11200 Whaling signed at Washington under date of December 2, 1946, by the United States of America and certain other governments, and for other purposes; 8.2314. An act to provide for holding a term of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon at Eugene; 8. 2357. An act to amend the Act of May 26, 1986, authorizing the withholding of compensation due Government personnel; 8.2774. An act to amend section 2113 of title 18 of the United States Code in order to include certain savings and loans associa- tions within its provisions; 8 2096 An act to authorize loans to make available in any area or region credit former- ly made available in such area or region by the Regional Agricultural Credit Corpora- tion; S. 3377. An act to amend the Civil Aeronau- tics Act of 1938, as amended; and 8 J Res.133 Joint resolution authorizing the return to Mexico of the flags, standards, colors, and emblems that wore captured by the United States in the Mexican War. ArPOINTMENT OF “WATCHDOG COM- MITTEE” OF ARMED SERVICES COM- MITTEE Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a statement which I am giving to the pres; with reference to the appointment of a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee to keep con- tinuous watchfulness over our entire rearmament and preparedness and de- fense program. I have appointed on this committee the Senator from Texas LMr. JOHNSON] as chairman, the Sena- tor from Kentucky [Mr. CHapman], the Cenator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Hunt], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Brivces], the Senator from Massachu- sctts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse]. If anyone knows of any problems hav- ing to do with stoppages or difficulties in the armed services, in our prepared- ness program, in our procurement pro- gram, this committee, which is set up to deal with such matters, and which will have an adequate staff, should be noti- fed, and it will investigate the situation, Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the statement I have released may be printed at this point in the REcorp. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR TYDINGS The Committee on Armed Services of the Benate is charged by law with formulating legislation dealing with “the common de- fense geneially.” We conceive it our duty, however, not only to formulate proper leg-~ islation for the efficient operation of the Armed Forces of our country, but also to ex- ercire continuous watchfulness over the execuvion of the laws which are within the jurisdiction of our committee It is {mpor- tant not only that authorizations be made by law but that we should pursue these authorizations to make sure they are carried into effect economically, efficiently, and speedily. During World War II, a special committee of the Senate was created which became known as the War Investigating Committee, to carry out at least a part of the tunctions now assigned to the Senate Armed Services Committee. During the Eightieth Congress, a “Watch- dog Committee” of the Senate Armed Serv- ices Committee was created for the purpose CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of determining whether or not the adminis- tration of the policies, programs, activities, facilities, requirements, and practices of the National Military Establishment were char- acterized by maximum efficiency. The need for this committee is greater today than at any time since 1t was created. The situation in Korea confronts the Na- tion with an emergency of the gravest nature, In the minds of all of us, the looming possi. bility of world war III is ever present. It 1s true that we have reorganized our National Military Establishment in recent years but there have been natural growing pains as this new organization has tried to work out and eradicate the imbalances existing be- tween the services, the weapons and the men in them. Now these services are to be quickly ex- panded and an armament program is to be launched on a wide scale, It is important that there be cooperation and coordination between the Committee and the Military Es- tablishment, It is most important that those who are carrying out the authorizations to provide weapons and supplies for our Armed Forces do not lag in the execution thereof. It is important that every minute of time possible in our expansion and rearmament program be saved. In short, it is imperative that the Armed Services Committee keep on top of the job to see that every program au- thorized by the Congress is relentlessly pur- sued without waste of time, effort or money to bring it to fruition and support our gale lant troops in the field. In order to expedite objectives herein men- tioned, Iam today appointing a subcommit- tee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to consist of the following Senators: Senator JOHNSON of Texas, chairman; Senator CHAP- MAN, Of Kentucky, Senator KEFAUVER, of Ten- nessee; Senator Hunt, of Wyoming; Senator BrivGEs, of New Hampshire; Senator SALTON- STALL, Of Massachusetts; Senator Morse, of Oregon. This subcommittee should function con- tinuously and make such full investigations and recommendations as are required, in order that the full committee may be from time to time advised of the difficulties con- fronting our program and may remedy these difficulties through the medium of legisla- tion, bring the matter to the attention of the proper committees of the Senate The present members of the highly efficient professional staff of our committee will be the nucleus for beginning this important in- vestigatory and other work. This plan should be of vast help to the rearmament and ex- pansion program of our military forces. Among other things, !t will 1. Keep the investigations necessary in the hands of the committee which has already considered the general subject matter theieof. 2 Eliminate duplicating investigations. 3. Keep the full committee, the entire Sen- ate and, we hope, the country well informed on matters connected with the procurement and cxpansion program of the armed services. 4 1t will focus in one place the time-con- suming appearances of our military and de- fenee leaders. 5 It will be an instrument through which the full committee can explore bottlenecks, delays, shortages, and other deterrents to a speedy accomplishment of the rearmament and expansion program, 6. It will, we feel, result In an increased efficiency of operation on the part of the National Military Establishment, and also in savings in lives, money and 2ational effort. The full committee, acting upon the result of research and investigation of ita subcom- mittee, will thus be tn a position to keep the country advised from time to time of the progress of our program. Any member of the Senate Armed Services Committee may eit with the subcommittee JULY 27 whenever he is so inclined, as I expect to do myself and hope the ranking minority mem- ber will do likewise. As fast as the sub- committee makes recommendations, I shall lay the matter fully before our full commit- tee for such action as is appropriate in the clrcumstances. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appropri- ations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the amendment immediately before us is the one proposed by three Senators, the Sen- ator from New Hampshire [Mr. Brinags], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Frr- cuson], and the Senator from Massa- chusetts [Mr. SaLtonsTALu], to cut the appropriations for rivers and harbors by 50 percent. This would reduce the total appropriation for these purposes from $731,000,000 to one-half of that figure, or effect a saving of approximately $365,000,000. The alternative, which I have sug- gested, a cut aggregating 60 percent, would reduce the appropriation by about $435,000,000, and would leave $296,- 000,000. Mr. President, we should recognize, however, that in addition to the appro- priations which we will be making for the year 1950-51, there is also a carry- over of unobligated funds previously ap- propriated which the Corps of Engineers can also expend during the current fiscal year. The figures which I have received indicate that as of the end of May of this year, which is the latest date for which I could secure figures, the Corps of Engineers had unobligated funds— and I emphasize the word “unobli- gated”—amounting to $131,900,000 for rivers and harbors, general fleod control, and flood control on the Mississippi River. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed in the Recorp at this point in my remarks a breakdown showing the distribution of these un- obligated funds. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Unobligated funds UNOBLIGATED BALANCES—CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MAY 31, 1950 (Source: Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress) Rivers and harbors--.._ --.. $37, C00, 000 Flood control, general.....-.-.. 84, 200, 000 Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries.......------. 10, '700, 000 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, if we were to accept the amendment of the three Senators I have mentioned there would be available not merely $365,000,- 000 but $365,000,000 plus $132,000,000, or approximately $497,000,000. If the alter- native, or the 60-percent cut were to go into effect, we would have total funds available of about $427,000,000. So, Mr. President, we ere not taking away all the funds from the Corps of Army Engineers for rivers and harbors and flood control by any means. We are still leaving large sums in their hands.
1950 Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I should prefer not to yield until I have a chance to complete my remarks, and at that time I shall be glad to yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Illinois devlines to yield. Mr. DOUGLAS, In both cases, as well as under the present appropriations, the President would have the right to discon- tinue any public works which he thought would not be in the general interest of the Nation. That power is already granted to him. In this connection, I find myself quite unable to understand the logical consist- ency of the argument of the senior Sen- ator from Tennessee, who in the opening part of his speech attacked these pro- posals on the ground that they would transfer undue authority to the execu- tive branch to cut back projects within the limits of the amended totals, and then in the concluding portions of his speech made an argument against our cut going into effect because, he said, these matters should be left to the Exec- utive. You cannot have it both ways. The truth of the matter is that under both proposals the President would still have the power to reduce appropriations below the amounts authorized in the bill itself. The difference, however, between the proposals which we who seek econ- omy are making and the proposals which the committee is defending, is simply this, that if we take the present commit- tee proposals for $730,000,000 of addi- tional funds—over $130,000,000, inci- dentally, more than the House appro- priated—plus the $130,000,000 which is available, the President would have claims made upon him for $860,000,000. On the other hand, if our proposals are accepted, the amount he would have available, assuming that the conference committee agreed, would be $427,000,000 under my 60-dercent reduction proposal, or approximately $497,000,000 under the terms of the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. President, it has been said that we should leave this matter to the Presi- dent and to the Army engineers, and very eloquent pleas have been made that if we do not do this we are indicating a lack of faith in the President and a lack of faith in the Government. Mr. President, the President already has an extremely difficult task in getting his executive agencies to trim down their requests for public works. The Presi- dent sent a letter to them on the 21st of July, to which reference has been made, I now ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Recorp at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the letter ‘was ordered to be printed in the Rscorp, as follows: JuLy 21, 1960. My Dram Mr. -————: In my message of July 19 to the Congress, I announced that I was directing the executive agencies “to con- duct a detailed review of Government pro- grams, for the purpose of modifying them wherever practicable to lessen the demand upon services, commodities, raw materials, manpower, and facilities which are in com- petition with those needed for national de- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fense. The Government, as well as the pub- lic, must exercise great restraint in the use of those goods and services which are needed Zor our increased defense efforts.” In order to adjust the programs of the Federal Government, I am writing to you and the heads of the other agencies whose programs involve substantial use of materials and other resources needed for the defense effort. Please reexamine your programs, giv- ing particular attention, to the extent ap- Plicable, to the following: 1, All civil public works, both direct Federal Programs and grant-in-aid programs, should be screened with the objective, as far as practical, of deferring, curtailing, or slow- ing down those projects which do not directly contribute to defense or to civilian require- ments essential in the changed international situation set forth in my message. 2. Consistent with the restrictive policy already in force for housing credit, other credit programs should be tightened The only exceptions should be those which directly contribute to meeting our defense and international responsibilities. 8, Procurement of supplies and equipment should be held to minimum amounts, especially purchases of motor vehicles, type- writers, and other equipment using critical materials. Inventories should be reduced to the lowest practical levels, and excess sup- plies and equipment should be made avall- able immediately to the General Services Administration. In addition, I shall expect that in the reexamination of the programs of your agency, you will give first priority to those activities which contribute directly to na- tional defense, including requests of other agencies for assistance. I am asking the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to work closely with you in this review and to report to me on the steps which you have taken in revising your pro- gram to meet these objectives. Sincerely yours, Harry 8. TrRuMAN. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the President sent his letter to the various Government agencies asking for a re- view of their public-works projecis to determine which ones may be deferred, curtailed, or slowed. But they are to survey their own public-works projects, and they are the,ones who are to come in and say which ones are to be cut. Well, our experience shows us that no agency likes to do that and in all prob- ability, if we can judge human nature in the future by human nature in the past they will all think that their par- ticular projects are necessary to defense and should not be cut. That will throw upon the Bureau of the Budget the very difficult task of going over all these items. I have heard rumors, indeed, that pressure is already coming upon the Office of the President not to make cuts on particular projects here or particular projects there. Whatever decisions the President makes will be extremely un- popular, because they will take away ap- propriations from some particular group or from some particular locality. He will do it under great pressure, and he will be blamed for the decision which is made, because while everyone is in favor of economy in general, people do not want to have economy pinch them on their own particular projects. So, Mr. President, what we are doing by these amendments is to throw added support to the President of the United States and to the Executive Office in the achievement of the reductions in less es- 11201 sential public works which nearly all Senators say they approve. We are pro- tecting him against tremendous pressures which will beat in upon him, pressures urging him to make as small cuts as possible, and to spare as many projects as possible. The ceiling provosed by the two amendments, with the $132,000,000 carry-over, will amount to $427,000,000, or $497,000,000. Congress should be will- ing to share the responsibility for en- forcing necessary cut-backs and not pass the buck to the President to make all the reductions. Mr. President, will that 6427,000,000 or $497,000,000 total, which will be avail- able with the unobligated funds from appropriations previously proposed, leave remaining an amount which will be suffi- cient to meet the ordinary needs of the Government for rivers and harbors and flood-control projects? I was not quite certain what the dis- tinguished Senator from Tennessee said was the total amount proposed to be spent for the maintenance of these proj- ects. I had thought he said $470,000,000, but I later heard that I had misunder- stood him, and that possibly he had said “for maintenance and power.” In any event, in order to keep the record straight, I would ask the disting- uished Senator from Tennessee to turn to page 218 of the Senate committee re- port. Mf. McKELLAR. I may say to the Senator that the amount he requested was $416,460,000 for maintenance and power projects. Mr. DOUGLAS. Ah, for maintenance and power? However, let us consider the items for operation, maintenance, surveys, regu- lations, emergency repairs, administra- tion, and transfers. The total for that is $86,890,000 on rivers and harbors, and $13,570,000 on flood control, and $15,- 000,000 on the Mississippi River—making a total of approximately $115,000,000 for maintenance, including administration; and we can make economies on admin- istration. So under the proposed amendments we would still have left from $310,000,000 to $380,000,000 for power. I know that every time a proposal for economy is made, power is brought into the picture, and it is said that if we cut those appropriations, we cut the heart out of public power. The power projects are used as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. The other day, when we were discuss- ing the irrigation projects, we were told that we could not cut the appropriations for irrigation projects because cutting appropriations for irrigation projects would mean cutting the development of power projects, Now, however, when we want to cut the appropriations for harbors along the Atlantic coast or for certain river im- provements, we are told we cannot cut them because to do so would be to affect power disadvantageously. Mr. President, the fact of the matter 4s that most of these power projects are, indeed, multiple-purpose projects, and we can slow down the rate of construc- tion on a number of them. Even if we
11202 included in this bill an appropriation of funds for every power project, plus funds for maintenance, however, on the basis of my proposals there would still be suffi- cient funds remaining, because the Sen- ator has stated that the total for main- tenance and power is $416,000,000; and the total I would allow, with the carry- over, would be $427,000,000; and the total amount provided under the Bridges amendment would be $497,000,000. So there would be enough money for all the power projects, even if we were to con- tinue them as planned. On the contrary, the truth is that some of them could be slowed down a little, because not all of them are vital to the national defense, and so little work has been done on others that they probably cannot be rushed to completion in time for this emergency. In the course of the afternoon, a very eloquent speech was made, to the effect that if we reduce this appropriation, we shall be striking a blow at the program of the country for the control of soil ero- sion. This program for the prevention of soil erosion and the prevention of the running off of water from the land where it falls, is now only covered primarily in the Department of Agriculture section of the bill, which was passed the other day. I wish to point out that in my attempt to make selective cuts, I did not propose a reduction of a single dollar in the ex- penditures proposed for the protection of the soil of our country. However, if we wish to protect the soil, we do not pro- tect it at the mouth of the Mississippi River. On the contrary, as the senior Scnator from Montana has pointed out ol many occasions, we protect it at the points where the rain falls or where the snow falls—in the mountains, in the hills, in the uplands of the country. That work will not be interfered with by any deductions in the appropriations for rivers and harbors. On the other hand, Mr. President, if we do not make very great cuts in the appropriations carried in this bill, then we shall be driven to making a general, meat-ax reduction, to which a great many Senators who oppose the reduc- tion now proposed are committed. How- ever, a general meat-ax reduction will fall on the program for soil conservation and will seriously reduce the amounts available for the protection of the land and for retaining the water on the land and to prevent the water from running off, Mr, President, I shall not launch into a wholesale attack on this bill, Certainly it has many features which are dubious, features which would be dubious in peacetime, and even more dubious in wartime. For instance, we arc appropri- ating money for the harbor on Dauphin Island Bay, which is purely a harbor of refuge for fishing and recreational craft, and has no commercial traffic upon it, according to the report of the Army en- gincers on Commercial Statistics of Water-Borne Commerce of the United States for 1947, on page 648. There are any number of harbor pro]- ecls for pleasure craft and recreational CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE craft, where the commercial benefits are not discernible. There are many provisions for water- ways—for instance, the provision for a 12-foot channel on the Jacksonville- Miami waterway, which is very hard to justify; or provision of funds for the Gulf-Intracoastal waterway, where the tonnage in 1947 was less than it was in 1942, 1943, or 1944. All of us know that many of these projects have negligible value, I may say that in totaling these fig- ures, I find that if we eliminate all proj- ects not approved by the Bureau of the Budget—all of which were omitted by the House of Representatives, and many of which are new starts—we shall have a total of $9,900,000. Then if we elimi- nate every other new or substantially new start and all doubtful or dubious projects, navigation projects of doubtful feasibility, projects: previously disap- proved by the Bureau of the Budget, projects for which the ratio of the bene- fit to the cost is less than one, or projects where the benefits are extremely specu- lative, we shall save another $28,000,000. Then if we were to cut and eliminate the other increases proposed by the Senate committee we would reduce the figures in the amount of $104,000,000 more, and if we were to effect a 50-per- cent reduction in all other items, we would save another $293,000,000—mak- ing combined savings of $435,000.000, but still leaving approximately $427,000,000 available to carry on the work. Mr. President, it is just a question of what we wish to do. Every additional dollar which we spend on these projects will mean an additional dollar of Fed- eral expense. If we do not cut down anywhere else, that will mean that we shall either have to tax more or to bor- row more; and we can be rather certain that in that event we shall borrow more. Then the banks will have to add to their credit to that extent, and the amount of moncy relative to goods will be in- creased to that extent, and we shall have an increase in prices. If we cut down our expenditures, however, we shall be withdrawing ex- penditures from less vital services and projects and shall be making them avail- able to more vital services. So it seems to me that we are faced with a very important issue for decision. We can save from $400,000,000 to $500,000,000 worth of men and materials, and thus release those materials for the war effort, and still give the rivers-and- harbors projects between $400,000,000 and $500,000,000, and further the na- tional interest by our act. Mr. President, I very much hope that the sponsors of this amendment, by unanimous consent, will permit the brave effort which they have started to be carried still further, so that their cut of 50 percent may be increased to an ag- gregate cut of 60 percent. I am informed that the parliamentary situation is such that the pending busi- ness is the so-called Bridges amendment for a 50-percent cut, and since that is an amendment to a committee amendment no further amendment to it, such as my JULY 27 60-percent cut, 1s in order, because it wculd be an amendment in the third de- gree. But it is possible for the distin- guished Senator from New Hampshire to accept the greater reductions which I am proposing, namely, on page 361, line 25, to strike out “$800,000” and substi- tute “$640,000”; en page 364, line 2, to substitute “$90,750,000"; on page 365, line 20, to substitute “$173,450,000”; on page 367, line 3, to substitute “$26,700,- 000”; and on page 367, line 14, to sub- stitute “$1,010,000.” This would make the total appropriations in these five items $292,550,000, and together with the emergency flood-control items, which I do not propose to reduce, would make this appropriation a little more than $285,000,000. This compares with the appropriations of approximately $365,000,000 provided in his amendment, and would save approximately $435,000,- 000 as compared to the $365,000,000 pro- vided in his amendment. I very much hope that the Senator will clear the par- liamentary way for these greater cuts which I propose, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to have these cuts substituted for those which he has proposed. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER, Senator will state it. Mr. McKELLAR, Is an amendment by the Senator from Illinois to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire in order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed by the Parliamen- tarian that the Senator from Illinois cannot offer the amendment, but the Senator from New Hampshire can amend his amendment or modify his amendment. Mr. BRIDGES. A number of Sena- tors besides the Senator from New Hampshire sponsor this amendment for a 50-percent cut. I have talked with them, and I have also talked with some other Senators, who though willing to support the amendment for a 50-percent cut, would not support an amendment for a cut of 60 percent. For that reason, I shall have to decline to amend my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing en bloc to the amendments offered by the Senator from New Hampshire for himself and other Senators. Mr, DOUGLAS, Mr. WILLIAMS, and other Senators requested the yeas and nays. Tne yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Rrc- orp at this point in my remarks a chart compiled by the clerks of the Appropria- tions Committee, showing expenditures on flood control for the past 10 years. I point out this significant fact, that even if this amendment is adopted, thereby cutting this appropriation 50 percent, there would still be over $250,000,000 left to cover flood-control operations. During the recent war, in 1944, this same item was reduced to $36,885,200. The
1950 Under the present bill $509,385,500 is called for. To say it cannot be cut at least 50 percent is ridfculous. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Appropriations for flood control (1938-48) . Flood control, | Mississipp: | ,=™MEtNy | sacramento Year general River ripe Kian. River Total $47, 553, 000 $814, 500 $90, 607, 600 82, 000, 000 310, 700 114, 119, 700 133, 000, 000 2, 500, 000 175, 300, 000 71, 695, 000 95, 300 102, 898, 300 #8, 70, 000 2,945, 000 123, 72h, 100 124, 726, 700 2, 300, 000 186, 980, 800 114, 385, 100 19, 000, G00 500, 000 36, 8&6, 200 219, 230, 100 26, 000, 0000 4, 850, 000 50, 580, 190 ¥ 130, 737, 000 45,000, 006 2,060, 000 178, 287, 000 147, 315, 000 46, 000, 000 2, 000, 000 195, £15, 000 #254, 072, 525 80, 000 600 500, 000 1, 750, 000 310, 322, 825 #374, 656, 800 67, 500, 000 600, NU0 2, 000, 000 444, 656, 800 4 367, 406, 400 67, 000, 000 00, 000 3, 600, 000 438, 5001, 400 $439, 683, 000 66, 77%, 0U0 460, 000 2, 524, [00 BUY, 386, 500 ene ‘Includes a special appropriation of $10,000,000 for emergency repnirs to flood-contro! sti mcti 04 §Tocludes a special a ote of $32,000,000 for emergency repairs to flood-control structures, 8 Includes $3,000,000 4 Includes $1,000,000 emergency fund. ‘Includes $2,700,000 emergency fund, Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the body of the Recorp at this point a chart compiled by the clerks of the Appropriations Committee, showing the funds made available for rivers and har- bors during the fiscal years 1936 to 1951. In view of the fact that the present bill calls for an appropriation of $221,244,500 for rivers and harbors expenditures, a reduction of 50 percent would be $110,- 000,000 which is about equal to the amount which was spent in any 2 years during the war period. The amount expended for this purpose in 1943 was $74 421,025; for 1944, $48,- 021,130. I think it should be cut even more than 50 percent. We are in an emergency, and cuts are necessary. The Presidential directive authorizing a suspension of all nonessential construc- tion applies only to those items upon which appropriations were authorized in prior years, It is up to Congress if we want to cut this year’s appropriations. It is cowardly for Congress to refuse to reduce these items and then later to expect the President to apply the cut. I urge that the Members of the Sen- ate study these charts to see just how far these appropriations are getting out of hand and then vote for the pending amendment. There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the Rscorp, as follows: Rivers and harbors—funds made available during the fiscal years 1936 to 1948 Fiscal year | New work Maintenance, Total 1036_.......| $213, 630, 500 | $37, 912, 490 $251, 552, 190 120, 750,000 | 80, 123, 098 | 1.84, 873, 080 00, 822,101 |. 37, 177, 899 328, 000, 000 32, 620, OOU 37, 626, 635 70, 046, 635 G1, 600, 000 45, 200, 265 106, 790, 265 68, 532, 000 48, 892, 709 112, 424, 700 36, 883, 600 43, 426, 403 80, 310, 003 2 36, 976, 02% 74, 421, 025 5) ie TUTTI 221, ‘lood control, general (emergency fund) Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, the yeas and nays having been ordered, the Senator from Nebraska would like to explain his position with respect to this bill. I voted against reporting the ap- propriation bill as was reported to the Senate by the distinguzshed chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I be- heve 19 Senators voted for it, 3 voted against it, and the other members did not vote I voted as I did because of the failure to adopt the Bridges-Byrd amendment which provides a cut of 10 percent on nonmilitary items in this ap- propriation bill that can be cut. I doubt whether a committee ever worked harder to devise a formula by which a cut could be made which would answer all the questions raised about the Senate making the cut, than on the for- mula embodied in the so-called Bridges- Byrd amendment. I just heard the remarks of the dis- tinguished senior Senator from Oregon {[Mr. Corpon], one who did a great deal of work on that committee. I could go down the list of my colleagues on the committee and say that I have never seen @ committee work longer hours attempting to perfect a formula whereby an over-all cut could be made in these appropriations in a practical way. The answer to all the proposals to cut individual items is that it is not practical, as their sponsors know, to make cuts in that way. They have given no thought to trem. The cuts which the Senator from Illinois has been demanding, on items to which he has given very little thought, are impractical. I could ask him a question. If the Bridges-Byrd amendment should not be agreed to by the Senate he said he would offer one proposing a cut of 60 percent. If that were rejected, I suppose he would then offer one proposing a cut of 70 percent, and merely auction it off here on the Senate floor, without any justification whatever, If the Senate really wants to reduce appropriations and do it on a practical basis, with the least impact on all Gov- ernment agencies, I submit that the Bridges formula which has been worked 11203 out is the most practical one that the Appropriations Committee can bring to the Senate floor. It is the Bridges for- mula for a 10-percent cut that I am talking about. The distinguished chair- man and other members of the commit- tee did not feel that that cut should be made, They felt that the committees had already done a good job. On this particular chapter, 8.6 percent has been taken off the budget estimates, and an- other 10 percent, if those who support the so-called Bridges formula providing a 10-percent cut are successful, means 18.6 percent off the appropriations in this chaptcr. I merely want to bring that point to the attention of the Senate. Certain members of the committee felt that that was too much of a cut. Here is the distinguished chairman, who feels that the committee has done, as he has said, “One of the best jobs the Appro- priations Committee has ever done” He feels that the cuts already made on individual items, adding up to 8.6 per- cent, are all the cuts that should be made from the bill at this time. I happen to feel that I want to go on and make a larger cut. Everything said by the Senator from Illinois about the Korean situation making a difference is, of course, true. Those of us who believe that cuts should be made have that to reenforce our argument. But 1 say that the only practical way to make a cut on the Senate floor, tf we want to do it intelligently, is to agree to the so-called Bridges-Byrd amendment, which pro- vides for a 10-percent cut on those items which can be cut—not military items or interest on the debt, If the economy bloc, including the dis- tinguished Senator from Illinois, want to make a further cut, they have, of course, a perfect right to make the effort. But I submit to the Senator from Illinois, that the proper formula is that con- tained in the Bridges-Byrd amendment, o: a formula along that line. If he will offer a formula of that kind, with the Buidges-Byrd percentage, or a higher percentage than is contained in it, I should be glad to jon him. Then there could be a vote on whether Senators really want to cut these items. I may say to the distinguished Sena- tor from New Hampshire that I think that the cut he now proposes in this par- ticular chapter is incorrect. I say that without any reflection upon the distin- guished Senator from New Hampshire. 1 think the correct way is represented by the Bridges amendment, which I co- sponsored, and which I favor. I should like to ask him now, if he wants to make further comment, whether he will mod- ify the amendment and provide a higher percentage than is already in the Bridges-Byrd amendment, so as to make it at least 15 percent? If he wants to make it 20 percent, the junior Senator from Nebraska will go along with him. Mr. BRIDGES. I will say to the dis- tinguished Senator from Nebraska that I think his position is very logical. He has worked out the amendment to which he has referred, and it is a sound one; it proceeds in the right direction, and it
11204 will, if agreed to, bring about a reduc- tion of approximately $800,000,000. Mr. WHERRY. Another 5-percent reductior would bring about a reduction of how much? Mr. BRIDGES. It would bring about ® reduction of approximately $400,000,- 000 more. Mr. WHERRY. That would bring about as much of a cut as is being at- tempted here by a 50-percent reduction. Is not that correct? Mr. BRIDGES. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. I ask the Senator if he will accept a modification of his amendment, making it 15 percent. It will cut the appropriation for the har- bors which are being dredged in New York as well as projects in Nebraska and on the Pacific coast, I think there are very few projects in Tllinois—— Mr. DOUGLAS. There are approxi- mately $14,000,000 worth of projects in Illinois. Mr. WHERRY. We will include that negligible amount and cut it as we cut all the large projects. Mr. BRIDGES. Let me say to the Senator that we have gone ahead and offered the amendment providing for a 50-percent cut. I realize the Senator is opposed to that procedure and would prefer the other, but we have gone so far that I feel the only thing left to do is to be consistent and go through with it, because I think this type of public works should be cut during this emergency. If the Congress does not do it, the President probably will proceed to do it, and I see no reason why Congress should not act on it in the manner presented by my amendment. So I shall have to decline to alter the amendment now, but I commend and appreciate the position of the Senator from Nebraska and his very loyal sup- port of the 10-percent amendment which he had a large part in drafting. Mr. WHERRY. The Senator is correct in surmising that I shall oppose the 50- percent cut. I think it is the wrong way to accomplish the desired result. If the Senate wants to apply the cut clear across the board, that is another thing. The junior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Dove.as] supported authorizations for ECA amounting to $85,000,000 to provide for 22 projects for irrigation, roads, and power in Africa. He would not cut the amount 1 dime. I have every vote he has cast. Yet he comes to the floor of the Senate and says, “Let us take 60 percent off these projects in the United States.” Perhaps he would favor a re- duction of 70 percent. If we want to be sincere, if we really want to effect a re- duction and not merely shadow box, the way to do it is to take the factual for- mula which has been worked out, and if we feel we should cut more than 10 percent, go to 15 percent; if we feel we should cut more than 15 percent, go to 20 percent, In opposing this amendment, Mr. President, let me say that if the Senator from New Hampshire will not accept a modification to increase the cut pro- vided by the Bridges-Byrd amendment to 15 percent—and if sufficient Senators will go along with me, I would make it CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 20 percent—I shall insist that we make the cut across the board. The appro- priations for ECA should be cut as well as those at home, not confining the reduction to 1, 2, 3, or 4 States where there are many construction projects. If we do it the other way, it is prac- ticable; it is constructive. If we do it this way we do not know what we are doing. So, Mr. President, I shall oppose the amendment, but, if I live, I shall demand that the so-called Bridges-Byrd amend- ment be amended to cover at least a 15- percent cut, and if enough Senators want to join me, I shall ask that it apply a@ 20-percent cut, so that it can be done on a practical basis. Mr. DOUGLAS and other Senators. Vote! Vote! The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendments offered by the Senator from New Hampshire {Mr. Bripces} for himself and other Sen- ators. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll. Mr. MYERS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Connecticut | Mr. Benton], the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Fu.sricut!], the Senator from Okla- homa | Mr. Kerr], and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Leany] are absent on public business. The Senator from ‘California [Mr. Downey], the Senator from Tennessee (Mr, Kerauver], and the Senator from Wyoming [{[Mr. O’MaHONEY! are neces- sarily absent. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Taytor}, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Tuomas], and the Senator from Ken- tucky |Mr. WirHERS! are absent by leave of the Senate. T announce also that on this vote the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. Anprr- son] is paired with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. ScHoepret!. If present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Kansas would vote “yea.” I announce further that on this vote the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Kerr] is paired with the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Tosey]. If present and voting, the Senator from’ Oklahoma would vote “nay,” and the Senator from New Hampshire would vote “yea.” I announce also that if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Fu.sricutT], the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Kerauver!, the Senator from Loui- siana [Mr. Lone], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’MaHoney], the Senator from Idaho |Mr. TayzLor], and the Sen- ator from Utah [Mr. THomas1 would vote “nay.” . Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the Senator from Washington (Mr. Carn], the junior Senator from Kansas [Mr. DarBy], the Senator from California {[Mr. Knowtanp], the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Mi.uimrn], the sen- jor Senator from Kansas {Mr. ScHOEP- PEL], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Toney], and the Senator from JULY 27 Michigan (Mr. VANDENBERG] are absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse] is necessarily absent. The Senator from California [Mr. KNOwWLAND] is paired with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse]. If present and voting, the Senator from California would vote “yea” and the Senator from Oregon would vote “nay.” The Senator from Kansas [Mr. ScHOEpPEL] is paired with the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON]. If present and voting, the Senator from Kansas would vote “yea” and the Sena- tor from New Mexico would vote “nay.” The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tosrey] is paired with the Senator from Oklahoma |Mr. Kerr]. If present and voting the Senator from New Hamp- shire would vote “yea” and the Senator from Oklahoma would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 28, nays 47, as follows: YEAS—28 Brewster Hickenlooper Saltonstall Bricker Ives Smith, Maine Bridges Jenner Smith, N. J, Byid Kem Taft Capehart Lehman Tydings Douglas Lodge Watkins Ferguson McMahon Wiley Flanders Malone Williams Frear Martin Hendrickson O'Conor NAYS—47 Butler Hill Magnuson Chapman Hoey Maytank Chavez Holland Mundt Connally Humphrey Murray Cordon Hunt Myers Donnell Johnson, Colo. Neely Dworshak Johnson, Tex. Pepper Eastland Johnston, 8.C. Robertson Ecton Kilgore Russell Ellender Langer Sparkman George Lucas Stennis Gillette McCarran Thomas, Okla. Graham McCarthy Thye Green McClellan Wherry Gurney McFarland Young Hayden McKellar NOT VOTING—21 Aiken Kefauver O'Mahoney Anderson Kerr Schoeppel Benton Knowland Taylor Cain Leahy Thomas, Utah Darby Long Tobey Downey Millikin Vandenberg Fulbright Morse Withers So the amendments offered by Mr. Bripces for himself and other Senators were rejected. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be printed and lie on the table. My amendment proposes to amend the so- called Bridges amendment on page 2, line 10, by striking out “10 percent” and inserting in lieu thereof “15 percent.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, now that the proposal: for a 60-percent cut of the rivers and harbors appropriation has been rejected, and the proposal for a 50-percent cut has, by the vote of the Senate, been defeated, I now wish to offer en bloc a series of five amend- ments, the net effect of which would be to produce a reduction of 40 percent in the appropriations. I therefore propose on page 361, line 25, to strike out “$1,600,000” and to in- sert in lieu thereof “$1,200,000”; on page
1950 364, line 2, to strike out “$221,244,500" and to insert in lieu thereof “$136,000,- 000”; on page 365, line 20, to strike out $436,933,000" and to insert in lieu thereof “$254,000,000"; on page 367, line 3, to strike out “$66,778,000” and to insert in lieu thereof “$45,000,000”, and on page 367, line 14, to strike out “$2,524,500” and to insert in lieu thereof “$2,000,000.” This would save approximately $291,- 000,000 or an aggregate cut of 40 per- cent and it is arrived at by, first, omit- ting all new starts or substantially new starts; second, omitting all projects not approved by the Bureau of the Budget; third, doing away with all other in- creases added by the Senate Committee on Appropriations over the sums con- tained in the House bill; fourth, elitmi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE nating all projects which are manifestly of a dubious and doubtful nature; and, fifth, reducing all other appropriations by 25 percent. bd The method followed is identical with that upon which my previous 60-percent cut was predicated, except that on item 5 the cut is 25 percent, instead of 50 percent as before. The effect of these amendments would be to reduce the total appropriation for these items from $729,080,000 to $438,- 200,000, and to effect a saving of $290,- 880,000. My amendments are in the lump sum figures and leave discretion with the President and the Corps of En- gineers to apply the reductions where they can best help the defense effort. I have merely detailed the project items 11205 for elimination or reduction in order to support the argument for the feasibility of my proposal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed at this point in the Recorp a series of tables listing projects which were not included in the estimates of the Bureau of the Budget, projects which in my judgment are deferrable or of doubtful economic justification, other substantially new starts, and listing the Senate committee additions to the bill as passed by the House, and 25-percent reductions on all other items over $100,000 in amount. There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Taste I.—Items not in budget estimates and not tn House Dill, rivers and harbors Benatc Teport (Corps of Engineers, Commercial Statistics) Rivers and Harbors $175,500 now; economic value not suscepti Project namo Bayou Coden: Decrease delays to fishing craft, but only 1,349 tons in 1947, 80 percent of 1945.. Dauphin Island Bay: Harbor ofrefuge for fishing and recreational craft “no commercial traffic” Wescott Cove: Recreational craft; ‘benefits not susceptible of accurate cvaluation” Total esti- mated Fed- eral cost $4, 650 118, 800 La Batre Bayou: Sea-food traffic, “safety and convenience,’ 33,000 tons 1941, 6,465 tons 1047... 83, 700 Arkansas River, Dardanelle Reservoir: Part of navigation project; Board of recommended deferra), 1945; tions; Arkansas River survey being made; original cost estimate was $40,874,000 Connecticut River, North Cove: Anchorage for 0 of Engineers for ureau of Budget raised serious ques- 76, 700, 000 1, 088, 500 21, 000 leasure craft; Federal cost $72,000, 1939; etermination Inland Waterway, Reboboth to Delaware Bay: Deferred in 1941; Bureau of the Budget stated ant in accord” (H. Doo, No, 344, 77th Cong.); considered inactive in 1948; tonnage, 1047, Jackson ville-Miami waterway; Original cost estimate $4,802,000° 12-foot channel not econom!- cally justified; benefit-cost ratio of 0.72... -...---.------- =e --nn nne ne ene e eee eee New River: Doubtful economic benefits; mainly for pleasure craft; 1047, 12,000 tons (1941, 80,000 tons); mostly gravel and concrete Gulf Intracoastal Waterway: Plaquemine-Morgan City route, estimated cost 1046, $8,000,000; t @ leas in 1947 than in 1042, 1043, 1944. Cambri dge Harbor Barnstable Harbor: Pleasure craft and fishing Wellfleet Harbor: 80 scallop and oyster fishermen and ploasure craf Black River Harbor: Refuge, deferred in 1944 Harrison County shore protection: Good local contribution, but recreational and land en- hancement benefits primarily... -..-..- 2+. .-0cene ene n ne ence cere nen ec cen eee n ge rec see seracee Jones Inlet: District engineer was unfavorable; negligiblo value to commercial navigation; Bureau of the Budget held it “not in accord’’ in absenoe of showing of defense values........ Northport Harbor: For small pleasure boats - Scloto River: Data on economic justification not available. - -- Skipanon Channel: Fishing and smal! boats; good ratio, 9.3......------.. -------+-2-2-2----- Guadalupe River: Cost estimate 1939, $3,700,000; no commercial data; benefits based 16/1 on 1,097, 000 24, 131, 000 transportation savings......--.-.. - Proposed reductions total 1 New and substantially new starts. Appropriated| 1040appro- | Senate com- | Proposed to date priation teduction #650 $4, 000 0 31, 600 21, 000 62, 700 801, 000 1, 000, 000 849, 600 175, 500 0 21, 000 436, 400 122, 000 7, 624, 000 &00, 000 10, 000 66, 000 90, 000 £00, 000 20, 700 123, 000 107, 600 182, 5) 0 95, 100 162, 000 860, 000 600, 000 87, 000 63, 500 154, 600 50, 000 4, 209, 500 Tastx I.—-Deferrable, doubtful, and other new projects, rivers and harbors Project name oral cost Demopolis lock and dam, |$20, 843, 000 arrior River. 169, 117, 000 41, 872, 000 Tennesseo-Tombigbee wa- torway. Upper Columbia lock and dam, Chattahoochee River, Arkansas River, other fea- tures, Overton-Red River water- way. Crescent City Harbor...... BB 68.5, 858, 000 53, 000, 000 5, 494, 000 Sacramento River, 80-foot | 16, 285, 000 ship channel. Buford Dam, flood contro) | 40, 225, 000 and navigation. 119, 800, 000 Missouri River, Kansas City, Mo., to Sloux City. 96, 700, 000 2, 650, 000 Mga aot Vv: ints nds, Bt. Thomas Proposed reductions to! #8 bestt- Appropria- mated Fed- ti tovdate priation $1, 842, 500 Budget 1950 appro- estimate Senate oom- House bill mittee $358, 000 | $3, 800, 000 2100,000 | 43 Proposed reduction Remarks 1§8,800,000 | “No construction has been donc” (Army En- gineers’ Justification, p. 208); part of Warrior and Tombigbee systems, Hardly started; controversial economic justifica- 190, 000 tion. Low benefit-cost ratio of 1.08; doubtful justifica- 2180, 000 | #4180, 000 tion; barely under way. 2880, 000 | 1238680,000 | Bee House report, p. 249-250; Arkansas River navigation project dubious; await survey of Arkansas River, # 50,000 | #1 50,000 | Bureau of the Budget “not in accord”; await survey of Red River. 000, 000 900, 000 | Original cost cstimate, $3,145,000; commerce, 1047, ia {ons crabs and fish; commerce, 1948, ons. 2, 250,000 | 2, 250, 000 Original cost, $12,742,000, 1946; benefit ratio then pntavorable, “not in accord’’, Bureau of the udget, 900, 000 1900, 000 | Ratio only 1.08; construction not yet started House yearing, p. 107); 1946 cost estimate, », 8, 780,000 | 8, 780, 000 Primarily for navigation (Army enginecrs justi- fication, p. 255); doubts of adequacy of water supply for 9-foot channel; cut-back during war; traffic, Kansas City to Sioux City, 810,507 tons, 2, 250,000 | Traffic, Kansas City to mouth, 797,214 tons, (Sea above.) 11,000,000 | House report, p. 260: new; not economically justified. 18, 690, 000 5 Planning funds. 5 New, or substantially now, starts.
11206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE JULY 27 TaBLy IUl.—25-percent reductions and elimination of Senate increases, rivers and harbors Proposed reductions Proposed reductions Project name Project name fenate 25-percent Fenate 25-percent additions { reductions additions | reductions en LL oy wee $185, 000 |......-..--. Mississippi River, St. Anthony Falls. $1, 050, 000 $50, 000 Atebane Cues Rivers ooo : TI eee $20, 000 |] Missour River (Montana) Fort Peck. 100, 000 300, XW) Wrangell... sececeeucesee wemeaenneneennenaee 400, 000 87, 500 || Newark Bay-,......------.--.-0+ 100, 000 250, 000 Arkansas River: New York and New Jersey chann 260, 000 625, 000 Tittle Rock to mouth... 2... eee meneenenee eeeweees ones 100, 000 125,000 |} Buffalo Marbor...........----.---- - 160, 000 £00, 000 Below Dardancllo... anenee 100,000 |........ ... |] Great Lakes to Mudson waterway. .........------ee eee e ene 150, 600 187, 600 Fan Diego RIVOT. 222s -neeeeneeee ne eeee erence neon ecne aoe 70, 000 875,000 |} Hudson River channel_.--.-..... 80, COD 8, ny) John Woodrufl lock and dam... wnee} 1,250,000 875,000 || New York Harbor....... one 100, 000 2 Bi Jacksonville Harbor....-.--.-- oe 100, 000 176,000 |] Cleveland TMarbor.. 2.0.22 ---ceeeneeannneenn ewe wee eeeeeee 250), 000 tos, 0 Tampa Harbor... ..--se-e--eee eee c emer eneeneneneeteeee beeewee 25,000 |] Columbia River and tributarics.. 34, 000 6, 000 Savannah Harbor (1874). 0.0.22. eee ee een een eee n er ee ee eee -- 240, 000 75,000 {| Columbia River, Bonnovillo.. sss. cae nen nee ence neers TB, OM) AHfinoss waterway... eee weeneceeeenceeen nace nwenennwenwwes peeenennnnne= 175, 000 || Coos Bay... 02... nee eee ene e eee eee ee en eee cee ene en en 248, G00 187, 600 Mississippi River. McNary lock and dam... TIT} 2, 500, 000 8 780, 000 Chat Of ROCKS ..cnncnceerrncccnecenenencnnccennwewnenes £00, 000 2,000,000 || Monongahela River........ 1 030, (00 687, 500 Ropu lating Work.......s0--.--- uma ne eennee 187, 600 |} Schuylkill 1, 000, 000 626, 000 Missicdppi River, Missouri to Minnesota... 100, 000 150, md Georgetown Harbor... . eee ee nnenn ee eeee cane ee eee cece eee 40, 00) 110, 000 Ohio River locks and danis........... neweee es wwe 112, £0 Houston ship channel... 2. wee eee eee eee ee eee eee 50, 000 187, 500 Ohio open channel work..--..-.. 15, 000 40, ‘00 Gulf, Ct@, WRtCIWAY ccc meee einen eee eee enone 346, 660 375, 000 Mis.issippi River, Keokuk lock. i ees 312, 500 || MeQeo Bend Dam... 22.2... eee ee ee eee ee ene nee eee ee £00,000 }....022 2-8. Cumberland wee neeneaneee eee 562, 600 |] Babine-Neches Waterway... ...--22-- ee eeecen nee ce ne eeeneee £00, 000 250, 000 Dover icck and dam, Cumberland River......22......----- 100, 000 }...---.-2-.- Trinity River.......2...- weeeee ee 187, 500 Ohio: Norfolk Warbor.. ...2..- 622, 000 212, 500 Fernbank locks and dam. 2.022.222. nen e een ene een e ene 78, 000 York Spit channel_...... 130, Gov 7h, ON) Qrcenup locks and dam. 75,000 Chief Joseph Dam ..--.---2. -- 2,000, 000 Caleaswu Kiver and Pass... 150, 000 firays Harbor and Chichahs River. 187, 500 Gulf Intiaconstal Waterway, Algie 500, 000 Tee Harbor lock and dam, Snake River....-00-...----e eee] 245,000 Jon Misassippl River, Baton Rouge to Gull, 50, 000 Monongahela, Morgantown lock and da 375, 000 Penrl River....----- ee ee er eran wecennnnene 100, 060 —- Baltimore. occ eee ee wew econ eee eeeenee 120, 000 Total construction and planning...-.2...2.-----eneene 15,156,000 | 24, 768, 500 Boston (18Y5) 2 eee ese w eee e ene e rene eee 180, 000 Operation and malntonance, examination and surs cys, rogue Fall River Harbor... 20. -2...ee- ee nee ee eee 2°0, 600 ations, administration and transfers....-.. peweenncnencens 5,050,000 | 20, 460, 000 Port Sanilac Harbor... 2 eae e eee ee eee eee ee ewe meme ne amen eee wees — _~— St. Marys River; Total reductions...-.. mennecenee wee eeeees eeenee weenee 20, 205, 0CO | 45, 228, 500 Power hous0...22. sane e wee ce ren eee cece een ee em nm eee rs Navigation... cee eee nen e eee e eee n ene n ener anon enn nee 100, 000 — Tass IV.—Items not in budget estimates and not in House bill, flood control er nr Renate Totalestl- | 4 oe — . 0 ‘Wade ppropria- | IfFO appro- | Senate com- ae Project name mated Ved tion to dato | priction mitteo Reduction £49 | Ovan Creek... $58, GOO $4, 300 0 $53, 700 $53, 700 460 | Fan Antonio Ri 7, 000, 000 £65, (XX) 0 3650, 000 60, 000 4f3 | Vineennes....- 2, 810, 000 £0, 000 £40, 000 7600, 000 ¢00, 000 QF4 | Jackson 22.22. 185, 000 5, 600 0 1 1K0, 000 180, 000 9541 Jessumine Creek, £8, 000, O00) 126, 200 0 12300, 000 £100, 000 at4 Pineville, Ky . ...------ 1, 242, 000 v 0 1200, 000 £00, 000 406 | Gavings Point Reservoir’ doubts on water supply . 42, 725, G00 420, 000 120, 660 7 £00, 000 £00, 000 £656 | Rio Grande floodway Joint project with Bureau of Reclamation, not proceeding, total cost, $11,520,000, Army engineers levees, hauk protection, better coordination needed.......------- 2, 000, 000 £0, 000 FO, 000 1700, 000 700, 000 os7 | Davenport Conter Roservoit..2 022. 2. 2. -eecaeeeeg ooo cess ueeeeeeseensusenerses s yeeee 9, COO, 000 £24, 400 0 1800, 000 800, 000 er | Tiraden’s Hond. Revetment, Arkansas River, keep Arkansas from breaking in on Poteau 5 ee J, 421, (60 £5, COC 86, 000 1200, 000 £00, 000 £69 | Keystone Keser volr, “Arkansas River Part of project of doubtful economic “feasibility, let Arkansas River survey be completed £9, £00, 000 0 0 33-100, C00 ‘100, 000 £01 | Swoyers ile. 2222 eee eee eee eee ee - 4, 400, 000 80, 600) 0 7200, (00 £00, 000 £63 | Wheoler-Benwood 12, 282, 000 124, 000 |--- 2. ee eee 1600, 000 £00, 000 Proposed reductions total. ..........-.-8 nenennseceeee wowace een ween renee cen ence nnn |omeeene enemas [eee ene enw wc s [unanee nee eens laneme meee eens & 653, 700 1 Now, or substantally new, starts. 5 Planning funds Taste V.—De/jerrable, doubtful, and other new projects, flood control Fennte Total esti- | Appropri- 1950 ato ide HOappro-| Budget Sonate Proposed . mae Project name mated Fed ated to priation | estimate | House bl) committes | reduction Remark: $40 | Tueson..... wecceane womans | $2,590, C00 $400, 000 £400, 000 $700, COC 4350, 000 $500, 000 $600, C00 } Burcau of the Budget not in accord, 1947; work only recently started; benefit-cost Tato of only 0.92 on 1939 costs of $i, 267,000, 240 | Millwood Reservoir...... --{ 40, 710, 000 200, 000 £00,000} 4280, C00 0] 12335,cco | 2138, 000 | “Not in accord”; 0.98 ratio even doubtful; await Atkansas-Red River survey, 251 | Centraland south Florida... 58,129,000) 1, 500,000 | 1, 500,000 | 7, £00,000 | 5, 000, G00 | 6, 600, 000 | # 4,000, G0 | Adapted to plecemen! work, can be cut; part of 1951 funds aro for “initiation of construction” (Army engineers justif., p. 411); some quostion of adequacy of local participation, though better than usual, 2&5 | Adams...... 4, C00, 000 374, 000 350, 000 £00, CCO 360, 000 400, 000 2 400, 000 | Work not far along; original cost eetimate, $271,- 000, ratio of henefits to cost, 0.42, 1938. £5 | North Adams............ --| 13, 170, 000 433, 000 3E0, 000 CO, 000 260, 000 460,000 | * 400, 000 Work. net far along: originate estimato, $1,473,000, rencfit ratio $65 | Red Run.......2.-.2...... 1, (C5, COO &C0, 000 £00, 000 £65, 000 |.....-..2..- 480, 000 865, 000 | Low ratio, 104; 400 acres offected and urban storm drainago; good local contributions, but ‘Sow priority.” €f8 | Boswell Reservoir.......-..] 21, 300, 000 190, 000 100, C00 1400, C00 0 190, 000 4790, 000 | “Not in accord”; 0.68 benefit ratio even doubt- ful; await survey of Red River. 259 | Oklahoma City Floodway.| 10, 460, C00 600, 000 0 C0, COO 0 460,000} ‘480, C00 | Low priority, low benefits; original cost estimate $2,037,000; work essentially not sturted. Planning funds. ‘Mew, or substantisly new, starts,
Total esti. “Redto. [8 date 259 | Oologah Reservoir..........1$38, 760,000 | $471,000] $350, 000 250 | Oahe Reservoir. .............|234, 400, 000 Proposed reduction total....| 0. -eeec-|-eanencoene- +} New, or substantially new starts. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ‘Tame V.—Deferrable, doudtful, and other new projects, flood control—Continued 11207 committee rennet Remarks $780,000 | Original cost $14,175,000; project only recently started; Army engineers justification, “initle- tion of construction of earth dam” (p. 586). 6, 000, G00 | $3, 000, 000 | 5, 000, 000 | 2 8, 000, 000 Beso construction work not yet started, on! plans and housing and administrative "tact jes; start now will involvo large expenditures in years just ahead, original estimate (Burcau of Reclamation), $72,800,000; 1081 estimate is $13,158,000 above 1950; economic Justification of project most doudttul. TaBLE VI.—~25-percent reductions and elimination of Senate tnoreases: flood control Proposed reductions Project name Bonato addi-| 28-porcent Whitlow Ranch_.._..--.---- 22. eene. we eeeerecncnceenecee 7 Blakely Mountain Reservoir. Bull Shoals Reservoir... Green's Ferry... .. Narrows Reservotr, Nimrod Regervoir. Norfold Reservoir. Red River levees. Water Valley Rese! West of Morrilton... Cherry Valley Reservoir. Farmington Reservoir. Folsom Isabella Reservoir. ....-.-.--------eneeeece Los Angeles County drainage Seeeeneeeen Merced County steam group...........-.- Pine Flat Reservoir. ........ Sacramento River... §almas River .._.... San Joaquin River_...._... Table Mountain Reservoir... Whittier Narrows Reservoir. Mansfield Hollow Reservoir. Clark Hill Reservoir. Lucky Peak Roservoir.........0.---0. eee: Columbia drainage snd levee district. Cagles Mill Reservotr.. Cannelton........ccuesee Evaneville..... ianapolis. Now Alban: Coralville Little Sioux River... Roch Toronto Reservolr........- Witchita and Valley Bayou Teche and Vermilion River. Mermentau River. .........ca.000-- M esery OW. cennveseecesere Table Rock Roscrvoir. ...--.---sacaceenscscerccocccecsawees reductions 8 33288 sizes Proposed reductions Project name Senate addi- 26-percent tiuns reductions Harlan County Reservoir........--cenecncenccnenceenncecens Red Willow Reservoir......... Chamita Reservoir. ....-..e0-- Jemez Canyon Reservoir. Dansville. $4, 500, 000 75, 000 Baldhill Reservoir_..... Garrison Reservoir Coal Grove__...._. Banehester. ove cena seenene artins Ferry Massillon ean e ver neeennenee Eufaula Reservoir... Fort Gibson Reservoir. 1, 280), 000 Hula Reservoir. 150, 000 sean eeenee 3), 000 Optima Roservo: eemenes on = Polecat Creek... 40, 000 TonkiNer Ferry Rese: 250, 000 Wister Reservoir... Cougar Roservoir... Detroit Roservoir........-.. Dorena Reservoir...... ean. Green Peter Reservolr.... Lookout Point Reservolr... Willamette River.......---. Conemaugh River Resorvolr... Kast Branch Olarion Rivor Reservoir... Johnsonb Prompton Shenango Rttver Reservoir-.-.- Bunbury......-ceeeaennnnnee. Uniontown...... sport is, Wolf River, an Reservoir. ewes: tle Him t Hesaraie VOT... neeecnee Mountain Reservotlr. Hartland Reservoir
11208 Project name enn en nnn Townshend .. 2... -- eee e eee een eee ee enn c een e ween cece Gathright and Falling Spring Reservoir. Philpott Reservoir... falem Church Reservoir. Waynesboro... .....-. Lowlston Clarkston. .-.. Mud Mountain Reservolr.....-... Pullman... oo. 1 2222 one nee ee ee econ nner econ wneteneweeen, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Tasix VI.—25-percent reductions and elimination of Senate increases: flood control—Continued Proposed reductions 25-percent Senate addi- { reductions tions Salaries. Project name Sutton Reservoir............ Operation and maintenance. Preliminary examinations, surveys, JULY 27 Proposed reductions 25-percent reductions Senato addi- tions $500, 000 84,374, 400 | 80, £69, 70 164,044,100 Taute VIIl.—Recapitulation of proposed project eliminations and reductions in support of Douglas amendment for reduced appropriations (While leaving discretion as to specific project elimination or deferral to the Corps of Engineers, in order to permit continua- tion and acceleration of projects most essential to the defense effort, these amendments are based on a computation of possible project eliminations as follows:) 1, Elimination of projects not approved by Budget Bureau (allofwhich were omitted by the House, and many of which are new starts) ....---- Rivers and IL. Ehmination of other new, or substantially new, starts and doubtful and deferruble projects (hatbors for reereational and fishing craft, navi- gation projects of doubtful feasibility, projects previously disapproved by Budget Burcau and where benciit-cost 1atlo was less than 1.1 or where benefits were extremely speculative)... I. Ehmination of Senate committee increases and 25 percent reduced ions In all other items. Mississippi River (separate ') Sacramento Rivet (separate) .. ‘Total proposed reductions. ... 0... --eecece nen eemee meen n cece nen e een eres enema meee cwen an ee meee an ec eneenenee nena neewenwarenenenmenwenmennes |-nenece ween nee e> harbors Flood control $4, 209, £00 $5, 683, 700 meee wee e een e eee ee ene eee 15, 620, 600 12, 290, 000 65, 433, 500 164, 944, 100 re renee 21, 778, 00) 524, 5 200, 483, 300 1 Nased on 1946-47 appropriations. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask that the amendments be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration of the amendments offered by the Senator from Illinois en bloc? The Chair hears none. The question is on agreeing to the amendment: offered by the Senator from Tlinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. I request the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ments offered by the Senator from Illi- nois. [Putting the question.] Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask for a division. On a division, the amendments were rejected. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the so- called Bridges amendment. The amend- ment I send to the desk proposes on page 2, line 10 of the Bridges amend- ment, to strike “10 per centum” and to insert in lieu thereof “20 per centum.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and printed, and will lie on the table, AMENDMENT OF LONGSHOREMEN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT—-CHANGE OF REFERENCE Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, on February 25, 1949, 8. 1067, to amend sec- tion 44 and 38 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Reports were requested from the Fed- eral Security Agency and the Depart- ment of Justice, On January 17, 1950, the Federal Security Agency submitted its report to the Judiciary Committee, and on March 1, 1960, the Department of Justice submitted its report to the Judiciary Committee. S 1067 was considered at a meeting of the committee held on Tuesday, July 18, 1950, and it was determined that the subject matter of the bill is such that the bill comes more properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. On behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, I request that the committee be discharged from the further consid- eration of S. 1067, and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Nevada? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. GOSHEN VENEERING CO. AND SETTLE- MENT CONTRACTS WITH SIOUX IN- DIANS Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, yes- terday on the call of the calendar order of business No. 2107, Senate bill 410, was objected to. I respectfully ask unani- mous consent now that that bill be in- cluded in the next call of the calendar. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, did I understand the Senator to ask to have placed among measures to be called at the next call a bill that was not acted on at the time of the last calendar call? Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. So far as I am per- sonally concerned, I shall not object. Mr, CHAVEZ. Mr. President, may I ask a question? Mr. WHERRY. Let me finish my statement. I have stated I would not object. I feel it would be a bad prece- dent to do what is requested, because if one Senator is permitted to have a bill taken out of order and called at the next call of the calendar, every other Sena- tor could make a similar request. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I find myself compelled to ask the same privi- lege for Calendar No. 1744, House bill 5372. If I can have that bill called at the next call of the calendar, I shall with- hold objection. The bill is very im- portant to my State. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I think that if the Senators would submit the bills to the majority leader before the next call, the matter could be worked out. I have no objection to these two bills being placed on the list, but I hope we may finish with the defense part of the appropriation bill. I should like to have the Senate proceed for a little while and get some work done on the appro- priation bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the two requests? The Chair hears none, and the requests are granted. GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1951 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7786) making appro- priations for the support of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the chapter un- der consideration which I should like to bring up at this time, on page 366, at the end of line 16. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Wash- ington that the amendment is not yet in order. That point has not been reached in the consideration of the bill. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I am advised that we have not reached that point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment on page 361, line 25. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, a par- liamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it. Mr. WHERRY. It is now 6:15 o'clock p. m., and several Senators have appar-
1950 ently assumed that when the vote was over, we might take a recess. Several had asked me how long we were to con- tinue in session. Is it the purpose that the Senate remain in session longer, or does the acting majority leader feel that we might recess until tomorrow? Mr. McFARLAND. I just announced that we would like to finish with chap- ter X, which 1s the defense chapter. I do not anticipate there will be any trouble about it, and we must make prog- ress with the appropriation bill. We have had only two votes today, and if the only way we can make progress is to work longer hours that is what we will have to do. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKe.iar}, the chairman of the committee has worked harder and stayed on the floor longer than any other Senator. If he can re- main here and work these long hours, I ti.ink the rest of us can. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, that still does not answer my question. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I have the floor, Mr. WHERRY. Will the Senator yield? Mr MAGNUSON. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. How long does the Senator from Arizona intend to have the Senate remain in session, if we run into trouble on the bill? How long does he feel the Senate should remain in ses- sion? Mr, McFARLAND. I hope we will not have to stay much after 7. I think we can finish this chapter by 7 o'clock. Mr. WHERRY. Seven o'clock, I thank the Senator. Mr, WILLIAMS. Mr. President-—— The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Senator from Delaware, Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I still have the floor, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognized the Senator from Ne- braska after having stated to the Sena- tor from Washington that his amend- ment was not in order, Mr. MAGNUSON. Simply because the Chair said the amendment was not in order does not mean I lose the floor. I merely desire to make a parliamentary inquiry, so that I will be in order. Are we now on pase 361 of the bill? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Line 25, page 361. Mr. MAGNUSON. I thank the Chair. Now I shall be glad to relinquish the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized. Mr, WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk several amendments which I ask to have stated and ask to have lie on the table. I should like to have the amendments voted on en bloc, They are the same amendments proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire, except that they propose a 25-percent cut in- stead of a 60-percent cut. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment. The LecisLative CLERK, On page 361, line 25, it is proposed to strike out “$1,600,000” and insert “$1,200,000”; on page 364, line 2, to strike out “$221,244,- 600” and insert “$165,933,375”"; on page 365, line 9, to strike out “$900,000” and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE insert “8675,000"; on page 866, line 20, to strike out “$436,933,000" and insert “$327,699,750"; on page 367, line 3, to Strike out “$66,778,000” and insert $50,083,500"; on page 967, line 14, to strike out “$2,524,500” and insert “$1,893,375.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration of the amendments en bloc? The Chair hears none. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, if my amendment on page 366 is not in order, why is an amendment on page 365 in order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that this relates to the amendment be- fore the Senate at this time. Mr. MAGNUSON. I have no objec- tion. I merely wanted to inquire. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ments offered by the Senator from Dela- ware. Mr. WILLIAMS. and nays. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ments. The amendments were rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the amendment: on page 361, line 25. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, since we have voted on four successive pro- posals for reductions, 60 percent, 50 per- cent, 40 percent, and 25 percent, I now move that we reduce the appropriation by $1 in each of these categories. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Wlinois. The amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 361, line 25. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 362, line 2, after the word “purchase,” to strike out ‘(for replacement only) in the current fiscal year of 350 passenger motor vehicles” and insert “in the current fiscal year of 500 passenger motor vehicles (of which 453 shall be for replacement only) and two motorboats (to be acquired from surplus stock where practicable) and the purchase (not to exceed one, to be acquired from surplus stock where prac- ticable), maintenance, repair, and opera- tion of aircraft: Provided further, That the various appropriations for rivers and harbors and fiood control shali be avail- able for payments to school districts as authorized by law, including payments on account of dependents of employees in field offices in project areas engaged in construction and related activities.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Rivers and harbors,” on page 363, line 17, after the word “harbors,” to insert “for the execution of detailed investigations and the preparation of plans and specifications for projects heretofore authorized;” and on page 364, line 2, after the word “Congress,” to strike out “$185,878,000" and insert “$221,244,500, of which $75,000 shall be I ask for the yeas 11209 available for dredging in the Old River, Cleveland, Ohio, out of amounts allotted to other purposes for Cleveland Harbor as authorized by law.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 365, line 9, after “(Public Law 647)”, to strike out “$1,000,000” and insert “$900,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Flood control,” on page 365, line 19, after the word “with”, to strike out “the.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in line 20, after the word “control”, to strike out “$341,055,000” and insert “$436,933,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 366, line 8, after the word “project”, to insert a colon and the following addi- tional proviso: “Provided further, That $25,000 of the funds appropriated here- in shall be available, at a total cost of not to exceed $100,000, to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors for the purpose of continuing the review of the report on James River and tributaries, North and South Dakota, published as House Document Numbered 83, Seventy- third Congress, and determining the ad- visability of improvements for flood con- trol and related purposes on James River and tributaries, including Pipestem Creek.” Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I offer and ask to have stated an amendment which is now lying on the desk, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, is that the amendment which the com- mittee agreed to and authorized the Senator from North Dakota to offer on the floor? Mr. YOUNG. Yes; that is correct. Mr. McCKELLAR. I thank the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LeaisLaTive CuerK. On page 366, line 8, after the word “project”, it is proposed to insert the following: “Pro- vided further, That the section entitled ‘National Military Establishment’ in Public Law 348, Eighty-first Congress, first session, providing appropriations for the project at Mandan, N. Dak., is hereby amended to authorize reimbursement to local interests for such work as they may have done in providing interior drainage facilities at Mandan, subse- quent to appropriation of funds for con- struction, as a part of the local flood- protection project, insofar as such drain- age facilities shall be approved by the Chief of Engineers and found to have been done in accordance with the au- thorized project: Provided further, That such payment shall not exceed the sum of $76,000.” The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc]. (Putting the question.] The “ayes” have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, it was my purpose, before the Chair announced the result, to ask for a restatement of the amendment,
11210 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator desire a restatement of the amendment now? Mr, WILLIAMS. Yes: I desire a re- statement of the amendment. I was not clear as to what it was. Mr. HAYDEN Mr. President, I make the point of order that the amendment has been adopted. Mr. WILLIAMS. Very well. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment of the committee will be stated Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I do not want to be out of order again, but is not the last committee amendment which was stated on page 366, lines 8 to 16° Would it be in order to offer an amendment to it at this time? The PRESIDING OFFICER. An amendment is in order. Mr. MAGNUSON. I have an amend- ment on the desk which I ask to have stated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated Mr WILLIAMS. Mr. President, is not the amendmert on page 366, line 16, the one on which we just acted? The PRESIDING OFFICER. ‘The Chair understands the amendment which was just acted upon, offered by the Senator from North Dakota, was on page 366, line 8. Mr. MAGNUSON. The committee amendment is from line 8 to line 16, on page 266. Mr. WILLIAMS’ Has the committee amendment been adopted? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment has not been adopted. Mr. MAGNUSON Mr. President, I offer an amendment on page 266 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK On page 366, before the period at the end of line 16, it is proposed to insert a colon and the following: “Provided further, That $50,- 000 of the funds herein appropriated shall be available for construction on the Eagle Gorge Reservoir project on the Green River, Wash.” The PRESIDING OFFICER The Senator’s amendment is an amendment to a committee amendment, as the Chair understands, Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct. The purpose of the amendment is to utilize some $50,000 of the funds that are appropriated in the committee amendment. It does not add to the total over-all amount at all, and it does not increase the over-all amount, the general amount that the Senate com- mittee has allowed for flood control. But by authorizing the engineers to use, if they see fit to do so, $50,000 at Eagle Gorge, it would give the Army engineers immediate access to $2,000,000 of State and county funds which have been ap- propriated for the project. I might point out for the record that the Eagle Gorge Dam is in a unique position with regard to this appropria- tion. In 1949 the State legislature passed a bill appropriating a million and c half dollars for this project. Thissum is held in a special fund known as the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Eagle Gorge Dam flood control project fund. This $1,500,000 will be transferred to the Federal Government at such time, and I quote from the lav itself, “as Congress shall have adopted and au- thorized the construction of the Eagle Gorge Dam flood control reservoir project and shall have made an appro- priation therefor, and King County shall have issued a warrant in the sum of $500,000 payable to the Treasurer of the United States as the county’s contribu- tion to said project ” King County also issued a warrant for some $500,000 payable to the Treasurer of the United States as the county’s con- tribution to the project. The Board of County Commissioners have set aside this amount, and the Congress has au- thorized the project Both the State contribution of one and a half million dollars and the county's contribution of $500,000 will become available immedi- ately 1f the $50,000 is appropriated by the Congress If not, the matter will revert. Iam not asking for any increase in the general amount at all, I am merely asking for the authorization of the engi- neers, if they see fit, to use $50,000 in order to pick up $2,000,000 for this very vital project. Mr President, this is a river that runs from the Cascade Mountains through an industrial valley and empties into Seattle port It flows for a distance of less than 100 miles, At times the snow on top of Mount Rainier and the other mountains that feed the river 1s as high as 40 feet. There has been a great deal of trouble with the industrial projects in the valley. It will provide some power, The $50,000 is a very small amount, because the re- sponsibility is the Federal Government's in the inception. The stream is a navi- gable one AsJI said, Iam not adding to the amount. I merely hope the engi- neers can have the authority to use this small sum to pick up the $2,000,000 if they see fit on the merits of the proposi- tion. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, an amendment involving $10,268,000 and nine different projects was brought be- fore the committee. We were told that many others were going to be submitted if we agreed to the amendment. The committee went over the matter very carefully. But in view of the fact that acceptance of the amendment would bring about the offering of numerous other amendments, the proposal was turned down by the committee. Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. President, I appreciate that, but the other projects would add to the amount. My amend- ment would make no addition to the amount. It does occupy a very peculiar position in that there is $2,000,000 avail- able, which will not be available after the first of next year, which could be picked up if the engineers, within the framework of what they have, might de- cide that the merits of the proposal were such that they could use the $50,000. It does not add to the over-all cost at all, and there is a million and a half dollars involved. If the Senator would take the amendment to conference, and the posi- tion of the Corps of Engineers were made definitely known, I am sure that I JULY 27 would have no objection if the engineers felt that they did not want to do this, and pick up the $2,000,000. But 1 think they would feel they would save a great deal of money if they used the State and county contributions, because the place in question is one of the “hot” flood spots on the Pacific coast. Mr. McKELLAR. “ir. President, the committee having voted unanimously against the project, I could not do any- thing along that line now. But later on there may be a way that the Senator's project can be arranged for, and I hope it can be. There is a difference between his and other projects. I shall be vely happy to give it attention if the Sena- tor will bring 1t before the committec, and I know the committee will give 1t attention. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Wash- ington [Mr. Macnuson]. The amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. STENNIS in the chair). The question 1s on agrceing to the committee amend- ment on page 366, in lines 8 to 16, as amended The amendment as amended was agreed to The next amendment was, on page 366, line 20, after “(Public Law 858)”, to strike out “$3,000,000” and insert “$2,700,000” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 367, line 3, after the word “appropria- tion”, to strike out “$65,000,000” and in- sort “$66,778,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 367, line 9, after “(49 Stat. 1508)”, to strike out “$50,000” and insert ‘$450,- 000” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 367, line 14, after “638-651)”, to strike out , $2,700,000” and insert ‘$2,524,- 500.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Miscellaneous civil works,” on page 368, line 1, after the word “Engi- neers”, to strike out “$12,000” and in- sert “$16,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “United States Soldiers’ Home,” on page 368, line 6, after the word “fund”, to strike out “$2,395,000” and in- sert “$2,363,240,” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, undcr the subhead “The Panama Canal,” on page 369, line 13, after ‘(50 Stat. 478)", to strike out “$14,500,000” and insert “$13,- 251,700.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 370, line 4, after “(63 Stat. 600)”, to strike out “$3,925,000” and insert ‘$3,- 849,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “General provisons,” on page 371, after line 5, to strike out: Src. 102, Notwithstanding the provision in the act approved August 11, 1£39 (&3
1950 Stat. 1409), limiting employment in certain positions to citizens of the United States, citizens of Panama may be employed in such positions, And in lieu thereof to insert the fol- lowing: Src. 102. No part of any appropriation con- tained in this chapter shall be used directly or indirectly, except for temporary employ- ment in case of emergency, for the payment of any civilian for services rendered by him on the Canal Zone while occupying a skilled, technical, clerical, administrative, executive, or supervisory position unless such person is a citizen of the United States of America or of the Republic of Panama: Provided, however, (1) That, notwithstanding the pro- vision in the act approved August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1409), limiting employment in the above-mentioned positions to citizens of the United States from and after the date of approval of said act, citizens of Panama may be employed in such positions; (2) that at no time shall the number of Panamanian citizens employed in the above-mentioned positions exceed the number of citizens of the United States so employed, if United States citizens are available in continental United States or on the Canal Zone; (3) that nothing In this chapter shall prohibit the continued employment of any person who shall heve rendered 15 or more years of faithful and honorable service on the Canal Zone; (4) that in the selection of personnel for skilled, technical, administrative, clerical, supervisory, or executive positions, the con- trolling factors in filling these positions shall be efficiency, experience, training, and education; (5) that all citizens of Panama and the United States rendering skilled, technical, clerical, administrative, executive, or supervisory service on the Canal Zone under the terms of this chapter (a) shal) nor~ mally be employed not more than 40 hours per week, (b) may receive as compensation equal rates of pay based upon rates paid for similar employment in continental United States plus 25 percent; (6) this en- tire section shali apply only to persons em- ployed in skilled, technical, clerical, admin- istrative, executive, or supervisory positions on the Canal Zone directly or indirectly by any branch of the United States Govern- ment or by any corporation or company whose stock is owned wholly or in part by the United State. Government: Provided further, That the President may suspend from time to time in whole or in part com- pliance with this section if he should deem such course to be in the public interest. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That completes the committee amendments to chapter IX of the bill. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, may the first committee amendment in chap- ter X be stated? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated, The legislative clerk read the amend- ment, which was, under the heading “Chapter X-—~Defense—Title I—Inde- pendent offices—National Security Re- sources Board,” on page 374, line 19, after the words “per diem,” to insert “and contracts with not to exceed 23 such individuals may be renewed for 1 year.” Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I hope we shall not proceed with the Depart- ment of Defense portion of the bill this evening. There are many Members of the Senate who have been under the im- pression that the civil functions section of the bill would be all that would be handled tonight. If any discussion were CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE had this evening on the national defense portion of the bill, many Members of the Senate would wish to be present. So I hope we shall not proceed with that chapter of the bill this evening. However, if we do proceed with it, I think there should be a quorum call: I make that suggestion to the majority leader. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, before we take action on any of the amendments in chapter X, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the Rrcorp a brief state- ment giving some pertinent facts with respect to chapter X of the bill. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. I think the state- ment will be very important. If we are to go into this chapter of the bill now, no doubt the background material pre- sented in the statement to which the Senator has referred should be before Senators for their information. If it is the intention of the majority leader to have the Senate take a recess in a few minutes, until tomorrow, which I think would be the way to proceed——. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. It is my understanding that in a short time a motion will be made that the Senate take & recess until tomorrow. Therefore, it seems to me that the proper way to han- dle the statement to which I have re- ferred is to have it printed at this point in the body of the Rrecorp. Mr, WHERRY. Very well. There being no objection, the state- ment of Mr, Tuomas of Oklahoma was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR THOMAS OF OKLAHOMA Chapter & of the bill contains appropria- tions for the National Security Council, the National Security Resources Board, and the Department of Defense. The total 1951 budget estimate, including supplementals, are $13,376,865,000 plus $1,385,785,000 in contract authorizations, or & total of $14,762,650,000 in cash and contract authorization. The House allowed $12,910,702,300 in cash plus the contract authorization of $1,385,- 785,000, or a total of $14,296,487,300 in cash and contract authorization, The Benate committee has allowed $138,294,- 681,821 in cash and 61,385,785,000 in con- tract authorization, or a total of 14,680,366,- 821 in cash and contract authorizations. This includes consideration of a supple- mental budget estimate (8S, Doc. No. 162) of $298,190,000 not considered by the House. The cash as allowed by the Senate com- mittee is $82,283,179 under the budget esti- mates and 8383,879,521 over the House ap- proved amount. It is $239,019,323 over the amount of 613,055,562,498 appropriated in 1950. As indicated on page 271 of the report, the committee recommends the following appro- priations: National Security Council__ $160, 000 National Security Resources Board.......--.-.--.---.- 8, 500, 000 Office of the Secretary of Defense... .-..--.0-6 $58, 300, 000 Department of the Army... 4, 088,377, 521 Department of the Navy... 4, 103, 2358, 300 Department of the Air Force. 4, 740, 986, 000 In addition, contract authorizations of 0575,496,000 were allowed for the Department 11211 of the Navy and $810,289,000 for the Depart- ment of the Air Force. In recommending these appropriations, the committee has closely followed the recom- mendations of the President, the Jotnt Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of the Budget. In addition, supple- mental hearings were held in order to secure testimony from General Eisenhower and the Secretary of Defense. Incorporated in the bill are changes in line with their sugges- tions which serve to strengthen our defenses. Generally speaking, the committee made three major changes in the bill as it came from the House. First, it considered and al- lowed the military construction supplemen- tal items, already referred to, which were not considered by the House. Second, it made restoration of House cuts to the full amount requeated by the Military Establishment, Third, it applied the reductions of chapter X-A of the House bill to those items in the bill which the Department of Defense con- sidered least detrimental to the national defense. I understand that an amendment has beon suggested to authorize the use of funds ap- propriated in this act for the purpose of pur- chasing defense materials under reciprocal agreements with friendly nations. I am ad- vised that the Secretary of State and the Sec- retary of Defense would decide that such purchasing is in the public interest, particu- larly in these perilous times, and that pur- chases made under reciprocal agreements of this Kind are well within the authority granted by the Buy American Act. There- fore, such an amendment should not be necessary I have three minor corrective amendments which I shall present at the proper time. With these exceptions I hope that the bill will be approved as reported. Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Rec- orD & statement madc by the Secretary of Defense on July 26, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, his state- ment having special referonce to defense items, although it also has a bearing on chapter X of the bill. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LovIS JOHNSON BrFrore THE SENATE APPROPRIA- TIONS COMMITTEE, JULY 26, 1950 Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, the last time I appeared before this committee was April 26, 2 months before the Republic of Korea was invaded, At that time I said: “The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, as a working committee of the National Security Council * * * have also appraised recent events which make it entirely possible that appropriations in ex- cess of those which have been requested for the current year will be required in succeed- ing years, not only for our own military forces but also for the military-ald pro- gram. Just as it is possible that in future years this Nation will have to devote an in- creased percentage of ita total budget to these items, it is also possible that our part- ners in the North Atlantic Pact will be re- quired by the force of evonts, and by the force of collective planning as well, to take similar action. The events to which I al- lude include the Soviet atomic explosion, the fall of China, the serious situations in south- east Asia, the break in diplomatic relations with Bulgaria, and deteriorating relations with other satellite countries, the Soviet as- sumption of control over the armed forces of Poland, Soviet naval expansion, the in- creased Soviet pressures in Germany, the re- cent attack on a naval aircraft in the Baltic,
11212 and the recent Sovict demands relative to Trieste. “None of this presents a happy prospect; but the cold war is not a happy circum- stance. The only satisfaction that I can personally derive from the situation lies in the fact that our own Military Establish- ment is well on the road to becoming a stronger and more powerful organization, and one which—as circumstances require— can utilize increased appropriations in @ manner which will provide substantially in- creased combat effectiveness—whereas even as recently as 1 year ago, large sums of money out of any increased appropriations would have been drained off in the form of unnec- essary overhead. It is particularly important that the Armed Forces maintained by the United States shall at all times provide a sound base on which can be built a Military Establishment of increased size, should cir- cumstance so require." Gentlemen, circumstances do so require. That is my reason for being here today, in support of supplemental appropriations in the amount of $10,500,009,000. I know that all of you are familar with the contents of President Truman’s message of last Wednesday. That document pre- sents, better than anything I might say, the yensons for our request for this supple- mental appropriation. The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the House, the Honorable Cart Vinson, said of the Presi- dent’s message that it was a “firm message which will be heartening to all Americans,” In making this statement, Chairman VINSON added: “I want especially to say that I am de- lighted to know, from the President's mes~- sage and from my own contacts with the Dofense Department, that what has been recommended has the complete and un- stinted support of all the civilian and mili- tary leaders of the Defense Department. This is a splendid example of teamwork and efficiency in the Defence Department.” I am extremely grateful to Chairman Vinson for his generous support. It is en- tirely accurate to state that this supple- mental appropriation has the unanimous approval and support of the civilian and military leaders of the Department of De- fenre, The appropriation problems with which this committee, the Congress, and the De- partment of Defense have had to deal in recent months have not been easy ones. I know of no better summation of these problems than the one which Chairman Grorce Manon of the Armed Services Sub- committee of the House Appropriations Committee made on the floor of the House in support of that committee’s recommended budget for 1950. ‘You will recall that on that occasion, Chairman MAHon said: “If war comes s00n, we are appropriating too little. If we have miscalculated the dangers, if the threat of war is Just a deceptive mirage on the horizon, we are appropriating too much.” The dilemma described by Chairman Manon was a dilemma which confronted not only this committee and the Department of Defense, but also the President and the people of the United States. It was not a new dilemma. My predecessor as Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, outlined this dilemma very aptly in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 21, 1948, about a year prior to the time that I became Secretary of Defense on March 28, 1949. On that occasion, Secretary For- restal quoted the following excerpt from a memorandum he had received from the Joint Chiets of Staff: “Based solely on military considerations, it is the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the administration should advocate a balanced Military Establishment commen- surate with the 70 air group program for CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the Air Force. * * * The Joint Chiefs of Siaff recognize, however, that the phasing (of this balanced Army, Navy, and Air Force program) must be made responsive to such other factors as the capability of the aircraft industry to expand, the impact of the cost of the program on the national economy, and the calculated risk which can be accepted in the light of changing world politico-military situations.” After quoting the foregoing memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary For- restal then went on to make the following statement: “I think that I can say to you, therefore, that the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries of Army, Navy, and Air Force—as well as the Senate and the House of Representa- tives, I feel sure—are all in agreement, as a military matter, on the desirability of what the Joint Chiefs have described as a bal- anced Military Establishment commensurate with the 70 air group program. “The Joint Chiefs * * * have also re-~ ported to me that a force of the recom- mended size would require, in fiscal 1949, additional appropriations in excess of 89,- 000,000,000, * * * “In my opinion, the Joint Chiefs were en- tirely correct in addressing themselves ex- clusively to the military considerations. That is their job. But they were equally correct In pointing out that other considera- tions—‘the impact of the cost of the pro- gram on the national economy,’ for ex- ample—are factors which the President and the Congress must consider. “The impact on the economy of an addi- tional ¢9,000,000,0C0 program is a matter that deserves—and will, I am sure, recelve—the most careful attention by both the President and the Congress. “My insistence, throughout the considera- tion of these matters, has been that they must be considered in a rational and or- ganized manner—and not on a basis of emo- tional reaction, * * * “If the Congress and the President should ultimately decide that the military con- siderations, at this juncture in world his- tory, outweigh the fiscal considerations— then we should, by all means, embark on the $9,000,000,000 additional program. But if the Congress and the President should ultimately decide that a program of some- what lesser magnitude is required—in the intercst of national solvency and in the in- terest of avoiding, so far as possible, alloca~ tions, rationing, price controls, and a host of other restrictions -then we should pro- ceed in such a manner that we will get the most national security for each dollar we spend. * * * “Bearing in mind over-all considerations such as thore I have just been discussing, and after receiving the Joint Chiefs’ $9,000,000,- 000 recommendation of April 14, 1948, I asked the Joint Chiefs this supplementary question: Granted the military desirability of the $9,000,000,000 program, what pro- gram would the Joint Chiefs recommend—in the general vicinity of §83,000,000,000—as the most effective military program within the limits of the funds that will probably be available to us? “Yesterday, I received the unanimous reply of the Joint Chiefs—and I again emphasize the unanimity of the reply. Their specific recommendation--on the more limited basis envisioned by my more recent question-—was that the 83,000,000,000 program should be tncreased by $481,000,000. * * * “The program I am here discussing, therefore, 1s a program which would in- crease the original 1949 budget request by $3,481,000,000.” The 83,481,000,000 which Secretary For- restal recommended, when added to the 1949 budget as originally submitted, gave a total recommended military budget of 618,507,000, JULY 27 000 for the fiscal year 1049. In other words, the dilemma presented by the competing military and economic considerations was resolved at the $13,500,000,000 level. The President, his advisers in the execu- tive branch of the Government, and the Congress solved the dilemma at that time by deciding that the fiscal considerations were equally as important as the military. The substance ot that decision has been repeated- ly ratifled by the President, his advisers in the executive branch of the Government, and the Congress, all of whom reflected the will of the people of the United States. At the outset. of my remarks today, I quoted from my testimony of April 26. You will recall that my concluding remarks on April 26 dealt with the same dilemma I have just been dicussing. On that occasion, I said: “This year’s budget for the military estab- lishment, with very Httle variation, has re- ceived the approval of the Executive Office of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Appropriations Committees of the Con- gress, and other responsible persons such as General Eisenhower, In other words, there has been substantial unanimity of opinion on a vital point—namcely, the fact that the world in which we live requires military ex- penditures of spproximately the amount which the President submitted to the Con- gress last January. Consider for a moment how unusual it 1s to find that all of the re- sponsible authorities who have spoken to this subject have been in complete agreement on more than 95 percent of the military budget. The House Appropriations Committee has suggested some reductions; General Eisen- hower has suggested the possibility of some increases. But even taking the maximum of these suggestions—both on the minus and on the plus side—there has been no sug- gested variation which would affect the miti- tary budget in an amount greater than 4 percent. I call this fact to your atten- tion * * * because I think that it consti- tutes the best argument that I could possi~ bly present as to the fundamental soundness of the budget ” One month ago the Republic of Korea was invaded. The act.on of the United Nations, supported by the United States, called for the use of troops, ships, and aircraft to re- pel this criminai aggression which threat- ened the peace of the world and the securi- ty of our own country. In the light of the actual fighting tut 1s now in progress, we have reached the point where the military considerations clearly outweigh the fiscal considerations However, in our efforts to get the most efficient use of our military appropriations we have not had to deal with the same sort of competing considerations as those I have just been discussing. For all of us were equally determined to get maximum pre- paredness out of every dollar appropriated—- and this determination to get the maximum return on the defense dollar will continue to govern our actions. In enacting the National Security Act Amendments of 1949, the Congress added language specifically addressed to this point, and required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Congress, twice each year, “itemized statements showing the savings of public funds and the eliminations of un- necessary duplications and  overlappings that have been accomplished pursuant to the provisions of this act.” Carrying out this congressional mandate has been the steadfast policy of the Depart- mont of Defense, and a prime condition of our efforts in this regard has been the elimi- nation of unnecessary overhead, with a sie multaneous improvement in the combat po- tential of the Armed Forces. Indeed, the overall combat potential of our Armed Forces was at a higher level on June 25— the day the Republic of Korea was invaded—=
1950 than had been the case at any time since Postwar demobilization was completed. I realize that the foregoing sentence could be regarded as a fine, glittering generality, 50 I would like to make it concrete. For that purpose, I will use specific illustrations. In the cnse of the Navy, what the fleet is @oing today would not have been possible 2 years ago. In March of 1948, just after the Communists staged a coup in Czechoslo- vakia, Secretary of Defense Forrestal was Gravely concerned about the readiness of the active ficet. In a memorandum which he received on March 23, 1948, the following significant statement appears: “As of 22 March, there are 111 vessels of the active fieet immobilized and 66 reduced to limited operations (or a total of 177) by insufficient personnel, * * * In addition, most of the operating active fleet vessels are under peacetime allowance.” The situation was one of the factors which led Secretary Forrestal to request the sup- plemental appropriation of §$3,481,000,000, which I have already discussed above. This situation was also one of the factors which has led the Department of Defense to advo- cate a greater fighting strength for each ship, even at the expense of reducing the total number of ships in the active fleet. The ships we need are ships that can float and fight. A ship that only floats is a Mability instead of an asset. On June 25, when the Republic of Korea was invaded, every ship in the active fleet was capable of getting un- der way and moving into action. Off the shores of Korea, we are being provided with dally {fllustrations of the readiness of the ships in our active fleet. In the semiannual report which I re- cently submitted to the Congress, I discussed the reneral situation I have been describing above in these words: “Over-all, the readiness of the Navy has been improved and the active fleet is ready to go. It is manned at 67 percent of war- time strength with trained personnel who seek to make a career of the Navy. This represents a substantial improvement over the situation 18 months ago when a larger active fleet in number of men and ships .was manned at only 61 percent of wartime strength with many of the ships either im- mobilized or in a reduced operational status because of heavy turn-over of personnel and @ serlous imbalance in the skills and occu- pations represented.” In the case of the Air Force, there has been a substantial increase in our actual combat potential. In chapter IV of the Semi- Annual Report which I submitted to Con- gress last February, I discussed this point in the following words: “It 1s worth noting that on January 1, 1948, the Finletter Commission recommend- ed 70 groups manned by 401,000 men. On that date the report also noted that the Air Force stood at 337,000 men for 55 pro- gramed groups. * * * “The size of a group is subject to change. As President Truman has pointed out, ‘The number of groups is a somewhat misleading measure of airpower since the character, size, number of aircraft, and other elements of the group are not fixed but constantly change as conditions require.’ An example of the type of change to which the Presi- dent referred is the programed size of each B-36 heavy bombardment group—which stood at 18 planes por group Jess than a year ago, and which stands at 80 planes per group today. In this connection, it should also be noted that the programed size of 9 groups which stood at 80 B-29's or B--50's per group 2 years ago, stand at 45 today. In addl- tion, these groups include 20 B-29 type tank- ers which increase the effective range of each individual bomber. “In our Air Force of today and as planned for 1951, we have 416,000 men manning 48 groups, but due to the organizational XCVI-——-708 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE changes noted above, these 48 groups, ace cording to Air Force estimates, are equiva- lent to 62% groups of the size envisaged in the previous concept of the 170-group program,” I should also like to comment briefly on the situation with respect to the Army. In March of 1948, the Army's strength was 542,. 000, The Army's budgeted strength for the current fiscal year was 630,000, prior to the supplemental request which the Presi- dent submitted to Congress yesterday. In addition to this increase in numbers, there has been a further increase arising out of the fact that proportionately more men are now in combat units, and proportionately loss men are in noncombat categories. In my semiannual report, I pointed out that “this increase in combat effectiveness was made possible by savings in the use of undue num- bers of personnel for administrative and overhead purposes.” Between March 1948 and June 1950 the actual manpower strength of the Army's mobile striking force in the continental United States—-the gen- eral Reserve—has increased by 165 percent. As this committee knows, all of the top Officials of the Department of Defense--both civilian and military—have been seriously concerned lest even the increased strengths I have been describing should be inadequate to meet the needs of world conditions. In order to do overything possible to meet this situation, we set up a Defense Department Management Committee, immediately after the enactment of the National Security Act amendments of 1949. To assist this com- mittee in carrying out the recommendations of the Hoover Commission with respect to the Department of Defense, we employed the management engineering firm of Robert Heller and Associates. The first paragraph of the directive of the Management Com- mittee reads as follows: ‘Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the National Se- curity Act of 1947 as amended, I have es- tablished a Defense Management Committee. The mission of the committee is to bring about progressively better use of defense dollars through elimination of nonessential expenditures, and through improved man- agement, in order to release funds for in- creasing combat effectiveness, and to pro- vide opportunities to curtail over-all costs.” The expanded program which the Presi- dent submitted to Congress Monday makes it all the more necessary that we obtain the maximum return for every dollar that we are investing in our national defense. This gives added point to a matter I mentioned here on April 26, when I said: “Our mobili- zation in time of emergency depends for its success upon the soundness of the forces in being which constitute our mobilization base.” The forces in being which make up our Army, Navy, and Air Force constitute a sound base. To that base, we recommend that you now add a total active duty strength in the neighborhood of 600,000 men—mak- ing a total of some 2,100,000 men. Earlier this year this committee consid- ered requests for a program covering all activities of the Department of Defense, ap- proximating 13.3 billion dollars. Monday the President submitted a supplemental es- timate in the amount of 810,500,000,000. The recommended revised budget, in the aggregate amount of $238,800,C0J,000, would accomplish the purpose of financing the costs of the Itorean campaign, as well as providing for the early expansion of the military forces to cope with the present in- ternational situation. The supplemental estimate includes $3,063,000,000 for the Army, $2,649,000,0C0 for the Navy, $4,535,000,000 for the Air Force, and $240,000,000 for establishment-wide ac- tivities of the Defense Department. About 59 percent of the supplemental re- quest, or $6,200,000,000, has been in-lud- 11213 ed for guns, tanks, ships, aircraft, ammuni- tion, and other major procurement items. (Of this total about $3,344,000,000 is for air- craft—$40,000,000 for the Army, $620,000,000 for the Navy, $2,684,000,000 for the Air Force—and $185,000,000 is for shipbuilding.) About 24 percent, or $2,500,000,000, would go for the operation and maintenance of the facilities and equipment for the regular op- erations of the Armed Forces, including the sharply increased demands for consumption- type material in the Korean campaign. (About one-half of the $2,500,000,000 would go for consumption-type matéric! ) About 13 percent, or $1,350,000,000, would go for the pay and allowances of military personnel, including their food, subsistence, and travel, Of the balance, $174,000,000 is for military construction—$4,000,000 for the Army and $170,000,000 for the Air Force. Exclusive of costs for guardsmen and Re- serves on active duty, $33,000,000 has been provided for the National Guard, Officers Re- sorve Corps, and the ROTC program of the Army. One hundred and twenty million dollars has been included for research and develop- ment, $70,000 for industrial mobilization, and $50,000 has been allocated for con- tingencies. As the President stated in his message transmitting the supplemental request, cer- tain program changes will undoubtedly be necessary in order properly to prosecute the campaign in Korea, For this reason author- ity is belng requested to adjust by 10 percent any single appropriation by transfer from other appropriations. This would permit the necessary adjustments either in the Ko- rean support or tn the bulld-up phase con- templated by these estimates. I have in- structed Assistant Secretary McNeil to keep this committee currently iniormed of all such actions which we find necessary, I want to emphasize that this is not a call for full mobilization. It 1s a call to increase our strength in being, in order to enable us to support the United Nations’ action in Korea and to build up our strength elsc- where to meet the threat to world peace. The supplemental request before you rests on two principal factors: First, the require- ents for land, naval, and air forces needed by General MacArthus successfully to prose- cute the campaign in Korea; and second, the need to build up the strength of our forces over und above those committed to the Korean campaign. The plans covering the build-up of our forces are based upon studies which began immediately after the President’s announce- ment of the Soviet atomic explosion last September. You will recall that I discussed these studies when I testified here on April 26. Because of the events in Korea the mint- mum desired forces which these studies showed to be required—~narmally a matter that would have been provided for in next year’s budget—are being requested at this time. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are in complete @grecement and fully support the forces planned for the build-up in our strength, and are also in complete agreement as to the forces to be provided in support of the Korean campaign. The action in Korea is a battle of supply and the distances involved are great, As a result, we must expect difficult problems and slow progress. The military establishment which we are asking you to expand, however, ig a gounder mobilization base than the United States has ever had before. By rea- son of the groundwork laid by my pre- decessor and the efforts of officers and civil- Jans in all the agencies of the Department of Defense—the spirit of teamwork within the Department has grown tremendously. We have today a closely knit tenm of land,
11214 naval, and air forces. The swift decistons during the past 4 weeks to coordinate the combat efforts of the Army, Navy, and Air Force in the Far Enst are striking examples of the benefits of unification in an emergency. Our Military Establishment has been geared to provide a sound mobilization base and a swift striking force in case of a third world war. In addition, we have had to be prepared to meet, to the extent that we could, the first shock of an act of calculated local aggression. The latter test has been met with unprecedented speed in Koren. We are now tn the process of backing our shock troops with the necessary reinforcements. We are asking you to supply the men and equipment to replace those being used in the Far East and additional strengths to prepare for the possiblity of future emer- gencies. I am sure that all of us will meet the challenge of the aggressor with the same undaunted spirit as that shown by our fight- ing men in Korea. The witnesses who followed me will give the details of the program we recommend. It is a program designed to bring the ac- tion in Korea to a successful conclusion; it is also a program designed to promote world peace by deterring further aggression. It is the sort of program to which I reterred on April 12 this year when I gave the Found- er’s Day speech at my alma mater, the Uni- versity of Virginia, Speaking in Charlottesville that day, I sald: “I have every confidence in our ultimate success. We shall face facts as they are and shall fit our defense plans and our manpower and munitions requirements to meet them. Our defense plans, however, are not rigid. They are not the laws of Medes and Per- sians. They are flexible and adaptable to changing conditions, They are under con- stant study and review. If we become con- vinced that our present means are insufficient to meet the exigencies of the day and the probable threats of tomorrow, we shall not be too humble to ask for more; and if we find them more than adequate we shall not be too proud to ask for less. We shall al- ways seek for truth and we shall take fitting means to meet the truth.” Gentlemen, I shall be glad to attempt to answer any questions you may have, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, before proceeding in executive session to con- sider several nominations about which I do not believe there will be objection, I should like to state that I hope that to- morrow we may be able to agree, by unanimous consent, to vote on the ap- propriation bill and all amendments thereto sometime next week, perhaps not later than Wednesday. If it is pos- sible to have such an agreement entered, I shall be very grateful to all Senators, because we have spent a considerable length of time on this appropriation bill—although of course much of it has been devoted to extraneous matters, while the appropriation bill has re- mained the unfinished business, I should like to hear an expression from my friend the Senator from Ne- braska in that connection. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if I may reply to the query of the distin- guished majority leader, let me say that I am quite positive that an arrangement along the line suggested can be made. I hope the distinguished majority leader will canvass Senators on his side of the aisle, to learn their views in re- gard to his suggestion. I wish to say that I believe that Thursday would be a better day than Wednesday, on which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE to have the final vote taken, if Thursday will meet with the approval of the ma- jority leader, although I shall endeavor to work out, so far as the minority are concerned, an option as to either Wednesday or Thursday. Let me say to the distinguished ma- jority leader that, although I think we can work out the suggestion he has made, yet I would not wish to agree regarding it tonight, because before arriving at a unanimous-consent agreement in re- gard to the final passage of a bill, it is necessary, among Senators on this side of the aisle, that a quorum call be had. So I say to the majority leader that if he will work with Senators on his side of the aisle in connection with this mat- ter, i will do so with Senators on my side of the aisle. Then if the majority leader presents his request tomorrow, following a quorum call, we shall see what can be done. I believe that Thursday might be the best day. I suggest to the distinguished majority leader that I think all contro- versial amendments should be carried over to that day, and then should be voted on one right after another, so that all those votes could be taken at that time. I think there will be not more than 2 or 3 very controversial amend- ments; and of course the Bridges amend- ment will be one of them. So I shall be glad to work on the suggestion the distinguished Senator from Illinois has made. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, it was not my intention to propose a unanimous- consent agreement today. I had the in- tention of doing so tomorrow, if that will be satisfactory to everyone. I hope we shall be able to vote on the final pas- sage of the bill on Wednesday. The distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKetrar], the chairman of the Appropriations Com- mittee, and all other members of the committee realize the difficulty which may develop in conference. That situa- tion is not news to anyone; it has been discussed by Senators on both sides of the aisle. So I should like to have the Senate dispose of the bill as quickly as possible, in order that the conferees can begin work as rapidly as possible, s0 that they will be able to bring the con- ference report before us very soon. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Snader, its assistant reading clerk, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the bill (8. 2240) to authorize certain personnel and former personnel of the United States Coast Guard and the United States Public Health Service to accept certain gifts tendered by foreign gov- ernments. ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLU- TION SIGNED The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint resolu- tion, and they were signed by the Vice President: H.R. 4390. An act to authorize the con- veyance, for school purposes, of certain land JULY 27 in Acadia National Park to the town of Tremont, Maine, and for other purposes; H.R. 6078. An act to amend section 501 (b) (6) of the Internal Revenue Code; and H. J. Res. 518. Joint resolution to author- ize the burial in the National Cemetery at Nashville, Tenn.,, the bodies of members of the Tennessee Air National Guard killed in ® plane crash near Myrtle Beach, 8. C., July 23, 1950. STATEMENT BY SENATOR LEHMAN ON THE NECESSITY OF PRESERVING THE NEW YORK MILKSHED Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, the press was kind enough to report some recent testimony I gave on the dairy problems of New York State. Some of these reports have been subject to some misrepresentation. To clarify that mis- interpretation, I have today issued a statement describing my firm belief in the necessity of preserving the New York milkshed. I ask unanimous consent to have that statement printed in the body of the REcorp. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: STATEMENT By SENATER LEHMAN ON NEW YorRE MILKSHED Because some remarks of mine before the Gillette subcommittee on agriculture with regard to the New York milkshed, as reported to the press, might have been subject to some misinterpretation, I should like to make clear that I feel now, as I have always felt, that the New York milkshed and its regula- tion as a single market is vital to the health both of the dairy industry and of the con- suming public. It may be recalled that as Governor of New York I was instrumental in setting up this milkshed. I have felt much gratifica- tion in the way this has worked through the years, and is working now, to produce a stable and orderly market for the producers in the several States included within the milkshed, and for the consuming public in New York. The sanitary regulations surrounding the production and handling of milk varies be- tween the different cities and milk markets in this country. These regulations reflect local needs and local standards, and are based on historical factors as well as on the ability of the milk producers in the various areas to fill the needs of thelr markets. The prices established in the several areas must be sufficient to induce producers to supply the necessary amount of this vital food and at the same time to assure a rea- sonable return to the producers, as well as to the processors and distributors. There should be no profiteering in any branch of the industry nor should the price he so high as to discourage consumption. All these factors must be taken into account in estab- lishing the price. These factors, which are in part local factors, indicate the desirability of maintaining regional milksheds. And the authority of local health officials to maintain the standards they deem vital to protect health of the communities in ques- tion must be safeguarded. I believe, of course, that the trend of these health stand- ards should be upward for the whole Nation, and the effort should be to raise the level of the lowest to that of the highest, although this must be 8 progressive trend, based on local capabilities and circumstances. In any event, the New York milkshed should and must be preserved. It is in order to preserve this milkshed that I feel strongly that the problem of the dairy industry must be studied on a national basis and from a national viewpoint. Otherwise the regional milksheds stand in danger of being broken
1950 down by the pressure of fluid milk from areas of lower production costs and less demand- ing sanitary standards. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consider- ation of executive business. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider executive business. EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr, Stennis in the chair) laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the Committee on Armed Services. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following favorable reports of nominations were submitted: By Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina, from the Committee on Post Office and Olvil Serv- ice: J. H. Allen, of Florida, Daniel W. Bell, of the District of Columbia, Morris L. Ernst, of New York, Frank M. Folsom, of New York, Alfred E. Lyon, of New York, Robert L. Thornton, of Texas, and Charles A. Ward, of Minnesota, to be members of the Advisory Board for the Post Office Department. Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, I report favorably 169 postmaster nominations. The persons affected are well distributed over the United States, 41 States being represented. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nominations will be received and placed on the Executive Calendar. If there be no further reports of com- mittees, the clerk will state the nomina- tions on the Executive Calendar, begin- ning with the new reports. COAST GUARD The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Capt. Kenneth K. Cowart to be engi- neer in chief of the Coast Guard for a period of 4 years, with the rank of rear admiral. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Edward C. Maran to be commissioned ensign in .he Coast and Geodetic Survey. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Julian W. Flint to be commissioned ensign in the Coast and Geodetic Survey. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, in order to be certain, since there has been some con‘susion, let me inquire whether the nominations now being confirmed are what we call “new reports,” beginning on page 2 of the Executive Calendar. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. Have all the newly reported nominations been presented as yet? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. And they have been confirmed; have they? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. Very well. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, let me inquire whether there is objection at this time to the nomination of Ed- ward J, Carrigan, of California, to be United States marshal for the northern district of California. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I have been requested to sce to it that the nomi- nation goes over. If the Senator from Nevada will con- tact me, I shall be glad to tell him which Senator made that request of me; and possibly the matter can be worked out, or at least a time can be set for the handling of the nomination. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I hope we shall be able to reach a satisfactory agreement with respect to that nomina- tion, without having to move that it be taken up, because it has been ready for disposition for a long time. Mr. WHERRY. Let me suggest that if we cannot make an agreement by to- morrow or the next day, then at any time the Senator wishes to move to have it taken up, we shall arrange to have present the Senator who is particularly interested in the nomination. Mr. LUCAS, I thank the Senator. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield, I should like to say further, in regard to the question of confirmation of the nomination of Edward J. Carrigan, of California, that & Moment ago when I stated what I was prepared to do if arrangements could not be made tomorrow or the next day, I really meant Monday. I have just been informed that the Senator who is inter- ested in this matter has just been excused until Monday. So I want the Recorp to show that, please. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, do I cor- rectly understand that the remaining nominations on the calendar have been confirmed? The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the new nominations have been confirmed. RECESS Mr. LUCAS. As in legislative session, I move that the Senate now stand in recess until 12 o'clock tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o’clock and 41 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday, July 28, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate July 27 (legislative day of July 20), 1950: In THE Am Force The following-named officers for promo- tion in the United States Alr Force, under the provisions of sections 502 and 509 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, and section 806 of the Women's Armed Services Integra- tion Act of 1948. Those officers whose names are preceded by the symbol ( X ) are subject to physical examination required by law. All others have been examined and found physically qualified for promotion. To be captains, United States Air Force Andrews, Gordon James, 144314. Askelson, Howard Samson, 144424, Ballinger, Philip Robert, 144044, 11215 Berry, Margaret Virginia, AL80250. Best, William Henry, Jr., 14383A. Blackburn, Thomas Welch, Jr., 14415A, Bomar, Willinm Byron, 14443A. X Borchert, David William, 14407A. Brinson, Margaret Ruth, ALS0242, Brown, Russell Stewart, 14466A. Browne, Charles Idol, Jr., 143894. Buck, Alvin Bernard, 14386A. x Bullen, Howard Reeve, Jr., 14454A, Burningham, Haven Ralph, 14450A. Casey, Florence Broderick, AL80113. Chacey, David Donald, 14418A, Clark, Melvin Edgar, 144224, Clarke, Elnora Loutso, AL80511, Cowan, Leslie Warren, 14384A, Culet, Ralph Sidney, 14430A. Curtin, Kathleen Joan, AL80506, Decamp, Virgil Young, 14378A, Dion, Lucille Berthe, AL80255. Dixon, Robert James, 14462A. Downie, Currle Stevenson, 14376A, Emde, Sherill William, 144054. Evans, J. L., 14868A. Faron, Jack, 14457A. Ferris, Florence Rosholt, AL80253. Foreman, Charles Arthur, 144494, Frailey, Homer Frederick, 14458A, Garrison, William Hart, 14452A, Getck, Orla L., AL80244. Gilman, Jack Pcirpont, 14416A, Gilmore, Charles James, 14372A. Goldin, Sarah, AL80245. Greenway, Carolyn Frances, AL80239, Griffin, Fannie Ada, AL80503. Hackett, Wilbur Mose, Jr., 14437A, Hall, Glen Roland, 144114. Harris, Daniel Blaine, 14441A. Harte, Allan Swinton, Jr., 144504, Hayen, Bernard Nelson, 14440A. Heft, Robert Edwin, 14385A. Hogan, Jessie Violet, AL80251. Holm, Jeanne Marjorie, AL80509. Hoyle, Charles Robert, Jr., 14392A. Huyett, Helen Rittenhouse, AL80254, xJewell, Forrest Wentworth, 14420A, Johnson, Richard Melvin, 14401A, Johnson, Warren Donald, 14367A. Kaeppel, Bertha Ruth, AL80510. Kenney, William Richardson, 14428A, Krug, Frederick Charles, 14393A. Lauder, Edmund, 144614, Lee, Howard Monroe, 14420A. Livers, George Morison, 14433A. Loudermilk, James Arville, 14408A, Lucas, Ruth Alice, AL80504. Lynch, Nicholas Micheal, 14414A. Mann, Edwin, 14419A. Martin, Edward Otis, 14366A. Martin, James Frederick, 14447A. X Mason, George Isanc, Jr., 14417A, McAmis, Agnes West, AL80246. xX McGrew, Russell Gerald, 14305A. McKeag, Charles Marshall, 14425A. Meholic, James John, 144454. Methency, Frank Walker, 143744, Miller, Roger Herman, 14421A, Miller, Roy Anthony, 14409A. Mitchell, Jacklin Wilson, 14467A. Mitchell, Willlam Lowery, 14397A. Montoya, Patrick Edmund, 14426A. Moody, Robert Phelps, 14464A. Morrison, Manicy James, 14427A, Mosier, Walter Martin, 14402A. Neidigh, Kenneth Edwin, 14363A. Nesley, William Lewis, 14378A, Neyland, Lewis James, 14387A. Ostrowski, Laura Adele, AL80114, Parker, William Crego, 14375A. Patterson, Joscph Bland, 14369A, Pelletier, Robert Vincent, 14455A. Phifer, James Hyram, Jr., 144534, Pierce, Sammy Alpheus, 14439A. Porter, Dorothy Ann, AL80252, Porter, Mary Louise, AL80241. Price, Howard Irving, 14418A. Quinn, William Hewes, 14877A. Rackham, Edwin Julius, 14399A. Ramer, Ricuard Lee, 14436A.
11216 Resch, Harold Edward, 144514. Roberton, Harold Edward, Jr., 148914. Rogers, Joseph Reginald, 14410A. Rose, John Gee, 14460A. Roth, Martin Edward, 14412A. Rowland, Keith Cornell, 14408A. Ryan, Thomas Donald, 143654. Scanlon, Thomas Sylvester, Jr. 143824. Severson, Ione Cornelia, AL80501. Sewell, Jane, AL80237. Shaffner, Douglass Dewitt, 14980A. Simmons, Roy D., Jr., 14465A. Simpson, Thomas Leslie, 14423A. Smith, Kenneth Earl, 14400A. Sokay, Leslie William, 14862A. Starbuck, Virginia Jane, AL80248, Steele, Rulph James, 14888A. Stephens, Joseph Walter, Jr. 144444. Stooksberry, Sam Davis, 14370A. Strong, Roy Lyle, 14364A. Swisher, Keith Devone, 14448A. Thompson, Harold Cecil, 14438A. xX Thompson, Philip Duncan, 14390A. Tibbets, Oscar Judson, 14379A. x Trakowski, Albert Clarence, Jr., 14384A, Valentine, James Walter, 14398A. Verhagen, Kenneth William, 14456A. Wallbaum, Winifred Emma, AL80111. Walker, Harold Edward, 14432A. Waterfill, Eugene Allen, 143714. Watson, Gwendolyn Josephine, AL80238. Weldier, Roy Clyde, Jr., 143B81A. Wier, Peggy Jane, AL80508. Wiker, Betty Etten, AL80507. Williams, Hubert Lee, 14446A, Woodworth, Willlam Corlis, 14406A, Wyatt, Helen Charlotte, AL80502. Zemmerman, Pershing Gordon, 144344, Zindler, Herman John, Jr., 14435A, The following-named officers for promotion in the United States Air Force under the provisions of section 107 of the Army-Navy Nurses Act of 1947, as amended by Public Law 614, Eighty-first Congress. The officers have been examined and found physically qualified for promotion. Green, Mary Evelyn, AN1441. Hartle, Olive May, AN1127. McCally, Mildred Adell, AN771. Nort.—The officers nominated for promo- tion to captain will complete the required 7 years’ service for promotion purposes dur- ing the month of September 1950. Dates of rank will be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force, In THE Navy The following-named midshipmen (avia- tion) to be ensigns in the Navy, from the 2d day of June 1950: Milton A. Anderson Donald F, Flanigan John B. Ashby Leo T. Freitas Robert F. Aumack James K. Gaddy Charles L. Axell Myron M. George, Jr. Frank E. Bacheller Larold W. Gire Richard F. Ballew, Jr. Herschel L. Gott Donald A. Becker Thomas J. Griffith Brian P. Bertrand Richard D. Haynes Robert 3S, Bick Lyman B. Hitch Robert W. Blakeslee Ralph L. Huth Gilbert A. Boggs Wayne R. Irwin Thomas J. Brewer John F. Jackson, Jr. William J. Brummitt Ronald L, Johns Leslie P. Burghoff, Jr.Richard “D” Johnson James 8. Campbell Donald J. Keeler George B. Cobb, Jr, Raymond G. Kelly Edwin L Colling Thomas A. Kislan Robert D. Colyin Frederick N. Kivette, David C. Conrad Jr. Thomas J. Conway Richard J. Krall Alvin R. Cowan Stanley D. Kramer Richard K. Culbertson James L. Krefting Oliver E. Deehan John P. Kushnerick Richard E. Dick William L. LaClair, Jr. Francis M. Dobbertien Samuel B. Lancaster, Frederick 8, Dunning, Jr. dr. William V. Lassen Daniel W. Ebling Gregory E. Lawrence, Eugene D. Hllena Jr, Windom L. Estes John V. Lawrence Martin A. Fallandy John D. Lemmon Harold D. Libby Charles TT. Linde- mann, Jr. Charles R. Long CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Lawrence A. Schoelen Hughie D. Sheffield Walter G. Sherman Gilbert F. Sievert William A. McCarthy, Derald Z. Skalla dr, Kenneth R, Slaten John R. Macy William C. Sproull, Jr. Foster R. Mahood Albert E, Staniukinas Albert B. Marsh Eric H. Steentofte George A. Martin Gordon E, Strickland, Lewis K. Mattingly, Jr. Jr. Kenneth L. Study Paul J. Melee Karl DeW. Sudekum William F. Moore Raymond J, Svigel Robert J, Netro LeRoy Z. Taylor Monte B. Nichol Elmer A. Thomas Charles J. O’Brien, Jr. Walter R. Thomas Gary H. Palmer John A. Thomson John R. Palmquist Roger H. Todd Richard C. Pickering William E. Todd Henry D. Pierson Harold Trolle Robert A. Quaney Thomas A. Turley William A. Richard Alfred F. VanLeuven Glen H. RicKelton Hale W,. Wagner Ralph E. Risdal Merle R. Walker Caryl B. Ritchey Grady A. Weeks Earl J. Rivard Edward T. Wilbur Edward J. Rosatti Thomas A. Willi Richard C. Rowe Gabriel H. Wilson Arthur R. Roy, Jr. Robert H. Wilson Maurice W. Rumble Joseph J. Wodjenski James H. Ryan Raymond 8. Wood, Jr. Hugo V. Scarsheim Allen C, Wooddell Edward H. Schleif Eugene G. Zipp The following-named officer for temporary and permanent appointment as indicated: For temporary appointment: COMMANDER, MEDICAL CORPS Frank D. Virgilio For permanent appointment: LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, MEDICAL CORPS Frank D. Virgilio Jack E. Yount (civilian college graduate) to be an ensign in the Medical Service Corps of the Navy. The following-named to be ensigns in the Nurse Corps of the Navy: Lillian M Bach Nancy J. Durham Irene I. Damasco Doris T, Fuller Thelma P. Dial Alice &. Lane Dolores T. Dobransky Frances E. MacDonald Margaret E. Hopf, woman (civilian college graduate) to be an ensign in the Navy. Mary D. McDermott, woman (civilian col- lege graduate) to be an ensign in the Navy. Anne T. Zella, woman (civilian college graduate) to be an ensign in the Navy, sub- ject to qualification therefor as provided by law. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate July 27 (legislative day of July 20), 1950: Unrrep States Coast Guarp Capt. Kenneth K. Cowart, United States Coast Guard, to be engineer in chief of the United States Coast Guard, for a period of 4 years, with rank of rear admiral, effective August 1, 1950. Coast anv Geopvetic Survey To be commissioned ensigns Edward C. Maran Julian W. Flint In tee ARMY APPOINTMENTS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 88 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT AS AMENDED To be major general of the line Maj. Gen. William Ray Carroll, 0246570, Washington National Guard, to date from October 17, 1949, JULY 27 To be brigadier generals of the ine Brig. Gen. William Watson Burgess, Jr., ©225928, California National Guard, to date from February 27, 1950. Brig. Gen. Carl Otha DeBard, 0288794, In- diana National Guard, to date from Febru- ary 27, 1950. Brig. Gen. Frank Eino Heikkila, 0261211, New York National Guard, to date from June 1, 1950. Brig. Gen. Earle Marian Jones, 0224982, California National Guard, to date from February 27, 1950. Brig. Gen. Dwight Linn McReynolds, 0278061, Tennessee National Guard, to date from February 27, 1960. Brig. Gen. John Bassett Moore, 0244989, Delaware National Guard, to date from June 1, 1950. Brig. Gen. John Burl Webb, 0244400, Ar- Kansas National Guard, to date from Febru- ary 27, 1950. To be brigadier generals, Adjutant General's Department Brig. Gen. Timothy Joseph Regan, Jr., 0266143, Massachusetts National Guard, to date from June 1, 1950. Brig. Gen, Joseph John Scannell, 0350527, Delaware National Guard, to date from June 1, 1950. Brig. Gen, Lilburn Halsey Stevens, 0275376, Washington National Guard, to date from February 27, 1950. Brig. Gen. Samuel Thomas Wallace, 0331327, Tennessee National Guard, to date from June 1, 1950. APPOINTMENT AS A CHAPLAIN OF THE REGULAR ARMY, IN THE GRADE OF FIRST LIEUTENANT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BECTION 506 OF THE OFFICER PERSONNEL ACT OF 1947 (PUBLIC LAW 381, BIGHTIETH CONGRESS), SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL QUALIFICATION Gerald J. Gefell, 0964497. APPOINTMENTS IN THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GEN- ERAL’S CORPS, REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE GRADE OF FIRST LIEUTENANT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 506 OF THE OFFICER PERSONNEL ACT OF 1947 (PUBLIC LAW 381, KIGHTIETH CONGRESS), SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL QUALIFICATION Gilbert A. Frisbie, 05538771. Thomas F, Meagher, Jr., 02066768. APPOINTMENTS IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE GRADE OF SECOND LIEUTENANT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS oF SECTION 606 OF THE OFFICER PERSONNEL ACT OF 1947 (PUBLIO LAW 381, EIGHTIETH CON- GRESS), SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL QUALIFICATION John D. Bang, 01280331. Alfred Barnes, 0958571. Glen D. Belnap, 01338906. Russell W. Bertholf, Jr., 0650926. Thomas R, Biggs, 01331258. Eaward P., Billinghurst, 0551921 William C, Boehm, 0405028, Edmund G. Boy, 01552449, David H. Brazil, 02206782. Charles T. Burch, 01174244, Bruce Burnett, 0449101. Robert HE. Burt, 01107837, Roscoe C. Cartwright, 01172706. Alphus R. Clark, 0420850. Coleman C. Clement, Jr., 0548320, Roland H, Collins, AO1904035. Clifton H. Conrad, 02020893. William T. Cooper. Frederick G. Dempsey, 01056688. James E. Dempsey, 01637286, Thomas R. Dolezal, 0903409. Leo E. Eutsler, 01841959, William G, Foreman, 01635516, Walter C. Franzen, 01940097, Peter P, Genero, 01051570. Shirl L. Gerlach, 0452760. Nicholas N, Gombos, 01112728. Lorayne M. Griffin,O2014920, Owen R. Grogan, Jr., 0520420, Tom 8. Groseclose, 01337423.
1950 Conrad L. Hall, 02204389. Leonard H. Harris, Return C. Haynes, 01184510. William H. Henry, Jr., 0957862, Wilbur J. Hewitt, 0977538, Clifton W. Holbrook, 02204786. Needham C Holden, Jr., 0962760, John H. Hougen, 02017060, Carol N. Johns, 0518832. Carlton S Johnson, 01285950 Phillip Kaufman, 01081764, Ernest J Lansing, 01300052, James R. Lay, 08961364. Lloyd L, LeClair, 01300345 Charles C. Leneten, Jr., 01010462. Robert M Lorenz, 01102361. Roy W. Lundquist, 01824051, Donald L. Lynes, 01639330 William F. McCormick, Jr , 01651946 Eugene B McCoy, 0472925 Richaic G. McSwain, 01031903. John E Mater, 01577514. Robert J. Maier, 0460662 John G Mantalas, 02020175. William Maughn, Jr, 01176720 John W. Meek, Jr., 01548256, Frank A. Merigold, 0411346 . Francis S Obradovich, 01113080 Frank §, Plummer, J1., 01330961. Charles E. Pritchard, 0448049 Jacob A Randolph, Jr, 01948998, Thompson L Raney, 01030291 Gerald W Recktenwald, 0972755. Tom Reld, 0428932. Perry R Rice. Edwin T. Rios, 0451721 Howard F Robin-on, 01540936. James E Rose, 02206817 Herold Rounds Harold W Runft, 01642532, James W Ryan, 01339823. Eugene G Sabota, 0444036. Craig C. Scott, 01309418. Dwain L Scott, 01540939. John A Seddon, 0445549 Orville D. Severson, 01311822 Robert J. Sharpless, 02205150. Fred C Sheffey. Earl S Sleeper, 0411077. Carl F Smith, 0866940 Robert W Smithson, 01184153 Felix 8S Smolenski, 01287427, Marvin H Snow, 01038688 Fred G. Swafford, Jr., 02020858. Raymond V. Taibbi, 0404528. Robert L Teague Francis W. Turnbull, 01057916, Charlies M Tyson, 01316606. Edward 8. Waddell, 0550337. Vernon V. Wallis, 01341606. Vernon J. Walters, 0932143. Joseph F. White, 01178036 Charles B Wild, Jr, O1545590. Vernon C Willams, 01950825. Calvin O. Wilson, 01319698. Charles Q. Wright, Jr. David R, Young, 01641089. ISTINGUISHED MILITARY STUDENTS FOR AP- POINTMENT IN THE REGULAR ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE GRADE OF SECOND LIEU- TENANT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 506 OF THE OFFICER PERSONNEL ACT OF 1947 (PUBLIC LAW 381, 80TH CONG.), SUBJECT TO DESIGNATION AS DISTINGUISHED MILITARY GRADUATES AND SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL QUALI- FICATION Edd M Carter Thomas J, Collins, Jr. Raymond A. Cramer, Jr. Cc. W Dickerson, Jr., 0968021. Stephen V Hughes, Jr., 0957322. Paul M. Jordan. Frank 8S. Klein. Roy T. Nakashima. William #H. Naylor, Jr. Henry Sporer, Jr. John J. Trzcinski, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THuRSpAY, JULY 27, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: O Thou who art the great source of all our material and spiritual blessings, may we be assured in some special sense that this Chamber is now for each of us an altar of prayer and a place of vision. Grant that our President, our Speaker, and every leader and Member of this legislative body, and all the officers, clerks, reporters, secretaries, and pages may feel that for calmness and courage, in these days of crises, we need the guid- ing and sustaining presence of Thy Spirit. Thou knowest how feeble and frail we are, In letters of blood and fire 1t is being written that we need Thee, Fill us with a deeper experience of the value of prayer in the mastery over fear and whatever may befall us in the tragic and changing fortunes of war. May we daily cultivate the habit of prayer. Help us to reahze that if we pray in ordinary days then we will know how to pray with conquering power when the way of life leads through darkness, suffering, and sacrifice. Help us see more clearly that we must have the attributes and virtues of right- eousness and faith and humility if we are to know and experience the secret of answered and availing prayer. In Christ’s name we bring our peti- tions. Amen The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. McDaniel, its enrolling clerk, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment bills, a joint resolution, and @ concurrent resolution of the House of the following titles: H R 702. An act for the relief of Mrs. Ethel N. Plunkett; H R. 1022. An act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Alvin Smith, of New Castle, Del., arising out of the damage sustained by him as a result of the construction and maintenance of the New Castle United States Army Air Base, New Castle, Del, ’ H.R 1095. An act for the relief of Pitts- burgh DuBois Co; HR 1626 An act for the relief of Mrs, A. H. Hil; H.R. 1697. An act for the relief of Mildred Smith Butler; H.R 1854. An act for the rellef of Kenneth Everard Hadfield; H.R 2196. An act to authorize the elimi- nation of lands from the Flathead Indian irrigation project, Montana; H R 2264. An act for the relief of C. H. Bolling; H.R. 2462, An act for the relief of Miju Iseri Tsuda; H.R. 2585. An act for the relief of Samuel J.D. Marshall; H. R. 2588. An act to confirm title in V. LeBlanc and ©. Riccard to certain lands in West Baton Rouge Parish, La.; 11217 H.R.2768 An act to amend section 2 of the act of April 28, 1904 (83 Stat. 627; 43 U. 8 C, sec. 218), relating to additional homestead entries; H.R 2808. An act for the relief of Grace G. Walker; H.R. 2851. An act for the rellef of Carl L. Bexauer; H.R.31€8. An act granting permanent residence to certain Spanish physicians re- siding in Puerto Rico, H.R $284. An act to authorize grantees of recreational demonstration project land to make land exchanges relating to such properties, and for other purposes; H.R.3305. An act for the relief of the estate of José Salgado Santos, H R 3316. An act for the relief of the estate of the late Francieco J. Cérdova; H R 3330, An act for the relief of Therese Hohman, H R 3535. An act for the relief of Willlam A Cross; H R 3906 An act to amend the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act, as amended; H R 2994. An act for the relief of John D Lange, H R 4041 An act for the relief of Parish Bros , H R.4141 An act for the relief of Edwin F Shockley, H R 4309 An act for the relief of Mrs. Nellie K Marlowe; H R 4343. An act for the relief of J. P. Acker, H R 4364 An act for the relief of Mrs. Ruth B. Moore; John Robert Lusk IT; John R Lusk, Sr, Mrs Minnie P. Pruitt, and Mrs Billie John Bickle; H R 4366. An act to amend section 2 (a) and section 7 of the Foreign Agents Regis- tration Act of 1938, as amended, to make failure of registration a continuing offense, and’ to continue the obligation of officers, directors, and persons acting as such, to com- ply with the act despite dissolution of a foreign agent; H R 4390. An act to authorize the convey- ance, for school purposes, of certain land in Acadia National Park to the town of Tremont, Maine, and for other purposes; H.R 4601. An act for the relief of Jean- nette Passayanni-Capodistria; H.R. 5003. An act to provide for the ex- change between the United States and the State of New York of certain lands and in- terests in lands at Manhattan Beach, Kings County, N. Y¥.; HR 5110. An act for the relief of Janos (John) Treber and Mrs. Katalin (Kather- ine) Treber; HR 5221. An act for the relief of Mrs. Maria Grazia Riccio DiPietro; H.R. 6252. An act for the relief of W. M. Tindal; H R 6470. An act for the relief of Joseph A Haddad; H R 5526 An act to authorize the Presi- dent to provide for the performance of cer- tain functions of the President by other officers of the Government, and for other purposes; H R. 5628. An act to direct the Secretary of the Army to convey certain land to the State of Rhode Island; H.R 5799. An act for the relief of the Acme Finance Co; H.R. 5849. An act for the relief of Samuel M. Kornegay; H.R. 5947. An act for the relief of Alflo Batelli; H.R. 6990. An act to provide for the con- struction, development, administration, and maintenance of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway in the State of Maryland and its extension into the District of Columbia as a part of the park system of the District of Columbia and its environs by the Secretary of the Interior, and other purposes;
11218 HR. 6013. An act to amend an act Sxing the price of copies of records furnished by the Department of the Interior. H.R 6018 An act for the relief of Lubomir Mikulik and Viliam Krajcirovic; H.R 6198 An act for the relief of the First National Bank in Richmond, Calif.; H R. 6247. An act authorizing transfer of land and improvements thereon by the Sec- retary of the Interior to New Mexico State Fair, H R 6270 An act to authorize the sale of certain allotted inherited land on the Winne- bago Indian Reservation, Nebr.; H.R 6292 An act to provide that payments to States under the Oil Land Leasing Act of 1920 shall be made biannually, H R.6482 An act for the relief of Antonio Artolozaga Euscola, H R 6538. An act to provide that the United States shall ald the States in fish restoration and management projects, and for other purposes; H R. 6644 An act for the rellef of Edwin F Rounds, H. R. 6697, An act authorizing the issuance of a patent in fee to Howard H. Moran, H R 6699. An act to authorize the sale of certain land on the Rosebud Indian Reserva- tion, S Dak, allotted to Susan Eagle Dog. H R 6703 An act to authorize the sale of certain allotted inherited land on the Rose- bud Indian Reservation, 8. Dak , H. R. 6709. An act for the relief of Ed Howard Russell, H R 6969 An act for the relief of Ralph E Brown, H.R. 6971 An act to authorize the transfer of funds allocated for expenditure in coop- eration with the New Jersey State Highway Department on State Highway Route No 100 to State Parkway Route No 4; H R 6994. An act for the relief of Karen R McAndrews; : H R 7016. An act for the relief of Mrs, Margaret O'Donnell and Mrs. Arlene R. Shan- non, H R 7046 An act for the relief of C. W Jacobs; H,R. 7072 An act for the relief of Mrs Young Ja Kim, H.R. 7074 An act for the relief of Hiroko Fujiwara Matsuoka and Mimiyo Matsuoka; H R 7078 An act for the relief of Mrs Eiko Yamada Nagatoshi, Edward Takeo Naga- toshi, and Frances Yoko Nagatosh!; H R.7079 An act for the relief of Mrs Gin Shibasaki OkafuJi; H R 7204 An act for the relief of Maria Cristina D'Angelo; H.R. 7219. An act to authorize acquisition by the Administrator of General Services of certain land end the improvements thereon in the District of Columbia; H. R. 7260, An act to provide for the hold- ing of court and the furnishing of quarters at Rock Island for the United States District Court for the Southern District, Northern Division, of Iinois; H.R. 7314. An act for the relief of Yukie Nishimura Okubo; H.R 7339. An act to abolish the Holy Cross National Monument, tn the State of Colo- rado, and to provide for the administration of the lands contained therein as a part of the national forest within which such na- tional monument is situated, and for other purposes; H.R. 7882. An act for the relief of Co- lumbus Finley; H.R. 7414. An act for the relief of Teresa Gentile and Galliano Gentile; H R. 7428. An act to admit Mrs, Erna Tvedt to the United States for permanent resi- dence; H.R. 7664. An act for the relief of Maria Margareta Ries and Konrad Horst Wilhelm Ries; HR. 7608. An act for the relief of Mit- suko Morita; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H.R. 7629. An act for the relief of Fue miko Arakawa and her child, Rie; H. R. 7667. An act directing the transfer to the Department of the Interior by the Gen- eral Services Administration of certain prop- erty in Boise Barracks, Boise, Idaho; H.R. 7875. An act to authorize the addi- tion of certain land to Ohickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, in the State of Tennessee; H R.7706, An act for the relief of Ayako Kurihara; H.R.7779 An act for the relief of Mrs. Stamatia Lymberopoulos and Leonidas Stav- rou Limperopoulos; H.R 7783. An act for the relief of Mrs. Donald Rafter; EH R 7810. An act for the relief of M. 8. Davis; H.R 7815. An act for the relief of John Yee Horn, H R. 7820. An act for the relief of Keiko Uchida Doane and her minor child; H R 7899. An act for the rellef of Mrs. Michiko Nogami Cotter and Katsumt Cotter; H.R 7916. An act to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to execute an oil and gas lease on a certain tract of Jand in Park County, Wyo.; H.R 7944 An act for the relief of Mr and Mrs Albert Chandler; H R. 7961 An act for the relief of Chiyoko Yano; H.R.7970 An act for the relief of Mrs Re- gina ..nderson and her minor child; H R. 7977, An act to authorize the city of Buffalo, Wyo., to make additional uses of certain lands, and for other purposes, H R 7982 An act to abolish the Wheeler National Monument, in the State of Colorado, and to provide for the administration of the lands contained therein as a part of the na- tional forest within which such national monument ig situated, and for other pur- poses, HR. 8055. An act relating to the collection, payment, and dishonor of demand items, and to the revocation of credit for, and payment of, such items, by banks in the District of Columbia, H R 8067 An act for the relief of Mrs. Yup Boon (Joan) Kim Skanes; H R 8698. An act for the relief of Teruko Ishikawa, H R 8119. An act for the relief of Midor! Ohta (also Known as Mary Stephen); H.R. 8125. An act for the relief of Mrs. Hisae Kaweuchi Kelly, H.R 8155 An act for the relief of Chiyo Furumura Yoshida; H R 8180 An act for the relief of Parue K. Tsugami; H R. 8183. An act for the relief of Asako Tsuchida, H R 8287 An act to authorize the Secre- tary of the Interfor to issue duplicate of Wiliam Gerard's script certificate numbered 2, subdivision 18, to Lucy P. Crowell; H.R. 8289. An act for the rellef of Yee Balche Yee; H.R. 8361. An act for the relief of Toshiko Murai, H R 6381. An act for the relief of Mrs. Joseph C Grant; H.R. 8382, An act for the relief of Mrs. Misao Hatanaka Deskins; H.R. 8451, An act for the relief of Yoshie Nozawa; H.R. 8500. An act for the relief of Hatsuko Torikatl; H R.8519 An act for the relief of the estate of Archer C, Gunter; H R 8681. An act for the relief of Yasuko Higuchi Thomson; H.R. 8583 An act for the relief of Hisako Shimizu; H.R. 8600. An act for the relief of Yuriko Aoyama; H.R. 8604. An act to provide for the con- veyance of the Peroy Jones General Hospital JULY 27 Gull Lake Annex, Gull Lake, Mich., to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Mich.; H.R. 8617. An act to amend title 14, United States Code, entitled “Coast Guard”; H.R. 8709. An act to change the designa- tions of Health Officer and Assistant Health Officer of the District of Columbia, respec- tively, to Director of Public Health and As- sistant Director of Public Health; H.R. 8722. An act for the relief of Jun Hin Lum; H.R. 8958. An act relating to the policing of the buildings and grounds of the Library of Congress; H. J. Res. 461. Joint resolution to provide that South Parkersburg, W. Va., shall for the purposes of the seventeenth decennial census be treated as part of Parkersburg, W. Va; and H Con Res, 187. Concurrent resolution favoring the grant of status of permanent residence to certain aliens. The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, bills and a concurrent resolu- tion of the House of the following titles: H R 157. An act authorizing the attorney General of the United States to recognize and to award to outstanding courageous young Americans a medal for heroism known as the Young American Medal for Bravery, and for other purposes; HR. 1922. An act to amend section 10 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939; H.R 1991. An act for the relief of Alex- ander Stewart; ‘ H.R. 2225, An act for the relief of William B Buol, HR 2234, An act for the relief of Mrs. Gladys J. Senyohl McCarthy; #H R 8007. An act for the relief of Harry C. Goakes; H.R. 3464 An act to record the lawful ad- mission for permanent residence of alien John Michael Ancker Rasmussen; wer R 3805, An act for the relief of Yuk Onn on; HR 4188. An act for the relief of Dr. Ferdinando Schiappa; H.R, 4528. An act to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of Louis J. Marx; H OR. 4628 An act for the relief of John G. Essenberg; H.R. 4788. An act to provide for a mutual- ald plan for fire protection by and for the District of Columbia and certain adjacent communities in Maryland and Virginia, and for other purposes; H.R. 4806. An act for the relfef of Dr. Fran- cesco Drago; H.R. 4942. An act to regulate the collec- tion and disbursement of moneys realized from leases made by the Seneca Nation of Indians of New York, and for other pur- poses; H.R. 6016. An act for the relief of Mrs. Virginia Dalla Rosa Prati and her minor son, Rolando Dalla Rosa Prati; H. R. 5074. An act to promote the national defense by authorizing specifically certain functions of the National Advisory Commit- tee for Aeronautics necessary to the effective prosecution of aeronautical research, and for other purposes; H.R. 5566. An act for the relief of Dr. Agostino DeLitat; H.R. 5679, An act to authorize the trans- fer of certain agricultural dry Jand and irri- gation field stations to the States in which such stations are located, and for other pur- poses; H.R. 6066. An act for the relief of Cheng Bick Yuen; H.R. 6178. An act for the relief of Sun Yip Chin and Chung Lum (Lum Chung);
1950 H.R. 6225. An act for the relief of Mrs. Almee Hoyningen-Huene; H.R. 6363. An act conferring jurisdiction on the United States district court for the middle district of North Carolina to hear, determine, and render judgment upon cer- tain claims of the Patuxent Development Co,, Inc; . HOR 6454. An act to authorize the appoint. ment of two additional district judges for the northern district of Mlinois: H.R. C458. An act for the relief of Maj. Roy E. Devel; H.R €461. An act for the relief of Jirina Zizkovsky; H.R. 6505. An act to legalize the entry of Mrs. David Munson Osborne (nee Janct Mary Tole), a native of New Zealand; H.R. 6768. An act for the rellef of Ruby Thaw and Hla Sein; H.R.%071. An act for the relief of Mrs. Masa Iyoki; H.R. 7228. An act for the relief of Kazuko Kam-do; WW. R. 7273. An act to provide a civil gov- erument for Guam, and for other purposes; H.R. 7695. An act to provide a 5-day week for officers and mombers of the Metropolitan Police force, the United States Park Police force, and the White House police force; H.R 7764. An act to authorize the con- struction of modern naval vessels, and for other purposes; H.R, 7812. An act for the relief of Martha Aporta Strickland; HOM. 8117. An act for the relief of Yoshiko Emory; H R 8139. An act to authorize the at- tencance of the United States Marine Band at the annual reunion of the United Con- fedciate Veterens to be held in Bilox!, Miss, Septcmber 27 through September 20, 1950; Ii R.8230. An act to amend the act of March 11, 1948 (62 Stat. 78), relating to the establishment of the De Soto National Me- mortal, in the State of Florida; H.R. 8245. An act for the relief of Dr. Ales- sandro Rizzo; H.R. 8440. An act for the relief of Nose Kawashima; H.R. 8655. An act for the relief of Toshiko Kikyo and Francis Kikyo; Ti. R.9178. An act to suspend restrictions on the authorized personnel strength of the Armed Forces, and ior other purposes; and H Con. Res. 181. Concurrent resolution fa- voring the grant of status of permanent residence to certain aliens. The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title: H.R 4251. An act to amend section 4 (g) of the Communications Act of 1984 to permit the Federal Communications Commission to make expenditures for land for radio mon- itoring stations, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments to the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. McFartanp, Mr. JoHNson of Colo- rado, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Tosprey, and Mr. Capenart to be the conferees on the part of the Senate. The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 7265. An act to provide for the con- duct of a periodic census of governments. The message also announced that the Senate insists ypon its amendments to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Jounston of South Carolina, Mr. Humpurey, and Mr. Lancer to be the conferees on the part of the Senate. The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House is Tequested, a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 7682. An act to amend the act en- titled “An act to regulate boxing contests and exhibitions tn the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,” approved Decem- ber 20, 1944. The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments to the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Leany, Mr. Frear, and Mrs. Smitit of Maine to he the conferees on the part of the Senate. The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 7681. An act to amend sections 675 and 676 of the act entitled “An act to estub- lish a Code of Law for the District of Co- lumbia,” approved March 3, 1901, regulate ing the disposal of dead human bodies in the District of Columbia, The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments io the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Leany, Mr. FreaR, and Mrs. SMITH of Maine to he the conferees on the part of the Senate. The message also announced that the Senate had passed, with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the following title: H R.&9C9. An act to authorize the Dis- trict of Columbia Government to establish an Office of Civil Defense, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments to the foregoing bill, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Hunt, Mr. Frear, and Mr, HEn- DRICKSON, to be the conferees on the part of the Senate. The message also announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 3666) entitled “An act to extend for 5 years the author- ity to provide for the maintenance of a domestic tin-smelting industry”; re- quests a conference with the House on the disagrecing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. JoHnson of Texas, Mr, Hunt, and Mr. Morssz to be the conferees on the part of the Senate. TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS Mr. CANNON, Mr. Speaker, by direc- tion of the Committee on Appropria- tions, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the joint resolu- tion (H. J. Res. 612) making further temporary appropriations for the fiscal yer 1951, and for other purposes, 11219 The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri? Mr. TABER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing resolution extending the availability of funds under the omnibus appropriation bill to August 31. I expect that with the legislative situation that confronts us there is nothing to do but adopt the joint resolution. Mr, MARTIN of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield, will the gen- tleman from Missouri tell us when we are going to get the appropriation bill here? Mr. CANNON. We are led to believe it will be in the next few days. Mr, TABER. I would hope we might get it by the middle of the week. I would not want to figure on anything definite. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. TABER, I yield to the gentle-, man from Pennsylvania. Mr. RICH. As I understand, the ap- propriation bill is being held up now in the other body and is not ready to be presented to the conferees. I under- stand that the appropriations providing for civil functions have been increased greatly. I see that in the newspapers, which is where I get my information. Is the other body, at a time like this, go- ing to increase the appropriations pro- vided by the House, and if so, is the gen- tleman from Missouri, as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, going to bring that bill back to the House and let us try to cut it down? Mr. CANNON. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is one of the older and more distinguished Members of the House. He has served here for many years, He is familiar with the history of appropriation bills and conferences between the two bodies, I trust the gen- tleman recalls that the House always objects strenuously to any unwarranted increases in appropriations and I assure him we will continue that policy. Mr. RICH. And we can fee] that the House conferees are not going to pernut a bill to come kack to the House without the House having a chance to vote on some of these increases suggested by the other body? Mr. CANNON. The gentleman may rest assured that we will bring back every item which must be considered by the House under the rules. Mr. Speaker, this is, generally speak- ing, the usual continuing resolution. It may be summarized bricfly. The current resolution, Public Law 585, expires July 31, 1950. The pending resolution pro- poses to extend the provisions of the law to a date not later than August 31, 1950. Section 1 of the resolution reenacts section 1 of Public Law 585 and provides for termination of continuing provisions upon enactment of the regular appro- priation bill or August 31, whichever first occurs. Rates of obligation and expendi- ture are governed by figures in the House bill and all provisions are subjcct to all
11220 limitations and restrictions of the House bill Section 2 (a) of the pending resolu- tion appropriates for programs not cov- ered in the House bill, at the rate re- poited by the Senate Committee on Ap- propriations or the last quarter rate of 1950, whichever is lower, Five of these programs are: Senate figures Economic Cooperation... 3 82, 391, 000, 000 Assistance to the Republic of Korea__... -.-------. 99, 000, 000 Government and relief in occupied areas .....---- - 288, 000, 000 Displaced Persons Commis- BION ..--- eee eee ne Mutual defense assistance. 1Plus carryover Section 2 (b) provides for the Selec- tive Service System at the rate of $20,- 476,000 annually, the amount of the Budget estimate, pending final considera- tion of the general bill. The situation is urgent as service must be expanded im- mediately and there is no other way to meet it. Section 3 authorizes the District of Co- lumbia rent-control program at the rate of the last quarter of 1950 or as pro- vided in House Document 640 ($113,100), whichever is lower. Section 4 makes certain that rates for Programs in section 2 supersede those carried in Public Law 585. Section 5 reenacts sections 4 and 6 of Public Law 585. Section 4 of Public Law 585 excepts chapter 10A (Taber-Thomas) and sec- tion 1114 (Jensen) amendments and time limitations on apportionments under the Antideficiency Act Section 6 of Public Law 585 provides that expenditures shall be charged against respective appropriations when eventually made in the general bill. It will noted that the joint resolution before the House provides no new pro- grams and authorizes no expansion of old programs except for the Selective Service. If no one desires further time, I move the previous question on the joint resolution. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- sour!? There was no objection. The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: Resolved, etc., That funds and authority provided by section 1 of the joint resolution of June 29, 1960 (Public Law 585), arc here- by continued available, and the funds and authority provided by sections 2 and 3 here- of are made available, until (a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any proj- ect or activity provided for herein, or (b) en- actment of the applicable appropriation act by both Houses without any provision for such project or activity or (c) August 31, 1960, whichever first occurs. Sec.2. There are hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated— (a) Such amounts as may be necessary for carrying out, at a rate not in excess of that which obtained in the last quarter of the fiscal year 1950 or that which would be pro- vided for by the General Appropriation Act, 1961 (H. R. 7786, 8let Cong.), as reported to the Senate on July 8, 1950, whichever is 9, 000, 000 21, 678, 000, 000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE lower, projects and activities under appli- cable appropriations as follows: Economic cooperation. Assistance to the Republic of Korea, Government and relief in occupied areas, Displaced Persons Commission. Mutual defense assistance. (b) Such amount as may be necessary for Carrying out the provisions of the Selective Service Extenston Act of 1950, at a rate not in excess of that provided for in the budget estimate (H Doc. 656). Src 8. There is hereby appropriated out of the revenues of the District of Columbia such amount as may be required for neces- sary expenses for the Office of Administrator of Rent Control of the District of Columbia for the period beginning July 1, 1950, at a rate not in exce s of that which obtained in the last cuarter of the fiscal year 1950, or that provided for in the budget estimate for 1951 (H Doc 640), whichever is lower. Sec. 4. Effective August 1, 1950, funds and authority provided under section 2 hereof shall supersede funds and authority pio- vided by the aforesaid joint resolution of June 29, 1850, for the projects and activities named in such section. Src. 6. Sections 4 and 6 of the aforesaid Joint resolution of June 29, 1950, shall be ap- plicable to all funds and authority provided by this act. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. CONTROLLING ANCHORAGE AND MOVE- MENT OF FOREIGN-FLAG VESSELS IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SECURITY PURPOSES Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (H. R. 9215) to authorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign- flag vessels in waters of the United States when the national security of the United States is endangered, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman explain the bill? Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as the title indicates, authorizes the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign-flag vessels in wa- ters of the United States. It permits the search of the ships at anchor and other- wise in our waters, particularly during this emergency. Under the present Statute before the President or any of the executive branches can make these searches the President must declare a national emergency or there must have been a declaration of war by Congress. This bill permits the President or his agents to make these searches, particu- larly to guard against, shall we say, Trojan horse ships bringing in atomic bombs or facilities for bacteriological warfare, when the security of the United States is endangered. His opinion as to danger to our security suffices. The bill was reported out unanimously by the Committee on the Judiciary. The executive branch is very anxious to have this bill enacted into law to safeguard the coastal cittes of the United States JULY 27 on the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific, and the Atlantic. Mr, MARTIN of Massachusetts. Will the Coast Guard do the searching? Mr. CELLER. The Coast Guard and Customs will do the searching. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARTIN of Massachuetts. I yield. Mr. McCORMACK. May I say that Mr. Peyton Ford, who is assistant to the Attorney General called me up the other day and said that this was a bill of vital importance, the immediate passage of which is imperative. Mr. CELLER. The gentleman from Massachusetts probably recalls that only @ few days ago five British ships en route to Korea were sabotaged due to the failure of proper inspection. The Kremlin undoubtedly has urged a world- wide campaign of sabotage. The party Jine has openly urged comrades and fel- low travelers everywhere to disrupt rail- roads, ships and weapons and equipment bound for Korea. We must be vigilant. All ships, therefore, must be properly in- spected and searched. This bill gives adequate power so to do in the present emergency. The power granted can be ended by passage of a concurrent reso- lution of both Houses. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. As I understand, the committee was unani- mous in its report? Mr. CELLER. Yes. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. I yield. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, this situation emphasizes the importance of the Coast Guard Reserve for which the House voted in May. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That section 1 of title i of the act of June 15, 1017 (40 Stat. 217; U_8.C, title 50, sec. 191), Is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: “Whenever the President finds that the security of the United States is endangered by reason of actual or threatened war, or invasion, or of disturbances or threatened disturbances of the international relations of the United States, the President is au- thorized to institute such measures and issue rules and regulations— “(a) to govern the anchorage and move- ment of any foreign-flag vessels tn the terri-~ torial waters of the United States, to inspect such vessels at any time, to place guards thereon, and, if necessary in his opinion in order to secure such vessels from damage or injury, or to prevent damage or injury to any harbor or waters of the United States, or to secure the observance of rights and obliga- tions of the United States, may take for such purposes full possession and control of such vessels and remove therefrom the officers and crew thereof, and all other persons not especially authorized by him to go or remain on board thereof; “(b) to safeguard against destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive
1950 acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature, vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities in the United States, the Canal Zone, and all territory and water, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. “Any appropriation available to any of the executive departments shall be available to cairy out the provisions of this paragraph" &Sre 2. Section 4 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat 220; U.S. C, title 60, sec 194), igs amended to read as follows: “The President may employ such depart- ments, agencies, officers, or instrumentalities of the United States as he may deem neces- sary to carry out the purpose of this title.” Exc. 3, Section 2 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat 220, U. S.C, title 50, sec, 192), as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: “(a) If any other person knowingly fails to comply with any regulation or rule issued or order given under the provisions of this title, or knowingly obstructs or interferes with the exercise of any power conferred by this title, he shall be punished by imprison- ment for not more than 10 yeais and may, at the discretion of the court, be fined not more than $10,000" Sec, 4. The provisions of this act shall ex- pire on such date as may be specified by concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress. With the following committee amend- ments: Page 1, Mne 8 after the word “invasion” insert “or insurrection, or subversive acs tivity,”’. Page 3, line 2, strike cut the word “para- giaph” and insert the word “title.” The committee amendments were agreed to The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 3859) to au- thorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign-flag vessels in waters of the United States whe the national security of the United States is endangered, and for other pur- poses. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc, That section 1 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 217; U. 8. C., title 50, sec. 191), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: “Whenever the President finds that the security of the United Staies is endangered by reason of actual or threatened wes, or invasion, or of disturbances or threatened Qisturbances of the international relations of the United States, the President is author- ized to institute such measures and issue such rules and regulations— “(a) to govern the anchorage and move- ment of any foreign-flag vessels in the territorial waters of the United States, to inspect such vessels at any time, to place guards thereon, and, {f necessary, in order to secure such vessels from damage or injury, or to prevent damage or injury to any harbor or waters of the United States, or to secure the observance of rights and obligations to the United States, may take for such pur- poses full possession and control of such vessels and remove therefrom the officers and crew thereof, and all other persons not CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE especially authorized to go or remain on board thereof; “(b) to safeguard against destruction, logs, or injury from sabotage or other sub- versive acts, accidents, or other causes of similar nature, vessels, harbors, ports, and water-front facilities in the United States, the Canal Lone, and all territory and water, continental or insular, subject to the juris- diction of the United States. Any appropriation available to any of the executive departments shall be available to carly out the provisions of this paiagraph.” Sec. 2 Section 4 of title II of the act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat 220; U.S C, title 50, sec 194), is amended to read as follows: “The President may employ such depart- ments, agencies, officers, or instrumentalities of the United States os he may deem neccs- sary to curry out the purpose of this title” Sec 3. Section 2 of title II of the act of June 16, 1917 (40 Stat 220, U.S.C, title 60, sec. 192), as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection. “(a) If any other person knowingly fails to comply with any regulation or rule issued or order given under the provisions of this title, or knowingly obstructs or interferes with the exercise of any power conferred by this title, he shall be punished by imprison- ment for not more than 10 years and may, at the discretion of the court, be fined not more than $10,000 ” Sec 4 The provisions of this act shall ex- pire on such date as may be specified by con- current resolution of the two Houses of Congress. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment, The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr Cruuer, of New York: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the provisions of the bill H. R. 9215, as amended. The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The proceedings by which the bill (H. R 9215) to authorize the President to control the anchorage and movement of foreign-flag vessels in waters of the United States when the national secu- rity of the United States is endangered, and for other purposes, was passed were vacated and that bill laid on the table. EXEMPTING COUNSEL EMPLOYED BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES Mr CELLER Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution (H, J. Res. 510) to exempt certain coun- sel employed by committee from certain Federal laws under Special Committee on Campaign Expenditures, 1950. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Re- serving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman explain the resolu- tion? Mr. CELLER. This is the usual reso- lution that exempts counsel employed by congressional committees from certain proscriptions whereby they cannot with- in a designated period file claims or rep- resent claimants against the Govern- ment, Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts, I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr, Speaker, 11221 There being no objection, the Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: Resolved, etc, That service or employment of persons as attorneys on a temporary basis p idr to January 3, 1951, to assist the Special Committee on Campaign Expenditures, 1950, of the House of Representatives, pursuant to House Resolution 635 agreed to June 30, 1950, shall not be considered as service or employment bringing such persons within the pr«“wslons of section 281, 283, or 285, of title 18 of the United States Code, or of any other Federal law imposing restrictions, re- quirements, or penalties in relation to the employment of persons, the performance of service, or the payment or receipt of com- pensation in connectlon with any claim, pro- ceeding, or matter involving the United States. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. MRS EVELYN M HRYNIAK Mr. CELLER submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (8. 2655) for the relief of Mrs. Evelyn M. Hryniak for printing 1n the Recorp. . AMENDING PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT Mr. BIEMILLER submitted a confer- ence report and statement on the bill (S. 2591) to amend the Public Health Service Act to support research and training in arthritis and rheumatism, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, epi- lepsy and blindness, and other diseases, and for other purposes, for printing in the REcorp. CANCELLATION OF PATENT LICENSES Mr. BRYSON, Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (S. 2128) to provide for the modification or cancellation of certain royalty-free li- censes granted to the Government by private holders of patents and rights thereunder, and I ask unanimous con- sent that the statement be read in lieu of the report. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement. The conference report and statement are as follows: CONFERENCE REpoRT (H Rept No. 2742) The committee of conference on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (8S. 2128) to provide for the modification or can- cellation of certain royalty-free licenses granted to the Government by privaée hold- ers of patents and rights thereunder, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its amend- ment numbered 3, That the Senate recede from its disagree- ment to the amendments of the House num- bered 1 and 2, and agree to the same That the Senate recede fiom its disagree- ment to the amendment of the Houso to the title of the bill and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the amended title proposed by the House amendment, amend the title so as to read: “An act to provide for the can- cellation of certain Mcenses granted to the
11222 Government by private holders of patents and rights thereunder.” And the House agree to the same. J. R. Bryson, ELE Wu11s, J C Boaes, Managers on the Part of the House, ALEXANDER WILEY, Huzapert R. O’Conor, James O EASTLAND, Managers on the Part of the Senate, STATEMENT The purposes of the bill are adequately stated in the reports of the Judictary Com- mittees of the respective Houses. Briefly stated, they are to authorize and empower the heads of certain of the Government de- partments and agencies to cancel, in their discretion, a number of patent licenses which were granted to the Government during the war on a royalty-free or reduced royalty basis, In most instances the grants were inspired by patriotic motives and were for the dura- tion of the war. However, few if any of the patentees intended their grants to go beyond the perlod of actual hostilities, Since the United States is still in a state of war from a technical standpoint, and since the agency heads are without power to cancel any of the licenses in order to do equity to the patent- ees, this legislation became imperative. Several amendments were made to the bill as introduced Whereas the House adopted an amendment giving the agency heads the power to modify as well as cancel such li- censes, the Senate conferees successfully urged their view that the power to cancel included, in effect, the power to modity by means of cancellation followed by a new contract in modified form. The conferees agreed to accept the House language defining the period during which the Hcenses were granted to be “subsequent to September 8, 1939", instead of “during World War II”, the latter period being pos- sibly susceptible to varying interpretations. Again, the conferees elected to make the relief applicable not only to royalty-free license agreements, but as well to those in- volving a reduced or nominal royalty. Finally, because of the foregoing amend- ments, an accommodating change in the title of the bill became indicated and this the conferees agreed upon. J R. Bryson, E EB Wuus, J C. Boces, Managers on the Part of the House, The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The conference report was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mrs, ROGERS of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address the House today for 2 minutes, following the legislative business of the day and any other special orders heretofore entered. Mr. MASON usked and was given per- mission to address the House for 20 min- utes on Monday next following the legis- lative business of the day and any special orders heretofore entered. Mr. CANFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House for 5 minutes today following the legislative program and any special orders hereto- fore entered. Mr, BIEMILLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 40 minutes on Tuesday next after the leg- ‘dslative program and any special orders heretofore entered. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE WHAT IS THE POLICY OF THE ADMINIS- TRATION? Mr, RICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the Rzcorp. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned and interested as a Represent- ative in our Government. I have a right to be—being an elected Representative, I have been trying to find out what the American policy is in reference to the other nations of the world, Mr. Speaker, I cannot get that infor- mation, and I would like to know why, I have asked from members of the For- eign Affairs Committee, from members of the Armed Services Committee, and other Members of Congress. My prob- lem is, Mr. Speaker, What is our policy? Who started us in Korea? We know the answer: Mr. Truman. Will other nations do their share in manpower In the Korean fight? Will we have to furnish the money, men, and munitions? After Korea, what? If the Communists break out in For- mosa, will we alone defend it? If the Communists break out in Greece, will we alone defend it? If the Communists break out in Africa, will we interfere? Let the United Nations act—not Mr. Truman. If countries in Europe or Asia or Africa or Australia or South America, what right have we to send an army into those countries and interfere with their in- ternal strife? We should attend to our own business, and if we do that we have a real job. Why sacrifice American men to save the world—and do it alone? Why should we let the President or the State Department commit us to sac- rifices unlimited. Congress, it is up to you to stop it. This New Deal of the United States is a raw deal for the Amer- ican citizens and Government. I beg of you, Mr. Speaker and leaders of this Democratic Party—give us your policy, your plans, your alms. Get us out of the dark, destruction and disgrace of war into the realm of peace in the world. Pray to Almighty God for guid- ance that men can live as brothers all over the world. Stop killing our boys. Stop, look, listen, and pray. Get a plan with the UN for the world, not the United States alone. MOBILIZATION PLANNING ACT OF 1950 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp with regard to my introduction today of the Mobilization Planning Act of 1950. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I am to- day introducing the Mobilization Plan-~ ning Act of 1950 to provide for a Mobil- ization Production Board to coordinate essentia’ production, other than agri- cultural, and transportation and com- munications facilities for the national JULY 27 security and to see to the balancing of production between what is required for the Armed Forces, civilian needs and overseas aid and cooperation. This measure also establishes in the execu- tive branch a food conservation agency to advise consumers with respect to the most efficient utilization of our food and fiber supply, to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, who now has the necessary powers with respect to production, regarding the needs and re- quirements of foods and fibers; to co- ordinate the consumers’ services in the various agencies of the Federal Govern- ment which are now duplicating and often confusing and contradictory and to cooperate with States and munici- palities, The least that we can do under the present need for marshaling the full national effort so eloquently outlined in the testumony of Bernard Baruch before the Senate Banking and Currency Com- mittee yesterday is to give the direction and management to the whole program commensurate with its scope and seri- ousness. Our experience in World War II showed that the way to get America’s best brains to work was through 4 plan- ning board of this kind. The most able mer. from the ranks of labor, business, and agriculture often hesitate to take a Government job, but such a board is considered in a separate category by such men, first because it is a temporary agency to meet a great national emer- gency and second because it represents a traditional pattern for marshalling just that kind of skill and ability. I urge a food conservation agency principally as a consumers’ service but also to effect some organization of sell- ers and distributors, because prayers and exhortations that people shall not hoard or engage in panic buying are apparently inadequate to do the job. Ninety per- cent of the people will cooperate but there is always the unscrupulous 10 per- cent. Hence, to deal with serious price rises and runs on commodities while the debate as to whether we should have rationing and price control goes on, we must have some agency which can speak with the voice of government and get the people together for their own pro- tection against economic disaster. The text of the joint resolution follows: Joint resolution to provide for the appoint- ment by the President of a Mobilization Production Board and a Food Conservation Agency Resolved, etc., That the President is hereby authorized to appoint a Mobilization Produc- tion Board with authority to coordinate the activities of Government, trade, industry, labor, agriculture, and consumers in the preparation by the United States of adequate equipment and facilities for the national security and in the balancing of essential production (other than agricultural produc tion) and of transportation and communi- cations facilities, between what is required for the Armed Forces, civilian needs, and overseas aid and cooperation. The Board ahall have such authority with respect to commodities in short supply, producers’ and processors’ materials and transportation and communications facilities and services as shall be authorized by law, or as shall be delegated to the Board by the President. SEC. 2. The President is authorized to estahe Ush in the executive branch of the Federal