balance of the project to be paid out? It is to be paid out of profits on the sale of power to commercial inter- ests, and those profits, which are added to the cost of what might otherwise be cheap hydroelectric power, will prob- ably make it expensive hydroelcctric power, and will thus pay for at least a period of 75 to 100 years not only all the great interest upon this sum, but like- wise all of the profits that may be made. Mr. President, that is why I say that if we wish to deal in realities, if we do not want to blind ourselves by specious rea- soning, let us realize that here is a gi- gantic investment, all of which, in effect, for the first 75 or 100 years at least, will go for the benefit of 225,000 acres, prin- cipally of cotton and grain land. Mr. President, the mind immediately inquires, under what sort of formula are we operating the Bureau of Reclamation in the west? How can we find any jus- tification for a cost to the taxpayers and the power users to irrigate land at CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ten or twenty times its commercial value? How is that done? We have a formula in the west. If it were prop- erly applied, it would protect us against improvident and grandiose transactions such as the one now proposed. Mr. President, my reason for delaying when the presiding officer is engaged in conversation is because outside of my colleague and my distinguished oppo-~ nent, the junior Senator from Arizona, there is no other Senator on the floor, and I like to have the attention of at Jeast one other Senator. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield so that I might suggest the absence of a quorum. The question before the Senate is a vital one. I daresay many Senators are un- der the misconception that the bill re- lates only to the States of Cahfornia and Arizona. Of course, as my colleague knows, it is far more significant than that. If the bill were enacted it would open the door to many unsound projects. It would break down the standards under the Reclamation Act. It would burden the taxpayers for this one par- ticular project to the extent of more than $700,000,000, possibly a billion and a quarter dollars, and it might open the door to untold billions of dollars of un- sound projects. The two Senators from California, as well as the Senators from Arizona, and, indeed, Senators from other reclamation States, have been in- terested in establishing a basis of sound reclamation in the west. I say most reluctantly that I think nothing could be more detrimental to the future of sound reclamation in the west than to have unsound projects reported to the Senate and passed by the Congress. For this reason, and without disturb- ing the nght of the Senator to the floor, I wonder if he would yield to me to sug- gest the absence of a quorum. Mr. DOWNEY. Yes, with such a unanimous consent agreement, I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, LexH- min in the chair). Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so or- dered. Mr. KNOWLAND. sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: I suggest the ab- Alken George Lucas Andeison Gillette McCarran Benton Green McCarthy Brewster Gurney McClellan Bicker Heyden McFailand Bridges Hendrickson McKellar Butler Hickenlooper McMahon Byrd Hill Magnuson Cain Hoey Martin Capehart Holland Maybank Chapman Humphrey Millikin Chavez Hunt Mundt Connally Ives Murray Cordon Jenner Myers Darby Johnson, Colo. Neely Donnell Johnson, Tex. O'Conor Douglas Johnston, §8.C. O'Mahoney Downey Kefauver Robertson Dworshak Kem Russell Ecton Kerr Saitonstall Ellender Kilgore Schoeppel Ferguson Knowland Smith, Maine Flanders Leahy smith, N. J, Frear Lehman Sparkman Fulbright Lodge Stennis FEBRUARY 7 Taft Tobey Williams Taylor Tydings Withers Thomas, Okla, Watkins Young Thomas, Utah Wherry The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, in the main the facts or alleged facts I have been stating are not denied. It is truc there is a certain disagreement or, rather, a certain difference in regard to the way the facts are stated, and that difference tends to produce some con- fusion. I should like now very briefly to ad- dress myself to the only important variation in the facts, as seen by the proponents and the opponents of this measure. The distinguished Senators from Arizona repeat and repeat and re- peat, endlessly, as indeed they must if they are to save face, that this huge ex- penditure of money is proposed to be made to irrigate 750,000 acres of land. Mr. President, that simply is not true. I challenge the Senators from Arizona to support their statement regarding that matter, and I will affirmatively take the burden of proving that the acreage which will be irrigated by this entire project is admittedly 225,000 acres, almost wholly grain and cotton land. I hold in my hand, Mr. President, the report on the central Arizona project filed by the Bureau of Reclamation, and I shall read from page R-78, from the first paragraph of the conclusions which were drawn up after an entire review of this subject, and in which, beyond any doubt, the Bureau of Reclamation was trying to make the worst appeur the bet- ter cause in favor of Arizona. At that point this statement is made: Unless additional irrigation water is made available to the project area, the equivalent of a 30-percent reduction in the plesently cultivated lands in the area must be even- tually effected. The central Arizona project ig needed to sustain the existing agricultural economy of the area. Mr. President, as will be secn by a more detailed examination of the report, that percentage of reduction translates itself into the failure to irrigate about 75,000 acres of land that is not now irri- gated and 150,000 acres of land which it is said will go out of cultivation if this water is not provided. Inasmuch as the statement I am about to read from the testimony of the junior Senator from Arizona |My. McFartanp} ds in sharp contradiction to what he has said on the floor of the Senate; I regret that he is not now present. In his testi- mony, on page 16, the junior Senator from Arizona said: The Bureau of Reclamation's reports show that if this project is not built, there will have to he about 230,000 acres of land go idle or be put out of cultivation, land which has already been previously under cultiva« tion. Part of that land is already out. On page 80 of his testimony the junior Senator from Arizona said: But I do not want to go into that discus- sion at this time. What I wanted to correct the Senator on was one thing. He spoke of 150,000 acres of Jand in Arizona which would be redeemed by this project. Of course, this is a rescue project, a pro ect for supplemental water. But the correct amount is 226,000
1950 acres of land which have been or are now being irrigated, that will have to be thrown out of irrigation permanently. Then on page 410 the Senator from Arizona said: Mr. Chairman, there was just one thing I wanted to say. I do not want to take the time of the committee to ask questions. But the project report docs not show that just 150,000 acres less land will be irrigated if the project is not developed. It shows that 230,- 000 acres less land will be irrigated if the project is not developed. I believe the record should be clear on that point, Mr. President, I certainly agree with the Senator on the statement that the record should be made clear, I think it is most unfortunate that in the commit- tee hearings and also on the floor of the Senate, in a matter of this titanic im- portance, confusion has been introduced into the minds of Senators by the sug- gestion that Arizona will lose the use of 750,000 or 650,000 acres of land if this project is not developed. As a matter of fact, the statement in regard to 220,000 or 230,000 acres of land is again somewhat favorable to Arizona. Of that amount, as the testimony of the Senator from Arizona shows, approxi- mately 75,000 acres has been out of irri- gation for the past 10 years or longer. We think it is nothing more than the average 10 percent which usually lies idle in any reclamation project. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hunt in the chair). Does the Senator from California yield to the Senator from Ari- zona? Mr, DOWNEY. I yield. Mr. McFARLAND. I presume the Sen- ator is referring to my testimony. Mr. DOWNEY. Yes; I read three ex- cerpts from it. Mr. McFARLAND. I am sorry I was not here at that time. I should like to have heard how it sounded as someone else read it. Mr. DOWNEY. It was very succinct and very accurate, I may say. Mr. McFARLAND. That is fine. But, Mr. President, the statement that 75,000 acres is generally out of cultiva- tion is not accurate. That is not the way the farmers in that area generally farm their land. Perhaps one year one piece of land will be out of cultivation, and then in another year the farmers will farm all their land. The water supply available for any particular year is the factor which controls the amount of Jand which is farmed. The farmers have to farm their land in accordance with the amount of water available for farming use in a particular year. These figures are all averages over a period of time. I should like to make a further state- ment while I am on my feet if I may have the Senator’s permission to encroach upon his time to that extent. Mr. DOWNEY. Certainly. Mr. McFARLAND. I do not want the Senate to think that I agree with the Senator’s statements. I shall answer them in my own time. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have no difference with what the Senator has said. As a matter XCVI——98 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of fact, I must admit that I do not know. We endeavored to have the Bureau of Reclamation identify the 75,000 acres of land. The testimony was unequivocal that 75,000 acres, perhaps in different tracts, have not been irrigated for 10 years, and that the water furnished by the proposed project would be sufficient to irrigate the 150,000 acres of land which might otherwise lack water, plus 75,600 acres of new land. Again, I say, the 75,000 acres is nothing more than the usual average 10 percent which lies idle in an irrigation district. One farmer may want to let half his land lie fallow for a year; another may have a mort- gage foreclosed and be out of crop for a year; another may have a bad piece of alkali land, or some other piece of land which for some reason he does not want to cultivate within the district. It amounts to about 10 percent of the total. I think the 10 percent to which the Sen- ator refers is nothing more than the usual 10 percent, though I cannot prove it. When we endeavored to interrogate representatives of the Bureau of Recla- mation on this particular subject, they were so vague that, in my opinion, no one could get any meat out of what they said. But the point I now want to reiterate in the presence of the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona is that his own un- equivocal statements, repeated many, many times, and the statements of the Bureau of Reclamation, repeated many, many times and in many forms, show that this grandiose $1,000,000,000 prop- osition is one in effect to irrigate the equivalent of 225,000 acres, and that if the project is not completed, that amount of acreage will not be irrigated, which otherwise would be. That is the fact. How that land may go out of irrigation, whether it will be under the conditions which have developed throughout the United States, where soil has failed or water has failed or floods have come, I do not know. Repeatedly in the United States hundreds of communities have been faced with the same supreme dis- aster as that which is faced here. The truth is the farmers of Arizona knew they were overusing their water. They cultivated huge amounts of cotton land as a result of the war. They mined their water. It was perfectly obvious to everyone, from the Governor and the Senators on down, as to what was hap- pening, that Arizona was using up its water improperly. It has created such a situation that arrangements must now be made to Ict 150,000 acres go out of cultivation, or some other satisfactory arrangement must be made. Let me say that, first, we deduct from the 225,000 acres the 75,000 acres which have been out of cultivation for at least adecade. That reduces the rescue proj- ect to about 150,000 acres. Besides the Colorado River, the project calls for local development of the Gila and Salt Rivers, and that will take care of another 30,000 acres; so it reduces the rescue to 120,000 acres of common, ordinary, grain and cotton land. Mr. President, we asked the committee to consider the report of the United States Geological Survey. The report shows, in terms that are unmistakable, 1549 that if Arizona is more provident of its water, handles it better, makes certain developments locally, it in all probability can develop enough water in the Gila Basin, and at a cost that will be infin- itcsimal compared to that involved in this project. Having read the reports of the Department of Agriculture and the United States Geological Survey, it is my own belief that if the farmers and public leaders of Arizona would bestir themselves, line certain canals, erect certain facilities, use their water to better advantage, reduce the crops which take excessive water, they would not need to call upon the taxpayers and power users of the United States for $1,000,000,000 or $2,000,000,000—$2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 an acre—to rescue land worth $150 or $200 an acre. Mr. President, the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona almost had his audience weeping on the Senate floor— and when one can cause a Senator to weep, he certainly must be eloquent—as he described the 250,000 Arizonians whose condition will become worse, he said, than that of the displaced persons in Europe; Arizonians who, he says, are going to be driven out of the State, if this project is not authorized and completed, for all of them will be brought into insolvency and bankruptcy. That was the Senator’s statement. It left me cold. In the State of California 20 or 30 cities and sub- divisions, as a result of the war, are ex- periencing real troubles. The United States Government came into the city of Long Beach—and I am not criticizing the Government—and it was given a site there worth $75,000,000, on a practical guaranty it would become a permanent naval base. About 10,000 men were em- ployed at the naval base, many of them coming from all over the United States, many of them having purchased homes there. The Navy now discovers it does not need the base, and it is closing it down. There will shortly be 10,000 men in Long Beach unemployed, and, indi- rectly, through a lack of purchased ma- terials and other causes, another 10,000. It has created a relief load, an unemploy- ment burden, difficulties with taxes, and, beyond anything I can describe, Long Beach is now in the critical area of unem- ployment. The Government had said, “Give us the land; we want to build a naval base.” The Government said to the workers, “Come to Long Beach to live.” It was all done at the instigation of the Government. We did not promote it. Myr. President, I am not criticizing the Government of the United States, nor am I suggesting that the poor taxpayers of the United States should give us $1,- 000,000,000 or $5,000,600,000 to compen- sate for the injury resulting in the most desperate condition which presently exists. If one goes to Phoenix, he will find a great and expanding tourist trade, re- markable manufacturing development, dude ranches opcrating heavily. He finds one of the most prosperous cities in the United States, and, because a comparatively meager amount of grain and cotton land is going ou’ of produc- tion, as I shall show, as such land is going out of production all over the
1550 United States, here comes the sad and sorrowful wail, “The diminution of this meager acreage is going to bring 250,000 of ouy poor citizens into the desperate category of displaced persons and bank- rupt the whole State.” I wish my friend could go to Rich- mond, Calif.—and I speak of California merely because I know it. There are hundreds of cities in the United States which have been brought into far greater difficulty as the result of the war than has the Phoenix area. Come to Rich- mond, where Henry Kaiser employed 100,000 men in shipbuilding, after which he totally abandoned the town. Let me show the Senator a tax rate which is now breaking the backs of the taxpayers; crime so rampant it cannot be con- trolled; a relief roll of huge propor- tions; difficulties with housing, sanita- tion, schools, and churches. Yes; I have been in Phoenix. I have seen that beau- tiful, prosperous city, rated as one of the most prosperous in the United States. After I think of what has happened to various war cities all over the United States, I am unable to shed any tears upon hearing this eloquent plea for $1,000,000,000 to help Arizona. Mr. President, all over the United States lands have gone out of produc- tion because the water supply has been exhausted, because the soil has been ex- hausted or has been blown away, because the timber has been cut down. If the Government of the United States wants to undertake a rescue project, it can go into any of the cut-over timberlands, at $100 or $150 an acre—not $2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 an acre—and extend relief. Anyone can go to the South and eet, for an investment of $100 or $150 an acre, at the very top, just as good cotton and grain lands in the delta of the Missis- sippi River as those in Arizona. But here we are, the Senate of the United cates, in this desperate hour of defi- ciency and huge expenditures, actually contemplating this expenditure of 5, 10, 20 times the commercial value of land in order to supply water. Let us see what kind of land it is. I have in my hand table No. 2 from the report of the Bureau of Reclamation, page R-11, Acreage and Gross Value of Crops, 1940-44, indicating a total of 566,- 000 acres. Of the 566,000 acres, the Bureau and the Senators from Arizona claim 150,000 acres will go out of irriga- tion if they do not get the water which would be provided by this project. Ac- cording to the Commission’s report, it will bring the total to 639,680 acres. The first category is sorghums, 62,000 acres, with an average acre yield of $40. Other cereals, 123,595 acres, with an average acre yield of $32. Alfalfa hay and seed, 123,051 acres, with an average acre yield of $70. Grain hay with alfalfa, 83,879 acres, with an average acre yield of $20. Alfalfa hay after grain, 83,879 acres, with an average acre yield of $45. Cotton, 158,245 acres, with an aver- age yield of $95. Citrus fruits, 24,545 acres, with an average acre yield of $150. Other fruits, and nuts, 3,513 acres, with an average acre yield of $600, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Vegetables, 80,068 acres, with an aver- age acre yield of $240. Miscellaneous crops, 81,562 acres, with an average acre yield of $500. Farm gardens, 2,179 acres, with an average acre yield of $400. Part-time pastures, 206,024 acres, with an average acre yield of $12. Mr. President, when we consider the meager returns from 75 percent of this Jand, the idea that we should expend an- nually, in different amounts, many times the gross value of all the crops, it is so incredibly shocking that it becomes a greater and greater amazement to me that this bill could solemnly be reported to the floor of the Senate of the United States. Mr. President, before the last quorum call I had expressed amazement that under the former laws governing recla- mation, the Bureau of Reclamation had been able to make a prima facie case by which it could, in effect, say, “In order to save 120,000 acres of ordinary grain and cotton land we are going to spend two or three or four thousand dollars an acre.” How is it possible that any hyman mind, operating under any restraiht at all, could reach a conclusion of that kind? Under the reclamation law we have what is called the cost-benefit for- mula, and the Bureau of Reclamation {s supposed, on one side, to compute the benefits which will come from a project, and, on the other side, to compute the costs, and only if the benefits exceed the costs is a project considered to be feasible. The Bureau of Reclamation, with the most phony, despicable figures the hu- man mind could imagine, has worked out a formula to its satisfaction. Mr. President, let me show the Senate what has been done. I appeal to the very highly intelligent Senators who are upon the floor, to say if these figures are not phony to the mth degree. The Bureau allocates as a benefit a total annual amount of $41,000,000. It says, in effect, “It is our belicf that the construction of this project will increase the benefits going to the Nation as a whole by the sum of $41,000,000, and, from irrigation, $25,000,000.” Mr. President, let me show the Senate how the Commission arrived at the sum of $25,000,000. At the present time in the Phoenix area there is one of the im- portant vegetable-growing sections of the United States. There are three in California and Arizona which are well known—Salinas, Calif., where immense amounts of lettuce, particularly, and carrots, tomatoes, and other vegetables are raised; the Imperial Valley, in southern California, and the Phoenix area in Arizona. The Phoenix area has stabilized its vegetable production for many years into 40,000 acres. That 40,000-acre area is a very great benefit to the Phoenix area, because the gross returns from vegetable lands are ap- proximately $250 or $275 an acre, com- pared with $25 or $35 an acre from some of the ordinary grain crops. As a matter of fact, vegetable land brings in approxi- mately five times as much gross, for vegetables, as the average of the field crops. It can be stated in another way. FEBRUARY 7% One acre of vegetable land will bring as much gross return as will possibly 5 acres of grain land or perhaps 3 acres of cot- ton land. Mr. President, it happens that at this time the situation in Salinas, Imperial Valley, and Phoenix is highly critical. The Texas Rio Grande Co. is bringing in heavy acreages of vegetables which compete for quality and time with those produced in the West to such an extent that our big vegetable growers, most of whom operate at Salinas, Imperial, and Phocnix, were compelled to plow up thousands of acres of their vegetable lands. They are not fortunate enough to have any price support. Growing vege- tables is a great gamble. A man growing vegetables may make a great amount of money, or he may lose a great amount of money. I have been talking with vege- table growers in the West, and they are very much concerned that they may not be able to hold out against the Texas en- trance into the present vegetable markets in the East. Texas has cheaper land, and, in that particular area, cheaper wa- ter, and it ships its veg7tables a far Jess distance to the markets. Texas is the colossus of our vegetable industry. That is all right, That is the law of competi- tion operating. If people in the East can get cheaper and better vegetables from Texas than they can from the West, that is all right. But, Mr. President, let me show what the Bureau of Reclamation did. In as- signing the crops to this 73,000 acres of the new land, they assigned 40,000 acres to vegetables, so that in lieu of having 40,000 acres of vegetables, as at present, their prognosis shows 80,000 acres. In- asmuch as every acre of that vegetable land brings in five or ten times as much as is brought in from the grain lands and three to five times as much as from the cotton lands, oh, certainly, they had a beautiful-looking report, the kind a promoter prepares when he is going to tell how much money he can make from breeding rabbits, or some other quick- rich device of that kind. Mr. President, what docs that amount to? It amounts to this, that the Bureau shows that the crops there will be in- creased, in their gross yield in money, by $18,000,000, and about $11,000,000 comes from this shift of 40,000 acres from the cheap grain land into vegetables. Nothing could be more fallacious. If 40,000 acres more of vegetable lands are going to be cultivated there, which I very much doubt, it will be because the vegetable growers believe they have a market. If the big operators in the West thought they could sell vegetables from 10,000 more acres, 20,000 more, or 40,000 more, they would put them in. There is plenty of fine land there already for raising vegetables, and fine water. The very fact that the Bureau of Recla- mation would stoop to such a thing as this to pad out their report by showing that this project would result in 40,000 acres more devoted to raising vegetables, indicates ignorance, or something of the Kind. Agricultural experts believe there is little likelihood that the vegetable areas of the Southwest can even be maintained as at present. To think that
1950 they can be doubled is certainly opti- mism, and then to ascribe that doubling to the building of the proposed project, instead of to competitive conditions, cer- tainly makes no sense at all. Mr. President, if we assume to be true the statement of the Bureau of Recla- mation, that central Arizona will plant 40,000 acres more of vegetables, the gross receipts from that vegetable land would more than make up for the 150,000 acres of poorer grain land that would go out of use. In other words, if we assume that 40,000 acres are going to be utilized for vegetables, the high gross results and activities and labor involved in that operation would give to the central Ari- zona project the same kind of return they have now. So here in one item alone the wholly improper and indefen- sible placing of this 40,000 acres of vege- table land in the prognosis takes out of the financial statement more than one- half of the estimated gross increase be- cause of this project, and leaves the whole project totally unfeasible. But let us pass on to another point, so that we can see how fallacious and specious, and Mr. President, I dislike to say it, but how dishonest are the figures of the Bureau of Reclamation. They cannot have done this thing through ig- norance or neglect. The men who pre- pared these figures knew they were doing something which, if they had done it as a private operator, and circulated their results through the mails, would have them in collision with the criminal power of the United States Government. Let me show my colleagues to what I refer. Mr. President, it is expected and ac- cepted by the figures by the Bureau of Reclamation that the commercial power generated at Bridge Canyon can be sold at approximately 5 mills a kilowatt-hour, and those are the figures used by the Bureau in calculating the benefits which will flow from the power project. Of the titanic production of 4,500,- 000,000 kilowatt-hours, about the same amount that is produced by Boulder Dam—and it is a huge block of power— one-third 1s set over for the operation and maintenance of a pumping project for the farmers of the central Arizona area at about one-half mill a kilowatt- hour. The commercial power will be sold at 10 times that amount, or about 5 mills a kilowatt-hour. What does the Bureau do? In esti- mating the national benefits and the na- tional costs of this project, does the Bureau say, “more crops are going to be produced, and here are the gross figures. But in order to produce that amount we have to sacrifice 1,500,000,000 kilowatt- hours by giving that power to the farmers to pump this water up a thou- sand feet?” No. That cost is entirely omitted. That debit item is not here at all. If the United States Government, the Treasury, the power users, had that power to use, they could sell it for $7,500,- 000 in the commercial market. That amount of power is literally wiped out because it js used almost without charge for pumping this huge body of water. The committee paid no attention to the reporis of the Federal Power Com- mission, the Depari{ment of Agriculture, or the United States G-ological Survey. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE They suggested that we should survey the alternative methods of using that power, and then to the cxtent there was a loss in giving it to Arizona, under any common-sense rvle that should be re- garded as a cost. From page 30 of the minority views filed on the central Arizona project, I now quote from a letter from the De- partment of Agriculture, as follows: The actual relation of benefits to costs is still further obscured by what appears to be a failure to use the market value of power in estimating, for evaluation purposes, the cost of pumping the water supply. Market value must be used in economic evaluation because the power has alternative uses. So, Mr. President, we have this condi- tion: The Bureau of Reclamation gives as one of the items of benefit the gross value of the crops to be produced upon the land, padding their figures by putting in an extra and improper 40,000 acres of vegetable land, and they take no account of the fact, as a national item, that the farmers of Arizona have used up a bil- lion and a half kilowatt-hours of power. Mr. President, if those two corrections were made, which any of the other de- partments in Washington would make, which I think any accountant or engi- neer would make, it will be seen that the cost-benefit formula is not only falla- cious, but when truly exposed, the proj- ect is revealed as extravagant, improper, yes, impossible, almost beyond belief. Among all the other enormous costs run- ning into the hundreds of millions of dol- lars or billions of dollars which will grow out of this project, 1.500,000,000 kilo- watt-hours of power are to be used up each year. We in the Southwest are not so for- tunate as 1s that portion of the country represented in part by the present occu- pant of the chair, the Senator from Washington [Mr. Cain], in having a Co- Jumbia River Basin, in having such a tremendous potential of cheap power to develop Beyond any doubt, unless we get water from the Columbia River, we in the Southwest are never going to have as much cheap hydroelectric power as we should have. Earlier today during the course of my statement, I said that the men who de- sign to use this immense potential of power to pump that great volume of water up a thousand feet could fairly be likened to the man who wanted to roast his pig by burning down his house. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CAIN in the chair). Does the Senator trom California yield to his colleague? Mr. DOWNEY. Yes. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, T fully understand that the Scnate For- cign Relations Committee is having a very important meeting. The Senate Committee on Appropriations is meeting. I received notice of a very important meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee which is being held at the present time with Mr, J. Edgar Hoover appearing before it. I have not been able to attend that meeting today. I know thet other meetings of Scnate com- mittees are now being held. 1551 I stated only a short time ago to the Senator from Arizona that I hoped some method might be devised so the Senate could meet, say, 3 days a week for ses- sions of the Senate, and devote 2 or 3 days a week to committee meetings, so there would not be these conflicts with which all of us are constantly faced. But I most respectfully say that we now again have the situation where the two Senators from Arizona and the two Senators from California and the Pre- siding Officer of the Senate, who now happens to be the Senator from Wash- ington [Mr. Can], are the only Senators present on the floor of the Senate. The matter under discussion is a vital one. It entails an authorization of $1,250,- 000,000. It would open the way and set a@ precedent whereby countless billions of dollars could be expended from the Federal Treasury, and the yardstick, which we have always used on sound reclamation projects in the past, would be thrown .uway. For that reason I ask if the Senator from California will per- mit me, without jeopardizing his position on the floor, to suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. DOWNEY. I am very happy to yield to my colleague for that purpose. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Mr. KNOWLAND. I suggest the ab- sence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hayden Martin Anderson Hendrickson Meybank Benton Hickenlooper Millikin Brewster Rill Mundt Bricker Hoey Murray Bridyes Holland Myers Butler Humphrey Neely Byrd Hunt O’Conor Cain Ives O'Mahoney Capehart Jenner Robertson Chapman Jehnson, Colo. Russell Chavez Johnson, Tex Saltonstall Connally Johnston,8 C Schoeppel Cordon Kefauver Smith, Maine Darbv Kem Smith, N. J. Donnell Korr Sparkman Douglas Kilgore Stennis Downey Knowland Taft Dworshak Leahy Taylor Ecton Lehman Thomas, Okla, Ellender Lodge Thomas, Utah Ferguson Lucas Tobey Flanders McCarran Tydings Freer McCarthy Watkins Fulbright McClellan Wherry George McFarland Williams Gillette McKellar Withers Qreen McMahon Young Gurney Magnuson The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Henprickson in the chair). A quorum is present. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the following bills and joint resolution of the Senate: 8.570. An act for the relief of Donald Francis Wierda; 8 736 An act for the reimbursement of Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co.; 8 753. An act for the relief of Sisters An= toinette Cometti, Mary Gibin, Anecla Peclo- sin, Emma Ghisleni, Elisabetta De Caterin, and Onorina Franzina;
1552 8.777. An act for the relief of Calvin D. Lynch & Son; W. Thomas Lockerman; Sud- lersville Bupply Co.; George C. Moore and H. A. Moore, J. McKenny Willis & Son, Inc.; Hobbs & Jarman, C.S Thomas; and Royse R. Spring: 8.1003. An act for the relief of Emory T. Wales, 8.1019. An act conferring Jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to hear, determine, and render judgment upon any claim arising out of personal injuries sus- tained by Carl J. Freund and Pauline H. Freund, his wife, of Seattle, Wash.; S 1048. An act for the relief of Saul Phillips; S 1054. An act for the relief of Northwest Missouri Fair Association, of Bethany, Har- rison County, Mo.; S 1088. An act for the relief of Milton Buechler; 5.1086 An act for the relief of Abe Lin- coln and Elena B. Lincoln; S.1166 An act for the relief of Toriko Tateuchi; 68.1353. An act for the relief of G. H. Laz- arus, Jr, and Jesse F. Bewley; S 1446. An act for the rellef of James Hung Loo; §.1584. An act for the relief of Harry Comber: S 1702 An act for the rellef of Riyoko Bato; 8.1801. An act for the relief of Mrs. Effie 8. Campbell; 8.1915. An act for the relief of Niktor A. Kravchenko; S 1924. An act for the relief of the estate of William Walter See, S. 2031. An act for the relief of the Willow River Power Co; 8 2100. An act for the relief of Penelope Corolyn Cox; S 2114. An act for the relief of Mitsue Shigeno; S 2119. An act for the relief of the Alamo Irrigation Co.; and 8. J. Res. 105. Joint resolution to provide unrestricted entry privileges for Sister Eliza- beth Kenny. . The message also announced that the House had agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 587) for the relief of the estate of Dick Walook, Al- fred L. Woods, and Edward Kimoktoak. The message further announced that the House had disagreed to the amend- ment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 627) for the relief of Southern Fire- proofing Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio; asked a conference with the Senate on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses there- on, and that Mr. Byrne of New York, Mr, DENTON, and Mr. KEATING were appoint- ed managers on the part of che House at the conference. The message also announced that the House had agreed to the following con- current resolutions of the Senate: 8. Con. Res. 34, Corcurrent resolution fa- voring the suspension of deportation of cer- tain aliens; S. Con. Res. 36. Concurrent resolution fa- voring the suspension of deportation of cer- tain aliens; and 8 Con. Res. 39. Concurrent resolution fa- voring the suspension of deportation of cere tain aliens. ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, February 7, 1950, he pre- sented to the President of the United States the enrolled bill (S. 1282) to au- thorize grants under the Federal Airport Act for minor projects at major airports, and for other purposes, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I desire to make an announcement for the bene- fit of Senators who now are present and those who are absent, but who prob- ably will read the REcorp in the morn- ing: Following the disposition of the pending business, Senate bill 75, we will immediately revert to the consideration of the unfinished business, Senate -bill 2440, a bill to authorize certain construc- tion at military and naval installations, and for other purposes. Following the disposition of that measure, we shall then proceed to the consideration of Cal- endar No. 1082, the bill (H. R. 5839) to facilitate and simplify the work of the Forest Service, and for other purposes, a bill reported by the Senator from Wyo- ming [Mr. O’ManHoney]. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. O’MAHONEY. The bill was re- ported from the Committee on Agricul- ture and Forestry. I think the report was submitted by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. THYE]. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is correct. I read from the wrong column. It was the Senator from Wyoming who had once objected to taking up the bill on a call of the calendar. I understand that the Senator from Wyoming will offer certain amendments to the bill. I apologize to the distinguished Senator, and I thank him for the correction. Following that bill, we shall take up Calendar No. 1139, Senate bill 501, re- pealing section 202 (e) of the Sugar Act of 1948, which has been reported from the Committee on Finance. Following that, we shall take up Calendar 1220, the bill (H. R. 5486) to amend certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to permit the use of addi- tional means, including stamp machines, for payment of tax on distilled spirits, modify loss allowances for distilled spirits, for the transfer and redistilla- tion of spirits, and for other purposes, which was reported from the Commit- tee on Finance unanimously. Following that we shall proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 810, the bill (H. R. 4406) to provide for the settlement of certain claims of the Gov- ernment of the United States on its own behalf and on behalf of American na- tionals against foreign governments, which has been reported by the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations. I may make a statement relative to that meas- ure. We all know the Members on the opposite side of the aisle are going to be out on the hustings for a few days to discuss the problems which confronted Abraham Lincoln in his day and the problems which confront the Republican Party at the present time. Perhaps it is going to require a little longer than they had anticipated, for them really to convince the people about the situation. I have attempted to cooperate with my distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle by advising them that I shall not proceed to the consideration of any measure which is highly objectionable to them. In other words, we want all the Members of the Senate to be present FEBRUARY 7 when we start discussing some of the highly controversial questions, I may say that the bill (H. R. 4406) is one which I submitted to the minority leader. It is one which he hoped we would not take up. But it is an impor- tant measure, and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Green] is pressing me pretty heavily to have it considered. He appeared before the Policy Committee earlier today. I believe we shall have to consider the bill, if we can reach it, before Senators return from their trips across the country. Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the floor. Mr. LUCAS. I thought I had the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mr. Downey], yielded, with the understanding that he would not lose the floor. Mr. DOWNEY. I yield to the Senator from INinois. Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. TOBEY. What is the nature or import of the bill? Mr. LUCAS. The bill provides for the settlement of certain claims of the Gov- ernment of the United States, on its own behalf and on behalf of American na- tionals, against foreign governments. I think it primarily grows out of claims which originated in Yugoslavia. It is an important measure, and the money is ready to be paid. It is only a question of the Congress taking action upon it. Mr. DOWNEY rose. Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator from California desire me to yield to him fora question? Mr. DOWNEY. Yes. Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. I am somewhat con- fused about the precise nature of the agreement between the distinguished majority leader and the Republicans, that there shall be no controversial votes taken between certain dates. What are those dates? Mr. LUCAS. There is no particular date fixed at all. What Iam trying to do is to provide for the consideration of bills to the consideration of which during their absence the minority raises no se- rious objection. That is the point I am trying to make. Mr. DOWNEY. IfImay inquire, what are the dates between which the agree- ment will be effective? Mr. LUCAS. As I recall, I think most of the Members on the other side are starting out some time this week, to be gone about a week or 10 days. I think there is pending sufficient legislation, in- cluding the bill which the Senator has been discussing today, to occupy the Senate probably that long. I was going to follow that by saying we shall take up Calendar Order No. 596, @ resolution (8. Res. 58) to amend the Senate rules by creating a standing com- mittee on small business. The resolu- tion was submitted by the Senator from
1950 Florida (Mr. Hotianp], and the Senator from Nebraska {[Mr. WuHerry]. I have talked with the Senator from Nebraska. He said he had no objection to our taking it up in his absence, although I had hoped we would not reach it until the Senator returns. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, wii] the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield to the Senator from California. Mr. KNOWLAND. The Senator from Nebraska is not present at this time. I had been under the impression that an understanding had been reached be- tween him and the able majority leader, in keeping with what has been done in previous years, both during the Lincoln Day period and also during the Jackson- Jefferson Day period, namely, that dur- ing the time from the ninth through the sixteenth, controversial matters would not be taken up or votes had upon them. I think it is important, because, as the Senator from Illinois will recall, the Sen- ator from Nebraska was prepared, if necessary, to advise Republican Mem- bers to cancel all their speaking engage- ments during the week. I think the Senator from Illinois indicated that that would not be necessary. Quite frankly, the pending measure, which we hope can be expedited, is in my judgment a highly controversial subject. . Mr. LUCAS. That is correct. We must finish that, regardless of anything else, because we have started on it. We must finish it. Mr. KNOWLAND. I very much doubt whether that proposed legislation can be finished prior to the time Members on this side of the aisle will be back. I cer- tainly understood from the Senator from Nebraska that if the pending bill could be finished prior to that time, that would be one thing; but if it could not be finished, it certainly would come in the classifica- tion of highly controversial legislation. Mr. LUCAS. I agree with the Sena- tor, it is highly controversial, but it is my understanding that probably by Wednes- day of this week the bill will be out of the way. Mr. KNOWLAND. I do not believe that the pending bill will be out of the way by Wednesday of this week, I may say to the able Senator. Mr. LUCAS. I certainly should not like to carry the bill over for 2 or 3 weeks after we have started on it. I should not object, if it were possible to reach some agreement with the Senators from Arizona, who are vitally interested in the bill. We had agreed to take it up, and I had thought that when we took it up we would probably finish it. I sub- mitted to the Senator from Nebraska, the minority leader, a list of bills which we thought we might be able to take up which would not create any considerable amount of controversy. On four of the bills the Senator reported back favor- ably. The only one of which I am doubtful is the one concerning which I made some remarks a moment ago, the bill (H. R. 4406) to provide for the set- tlement of certain claims of the Govern- ment of the United States on its own behalf ond on behalf of American na- tionals against foreign governments. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. KNOWLAND. I can assure the Senator from Illinois there is no desire on the part of the Senator from Cali- fornia unnecessarily to delay the pend- ing bill. But I think that a measure which is so crucial as this, involving, as it does, perhaps $1,250,000,000, and pro- posing to change our whole reclamation policy, a bill in which Members on both sides of the aisle are vitally interested, either for or against, should not be acted upon when a substantial number of the Members on this side of the aisle have left the city or are in the process of leav- ing, with the understanding that there will be no highly controversial measure taken up in their absence. I should feel that it would be most inequitable and unfair to do it under all the circum- stances. Mr. LUCAS. In reply to my good friend from California, I may say I agree with him that it is a very important measure, one which I think should be debated at some length. However, I doubt whether any words which may be said on the floor of the Senate are going to change a single vote with respect to the controversy. I think most c_ the Senators have practically made up their minds now as to how they are going to vote, whether one way or the other. The very fact that Senators are not on the floor when this great question is be- ing debated 1s a pretty clear indication that either they know how they are going to vote or trey are not interested in the proposition. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mtr. President, on these matters I agree to a great extent with my friend, the able majority leader. I do not think, however, upon reflection, that he has made quite a fair statement. As the Senator knows, under the exist- ing operations of the Senate and as they have been for some time, there are Jm- portant committee meetings during the time the Senate is in session. I know that many Senators who would other- wise want to be present on the floor are now attending subcommuittces of the Committee on Appropriations, the For- eign Relations Committee, and other committees which are meeting. Icast no reflection upon them, because ff it were not for the proposed legislation which we have just been discussing, and the fact that I intend to speak upon it, I myself would have to attend a very im- portant meeting of the Committee on Appropriations. I hope, and most ear- nestly request, that both the majority leader and the minority leader will en- deavor to get together and work out some program so that the Senate can mect perhaps 3 days a week on legislative matters, and 3 days on committee ses- sions. At countless times matters of great national or international impor- tance are debated on the floor, with only a handful of Senators present. The ab- sence of Senators is not caused by a lack of interest or lack of desire to be edu- catcd on the subject, but because of the constant pressure under which they are working. Mr. LUCAS. I agree with the Senator from California, and I should like to 1553 make an observation for the benefit of those who are in the galleries at this particular time. Many visitors come here from all over the United States as guests of the Senate, and those who come here for the first time and who do not thoroughly understand or appreciate the problems confronting the United States Senate, cannot understand why Senators are not on the floor. The basic reason, for that, Mr. President, as the able Sena- tor from California said a moment ago, is that Senators are busy working in committees. They not only work all morning, but all afternoon, Until a com- mittee takes action on a bill and the bill finally finds its way to the Senate Cal- endar, we cannot do anything on the floor of the Senate. Many of my con- stituents in Illinois have asked me why there were so few Senators on the floor when they have been in the galleries and have looked down into the Senate Chamber. The difficulty is that never before in the history of the Nation has the Senate had upon its shoulders so many national and international prob- lems affecting not only mankind in America but mankind throughout the world. Moreover, when a Senator is away from a committee or from the floor he has a vast amount of work to do in his own office. I cannot answer all my mail. It is coming in by the bag load. Some persons believe that all they have to do is to write their Senators or Representa- tives and get their problems solved. Under the Constitution, every individual citizen of the country has a right to peti- tion his Senators and Representatives upon any grievance existing in his com- munity. ButIam afraid, Mr. President, that if we had 3 days of action on the floor of the Senate and 3 days of com- mittee work, on even those 3 days when Senators are presumed to be present, two-thirds of them would be compelled to be in their offices answering mail and taking care of the problems of their con- stituents. Between now and 5 o'clock I have five appointments with persons from ‘llinois who are here on important business. I have to leave the floor to take care of those engagements if I am properly to perform my duty, as I undcr- stand it, as a United States Senator. I merely mention that in passing, Mr, President, because I think it is worth while for the Nation to know that Sena- tors of the United States are not loafing on their jobs. I know of no other group of men who put in more time than do Members of the United States Senate. Their job is not an 8-hour or a 6-hour proposition, and it is not an overtime proposition even if we remain on the fioor until 9 o’clock. It is an all-the- time proposition, day and night. I am often called at home in the evening. I receive at least half a dozen calls every evening from people from my State who are here on important business. I am not objecting to that, because one in pub- lic life must take the consequences, and his responsibilities must be performed. That is expected of us by our constit- uents. I merely mention it in passing in order to advise the country that we are on the job and are not sitting around doing nothing from 8 o’clock in the