1850 ony of Kenya. In these cases, too, American companies are to be allowed to sell only oll purchased from British supply sources, Mr. MALONE. Mr. Fresident, I hold in my hand an article appearing in the Journal of Commerce of December 20, 1949, under the title “Petroleum Com- ments,” by W. M. Jablonski, petroleum editor, I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed at this point in the REcorp. There being no objection, the article was ordercd to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: PETROLEUM COMMENTS (By W. M. Jablonsk!) FIRM STAND NEEDED This Nation’s forcign oil position 1s rap- idly going from bad to worse The latest in the chain of events where- by American-owned oil 18 being cut off from market after market by British sterling oll decals has come in the United Kingdom itself in the past few days. The British Ministry of Fuel and Power notified marketing subsidiaries of American companies that it was canceling thelr fucl- oil import quotas from dollar sources and cutting their gasoline quotas by one-third for 1950. The companies were told that some 75,- 000 barrels daily of oil will become available in 1950 from sterling sources-—British refin- eries in Latin America and the Middle East— to replace dollar oi] sales in the sterling area. The supply may increase by an additional 50,000 barrels daily if the Haifa refinery is reopened. This ts only the beginning. Increasing quantities of both crude oil and refined products will be available trom British sources in the Middle Eust and Latin America as their current expansion program—with the aid of ECA dollars—is pushed ahead By 1951 to 1952, companies were inilormed, an additional 250,000 bariels daily may be avail- alle. The next step may well be to require all refineries in the sterling area, American as well us British, to purchase ciude irom British sources The issue raised is not Britain's action in cutting down dollar payments for oil No responsible oil executive argues that Eng- land is unjustified in conserving dollars, what American oil companies want, how- ever, is equal sterling treatment with Brit- ish companies—that is, the right to sell for sterling: and to use such sterling. At present, American companies are dis- criminated against, the British Treasury pro- hibits purchase of American-produced oil for sterling—even for nonconvertible ster- ling—and also restricts use of sterling by American companies. It does so even in nonsterling areas by preventing transfer of sterling from the account of a foreign coun- try to an American company. The issue is a basic one. These currency restrictions leave American oil companies no fighting chance to adjust to a sterling basis where necessary in order to save their es- tablished markets against expanding Brit- ish oll output in the next few years. This, coupled with such barter-type agreements as made by the British to supply oil to Argen- tina and Sweden, leaves little hope for main- taining important American markets overs seas Actually, so-called British sterling ofl in South America has almost as large o dollar cost component—for royalties, taxes, equip- ment, etc.—as dollar oi] produced in the same area by Americans. British dollar cotts are lower in the Middle East, but still substan- tial. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE When British ofl is sold for sterling, thus, it also constitutes a dollar drain on the Brit- ish Treasury. It might be questioned, there- fore, whether the British are entirely justi- fied In useing dollar aid from the United States to build up oil production which tney sell for sterling to the exclusion of similar American-produced oil The United States Government recently sent a so-called White Paper to London re- questing that American ol] companies be piven cquitable treatment. It said that if American companies ale permitted to trade in sterling they should be allowed to use the sterling in the same manner as British com- panies. 1t is understood that this Government did not ask the British to gua antee convertibili- ty of any part of such sterling income into dollars. Presumably it felt that any such dexly to cover minimum dollar costs and a smull profit as sought by some companies would have to be worked out by individual negotiations. No official answer has been received yet from London. However, it is understood that Britain has indicated that it intends to stand firm, if possible, on its present restrictions. The time has come for our Government to put the issue squarely to London. It is not merely a question of the unfair- ness of British discrimination against Aimer- ican companies, nor of the loss of private American investments abroad. These are se- rious enough considerations. The question {s much more grave Amer- ican oi] concessions in the Middle East and Latin America are an integral part of our foreign policy and defense. They cannot be maintained without market outlets Royale tics from their production provide the chief sources of revenue for the countries con- cerned. Sharp cutbacks would be bound to result, in political and economic unrest and could have serious repercussions on this Na- tion’s prestige and influence in those key, strategic arcis. Nov can a situation be jong maintained where revenues dwindle sharply from Ameri- can concessions in one Arab state while they 118e from British concessions in an ad- joining state. The King of Arabia is already said to be icstive at the reduced outlets fac- ing his ol] while the Shah of Iran's are in- creasing steadily. Nor would it be to the American—nor Biitish—imterest to sce the situation reach the point where these vast oll resources might come under the control of a hostile power. And finally, the American oil industry is the keystone of the President's Point 4 pro- gram, representing by far the largest source of private capital for investment in back- ward foreign areas. British reluctance to have sterling bal- ances pile up in the hands of American com- panties and their preference to have foreign countries use sterling for purchases from the British rather than American oil companies is understandable In view of the grave issues at stake, how- ever, this Government must insist on some compromise. While we are aiding Britain through ECA funds to restore her economy, we cannot afford to have our vitul national interests scuttled in the process. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, a further article appeared in the Journal of Commerce under the headline ‘Britain offered compromise plan on United States oil. Standard of New Jersey would transfer operations in exchange arrangement.” The article appeared in the New York Journal of Commerce of February 2, 1950, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed at this point in the REcorp. 1491 There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorb, as follows’ BrivTain Orrerep COMPROMISE PLAN ON UNITED Srares Om-—-STANDARD OF NEW JERSLY WouLp TRANSFER OPERATIONS IN EXCHANGE ARRANGEMENT (By W.M Jablonskt) A proposed compromise plan for maintain- ing American oil sales in the sterling area and in other markets where United Stutes com- panies are being frozen out as a result of recent British action has been put before the United Kingdom Government by Standard Oll Co. (New Jersey). The plan was presented to London in a for- mal memorandum dated January 25, the Journal of Commerce learned yesterday. TO FORM BRITISH ENTITY In it, Jersey Standard offers to transfer its oll supply and distribution operations in the affected area to a new British entity or core poration The New Jersey unit, it 1s proposed, would sell in sterling and have the right to uso sterling 11 the same manner as any other British corporation—-and be subject to British taxation. In turn, Biitain would be asked to convert into dollars 60 percent of the sales proceeds of this British entity after tuxes. Involved in the plan would be an estimated $80,000,000 of Jersey Standard’s gross trade in 1950. MARKETS COVERID The proposal covers tiade only in those markets where the company is unable to contmue in business unless it can sell fur sterling. This apples not only to the sterling area but to other markets such as Argentina, Japan, Finland, etc., which are being lost as a result of British sterling trade pacts com- bined with British Tieasury regulations which prohibit ste. ng payments for oil pro- duced by American companies. DOLLAR-SAVINGS MEASURE This proposal, the third offered by this com- pany during the long-drawn-out negotiations between American oil firms and the Labor government, was presented by Jersey as an alternative dollar-saving measure to the Brit- ish Government's recent drastic action. Last month, London adopted a policy of substituting in the sterling area all oil pro- duced by American companics with ofl pro- duced by British companies as rapidly as the Jatter becomes available, The immediate effect of the new policy wus a ban on all fuel- oi] imports from American companies start- ing January 1, and 8 one-third reduction on gasoline imports. Jersey maintained that its new plan would save the United Kingdom nearly as many dollars as the ban against American oll when taking into account the dollars that would have to be spent by the British Treasury to produce and acquire so-called sterling oil for substitution purposes. NO REACTION YET No indication of the British Government’s reaction has been received yet. Since the proposal was only presented last week, it is doubtful that London has had sufficient time to study it carefully. The plan would, of course, require the ap- proval of the United States Government which has been informed of the proposal. In its formal memorandum to London, Jere sey Standard described the proposal as en- tirely its own and not necessarily reflecting the position of any other American ot] com- panies. Its plan differs somewhat from the various proposals made by Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. and California-Texas Oil Co. (owned by
1492 Standard of California and the Texas Co.) for putting their operations on & sterling basis similar to British companies in order to elim- inate England’s dollar drain None, however, have been accepted yet by the Labor govern- ment. PRICE PROPOSALS Under Jersey's plan the proposed British entity that would be set up, subject to British taxation, would purchase its oll from various Jersey producing affiliates in the Middle East and Latin America at a price be- low the going market, distribute and resell the oll to the final destination at the full rice. P Involved would be oi] supplies from three sources: Arabia, Iraq, and Venezuela. In the case of Arabia and Iraq, where Jer- sey owns only a part interest in the local pro- ducing companies, the new plan is under- stood to provide for sale of oil to the proposed British entity at the established take-off price, that is, at the price at which Jersey and other partners in the local enterprises purchase the oll for their own use. This is usually substantially below the market price. In the case of Iraq the take-off price is reported to be cost plus a gold shilling per ton. VENEZUELA CASE The problem is more complex in the case of Venezuela where the local government has 60-50 profit-sharing arrangements with oil producers and does not confine its income simply to royalties on production as 1s done in the Middle East. For this reason, Jersey is understood to have informed London that it could not sell Venezuelan oil to the proposed British enti- ty at much below market prices. The com- pany is reported to have suggested purchases from Venezuela at the going market price minus 1 percent commission. However, it pointed out that British com- panies in Venezuela similarly have to pay 50 percent of their profits to the local gov- ernment in dollars and have similar operat- ing and other dollar expenses, even though their oil is classified as sterling oil. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, in ref- erence to the article to which I have just referred, I wish to point out that the dis- patch indicates that our oil companies are willing to become resident companies of the sterling bloc countries, in order to get some kind of an entrée into the mar- kets which we said the Marshall plan and the ECA were opening for United States industries. Mr. President, the New York Journal of Commerce for February 2, 1950, also carries an article under the following heading: “‘Socony follows other firms in cutting 1950 oi] imports.” I ask unanimous consent that that dis- patch may be made a part of the Recorp at this point, for the reason that it shows how foreign oil can cut down the produc- tion of oil in the United States. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Bocony Fottows OTHER Finme In CUTTING 1950 Or Imports Socony-Vacuum Ol] Co. yesterday an- nounced it will cut its foreign oil imports by 6,000 barrels a day from its previous esti- mate that 1950 imports would average 74,000 barrels a day. FOLLOWS PROTESTS The company’s action follows announced import cuts by several other leading of] com- panies, including the Texas Co., Standard of New Jersey, and Gulf Oil, prompted by in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE creasing protests from independent oil pro- ducers here. B. Brewster Jennings, Socony president, sent the following telegram to Congressman Wright Patman (Democrat, Texas), chair- man of the House Committee on Small Busi- ness, Washington, D. C. SOCONY TELEGRAM “The sources of supply for our scheduled petroleum imports of approximately 28,000 barrels a day are about equally divided be- tween a long-tegm purchase contract and our forcign producing operations. The con- tract was made during the winter of 1947- 48 when the United States was short of crude and when we were unable to purchase from domestic sources sufficient crude to meet the needs of our customers. Our increase in im- ports during 1949 and in scheduled imports for 1950 was due almost entirely to this con- tract. We already have exercised the option granted under the contract of reducing the stipulated quantity from 40,000 to 36,000 barrels a day, the maximum reduction per- mitted, amounting to 10 percent, which re- duction was reflected in the data submitted to your oil subcommittee. “In addition to the foregoing action we will reduce our takings from our controlled foreign sources of supply, thereby permitting @ reduction in our imports of 5,000 barrels a day below the figures given your oil subcom- mittee, commencing at the carllest day con- sistent with the required revision of our tanker schedules. This figure is equivalent to about 13 percent of our scheduled imports from controlled sources of supply.” Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, in ref- erence to the article to which I have just referred, I wish to say that I saw, I be- lieve, every oil well in the Middle East, all the way from Abadan, where the British have been conducting operations since 1890, and where there are large cavities in a type of disintegrated granite filled with oil, down to Kuwait and the gulf below it, and through the area where the American companies are operating in southern Arabia. Ispent some time with ibn-Saud, the King of Arabia, and I flew over the full length of the proposed thousand-mule pipe line to Palestine. I say to the Senate that the oil in that area has only begun to be blocked out. When I was there, it was estimated that 50,000,000,000 barrels of it were available. There will be one hundred billion bar- rels, or perhaps more, available there, be- fore operations conclude, because there are very few dry holes in that country. That oil can be transported to the United States, so I am advised, at a price of around $1.75 or $1.85 a barrel. The fu- ture results of such a situation would in- deed be disastrous to our oil and coal industries, and already the importation of such oil is resulting in the closing of many of the oil wells and coal fields in the United States which furnish fuel, often for consumption at a considerable distance from the places where they are located, for use in providing steam power, for use in furnaces, and for use in other ways. As of today, the importa- tion of that Middle East oil is closing large numbers of our oil wells in the United States. The Texas wells are cut back; the Pennsylvania wells are cut back; California production is cut back. Middle East ofl took the Hawaiian mar- ket away from the California oil wells last year. I hear the distinguished senior FEBRUARY 6 Senator from Texas complaining furl- ously about the cut back in oil production in Texas, all due to the importation of Middle East oil. But that importation has only begun. Perhaps John L. Lew.s is a great deal smarter than many per- sons believe him to be or give him credit for being, when he does not want an over- production of coal, and wants, perhaps, a 3-day week, or even a no-day week at certain periods. So long as oil comes freely into this country from the Middle East and from Venezuela, there will never be a complete reopening of the coal mines and the oil fields in the United States in the way they have been operated in the past. Yet only a start has been made so far with the importa- tion of oil from the Middle East. Mr. President, a moment ago I men- tioned the senior Senator from Texas [Mr, ConnaLLy]. I hold in my hand a dispatch from the Journal of Commerce of February 1, 1950, under the headline: “CONNALLY Calls ban on United States oil ‘act of hostility.’ ” Mr. President, I shall read no more of the article than that. I ask unanimous consent to have all of it printed at this point in the Recorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CONNALLY CALLS BAN ON UNITED STATES OTL “ACT OF HOSTILITY”—ASSAILS BRITISH MOVE To ExtenpD EmsBarco To ENTIRE STERLING AREA WASHINGTON, January 81.—Senator CoN- NALLY, Democrat, Texas, today accused the British Government of an act of hostility to United States economy in planning to extend an embargo on dollar oil imports to the en- tire sterling area. Mr. CONNALLY, chairman of the Senate For- eign Relations Committee, said such an ac- tion is most remarkable, when the United States has made, and is making, stupendous gifts to Britain to build her economy. Other Government officials accused the British of aiming at long-term commercial advantages at the expense of the American oll industry. The National Petroleum Coun- cil made public a letter from the British Colonial Secretary to the East African Gov- ernment at Nairboi disclosing the British plans. BTATE DEPARTMENT AROUSED One section of the British letter, saying the embargo was being extended because the United States had not protested vigorously against the proposals, aroused resentment among State Department offictals. A State Department official told a reporter this is a bad blunder which misrepresents our position on the oll question and it is bound to stir up trouble. He added that this is not a correct interpretation of the Ameri- can view. The State Department said that when the British oil restrictions first were mentioned in December the Department had expressed concern at the British action. It said talks were begun to see if some changes could be made to prevent hurting American compa- nies. Copies of the British letter were in the hands of Chairman CONNALLY, Democrat, Texas, of the Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee and other Congress Members. JERSEY STANDARD MEMO In an analysis of the situation provided Mr. ConNALLY and other Texas Congress Mem- bers, Standard Oil Co., of New Jersey, said that under the British action the foreign
1950 business of American of! companies might be liquidated in a relatively short perlod of time. The Jersey Standard memorandum went on to say: ENCOURAGED BY BRITISH “The British (principally Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.) and the British-Dutch (Shell group) oll companies are continually ex- panding their capacity to produce and refine oll In amounts substantially in excess of the volume they could reasonably expect to scll on a competitive basis. Nevertheless, the entire volumes produced by those companies are not short of market outlets—at the cx- pense of volumes which the American oil companies could reasonably expect to scll on a competitive basis—by discriminatory trade and exchange control practices of the British Government.” This expansion is encouraged by the Brit- ish Government, the Jersey Standard memo- randum continued, even though the tacilities @uplicate those owned by American vil companies. Standard contended that this expansion {s a waste of British and American economic recouices since Marshall-plan aid is involved. A report adopted by the National Petrule- um Council charged that the British policies were actually designed to obtain long-term commercial advantages for the British and British-Dutch oil companies at the expense of the American industry. The council said it was asking the United States Government to take steps to allow American oil companics to compete without the obstacles of British controls, BRITISH LETTER A key section of the British letter said: “United States Government have now been informed of substance of proposals for sub- stituting surplus production by British com- panies for dollar oll imported into the ster- ling area by United Kingdom companies. “The Americans have, as expected, not gone beyond expressing regret at proposals, und steps have now been taken to put scheme into effect in United Kingdom and to obtain cooperation of Dominion governments ” It was this section which stirred resent- ment among State Department officials. The British letter went on to say’ “It is now desired to urrange full substi- tution for sterling fuel oil for dollar oll at present imported into east Africa for inland consumption.” NOT FOR SHIP'S BUNKERS “It is not intended to substitute sterling oil for fuel oll imports destined for use in ships’ bunkers.” The Ictter explained that “substitution” means replacing dollar oil imports by equiva- lent imports from British-controlled sources, It continued: “For this purpose dollar oil means the oil which United States-controlled companies obtained from Standard (New Jersey) , Stand- ard Vacuum, Socony, Standard (California), Tex Oil Corp., and Caltex (or any of their associates such as Bahrein Petroleum Co ). “In this category there is not included oll which any of these American companies pur- chase and ship from British-controlled com- panies’ sources, such ss the Abadan and Curacao refineries. “United States-controlled companies would be left to decide whether they would make good the reduction in their imports of dollar oll by purchases from nondollar sources. “Assurance has been given by British com- panies that they are in principle willing to sell their surplus fuel ol] to American com- panies, but these arrangements can be left to commercial negotiations. “Should an American distributing com- pany decide to curtail its trade, British com- panies or, indeed, other American companies CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE should have little difficulty in taking over the additional business " The letter said there will be more: than enough fuel oi! available from British-con- trolled companies in 1950 to take the place of all dollar imports of fuel oi] for inland con- sumption in the Commonwealth. “Because of the important dollar saving that can be achieved, United States-con- trolled companies importing into the United Kingdom have been informed of intention to introduce fuel-o1l] substitution in respect of all their imports trom dollar sources as from January 1, 1950,” the letter said. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Recorp an article app2aring in the Wall Street Journal of February 1, 1950, under the headline “House group to quiz United States offi- cials on British dollar oil embargo.” There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the ReEcorp, as follows: House Grove To Quiz UNITz0 STATES OFFI- C1IALS ON BRITISH Donnan OIL EMBARGO-— To SEEK Views or Sr4tc DevarTMENT, LCA CirEFS ON PLAN To ExtTcnp IMrorT BAN To COMMONWEALTH WasiiIncTon—State Department and Eco- nomic Cooperation Administration officials will be called before a House coramittee to give their vicws on Britain’s plan to extend its emborgo on dollar of] imports to the en- tire British Commonwealth On January 1, Britain put into effect a ban on imports of oil produced by United Stutes eompantes. The ban now affects Eritain and its colomies, but not the rest of the Commonwealth Representative KrocH, chairman of the House Small Business Subcommittee on Oil Imports, disclosed yesterduy his group will open hearings February 7 0n the British ban. Top officials of the State Department and the ECA will be the lead-off witness, he said. He made the disclosure as British officials arrived here to resume talks, interrupted 3 weeks ago, on the British oll import ban Since the talks were broken off, the two chief British delegates, Victor S Butler, Under Sec- retary of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and Sir Leslie Rowan, Economic Affairs Min- ister, have gone to London for instructions and have returned here They have re- portedly brought little in the way of a short- term compromise settlement but have some proposals for a long-term accord. CONNALLY ASSAILS BRITISH PLAN Representative KzocH said his committee had refrained from questioning State De- partment officials previously because it did not wish to jeopardize their negotiations on ou imports with the British. But now, he asserted, the committee wants to know what the State Department intends to do “to re- lieve the position tn which American com- panies find themselves in British markets.” The ECA officials will be asked if the British ban on dollar oll imports has changed the ECA’s attitude toward financing expan- sion of foreign refinery capacity. Yesterday Senator ConnaLity (Democrat), of Texas, accused Britain of “an act of hos- tility” to the United States economy by plan- ning to extend its embargo on dollar oll imports. Senator CoNnNALLY, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said such an action “is most remarkable when the United States has made and is making stupendous gifts to Britain to build her economy.” The National Petroleum Council made public a letter from the British Colonial Sec- retary to the East African Government at Nairobi disclosing the British plans. 1493 A council report contended that the Brit- ish policies, {{ continued, could compel the Amcrican oil industry to surrender the inter- national of] trade to the British. STATE DEPARTMENT RESENTFUL One section of the British letter, saying the embargo was being extended because the United States had not protested vigorously against the proposals, sroused resentment among State Department officials. A State Department official told a reporter: “This is a bad blunder which misrepresents our position on the ofl question, and it is bound to stir up trouble’ He added that this 1s “not a correct interpretation of the Ameiican view.” The State Department said that when the British oul restrictions first were mentioned jin December the Department had “expressed concern” ai the British action. It said talks were begun to sce if some changes could be made to prevent hurting American come panies. JERSEY STANDARD MAY BE HIT The American oi] company that stands to be hurdest hit by the British plan to shut out dollar oil from the Commonwealth ts Standard Ojl Co. of New Jersey. This company has informed United States Goveinment officials that ‘the foreign busi- ness of American oil companies might be liquidated in a relatively short period of time. The British (principally Anglo- Iranian Ojl Co, Ltd.) and the British- Duich Shell group of oil companies are con- tinually expanding their capacity to produce and refine oil in amounts substantially in excess of the volumes they could reasonably expect to sell on a competitive basis ” The expansion of British-owned petroleum production fucilities is encouraged by the British Government, the Jersey Standard statement continued, even though the facill- ties duplicate those cwned by American oll companies. Lonnpon —The_ British Colonial Office neither confirmed nor denied the authen- ticity of the letter in the hands of the National Petroleum Council The office stated yesterday it had not re- ceived any copies of correspondence which may have passed into the hands of the NPC, and therefore could not make any comment on the subject. Mr. MALONE Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Recorp a dispatch from the Journal of Commerce of October 11, 1949, showing a large group of commodi- ties which, according to the headline of the article, are “affected in new agree- ment.” The first sentence of the article reads as follows: A partial Mst of tariff concessions made by the United States in negotiations at Annecy, France, and relensed yesterday by the State Department, is published below. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have the entire article printed at this point in the Recorp. (The foregoing omitted REcorp.) Mr. MALONE, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp at this point another dis- patch by Ray Cromley, staff correspond- ent of the Wall Street Journal of October 31, 1949, which shows certain of the tariff cuts by our country. I shall fur- nish this particular dysnatch to the Off- clal Reporter a little later, from the
1494 There being no objection, the dispatch was ordered to be printed in the Rec- orp, as follows: TrapE TROUBLE—EXPORTERS FACE PROSPECT OF ToucHEeR SLEDDING IN ForeIGN SELLING ErrortTs—BArTER DEALS GROW, TARIFF WALLS Risz IN Some Srots, IMPportT CURES TIGHTENED—STRANGE IRONY oF ANNECY (By Ray Cromley) WasHINGTON.—The men who are trying to open more foreign markets for United States businessmen are fighting a losing battle. Every time State Department experts hack through one trade wall, they find a maze of others In the next 3 to 6 months, American ex- porters will find it harder than ever to sell their goods in the world’s lush but tightly- chaperoned markets. Says one official: “They'll bump up against more red tape, more restrictions against American goods, and even higher tariffs on imports from the United States.” Right now, 77 of the world’s 85 principal trading countries tell their merchants how much trading they can do with other nations. They do this by two methods: The govern- ments require import licenses, which means their businessmen must get official permis- sion to bring goods into thelr own country. Or the governments control forcign exchange. ‘This means a foreigner who wants to buy goods in the United States must ask his gov- ernment to change his currency—say, French francs—into dollars. TIGHTENING THE STRINGS European, Latin American, and Asiatic gov- ernments are busy tightening these controls and adding new ones. “They're still running short of dollars.” explains one trade expert. “The shorter they get, the tighter they make restrictions on goods from America.” Officials here expect a new dollar pinch in foreign countries next spring if United States sid declines. Many new barriers to United States ex- porters announced this year by foreign na- tions are just now going into effect. The €400,000,000- to $600,000,000-a-year cut-back in purchases with dollars announced by Eng- Jand and British dominions several months ago, for example, will really be felt here late this year or early in 1950. And only last week Prime Minister Attlee announced fur- ther cuts. Of the new foreign restrictions on trade, United States experts fear most the barter- type agreements. These have sprung up like mushrooms in the past half year. BARTER BUSINESS These barter-trade arrangements are usu- ally between two countries. Each nation pledges preferred treatment to some goods the other wants to sell, Each promises to take a certain amount of the other's com- modities or manufactures. Both guarantee to issue export licenses and the foreign cur- rency necessary for the trade. Goods from other countries, such as the United States, are admitted only if one treaty member doesn't supply as much of a particular item as the other member country wants. United States Embassy officials at New Delhi, India, report one typical agreement. In August, Austria and India signed a 1-year pact. Under it, Austria is to export to India 618,000,000 worth of merchandise and import an equivalent value of Indian goods in ex- change. Austria’s major exports to India are to consist of steel, paper, textiles, chemicals, machinery, and apparatus in return for In- dian deliveries of cotton, wool, hcmp, hides, furs, teas, and spices. “That’s a much more effective barrier ta United States exports than tariffs ever were,” suys one United States analyst. He explains that an American exporter would have little CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE chance to sell similar wares to these coun- tries while this swapping agreement is in effect. An Austrian, for instance, who want- ed to buy cotton from the United States might be told he’d have to buy from India. FORTY-TWO DEALS IN 6 MONTHS There were more than 42 such barter treaties among nations announced during the 6 months ended October 1. These mounting trade barriers are very frustrating to foreign policy makers in the State Department. Ever since the end of World War II they've been negotiating, plead- ing, offering United States aid, and cutting United States tariffs in a drive toward “free world trade.” Their dreamed-of ideal would be a world in which businesses in all countries bought and sold goods among each other just as, for example, a Texan and a New Yorker trade with each other. There would be no trade barriers at national boundaries and no diffi- culty changing one country’s money for another. Though the experts Know this type of trading world is not feasible any time soon, they keep trying to work toward it. They promoted the International Monetary Fund, which was supposed to make different cur- rencies interchangeable. They backed the International Trade Organization, which was supposed to eliminate trading barriers. And they've negotiated mutual tariff cuts among important trading nations. ONE FORWARD, TWO BACKWARD “But,” one State Department trade official says, “for every step of this sort we take for- ward we slip two backward "” The sad story of what's happened in the free-trade drive by the United States this year cun be told by the following course of events’ For 5 months earlier this year, United States tariff men wrestled with bureaucrats from 10 other nations in a conference at Annecy, France. They strove to persuade these other countries to cut their import duties and lower other trade barriers in re- turn for sizable cuts in United States tariffs on imports. During this 6-month period while Ameri- cans were busy talking lower tari.is with these 10 nations, the powers-that-be in at least 35 lands announced they were erecting higher walls to keep out things the United States produces and sells. The list may not yet be complete. Officials here aren't always officielly informed of such actions by other nations. Frequently they learn of new restrictions only through study- ing foreign pronouncements or reading em- bassy reports. Usually restrictions don't mention United States articles directly. For example, a country may ban imports of all left-hand-drive cars. Since the United States is the largest maker and exporter of left-hand-drive autos, such a ban would hit chiefiy this country while not mentioning the United States. THIRTY-FIVE NATIONS The 35 countries acted thus: Thirty-two of them announced new bar- ter deals that discriminate against imports from United States producers. Spokesmen for six nations said their coun- tries would tighten restrictions on the amount of American goods that would be allowed to cross their borders. Five increased tariff levels. Several said they would put on new im- port-discouraging taxes. They didn’t make clear just what form these penalties would ake. All this happened while the Annecy talks were going on. Afterward, the negotiators spent 2 months getting the Annecy agree- ments ready for diplomats to sign early in October. And dur.ng this 2-month period, the following happened: FEBRUARY 6 India informally stopped granting any more permits for imports which cost dollars. The Indian Government then issued new reg- ulations cutting imports. TRISH AND ARABIANS The Irish set limits on how much woolen piece goods could be brought into their country. The Saudi Arabians began requiring off- cial permission for wheat and flour imports. Brazilians did the same for sugar, rice, and oats. The Colombians and the Ceylonese made it harder for their buyers to get licenses to tmport goods. The Indonesians increased an import sure tax on tobacco by 200 percent and on cigars and cigarettes by 350 percent. The Peruvians made the importing of penicillin a government monopoly so their businessmen couldn’t buy directly from for- eign suppliers. The Austrians and Swiss, the Peruvians and the Argentines, the Finns and the Argentines, and the Hungarians and Yugoslavs signed two-way barter-type agreements. It will still take 2 to 8 months more to put the Annecy trade concessions into effect. In those months ahead, says one expert here, foreign officials throughout the world will announce dozens of new restrictions on how Americans can trade abroad. IRONY OF ANNEICY And, ironically, it turns out that even the labor with the 10 nations—Nicaragua, Swe- den, Italy, Finland, Denmark, Uruguay, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Liberia, and Greece—nat Annecy brought very meager benefits to this country. There were slight cuts (and, actually some increases) in tariffs on United States goods. In return, United States negotiators gave very liberal reduc- tions in United States import duties. An analysis of the Annecy concessions shows the 10 countries cut their tariffs on only a small fraction of all they import from the United States. The Danes cut duties on 1 percent of their United States imports; Uruguayans on 3 per- cent; the Dominicans on 4 percent; the Haitians on 2 percent. The Nicaraguans cut on 3 percent of im- ports from this country, but said they may increase duties on more than 9 percent of the commodities brought in from the United States, The Swedes reduced on 8 percent of United States imports but indicated they might boost levies on a range of goods later. The Finns raised most of their duties over the current rates on United States goods. Many increases were hidden in a shift from duties that charge co much an item or so much a pound to duties that charge a per- centage of the value of goods. Italy used a neat device to raise her duties. Most of the Italian concessions were made from a set of tariffs which the Italians told the United States delegates they were plan- ning to put into effect. So Italy agreed to cut these proposed tariff rates drastically, but the final effect was to increase her existing real tariff rates greatly. Not enough data is available here to figure what reductions Greece and Liberia made. Each country, however, cut only a few tariffs. Greece raised a number of her 1949 duties. On the other hand, the United States slashed its levies, frequently as much as 60 percent, on most dutiable imports from these same 10 countries. An analysis shows that for the Danes, the United States cut levies on 89 percent of the dutiable goods they sell here; for the Domin- icans, on 75 percent; for the Finns, on 98 percent. For the Greeks, tariffs were lowered on 98 percent of the goods they sell here which are charged a duty; for the Haitians, on 87 per- cent; for the Italians, on 71 percent; for the
1950 Nicaraguans, on 99 percent; for the Swedes, on 98 percent; for the Uruguayans, on 99.2 percent. The United States charges no duties on ¥9.9 percent of its imports from Liberia. Mr. MALONE. On February 2, 1950, an article appeared in the Journal of Commerce under the headline, “Acheson slams British curbs on United States oil firms,” which is what was referred to in paragraph 3 of the letter from the British Secretary of State, one of the other na- tions, simply saying that a perfunctory objection had been made. I ask unani- mous consent to have the dispatch in- cluded in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the dispatch was ordered to be placed in the Recorp, as follows: ACHESON SLAMS BRITISH CURBS ON UNITED States Ow Firms WASHINGTON, February 1-—Secretary of State Acheson said today the British Govern- ment decided on restricting American oll companies in Britain without adequate con- sultation with the companies concerned. Acheson told a news conference the United States views the British action with serious concern. He added that the State Depart- ment plans to press discussions looking to a solution of the problem. BRITISH PLANS DISCLOSED The United States National Petroleum Council made public yesterday a letter writ- ten by the British Colonial Secretary dis- closing plans to extend an embargo on dollar oil imports throughout the British Common- wealth and the sterling area. Acheson sald in a statement: “It is our view that measures can be adopted which will meet the necessity of the United Kingdom and sterling aren to save dollars on oil accounts and at the same time protect the legitimate interests of the coun- tries and companies concerned.” He said his department was aware some time ago of the letter written by the British Colonial Office to the East African Govern- ment concurring oll restrictions. This letter, he said, “does not accurately reflect the serious concern with which the United States Government viewed and con- tinues to view the British action of reducing dollar oil imports into the sterling area and the manner in which the action was put into effect.” The British letter got into the hands of the National Petroleum Council, an Ameri- can group which advises the Interior Depart- ment on oil and gas questions. The letter said in part that “the Americans have, as expected, not gone beyond expressing regret at proposals and steps have now been taken to put the scheme into effect in the United Kingdom and to obtain cooperation of the dominion governments.” Acheson said the State Department told the British last December that their hasty action did not give American oi] compunies time to find out if they could help Britain save dollars by adjustment in their opera- tions. The State Department, he said, intends to press forward with discussions looking to such a solution The United States believes, Acheson said, that if American oll companies cannot ad- just their operations to help Britain save the amount of dollars she wants that restrictions “should only take place gradually and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 1495 in a manner that would enable the United States companies to adjust with minimum hardship to the new situation.” CURB ON IMPORTS The British oj] restrictions, which curbed the right of American oil companies to im- port fuel oll and gasoline which they must buy with dollars, were announced last De- cember 21. They were to go into effect Janu- ary 1, but Acheson noted that the British had agreed to postpone the effective date to February 15. After receiving a copy of the British letter, released by the Petroleum Council, Senator CONNALLY, Democrat, of Texas, said he planned to ask the State Department to iIn- vestigate. He said he viewed the British plans as an act of hostility to American economy. In London today, the British Colonial Office said it Is certainly not engaged in trying to control the market of the world. A spokes- man said: “The Colonial Office is not frame ing oil policies. ness." We are not in the oll busi- Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I have before me a table entitled “Some Exam- ples of Reductions of Duties Under the 1934 Trade Agreements Act,” showing the section and the date of such reduction, and the completely modified tariff at this time. I ask unanimous consent to have the table, with the supporting data, printed in the REcorp at this point in my remarks. There being no objection, the table, together with the supporting data, was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Some examples of reductions of duties under the 1934 Trade Agreements Act Paragraph of Varut Act of 1930 Article 1930 rate Modifled rate 362 (a)_....- 202 (b)-2..-- 302 (c)...--- B02 (g)-----+ lamps, grains, or powder 225 (a)... wus (b) for Manganese ore (neluding ferruginous Maryanese ore) or concentrates, contaminy 1 excess of 10 pereent of Metallic manganese Molybdenum ore or concentrates. ..-2------ Tungsten ore of concentrates_..------------ Tungsten metal, tungsten carbide, and mixtores or combinations con- tamu tungsten metal or tungsten carbide, all the foregoing in Prism binoculars, frames and mountinps therefor, and parts of uny of the foregoing, all the foregoing, finished or unfinished Photographic lenses, finished or unfluished, Not specifically provided leent per pound on the me- tallic Manganese content 35 cents per pound on the metallic moly bdenum con- tent 40 cents per pound on the Metullie tungsten content 60 cents per pound on the tunpsten content and 50 pereent ad valorem 60 percent ad valorem ....-.- 801...2-..-- TLead-he ee ofl dust, ane metic. etal King Effective 30 days after the termungtion of the emergency prockiunt d on May 27, 1041, the rate for lead-boaring ores, flue dust, and mma'tes of all kinds shall e— 412_. 2... Spring clothesping lL. 2 Le 22 eee eee eee eee eee nee 603_..22..-- All other tobaeco, manufactured or untmanufactured, not specifically provided for, V(t) Beef and veal, fresh, chilled, or frozen ___ Opera or fleld glasses (not prism binoculars), frames and mountings therefor, and parts of such glasses, frames, or mountings, all the lore: going, fimshed or unfluished, hot specifically provided for Wateh erystals or watch glasses, finished or unfinished Round Electrical cooking stuves und ranges...--------------------- Metallic maenesium Antimony, os regudus or metal. eeeeeee oe oe Nickel and alloys (except those pro pd form par 302 or 3880) 1n which nickel is the component material of chief value, In pigs or Ingots, (hots, eubes, grams, cathodes, or similar forms, Sheep and lambs... ..-- Exgas of poultry, in the shell. Teygs of chickens. _ Fish, pickled or salted Salmon 729... nnn ee Wheat. 22 cee eee ee enn een eee ne enn eee en een ener cee e eee TOA. eee ee Apples: Groen or ripe.---.-----.-.- ence eee ren cen nnn ene eee nee e eee TAB ween ee Jemons....------2.eeeee ne Tie eee nee White or Irish potatoes Other than such certified seed potatoes. SSS en Shirts of cotton, not knit or crocheted. ....---.-----+-- oe Lace window curtains, nets, nettings, pillow shams, and bed sets, and all other fabrics and articles, by whatever name known, plain or jacquard-figurod, finished or unfimshed, wholly or partly manufac: tured, for any use whatsoever, mado on the Nottingham laco-cnt talt machine, wholly or in chief value of cutton or other vegetable fiber, 60 pereent a9 valorem. 35 percent ad valorem 40 cents per pound, 2 cents per pound _. 8 cents per pound... - 113 cents per pound on lead content 20 cents per g1O8s_--2- 56 counts per pound __- 6 cents per pound... $3 per head... .---- 10 conts per dozen . 25 percent ad valorem....... 42 cents per bushel of 60 pounds, 26 cents per bushel of 50 pounds. 214 cents per pound 75 cents per 100 pounds...... $5 per proof gallon.....2... wee 45 porcent ad vajorem.....-- 60 percent ad valorem....... 1g cent per pound on metal contamed (1936) 45 percent ad valorom (1936)_ 30 percent ad valorem (1980) 35 percent ad valorem (1936). 30 percent a1 valorem (1936) 174 percent ad valorem (1939). 15 cents per gross (1935) _ 22. 35 cents per pound (1030)...- Scents per dozen (1939) .... 20 percent ad valorem (1936); 1244 percent ad valorem (1930). Note quota.....---.--------- 15 cents per bushel of 60 pounds (1936). Note quota. - 22.2... $2.50 per proof gallon (1938) - &O percent ad valorem (1939) . Modified rate dy cent per pound on the me- tale manganese content (1145) 17'2 cents per pound on the metallic molybdenum con- fent (1943) 36 cents per pound on the melaliic tungsten content (14s) 42 cents per pound on the tungsten content and 25 perecnt ad valorem (1948) 30 poreent ad valorem (1944), 25 percent al valorem (194%), 20 pereen. ad valorem (1948), 15 pereent ad valorem (1048), 10 percent ad valorem (1914), 20 cents per pound (1948), Teont per pound (1948) U4 ccuts per pound (1948), 34 cent per pound on lead , content (1945), 10 cents per gross (1943), 1732 cents per pound (1048) 83 cents per pound (1948) $1 «50 per head (194.4) 314 cents per dozen (1918) 10 percent ad valorem (1418), 21 eents per bushel of 60 wounds (1048) 1242 cents per bushel of 50 pounds (148), 143 cents per pound (1949), 37/9 cents per 100 pounds for a quota quantity to be de termined annually. $1.50 por proof gallon (1948). 26 percent ad valorem rt 40 percent ad valorem (1948),
1496 Paragraph CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Some examples of reductions of duties under the 1934 Trade Agreements Act—Continued of Tarit? Article Act of 1930 1205. .2....- Woven fabrics in the plece (exceeding 30 Inches in width), wholly or | 68 percent ad valorem....... in chief value of silk, not specifically provided for: Jacqnard-figured, with fibers wholly of ‘ilk, bleached, printed, dyed, or colored, valued at more than $4 50 per pound 1819 (a).... | Dressed furs and dressed fur skins (oxeept silver or black fox)” Beaver, caracul and Persian Jamb, chinchilla, ermine, fisher, fitch, fox, kolinsky, leopard, lynx, marten, mink, Dutria, occlot, otter, pony, raccoon, sable, wolf. AN the foregoing, Tf not dyed...--. 222 e eee eee eeceenee ea weeenennecennne 26 percent ad valorem... Ifdyed _... eee eeeneene pene enn e nnn e ene 80 percent ad valorem 1733....----| Crude petroleum On free lst. 1658_. ..| Copper ore, regulus copper, and copper in plates, bars, ingots, or pigs, |----- do.?, not manufactured or specially provided br. No data (1926). ..-..s.e0--- 124 to 15 percent ad valorem (1939-41). 20 percent ad valorom (1939) 44 cont per gallon (IRC) 1932 4 sents per pound (IRC FEBRUARY 6 Modified rate Modified rate 25 porcent ad valorem (1048). 7% percent ad valorem (1948) 10 percent, ad valorom (1948), ¥ cent per gallon | 2 cents per pound? 1 Trade agreement with Vene7ucla (1939), and with Mexico (1943). ® Bound, Genova, 1948, binding not mnde effective on Jan 1, 1948, pursuant to art. 27 of the Geneva 5 Tax on copper scrap suspended from Mar 14, 1042, to June 30, 1949, Inclusive (Public Law 497, 77th Usted (including scrap) suspended from Apr, 30, 1947, to Tune 30, 1950, inclusive (Public Law 42, 80th Cong , and P cation with respect to imports, however, so long as the import excise tar¢s temain suspended. Nors.—In the trade amreoment with Venezuela, the excise tax on Imports of crude petrol cement, but became effective on Mar 16, 1949. ‘ong., and Public Laws 384 and 618, 40th Cong ) ublic Law 33, &Ist Cong.) The reduced tax will have no appli- Tax on all products eum, topped crude, fuel oil, and gas of}, imposed in June 1932, was reduced from 21 to 10 5 cents a bariel, subject, however, to an annual tariff quota, for the 4 commodities combined, equal for each year to 5 percent of the quantity of crude processed in domestic refineries during the preceding calendar year, There was no limitat: with Mexico, the quantity limitation on imports at the reduced rate was discontinucd, Sources, Publications of the U. 8. Tariff Commission, Imports and exports of petroleum products— selected years {Average daily figures in barrels} Imports . . . Yoar Crude} prog ~ pos, Norte petro- ucts Total} totul | total eum , 82, 0001187, 000! 473, 000] —316, 000 76, 000(149, 000/531, 000} —3h2, 000 -| 91, 71, 000) 162, 000/517, 000) = 455, 000 1267) 000'170,, 00014377 000/451; 000] —14) 000 ~}3583, 000) 160, 000/514, 000) 469, 000! 144, 000 y 426, 000} 21 4, 000 640, 000/329, 000} 311, 000 Estumated first | quarter, 1050 467, 000/400, 000767, 000 267, 00)| 500, 000 1 Denotes time of tarifl cuts. Source. Department of Commerce, Domestic crude production Average daily 8, 505, 000 3,472, 000 -- 3, 466, 000 1847... -. 5, 088, 000 1948__.-_---- -~ 5,509, 000 1949 (preliminary) _--..-..------. 5, 044, 000 1950 (anticipated first quarter) ~.. 5,133, 000 Imports of tungsten ore and concentrate— selected years—Impocrts for consumption, tn short tons 162, 744 - 1,485,157 -- 6,018, 005 --- 7,548, 101 January—November 1949___-_____. 6, 158, 802 2 Denotes time of tariff cut. Source: Bureau of Mines. United States production 4,287 8,094 4,210 8, 000 United States imports of copper for selected years, 1938-49 [Tn short tons) Metal R Ore egu- and Years Re- | Unre- | lus | concen- fined | ued trate 176, 798) 1,802] 2, 519] 60, 732 245, 130) 16, 264 828| 68, 320 167, 378] 149, 482} 5, 223) 85, 858 155, 836] 249, 124) 3, 657) 89, 200 124; 007| 258, 2) 077| 104, 052 1 Denotes time of tariff cuts. Source Burcau of Mines, Domestic production (mine production, : United States) (Recovered metal, in short tons) 557, 763 ---- 728,320 wee eee e eee e 847, 563 834, 814 741, 400 United States imports of lead for selected years, 1938-49 (In short tons) Lead ore 1938_..-.-------.-----~---------- - 45,370 1939_. -- 30, 842 1947 3_ -- 60,751 1948_..-------_-------------------- 64, 170 1949 (estimated) __...--------.- -- 100,000 2 Denotes time of tariff cuts. Source: Bureau of Mines. Domestic production from domestic ores Lead ore wenn ene eee ee ee eee eee 331, 964 --- 420, 967 --- 381,109 --- 3890, 476 ween n-ne nee 404, 032 United States imports of magnesium metal for selected years, 1938-49 (In short tons) 1938_._..- wenn nee e ee er Less than 1% ton 1939_-._. ~- Less than 4 ton 1947..... -- 201 1948 312 Le oe 678 1949 (estimated) __--.----... 300 1 Denotes period when tariffs were cut. Domestic production 8,217 3,350 12, 344 10, 003 11, 600 Imports of spring clothespins- -selected years Gross 17, 750 7,047 876, 299 1, 064, 688 107, 463 4 Indicates time of tariff cut. Source—Tariff Commission. Domestic production 1940... een eee en ene nee nee 8, 087, 843 1on on the quantity that could enter by paying the statutory rate of tax. In the trade agreement United States imports of eggs (in the shell) Years: 1937, 1938, 1939: Average 1937-39 (including small amount of duck eggs) ~---- 360, 000 1947 42 559, 000 --- 1, 403, 000 8, 207, 000 Dozens 1 Denotes time of tariff cuts. Source: Department of Commerce. Domestic production Dozens 8, 160, 000, 000 4, 604, 000, 000 4, 597, 000, 000 4, 311, 000, 000 The following three tables (on antimony, nickel, and molybdenum) are not significant: Imports of antimony metal or regulus—se- lected years [In short tons] Year: 1Denotes time of tariff cut. Source: Bureau of Mines. Domestic production: From antimonial lead and secondary antimony only. Imports of nickel—selected years [Metallic nickel content in pounds] Year: 1988_...--.---------------- 52, 400, 000 1939 42222. - 116, 400, 000 1947_..-.--_- - 161, 435, 000 1948 7.2222 ee ~ 193, 760, 000 January—November 1949_... 163, 855, 000 1 Denotes time of tariff cuts. Source: Bureau of Mines. Domestic production: from copper production. Imports of molybdenum—Selected yeara Only a byproduct 1 Denotes time of tariff cuts. Source: Bureau of Mines. Domestie production 80, 824, 000 27, 047, 000 26, 705, €00 1949 (9 months) -......--------. 17, 119, 400
1950 Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, the in- dices of industrial production, 1946 to 1949, of the 12 Marshall-plan countries, have been the subject of some debate. These indices are taken from the Sta- tistical Bulletin of United Nations. I ask CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE unanimous consent to have them in- serted in the REcorp. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Twelve Marshall-plan countries—Inderes of industrial production, 1946-49 {Source Statistical Bulletin of the United Nations) Base year of index Country 17 W427 Wo 1087 1°38 1930 1938 1657 Anvtiia .. Belaium.. Denmark. Franee__.-.--- ~~ - Germany (bizone). ... ---.---- Groece_. French Morocco. Treland ?..... ltaly_-..---- 1038 Netherlands -.2..-.--- 1997 Norway 1057 Sweden 1937 United Kingdom_...-..----- 1¢37 1 Not available 1946 Highest, , 1917 1018 104 Latest, 1019 bl 7s 104% 108 August 74 RH o8 18 87) August Jot Ib 120 150 150) November. rp) 87 In2 Pat No October. 34 40 0 OL 1 August ha fi7 74 wh 93 October. 154 17I 142 253 2nd August, 109 11% 140 40 134) August $US) us 116 lox Septem- ber Th Oo 114 133 $33) October 1m) tA 125 42 139) October 1u7 139 Ji 14s lib Septem: ur 0 98 109 121 2b October, YIndices for Leland are compiled quarterly instead of monthly Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, con- cluding my remarks on domestic policy— I shall continue on another subject—I want to say that apparently the only cure for the administration’s free-trade policy, and the only way it can be stopped, is simply to substitute a flexible import fee for the Trade Agreements Act, and prevent the enactment of the Inter- national Trade Organization lemislation. It is not a thing that can easily be amended, because it is simply like a foot- ball player running in the wrong direc- tion. He can be tackled and diverted, but. unless stopped he Is still going to the goal post. We have simply to stop, turn around, reverse the action, and go the other way. So, Mr. President, we may give, through the flexible Import fee and tariff action, into the hands of a non- partisan group such as I have suggested, the mght and authority and latitude in that field to fix tariffs and import feces, considering such factors as the offered- for-sale price, the dcclared customs value, and many other factors which may be available, and at the same time fixing the tariffs and import fees so that it will no longer be to the advantage of foreign nations, particularly the empire-minded nations of England, France, the Nether- lands, and Belgium, to hold down slave labor and slave wages in the Far East and in Africa, then to sell to us at what the traffic will bear, and to live off the differ- ence. Let them come here pe few times and hit a tariff import fee, gaged to make up that difference, and have the United States customer pay it into the United States Treasury. I think even the colonia] nations who have operated as colonial powers for from 100 to 300 years will then know that they may as well go home and charge us a falr price, receive a better price, and pay their labor more, to raise their own standard of living and to increase the income of their own people. Then, Mr. President, as the world raiscs its living standards, with our help, while we hold our economy on a level, our flexible import fees would go down, and when they had reached approxi- mately our standard of living, then free trade, which is the objective of every one of us In the United States, would be rcached automatically. There is a difference between what I suggest and the way the State Depart- ment is now proceeding under the three- part, free-trade system. It 1s the differ- ence between a man’s jumping off the roof to the ground to join his friends, or putting a ladder up to let him come up where you are. Mr. President, I sub- mit, 1f these dangerous policies continue, the now widespread unemployment will become even worse, and our living stand- ards will tumble. It is already lower than it was, but we take the difference out of the till, just as we sre taking the money out of the till to send to foreign nations; so no wonder we cannot get out of the red. We are go- ing further into debt even now, at what is culled the height of prosperity. If we cannot get along now, the system had better be reexamined, and then, as I say, Mr. President, an incentive will be afforded to the other nations to raise the standards of hving in their satel- lite countries as well as in thelr own. They have no incentive for raising them now. WE SUPPORT LOW LIVING STANDARDS Mr. President, just one other thing for the Recorp at this moment, which I think gets close to the heart of this. In China we buy rice at $1 a bushel, lct us assume. It is about $1abushcl. A bushel of wheat is of about the same food value. A bushel of rice is produced by a man get- ting 20 cents, perhaps, or 25 cents a day. With a bushel of rice selling at $1 it takes the rice grower 4 days’ work to buy a bushel of rice. Two-dollar wheat in this country, for a $10-a-day man, buys 5 bushels of it with a day’s work; so what is the answer? Each day’s work of a man in this country is worth 20 days in China. We think we are a great people when we can hold the price of rice down, but we had better figure on paying more for the rice and for the work involved in producing it, and there will not be that differential. But so long as there is free trade colonial nations can press it down, and it is to their advantage to do so in 1497 Hong Kong, and in the Malay States, and other areas. I was in Singapore and Indochina, Mr. President, and it will be a miracle if Indochina is not in the possession of the Chinese Communists in from 60 to 90 days. All they have to do is to move in. We have the spectacle of the United States and England recognizing a French ruler, and we see Russia recognizing Communist rulers. When I was there, Mr. President, I could hear shooting go- ing on. Someone is killed every once in a while there. Three of our own people have been killed within the past few months. Many people live in the middle of Saigon. Outside of that small, hard core persons are shot. That is the way Indochina 1s being run today, and we are furnishing the money to keep the people under the colonial yoke. Russia is prom- ising them relief from the yoke. It takes only one guess to know which country will win. Mr. President, I expect to continue after I yield briefly to the junior Senator from Massachusetts, who wishes to ad- dress the Senate on another subject. CLOSING OF THE WALTHAM WATCH CoO. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I should like to make a brief statement concern- ing a tragic emergency which has taken place in Mussachusctts, and I ask unan- imous consent that the Senator from Nevada |Mr. Martone! shall not lose the floor while I address the Senate on this subject. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Haypben in the chair). Without objcc- tion, it is so ordered. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, on last Saturday, the doors of the Waltham Watch Co., in Massachusetts, were closed, throwing out of work all that company’s employees. The decision was made with- out notice, without giving anyone an opportunity to prepare for it, and it prompted the sending to the President of the United States of a telegram by Mr. Walter W. Cenerazzo, national presi- dent of the American Watch Workers’ Union. It is that telegram which I de- sire to read into the Recorp. It is ad- dressed to the President of the United States, and reads as follows: Mr. President, 2,358 Americans yesterday, with less than 3 hours’ notice, lost their Jobs working for the world’s oldest precision watch-making firm, the 100-year-old Wal- tham Watch Co. Their jobs were lost because the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a part of your administration, refused to allot the company an additional $1,500,000 in working capital out of a pledged 86,000,000 loan promised to the company Inst spring. Four million dollars only has been lent to Waltham Watch Co. by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which took as collateral all of the company’s asscts, including build- ing, real estate, machinery equipment, tc-~- counts reccivable, finished inventory, and work in process. But this $4,000,000 wns dls- bursed by the company by paying the bank $3,250,000 in full payment for all loans of the bank, 8600,0G0 to pay to the debtors and the cost of reorganization, and the remaining $150,000 was all the ccmpany received out of this loan for a working capital. Federal Judge George C Sweeney and his three ap- poinved court trustees, Dantel J. Lyne, C. Keefe Hurley, and Judge Jacob Kaplan, did an outstanding job iu the reorganization of this company. They took the water out of
1498 the stocks and bonds, eupplted competent engineering advice to the company, and ob- tnined competent, efficient, productive man~ agement to guide the company. Waltham Watch Co. today is in far better financial condition and led by as good a management as possibly could be obtained in the flelds of production, merchandising, and accounting. Waltham Watch Co. has less money today than it did when a petition was filed for re- organization in the Federal court on Decem- ber 28, 1948 Waltham Watch Co. has adequate manage- ment and a sales organization was really making headway. In the month of January 1950 alone more watches were sold by the Waltham Watch Co. than in any January in the previous 4 years, in spite of the fact that all watch sales have slowed down tremen- dously by all companies. Mr. President, un- less you act immediately, a company essen- tial to the national defense of the United States will die. It is unfair to the stock- holders who have invested their money to let this company die. It is unfair to 2,358 human beings who depend on Waltham Watch Co. for thelr livelihood to let this company die. It is unfair to the American people to allow this company, only one of three left in the United States capable of making precision instruments in time of wr in the timing mechanism fleld, to die. If this company ts allowed to dle, and it will dic unless you act immediately, the 1,231 persons who were left on the company pay roll when it closed yesterday will go on un-~ employment compensation and the relief roll. The cost of this relief will far exceed a@ million and a half dollars to the Federal, Btate, and city governments. And none of this money can ever be recouped once It is pald out in unemployment compensation or relief. Out of these 2,358 persons there are many hundreds in the age brackets of 45 to 65 who will be unable to obtain employ- ment elsewhere. They are too young to ob- tain social-security benefits and many of them are frugal persons who have purchased their own homes and have small equities in them. They will be unable to obtain relief while they own whatever equity they possess in these homes The cost of hardship through unemployment to these familes in ‘human misery cannot be measured = Mr. President, the Waltham Watch Co. is one of three companies making jeweled watches in the United States. The other two, the Elgin National Watch Co. and the Hamilton Watch Co., have in the past year both curtailed their production schedules. Hamilton Watch Co. has 400 less employees than it had a year ago. The Elgin National Watch Co has reduced its working hours 10 per- cent and, in addition, is closing one of its three plants, the one in Aurora, Ill. The economic factors which caused this ree trenchment are the Swiss watch imports which have flooded this country during the past 10 years, during 6 of which these three companies produced no watches for civilian use—a timing mechanism for all of the armed forces of the Allies. The Defense Bupply Corporation spent no money to build plants to produce timing mechanisms. El- gin, Hamilton, and Waltham produce them all. While these companies were at war helping the United States, an average of 10,- 000,000 watches per year came into the United States at one-third to one-fourth of what they could be produced for in the United States. None of these watches were for military use. Over 100,000,000 watch movements have come into the United States during the last 10 years. The tariff revenue for the United States Treasury must have been well in excess of $250,000,000 obtained by the entry of goods into the United States that were detrimental to the well-being of the Waltham Watch Co, and its employees. The Government of the United States, under your Democratic ad- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ministration, should be willing to lend, and I emphasize lend, an additional million and ® half dollara to the Waltham Watch Co. for working capital. The Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation can easily do this by using the going-concern value of the company in- stead of the Nquidation value which !t used to turn down the loan. The Democratic ad- ministration which you head, Mr. President, has been responsible for refusing to curtatl these Swiss watch imports. The Democratic administration which you head, Mr. Presl- dent, refused the additional million and a half dollars necessary to give Waltham Watch its new lease on life. The Democratic admin- istration professes to be for human welfare. Its campaigns are based on human rights. It advocates minimum wages, paid holidays, paid vacations, pension plans, group insur- ance for sickness and accident, and yet at the same time the Democratic administra- tion which you head, Mr President, advocates the entry and permits the entry of foreign goods into the United States manufactured under conditions which we would not permit in the United States to the detriment of American workmen. When these tmports cause manufacturers to drown, employees lose their jobs, and not one contract, regard- less of what its contents are, is of any value to the employees. Mr. President, there is only one person in the world who has the authority and the opportunity to save the Waltham Watch Co That person is you. There is time for you to act. The Federal court is not going to act on whether or not to accept the petition of the company for reorganization until after 4 p.m on Monday, February 16. If the RFC reconsiders its action and grants the company the necessary million and a haif dollars to continue opera-~- tion thero will be no need for the company to have its petition heard JI urge you, Mr. President, as the hend of the Democratic ad- ministration, to call in the board of directors of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and request them to loan Waltham Watch Co. this necessary working capital. Mr. Presi- dent, you have the time to act. Won't you please, in behalf of 2,358 men and women, all good Americans who seck the opportunity to work, tnstruct or urge the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to grant Waltham Watch Co. the necessary working capital. If this ts done you will have contributed much to the well-being of the New England com- munity If you do not act you will have dealt a death blow to one of America’s oldest corporations and the job opportunities of 2.358 Americans. Each of our members when they go to church tomorrow morning will say their prayers that you will pay heed to this request. I trust their prayers will be an- swered. Thanking you for your considera- tion of this request, I remain, Respectfully yours, Warrer W. CENERAZZO, National President of the American Watch Workers’ Union. That, Mr. President, is the telegram which Mr. Cenerazzo sent to the Presi- dent of the United States. I express the hope that action will still be possible to enable this company, which was not only a large employer of labor, but which was such an essential part of the national defense of America, to continue operations. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding to me in order that I might place the telegram in the Rrcorp. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, will the Benator from Nevada yield to me? Mr. MALONE. I yield. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, when the Joan in connection with the Waltham Watch Co. was first considered by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Hamilton Watch Co., a Pennsylvania FEBRUARY 6 corporation, asked if I would urge the granting of the loan, because it was felt that while the Waltham Watch Co. was @ competitor, it was for the good of the United States that the Waltham Watch Co. continue in business, because there are only three great American watch manufacturing concerns, the Waltham Watch Co., the Hamilton Watch Co., and the Elgin Watch Co. In case of an emergency, and in case of war, the men working in these fac- tories are the men who must do the work in the manufacture of precision instru- ments. Workers cannot be developed for the precision instrument factories short of a couple of years of training, according to those in charge of the Hamilton Watch Co. I hope that the President of the United States, in his wisdom, for the good of the men who work in these fac- tories, and also for the good of the na- tiona)] defense, may instruct the directors of the RFC to assemble and grant the loan asked for. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield? Mr. MALONE. I yield to the distin- gushed junior Senator from Massachu- setts. Mr. LODGE. I wish to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his ob- servations. They will be noted and read with interest and approbation in Massa- chusetts. Iam glad to have the Senator support my appeal that the President act while there 1s yet time. DOMESTIC POLICY Mr. MALONE Mr. President, I wish to add a couple of statements to my ad- dress on domestic policy which I have been making. In comment, and closing my address on domestic policy, I wish to say that I have just witnessed, for the second time in my Hfe, an appeal from a distin- guished United States Senator to the Government of the United States to save an industry. I know of many other like incidents. When I was special consult- ant on strategic materials to the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, a request was made of me by the distinguished senior Senator from Colorado I[Mr. Jonnson], then the acting chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic and Critical Minerals of the Senate Commit- tee on Military Affairs. The Senator from Utah [Mr. THomas] was the chair- man, but the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JouHNson]) was the acting chairman. He asked me to go to one of the departments here to appear before a committee that was set up to hear complaints about the closing of some industries on account of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act. He said, “Will you go there, and if I cannot get there by the time they meet, ask them to remain in session until I arrive? I want to talk about the tungsten industry.” Mr. President, I had the mortifying experience of seeing a great Senator, a Member of this body—and I was merely his special consultant—stand before that body of men, none of whom would I have hired in my engineering business, because in my judgment they knew so little about the subjects they were con-
1950 sidering, but they sat there like the Su- preme Court, and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Jounson], great man that he is, with his hat in his hand, looked up and begged them not to shut down the tungsten industry of the United States. Word came afterward that they had nothing to do with it; that they were only hearing the facts; that they passed the evidence on to somebody else, whom they could not disclose, even if they knew, who passed on the subject. Of course, one glance at the committee it- self would have satisfied anyone that if they did have the authority to pass judg- ment, they were not competent to do so. But they closed down the industry. They paid no attention to it. Mr, President, I witnessed another in- cident involving another great Senator from Massachusetts, the grandfather of the present junior Senator, one of the great Senators of this body in the long ago past. Somehow we have witnessed the senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON] and the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LopncEel, both of whom voted at different times for the 1934 trade agreements, taking their hats in their hands, figuratively, today, and begging the President of the United States, or begging a committee, not to close an industry which is vital to their States. Mr. President, I stated a little earlier that the Senate of the United States, to- gether with the House of Represcnta- tives, passcd an act abdicating their authority over the national economy, an authority given to them by the Consti- tution of the United States, shirking their responsibility, and turning it over to an industrially inexperienced State Department. which has no interest in industry in this country. At least, all of their actions indicate that they have no interest in 1t, and do not understand it. The Congress of the United States passed the act, and one by one great Senators, go up with their hats in their hands saying, “Will you please save an industry?” Mr. President, it is enough to make one break down and cry to see such things done, when this body today has no control over the economy of this country, which the Constitution delegated to Con- gress, which kept it until 1934, when it abdicated—I was going to say ‘“abro- gated,” as I said earlier in my address, but abdicate is a better word—because some- body told them there was log-rolling in this body. Somebody told them they were not competent to fix tariffs, under which they had brought the standards of living of this country from the days of the axe and hoe, which were used when the people landed on this continent, up to the present height of industrial devel- opment. It was said Congress was no longer competent. I wish to remark that the idea of flex- ible tariffs is not a new idea In 1923 it was mentioned, but not clarified. In 1933 it was clarified, and it was provided that the Tariff Commission could raise or lower tariffs 50 percent, on the basis of what I have been discussing, on the basis of a comparison of standards of living. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The occasion was taken, in the great depression of the 1930’s, to say that the Congress had failed in its duty, so that the State Department must take the matter over, because there would be no log rolling there. Of course, there has been no log rolling, at least with us. There must have been plenty some place else, but there have been horse-trading methods, just as Secretaries of State have often said, shotgun methods, with no thought whatever of the difference be- tween the standards of living in our Na- tion and those in competitive countries, Mr. President, the adoption of fixed tariffs is not the most successful way of proceeding. Of course, there was log- rolling in this body, but under what was proposed in 1930 there could have been no logrolling, and there could be none under the flexible system now being pro- posed, because the matter would be put in the hands of a nonpartisan Tariff Commission. Let them fix an import fee or tariff to represent the difference, in general, of living standards, unless there is manipulation and everyone in this Chamber knows there has been manipulation of the currencies, em- bargoes, quotas, and specifications to prevent our selling in Europe, while the European countries made a one-way street into our markets. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Nevada wants to go on record. He has seen this situation coming for 15 years. I insisted on coming before this body and addressing it, because in my opin- ion we are headed for the grcatest eco- nomic debacle this country has ever seen, uf the present tendency is followed. Mr. President, the present drift has gone to such a point that more industries will come to the RFC, more industries will write the President of the United States, or send tear-Jerking Ictters or telegrams, like that read by the dis- tinguished Senator from Massachusetts, because every industry in the United States is threatened as I have said on the Senate floor more than once in the past 3 years, by the passage of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act—humorously called the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Those words do not occur in the act, and there is no reciprocal trade, and no reciprocal trade agreements have been made. I should be glad to debate that with any Senator who desires to debate it, at any time. Now, what we are coming to is that every industry in the United States must come to the RFC or to the President of the United States to save itself. What will we then have in this country? We will have the same kind of socialist gov- ernment which now exists in England. Some may like such a form of govern- ment. I do not like it. England may have such a government if its people want to support it. But when we are supporting them, and they are paying one and a half million dollars to their King, who once a year reads to Parlia- ment a message written by someone else, and who visits the United States when there is a little difficulty about securing a Joan here—when we are _ supporting them, then I say I do not like such a government. Every country among the ECA nations is doing the same. We do 1499 not want such a form of government here. Mr. President, why cannot venture capital be secured today? Venture capi- tal cannot be secured because the tex structure is such that people will not in- vest venture capital in business, and to- day every business in the United States is a venture, a greater venture than it has ever been. What happens if one invests venture capital in a business? If the one who makes the investment makes any money, it belongs to Uncle Sam; if the investor loses, the loss is his. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYCN The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurte- nant dams and canals, and for other purposes. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I now desire to discuss briefly a matter on which I feel very strongly and which I think is thorcughly misunderstood in the United States of America, and little help has been given toward making it under- stood. I refer to Senate bill 75, intro- duced by the junior Senator from Ari- zona [Mr McFaruanp] for himself and the senior Senator from Arizona I|Mr. Hayven]. I have known the senior Senator from Arizona from 1927 when he first came to this body. We have had many pleasant relationships and discussions of mutual help. We do not always agree on every- thing, but everything between us is up and up and on the square. I have not known the junior Senator from Arizona | Mr. MCFARLAND] as long as I have known the senior Senator from Arizona, but I have just as high a regard for him. Mr. President, I am for the proposed project in Arizona. I am for such a project when the Secretary of the In- terior has found it to be feasible, and after the Bureau of Reclamation has made its full investigation. I listened very carefully to the junior Senator from Arizona today. He did not clarify the subject. He impressed the Senate with the fact that the project is a@ very important one to Arizona. I know it is. As a matter of fact, my son-in- law and my daughter live in Arizona. I visit them every once in a while when I can be absent from the Senate floor in vacation tame. I am very fond of the people of Arizona. I say again without equivocation, that when the precedent respecting reclama- tion has been set for 50 years—and it has lasted that long—and when that prece- dent is followed, I am for the project. In the short time of 30 years that I have been in the engineering business I have seen land in reclamation areas of the Rocky Mountains which could have been purchased for only $20 an acre and which has increased in value until now it cannot be bought for less than $300 an acre. I know not what we will have to pay for new land 20 or 30 years from now. I am not asking the cost of the project. We will leave that to someone
1500 else. But, Mr. President, I want to say one thing to lay a foundation. Of course, in the Eastern States, in the humid areas, the idea is to get the water off the land. There is too much water. Control of the water is needed. Drainage is provided. For such purposes money is appropriated. We know that millions upon millions of dollars have been appropriated by Congress during the past 50 years to get the Mississippi River water off the land and back into its channel and into tributary rivers, so that crops can be raised on the flooded land. The opposite is true where the present Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ari- zona [Mr. HAYDEN] andI live. We try to get the water out of the streams and onto the land. That is our problem. That is the problem of the Senators from Arizona now, and with respect to it I am in complete sympathy with them. But I wish to say for the benefit of the record what I have said probably a hun- dred times in the past 30 years, and for which I take no credit. I was raised in an arid region, and still live there. The development of any State where the rainfall is less than re- quired to raise a crop is limited by the State’s water supply. That is why water litigation in the West has come to the Supreme Court so often. That is the reason why precedents have been set. A precedent was set in the spring of 1927 when I appeared before the Senate Com- mittee on Reclamation and Irrigation, which is now the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The distinguished senior Senator from Arizona was a mem- ber of that committee. Former Senator Ashurst, who has not been a Member of the Senate for some time, was a member of that committee. Senators Pittman and Oddie, two great Senators from the State of Nevada, were members of that committee. I stood at the end of the committee table and had my say. The committee was kind enough to invite me to appear before it, as State engineer of Nevada and as a Colorado River com- missioner. We wanted amendments placed in the bill then pending. We finally secured adoption of the amend- ments. Without going into detail on that point, suffice it to say that the com- mittee finally accepted them. At that time I had entered into the problem, having inherited it from some- one else. I took over the office of State engineer of Nevada, and became secre- tary of the Colorado River Commission. The problem there was for Nevada to become identified with the matter. The State of Nevada had never been men- tioned in a headline or in print that I know of until 1927. What was the nature of the fight? The great fight was between California and Arizona. That is all that was heard at that time. The Governor of Arizona had been elected seven times to seven 2- year terms on the proposition of saving the water of the Colorado River for Arizona. He saved it all right. He never entered the compact. Arizona never made a proposition. Arizona never joined anything. We finally had to get six States the hard way to agree to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Colorado River compact, and divide the water between the upper and lower basins. No attempt whatever had been made previously to divide the water be- tween the States of the lower basin and the upper basin. Mr. President, Delph Carpenter used to be called the Silver Fox of the Rock- jes. He was half paralyzed at that time. He is still living in Greeley, Colo. He cannot feed himself. He cannot talk. But he was the brains of the Colorado River compact, as the present Senators from Arizona will now admit. They know it full well. I used to chide Delph Carpenter. I realized the brains he had and the little experience I had in 1927, having returned 7 or 8 years previously from World War I. I returned to my engineering business, but my experience in State affairs and in water law was very limited. Delph Carpenter was one of the greatest water lawyers who ever lived in the United States of America. He is a “dead man” today, still living. He wrote the Colorado River compact in Santa Fe, N. Mex., in 1922, at the time Herbert Hoover was the Chairman of the Commission. The members of the Com- mission all agreed to it. Arizona, how- ever, pulled out. Let us not discuss the merits of that matter. Arizona has since recognized the compact. Seven States have signed the compact. Arizona at different times has claimed that the Gila River is not a part of the compact. I shall simply quote Delph Carpenter, who wrote the compact, who says the Gila River is a part of the com- pact. Iam not a lawyer, and I will not tell the Senate tonight that the Gila River is a part of the compact. What I shall say to the Senate is that if there 4s a dispute now over where the Gila River belongs, that dispute belongs in the Supreme Court of the United States, which must determine the question, as it did of the seven States, after only six had signed the Colorado River Compact. As a result Boulder Dam was built, we got the withdrawal on power, for which I take the credit. I take the credit for getting the withdrawal on power, 36 per- cent of the firm power at Boulder Dam for Arizona and Nevada, that is 18 per- cent apiece. None of the Representa- tives of the State of Arizona came along. Arizona would not agree to anything. We also secured a percentage of the revenues in lieu of taxes, which would now amount to $2,500,000 for each of the two States annually, if our own people could have signed their names, They took $300,000 apiece, however, and called it square. But they say it is not chicken feed. They have collected 8 or 10 million dollars apiece out of the little bit of work the junior Senator from Nevada did at that time. Mr. President, the Colorado River compact is clear. That is to say, the wording is clear. The meaning is cer- tainly not clear, because California, Ari- gona, and perhaps some other States, so far as I know, question its meaning. I am not questioning what it means. Iam assuming that we have it. My State is included among the six States in the basin which have accepted it. The com- pact has been signed, and that is the end of it. It is just as though an indi- FEBRUARY 6 vidual had made a contract. We have signed a contract. It is no longer a question of how we want to change it, unless we mutually agree. If we do not mutually agree, there is no place to go but the court. Delph Carpenter says that the Gila River is a part of the wa- tershed, and included in the compact. I will not discuss that question further. When I come to it I will insert in the ReEcorp what he said. Mr. President, to my mind, this is where the whole thing hinges: To my knowledge—I might be mistaken—the Congress of the United States has never appropriated money to divert water from an interstate stream system for the benefit of one State and away from the interstate group interested in that stream in the absence of an interstate agreement signed by all the States in- terested in the particular basin or an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. It has never been done, to my knowledge; and I have watched this body operate since 1927, over a period of 24 or 25 years. Mr. President, I am now a member of the committee before which I appeared in 1928 with my heart in my mouth. It was the first time I had ever appeared before a committee. I thought I knew what I was talking about. I had taken my time. I understood where the power revenues were going and where the water was going. I went there and took the fire. Now Iam a member of that com- mittee, and I am in the position of judg- ing other people’s problems. Oftentimes it makes one feel his inability to pass on another man’s problem when that man rises with tears in his eyes, as the Sen- ator from Arizona almost did this after- noon, to say, “My State is suffering. Unless we get this water, a large area in my State is going out of cultivation.” I am familiar with the area, and I think the Senator may be correct. I know of large areas in Nevada which have gone out of cultivation because the water table has gone beyond. the eco- nomic lift for a pump; but I know of other areas which have never gone under cultivation because we have not had a project out of the Colorado River. Much has been said about what fs included in the Boulder Dam Project Act. Of course, it is now called the Hoover Dam. However, the act is referred to as the Boulder Dam Act. It is still known by that name. I sat in the con- ference as the State engineer of Nevada, advising the Nevada Senators when the deal was made for advance consent of the Congress for a three-State compact with regard to water. What did it mean? It is not unusual for the Congress, which must ratify interstate compacts, to give consent in advance and write the com- pact, which is what was done in that instance. What did that compact do? It allo- cated 2,800,000 acre-feet of water to Ari- zona. It said nothing about where it was to come from, whether from the Gila River or somewhere else. It allocated 800,000 acre-feet to Nevada. It limited California to a certain amount of water. It gave consent to such a compact. Mr. President, I am leaving tonight on official business for about a week. I
1950 shall try to obtain a pair against the bill, unless it is properly written, but I must have my say now, because I want it to be a matter of record. There are two reasons why the com- pact is not effective. The matter of 2,800,000 acre-feet of water has been sold all over the West, with no explanation as to what it means. .In the first place, the three States which have been mentioned did not agree toit. Noagreement has ever been made. Therefore it is ineffective for that rea- son, just as though it were entirely obliterated. I am not a lawyer. I do not know what the effect would be if it had been signed. But there are five States in the lower basin, not three. Not one of them was ever mentioned on the floor of the Senate. None of them was ever men- tioned in the news dispatches. The fight is between the great overbearing State of California and the little State of Ari- zona. AsTI have said, I have had some experience with Arizona. When they got ready to go they finally signed, but it represented blood money. The agree- ment was never changed. Yet for 7 years the Governor of Arizona was re- elected on the basis that he had saved the Colorado River for Arizona. We never run our Government on that basis. I do not know much about that system. But the States of Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico have never come into this discussion and they do not appear in the dispatches. Five States are mem- bers of the lower basin. There are two different divisions of the river. There is the lower division, which includes three States. Those States are Arizona, Ne- vada, and California. The lower-basin States are New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California. It is my opin- ion that even if the three States had agreed to this, which they never did, the project would not be legal unless the other two States of the basin were taken into considcration. We cannot change the Colorado River compact. I cannot change it. You, Mr. President, cannot change it. All we can do is to say that we want this compact to be interpreted in its entirety by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the water rights to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, before an appropriation is made to take water which may belong to other States in the basin out of an interstate stream for the benefit of one State. There may be a misunderstanding so far as the Gila River, or any other river, is concerned. The Muddy River ran out of Nevada into the Virgin River coming from Uteh, draining parts of both States and running into the Colorado River. Now, the dam backs the water up and covers the junction of the two rivers and they both drain into Lake Mead. The point I make is that not one of the lower-basin States—and I defy anyone to show the contrary—has any definite amount of water allocated to it. The only State with reference to which it could be said that there is any limit whatever is the State of California. Their legislation, by virtue of the Boulder Dam legislation, could he ef- XCVI. 95 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fective only if they accepted the limit. We could not appropriate any money until California accepted the limit of 4,400,000 acre-feet. I am not arguing that that is legal, or that there is not verbiage that could be questioned. The committee was informed that a question was to be raised in that connection. Whether that can be done successfully, I do not know. I do not intend to pass on that question. It is not necessary for me todoso. But what I say, Mr. Presi- dent, is that there is not one iota of evi- dence to show that there has been an agreement between the five States or be- tween the three States. I sat in every one of these conferences from 1927 until I resigned, late in 1935. My deputy en- gineer, Mr. A. M. Smith, took my place at that time. I spoke to him on the tele- phone and he read me a telegram which he is sending me, and which I shall read. Tom Smith has sat in every conference since then. He assures me that there has not been any semblance of an agreement between the five States of the lower basin. If there had been an agreement between the lower-basin States, we would have it before us. It must be ap- proved by the Congress before it is ef- fective. So we know that no such agree- ment was ever made. Myr. President, for 3 years I have sat as @ member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Many times an ap- propriation has come before that com- mittee. What is the first question the chairman of the committee asks? The one exception is with reference to S. 75. The chairman asks if the Governor and the State enginecr of each of the States have agreed to the proposal. He asks whether there has been an interstate agreement. He asks if the legislature has ratified it, and whether there has been an adjudication of the water rights. If there has not been, nothing is done. There is no argument. I have heard the distinguished chairman of the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the senior Senator from Wyoming |Mr, O’Manoney], ask those very questions, I will name a specific instance. There 1s a river which affects both Wyoming and Colorado. I think it is the North Platte. I am not sure. The record will show what it is. They wanted an appropri- ation made for the project or they wanted an appropriation to complete the project. After Senate bill 75 had been reported, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’MaHONEY] asked whether the State engineer and the Governor of each of the States had agreed to it. He was as-~ sured by the representatives of each State that that was so. The Senator from Wyoming asked whether an inter- state agreement had been entered into. He was assured that it had been and that the legislatures of the States affected would approve it. So the Senator from Wyoming said we would consider it. However, they have been turned down time after time, since I have become a member of the committee. I heard Boulder Dam turned down, I read the record for the period between 1922-27, when I myszlf got into the fight. It was turned down, not because they did not 1501 care about making an appropriation to build Boulder Dam, now Hoover Dam, but because there was no agreement between the upper basin States and the lower- basin States on the division of the water. Mr. President, I spent 844 years on that project, and I have watched it ever since. What would have been the effect if Boulder Dam could have been con- structed by Government funds, but with- out an interstate compact? I will tell you what the effect would have been, Mr. President—and that is the reason that Delph Carpenter did yeoman serv- ice to his State and to the upper-basin States. If that project had been built without an interstate compact, Cali- fornia and Arizona could have taken practically all the water of the Colorado River, because in the lower-basin States the elevations are lower, whereas 1n the higher elevations citrus fruits do not grow as well as they grow in California and Arizona, and also the long grow- ing season is not available in the upper- basin States. Therefore, only a limited amount of money can be spent to ad- vantage on such projects in the upper- basin States, and a longer period of use is required before an adequate return can be obtained on the investment. So I joined with Delph Carpenter, Mr. President. I admired him very much. He was so fair in everything, and such a master of the situation so far as legal ideas and interpretations and verbiage were concerned. I used to travel with him to the conferences in Santa Fe, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Denver. I traveled with him, I helped undress him, I helped dress him, I helped feed him, because I was getting experience from him, experience that only Delph Carpen- ter had. I joined with him in saying that the appropriation should not be made until such time as there was an ad- judication of the water rights or an in- terstate agreement which would protect the upper basin. Mr. President, when we came to Wash- ington at the beginning of 1927, Mr. Hoover, who later became President of the United States, then was Secretary of Commerce, and a great Secretary of Commerce he was. I wanted to mect him. A man by the name of Ray Baker was here in Washington at that tine. He has long since died. He said he would take me to meet Mr. Hoover. Mr. President, I was not afraid to mcet Mr. Hoover. After all, I was an engi- neer myself, as he had been for many years. So I said I would like to meet Mr. Hoover. Mr. Baker said, ‘‘Don’t be surprised if he does not talk very much to you. He is very short in his conver- sation; and, of course, he knows what he is talking about, and is rather im- patient.” I said, “I will take a chance on that.” So Mr. Baker took me to meet Mr. Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce. The first question I asked him, after I met him was: “Mr. Hoover, how many States do we have to have ratify the seven-State compact before the Boulder Dam Project Act can be passed?” He replied: “You have to have five, and you ought to have six.”
1502 So Mr. Hoover and I proceeded to talk, and we talked for half an hour or more, Finally, after we concluded our conver- sation and after Mr. Baker and I left Mr. Hoover and got outside his office Mr. Baker said he had nearly had heart fail- ure, that he had never known Mr. Hoo- ver to talk as long and as interestingly to anyonc else as he had talked to me. But, Mr. President, Mr. Hoover knew that the States had to ratify the compact. Finally, ratification of the compact by six States was obtained. I lost 15 pounds in that process. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, it would not hurt me to lose that much weight now. But the pact was ratified, and Boulder Dam was built. A few years later Arizona came in, after the dam wa. completed. Arizona is now taking full advantage of the power withdrawal we got at that time and of the money paid in lieu of taxes. Now we come to the present proposal. I say again—and I wish to go on record so emphatically that there can be no doubt about it—that I am not opposing the Arizona project, as such. I am opposing breaking that long-term prec- edent of the Congress of the United States. To my knowledge, Congress has never appropriated money for an im- portant project which would take an im- portant amount of water out of an inter- state stream which might be considered as belonging to other States, in the absence of an interstate agreement or an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. This is the first time I have ever heard such a proposition seriously urged in the absence of such an agree- ment or adjudication. Mr. President, I should like to say at this time that I had occasion to sit with the Senate Committee on Public Works with the distinguished chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico |Mr. CHavez]. I am a member of that committee. In my opinion, it is a@ very important committee. It passes on authorizations for appropriations in regard to all flood-control and naviga- tion projects and other types of develop- ment. It also deals with matters with which the Army engineers are concerned, Their criterion now is feasibility. That committee is acting on such matters to- day in the same way that the Committce on Interior and Insular Affairs has always considered matters relating to the Bureau of Reclamation. On the committec we have been talk- ing about the Rio Grande flood-control project. I shall favor it if all the tech- nicalities can be worked out because the Army engineers say it 1s feasible. Mr. President, Albuquerque, N. Mex, fs built in the river bed of the Rio Grande. It is a very large city, with a population of over 200,000 people, having grown trermendously in size in the last 25 years. When I first visited Albuquerque, it was just a small town, but today it is very large and is still growing. Albu- querque simply must have this flood-con- trol project. So we have the proposal for the Rio Grande River project. Of course, Mr. President, when we consider the use of the water of the Rio Grande River, it is obvious that Mexico is entitled to a certain amount of water CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE and Texas is entitled to certain amount of water. However, under the treaty it planned to turn over 1,500,000 acre-feet of water to Mexico, whereas in the past Mexico has never used at any one time more than 750,000 acre-feet. I shall not go into the details of that matter, but it is obvious that in drawing up the treaty someone got very much mixed up, with the result that Mexico was allowed a great deal more water than she ever would be entitled to. As I just said, there never was a time when Mexico used at any one time more than 750,000 acre-feet of water, and Mexico is not using more than that amount now. Nevertheless, the treaty gives Mexico 1,500,000 acre-feet of water, and that was done without the lower- basin States and the upper-basin States knowing anything about it. I was with Sid Osborne at that time, and we presented President Roosevelt an industrial report from the 11 western States. He was very happy to have it. Just as we were leaving, he said: “Gover- nor, I want to tell you that I signed a treaty today giving Mexico 1,500,000 acre-feet of water.” Sid Osborne jumped about a foot. It was the first he had ever heard of it, just as it was the first that I had ever heard of it. Of course, there was no particular reason why I should have heard of it, because at that time I was in a private engineering position. But I had warned the commissions of Cali- fornia and Arizona and Nevada that they had better look out for the Boundary Commission down there because, as I said to them— It is a sleeper. No one ever hears any- thing about it, but it has three members who live on it and may die on it, and they have the power to make the treaty. You had better watch out, or some day you will be hut. Mr. President, today we are short three-quarters of a million acre-feet of water. Without the treaty giving a mil- lion and a half acre-feet of water to Mex- ico, we probably would have plenty of water today. That is just a personal Opinion on my part, and of course I want the court to pass on that question. As the witnesses paraded to the stand at the hearing down there—and I have before me the transcript of the testimony of only two of the witnesses—such men as Mr. Hill gave their testimony. Mr. Hull’s father was Louis Hill, whom all of us knew years and years ago. He was consulting engineer for the Bureau of Reclamation, along with A. J. Wuey, of Idaho. The favorable opinion of those two men was almost indispensable, so far as the Bureau of Reclamation was concerned. If those two men did not pass favorably on a proposal, it simply was not feasible, so far as the Bureau of Reclamation was concerned; that was all there was to it. In later years young Mr. Hill has taken his father’s place, and has gone a long way, and has gained a very fine and wide reputation in the Southwest for being able to pass an projects. I highly re- spect his engineering opinion. I would ride a long way with Mr. Hill without question. As he got through testifying in regard to the Rio Grande proposal and regard- FEBRUARY 6 ing the necessity for the ratification of the interstate pact, and after he had ex- pressed the opinion that the proposal would not violate any legal rights— although, as a matter of fact, one dam did violate the compact, so California and Texas were objecting, and, of course, that part of the project will not be built; only the parts which fit in with the com- pact will be built—but as Mr. Hill was about to leave the stand I said to him: Mr. Hill, from your testimony, you gen- erally say that before Congress appropriates gny money for a project at a certain site on an interstate stream, you would strongly favor interstate agreement or adjudication so that you know what each State is entitled to prior to any such proposition? Mr. HILu. Very definitely, yes, because why build something that when you get all through you don't know whether you have a right to use it or not? The CHAIRMAN— That was the Senator from New Mex- ico (Myr, CHavez)]— Thank you, Mr. Hill. Is Mr. Tipton avail- able for one more question from Senator MALONE? I wanted to call him back, because he had finished. Mr. Tipton is a consulting engineer for many projects in the West, and for Colorado, for their intrastate commission. I said to Mr. Tipton: It 1s your definite opinion alon with Mr. Hill and, so fur as I knew, in general, that Congress should not appropriate funds for a project “or interstate streams in the absence of interstate agreements? Mr. Tipton, Yes; that is my very definite conclusion providing, such a project would result in condict. Colorado for 50 years was unable to get authorized in the Con- gress the construction of projects that it needed throughout that 50 years, because there was not an interstate agreement Im- mediately there was consummated an inter- state agreement there was approved the proj- ect Colorado needed all those years. The CuairmMaNn. As a matter of fact, aren’t you having trouble with Nebraska on some of these works? Mr TirrTon, No, sir; we now have a con- tract. Every single stream of Colorado has been in controversy, because we not only furnish water for Colorado but to the sur- rounding States. May I say with pride every stream is covered by compact or Supreme Court decision? Mr. President, I know about this. I have lcen through this thing for 25 years, operating with these men. But, Mr. President, remember what he said, that for 50 years they needed the proj- ects but could not get them in the ab- sence of an interstate agreement. They needed some of them and did not ask for them seriously, because they did not have an agreement. He said every stream is covered by an agreement or an adjudication. Mr. Tipton further said: Unfortunately Supreme Court decisions have not been so satisfactory as the com- pacts. Some of them are still working on an attempt to iron out difficulties. Senator MALONE Very definitely with all of you, especially in Colorado—and I have worked with many of your people on inter- state streams—you are definitely in favor that Congress do nothing for appropriating money for a project for any State on inter- state streams system that does not have an interstate agreement or Supreme Court de- cision such as you mention? Mr. Trpron. I would insofar as the State of Colorado is concerned. The CHaInMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tipton,
1950 My. President, I do not want to pro- Jong this argument, though probably I shall not be able to make any further arguments, because this will be my only chance of making a statement. First, let me say that on March 1, 1935, the engineering committee appointed by the Colorado River Conference, in Salt Lake City, rendered a preliminary report on this stream system. I was a member of that Commission—I was State engineer of the State of Nevada at that time— together with Ed Hyatt, who is still the State engineer of the State of California, and is now retiring, as I understand, and with Mr. M. G. Hinderlider, who is still State engineer of Colorado. I shall not attempt to read the short report which was made after careful study, but I want to point out to the Senate that after this engineering study, the total used by the State of Nevada was allocated at 900,000 acre-feet, not 300,000. Nothing had ever been agreed to, and a study had been made by my State engineer’s office and the Colorado River Commission, of which I was secretary, which determined that that was the amount of water Nevada could beneficially use consumptively. That does not mean what is withdrawn, but what is consumptively used, and does not return to the stream system. Mr. President, the remainder of the allocations we determined at that time are shown. We determined that Mexico should be allotted 750,000 acre-feet an- nually. I myself went to old Mexico in 1927 before testifying before the com- mittee here. Being in the engineering business I have a habit of doing that, for it is hard to write about anything or express an opinion unless one has seen it. So we went over a large part of that land to see what they were doing. They had about 200,000 acres of land in culti- vation, but they had never used anything like 750,000 acre-feet, mostly because the water was not in the river often enough. It used to go down to 1,500 second-feet, sometimes, and that affected the great 500,000-acre project in Imperial Valley, as well as the 200,000 acres in Mcxico. Of course, the water was not there before Boulder Dam was constructed and sta- bilized the flow in the Imperial Valley. We said in our report: ASSUMPTIONS 1. Consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet annually in the upper basin as apportioned by the Colorado River compact. 2. Complcte reservoir development 1n lower basin as set forth in the Debler report. 3. That Mexico will be allocated 750,000 acre-fee+ annually. Without, so far as 1 know, consulting anyone in the lower basin, there was 750,000 acre-feet allocated to Mcxico, That 750,000 acre-feet has got to come from some place, and it cannot be taken from thin air, and the atmosphere. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed from the hearings of the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs on Senate Resolution 75 and Senate Joint Resolution 4, March 31 to May 2, 1949, an excerpt beginning with the heading “Preliminary report of the en- gineering committee appointed by Colo- rado River Conference in Salt Lake City, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Utah, March 1, 1935,” on page 412, down to, but not including, the words “Carson City,” on page 14 of the same document, There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE ENGINEERING COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY COLORADO RIVER CONFERENCE IN SALT LAKE City, UTAH, Marcu 1, 1935 A study of the water ultimately available in the lower basin of the Colorado River in- cluding all tributaries, based on the report of E. B. Debler, December 1834; analysis of com- mitments thereon; and an assumed distribu- tion thereof. AESUMPTIONS 1. Consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet annually in the upper basin as apportioned by the Colorado River compact. 2. Complete reservoir development In lower basin as set forth in the Debler report 38. That Mexico will be allocated 150,000 acre-feet annually. I. Ultimate usable water supply 1. Net supply for use from main Acre-feet stream below Boulder Dam__ 8, 370, 000 2. Net supply for use from Gila River..-.------------------ 2, 259, 000 8. Net supply available for lower- basin use above Boulder Dam __-------------------- 240, 000 4. Waste crossing international boundary and usable in Mexico _.....--..---.---.-- 200, 000 Total._.--.--------.. 11, 069, 000 Notre —Items (1) and (2) are exclusive of waste into Mexico. II Present commitments on lower-basin supply (including total Gila River vested rights and contracts) 1. Arizona: Acre-feet Total of Gila River_-.-.-_--- 2, 259, 000 Vested in Colorado River below Boulder Dam_._.--.-. 600, 000 2. California contracts......---- 5, 362, 000 8. Present lower-basin uses above Boulder Dam in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah .-.------------------- 90, 000 Total....-----------.-.--- 8, 311, 000 II, Assumed distribution Additional assumptions: (a) Use in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah above Boulder Dam.-_.-.-. 240, 000 (b) Total use by Nevada_.-- 900, 000 (c) Allocation to Mexico...- 750, 000 DISTRIBUTION 1. Arizona: (a) Gila River.-..---------- 2, 259, 000 (b) Rights’ below Boulder Dam.....----------------- 600, 000 (c) Total above Bouder Dam- 30, 000 (d) Remaining water in main stream .-...--~----... 1988, 000 3, 877, 000 2. California contracts__....-..-- 5, 362, 000 8. Nevada: (a) Above Boulder Dam....-.-------- 30, 000 (b) Balance of pro- posed contract_... 870, 000 —_—— 000,000 4. New Mexico above Boulder Dam. .__.--.---.-------------- 80, 000 5. Utah above Boulder Dam...... 150, 000 6. Republic of Mexico.._.-.. ecneee 750, 000 Total... --nennnenn--nnee- 11, 069, 000 AVAILABLE TO ARIZONA FROM MAIN STREAM OF COLORADO RIVER Acre-feet Present uses from Colorado River below Boulder Dam.......---- 600, 000 Assumed ultimate uses above Bouder Danr._.--.------------ 80, 000 Remaining water below Boulder Dam__....-------------------- 988, 000 Total.....--.-.--.-.---.-- 1, 618, 000 1Total available quantity for use in lower basin less allocations, contracts, and assumed distributions. REMARKS 1. It is herein understood that water used or to be used above Boulder Dam as above listed is assumed to come from tributaries of the main stream of the Colorado River. The Nevada contract for water deliveries proposed to the Secretary of the Interior for 900,000 acre-fcet includes both present and pro- posed uses, 2. It is assumed that the water used by New Mexico from the Gila River is included in the Gila River commitments 3 It is also assumed that Utah will use 150,000 acre-feet of the 240,000 acre-feet of the lower-basin water to be used above Boulder Dam, as determined by the Debler report. If as indicated by Utah, that State may require a total of 300,000 acre-leet, the additional amount must be deducted from the net supply listed as available for use be- low Eoulder Dam. 4. It is not necessarily assumed that all members of the Commission ayree in all par- ticulars to the accuracy of the Debler report, but this report is a preliminary analysis of the water supply available for use in the lower basin, based on that document. Epwarp Hyatt. M. G. HINDERLIDER. GEO W. MALONr, SALT Lake City, UTAH, March 1, 1935 Senator MaLonr. I do not want it under- stood that the 900,000 acre-feet is the limit of what Nevada ifs claiming at this time, because I am having our State engineer come here with reports available since 1935. I asked the State engineer to review the reports Before I left the State engineer's office I made a report covering 8% yenrs’ work and data secured on the Colorado Rive. That report has become somewhat of a stand- ard document in Nevada, like Senate Docu- ment No. 186, my report which the Seventieth Congress, second session, has published and which became a standard document on the entire Colorado River Basin States At that time we made an industrial sur- vey within a 250-mile radius around the dam. I directed the survey from the State engi- neer's Office in Nevada. The Bureau of Mines of the States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utuh assisted me with the help of my own director of the Nevada State Bu- reau of Mines, who at that time was John Fulton, and who was also the head of the Makay School of Mines at the University of Nevada It is an industrial survey which has stood up and which has been very help- ful. The purpose of it was to show how the power and water from Hoover Dam could be utilized. I have a wire from Mr. A. M Smith, State engineer, that I request permission to read into the record. This wire is in response to my inquiry on the amount of water needed. Mr. MALONE. I also wish to have in- cluded in the Recorp at this point a com- munication addressed to me as United States Senator from Nevada. It is a communication from Mr. A. M. (“Tom”) Smith, State Engineer of Nevada. The excerpt I desire to have printed ends with the words uttered by me, ‘Mr. Chairman,
1504 that completes my preliminary state- ment,” on page 415. There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: “Carson City, NEv. “Hon. GrorceE W. MALONE, “United States Senator From Nevada: “Approximately 150,000 acres of land in southern Nevada irrigable from Colorado River by pumping lift not over 800 feet. In- formation in report of Colorado River Com- mission of Nevada, 1927-35, prepared from data assembled by you—meaning me—when Nevada State engineer as to areas may be 2 little conservative. See pages 119, 120, 121. This report does not include 60,000 acres west of Searchlight, mostly first-class land which can be trrigated by 1,500- to 2,000-feet lift from Davis Reservoir. Rapidly increas- ing population and future outlook will no doubt justify inclusion in areas along river that were omitted from early estimates. Burcau of Reclamation estimated cost of re- claiming 15,000 acres in Las Vegas Valley would be under $400 per acre with operation, maintenance, and amortization 40 years at $33 per year per acre. See John N. Kerr, Bu- reau report, dated February 1936. Any of this land seems better economical invest- ment than Arizona land at $2,000 or more per acre for supplemental irrigation only, Ne- vada water duty in this area {s about 5 acre- feet per acre If Arizona project is to be ratified the entire Colorado River down- stream water set-up should be revamped in order to give Nevada more water on & com- parable basis.” My preliminary statement as of now is in line with my former request tor the Bureau of Reclamation report, and I again request that the chairman of this committee write an official letter to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and request the in- formation from that Bureau on the acreage which could be irrigated in Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah under the approximately same conditions as to cost per acre and lift, as contemplated under the Arizona project. “The population of the Hoover (Boulde: ) Dam area in southern Nevada has doubled at least four times in the 21 years since the Boulder Dam Project Act was passed “There is every reason to suppose that with the complete utilization of the more than 200,000 horsepower to which Nevada is entitled from Hoover (Boulder) and Davis Dams, and the irrigation of approximately 150,000 acres of land in that area together with the almost unlimited recreation facill- ties, the population could easily reach 150,000 in the foreseeable future. “The demand for domestic irrigation and domestic purposes could run well over 1,- 000,000 acre-feet annually, instead of the 300,000 acre-feet formerly accepted as duc the State of Nevada by California and Ari- zona. “Grorce W. MALONE.” Mr Chairman, that completes my prelim- inary statement. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I have here a letter from the Governor of Ne- vada, Hon. Vail Pittman, the attorney general of Nevada, Alan Bible, and the State engineer of Nevada, Alfred Merritt Smith. The purport of the letter is to describe the project, and in a later para- graph it says: Nevada was allocated 800,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado, but the diversion of downstream water has not been fixed by interstate compact. That verifies what I stated a while ago with regard to there being no definite amount of water for any State. Whether that would hold in court I shall not dis- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE cuss, but California must have acted by legislative approval before the construc- tion of Boulder Dam could be begun. I read further: For 15 years Nevada has spent time and money in trying to efiect an agreement on the terms of the tri-State compact without avail. The downstream water situation is in chaos, yet the requirements of California and Arizona are urgent and imperative and should be served without delay. A prompt determination of respective rights is neces- sary, and the ambiguous wording of the Boulder Canyon Project Act should be cleared up. All negotiations have been futile, and it is our opinion that a solution can be ef- fected by lawsuit and with the aid of the Supreme Court. It is our opinion that prior 40 a determination of available water the high cost of the detailed studies of this proj- ect should be authorized by Congress below Lee Ferry on the Colorado. We are of the belief, based upon observation and study, that there is not enough water in the Colo- rado to satisfy this colossal project and at the same time serve the established existing irrigated lands and authorized projects in Arizona and California. Furthermore, it seems to us that the com- putations for the project should have been based upon the present reclamation law. As set up it contemplates changes in the law which are purely speculative. The Boulder Canyon Project Act authorized Arizona, California, and Nevada to compact upon an estimated 7,500,000 acre-feet appor- tioned on the basis of 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada, 2,800,000 acre-feet to Arizona, 4,400,- 0vO to California. Arizona and California and Nevada were also given the right to in- crease their use 1,000,000 per annum under article III, section (b), of the compact. This has been referred to as ‘‘b” water. The letter goes on to say: Rapid increases in population and develop- ment in southern Nevada since 1935 show that Nevada can beneficially use 900,000 acre-feet, and can reclaim and irrigate at least 130,000 acres of new land and in addi- tion will require at least 105,000 acre-fect for industrial, suburban and domestic uses by the year 1960 Mr. President, that would mean 1,005,- 000 acre-feet. I read further: Reclamation of this new land can be made at one-sixth of the cost per acre calculated tor supplemental irrigation only on the Ari- zona project Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have included in the Recorp at this point the complete letter of the three gentlemen whom I have named, the Governor, the attorney general, and the State engineer of the State of Nevada. The State engineer is also the secretary of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: May 12, 1949. Hon JoHN R Murpock, Chairman, Irrigation and Reclamation Subcommittee of the Public Lands Committee. STATEMENT OF VAIL PITTMAN, GOVERNOR OF NeEvapA; ALAN BIBLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Nevapa; ALFRED MERRITT SMITH, STATE EN- GINEER OF THE STATE OF NEVADA The House Committee on Public Lands now has under consideration a bill identical to 8. 75, to authorize the construction of a project to deliver 1,200,000 acre-feet of water per year into the Salt River Valley of central FEBRUARY 6 Arizona from the Colorado River for supple- mental irrigation use. Two alternate plans have been surveyed and studied by the Bureau of Reclamation. Both plans require a dam at Bridge Canyon. The first plan calls for a gravity diversion above the dam through some 77 miles of tunnel conduit into natural watercourses. Tre second plan could divert water at Parker Dam by pump- ing through an elevation of about 1,000 feet to a canal which will convey the water to the Phoenix area. The second plan 1s pre- ferred as of somewhat lower cost. Power for pumping at Parker would be 1,393,000,000 kilowatt-hours per year The Bureau eati- mates a cost of $730,000,000 to the Govern- ment. The project appears incapable of re- payment of capital costs. The capital cost of supplying irrigation water to this project will be about $1,500 per acre, to which will be added operation and maintenance No new Iands are to be re- claimed. The water is to be used for supple- mental irrigation of existing cultivated lands and does not provide for new population or new farms which is the principal object of the reclamation law. The project calls for the construction of the Bridge Canyon Dam to supply power for pumping. Bridge alone seems unwise as it can store only 3,720,000 acre-feet, and if unprotected will fill up with silt in 40 years. Glen Canyon Dam above Bridge should be built at the same time for both storage and silt control as it will have 8,600,000 acre-feet capacity, but has low power head Glen is necessary to protect the firm power output of Bridge. The Arizona project will require one-third of the power from Bridge and probably should be charged with one-third the cost of Glen, for safe contin.ous opera- tion, which would place it still further in the realm of fantastic planning Nevada was allocated 300,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado, but the diversion of downstream water has not been fixod by interstate compact For 15 years Nevada has spent time and money in trying to effect an agreement on the terms of the tri-State compact without avail The down- stream water situation is in chaos, yet the requirements of California and Arizona are urgent and imperative and should be served without delay A prompt determination of respective rights is necessary; and the am- biguous wording of the Boulder Canyon Proj- ect Act should be cleared up. All negotia- tions have been futile, and it is our opinion that a solution can be effected by lawsuit and with the aid of the Supreme Court. It is our opinion that prior to a determination of available water, the high cost of the detailed studies of this project should not have been incurred and no project should be author- ized by Congress below Lee Ferry on the Colo- rado. We are of the belief, based upon ob- servation and study, that there is not enough water in the Colorado to satisfy this colossal project and at the same time serve the es- tablished existing irrigated lands and au- thorized projects in Arizona and California. Furthermore, it seems to us that the com- putations for the project should have becn based upon the present reclamaiion law. As set up it contemplates changes in the law which are purely speculative. The Boulder Canyon Project Act author- ized Arizona, California, and Nevada to com- pact upon an estimated 7,500,000 acre-feet apportioned on the basis of 300,000 acre-feet to Nevada, 2,800,000 acre-feet to Arizona, 4,400,000 to California. Arizona and Cali- fornia and Nevada were also given the right to increase their use 1,000,000 per annum un- der article III, section (b) of the compact. This has been referred to as “‘b’’ water. During the preliminary negotiations in 1935, Nevada requested 900,000 acre-feet as her share, but upon representations made by the Bureau of Reclamation that less than
1950 800,000 acre-feet could be beneficially used Nevada did not press her claim. Rapid in- creases in population and development in southern Nevada since 1935 show that Nevada can beneficially use 900,000 acre-feet, and can reclaim and irrigate at least 130,000 acres of new land and in addition will re- quire at least 105,000 acre-feet for industrial, suburban, and domestic uses by the year 1960. Reclamation of this new land can be made at one-sixth of the cost per acre cal- culated for supplemental irrigation only on the Arizona project. The adamant stand of Arizona to accept no interpretation of existing documents except- ing her own, and her emphatic refusal to arbitrate, negotiate, or submit to a Supreme Court analysis and adjudication and the de- termined fight by that State in Congress to prevent such a procedure would close the door to a satisfactory solution by preferred methods. California and Nevada, equally firm in support of their rights, have never- theless been and are now willing to submit the matter to the courts. With these facts in mind we urge that the bill to authorize the Arizona project be un- favorably considered by your committee and that support be given to the legislation to submit the Colorado River controversy to the Supreme Court. Respectfully submitted. Vat PITTMAN, Governor of Nevada. ALAN BIBLE, Attorney General for Nevada. ALFRED MERRITT SMITH, State Engineer for Nevada, Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I have another communication, signed by Al- fred Merritt Smith, Nevada State en- gineer and secretary of the Colorado Commission of Nevada. It describes the location of the lands and their feasibil- ity from an irrigation standpoint. I ask unanimous consent to have that com- munication inserted in the Recorp at this point in my remarks. It is found on page 420 of the hearings and is ad- dressed to the junior Senator from Ne- oom dated Carson City, Nev., May 11, 949, There being no objection, the commu- nication was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Carson City, Nev., May 11, 1949. Benator GrorGE MALONE, Senate Office Butlding, Washington, D C: Incomplete list trrigable lands as follows: Las Vegas area, 15,000 acres; Mormon Mesa and Littlefield areas, 30,000 acres, mainly in Tps. 18, 8. R. 68 E., and 13 8. 69 E. and 14 8. 6g E. and 14 8. 69 E.; Davis Dam area, 50,000 acres mainly in T. 80 S., R. 65 and 66 E. and 81 8. 85 and 66 E.; and 32 S. 65 and 66 E. and 83 S. 65 and 66 E.; Meadow Valley, Wash., 7,000 acres mainly in T. 14 8. R. 66 E; Dry Lake area, 20,000 acres mainly in Tps. 23, 24, and 25 8. R, 62 and 63 and 64 E.; Moapa Valley, 4,000 acres, scattered areas east of Lake Mead, 4,000 acres; total lands, 130,000 acres minimum water duty 6 acre-feet equals 780,000 acre-feet for irrigation to which add probable additional uses by year 1960 Las Vegas and Henderson industrial, 50,000; mili- tary installations, 6,000; Las Vegas including suburban and area to south to State line domestic uses, 50,000; grand total water, 885,000 acre-feet. Surveys would change these areas somewhat but would probably show more irrigable land. Present popula- tion of area 40,000. Population by 1960 estimated 100,000. Atrrep Merritt SmiTH, Nevada State Engineer and Secre- tary, Colorado River Commission of Nevada, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE . Mr. MALONE, Mr. President, I have reached a point where I made a rather complete statement for the Rgcorp in 1948 and 1949, and the statement has been reprinted in the hearings on Sen- ate bill 75 and Senate Joint Resolution 4. I wish to pick out certain excerpts from the Record. I do not wish to have the entire statement included in the Recorp, because it is rather lengthy, and it is available to everyone. I read from page 421 of the hearings: THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN--STATUS OF WATYR DIVISION AND COMPACTS IN THE SEVEN STATES OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN (Excerpts from the CoNnarEssionaL Recorp in the Senate of the United States. State- ment of Hon. GEoRGE W. MALOoNg, of Ne- vada, August 5, 1948) [ConGrEssIONaL RECORD, vol. 94, pt. 8, p 9826] Statement on the current status of water division and compacts in the seven States of the Colorado River Basin, including a defint- tion of the terms “lower and upper basins,” “lower and upper divisions, Colorado River compact,” and “the Boulder Dam Project Act” in support of Senate Joint Resolution No. 145, introduced to facilitate the con- tinued development and beneficial use of the water and power of the Colorado River system. Before I start on the quotations and inclusions which I wish to have placed in the Recorp for immediate reference, I want to say that the references which I shall make are from official documents of this body. I have quoted from Senate Document 186, which was printed in the latter part of 1948. I think it was in November or December. It is readily available, and it reviews the subject rather carefully, I read briefly from that document: The Colorado River compact divides the water of the Colorado River system between the upper and lower basins. I want to mention in particular some men who were in that fight from the beginning. One was in your own State, Mr. Chairman-- The chairman to whom I referred was my good friend the Senator from Colo- rado (Mr. MILLIKIN) — Mr. Delph Carpenter, I have already described Mr. Car- penter. The next heading, Mr. President, is “Basins and divisions,” from which I read as follows: BASINS AND DIVISIONS The first is an arbitrary division and the next is a drainage division. The lower basin then, instead of only meaning just the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, means those parts of the States of Arizona, Call- fornia, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system below Lees Ferry. Note that difference, please—the States from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River system below Lees Ferry— So, there are five States interested in the Givision of the waters of the lower basin, in- stead of only three States, which further complicates this situation and, as a matter of fact, the advance consent given by the United States Senate tn the Boulder Dam project for a water-division treaty could not be binding upon all of the States of the lower bar'n even if it had been agreed upon and ratified by the States of Arizona, Calle 1505 fornia, and Nevada, since Utah and New Mexico were excluded. I have already described the advance approval. In other words, if it had been ratified and ruled to be legal, even though the other two were omitted, we would have had something; but it has never been ratified by anyone. The lower division was Arizona, Cali- fornia, and Nevada. The upper division comprised the four States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah. There is nothing in the whole project, in the interstate agreement, that has anything to do with the divisions, be- cause the upper basin was supposed to turn down each year at Lee Ferry 7,500,000 acre-feet, or a total of 75,000,- 000 acre-feet every 10 years. If they do that, they fulfill the Colorado River compact. The rest is to be interpreted by a court whenever there are disagree- ments, as there apparently are in many instances. Whether the Gila River ‘s included or not is simply a difference of opinion of the States themselves, but all the States have signed the compact, and we cannot make the interpretation which each State now would like to make. The matter must go to a court when there is a serious difference of opinion. I now read excerpts from the report of the interpretation of the Colorado River compact made by Delph E. Car- penter: Total water available in the entire basin for apportionment, out of which would come this unallocated surplus and the water for any international treaty, is estimated in the beginning on page 38 on the “Disposition of the waters of the Colorado under the Colo- rado River compact,” by Delph E. Carpenter, The water is supplied, reading from his ex- planation: “The river is supplied by its tributaries from the Green to the Gila. Without tribu- taries there would be no river.” That is Delph E. Carpenter speaking, the one who wrote the interstate com- pact, not Grorce MALONE, the junior Senator from Nevada, although Nevada signed the compact thinking that was true. But regardless of what the Su- preme Court finally says, we have signed the compact beyond any withdrawal, as have all the other six States. Delph Carpenter says: The river supplied by its tributaries from the Green to the Gila. Without tributaries there would be no river. Of course, anyone can understand that. I quote further: The water supply of the river consists of all water which, of nature and undisturbed by works of man, would pass Yuma, the point below the last tributary. It is impos- sible to tell the exact amount of this total supply in any year, owing to interference by diversions. Naturally, on the Little Muddy River in Nevada, some does return. When man started to add to the works of God, he took the situation as he found it, so as Delph Carpenter says: The water supply of the river consists of all water which, of nature and undisturbed by works of man, would pass Yuma, the point below the last tributary. It fs impos- sible to tell the exact amount of this total supply in any year, owing to interference by diversions, but it has been estimated at
1566 from 20,000,000 to 24,000,000 acre-fect aver- age. That settles once and for all, if we are to believe Mr. Carpenter, where the Gila River belongs. But I am not passing on any legal question connected with the matter, and I am not arguing it. I say that when these questions arise there is only one place for them to go, namely, to a court of competent jurisdiction. I read further from Delph Carpenter’s ex- act language: This aggregate natural water supply may be divided into (1) that part entering the river above Lees Ferry and contributed by those streams which drain the upper basin; and (2) that part entering the stream be- tween Lees Ferry and Yuma and contributed by streams which drain the lower basin. That Mr. President, is the basis of the upper and lower basins. It cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way. Now this is my own language, my testi- mony: You see, he again emphasizes that basins mean drainage, and drainage above Lees Ferry is the upper basin and the lower basin means that area draining to the river below Lees Ferry. Divisions mean an arbitrary division of the four States above Lees Ferry and the three States below Lees Ferry. It is an arbitrary division, and has nothing whatever to do with drainage areas. But in order to write the com- pact, there had to be these designations, or at least it was thought so. I read further from my testimony: Any subsidiary compact of the lower basin would be, according to Mr. Carpenter, “the water available to the lower basin, water there originating and Lees Ferry delivery, is to be used in the lower basin to care for the lower-basin allocation. Eight million five hundred thousand acre-feet— That is, seven and a half million acre- feet turned down by the upper-basin States through the compact, and one million additional water, if it is available. Eight million five hundred thousand acre- feet, and the entire international burden— Which must be deducted— unless there is a deficiency for international supply, in which case the waters allocated to each basin are to be called upon to the extent of one-half of the deficiency.” As a result of allocating a million acre-feet to Mexico, in my humble opin- jon as an engineer dealing with this river for 25 years, and 812 years sitting in on every conference, it is very likely that sometime the upper basin will be called upon to make up a part of the extra 750,000 acre-feet which was gratuitously awarded to Mexico without any right whatsoever. I read further from Delph Carpenter’s statement: The States of the lower basin should enter into a subsidizing compact making (1) local allocation of the aggregate 8,500,000 acre-feet (out of the whole river supply) allocated to the lower basin by the compact; (2) pro- vision for supplying the entire international burden, if, when, and for the amount by treaty determined; and (3) disposition of the unallocated surplus pending and subject to future allocation between the seven States. That is, if every allocation is satisfied, and there is still additional water—as now there is no chance whatever of there . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ever being, unless the climate should change entirely, and there shall be more rainfall in the Intermountain States— the remaining allocation, I think, in a certain number of years, would be sub- ject to division between the upper- and lower-basin States. But that is so far- fetched that it will never happen, in my opinion. I read further: They should also make provision for tem- porary use of allocated water escaping from the upper basin, without prejudice to the rights of the upper basin. That is, the five lower-basin States. Mr. President, I call attention to this document which I have heretofore iden- tified, pages 411 to about 437, which com- pletes my statement in the testimony. I put myself in the role of a witness be- cause I have had experience with all these matters, and I feel very strongly on this subject. Therefore I made a com- plete explanation. It is really a refer- ence work, and no one has ever ques- tioned it. I testified twice before the committee, and made statements which have never been questioned. Mostly I quoted Delph Carpenter and other au- thorities. If there are any questions to be advanced as to the authenticity of what I have said, I hope some Senator will propound them, because I shall not be here for the next 4 or 5 days. I asked the majority leader if he would not put off a vote on this question until I could return. My engagements were made several weeks ahead, and it is al- most impossible to break them. I un- derstood there would not be an imme- diate vote on any controversial bill, and I assure my colleague this is a very controversial piece of legislation. I wish to call attention to some of the propaganda which gocs out in this mat- ter from the city of Washington. We can find experts on every subject. At one time I said that there is no one who can talk quite so convincingly on a sub- ject as someone entirely unhampered by the facts. We have the distinction of having a write-up under the headline, ‘‘Arizona- California water war takes new spurt.” The reporter, whose name is Mr. John W. Ball, writes for the Washington Post. I know him. I am a member of the Na- tional Press Club, and have been for 25 years, and I know these press boys work hard, but all they can tell is what appears in the propaganda that goes out, and that is what this gentleman is stating. This article was published in the Wash- ington Post of Sunday, February 5, 1950. The reporter in his article said: Arizona, which boasts it is a man-made State, tangles with its neighbor California in the Senate tomorrow— That is today, Mr. President. I guess they are going to tangle allright. I had hoped we could keep the proceedings out of that category. The reporter proceeds to speak of the number of millionaires who will be benefited, the historically irrigated areas, the money involved, and that water is the lifeblood of seven States. It is a great piece of literature, or would be s0 considered if one had never been mixed up in such matters and did not know that water was the lifeblood of those States. I find more FEBRUARY 6 education and less common sense in Washington today than I have ever found in any town in all my life. I find more completely inaccurate infor- mation coming out of here than from anywhere else. I say it is not the re- porter’s fault. The reporters have been fed this propaganda for the past 18 years, and what are they going to believe? This reporter, who no doubt had all the information he could secure, although I did not see him, says: This issue involves the Gila River in Ari- gona, It is what is known as a wasting river. It is a main tributary of the Colo- rado. In the last 100 miles before it joins the Colorado, its bed is wide, sandy, flat, and subject to the desert heat. Mr. President, I do not know of any river in that area which is not subject to desert heat. That, however, sounds good in print. I have slept in most of these river beds, or on the rocks on their banks, or laid out a bedroll, when the supply camp was established for the night, and in the morning picked up with my crew and proceeded on. Between Phoenix and its juncture with the Colorado the Gila loses moire than half its water to evaporation and seepage. Of course, that statement settles that matter. Near Phoenix, Ariz, takes about 2,300,000 acre-feet of wate: from the Gila. If this amount were permitted to flow on down to the Colorado, about half, or 1,200,000 acre- feet, would disappear before entering the main stream Now that is a great piece of informa- tion. I do not suppose engineers, such as the great engineers of the Bureau of Reclamation of the past 40 years, whom I revere and respect, some of them dead and some stil] living, such as I named, Louis Hill and A. J. Wiley, who slept on the ground out there when they made camp overnight, Knew as much. Of course, nowadays the engineers have it a little better. There are houses pro- vided for them. Both the men I named are dead. Their reports are available on this matter. But the Post settles the whole question in one article: I continue to read from the article. Arizona contends she should be charged only for 1,200,000 acre-feet of Gila River water—the amount that would empty into the Colorado from the Gila in the ordinary course of nature. California contends that Arizona actually takes 2,300,000, and should be charged for that amount. Now, Mr. President, we have this great quarrel between Arizona and California all over again. The Senator from Ari- zona [Mr. HayDEN], who now occupies the chair, went through that quarrel. It was Arizona and California, Arizona and California. Those headlines appeared in the newspapers all over the United States. Most people believed Boulder Dam site was in California, until the junior Senator from Nevada got into that fight, and we soon settled the loca- tion of that dam site. Lake Mead is the immense reservoir be- hind Hoover Dam. Under the compact, Calle fornia limits itself to 4,400,000 feet of 8A water, plus not more than half the 3B water, and any other surplus.
1950 There are large evaporation losses in Lake Mead. Arizona insists that California must deduct these losses from its apportioned water. California says the watcr allotted to it is a net amount. This is another question California wants decided by the Supreme Court. The row has been in and out of the courts for years. Arizona tried to prevent construc- tion of Hoover Dam. At one time she ordered out the National Guard to stop work on the Parker Dam. Mr. President, having been present at nearly all these conferences I say it is not a matter which has beer. in and out of the courts as the article says. Some people tried to get into court but never could make it. Arizona for years tried to get into the courts, but never got into them. I do not blame the reporter. Any neophyte who might read this ar- ticle would believe it to be well docu- mented. It is, however, an entirely mis- leading piece of propaganda. That is not the reporter’s fault. I should like very much to talk to him, because I know he is a good reporter and he is a hard worker. Reporters who belong to the National Press Club sit here day after day listening to the debates which take place in the Senate Chamber. Some of them are sitting here now although it is 7:30 o’clock p.m. I sympathize with them. In 1922, an agreement known as the Colo- rado River compact was signed by all the States in the vast Colorado Basin, except Arizona. The States were divided into two groups. The first was known as the upper basin. It included Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona, the last named with a very small interest in this section. The task of dividing the water among the States in each basin was left to those States. Only last year—a quarter of a century later— were the States in the upper basin able to reach an agreement. The second group, or lower-basin States, included California, Nevada, and Arizona, The controversy in this group over division of the waters has continued since 1922, with mounting fervor. Mr, President, it has not continued since 1922. It started when we signed the upper-basin compact. Then there are two sovereign States of America not even mentioned in the dispatch, in other words, lending weight to the sug- gestion that the Boulder Dam project divided the water between the three States; and therefore the fight is all over. Mr. President, the distinguished Sen- ator from Arizona has been a Member of this body since 1927, or 1926, when- ever it was, and he was a Member of the House for many years before that. I re- spect his judgment and I would follow him as far as I would follow any other Senator. The Senator knows, as I do, that the Senate of the United States cannot divide water between the States at all. It has no authorly to divide wa- ter. All it can do is to approve an inter- state compact when it is laid on the desk of the Senate. The Senator has no right to say anything about it except as it has—as I described previously—often given advance consent to an interstate compact, but that interstate compact must go to the letter, and to the period, and to the comma, as put down by this body. If it deviates in one word it must CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE be returned to the States. This one never was signed by anyone, and two States were left out. Mr. President, I want to say a few words in closing. I am sorry it was nec- essary to make this long address, and keep the Senate of the United States here so late. I must leave now to keep a previous appointment. We heard here this afternoon a statement made by the junior Senator from Arizona [Mr. Mc- FarR_aAnpD}, whom I admire and for whose integrity I have the utmost regard. He made no mistake that I know of. I think he told the truth. But he stood on the Senate floor and told the Members of the Senate that the poor little State of Ari- zona had to have this water because it had so many people who required it. He said they were pumping water. He said if they could not obtain more water they would be obliged to move. I agree with all that. If it is true I am sorry. But the little State of Nevada, in the matter of population, is even smaller. The little State of Nevada, I think the census to be taken this year will show, has about 160,000 people. It is the sixth largest State in area in the Union. There are more than 70,000,000 acres in the State. More than 60,000,000 acres in the State are owned by the United States Government. We are a part of the great Amcrican desert. It reaches from Utah over into the State of Nevada. About one half of 1 percent of the land of the State of Nevada is under culliva- tion. The limit of the water supply of the State of Nevada is the limit of the water supply for cultivation, just as it is in Arizona. Mr. President, I do not intend to make a tear-jerking speech this afternoon. I know that the junior Senator from Ari- zona probably did not mean to do so. He has fought his way, as I have fought my way in Nevada and in the West. I have been consulting engineer for many of the large projects, including the Cen- tral Valley project of California, the Los Angeles flood-control project, and many others. I went with Dr. Mead and Mr. Walters and examined the Grand Cou- lee, the Wenatchee, and the Columbia River, in 1930 and 1931. When I fly over some of these projects, as I shall do in the next few days, or when I go vis- iting, it will be a matter of great pride to me to reflect that I had at least a mi- nor part in the development of practi- cally all these projects. I hope I can say, a few years from now when I go to Arizona—as I often do; I visit Tucson, Phoenix, and other places—‘“‘I am proud that I could help Arizona get her share of the water out of the river.” I hope we can say the same thing about Nevada. I hope the junior Senator from Arizona and the senior Senator from Arizona can say, “We helped Nevada get her share of the water,’ whatever that share is, whether it be 900,000 acre-feet or 1,005,000 acre-feet, whether the Gover- nor is right or whether I am right. I hope the junior Senator from Arizona and the senior Senator from Arizona can say that they helped us get that water. I hope we can say the same thing for Utah. I hope we can say the same thing for New Mexico and California. I am 1507 not against these projects. IY am for them. Al) I ask is that the Congress of the United States not break the 50-year precedent under which it has refused to appropriate money, or even to report a bill out of the committee, without an interstate agreement or an adjudication. I have sat there for 3 years and heard the chairman of that committee—a Re- publican for the first 2 years, and a Dem- ocrat last year—turn those projects back and tell the proponents to go home and get an interstate agreement or an adju- dication. In closing, let me say that the limit of Nevada's development over the years ahead is the limit of the water supply of that State. That applies to every State in the Colorado River Basin. It applies to every one of the 11 Western States known as the arid States. It applies along a line drawn through the meridian at about the center of Kansas, to the western half of Texas, Oxlahoma, Kan- sas, Nebraska, and the two Dakotas. There is no difference. Whenever there is a rainfall which is less than is required to mature a crop, the limit of develop- ment will be the limit of the developed water supply. Mr. President, I am not arguing the cost of this project, whether it be $1,500 or $1,700 an acre. The President says he is going to try to see to it that every- one receives $4,000 a year. All he is go- ing to have to do is to keep printing money. Eventually it will require a wheelbarrow load of money to buy an order of ham and eggs. Then everybody will be getting about $50,000 a year. The estimates on this project are dif- fercnt now than they were when they were made There is a cost index in the Bureau of Reclamation. I shall not at- tempt to say exactly what it is, but I looked it up. The cost index is based upon 1935. As inflation comes along and the price of material goes up, no recalcu- lation is made. There is a cost index, similar to the cost-of-living index of the AP, and other authorities. So now, in- stead of $750,000.000, or whatever the figure is, the cost is nearer $800,000,000, according to the estimate of the Bureau of Reclamation. The process of infla- tion and the natural course of the spiral which we are sending up every year by our own action will help the President to make his own prediction come true. The only difficulty is that as we increase the daily pay and annual pay, we make the price of a pair of shoes jump from $6, $10, or $15, depending upon the grade of shoe one buys, to twice that amount. Then, of course, the cost of the project goes up. In the next 10 years, if we continue irresponsible appropriations for nations all over the world, without any control over what they do with them, and uncontrolled appropriations even for our own people, it may be that this proj- ect will cost $2,000,000,000, and be just as feasible as it is now, I will say to the junior Senator from Arizona. However, I will still be for the Arizona project. I will be for additional projects in Cali- fornia, I will be for the project in Ne- vada. I will be for the project in New Mexico. I will be for the project in Utah, whenever the water has been
1508 divided by an interstate compact or ad- judicated by a court of competent juris- diction, and the engineers of the Bureau of Reclamation say it is feasible. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, in a few moments I shall make a motion to recess until 12 o’clock tomorrow. However, before doing so, I wish to ex- press my appreciation and thanks to the junior Senator from Nevada for the kind things he has said about my col- league the senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. Haypven], who is now presiding, and about myself. I wish to state also that I agree with what the Senator said in regard to the late Senator Pittman, of Nevada. He was an able and distin- guished Senator, and a statesman. It makes me happy to hear words of praise for him from the lips of the junior Sen- ator from Nevada. Iam also happy that Arizona recognizes Nevada's right to the amount of water which the distinguished Senator from Nevada had helped place in a compact which was agreed to in advance for the State of Nevada. I only wish that the other States would recognize Arizona’s right to the amount of water which the Senator from Ne- vada at that time agreed to. I wish further to express my appre- ciation for the very kind things which my good friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, said about Arizona. The Sen- ator knows that I hold him in the same high esteem in which he holds the sen- jor Senator from Arizona and the junior Senator from Arizona. The feeling of friendship is mutual. The reclamation engineers have said that this project is feasible. I hope that the junior Senator from Nevada will stay with us and that I may be able to persuade him to vote for this project. But the hour is now 7:30, andI am afraid it is too late for me to do so at this time. Mr. MALONE, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McFARLAND. ator from Nevada. Mr. MALONE. I appreciate the re- marks of the junior Senator from Ari- zona and his yielding to me for the pur- pose of making a further statement. Mr. President, there is one more point which I had intended to discuss. In my anxiety to take as little time as I could, I overlooked it. There is a provision in the bill that if a suit is filed no money shall be appropriated or used to build diversion works as long as the suit is in court. I should like to point out that if this project is authorized by the Congress in the absence of an interstate agree- ment or adjudication by a court of com- petent jurisdiction, construction of the dam can begin immediately. I have no objection to that. But there is no stop- ping point. <A diversion work can be built without coming back to the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs and without coming back to the Con- gress. They can continue to build that project. If the Supreme Court refuses to take jurisdiction or in the event it takes jurisdiction, and the suit is filed, the project can continue, regardless of the verdict. That is the way the bill is written, I yield to the Sen- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. President, nothing of that kind has ever been enacted by the Congress in the last 50 years, so far as I can deter- mine. I may have overlooked some in- stance of that sort, but I do not think I have. I know it is not the sentiment or the conviction of the members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that that be done, because I have heard the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O’Manoney], who now is chairman of the committee, call a halt in the middle of a hearing, and ask: “Has the Governor and has the engineer for the State agreed to this?” Mr. President, I have put into the Recorp the part of the proceedings which shows that the Governor and the engineer, Mr. Smith, are violently op- posed to this proposal, and that no agree- ment has ever been made in that respect. I read now from Senate bill 75: Be it enacted, etc., That for the purpcse of controlling floods, improving navigation, and regulating the flow of the Colorado River, providing for storage and for the de- livery of the stored waters to provide essen- tial supplementary supply of water to irri- gated lands, for municipal and domestic uses, and for the irrigation of public and other lands within the United States, and for the generation, use, and sale of electrical energy as a means of making the project herein authorized a self-supporting and financially solvent undertaking, and other beneficial purposes, the Secretary of the Interior, here- inafter referred to as the Secretary, subject to the terms of the Colorado River compact and the water delivery contract between the United States and the State of Arizona, exe- cuted February 9, 1944, is hereby authorized to construct, operate, and maintain (1) a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, which dam shall be constructed to an ele- vation of not less than 1,877 feet above sea level; (2) a related system of main conduits and canals, including a tunnel and main canal from the reservoir above the dam at Bridge Canyon to the Salt River above Gran- ite Reef Dam, a canal from the Salt River to the Gila River above the town of Florence, Ariz., and thence a canal to Picacho Res- ervoir, and thence a canal to the Santa Cruz River flood plain; (3) such other canals, canal improvements, laterals, pumping plants, and drainage works as may be re- quired to effectuate the purposes of this act; (4) complete plants, transmission lines, and incidental structures suitable for the fullest economic development of electrical energy generated from water at the works con- structed hereunder for use in the opcration thereof and for sale in accordance with Fed- er:] reclamation laws (act of June 17, 1902, 82 Stat. 388, and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto); and (5) such ap- purtenant dams and incidental works, in- cluding interconnecting lines to effectuate coordination with other Federal projects, flood-protection works, desilting dams, or works above Bridge Canyon and a dam on the Gila River in New Mexico and such dams on the Gila River and its tributaries in Ari- zona as may be necessary in the opinion of the Secretary for the successful operation of the undertaking herein authorized and to effect exchanges of water to insure an ade- quate supplemental supply to lands pres- ently or heretofore irrigated from the Gila River including and below Cliff Valley in New Mexico and from the tributaries of the Gila River by supplying water from the main stream of the Colorado River to lower lands now receiving water from the Gila River or its tributaries, thus releasing Gila River and tributary water for use and exchange on FEBRUARY 6 other lands served by the Gila River and tributaries and other exchanges of water which may be agreed upon by the users affected. Mr. President, at this point in the bill we find the amendment which was put in the bill by the committee; it is the amendment to which the junior Senator from Nevada did not agree. It may be that, leaving out the Glen Canyon site, there was unanimous agreement by the members of the committee in regard to this provision: Provided, That this authorization shall not include (a) any works, dam, or reservoir at the Glen Canyon site or any other site in the upper Colorado River Basin, or (b) any dam, reservoir, or works in the lower Colo- rado River Basin which would flood the Glen Canyon site: Provided further, That con- struction of the tunnel and that portion of the canal hereinabove described from the reservoir above the dam at Bridge Canyon to a junction with the aqueduct hereinafter authorized shall be deferred until Congress by making appropriation expressly therefor has determined that economic conditions justify its construction, and in order to pro- vide a means of diversion of water from the Colorado River to the main canal pending the construction of said tunnel and said portion of the canal and for use thereafter as supplemental and stand-by works the Secretary is authorized to construct, matin- tain, and operate from appropriations au- thorized by this act an aqueduct from Lake Havasu to and connecting with the muain canal in the vicinity of Cunningham, Wash., and pumping plants to raise water from Lake Havasu to such elevation as may be required to provide gravity flow of such water to the main canal. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, would the Senator like to have the entire bill printed at this point in the REcorD? Mr. MALONE. No; I would not. I wish to make this point—and I read now section 2 of the bill: Sec. 2. The Secretary shail have the au- thority to acquire, by purchase, exchange, condemnation, or otherwise, all lands, rights- of-way, and other property necessary for said purposes: Provided, That, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding, the Secretary shall not have the authority to condemn established water rights or the water to the use of which such rights are established, or works used or necessary for the storage and delivery of such water to the use of which rights are established, or the right to substitute or exchange water without the consent of the holders of rights or those entitled to the beneficial use of such waters as may be involved in the proposed exchange. Src. 3. The estimated cost of the construc- tion of the said works shall be determined by the Secretary. The Secretary shall also determine (a) the parts of said estimated cost that can be properly allocated to flood control, silt control, navigation, river regu- lation, recreation, fish and wildlife conscr- vation, general salinity control, respectively, and any other purposes served by the project which may hereafter be made nonreim- bursable by law, the sums so allocated, to- gether with the expenses of operation and maintenance attributed by him to such pur- poses, to be nonreimbursable, and (b) (1) the part of the estimated cost which can properly be allocated to irrigation and prob- ably be returned to the United States in net revenues from the delivery of water for irrl- gation purposes; (2) the part of the esti- mated cost which can properly be allocated to irrigation and probably be returned to the United States by revenues derived from
1950 sources other than the delivery of water for irrigation purposes; (3) the part of the esti- mated cost which can properly be allocated to power and probably be returned to the United States in net power revenues; and (4) the part of the estimated cost which can properly be allocated to municipal water supply or other miscellaneous purposes and probably be returned to the United States. Mr. President, here is where the amendment was suggested by the sev- eral Senators to whom I have previously referred, to cover Senate Joint Resolu- tion 145, introduced by the California and Nevada Senators jointly. Mr. President, in the absence of an interstate agreement, we asked for an adjudication by the Supreme Court be- fore such works were commenced. This is the provision which was included: Src. 12. If any State or States within 6 months after the effective date of this act shall bogin a suit or suits in the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the right to the use of water for diversion from the main stream of the Colorado River through aqueducts or tunnels to be con- structed pursuant to this act for beneficial consumptive use in Arizona, and to adjudi- cate claims of right asserted by such State or States or by any other State or States, under the Colorado River Compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057), the California Self-Limitation Act (Cal. Stat. 1929, ch. 16), and the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat. 774), consent is hereby given to the joinder of the United States of America as a party in such action or actions. Any State of the Colorado River Basin may intervene or be impleaded in such suit or sults. Any such claims of right affected by the project herein authorized and asserted by any defendant State, impleaded State, or intervening State under said com- pact and statutes, or by the United States may be adjudicated 1n such action. In any such suit or suits process directed against the United States shall be served upon the Attorney General of the United States. Src. 13. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwigs appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act: Provided, That no moneys appropriated under the authority of this act shall b> expended for the construc- tion of works authorized by this act which are required solely for the purpose of divert- ing, transporting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial consumptive use in Arizona, dur- ing the period of 6 months after the enact- ment of this act and during the pendency of any sult or suits in which the United States shall be joined as a party under and by virtue of the consent granted in section 12 of this act. The pendency of a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint shall be considered pendency of a suit or suits for the purposes of this act: Provided further, That power sales contracts shall be made with a view to the reservation of generating capacity suffi- cient for the operation of all features of the project and that rates for power shall be fixed in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws; and that revenues derived from the sale of power shall be credited in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 9, 1938 (52 Stat. 291, 318). Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that although this bill includes per- mission for the States to file suit, it further provides that while suit is pend- ing in the Supreme Court, the works authorized by the bill may be con- structed, if the bill is passed by the Con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE gress and signed by the President, pro- vided that no money shall be appro- priated and no work shall be constructed for diversion purposes only, meaning that Bridge Canyon Dam can be con- structed. But I call attention to the fact that if the Supreme Court of the Unitcd States refuses to take jurisdiction, or even after taking jurisdiction, no mat- ter what the Court’s decision might be, the work could proceed without further action by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs or by the Congress of the United States. In other words, the bill would simply authorize the work on the project to proceed at any time, although a certain amount of time would be pro- vided to enable suit to be brought in the Court. But regardless of whatever judg- ment might be rendered, the work could proceed. I submit that is a dangerous precedent, and one which has never been established by the Senate during the last 50 years, so far as I have been able to ascertain. Mr. President, I return to my premise: I am in favor of any project anywhere in the United States that will develop lands, conserve water, and furnish a place for people to live, something that will create new wealth, a project that the Bureau of Reclamation’s engineers or the Army engineers say will repay the money spent, so far as the repayable parts of the project are concerned. Of course, flood control and navigation projects long since have been decided by the Congress as not being repayable. But the investments for any commercial projects, such as power projects, should be repaid with interest. I see no pro- vision in the bill for the repayment of interest, but I am not making a point of that. However, it has been long since established that irrigation projects must repay the money, without interest, over a@ period of years. Then the ownership of the projects goes to the people who repaid the money, or the people where the projects are located. Now, of course, it is sought to change that. It is sought to have the money repaid to the Bureau of Reclamation, which would still own the power projects and still rent the water. Of course, I think we can stop that. But that is another argument. My point is that it is changing a policy, and it is misleading. It is misleading to say that Senators agreed on a certain amount of water for the several States. They merely agreed they would submit it to the States. The great former Senator from Nevada, Key Pittman—I say it again—had no knowledge of how much water was needed in the State of Nevada. I have been away from the problem in Nevada for some time, but A. M. Smith, now secretary of the Colorado Commis- sion and State engineer, is in close touch with it, and he is in close touch with me. I have a telegram which I want to place in the Recorp. It was dated only today, and is probably lying on my desk in my office at this moment. I received it by telephone a moment ago. It is stamped “2:15 p. m., February 6, 1950.” It isa telegram signed by Vail Pittman, Gov- ernor of the State of Nevada; Alan Bible, attorney general; and A. M. Smith—we call him ‘Tom’—State engineer and 1509 secretary of the Colorado River Com- mission, It may be subject to correction of a word or two, but, as transcribed through a telephone conversation, it reads: We have consistently and still oppose Sen- ate bill 75. We urge enactment of separate legislation for construction of Bridge Can- yon Dam for power purpose alone at earliect possible date. In other words, they have no objection at all to a bill being introduced and passed, even without an agreement, if it does not provide for water allocation which has never been made by interstate agreement or through a court of compe- tent jurisdiction. They would hke to see a dam bullt for power purposes alone, but then the Congress would be on record as appropriating money for a power project alone, which would be another consider- ation which should, of course, originate in the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the Senate or in the Public Lands Committee of the House. In closing, Mr. President, I merely wish to emphasize that I have the highest regard for the junior and senior Sena- tors from California and for the junior and senior Senators from Arizona, but I want five States to be included in this project. That is why I joined with Cali- fornia. I am not against Arizona. I know it has been represented in some places in the Southwest that I have joined California against Arizona. What I want to do is to disabuse the mind of anyone who thinks there are but two States in the basin. Once more, 25 years later, after I had to do it in 1927 single-handed, I am trying to show that there are five States in this basin, not two. When I came into the argument in 1927, there were headlines all over the United States, “California fights Ari- zona” and “Arizona fights California.” There were those who thought the dam was located in Arizona and California. We soon determined its true location. It js in Arizona and Nevada. We then di- vided the hydroelectric power which was in controversy, and passed the bill, but we got a compact protecting the upper basin States, before we did that. I was for that, Mr. President, just as I am, at this moment, for the project in Arizona, if the Bureau officials say it is feasible, oncc the water is adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction or once an interstate agreement is arrived at. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, again I thank the junior Senator from Nevada and express regret that he could not remain here so I could convince him that the pending bill fully protects the rights of all the States. But all I can do under the circumstances is to wish for him a wonderful trip and to express the hope that he will not talk politics on his trip. Mr. MALONE, I thank the Senator. RECESS Mr. McFARLAND. I now move that the Senate stand in recess until 12 o’clock noon tomorrow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 7 o’clock and 46 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 7, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian,
1510 NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate February 6 (legislative day of January 4), 1950: UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS Matthew E Welsh, of Indiana, to be United States attorney for the southern district of Indiana vice B. Howard Caughran, term ex- pired. (This is to correct the nomination sent to the Senate on January 17, 1950, and confirmed on January 31, 1950.) Ernest A. Tolin, of California, to be United States attorney for the southern district of California, vice James M. Carter, elevated. COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS Craig Pottinger, of Nogales, Ariz., to be col- lector of customs for customs collection dis- trict No, 26, with headquarters at Noga‘es, Ariz. (Reappointment ) Louis T. Rocheleau, of Woonsocket, R I., to be collector of customs for customs collec- tion district No, 5, with headquarters at Providence, R. I. (Reappoinitment.) IN THE ARMY The following-named persons for appoint- ment in the Regular Army of the United States, in the grades speciticd, under the pro- visions of the act of June 10, 1949 (Public Law 96, 81st Cong.): To be colonel Victor Z. Gomez, 014876, To be lieutenant colonel Jose E. Olivares, 015377. The following-named persons for appoint- ment in the Regular Army of the United States, in the grades and corps specified, un- der the provisions of section 506 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 (Public Law 381, 80th Cong ), title II of the act of August 5, 1947 (Public Law 365, 80th Cong ), Public Law 625, Eightieth Congress, and Public Law 36, Eight- jeth Congress, subject to physical qualifi- cation: To be majors Charles S. Finch, Jr., MC, 0350284. Marcus H. Flinter, MC, 0326929. Everett G. King, MC, 0333584. Edward 8. Miller, MC, 0367325. To be captains William P. Blocker, Jr , MC, AO1774757. Edward S. Bres, Jr., MC, 0282417 William O Dougherty, DC, 0483429. Aldo E. Gillotte, DC. Richard G. Hamill, MC, 0444052 James B. Hampton, MC, 0470678. Mary E. Kelly, WAC, L702220. Leo Korchin, DC, 0466196. David E, MacQuigg. MC, 0367814. Dante Salera, DC, 052017. Lillian Singer, WAC, 1.202122. To be first lieutenants Alexander W. Ashford, MC, 0935756. Bruce C Babbitt, JAGC, 0416671 Victor D Baughman, JAGC, 0455846. Herbert R Boyd, Jr., DC, 0978077, John L. Child, JAGC, 01117577. Charles R. Counts, JAGC, O1313341. George C. Eblen, JAGC, 0549053. Warren C. Evans, MC. Joe Fiisch, DC. Donald R. Korst, MC, 08962702. Alfred Lubart, MC, 0963146 Bernard J. Nielander, Jr., DC, 0831775. Alois Peczenik, MC, 01691917. Walter S. Price, MC, 01726466 James F. Senechal, JAGC, 01325143. Lee 8S. Serfas, MC, 0961437. Joseph L. Shomo, DC, 0395550. William C. Vinet, Jr., JAGC, 01336291. Richard A. Walsh, MC, 0964463, Matthew J. Weir, MC, 0977165. To be second lieutenants Eleanor A Anderson, ANC, N765360. Elizabeth M. Camp, ANC, N792242, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Anastasia A, Chaponis, ANC, N792714. Maxine Douglas, ANC, N792153. Marie L. Lilly, ANC, N7648J9. Myrtle J. Lucey, WMSC, M2443. Jean A. Mulraney, ANC, N792559. Frances C Register, ANC, N792675. Ruth J. Vanderburg, ANC, N702503. The following-named distinguished milf- tary students for appointment in the Regu- lar Army of the United States, effective June 15, 1950, in the grade of second leutenant, under the provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 (Public Law 381, 80th Cong.), subject to designation as diotinguished mill- 1ory graduates, and subject to physical qualification: Lodwrick M Cook, 0974145 Wilford J. Hoff, Jr. Holcombe H Thomas. William A. Wells. John T. Wood, Jr., 0954464. The following-named distinguished mili- tary stucent for appointment in the Medi- cal Service Corps, Regular Army of the United Staies, eflective June 15, 1950, in the grade of second Heutcnant, under the provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 (Public Law 381, 80th Cong ), subject to designation as a distinguished military graduaie, and subject to physical qualification: Thomas J. Muldowney Tne following-named distinguished mill- tary students for appointment in the Regu- lar Army of the United States in the grade of second Heutenant, under the provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 (Public Law 381, 80th Cong.), subject to designation as distinguished military graduates, and sub- ject to physical qualification John S. Culpepper, Jr., 0973085. Barry M_ Dictrich. Murray H. Falk. Herbert J. Hedrick, 0957860. Andrew B Kirkpatrick, Jr Wilburn V. Lunn, Jr., 0980879. Terrence S Meade, O978762. Luther S Orr, Jr Clarence W. Pratt. Kenneth Watson, Jr, 0964182. Rudolph L. Yobs. The following-named persons for appoint- ment 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 (Public Law 381, 80th Cong ), subject to physical qualifica- tion: Edwin W. Allen, Jr, AQ56167. Eldon L. Ballinger, 0412373. Jean R Barnes, 01339597 William C. Bowen, Jr., 0417294. Charles E. Brannon, 01330378. John D. Burrer, 01342047 Herbert E. Clark, 0953799 Louis R. M. DelGuerico, 0971421. Lawrence B. Farnum, 0854551. Leslie R Forney, Jr. William R. Frost, Jr , 01340876. William L, Gaillard, AO1904234. Alonzo J. Golden, 0393008 Benjamin F. Harmon, 0964129. John L. Hofues, Jr., 0973738. Roy C. Jones, 0968776. William J. Joosten, 01342382, Thomas W. Kelley, 02017869. Harold C. Kinne, Jr., 01826156. James M Leer, Jr., 0537266. William B. Lindsay, 0505588. Samuel E. McCann, 0412217. John D. Meredith, 0967481, Daniel L. Miller, 02065809, Knute R. Nelson, 0423117. John J. O'Brien, 0976216. Henry A. Pate, Jr., 0965674, John F. Risk. James H. Tate, Jr., 0445748. Charles P. Walthour. Marcus L. Whitfield, 0965500. FEBRUARY 6 In THE ATR FORCE The following-named officers for promotion in the United States Air Force under the provisions of title V of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 and title III of the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948. All officers have been examined and found physi- cally quahfied tor promotion as required by law: To be licutenant colonels Della Josephine Angst, AL80067. Martha Leola Cross, AL80206. Mary Lois Kersey, AL80016. Kathleen McClure, AL80200. Virginia Justin Phelps, AL80020. Marie Louise Ray, AL80119. Exnma Jane Riley, AL80056 Margaret Johunna Steele, AL80199. To be majors Pauline Estelle Abell, AL80C53. Evaline May Absalom, AL80041. Margaret Andrews Bacchus, AL80031. Laurie Marie Ball, AL80047. Ruth Lucile Blind, AL80033 Anna Lee Brigzs, AL80052. Margaret Goodman Brown, AL80063. Charlotte Gage Butterfield, AL80050. Lucille Caldwell, AL80027. Virginia Christina Dietz, AL80030. Kathryn Grace Ecke, AL80062. Mary Elma Elrod, AL80054 Anna Marie Frost, AL80061. Wilma Rebecca Hague, AL80034 Elizabeth Tunstall Hickson, AL80231. Marjorie Ostrander Hunt, AI-80049. Rachael Ann Johnstone, AL80037 Kathryn McConnell Ludlow, AL80044. Dorothy Page Martin, AL80028 Margaret Elizabeth McEnerney, AL80051. Gladys Emma McManimie, AL80040. Mary Elizabeth McPherson, AL80224. Willa Mae Mizell, AL80058. Jacquelin Mozelle Mooneyham, AL80043. Gladys Myrabelle Nelson, AL80494. Genevieve Kelly O’Brien, AL80213. Helen Emeline O'Day, AL80068 Maimie Pauline Oliver, AL80488. Rose Ethel Panowski, AL80223, Bernice Cecelia Philipps, AL80032. Margaret Louise Philpot, AL80048. Bertha Pinckes, AL80038. Elizabeth Ray, AL80214 Myr! Dean Stiles, AL80482. Marion Eliza Swan, AL80046. Mildred Elsie Thomas, AL80036. Edith Margaret Toffaletti, AL80479 Janna Tucker, AL80039. Frances Works Van Pelt, AL80029. Kathryne M. Walls, AL80495. Margaret Mary Werlein, AL80045. To be captains Jean Doris Armstrong, AL80106. Joan Elizabeth Eennett, AL8C084. Virginia Marie Blanchard, AL80086 Carolyn Elizabeth Boatwright, AL80983. Madelen Cassidy, AL80105. Alberta Marie Courchene, AL80080. Elizabeth Narcissus Cox, AL80082. Doris Dee Diamant, AL80109 Elsie Ovedia Ellingson, AL80C97 Harriet Marion Fivenson, AL80099. Mary Elizabeth Flannagan, A180104. Virginia Spence Gary, AL80107. Elizabeth Guild, AL80095 Alice Hoyt Hartley, AL800%79 Verdia May Hickambottom, AL80C84. Bonnie Turnbull Martin, AL80190. Virginia Eloise Martin, AL80075. Ruth McCraw, AL80078. Muriel May Moran, AL80103. Shirley Theone O'Dell, AL80C93. Rita Elizabeth O'Donnell, ALZ0085. Frances Oppenheimer, ALC&OQ076. Viola May Peschel, AL80087. Ruth Ramee, AL80100. Lillian Tombacher Robinson, AL8°091, Cora Edra Sharon, AL80081. Albina Helena Shimkus, AL80089, Mary Ellen Shull, AL800¢5.
1950 Flora Mary Smothers, AL80101. Mary Helene Strong, AL80092. Ruth Ellen Vorkoeper, AL80090. Ruth Lamar Williams, AL800§9. Jean Smollen Wilson, AL80102. Nots.—Dates of rank will be determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monnay, Fesnuary 6, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. Rev. S. R. Pitts, 8. J., principal of St. Joseph’s College High School, Philadel- phia, Pa., offered the following prayer: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Recalling the inspiring words of the Declaration of Independence, we beseech Thee, O Lord, to enlighten our minds and move our wills with a deeper appre- ciation and respect for the truth that all men are endowed by Thee, their Cre- ator, with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Daily give us, O God, the mind and will to live with a firm reliance on the pro- tection of Thy divine providence in order that we may mutually pledge to eagh other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. Amen. The Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, February 2, 1950, was read and approved: MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. Carrell, one of its clerks, 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. 4080. An act to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice. THE CHRISTOFFEL CASE Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it. Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Speaker, on February 2 the House passed a resolution regarding a subpena from the district court that was served on me. I ap- peared this morning and delivered the House resolution. The attorneys for Christoffel yielded and said they did not need the minutes of the Eighty-first Congress but insisted that the House de- liver the minutes of March 1, 1947. I told the court that I would cooperate and deliver the message to the Speaker of the House, and that whatever orders were issued by ihe House would be complied with, The SPEAKER. The gentleman has not quite stated a parliamentary in- quiry. I assume he has made a state- ment for the REcorD. Mr. LESINSKI. That is right. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. FURCOLO (at the request of Mr. STAGGERS) was given permission to ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE tend his remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp and insert an article. Mr. BARTLETT asked and was given permission to eXtend his remarks in the Record and include an article on Alaska-Hawail statehood by the gentle- man from Michigan [Mr. Crawrorp]. Mr. CHESNEY asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a speech given by Lawrence M. Kocinsky, national com- mander of the Polish Legion of American Veterans of the United States, at the grave of Gen. W. Krzyzanowski, at Ar- lington Cemetery, Va. Mr. MAGEE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a letter from St. Louis he received and his reply thereto. Mr. RABAUT asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the RecorD concerning the death of Msgr. Maurice W. Chawke and inc:ude therein an article from the Detroit News. Mr. FUGATE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an address by Louis Johnson, Secretary of National Defense, Mr. RICH asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial from the Times-Herald of this morning. Mr. BARRETT of Wyoming (at the re- quest of Mr. D’EwarT) was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include extraneous matter. Mr. EATON asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include a statement by George K. Batt on our national economic situation. DONALD RICHBERG Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, a loyal Ameri- can, a profound logician, statesman, and scholar, who is unselfishly struggling to preserve for America and her citizens those God-given rights originally guar- anteed to them under our Constitution made a spcech in my district last Thurs- day evening that merits the attention of all loyal Americans, and I ask unani- mous consent to insert it in the REcorp. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. LUXURY TAXES Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous ccnsent to address the House for 1 minute. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from In- diana? There was no objection. Mr. HARVEY. Mr. Speaker, I have purchased a ticket for the Republican get-together party to be held out at the Uline Arena tonight. I notice there is a 20-cent Federal excise tax on the ticket. 1511 I am wondering whether the Jackson Day $100-a-plate banquet will also carry the same tax? May I say also that while they have not submitted their menu to me I am assuming it will consist largely of potatoes. BE NIFTY AND THRIFTY IN FIFTY Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, 1 ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, be nifty and thrifty in fifty. If not, we are a socialist Nation before sixty with the Fair Deal. Two hundred and fifty-six billion debt; seven billion deficit. I would rather be a broken record than a SOB. The state of the Nation is good. Acheson—Hiss and Hiss. Thanks to Un-American Committce. A red her- ring? Oh, my. Social security from cradle to grave. Coal supplics dwindling, mills close down, men have no jobs. Fact-finding board shunned. Taft-Hartley law could be used, but T-H will not work if H. T. will not work it. State of the Nation is good. Ben Franklin once said, “He who trades freedom for security will lose both.” He was right. Debt two hundred and fifty-eight bil- lion; deficit seven billion. More taxes and more spending is the Fair Deal program. Why then $50,000 nontaxable salary to the President and $10,000 each to Vice President and Speaker? It seems to me like a raw deal to coun- try’s citizens. More taxes to pay this injustice from the hard workers. Has a soap manufacturer the ability to understand and manufacture atomic bombs or would a scientist be better? State of the Nation is good. There are a lot of questions coming be- fore us these days that we should con- sider very intelligently. It seems to me that the Fair Deal is on the road to ruin- ing America. Wake up, America, before you lose your freedom, your liberty, your form of government, and your home. High time get busy. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks in the Recorp and include an excerpt. Mr. GOLDEN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the REcorp. Mr. MEYER asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an editorial. Mr. HOEVEN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in the Recorp and include an article appear- ing in the January issue of Successful Farming,