10076 nowhere. It would be a great disservice to the States. It may not legally be repudiation, but I can say to the Senator from Illinois that while I was governor I counted on the good faith of the Federal Govern- ment to reimburse me for obligations which I as governor had assumed or au- thorized, and I would feel it was repudia- tion, and I believe my associates would su feel. Therefore I cannot vote with the Senator. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tlinois yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. CHAVEZ. I wonder if the Senator will yield so that I may esk a question of the Senator from New York. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator cannot yield for that purpose except by unanimous consent. Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask unanimous con- sent that I may yield to the Senator from New Mexico to ask a question of the Senator from New York. The VICE PRESIDENT. “Without ob- jection, it is so ordered. Mr. CHAVEZ. I do not know whether the Senator from New York attended the hearings on the Federal aid highways bill which was considered by the Committee on Public Works, under the leadership of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Mc- CLELLANJ, chairman of the Subcommit- tee on Public Roads of the Public Works Committee. Will the Senator from New York, who was formerly a governor, and is no doubt familiar with the procedures, the techniques, the mechanics, of how Federal contributions are used by the State governments, advise the Senate whether it is not a fact that the State of New Vork itself, instead of seeking, in this particular instance, an appropri- ation of $450,000,000, suggested to the committee that the entire fund collected from gasoline taxes, amounting to $1,350,000,000, be devoted to the con- struction of roads? Mr, LEHMAN. In the first place, the Senator from New York desires to say he did not attend the hearings, and he does not know what the requests of the State of New York were for gasoline moneys. I have no doubt they would have been very happy to receive increased gasoline revenues. Mr. CHAVEZ. Is it not a fact that the State of New York has an intelligent technical engineering organization which takes care of the roads in the State of New York? Mr. LEHMAN. That is quite correct; we have a highway department. Mr. CHAVEZ. It is a nonpartisan body, dealing only with public roads, and with the benefits to the people of the State of New York which might result from the construction of public roads, Mr. LEHMAN. That is correct. Mr. CHAVEZ. I can advise the Senator from New York and the Senator from. Illinois that New York, New Jersey, Penn- sylvania, and every other large State in the Union, is away behind in roads, and they asked us, instead of appropriating $450,000,000, to provide a billion and a half dollars so that they might proceed with the construction of the roads which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE are so badly needed for the benefit of the people of the individual States. Mr. LEHMAN, That is quite correct, I may say to the Senator from New Mex~ ico that I have always been a great ad- vocate of the building of roads. I think they should be built to the limit of the available resources of the States and of the Nation. I did say a few minutes ago that while I have been, and now am, an advecate of roads, I would, in view of what I consider a possibly very critical situation, be willing temporarily to de- lay the building of roads, But I have no doubt whatsoever of the fact that roads are needed and are a great asset to the States and the Nation alike. I should like to say one further word. We were talking about the needs of the States and the financial resources of the States. I point out to the Senator from New Mexico that in preparing the revenue planning for the State of New York—and I am sure it is true in the Senator’s State also—there is put down as an asset, an inviolable asset, the amount that is due from the Federal Government for the next 2 years. Mr. CHAVEZ. That is a part of the planning. Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. Mr. CHAVEZ. If the Senator from Tilinois will indulge me one moment more, I should like to ask the Senator from New York a question. The Sena- tor said that because of the general circumstances he would be willing to defer temporarily the construction of roads. Suppose the roads proposed to be constructed were military roads? Suppose they were interstate roads that necessarily had to be built for the se- curity of the country? Suppose they were access roads which would lead to military establishments. Suppose they were military roads that had to do with a naval installation, or an Army installa- tion, or an aviation installation? Would the Senator from New York make the same statement with respect to them? Mr. LEHMAN. I may answer the Sen- ator from New Mexico in this way: I can make the statement without qualifica- tion that, so far as Iam concerned, I am going to vote for every appropriation which I am convinced fs in the interest of national defense and national security. Certainly if roads are involved in our national defense or national security I would favor them. Mr. CHAVEZ. May I—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield further? Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at this time, Mr. President. I should like to make a state- ment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from TMlinois declines to yield further. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I think the issue is clear, As I have lis- tened to this discussion I have almost felt that I was being accused of trying to destroy the American home and tear- ing down all the verities of American life. That is not my purpose, Mr. President. It is my humble purpose that, instead of appropriating $385,000,000 for highways, we appropriate only $285,000,000, making @ saving of $100,000,000. We would still appropriate nearly $300,000,000, and, JULY 18 with a corresponding amount from the States, we would have a total of nearly $600,000,000 for Federal-aid highways. In addition there would be the amount spent by the States and localities for non-Federal highways. So we would still have a large volume of highway con- struction. Mr. President, the issue here is plain. I do not desire to detain the Senate any longer. I ask for a vote on my amend- ment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois to the com- mittee amendment. The amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 87, line 24. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the next committee amendment. The next amendment was, on page 88, line 3, after “1944”, to strike out “$125,509,000" and insert “$115,509,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “National Bureau of Stand- ards,” on page 90, line 6, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$540,000” and insert $700,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 90, line 25, after the word “thereto”, to strike out “$1,270,000” and insert “$1,430,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 93, line 6, after the word “stations”, to strike out “$3,100,000" and insert “$3,000,000,” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, on page 93, line 7, after the word “of”, to strike out “sites” and insert “a site”; in line 9, af- ter the “a”, to strike out “radio labora- tory building and a”; in line 11, after the word “by”, to strike out “acts” and insert “the act”; in line 12, after the numerals “1949”, to strike out “Public Laws 366” and insert “Public Law 2”; in line 138, after the numerals “386”, to strike out “$500,000” and insert “$134,- 000”; and in line 17, after the word “exceed”, to strike out “$5,675,000” and insert “$1,766,000.” Mr, JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, I desire to discuss briefly the para- graph beginning on line 7 of page 93, and ending on line 17. I was surprised when I read the hear- ings before the Appropriations Commit- tee with respect to the matters which are dealt with in that paragraph, to find that no military justification had been made on behalf of the radio laboratory building for which that paragraph pro- vides, I feel it is very important that the committee and the Senate be apprised of the military significance and the mili- tary impacts of that laboratory. I want to make the record complete by read- ing into it several documents pertaining to this matter. I shall skip around in them as much as I can to make my pres- entation as brief as possible and as much to the point as possible,
1950 The first document I desire to read into the REcorp is a statement by the Bureau of Standards reading as follows: The Central Radio Propagation Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards was es- tablished at the direct request of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in order to carry on and expand the radio propagation work which has proved essential for military op- erations during the last war. By this means the major propagation work of the three branches of the Military Establishment would be centralized in one agency and coordina- tion of the work would be assured. The ac- tivities of the laboratory are guided by an interagency radio propagation executive council, which establishes priorities of proj- ects and reviews the annual budget so that duplications of work Is avoided. The establishment of a radio laboratory building for the National Bureau of Stand- ards is critical for the following reasons: a. The extension of the radio frequency spectrum by a factor of 1,000,000 requires an extensive program of research, develop- ment, calibration, and testing. This pro- gram has been underway as authorized by Congress but has been handicapped by lack of suitable facilities and location. b. The variable characteristics of radio waves required extensive propngation studies and prediction services for both military and civilian needs. In this sense, the field of radio propagation requires a service of pre- diction analagous to that required in weather, I want Senators to listen particularly to this language: Such services are crucial to the military services’ For example, loss of planes and lives occurred during the Inst war as a direct con- sequence of Inck of information as to the fade ing of radio frequencies and radio disturb- ances which effectively eliminated commu- nication of our aircraft with bases. ¢. The location and present facilities of the bureau in Wushington are totally inadequate for the present program: the urgency of the program however was such that the program was begun and authorized by Congress at a level of 3,000,000 per year, beginning in fiscul 1949. The program was and 1s closely coordinated and planned by the Air Force, Army, Navy, CAA, Air Navigation Develop- ment Board, FCC, Coast Guard, State De- partment, and industry, and reviewed by the Research and Development Board. The new facilities are crucial for (1) maximum ef- fectiveness of a program now scattered in temporary structures clearly recognized as inadequate by the bureau and the military services; (2) effective and economic coor- dination with a related program of %750,000 now being conducted In Colorado because of natural terrain conditions by the bureau for the military and the Air Navigation Develop- ment Buard; and (3) consolidation of some field activities which cannot be performed in Washington. The Committee on Appropriations had none of that information before it when it considered this appropriation. I am not surprised therefore that the com- mittee struck from the-bill the appropri- ation which provided for the building of this very essential laboratory, a labora- tory of extremely critical importance and badly neded for the national defense. I read further: The program is crucial to the national defense and is of vital importance to civilian applications of radio. The role of this pro- ‘gram in defense; 1. Prediction services as to the frequencies which can be used to insure communication from one point to another, anywhere in the world, at any time, are vital for the Army, XCVI-——635 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Navy, and Alr Force. Radio waves are af- fected by sun spots and by disturbances in the fonosphere and meteorological phe- nomena. To maintain a prediction service requires extensive and continuous studies and monitoring, subsequent analysis of data, and the issuance of predictions to the services. Warnings of sudden disturbances must also be communicated at once to the services with instructions as to what action must be taken to maintain communications, I may say, Mr. President, that at Climax, Colo., Harvard University has a laboratory where the sun is photo- graphed from day to day, where the im- pact of sun spots upon electronic waves throughout the world is measured, and where the importance of sun spots and their effect upon radio propagation is being studied and being determined. I continue to read: 2. The development of effective guided missiles, which depend on radio waves for guidance, requires studies of the character- istics of waves at all frequencios. The suc- cess of this program depends on the solution of a large set of problems in this area: any delay here will adversely affect our readiness and effectiveness in utilizing these missiles, Thia prugram requires prompt action and considerable expansion, which cannot be achieved without adequate facilities. In the paragraph to which I refer, the Appropriations Committee very prop- erly left in the provision for a guided missiles laboratory, inasmuch as the two are joined together; they are connected scientifically, because the propagation of radio waves and the program in that connection and the guided missiles pro- gram cannot be separated; one is de- pendent on the other. The remainder of the justification reads as follows: 3. The global nature of our military re- sponasibilities requires studies of radio prop= agation, in unusual geographic and climatic regions. The Bureau's program on propaga- tion in the Arctic 1s of special Importance here. This program requires adequate sup- porting rescarch, development, and test facilities. in a suitable laboratory, for a con- siderable portion of the work must be done in a well-equipped laboratory. 4. Radio navigation and direction Anding require the analysis and test of systems, the study of the properties of the radio waves in a given frequency range, and the synthesis of these studies into satisfactory systems for a variety of military purposes and condi- tions. Satisfactory radio navigation and direction finding are absolutely crucial in air warfare, 5. Radar, one of the most powerful meth- ods of detecting and tracing air and sea tar- gets, requires extensive knowledge of the best frequencies, studies of the range of radio waves, and problems of selection of radar sites. These studies by the Bureau for the military services require the proposed facill- ties and location if they are to be economic- ally and quickly done, 6. Pressing work in countermeasures—in- cluding methods of getting radio signals through interference of the enemy—requires new facilities of the kind indicated. 7. Alrcraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to- ground communication essential to military operations and commercial aviation safety requires extensive and prompt studies of the higher frequencies—200 megacycles and above—about which insufficient information ds now available. The importance of these activities to the national economy, aside from the immediate and direct military applications, parallels in geveral respects those projects noted above. 10077 Prediction services, radio warning disturb- ances, radar, radio navigation and direction finding, the provision of standard frequen- cies and time signals, day and night—are im« portant in the safe operation of civilian air craft and shipping. Studies of radio propa- gation and of frequency allocations and fre- quency assignments are vital to every field of radio service, whether military or civilian, In summary it is absolutely essential that the activities of the CRPL be removed from the Washington area as soon as possible and be provided with adequate facilities. Ine creasing congestion of the radio spectrum in this area makes adequate experimenta- tion rapidly more difficult just at the time that military needs are most pressing. Un- der currently increasing emergency condl- tions, moreover, it appears that military needs will require intensification and ex- tension of this program. which 1s impossible in the Washington area, Mr. President, I wish to read certain statements coming from our military authorities. First, I wish to read a letter addressed to me by Charles Sawyer, Sec- retary of Commerce at the time when the bill authorizing this laboratory was before our committee. In the letter he refers to Senate bill 443, the bill which provided for the laboratory. His Ietter reads as follows: THE SrckeTary or COMMERCE, Washington, June 2, 1949, Hon. Epwin C. JOHNSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Drak Mr. CHAIRMAN: I understand that concern has been expressed by several mem- bers of your committee with respect to the location of the site for the proposed radlo laboratory building the construction of which would be authorized by S. 443 for the National Bureau of Standards, presently un- der consideration by the Committee on In~ terstate and Foreign Commerce of the Senate. As was stated in the statement of purpose and need for S. 443, transmitted to your come mittee on February 24, 1949, the activities to be carried out in this proposed laboratory are critical in the entire fleld of radio communi-« cations, of particular value of American aviae tion, and of vital importance to the Armed Forces. Members of my staff have therefore discussed the matter of the location of this site with the National Military Establish- ment, the National Security Resources Board, and the Bureau of the Budget. In accord- ance with these discussions, I am of the opinion that this building should not be located in the metropolitan area of the Dis- trict of Columbia and therefore recommend that amendatory language be provided tn 8S. 443 to authorize the procurement of a site elsewhere. The proposed language, attached as exhibit A, is not restricted to a site for the laboratory building alone since buildings in the future where the same factors apply, should also be located at the same site for the reasons of economy, technical effective. nees, and administrative eMficiency. As stated in my letter dated February 24, 1949, to your committee; there exists an ur- gent need for the laboratory building which would be authorized by S. 443 and the De- artment strongly urges the enactment of his legislation as amended. I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there 1s no objection to the sub- mission of this letter to your committee. Bincerely yours, CHARLES SAWYER, Secretary of Commerce, Mr. President, one paragraph of the justification I read a moment ago indi- cates that there was a considerable loss
10078 of life in World War II because we did not have a complete understanding of radar and radio propagation and all the connected sciences. Maj. Gen. Wilton B. Persons, United States Army, Director of the Office of Legislative Liaison, notified me as fol- lows when we were previously consider- ing this matter: Orricr or THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, February 17, 1949. Hon. Epwin C. JOHNSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United State Senate. Dear Senator JowuNnson: Mr. Forrestal has asked me to acknowledge your letter of Feb- ruary 12, 1949, requesting the recommendas tions of this office with reapect to a bill now pending before your committee, 8. 443, to authorize the construction and equipment of @ radio laboratory building for the Na- tional Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce. This office has assigned to the Research and Development Board responsibility for providing your committee with a coordinated report on this legislation on behalf of the National Military Establishment. Sincerely yours, Wuron B. Persons, Major General, United States Army, Director, Office of Legislative Liaison, So, Mr. President, Dr. Karl T. Comp- ton, chairman of the Research and De- velopment Board, was speaking for the military when he addressed the follow- ing communication to our committee: NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Boarp, Washington, D.C., April 5, 1949. Hon. Epwin C. JOHNSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Drar SENATOR JoHNSON: In accordance with the direction contained in a memo- randum to me from Maj. Gen. Wilton B. Persons, dated February 17, 1949, I am sub- mitting herewith the views of the Navional Military Establishment on Senate 443, to authorize the construction and equipment of a radio laboratory building for the Na- tional Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce. The work of the Bureau of Standards in the fleld of radio has had both tactical (mil- itary) and nontactical (civilian) applica- tions. Some of its basic research work is of use to the military services, as for example, propagation studies, miniaturization (vT fuses and printed circuit techniques), fun- damental studies of time and wave-length standards, and instrumentation (equipment for calibration and maintenance). The pro- posed facility will contribute indirectly to the research arid development program of the National Military Establishment; and the National Military Establishment there- fore takes a favorable view with respect to the enactment of the proposed legislation. It should be noted that the general charac- ter of Bureau of Stahdards work 1s such that the expenditure of funds for this facility should be regarded not as forming a part of the total national funds expendable on mill- tary research and development, but as sepa- rate from and supplemental thereto. This report has been coordinated amon the Departments and Boards of the Nationa Military Establishment in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. Very truly yours, Kant T, Compron, Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE After Mr. Forrestal resigned from the Office of National Defense, and was suc- ceeded by Secretary Johnson, we took up the matter with the National Defense Establishment and asked them if they still were interested in this laboratory, in the same way that they were inter- ested in it when that establishment was under Mr. Forrestal, The reply was that they were. I received the following letter from Mr. F. H. Richardson, a deputy executive secretary of the Research and Development Board: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Board, Washington, D. C., April 27, 1949. Bubject: Senate 448, “To authorize the cone struction and equipment of a radio lab- oratory building for the National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce.” Hon. Enwin C. JOHNSON, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear Senator JoHNsON: The report of the National Military Establishment on the above-identified bill was submitted to you by Dr. Compton in his letter dated April 5, 1949. This report, which was fully coordinated among the Departments and Boards of the National Military Establishment in accord- ance with procedures prescribed by the Sec- retary of Defense, took a favoreble view with respect to the enactment of the proposed legislation. Mr. Cooper of your committee’s staff has asked whether, in view of the recent change in the incumbency in the Office of the Sec- retary of Defense, the report on the subject bill may still be regarded as duly represent- ing the viewpoint of the National Military Establishment. In Dr. Compton’s absence I am replying for him to Mr. Cooper’s query. I have made a check in the Office of the Sec- retary and I am authorized to inform you that, in the absence of specific action to the contrary, all actions by Secretary Forrestal, including all actions taken by subordinate bureaus and agencies, are to be regarded as still valid and in effect. By virtue of this presumption, the subject report on S. 448 falls within the class of actions which have not been altered by the change in the secre- taryship. Very truly yours, F, H. RICHARDSON, Deputy Executive Secretary. Next, Mr. President, let me read the following letter: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Orrice of tHe Curr SIGNAL OFFICER, Washington, D.C., July 13, 1950. Dr. Newsrr2n SMITH, Chie}, Central Radio Propagation Lab- oratory, National Bureau of Stand- ards, Washington, D.C. Dear Dr. SuiTrH: The enclosed statement fs a copy of the statement previously pre- sented indicating military support of the fiscal year 1951 Central Radio Propegation Laboratory budget. Sincerely yours, W. T. Guest, Brigadier General, USA, Chief, Signal Plans and Operations Division. Although the statement enclosed with that letter carries a previous date, never- theless it is, as a result, brought up to this very day, July 13, 1950. The en- closed statement from the Department of Defense reads as follows: Deragrment or Derensr—Srarement To Bz Mang rw Devensr or CRPL Bungrr ror THE Praca Year 1951 As in previous years, the National Defense Establishment is wholeheartedly supporting the radio wave propagation program of the JULY 13 Central Radio Propagation Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards. From the military standpoint, the work undertaken Is essential and represents basic data vital to development work in communi- cations, navigation, and guidance systems. The budget requested has been reviewed by a committee of representatives of inter- ested Government agencies and, as a result, represents a well-coordinated and carefully planned program, R, V. D. Conpor, Jr., Brigadier General, USA, Chief, Signal Plans and Operations Division. Concur for Department of Navy: J. M. Grider (Commander J. M. Grider). Concur for Department of Air Force: J. Weichbrod (affirmed), D. P. Graul, Col., USAF (affirmed). Let me point out that Colonel Graul, one of those who signed the foregoing statement, is a member of the Air Force Matériel Research and Development Board, That is the military justification for this laboratory. Mr. President, as stated in those let- ters, the National Defense Establishment has with the Bureau of Standards a con- tract by which $3,000,000 a year is ex- pended by the Bureau in order to pro- vide the National Defense Establish- ment with the benefit of the very latest research work and the very latest infor- mation on the propagation of radio waves, I should like to ask the Senator in charge of this measure whether under these circumstances it would be agree- able to him to have the committee amendments, on page 93, from line 7 to line 17, inclusive, rejected, and then to change the figure in line 17 from $5,675,000 to $3,000,000. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, when this matter was before the sub- committee which had this chapter in charge, it was argued that there should be two laboratorics, a radio laboratory building and a guided-missile laboratory. The guided-missile laboratory has not yet been decided on, so far as the site is concerned. As to the radio laboratory building, it was stated before our com- mittee that the site had been selected at Boulder University, at Boulder, Colo. It was the judgment of the committee, in view of the fact that no immediate necessity then appeared for both labora- tories, that we could get along for the current year with one. The committee concluded that the guided-missile lab- oratory would be the most important one, and therefore struck out the pro- vision for the radio laboratory at Boulder. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is, Boulder, Colo.? Mr. McCARRAN. Yes. Since that time, communications have come to the Senators from Colorado, some of which have been read to the Senate. After conference with the ranking minority member, we have come to the conclu- sion that in view of conditions now pre- vailing, which conditions have come upon us since the committee considered this item, it may be well to go forward with both laboratories, For that rea- son I ask the Senate to disagree to the following committee amendments: On
1950 page 93, line 7, striking out “sites” and inserting “a site’, so that the word “sites” will be restored; in line 9, strik- ing out the words “radio laboratory building and a”, so that those words wall be restored; in line 11, striking out the word “Acts” and inserting the word “the act’, so that the words “Acts” wil be restored; in line 12, striking out the words in parenthesis “Public Laws 356” and inserting “Public Law 386,” thus eliminating the words “Public Law 3886”; in line 13 striking out $500,000" and inserting “$134,000.” In lieu of “$134,- 000” there should be inserted “$268,000,” which is a cash ullowance for both labo- ratories. And in line 17, in lieu of the committee recommendation of ‘$1,766,- 000” there should be inserted ‘'$3,000,- coo.” Mr. President, I so move. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, ap- parently it is much easier to get increases in an appropriation bill than decreases. The amendments proposed would in- crease the total cost by $1.368,000. In view of the fact that there is a tremen- dous amount of research in the fleld of radio, both on the part of the Govern- ment itself and on the part of private concerns, it seems to me that this is a field in which we could conserve our money, and that the original judgment of the committee was therefore correct. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the committee amendment, offered by the Senator from Nevada. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I would say to the Senator from Illinois that.as I lis- tened to all the testimony on this subject, both these laboratories are necessary for the Government. Both of them are of top priority. As the chairman of the Scnate committee said, we discussed this question and we believed at the time that we should go forward with one lab- oratory at a time. The guided-missile laboratory explains itself. So far as the radio laboratory is con- cerned, the Bureau of Standards is now doing its work in 10 separate buildings in Washington, D.C. Because of the sur- roundings of the metropolitan area, it is difficult for the Bureau to carry on the work here. It appointed a committee, which examined a number of sites, and finally the Boulder site was selected. I think there can be no question that the Boulder site is a proper one. The only question is as to how fast we should pro- ceed with this work. The radio work in this laboratory, I understand, has to do with jamming. Russia today is Jamming our broadcasts. We have this afternoon appropriated $32,000,000 for informational broadcasts, We are told that another message will come from the President requesting $100,000,000. The whole theory of this research work is to eliminate jamming and blind spots. Recently there have been some very bad airplane accidents, as a result of the pilots having lost con- tact in the air; for what cause, I have no knowledge, Bui there are, we Know, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE blind spots where pilots lose contact and their radio facilities stop working. This research is directed to that problem. I believe that it is perfectly proper and, in view of the fact that we are going to proceed with this building unquestion- ably next year, and in view of the con- ditions in the world and of the world’s problems becoming more difficult, it per- haps is wiser to start in this year than next, For that reason, I would say to my most distinguished colleague from IIli- nois that I agreed with the Senator from Nevada, upon weighing the further evi- dence from the authorities of the Army and the Navy, that we should start this laboratory this year rather than next, even though it is going to take several years to complete it, and even though we know that we are in a crisis, which may continue. The jamming of broadcast programs certainly will continue, and it will be helpful to have this research done. For that reason, I agreed with the Senator from Nevada in regard to the amendments he has offered. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on disagreeing to the committee amendments. The motion of the Sena- tor from Nevada is that the Senate dis- agree to the first four amendments, that the plurals be restored in each instance, and that the appropriation be increased from $134,000, in one instance, to $268,- 000, and that the final appropriation be increased to $3,000,000. Is there objec- tion to voting on the proposition as a whole? Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I wish to give my hearty endorsement to the things which have been said by the distinguished senior Senator from Ne- vada and by the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, and to evi- dence full agreement with the represen-~ tations and showings which have been made on our joint behalf by the dis- tinguished senior Senator from Colorado. I think it vital that we get at and push to completion these things, which have such direct impact on our war-making ability and our ability to better our domestic life in the way of communi- cations, Obviously, our Voice of Freedom for winning the hearts and spirit of other peoples will not be heard if our radio cannot surmount obstruction. The tech- niques of jamming have moved forward faster than our techniques for finding channels which cannot be hindered. We have had entirely too much talk about things we are going to do which have not materialized. Our boys in Korea cannot defend themselves and de- feat the enemy with fancy ideas and blue- prints. It is necessary that we have the best possible means of communication so that we may have effective central and local direction of our military effort. We are trying to lengthen radio waves, trying to pick better waves in the whole spectrum of radio frequencies. We are trying to evolve, as was pointed out by the senior Senator from Massachusetts, methods of preventing the jamming of our radio communications. It is necessary that we improve with utmost expedition our radar detection 10079 methods. No Member of the Senate is in position to give us dependable assur- ance that we are immune in this coun- try from evil messengers carrying explo- sives from other parts of the world with which to destroy us. We saw in the last World War the enormous importance of radar. A man working with a radar set at Pearl Harbor saw images on the screen, which, had they been properly evaluated and acted upon in time, might very well have averted that great, disaster. In England they were operating radar installations, unbeknown to the enemy, and through the information thus re- ceived, Great Britain, with a pathetically small supply of planes and flying per- sonnel, was put in position to anticipate the arrival of the raiding Germans and was finally able to win the battle of Britain, which gave us one more oppor- tunity to preserve a world of freedom and civilization. Mr. President, the activities of this laboratory are at the heart of our mod- ern weapons: our guided missiles, our airplane and ground communications, and our detection devices. Let us get ahead with the job without a moment’s delay. I am deeply grateful to the distin- guished Senator from Nevada for the broad and enlightened outlook he has taken with reference to this subject. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator front’ Nevada. The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stennis in the chair). The next amend- ment will be stated. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Weather Bureau,” on page 94, line 4, after the word “Committee”, to strike out “$24,447.000” and insert “$24,- 897,000"; and in line 14, after the word “annum”, to insert “and such employees may be appointed without regard to the Classification Act of 1949.” Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I have discussed with the chairman of the committee, the senior Senator from Nevada, a small amend- ment to the committee amendment. I offer it and ask, if it is agreeable, that it be taken to conference. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sec- retary will state the amendment. The LxecrsuaTive CLerK. On page 94, line 4, it is proposed to strike out the numeral “$24,897,000” and to insert “$24,927,000.” Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. President, may we have an explanation of the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Okla- homa? Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Presi- dent, when the hearings were held I ap- peared before the committee and made an elaborate explanation of the need for a@ weather station at Cushing, which is located in my State. For some reason the committee did not see fit to grant the request, The request I made was pre~ sented last year and again this year. Cushing is an important oi] town in Okla- homa. It has a fine airfield, but it has no weather service, My amendment pro- poses to make available $30,000 with
10080 which to establish a weather station at Cushing, Okla. Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, since both the House and the Senate have rejected it, I think it should now be re- jected. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, or- dinarily the committee tries to facilitate matters so that the greatest number of Weather Bureau stations may be avail- able. On this occasion the committee thought it was not necessary to put in any additional stations. The Senator from Oklahoma has made persistent ef- forts to have this weather station estab- lished in his State. His efforts in the matter are highly commendable. For the purpose of having the question con- sidered in conference, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to take the amendment to conference. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment offered by the Senator from Okla- homa (Mr. THomas] to the committee amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment, as amended. The committee amendment as amend- ed was agreed to. Mr. WATKINS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed by myse)? and the Senator from Oklahoma tMy. Kerr], and ask that it be printed and lie on the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received and lie on the table. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, do I correctly understand that the Senate has approved the expenditure of approxi- mately $24,900,000 for the Weather Bu- reau? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. DOUGLAS. I undoubtedly can- not obtain unanimous consent for a re- consideration of the vote, but I should hke to point out that appropriations for the Weather Bureau have been increas- ing with great rapidity. In 1945 the total appropriation was slightly more than $13,000,000, and in 5 years we have vir- tually doubled that amount. We have now effected an increase of $480,000 over that which was approved by the House. While I know jt would be impossible to obtain unanimous consent for reconsid- eration, I think those facts should be stated and would like to record my op- position to this Senate amendment. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, it may be well for the Senate to know that the Weather Bureau has taken on new and essential activities. It has now be- come a very highly important part of aviation in the United States. It is al- most indispensable, if not entirely indis- pensable, to the safety of travel by air. Furthermore, the military service of the United States has called the services of the Weather Bureau continuously, and particularly the outpost station in Alas- ka is called upon in connection with the national defense. The appropriations have increased, but the reason for the in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE crease is very patent, and it was patent to the committee. Mr, SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I voted against the establishment of the weather station, and I voted against the establishment of one in Iowa. I person- ally hoped we would not increase the number of weather stations. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title IV—The judiciary—Cus- toms Court—Salaries and expenses,” on page 97, line 2, after the word “judge”, to strike out $417,465” and insert $411,- 465.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Court of Claims—Salaries and expenses,” on page 97, line 12, after the word “binding”, to strike out “$587,000” and insert $575,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Repairs and improvements,” on page 97, line 16, after the word “Capi- tol’, to strike out “$10,700” and insert “$140,700.” The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, may I ask if the Court of Claims is the red ar- chitectural horror on Pennsylvania Ave- nue just beyond the White House? Mr. McCARRAN. It is. I would say to the Senator that it is the building lo- cated just beyond the White House. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I shall not object to this appropriation, because I think that building needs prompt dem- olition. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the next amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries of Clerks of courts,” on page 98, line 10, after the word “as- sistants”, to strike out “$4,500,000” and insert $4,470,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Salaries of criers,” on page 99, line 6, after the numerals “755”, to strike out “$540,000” and insert “$520,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Miscellaneous expenses,” on page 101, line 3 after “(34 Stat. 476)”, to strike out “$725,000” and insert “$675,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Travel expenses,” on page 101, line 14, after the word “clerks”, to strike out “$725,000” and insert “$650,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Administrative Office of the United States Courts,” on page 102, line 7, after the word “field”, to strike out “$530,000” and insert $520,000.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the subhead “Repairs and improvements, District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia,” on page 102, line 13, after the word “thereto”, to strike out $15,600” and insert $7,100.” The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, under the heading “Title V—Government corpora- JULY 13 tions—Department of State,” on page 105, line 12, after the word “exceed”, to strike out ‘8600,000" and insert “$767,500.” : Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, this represents an increase of $167,500 for the Institute of Inter-American Affairs, con- cerning which we had discussion earlier this afternoon. I should appreciate it if the very able chairman of the committee would state the reasons which caused the committee to increase the amount by $167,500. It is $167,500 over the amount recommended by the House and the House amount was already $75,000 over the amount for last year. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, with reference to this item on page 105, my recollection is that I agreed with the Senator from Illinois that we would dis- cuss the item, looking toward some change in it. Since that time I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the Senator. I think I have already made the explanation, and I can make it again if it will be helpful to do so. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to ask the Senator from Nevada whether it is his understanding that the $767,500 is a Mmitation on the use of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs’ own money for administrative purposes. Mr. McCARRAN. That is correct. Mr. SALTONSTALL. The appropri- ation has already been adopted. Mr. McCARRAN. Yes. The $767,500 is a limitation. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Yes. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for an unanimous- consent agreement. Mr. McCARRAN. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I have received word from the majority leader, the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Lucas], that several nominations have been reported favorably. As in execue tive session—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Senator from Tennessee proceeds, the Chair inquires whether there is ob- jection to the adoption of the amend- ment on page 105, line 12, with refer- ence to the Institute of Inter-American Affairs? Mr, DOUGLAS, I should like to point out that the administrative allowances last year were $525,000. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Illinois is not ready to dispose of the amendment, the Senator from Tennesse is recognized. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate, as in executive session, consider the nominations on the execu~- tive calendar, beginning with the De- partment of Justice. Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, may we conclude with this chapter of the appropriations bill? Mr. MCKELLAR. I am willing that the Senator conclude with it, I thought there was to be some opposition to the item under discussion. Mr. McCARRAN. I believe we can smooth it out. Let me say to the Sena-
1950 tor from Illinois and draw his attention to the fact that last year the Institute had only $4,751,000. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee was recognized for the purpose of making a motion. Does the Senator from Tennessee wish to make his motion now? Mr. McCARRAN. Mr. President, I should like to conclude with the chapter under discussion. Mr. McKELLAR, That is agreeable to me, I yield for that purpose. Mr. McCARRAN. This year it is a $5,000,000 cash appropriation, together with $7,000,000 in contract authority and it is for that reason we are recom- mending an increase in the limitation on administrative expenses. Mr. DOUGLAS. I merely wish to call attention to the fact that last year the corresponding administrative expenses of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs was $525,000. The House increased that amount by $75,000, making a total of $600,000. The Senate committee is pro- posing to increase this figure by a further allowance of $167,500. It seems to me that would be multiplying the overhead. Although I am only 1 of 96 Senators, I shall be compelled to vote against it. The PRESIDING OFFICER’ The question is on agreeing to the amend- ment. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. DOUGLAS. Earlier this after- noon the Senate approved the commit- tee amendment on page 42, line 18, in- creasing the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the State Department from $77,300,000 to $78,300,000, or an in- crease of $1,000,000. Inasmuch as I must ask unanimous consent that the vote be reconsidered within 2 days, I now formally request that the Recorp show that at a subsequent date I shall move for reconsideration of these increases. Mr. McKELLAR. I did not hear what the Senator said. : Mr. MAYBANK. I understood the dis- tinguished Senator from Dlinois to say that, in view of the fact that a motion to reconsider had to be entered within 48 hours, he wanted it known that with- in the next 48 hours he would do so. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator will have until Monday to enter his motion. CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN NOMINATIONS Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I re- new my request that the Senate now proceed, as in executive session, to con- sider certain nominations on the Execu- tive Calendar. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered, EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED As in executive session, The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stzx- nis in the chair) laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting several nom- inations, which were referred to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary. (For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A COMMITTEE As in executive session, Yhe following favorable report of a nomination was submitted: By Mr. CHAVEZ, from the Committee on Public Works: E. F. Salisbury, of Missour!, to be a mem- ber of the Mississippi River Commission, vice Edward Fiad, retired. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the first nomination, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Harold I, Baynton, of Nevada, to be an Assistant Attorney General. Mr. SALTONSBALL. Mr. President, I should like to read a letter from the junior Senator from Nevada |Mr. Ma- LONE] addressed to the minority leader, As acting minority leader I read the Ict- ter, as follows: Unitrp States SENATE, COMMITTLE ON PUBLIC WORKS, July 13, 1950, Hon. KennerH WHERRY, Minority Leader, United States Senate. Dean Ken’ Reference is made to the nomi- nation of Mr. Harold I. Bayton, now Acting Alien Property Custodian for an Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Allen Prop- erty. T have no objection to the confirmation of Mr. Bayton as Assistant Attorney General in Charge of Alien Property, but if the ap- pointment is to be charged to Nevada, I would favor a bona fide resident of the State receiving the position. Upon a preliminary check with prominent members of the Nevada bar, I -lnd that he 1s not a member of the bar in our State, that he is from Montana, more recently a prod- uct of Washington College of Law and now a trustee of that institution—and that well- known attorneys in Nevada with whom I have talked, do not know him. I have no strong feeling in the matter except the State connection, therclore, I Kuggest that no further delay in his cun- firmation be requested. Sincerely, Grorce W. MALONE. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination? The nomination was confirmed, NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL The legislative clerk read the nomina. tion of Charles M. Spofford, of New York, to be United States deputy representa- tive on the North Atlantic Council. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the nomination is con- firmed. UNITED STATES MARSHALS The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of Ford S. Worthy to be United States marshal for the eastern district of North Carolina. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the nomination is con- firmed. The legislative clerk read the nomina- tion of William Holroyd McGinnis to be United States marshal for the southern district of West Virginia. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the nomination {is con- firmed, 10081 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD The legislative clerk proceeded to read sundry nominations in the Coast Guard, The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, the nominations in the Coast Guard are confirmed en bloc. That completes the call of the Execu- tive Calendar. RECESS Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, as in legislative session, 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 9 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Friday, July 14, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian, NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate July 13 (legislative day of July 1), 1950: UNITED STATES MARSHALS Eugene J. Smith, of New York, to be United States marshal for the eastern dis trict of New York. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which exe pires July 15, 1950. John M. Comeford, of Wisconsin, to be United States marshal for the western dise trict of Wisconsin. He ts now serving in this office under an appointment which expired February 8, 1960. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate July 13 (legislative day of July 1), 1950: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Harold I. Baynton to be an Assistant At- torney General, NortH ATLANTIC CoUNCIL Charles M. Spofford to be United States deputy representative on the North Atlantic Council, with the rank and status of Ame bassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, UNITED StTaTEs MARSHALS Ford 8. Worthy to be United States mars shal for the eastern district of North Carolina. William Holroyd McGinnis to be United States marshal for the southern district of West Virginia. Unirep States Coast Guarp PROMOTION TO PERMANENT GRADE To be rear admirals in the United States Coast Guard Harold G. Bradbury Roy L. Raney The following-named personnel of the United States Coast Guard to serve on the permanent commissioned teaching staff of the Coast Guard Academy as indicated: To be assoctate professor with the grade of commander John 8. Merriman, Jr. To be assistant professor with the grade Gf Ueutenant commander Ernest M. Espelie fo be commissioned instructors with the grade of lieutenant Paul F, Foye Ephraim P. Rivard Stanley L. Smith
10082 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Trurspay, Jury 13, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras- kamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty God, whose heart always opens with love in response to those who truly seek Thee, we are again entering into Thy presence through the gateway of prayer which is never closed to those who come with a humble spirit. Grant that in these days of anxiety and evil tidings we may deepen our faith in the inexhaustible resources of Thy grace. May our minds be illumined with a Vision of the Lord God omnipotent and our hearts be made courageous by His companionship. Wilt Thou keep us from pride when Wwe are prosperous and victorious and from bitterness and despair when we are in want and distress. When earthly lights are extinguished by adversity and effiction, by trials and tribulations, wilt Thou enable us to see the eternal stars, We pray that our beloved country may continue to be the abode of peace, the land of the free and the home of the brave, ever loyal to its historic ideals of truth and righteousness and glorious in unselfish service for all mankind. In Christ’s name we pray. Amen, THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. McDaniel, its enrolling clerk, announced that the Senate disagrees on the amend- ments of the House to the bill (S. 2591) entitled “An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to support research and training in arthritis and rheuma- tism, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy and blindness, and other dis- eases, and for other purposes”; requests a conference with the House on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses there- on, and appoints Mr. Murray, Mr. Pepper, Mr. Nerty, Mr. Tarr, and Mr. Smirx of New Jersey to be the conferees on the part of the Senate. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATION BILL, 1951 Mr. BATES of Kentucky submitted the following conference report and state- ment on the bill (H. R. 8568) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes: Conrerence Report (H. Repr. No. 2540) The committee of conference on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 8568) making appropriations for the gov- ernment of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of such District for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1951, and for other purposes, having met, after full CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE and free conference, have agreed to recom- mend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its amend- ments numbered 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 23, 29, 30, $3, 38, 41, 46, 54, and 62. That the House recede from its disagree- ment to the amendments of the Senate numbered 16, 26, 27, 82, 86, 42, 47, 48, 49, 64, 67, 68, and 70, and agree to the same. Amendment numbered 1; That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Neu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert $284,450"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 2: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 2, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$310,100"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 8: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 8, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “412,600”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 4: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 4, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert $512,300"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 5: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 5, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Meu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$117,000”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 7: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 7, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$217,800”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 9: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 9, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Meu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert $233,800"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 11; That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 11, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$696,500”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 14: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 14, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “€@3,351,600"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 15: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 16, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert $1,255,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 18: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 18, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$598,000”; and the Senate agree to the same, Amendment numbered 19: That the House recede from its disagreement ta the amend- JULY 13 ment of the Senate numbered 19, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Meu of the sum named in said amend- ment insert 97,500"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 20: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 20, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “405,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 21: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 21, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In leu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$548,000”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 22: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 22, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In leu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment Insert “$291,000”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 24: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 24, and agree to the same with an amendment aa follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘$350,000; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 25: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 28, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$1,702,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 31: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend. ment of the Senate numbered 31, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Neu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “@1,398,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 34: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 34, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Meu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$1,381,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 85: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 35, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend. ment insert “$220,000”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 87: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 87, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum named in said amendment insert 88,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 39: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 389, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “316,600”; and the Senate agree to the same, Amendment numbered 40: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 40, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$668,000”; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 43: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 43, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: Tn lfeu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘“@2,235,000"; and the Senate agree to the same,
1950 Amendment numbered 44: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 44, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- Ment insert ‘84,775,000"; and the Senate agree to the same, Amendment numbered 45: That the House recede from ite disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 45, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “$635,000”; and the Senate agree to the same, Amendment numbered 50: That the House recede trom its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 50, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “82,761,000"; and the Senate agree to the same, Amendment numbered 51: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 51, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum pioposed by said amend- ment insert ‘'82,760,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 52: That the House recede from ita disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 52, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- Ment insert ‘'$1,140,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 53: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 53, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘87,980,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 55: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 55, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $1,140,000"; and the Senate agree to the same Amendment numbered 66: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 56, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In licu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $156,000"; and the Sens ate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 67: That the House recede from its disagreement to the ameud- ment of the Senate numbered 57, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Meu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert $760,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 58: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 58, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows; In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘$1,336,000"; and the Senate agree to the same, Amendment numbered 59: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 59, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘$203,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 60: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 60, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert 82,200,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 61: That the House recede from ite disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 61, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ment insert ‘$4.746,000"; agree to the same. Amendment numbered 62: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 62, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘$1,100,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 63: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 63, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘$3,800,000"; anc the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 71: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 71, and agree to the same with an kinendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘'8105,000"; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 72: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 72, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert ‘$1,747,200"; and the Sene'e agree to the same. Amendment numbered 73: That the Hous~ recede from its disagreement to the amend- ment of the Senate numbered 73, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amend- ment insert “890,700”; and the Senate agree to the same. The committee of conference report in dis- agreement amendments numbered 17, 28, 65, and 66, and the Senate Jor B, BAtTEs, SIDNEY R. YATES, Foster Furcoro, CLARENCE CANNON, Lowe. STOCKMAN, Earut WILSON, Managers on the Part of the House, Lister HI, JosrerH C. O’MAHONEY, Joun L, McCLeELLan, Lister C. Hunt, Homer FERGUSON, K S. Wuerry, MILTON R, Younc, Managers on the Part of the Senate, STATEMENT The managers on the part of tho House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 8568) making appro- priations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities charpe- able in whole or {1 part against the revenues of such District for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, sub- mit the following report in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying confer- ence report as to each of such amendiments, namely: Amendment No, 1: Relating to the exec- utive office, appropriates $284,450 instead of $281,350 as proposed by the House and $290,~ 450 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 2: Appropriates $310,100 for the Office of the Corporation Counsel] in- stead of $299,100 as proposed by the House and $336,100 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 8; Appropriates 6412,600 for the Collector's Office instead of $406,850 as proposed by the House and @415,700 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 4: Appropriates 6512,300 for the Auditor’s Office instead of $492,300 as proposed by the House and $527,800 as pro- posed by the Senate, Amendment No. §: Relating to the Pur- chasing Division, appropriates $117,000 in- 10083 stead of $115,900 as proposed by the House and $119,775 as proposed by the Senate. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7: Relating to the Department of Welghts, Measures, and Mar- kets, authorizes purchase of one passenger motor vehicle as proposed by the House in- stead of two as proposed by the Senate; appropriates $217,800 instead of $168,775 as proposed by the House and $219,275 as pro= posed by the Senate. Amendment No. 8: Appropriates 67,750 for the License Bureau as proposed by the House instead of $71,400 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 9: Relating to the Office of Recorder of Deeds, appropriates $233,800 instead of $231,300 as proposed by the House and $236,300 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 10: Appropriates $33,800 for the Zoning Commission as proposed by the House instead of $36,000 as proposed by the Senate. Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 18, 14, 15, and 16: Relating to the public schools, operating expenses, appropriates $696,500 for general udministration instead of $683,200 as pro- posed by the House and $709,850 as pro- posed by the Senate; appropriates @3,351,500 for operation of buildings and grounds and maintenance of equipment instead of 83,- 335,000 as proposed by the House and 83,- 868,480 as proposed by the Senate; appro- priates $1,255,000 for repairs and mainte~ nance of buildings and grounds instead of $1,239,500 as proposed by the House and $1,269,000 as proposed by the Senate; inserts language and 628,000 for the purchase of athletic apparel and accessories as proposed by the House, Amendment No. 17: agreement. Amendments I 08. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27: Relating to public schools, capital outlay, authorizes contract authority ii the amount of $598,000 for the Bunker Hill Elementary School instead of $552,600 as proposed by the House and $617,500 us pro- posed by the Senate; appropriates $7,500 for improvements and alterations at Cardozo Senior High School instead of $70,000 as pro- posed by the Senate; authorizes contract authority for Davis Elementary School in the amount of $405,000 instead of $366,000 as proposed by the House and $418,000 as pro~ posed by the Senate; authorizes contract authority for the Keene Elementary School in the amount of $543,000 Instead of $501,500 as proposed by the House and $560,500 as proposed by the Senate; authorizes the ap- propriation of $291,000 for the construction of an elementary school building in the vicinity of River Terrace NE., instead of $287,000 as proposed by the House and $307,« 000 as proposed by the Senate; appropriates $10,000 for plans and specifications for a new building to replace the present Seaton School as proposed by the House instead of $20,000 as proposed by the Senate; authorizes con- tract authority for construction of an ad- dition to Francis Junior High School in the amount of $350,000 instead of $323,000 as proposed by the House and $361,000 as pro- posed by the Senate; authorizes contract authority for the construction of a junior high school building in the vicinity of Pom- eroy Road, Douglas Place, and Stanton Road SE., in the amount of 61,702,000 instead of 61,589,500 as proposed by the House and $1,776,500 as proposed by the Senate; author- izes contract authority for replacement of the present Terrell Junior High School in the amount of 61,776,500 as proposed by the Senate instead of $1,589,500 as proposed by the House; strikes out the language and $75,000 proposed by the House for plans and specifications for replacement of the present Armstrong Senior High Schoo: building as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 28: Reported in disagree- ment, Reported in dis-
10084 Amendments Nos. 29 and 30: Deletes the language and money in the amount of 40,000 proposed by the Senate for the pw- chase of land at Anacostia Senior High School as proposed by the House. Amendment No. 81: Relating to Public Library, allows $1,396,000 instead of 61,386,- 700 as proposed by the House and $1,410,- 700 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 82: Relating to Public Library, capital outlay, appropriates 630,000 &s proposed by the Senate instead of $15,000 &s3 proposed by the House. - Amendment No. 83: Deletes Senate pro- posal for a survey for extensions to the Central Library Building of the Public Library. Amendment No, 34: Relating to the Rec- reation Department, operating expenses, ap- propriates $1,381,000 instead of $1,372,900 as proposed by the House and $1,387,900 as pro- posed by the Senate. Amendment No. 35: Relating to the Rec- reation Department, capital outlay, appro- priates $220,000 instead of $180,000 as pro- posed by the House and $260,000 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 36: Appropriates $7,433,- 600 for the Metropolitan Police as proposed by the Senate instead of $7,403,600 as pro- posed by the House. Amendment No. 37: Appropriates 8,000 for the Redevelopment Land Agency instead of $15,800 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 38: Deletes the Senate proposal to appropriate 85,000 for the Mid- Century White House Conference on Children and Youth. Amendment No. 89: Relating to the Juve- nile Court, appropriates $316,500 instead of $314,500 as proposed by the House and @319,- 900 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 40: Appropriates $668,000 for the Municipal Court instead of 6661,800 as proposed by the House and $684,514 as pro- posed by the Senate. Amendment No, 41: Appropriates $92,000 for the Municipal Court of Appeals as pro- posed by the House instead of $94,760 ea pro- posed by the Senate. Amendment No. 42: Appropriates $2,496,- 830 for the Health Department, operating expenses, as proposed by the Senate instead of $2,467,800 as proposed by the House. Amendment No. 43: Appropriates $2,236,- 000 for Glenn Dale Tuberculosis Sanatorium instead of $2,225,300 as proposed by the House and $2,243,540 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 44: Appropriates $4,775,000 for Gallinger Municipal Hospital instead of $4,770,100 as proposed by the House and 64,- 182,025 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 45: Appropriates $635,000 for medical charities instead of 6500,000 as proposed by the House and $745,000 as pro- posed by the Senate. Amendment No. 46: Appropriates $108,350 for Public Welfare, general administration, as proposed by the House, instead of $109,- 100 as proposed by the Senate. Amendments Nos. 47, 48, and 49: Relate ing to Public Welfare, agency services, de- letes language for the administration of the “penny milk” program by the Board of Pub- lic Welfare; appropriates $4,139,689 as pro- posed by the Senate instead of $4,184,600 as proposed by the House. Amendment No. 60: Appropriates 62,761,- 000 for Public Welfare, operating expenses, protective institutions, instead of $2,730,150 as proposed by the House, and $2,792,797, as proposed by the Senate. Amendments Nos. 51 and 62: Relating to capital outlay, protective institutions, Public Welfare, authorizes contract eauthority for construction at the Home for the Aged and Infirm in the amount of $2,760,000, instead of $2,550,000 as proposed by the House, and $2,850,000 as proposed by the Senate; au- thorizes contract authority for construction CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE at the District Training School in the amount of $1,140,000 instead of 91,054,000 @s proposed by the House, and 61,178,000 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 53: Appropriates $7,080,- 000 for St. Elisabeths Hospital instead of $7,855,000 as proposed by the House, and $8,105,000 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 54: Appropriates $68,325 for the Office of Chief Clerk, Public Works, as proposed by the House, instead of $68,025 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 65: Appropriates $1,140,- 000 for the Office of Superintendent of Dis- trict Buildings instead of $1,125,600 as proposed by the House and $1,149,850 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 56: Appropriates $156,000 for the Surveyor’s Office instead of $155,225 as proposed by the Hbuse and $156,300 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 57: Relating to the De- partment of Inspections, appropriates $760,< 000 instead of $754,850 as proposed by the House and $764,850 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No, 58: Relating to operating expenses, Electrical Division, appropriates $1,335,000 instead of $1,329,000 as proposed by the House and $1,342,275 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 69: Relating to capital outlay, Electrica! Division, appropriates $203,000 instead of $190,900 as proposed by the House and $215,900 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 60: Relating to operating expenses, Street and Bridge Division, appro- priates $2,200,000 instead of $2,191,600 as proe posed by the House and $2,216,600 as pro- posed by the Senate. Amendment No. 61: Relating to capital outlay, Street and Bridge Division, appro- priates $4,746,000 instead of $2,704,200 as proposed by the House and $5,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 62: Relating to the De- partment of Vehicles and Traffic, appro- priates 81,100,000 instend of $1,095,800 as proposed by the House and $1,105,350 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 63: Appropriates $3,800,- 000 for the Division of Sanitation instead of 83,757,600 as proposed by the House and $3,837,600 as proposed hy the Senate. Amendment No. 64: Relating to capital outlay, Sewer Division, appropriates $2,943,- 000 as proposed by the Senate instead of $2,443,000 as proposed by the House; Amendments Nos. 65 and 66: Reported in disagreement. Amendments Nos. 67 and 68: Relating to capital outlay, Washington Aqueduct, appro- priates $2,978,000 as proposed by the Senate instead of 61,050,000 as proposed by the House; and provides that $1,405,000 of this sum is appropriated from any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Amendments Nos. 69, 70, and 71: Relating to the National Guard, deletes language pro- posed by the Senate for compensation to the adjutant genera] as proposed by the House; authorizes purchase of one passenger motor vehicle a8 proposed by the Senate; appro- priates $105,000 instead of 693,750 as pro-~ posed by the House and $124,300 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 72: Appropriates $1,747,- 200 for the National Capital Parks instead of $1,742,200 as proposed by the House and $1,752,200 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 78: Appropriates #90,700 for the National Capital Park and Pianning Commission instead of $84,200 as proposed by the House and 695,675 as proposed by the Senate. AMENDMENTS REPORTED IN DISAGREEMENT The following amendments are reported in disagreement: Amendment No. 17: Appropriates $250,817 and provides language for the opcration of JULY 13 the “penny milk” program by the Board of Education. The managers on the part of the House will move to recede and concur. Amendment No. 28: Relating to funds for construction, capital outlay, public schools, The managers on the part of the House will move to recede and concur with an amend- ment. Amendments Nos. 65 and 66: Relating to eapital outlay, Washington Aqueduct, au- thoriges additional contract authority for construction. The managers on the part of the House will move to recede and concur. ’ Jon B. Batss, Siwney R. YArEs, Foster FurRcoLo, CLARENCE CANNON, Lowett STOCKMAN, EARL Wi1s50N, Managers on the Part of the House. Mr. BATES of Kentucky. Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent for the im- mediate consideration of the conference report on the bill H. R. 8568. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? There was no objection. Mr. BATES of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the statement be read in lieu of the re- port. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement. Mr. BATES of Kentucky. Mr. Speak- er, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered, The SPEAKER. The question is on the conference report. The conference report was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the first amendment in disagreement, The Clerk read as follows: Senate amendment No. 17: page 10, line 1, strike out “$117,800” and insert “distribution of surplus commodities and relief milk to public and charitable institutions, and for the carrying out, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Education, of a ‘penny milk’ program for the school chil- dren of the District, including the purchase and distribution of milk under agreement with the United States Department of Agri- culture, $260,847: Provided, That collections from the milk program shall be paid to the Collector of Taxes, District of Columbia, for deposit in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District.” Mr. BATES of Kentucky. Mr. Speak- er, I move that the House recede and concur in the Senate amendment, The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement. The Clerk read, as follows: Senate amendment No. 28: On page 16, line 6, strike out '€@3,712,000" and insert “$3,787,000,” Mr. BATES of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Bares of Kentucky moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 26 and concur therein with an amendment as follows: In Heu of the sum proposed by said amendment, Insert “83,648,500.” The motion was agreed to.
1950 The SPEAKER, The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement. Mr. BATES of Kentucky. Mr. Spcaker, I ask unanimous consent that Senate amendments Nos, 65 and 66 be considered en bloc. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? There was no objection. The Clerk read as follows: Senate amendment No. 65: Page 52, line 18, insert “: construction of a 30,000,000 gal- Jon clear water basin and connecting conduits and control chamber; new chemical building and operating center at McMillan.” Senate amendment No. 66: Page 52, line 24, strike out “81,300,000” and insert “$7,213,- 000” Mr. BATES of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House recede and concur in the Senate amendments. The motion wes agreed to. By unanimous consent, a motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the various motions was laid on the table. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committce on Public Lands may have until midnight tonight to file a report on the bill H. R. 8975. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Flor- ida? There was no objection. CREATION OF WAR DAMAGE CORPORA- TION Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 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 Con- necticut? There was no objection. Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, I am to- day introducing a bill to create a War Damage Corporation, which will provide uniform rates of insurance against prop- erty damage to farms, dwellings, and fac- tories as a result of enemy action. I do not forcsee the day when we will collapse like a spokeless umbrella, but I believe that we must provide the American peo- ple with every available safeguard in this trying hour. Modern warfare loosing de~ struction on civilian centers far from ac- tual conflict brings an increased responsi- bility to governments to protect its cit- izens against losses arising from war. We must face this responsibility and allay all concern. I hope that this bill will be passed without delay. KOREA AND INFLATION Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 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 New York? There was no objection. Mr, JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, the Amer- ican people are facing a great test on the domestic front. It is well known that the Soviets believe our system will collapse CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE from a cataclysmic economic depression sooner than from external aggression, One of the byproducts the Soviets hope for from the hot war in Korea is panic buying and skyrocketing prices in the United States at retail and wholesale. That there is no reason for such an oc- currence due to a scarcity of goods—our industrial production is at an all-time high of almost double 1939—makes the danger all the greater if it is brought on by war hysteria, Business and consumers should at once organize themselves to exercise self-dis- cipline in this crisis. Business can do so through trade associations and cham- bers of commerce; consumers can do so through trades unions, civic, fraternal, and religious organizations. Govern- ment should cooperate through 4 con- servation agency to be set up in the De- partment of Commerce with power to get the cooperation of all other Govern- ment departments. The time to act is now, not when the situation has gotten out of hand and Government allocations and controls are demanded. Effective citizen cooperation can avoid much Gov- ernment regulation in a period like this when we are not at war but do face a critical situation. O'TOOLE LIVES ON Mr. O'TOOLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 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 New York? There was no objection. Mr. O’TOOLE. Mr. Speaker, last Monday morning during my absence tn New York there was a rumor prevalent in the House due to a mistake on the part. of one of the press associations that I had been killed. Every Member of this body would have becn proud of the efficient manner in which the Capitol staff acted. Long be- fore I arrived the Architect of the Cap- itol had inquired from my office as to how many days he would have to fly the fiag at half mast. Before you could say Jack Robinson the Sergeant-at-Arms had whipped together as nice a set of funeral plans a body could desire. Later when I learned of them I thought they were a little on the pretentious side for a simple soul like myself. Yet, I imagine it would have been quite a party. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms and the other agencies involved for their ready willing- ness to cooperate. Further I would like to thank the Members of the House for I know a great number of them would have liked to be appointed to the committee to go up to New York. It would have given them a splendid opportunity to see South Pacific or get to a ball game. Well, next time they may have better luck, This would have been one party that I would have been willing to attend as an alternate and not as a principal. As far as I can learn the rumor was unfounded. SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. WILSON of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the House 10085 for 10 minutes on Wednesday, July 19, 1950, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore en- tered. Mr, HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the House for 10 minutes on Wednesday, July 19, 1950, following the legislative program and any special orders hereto- fore entered. THE UNITED NATIONS ATTITUDE Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad- dress the House for 1 minute and to re- vise and extend my remarks, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusets. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations is showing a very callous, unfortunate atttitude; they are saying in effect, “We will give every last American soldier to the war.” I ask what else they are doing? I also ask, Mr. Speaker, what the brains of the country have been doing adminis- tratively that they were not ready to meet this crisis. It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the flying of the air mail when the President took it from the hands of commercial companies and gave it to the Army before the Army flyers were prepared. The President had bad advice then; the President has had bad advice today. Our boys are being sent in to fight without prepara- tion, Mr. Speaker, if the administrative brains of the country cannot meet this crisis they should be changed. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the entire membership of the House should be told completely what is going on, what we can expect, and what we must do, be- cause every Member of Congress will do it with all the strength of his being. ARMS AID TO EUROPE AND UNITED STATES KOREAN INTELLIGENCE Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 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 Pennsylvania? There was no objection. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Speaker, we peo- ple in the country are worried in these times to find that the House has not yet acted or S. 3809, the mutual defense as- sistance program. The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House on Tuesday of this week unanimously reported this bill and the Rules Committee should have immediately met on Tuesday, July 11, and reported a rule so that the legis- lation could have been reported to the House and argued either yesterday or today. Instead of that the Rules Com- mittee is not in session and will not meet in session until Monday of next week, putting off consideration of this vital bill for arms aid for Europe and other coun- tries until next week, a delay of a whole week. This is not the time for business as usual. Our national defense and safety require we act promptly,
10086 The responsibility for this situation should be stated to the country and the country should know who is responsible for the House having today to act on a bill involving the height of buildings in the Georgetown section of the District of Columbia, and a bill on a stadium seating capacity for a high school here in the District instead of providing the vitally important matter of arms aid for our allies. May I close by saying that I am one of those who listened to Admiral Hillen- koetter on Friday, June 23, before the Saturday—our time—or Sunday, June 25, Korean time, on which the North Korean invasion took place. The For- eign Affairs Committee met specially to hear Admiral Hillenkoetter as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency Fri- day morning and to hear General LeMay on his specific strategic bombing fleld Friday afternoon. These officials were specially called before the committee to be questioned on factors affecting our national security. Because of the fact it was an executive session I cannot give Admiral Hillen- koetter’s statement, but I will say that we felt specifically reassured as to Korea. As & member of the committee, I made a@ particular point of Korea, and asked as my first question specifically for an outline of the present Korea situation. At no time during the session were there mentioned the reports stated to have been given, possibly pointing to imme- diate North Korean aggressive action, of which I have heard later, a legislative committee of the other body was advised, had been submitted through regular channels. When I inquired about intel- ligence, as to whether it was current in time, whether our sources were broad in extent and whether our personnel de- pendable, I felt assured specifically on Korea that that was the case. In all justice to Admiral Hillenkoetter, I must say that my general impression was that he was not too satisfied with certain conditions under which he was required to work under the present set-up. De- fects which I specifically felt existed in our present intelligence set-up were lack of unified authority, inability under present law of the CIA to make judg- ments or evaluate the material obtained, and certain disagreements and differ- ences of opinion among those groups working on intelligence. I think Admiral Hillenkoetter should be given the opportunity to explain pub- licly to the Congress and to the American people why so little was known or com- municated to the Foreign Affairs Com- mittee within approximately 30 hours of the North Korean invasion. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. STEFAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House tor 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ne- braska? There was no objection. Mr, STEFAN. Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago I called attention of the Congress and the country generally that there are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE more than 100 criminal subversives and Communist aliens from countries behind the fron curtain—well supplied with money and running at large all over the United States. Every one of these crim- inal aliens are classed as subversives in the files of the Bureau of Immigra- tion. Many of them have been in the United States a long time. Most of them are Known to have been or are card-carrying Communists and have committed crimes in the United States from larcency to homicide. They have been ordered deported. The Bureau of Immigration informed me today that they do not know now where all of these criminal aliens are and that they are running over the country at large. I was also informed that the Department may know of the where- abouts of some of these subversive aliens, but they tell me, positively, that the whereabouts of at least 20 are unknown. Most of them are on parole or on bond, but may have aliases and some may have changed their names. The Commissioner of Immigration is anxious to incarcerate these criminal aliens, but he tells me that he does not have this power, in spite of the fact that some of them have come to the United States illegally, These subversive criminal aliens, along with about 200 other alien crim- inals, have been ordered deported, but passports or landing permits for them cannot be obtained from the countries of their origin. I doubt that the iron curtain country governments want them back now, especially those who might be more useful to them in the United States at this crucial hour. A bill has been introduced in the House to place these dangerous alien criminals in a concentration camp until such time as transportation and landing permits can be obtained, but this legislation lies dormant. I have urged its passage and have continuously asked other high offi- cials to take some immediate action to- ward rounding up these dubious crim- inals. It may be that it is too late and that many of them have gone under cover, along with the rest of the thou- sands of Communists presently in our midst. I hope that the FBI has these people under surveillance, but regarding that matter, I am not fully informed. I do know, however, that we have more than 60,000 card Communists in the United States now, and along with them there are more than 550,000 fellow trav- elers, recently referred to and discussed at some length publicly by J. Edgar Hoo- ver, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Six months’ notice should have been sufficient to our authorities to deal more realistically with this dangerous problem, Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my re- marks and include a statement. The SPEAKER. Is there objection vo the request of the gentleman from Min- nesota? There was no objection. [Mr. Jupp addressed the House. remarks appear in the Appendix.) His JULY 13 SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mr. CHESNEY asked and was swiven permission to address the House today for 10 minutes following any special or- ders heretofore entered. PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks, and include excerpts from hearings before the Committee on Riv- ers and Harbors. The SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- sissippi? There was no objection. [Mr. Rankin addressed the House, His remarks appear in the Appendix.] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUSINESS The SPEAKER, Under previous or- der of the House, this is the day set for the consideration of District bills. REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OF BUILD- INGS IN GEORGETOWN Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- mittee on the District of Columbia, I call up the bill (H. R. 7670) to regulate the height, exterior design, and construc- tion of private and semipublic buildings in the Georgetown area of the National Capital, and ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That there is hereby created in the District of Columbia a dis- trict known as “Old Georgetown” which is bounded on the east by Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway from the Potomac River to the north boundary of Dumbarton Oaks Park, on the north by the north boundary of Dumbarton Oaks Park, Whitehaven Street, and Whitehaven Parkway to Thirty-fifth Street, south along the middle of Thirty- fifth Street to Reservoir Road, west along the middle of Reservoir Road to Archbold Parkway, on the west by Archbold Parkway from Reservoir Road to the Potomac River, on the south by the Potomac River to the Ro. Creek Parkway. Sxc. 2. In order to promote the general welfare and to preserve and protect the places and areas of historic interest, exterior archi- tectural features and examples of the type of architecture used in the National Capital in its initial years, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, before issuing any per- mit for the alteration, reconstruction, or raging of any building within said George- town district described tn section 1, shall refer the plans to the National Commission of Fine Arts for a report as to the exterior erchitectural features, height, appearance, color, and texture of the materlals of ex- terior construction which is subject to public view from a public highway. The National Commission of Fine Arts shall report promptly to said Commissioners of the Dis- trict of Columbia ita recommendations, in- cluding such changes, if any, as in the Judg= ment of the Commission are necessary and desirable to preserve the historic value of said Georgetown district. The said Com- missioners shall take such actions as in their judgment are right and propor in the cir-
1950 cumstances: Provided, That, if the said Commission of Fine Arts fails to submit a report on such plans within 45 days, its approval thereof shall be assumed and a permit may be issued. Src. 3. In carrying out the purpose of this act, the Commission of Fine Arts is hereby authorized to appoint a committee of three architects, who shall serve as a board of review without expense to the United States and who shall advise the Commission of Fine Arts, in writing, regarding designs and plans referred to it. Sec, 4, Said Commissioners of the District of Columbia, with the ald of the National Park Service and of the National Park and Planning Commission, shall make a survey of the “Old Georgetown” area for the use of the Commission of Fine Arts and of the bullding-permit office of the District of Co- lumbia, such survey to be made at a cost not exceeding $8,000, which amount is hereby authorized. Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this act shall be construed as superseding or affecting in any manner any act of Congress heretofore enacted relating to the alteration, repair, or demolition of insanitary or unsafe dwell- ings or other structures. With the following committee amend- ment: Page 2, line 9, after “the”, insert “con- struction.” The committee agreed to. Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to define what is known as old George- town and authorize approval of buld- ing permits by the Fine Arts Commis- sion. Georgetown as an active commer- cial town existed long before there was a city of Washington and along with Alex- andria, it is one of the oldest settlements in this section of the country. The original character of Georgetown predominates architecturally especially in the residences and streets. The people of Georgetown are desirous of protecting the district by an authority which will direct the type of structure suitable to the area. This bill would require the District of Columbia Commissioners to obtain a re- port from the Fine Arts Commission he- fore issuing a permit for a building or exterior alteration of a structure. The Fine Arts Commission is authorized to appoint three nonsalaried consultant architects who will review the applica- tions and report through the Commis- sion to the District Commissioners. The reports must be made within 45 days, otherwise the Commissioners may act. Provision is also made for an appropria- tion of $8,000 with which to make a sur- vey. This survey {s to be made by the Commissioners of the District with the assistance of the National Park Service and the National Park and Planning Commission. Representatives from the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Fine Arts Commission, American Insti- tute of Architects, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation appeared before to subcommittee to urge enact- ment of this legislation. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. amendment was CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE EASTERN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina, Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- mittee on the District of Columbia, I call up the bill (H. R. 8710) to provide for the improvement of stadium facili- ties at the Eastern Senior High School in the District of Columbia, and ask unanimous consent that the bill be con- sidered in the House as in Committee of the Whole. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized and directed to construct an addition to the stadium of the Eastern Senior High School in the District of Columbia so that such sta- dium will provide seating accommodations for 10,000 persons, and to equip such stadium with a modern lighting system for the illumination of its playing fleld. Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropri- ated the sum of not to exceed $50,000 to carry out the purposes of this act. Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the seating capacity of Eastern Senior High School Stadium from 5,500 to approximately 10,000 and provide facilities for lighting the athletic field. The necessity for this legislation re- sulted from the fact that Central High School was recently transferred from Di- visions 1 to 9 to divisions 10 to 13 by the Board of Education of the District of Columbia. The Central High School stadium is now available only to the colored schools in the District of Columbia and the stu- dents in the white schools are left with- out adequate stadium facilities for cen- tralized athletic events. It is naturally assumed that the sta- dium of the Eastern Senior High School will now serve the same city wide purpose as that formerly served by Central High School in that it will be used by students from all schools in divisions 1 to 9 of the District of Columbia for sports events. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. ESTABLISHING AN OFFICE OF CIVIL DE- FENSE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina, Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Commit- tee on the District of Columbia, I call up the bill (H. R. 8909) 10 authorize the Dis- trict of Columbia Government to estab- lish an Office of Civil Defense, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous con- sent that the bill be considered in the House as in Commitee of the whole. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be tt enacted, etc., That, because of the existing possibility of the occurrence of dis- aster of unprecedented destructiveness re- sulting from enemy attack, sabotage, or other 10087 hostile action, it is the intent of Congress that plans and programs to provide necessary protection, relief, and assistance for persoris and property in the District of Columbia in the event such disaster shall occur or be- come imminent so as to require such proteoe tion, rellef, and assistance, should be devel- oped. As used in this act, the term “civil defense” shall mean all activities necessary for the development and execution of such plans and programs, unless the context indl- cates a different meaning. Sec. 2. To carry out the purposes of this act, the Commiesioners of the District of Columbia are authorized to establish in the municipal government of such District an Office of Civil Defense to consist of a Director and such other personnel as may be needed. Such Director shall be the executive head of such office. Sxc. 8. The Office of Civil Defense is au- thorized and directed, subject to the direc- tion and control of the Commissioners of the District— (a) to prepare a comprehensive plan and program for civil defense, such plan and pro- gram to be Integrated into and coordinated with the civil-defense plans of the Federal Government, and of nearby States and appro= priate political subdivisions thereof; (h) to institute training programs and public information programs; to organize, equip, and train volunteers and other civil- defense units, and to utilize volunteers and regularly employed personnel of the govern- ment of the District of Columbia for service in and within such civil-defense units and to train such personnel for such service; to expand existing agencies of the District gov- ernment concerned with civil defense; and to take all other prepuratory steps including the partial or full mobilization of olvil- defense organizations in advance of actual disaster; (c) to make such studies and surveys of the resources and capabilities of the District for civil defense, and to plan for the most efficient emergency use thereof; (da) to develop and enter into mutual-aid agreements with States or political subdi- visions thereof for reciprocal civil-defense ald and mutual assistance in case of disaster too great to be dealt with unassisted. Such agreements may include the exchange of food, clothing, medicines, and other sup- plies; emergency housing; engineering serv- ices; police services; medical and nursing services; fire-fighting, rescue, transportation, and construction services and equipment; personnel necessary to provide or conduct these services; and such other supplies, equipment, facilities, personnel, and services as may be needed. Such agreements shall be consistent with the national civil-defense plan and program. In time of emergency it shall be the duty of each agency and organ- ization to render assistance in accordance with the provisions of such mutual-aid agreements; (e) to employ such technical, clerical, stenographic, and other personnel and fix their compensation without reference to the Classification Act of 1949 and make such expenditures within appropriations therefor or from other funds made available for pur- poses of civil defense, as may be necessary to carry-out the purposes of this act; (f) to cooperate with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, organizations, as- soclations, and other entities, and coordinate the activities of all organizations for civil defense within the District; (g) to accept from the United States or from any officer or agency thereof all facili- ties, supplies, and funds that may from time to time be offered to the District of Colume- bia, and to agree to such terms, conditions, rules, and regulations as may be imposed in connection with such offer;
10088 (h) to utilize the services, equipment, sup- plies, and facilities of existing departments, offices, and agencies of the District to the maximum extent practicable, and the officers and personnel of all such departments, offices, and agencies are directed to cooperate with and extend such services and supply such equipment, supplies, and fectilities to the said Director upon request; ({) to perform such other functions as may be assigned by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. 8xc. 4. Neither the District of Columbia nor any volunteer agency in the service of said District nor, except in cases of willful misconduct or gross negligence, any officer, agent, or employee of the District of Colum- bia or volunteer agency, or any regularly ap= pointed volunteer worker, engaged in civil defense activities, while complying with or attempting to comply with any provision of this act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to this act, shall be liable to any person, whether or not such person is engaged in civil defense, for death, injury, or property damage resulting therefrom, The provisions of this section shall not af- fect the right of any person to receive bene- fits to which he would otherwise be entitled under any workmen’s compensation law, or under any pension, retirement, or disability law, nor the right of any such person to receive any benefits or compensation under any other act of Congress. Sxc. 6. Appropriations for carrying out the purposes of this act are hereby authorized. Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the establishment of a civil defense organi- gation in the District, and it would fur- nish the requisite authority to the Dis- trict Commissioners to carry out a civil defense program, It is not intended to cover the whole field of emergency legis- lation that later might be necessary in the event of an attack. The bill provides for the establishment of an Office of Civil Defense in the mu- nicipal government of the District. This agency would be headed by a Director who would be responsible to the District Commissioners and who would execute civil defense responsibilities. Civil de- fense planning and organization would be carried on by the Office of Civil De- fense. The proposal is somewhat similar to legislation establishing State councils of defense which is now in effect in 22 States. Among the States that have defense agencies patterned after this legislation are: California, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South “Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Washe ington, The following States have established agencies based on legislation enacted during World War II which was also sim- flar to this proposal: Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, and Rhode Island. ‘One of the important provisions in the bill is the section authorizing mutual- aid agreements with nearby States and local governments. Such agreements may include the exchange of food, cloth- ing, medicines, and other supplies; emer- gency housing, police services, medical and nursing services, and fire-fighting and rescue equipment and personnel. While aid of this type has often been extended on a voluntary basis, it has fre- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE quently brought in its wake numerous technical, jurisdictional, and legal prob- Jems. For instance, fire-fighting equip- ment has not been of uniform standard. Hose from one city frequently will not fit hyrants in another. Medical equip- ment and supplies have varied. Local registration restrictions may stand in the way of doctors and nurses practicing even on a temporary basis in a stricken area. Police regulations and techniques differ. Problems have arisen concerning com- pensation, claims, lability for damages, and immunity from suit. Legislation of this type will solve many of these prob- ems. Under the terms of the bill the Dis- trict’s office of civil defense would be di- rected— (a) To prepare a comprehensive plan and program for civil defense, such plan and program to be integrated into and coordinated with the civil-defense plans of the Federal Government, and of nearby States and appropriate political subdivisions thereof. (b) To institute training programs and public-information programs; to organ- ize, equip, and train volunteers and other civil-defense units, and to utilize volun- teers and regularly employed personnel of the government of the District of Co- lumbia for service in and within such civil-defense units and to train such per- sonnel for such service; to expand exist- ing agencies of the District government concerned with civil defense; and to take all other preparatory steps including the partial or full mobilization of civil-de- fense organizations in advance of actual disaster. (c) To make such studies and surveys of the resources and capabilities of the District for civil defense, and to plan for the most efficient emergency use thereof. (a) To cooperate with government and nongovernmental agencies, organti- zations, associations, and other entities, and coordinate the activities of all or- ganizations for civil defense within the District. (e) To accept from the United States or from any officer or agency thereof all facilities, supplies, and funds that may from time to time be offered to the Dis- trict of Columbia, and to agree to such terms, conditions, rules, and regulations as may be imposed in connection with such offer. (f) To utilize the services, equipment, supplies, and facilities of existing depart- ments, offices, and agencies of the Dis- trict to the maximum extent practicable, and the officers and personnel of all such departments, offices, and agencies are directed to cooperate with and extend such services and supply such equipment, supplies, and facilities to the said Direc- tor upon request. Mr, O'HARA of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the atten- tion of the gentleman from South Caro- lina to the fact that under Public Law 609 of the Seventy-seventh Congress specific legislation was set up for the es- tablishment of civilian defense. That was and is permanent legislation, to which this measure makes no referenc3 whatsoever, I should like to ask the gen- JuLY 13 tleman just what is necessary that we do not already have? Let me read from Public Law 699 of the Seventy-seventh Congress: During the existence of a state of war be- tween the United States and-any foreign country or nation— Under the ruling of the Speaker last year on the question of adjournment, we are still in a state of war, so that emer- gency still prevails— the Commissioners of the District of Colum- bia are authorized and empowered, without regard to the provisions of any other law, to take such measures as they may decm necessary for the adequate protection of per- sons and property in the District of Colum- — It goes on and provides powers— to establish in the District of Columbia units and organizations for civilian defense, and to utilize any or all existing voluntary units or organizations together with their Personnel or any part or parts thereof— And so forth. In other words, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is com- plete authority already existing in law within the District of Columbia for any action. I agree that there should be some planning for civilian defense. As I understand, the Board of Com- missioners have made some considerable study of this matter, and probably lead the country in the way of preparations for a catastrophe such as an attack or sabotage. Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. I agree with the gentleman from Minne- sota. I called this to the attention of Mr. Paul Larsen, who stated that the - present legislation did not permit indi- vidual States to cooperate with each other, and that this bill would give the District of Columbia an opportunity to call in facilities from Maryland or Vir- ginia, or, vice versa, to allow Maryland and Virginia to use the fire and police facilities here in case of emergency. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. I do not believe that cooperation is so very im- portant in this consideration. I was not a member of the subcommit- tee that heard the testimony on this matter. What is being attempted here is to make the District of Columbia a guinea pig in the form of legislation which has been suggested, which is to be used as a pattern throughout the country. I think a lot more study ought to be given to the bill which was before the subcommittee, of which the gentle- man was & member. It is unfortunate that we rush in here without having given full consideration to a bill which grants such a tremendous lot of power. Is it not true that Mr. Larsen’s po- sition was that under the National Re- sources Board, of which this would be a follow-up, the power of this civilian defense set-up would even exceed the power of the military? Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. The full authority would be under the jurisdiction of the District Commission- ers. It would at all times be under the jurisdiction of the District Commission- ers. Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I mean that it would be superior to the military. That is the testimony, as I read it.
1950 Mr. McMILLAN of Soutk Carolina. The gentleman is correct. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. Also, as I read the testinony of the hearing, it gives this Civilian Defense Agency the right to draft people. Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. That would be the case, except in an emergency when the military would be in power. Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. This js permanent legislation, is it not, without regard to existing law and without re- gard to the acts of the Seventy-sixth Congress. Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. That is correct. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. 7 yield. Mr. WADSWORTH. Referring to the question of the gentleman about the powcr of the military as compared with the power beinr granted to this agency, if it can be called such, it, should be re- membered that the military do not undertake to exercise power in a civihan community unless martial law is de- clared, when all functions of the other agencies of Government are suspended and the military runs the community. In the event that martia! law is de- clared by the Fresident in the District of Columbia in time of emergency, then the agency referred to by the gertleman from Minnesota would be subject to the provisions of martial law. Otherwise, the Army and the military forces do not attempt to govern the community or to protec. its safety. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. While I am happy to yield to my distinguished colleag.e from New York, may I point out that martial law will not necesarily be declared in the event of an emergency. The point is that Mr. Larson, tie wit- ness from Mr. Symington's office, as I understand it, claimed that in the event of an emergency the power of this agency was superior even to that of the Army and Navy. I think there is no question but what he said that in the testimony. What I wish to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, is I think we are rushing into something which is ill-considered, although the purpose of the bill, of course, is perfectly proper. Mr. JONES of Alabama. will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I yield. Mr. JONES of Alabama. Of course the gentleman understands there was con- siderable urgency involved in the con- sideration of this bill by the committee. We felt that if there were some short- comings in the consideration of the statute which is in effect at this time we could give thought and consideration to it at a later date. The schedule un- der this bill is extremely long and it is going to take time and planning. We felt there was not a moment to lose in enacting this bill. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. General Young, the Commissioner, said that in his opinion they had probably exceeded and surpassed any other place in the country so far as the plans and progress that had been made here in the District Mr. Speaker, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of Columbia are concerned, He did not say they were complete, but he did say there was need for further planning. There is no limit to the amount of planning and no limit to the amount of expense. They start out with $200,000 as a starting request. Possibly that much may be needed. But the point I make, Mr. Speaker, is I do not think this is the right way to legisiate on this problem, I think we ought to have more information than we have as to what is really intended by this bill. If the gentleman wants to stir up hysteria and say that this is something which ought to be done in a fit of hys- teria and then have something develop later on that he is going to be sorry for, that is his responsibility. For my part I want to call the attention of the House that this is the sort of legislation which produces bad results. i do not intend to be a party to it because I know what happens when you get into an emergency condition or when you get into a state of war. You have to have civil defense, but a great many people are given too much power and are too anxious to ex- ercise powers without some restraint. The powers granted should be more clearly specified. Mr. JONES of Alabama. Of course, I do not think the committce would be in- dificrent to going into the matters that the gentleman has brought up. Cer- tainly we can, in due course, address ours selves to the consideration of any pro- posal that you may have with respect to the lezal aspecis of it. But the over- all situation, I think, is one of immedi- ate attention. I certainly assure the gentleman there was not any feeling of hysteria in the committee. Myr, O'HARA of Minnesota. I assume from now on everything is going to be anemergency. I recognize that. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from Minnesota has expired. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be allowed to proceed for five additional minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. May I ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. McMi.Lan] what there is in the way of limitation on permanent author- ity. This is permanent Icgislation; is that not true? Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. That is correct. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. How long will this Office of Civilian Defense be necded? Has the gentleman any idea? Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina, This can be repealed any time the Con- gress desires to repeal it. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. That is rather indefinite, is it not? Has the gen- tleman any idea how long this should be in existence? Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. I yield. Mr. JONES of Alabama. It could not function any longer than the Appropria- tions Committee made funds available for it. Certainly the repeal of the legis- lation would not have to await the action of this committee, 10089 Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I cannot understand why there was not authority under the law to which I called the gen- tleman’s attention, Public Law 699 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, for appro- priations for any planning money that they needed. It seems to me it is carried in there. The intent is carried in the old act, which is permanent legislation, passed in 1942, Mr, JONES of Alabama. I do not know that that is true. I do not recall the provision at the moment, Mr. CROOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. I yield. Mr. CROOK. Is there any reason why there should be any restriction or time limit on it? In my own city at home, and in the State of Indiana, any authority in the way of police protection has the right, in case of emergency, to deputize any civilian to assist him. What is so wrong in the District of Columbia in having the same permanent set-up? Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. Well, you do have the inherent police powers of the District, so far as that is concerned. I do not think that any Iegislation of that sort is needed. You have ample police power in the Commissioners to take what steps are necessary. But if this is going to be a pattern of the type of hysterical legislation, without very much consid- eration, I think it is unfortunate, whether it applies to the District of Columbia or the country at large. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remain- der of my time. Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot find myself in agreement with the gen- tleman from Minnesota [Mr. O'Hara]. This bill contemplates action which will attract the attention of State legislatures and municipal governing bodies all over the country. That is one of its pur- poses. Of course, its immediate pur- pose, if I may use that expression, is an endeavor to set up in time of peace the skeleton of an organization which can respond in time of war in the event that the Nation’s Capital shall be suddenly subjected to a terrible catastrophe. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. O’Hara] has asked how long this Direc- tor of Civilian Defense, as an officer, will last. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, such an office should be created in time of peace and maintained in time of peace. We all hope that peace will last indefinitely; even so, it must be maintained in time of peace so that in the event a terrible catastrophe overtakes us the office would be in existence and ready to respond to the emergency. That is the purpose of this bill. No extraordinary powers are granted to the Office of Civil Defense under this bill; all the powers granted to it are subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Commissioners of the District. It is perfectly true that there is a law upon the statute books today, to which the gentleman from Minnesota has re- ferred. An examination of that statute and an examination of this pro- pesed bill I think will develop the
10090 fact that this bill expresses much more adequately and understandably the problem of protecting or saving the capital of the Nation as best it may be protected and saved against fearful catastrophe, I call attention to the lan- guage used on page 3 commencing in line 6 which indicates very clearly, if you will read it, that the police ‘force of the District of Columbia alone could not possibly do this job; nor can it be done in any city of this country regard- Jess of what the local ordinance may say. It takes the cooperation of many other agencies of Government as well as vol- unteer agencies along with the police force to meet this terrific situation. It takes all the medical authorities; it takes all the transportation authorities. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. Mr, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield. Mr. PHILLIPS of California. It has impressed me that what might happen in time of emergency would be that the Army would actually have to take charge of an area as large as the District of Columbia. Mr. WADSWORTH. It depends en- tirely upon the military situation. The Army may be completely employed in conflict with the enemy, in military con- flict, and there may be scarcely any army left there. It depends on the military situation. If the military situation is such as to demand the employment of the Army, then I assume the President would declare martial law in the District, in the captal, in the neighboring regions of Maryland and Virginia. Then the Army would take over completely and everybody would be subject to the direc- tion of the Army. But that cannot be the case in every instance; Chicago might suffer a catastrophe with no army any- where near it; Cleveland might suffer a@ catastrophe with no army anywhere near it. This legislation, as I said in the beginning, is intended not only to set up a skeleton framework for protecting the capital of the Nation against catas- trophe, but also to set an example, if possible, to other States and other mu- nicipalities as to what they might better do. And they must all act independ- ently. It takes an act of the legislature of a State to authorize a city government to do what {s authorized in this act to be done in the city of Washington. Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr, Speak- er, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield. Mr, JONES of Alabama. Does the gentleman understand Commissioner Young's testimony before the committee as being to the effect that the District of Columbia was further advanced in their plan for civilian defense than prob- ably any other city of the country? Mr. WADSWORTH. I did not; I got the opposite impression. Mr. JONES of Alabama. That was my understanding. Mr. WADSWORTH. Commissioner Young testified that in some informal unofficial way the District Commis- sioners had been doing some planning, but they have not gotten anywhere. It is time we get going. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 1949, Dr. John R. Steelman, acting director of the National Security Resources Board, hav- ing jurisdiction over civilian defense in the United States, sent out a directive to the 48 Governors advising these Gov- ernors that civilian defense is essentially a Job for the various States and that the Federal Government here in Washing- ton could act only in a counseling or advisory capacity. Today I am shocked to learn of the apparent lack of civilian-defense plans in the Nation's Capital, here in the Dis- trict of Columbia. In my own State of New Jersey we are going forward. I know that the Governor of New York, Mr. Dewey, has real plans for civilian defense, with General Clay in charge. Shortly before Dr. Steelman issued that directive last October a newspaper- man in the District of Columbia went to the three Commissioners downtown and asked them what plans they had for the civilian defense of our Capital City, and the response was: “We have no plans.” He also went to the superintendent in charge of police, and all that Major Barrett could tell the reporter was: “We have the old riot squad for use in an emergency such as an atomic-bomb attack.” While we are sleeping here in the United State of America what is Russia doing about civilian atomic-bomb de- fenses? All you have to do is look at the reports of the Atomic Energy Com- mission and they will tell you that Rus- sia has been on the ball in the matter of civilian defense and has made very ex- traordinary plans for the defense of Moscow and other important cities in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, they have thousands of trained home squad- rons for atomic-bomb defense. In the United States the President leaves the National Security Resources Board leaderless and without a perma- nent chairman for more than 16 months. It was only a few months ago that the able son-in-law of the distinguished gen- tleman from New York [Mr. Waps- wort], W. Stuart Symington, was made permanent chairman of that body. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what do you know about the ABC’s of atomic defense? Last week I took occasion to ask 20 Members what they would do in the event of an atomic bomb attack on this capital city. Each one invariably made the reply “T think I would rush to the subway.” ‘Then the interrogated one would ask me this question: “Is that right?” My an- swer was, “I do not know.” We have no primer for atomic bomb defense in the Nation's Capital or else- where in the Nation insofar as the Fed- eral Government is concerned. What does John Q. Public know? Mr. O'HARA of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CANFIELD. I yield to the gentle. man from Minnesota. Mr, O'HARA of Minnesota, I call the gentleman's attention to the transcript of hearings on this bill which I read for the first time this morning. JULY 18 The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tracve], a member of the committee, was questioning Commissioner Young and asked this question: Is the District of Columbia leading in civi- lWan defense or are we behind in civilian de=- fense? Commissioner Young answered: ‘We have been informed by the National Security Resources Board that we are pretty well in the first rank of cities in the country so far as we have gone. Mr. CANFIELD, I believe the gentle- man reads correctly but I hear no docu- mentation. Mr. O’HARA of Minnesota. I am quoting the Commissioner’s testimony. The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- tleman from New Jersey has expired. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon~ sider was laid on the table. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE Mr. PACE. Myr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that the Committee on Agriculture may have until midnight Saturday night to file a report on H. R. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. LANE asked and was given per- mission to.extend his remarks in two instances and include interesting news- paper articles. Mr. HART asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude an article. Mr. PRICE asked and was given pere mission to extend his remarks and in- clude a telegram. Mr. JONES of Alabama asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in two instances and in one to include a news article from the Progressive Farmer, and in the second a resolution. Mr. CLEMENTE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks, Mr. WALSH asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude an article by James Daniels, of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Mr. DONDERO asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include a statement. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and was given permission to extend his re- marks and include newspaper editorials. Mr. LOVRE asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude a letter. Mr. DOLLIVER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and inelude a letter. Mr. TOLLEFSON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks in two instances and in each to include extraneous matter. Mr, REES asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks and in- clude an address delivered by Herbert Hoover at Emporia, Kans., on Tuesday last in connection with the unveiling of
1950 ® monument in memory of William Allen White. Mr. SMITH of Ohio asked and was given permission to extend his remarks. Mrs. ST. GEORGE asked and was given permission to extend her remarks and include extraneous matter. Mr. FULTON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and include an editorial from the McKees Rocks Gazette. Mr. JUDD asked and was given per- mission to extend his remarks in two in- stances and include extraneous material. Mr. MARTIN of Iowa asked and was given permission to extend his remarks ou the subject of Panama Canal propa- ganda for sea-level project. SCHOOL DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY FEDERAL ACTIVITIES Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Spcaker, by directicn of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 685 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read tne resolution, as follows: Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 7940) to provide financial assistance for local educational agencies in areas affected by Federal activities, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be con- fined to the bill and continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and con- trolled by the chairman and ranking ml- nority member of the Committee on Educa. tion and Labor, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 65-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the sub- stitute committee amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be con- sidered under the 5-minute rule as an orlgi- nal bill. At the conclusion of the considere ation of the bill for amendment, the Com- mittee shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or comniittee sub- stitute. The previous question shall be con- sidered as ordered on the bill and amend- ments thereto to final passage without in- tervening motion except one motion to recommit. Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown]. I now yield myself 15 minutes, and ask unanimous consent to proceed for part of that time out of order, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. _ Speaker, House Resolution 685 makes in order a very important piece of legislation, H. R. 7940. I find that our distinguished col- league, the gentleman from West Vir- ginia (Mr. Barzey], is the author of this legislation. I have followed the gentle- man in his work in Congress since he has been here and J have found that he has been in sympathy with things that are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE beneficial to the general public. I find that his heart beats in tune for the well- being of his fellow man. I find, too, that my painstaking and hard working col- league from Ohio [Mr. Burke] was chairman of a subcommittee which made a@ very careful survey as to the needs for this legislation. This legislation does deal with something that is of impor- tance not only to our children, but it is a bill that in reality is doing justice to the people for whom it is designed. I am. very proud to have the honor to pre- sent the rule which makes in order this bill. I understand that this bill came out of the Committee on Education and Labor with a unanimous vote. As a for- mer school teacher I realize what a great obligation devolves upon people of com- munities where the Government has en- tered in and taken the source of reve- nue from those localities. We all realize that with the enlargement of our Army, with the diversification of our industry during the last war, we had to take over certain sections of our country; we had to actually get into the housing busi- ness; we almost had to get into the edu- cation business and in all types of pro- duction we became producers. Through- out the country we have bought up land for Government use and denied the lo- calities in which that land was pur- chased the taxing power to raise funds for their public education. Not only that, but we have superimposed upon these educational facilities added people with their children where the workers went in in factory districts where muni- tions of war were being manufactured, and you doubled and trebled the num- ber of children who had to go to school in that locality or, if it was an Army in- stallation as we had in Dayton, Ohio, you would have a great number of youngsters being placed there in school. The only thing I found as a member of the Committee on Rules in regard to this bill that I thought it might have added—but I am sure the author, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. BarLey], will explain why it was not in- corporated in this bill—is the fact that in many localities there are not enough facilities in the way of buildings to han- dle the greatly increased number of students. But I am sure there is some reason why there are to be two bills, one to supply funds for the carrying on of the educational program and, as I understand, a bill that will be filed sub- sequently to provide for the material benefits such as buildings that are need- ed in these communities, Mr. CASE of South Dakota, Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr, McSWEENEY. I yield. Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Iam glad the gentleman from Ohio has brought up that question, because it is a double problem. ‘You have both the malate. nance of the schools and providing school facilities. Just yesterday I had a letter from the county superintendent of schools in a rural area where there is such an installation. They anticipate between 200 and 300 students. Obvious- ly, merely helping to provide teachers is not going to meet the problem where Mr. 10091 they have to have some place to house these children. So there is a double problem. But certainly the whole thing is one that needs to be attacked. I am glad this bill is coming out, because it is taking care of this part of the problem. Mr. McSWEENEY. I appreciate the gentleman’s observation. I did not quite understand at first why buildings were not incorporated in the same bill, but I am sure that will be explained to us a little later. I think all of us are anxious to keep down governmental expense, but at the same time the Government cannot shirk its obligations. As we expand as a gov- ernment, as our great defense program is pushed forward, it naturally must be spread out in a way we have never had to do in the past. When we take from a locality its land and its means of rais- ing revenue, it is only a matter of right that we step in and supplant that money that has Feen taken from the local com- munity. I believe I can say with confidence and with fairness that the groups throughout the country, and I am sure the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. BaI.Ley] will corroborate this statement, have made a gallant effort, a very gal- lant effort, in each location to try to give to these youngsters all the educational facilities they could possibly muster. Teachers taught overtime with no addi- tional pay, and parents submitted to having their children terribly crowded. They recruited teachers, and they stag- gered their recitation programs so that as many children as possible could use, as the gentleman from South Dakota {[Mr. Case) said, the limited facilities that were available. So the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. BarLey} is in- troducing a bill which has for its pur- pose to make it possible for these locali- ties to participate in Federal funds. The bill, as I have gone over it, has been worked out in great detail. I approach it as a teacher, and I find that they have made every provision to be just to the localities they are designing to help. They have done everything to try to equalize and to balance this program. The thing I especially like about it, I may say to the gentleman from West Virginia, is that there is no effort to superimpose an educational program upon the locality where this aid is being granted. It has nothing to do with a national education program. The teach- ers in the locality are under the super- vision of their own superintendent. All we do is collaborate with the local edu- cational authorities for the direct and equitable allocation of the funds. Mr. Speaker, if I may speak out of or- der for just a moment in the time re- maining to me, may I say that I have just come from the Committee on Un- American Activities. This simply ties up with my former experience as a school teacher. I found there are being circu- lated throughout the country, and people are being asked to sign, petitions which in reality are designed to curtail our war effort. I think’ one of the sad things with which we have been confronted in America is the fact that many Chris- tian, God-fearing, high-minded people
10092 are groping, groping as you and I are, to try to find some solution for this thing we have always solved in the past by war. I have had the honor to serve overseas in the Army in both wars, and I do not believe that my heart can well up any hatred greater than that for war. I realize that war has been a horrible thing ever since the dawn of history. I do find, on the other hand, that there has been many efforts by the people to try to humanize a very inhumane thing, war. I remember one instance when they first decided that they should not poison the enemy’s streams, yet at the same time from a besieged city you were al- lowed to divert a stream and let the peo- ple die of thirst. We also found that one of the conventions, I think the Hague or Geneva Convention, or maybe earlier than that, provided that you could not use a flat-nosed bullet but must use a steel-coated bullet. This was very humane at first sight, but it allowed the man to be wounded instead of killed, and probably lie and expire in a hot, tropical country some place, as they did during the expansion of the British Empire. In other words I do not believe you can humanize this inhuman thing. War: We must try to abolish it. I feel if we can quickly end a war by whatever means we have the better it ts and that is the humane thing to do. I remember read- ing the history of the Civil War. Prob- ably one of the greatest humanitarians in the history of civilization, Abraham Lincoln, was willing to carry on the “battle of the wilderness which was go- ing against the North. The South was losing one man to seven or eight men on the part of the North. But Mr. Lincoln said that we should push on, even though that great masterful strategist of the South, Robert E. Lee, who ranks among the great generals of all time, was out- fighting us and out-maneuvering us. Still, Lincoln said, push on if it will eventually win the war and thereby save ves, So I am not advocating any cruel or inhuman method: I am advocating methods which will in some way lessen the chances of our having a long drawn- out struggle. I think in the end that is the humane thing to do. Years ago a man by the name of Creasy at one time collected the stories of what he called the 15 decisive battles of the world. After teaching ancient, medieval, modern, United States, Ger- man, and French history in high school I have not been able with my limited capacities properly to interpret human history, but I am convinced that no wars have been good. Go back over the whole history of civilization: You can find that no war can be justified when you compare it with the horror and tragedy and suffering which is inflicted upon mankind. Never- theless Creasy said that had any of these 15 decisive battles gone the other way the course of civilization might have been changed and retarded, It is true that if the Greeks had lost the Battles of Mara- thon and Thermopylae the progress of Greek science and art might have been retarded, But on the other hand you CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cannot kill art and you cannot kill science. Then Creasy said the battle of Tours was so important, where Moors tried to overcome the French. I still say had the people from the South moved up through France they probably might have retarded French civilization. But on the other hand civilization would have survived. Then we come down to the battle of Cressy and Poitiers and on to the Battle of Saratoga. Saratoga was considered the only decisive battle fought upon American soil because this victory for the Americans was a deciding factor in our gaining the aid of France in our Revolution. I am not sure that the victory at Waterloo on the part of the British was an advancement for civilization and that civilization would have been retarded if the French had won. I am not able to interpolate the facts of history, but I can say from my humble experience that war is a hor- rible thing and the more quickly we can put an end to it the sooner will we be doing a humane and kind thing. Of course we do not want to criticize anyone in authority, Mr. Speaker, but I hope we can muster all of the energy we can to halt the movement of commu- nism. At this time, as I said before, there are being circulated petitions by peo- ple who are urging us not to go forth with our defense program. I want to repeat. These people are noble, courage- ous, high-minded, and God-fearing American people who are groping as Lowell said in his “Vision of Sir Laun- fal’— “groping biindly above us for light.” They are trying to see the light. But it is up to you and me as Members of Congress to try to impress upon them that they may be joining up with groups that have not the destruction of war in mind, but the destruction of America in mind, We should ask them carefully to consider this proposition. We must not fail in this critical moment of our national life. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require, Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, before discussing the rule before us and the bill covered by it, I wish to congrat- ulate my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. McSweeney] for the very appropriate and able remarks he has made with reference to war and the fact that, after all, wars do not solve any of the problems of the human race. House Resolution 685 makes in order the consideration of H. R. 7940, a bill to provide financial assistance for local ed- ucational agencies in areas affected by Federal activities, and for other pur- poses, under 2 hours of general debate. This is an open rule which will permit full consideration and amendment of the measure. H. R. 7940 was reported, I believe, unanimously by the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, and the rule sending the measure to the floor was reported unanimously by the Rules Committee. I wish to take this opportunity, if I may, to congratulate the author of the bill [Mr. Batter] and his committee for the great care and attention which has been given to the preparation of this JuLy 18 measure, You may notice that the bill, as originally written, has been changed considerably, and a practically new or clean bill reported. I have gone over this measure rather thoroughly. I am in full agreement with its objectives. I believe it is absolutely necessary we take some such action as provided in this measure to meet the needs of certain school districts and areas in the Nation which have been badly affected by the expansion of Government holdings, air fields, military installations, and 50 forth throughout the Nation. The Congress has taken similar steps in the past. The first was under the so- called Lanham Act, which gave aid to those schools which were hard hit by the impact of the war economy and the great expansion of Government owner- ship throughout the Nation during the war years. Iam especially interested in this mess- ure because I have in my own district a part of Wright Field and all of Pater- - son Aiz Base. I know something of that which has happened thcre, where the Government has taken a great deal of the land off the tax duplicates in various schoo] districts, for the use of the Air Forces, and at the same time sent into those school districts a great many ad- ditional families with children. I have seen those school districts stagger along, attempting to furnish educational facili- ties to the children who are asking for an education. I have seen the people in those districts vote extra tax levies for school purposes, up to the limit permitted by law, taxing themselves, not only to take care of their own children, but to take care of the children who came from elsewhere, and have been brought there because of the employment of their par- ents at the Government installations or because their fathers were a part of the military forces of the Nation. SoI think it only fair and just that we enact legis- lation such as this, so that Uncle Sam, the National Government, pay a fair share of the cost of operating those schoo] facilities. Certainly, if you or I, as a private businessman or the head of &@ corporation, would go into any school district of America, buy up a great deal of land and build a factory there, we would be taxed to pay our fair share of the cost of maintaining the local schools to give an educational opportunity to the children of the people we employ. But, seemingly, that rule has not always ap- plied to the Federal Government. In- stead, the Federal Government has taken land and property off the tax duplicate, thereby placing a heavier burden than ever before upon the remaining proper- ty. Then, in addition, it has caused a great influx of new families and new chil- dren, swamping the school facilities of that area. Mr, JENEINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr, BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr. JENKINS. It is true, is it not, ‘that in those districts the load hag be- come so heavy that now the people who live in the community cannot finance it, and the schools are so overcrowded that nobody gets justice? ; Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentile- man from Ohio [Mr, Jenkins] is entire-
1950 ly right. I know of school districts in our own State where not only are the school facilities inadequate but the local areas cannot possibly bond themselves to build needed new school facilities. There are school districts in.our own State where the schools are being oper- ated at a deficit; the local banks and private citizens are advancing the money to meet those deficits, even though the people are taxing themselves to the limit, and have voted extra tax levies to try to maintain the schools. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr. BREHM. The gentleman men- tioned the amount of land the Federal Government had taken off the tax dupli- cates. Does the gentleman from Ohio have any idea how much land the Fed- eral Government might own throughout the country? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. No: I do not know. But I think the committee might know. I have understood that the Fed- eral Government owned about one-ninth of all the land of the United States, which is quite a considerable parcel. Mr. BREHM. I may say that I called one of the departments and was in- formed that they were setting up a com- mittec to study that very question and find out. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I am not sure we know just what the Federal Govern- ment does own in this country. But there is one thing I do know, that there are many school districts in America and many schools around Government in- stallations that are in the direst of cir- cumstances, and are now suffering great hardships. The little youngsters of this country, the boys and girls, who are in no way responsible for anything which has gone on, are suffering as a result of the present situation. The Congress of the United States has a responsibility to do something to correct it. Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr, HOLMES. I appreciate the re- marks the gentleman is making. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Barrey] and his committee, held hear- ings in the Fourth Congressional District in the State of Washington, very exten- sive hearings. Many communities were represented at those hearings and showed conclusively and objectively the very problem and needs the gentleman mentions. I appreciate very much the gentleman’s reference to the merits of the bill. ZI am wholeheartedly support- ing the legislation. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his statement, because it calls to my mind the fact that members of the Committee on Labor and Educa- tion, under the leadership of the gentle- man from West Virginia (Mr. Barry] have made a very thorough investigation and a very careful study of this situa- tion. This bill is predicated not on theory but on fact. The committee speaks from knowledge of the situation. I think they’have met it in @ very par- ticular way. XCVI——636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. O'KONSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr, O'KONSKI. How far back does this bill go in the matter of benefits, what year? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I think it be- gins with July 1, 1950. Is that correct, I ask the gentleman from West Virginia? Mr. BAILEY. Yes. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Benefits will start to be paid from the beginning of the present fiscal year. Mr. O’KONSKI. I mean how far back, how long ago must the land or land in an affected area have been ac- quired by the Federal Government in order for that area to be entitled to benefits? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I think wher- ever the Federal Government owns land or facilities that cause congestion. Mr. BAILEY. If the gentleman will yield, I may say that it affects land and property acquired subsequent to 1938. 1908 BROWN of Ohio. Subsequent to 38. Mr. JONAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr. JONAS. Iam very much in sym- pathy with this bill, having been a school teacher myself once upon a time. What I am primarily interested in is whether or not this is in any sense of the word, intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly, a step toward Fed- eral aid to education? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. No; this is not a bill to provide Federal aid to educa- tion. If it were, I would oppose it. Mr. JONAS. That is an answer to my question. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. This is simply a matter wherein the Federal Govern- ment is to pay its fair share of the cost of maintaining schools in areas where the Government itself has a specific in- terest, land, property, or where the num- ber of Goverment employees are over crowding the public schools. Mr. JONAS. In other words, the Fed- eral Government is merely being put in the position of a local taxpayer or busi- ness concern. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is correct. Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr. McSWEENEY. Is it not true that under this bill the Federal Government has no jurisdiction whatsoever over school standards, has nothing whatever to say with regard to curricula, with re- gard to the allocation of funds for dif- ferent types of education or anything? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The gentleman is correct. As I understand the bill it places the Federal Government in practically the same position as if a private person, con- cern, or corporation owned the installa- tion rather than the Federal Govern- ment. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield. Mr. McCONNELL. I think it is prop- er to point out in view of the appropriate questions asked by the gentleman from 10098 Illinois that this bill replaces former laws that we thought took care of these situations. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I previously attempted to point out that the Lanham Act was the first such bill. In conclusion, may I say I have studied this bill carefully and, if I might have the attention of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bariey] and the members of the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor, I have a suggestion as to two minor amendments to this bill. I have discussed these proposed changes with some members of the committee. Referring to page 18 and page 19, in order to clarify this bill, I suggest that after the semicolon in line 2, page 19, the word “or” be added, and the same word “or” be added after the semicolon in line 4, so as to make absolutely cer- tain, and to spell out and make very definite, that if any one of the these conditions exist as described in the bill a school district is entitled to considera- tion for Federal contributions. I hope this resolution will be unani- mously adopted, and that the measure which will be brought up for debate un- der it will have the approval of the House. The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (BH. R. 7840) to provide finan- cial assistance for local educational agencies in areas affected by Federal activities, and for other purposes. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the bill H. R. 7940, with Mr. Hays of Arkansas in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bilL By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, first I want to say that it gives me considerable pleasure to bring an important piece of legislation to the floor of the House with a unani- mous vote of the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor. I assure the member- ship of the House that the committee has worked hard on this matter. There were two subcommittees which traveled extensively gathering data throughout the Nation, one of those subcommittees headed by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Barry], the other by the gentleman from Ohio LMr. Burxe!}. The subcommittees gathered the data and presented it to the full committce. May I say that heretofore we have at- tempted to deal with the problem of re- lieving these local school districts and Jocal schools that suffered from the sud- den impacts caused by activities of the Government in a’ piecemeal fashion. Each year we have passed a bill that partially took care of the situation. Also the Army, Navy, and other activities and departments of the Government have heretofore been operating schools,
10094 some on Government property and some on nearby Government property. Other communities for some reason or other have not been able to comply with the various acts passed which were designed to give relief to those communities. ~ So the committee was faced with the problem of meeting the situation in ap- proximately 600 or more communities throughout the United States with, in many instances, totally unlike problems, and so it has been the desire of the com- mittee to try to see to it that each one of the problems presented by the Govern- ment activities be met and taken care of. Each year this matter has been handled there has been a demand on the part of Members of the House, and Government agencies, and on the part of the other body, that we have permanent legisla- tion. Now we have offered to the House a@ piece of permanent legislation: We do not know just what kind of war effort may be required on the part of this Na- tion in the next few months. We do not know how many of the various air fields or military establishments may be reactivated. If they are reactivated, the answer is in this legislation to take care of the problem as it might be presented. We have in some other instances had problems created by, for instance, re- moving the property from the tax books, with public housing, where the tax rev- enue from that particular school district was cut down and immediately became a burden upon those living, for instance, outside of the project. We have been prone to deal with the housing problem as just simply a housing problem with- out giving thought to the problem that might be created by that very thing that we called a relief move. So I think it is well for us to recognize that there is a considerable amount of trouble that grows out of that, and further we should recognize that that is a particular prob- lem because of those nontaxable proj- ects of public housing. There is a dis- tinct responsibility on the part of the Government to see to it that it does take care of the added burdens that it might throw on some one particular loca] com- munity. This bill deals with the maintenance and operation of schools. Some men- tion has been made here of the fact that the committee was considering another bill which deals with the construction of buildings. Weare dealing with that and have been in constant session almost daily for the past several weeks. Mr, JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Minnesota. Mr. JUDD. Does that bill include, in addition to construction of buildings, provision for equipment, and facilities, or is that handled in this bill? Mr. BARDEN. No; we are handling construction. What you might term equipment, and so forth, is in the other This is strictly for sal- aries? Mr. BARDEN. This is maintenance and operation. That is what this bill deals with. In connection with the other bill we are confronted with a consider- able number of problems. It is no easy CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE job to fit it together so that we can recommend it as being first-class legis- lation, Mr. SASSCER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield to the gentle- man from Maryland. Mr. SASSCER. It is not quite clear to me which particular units come under the various sections of this bill. If a county has been receiving from the Fed- eral Government compensation for the instruction of children from a reserva- tion, and then it should not qualify under any of the various sections of this bill, would the continuance of the payments the county has been getting for the chil- dren from that particular installation then be precluded? Mr. BARDEN. If they have been col- lecting under the Wier bill, there was a provision whereby the Navy could make payments. I think the gentleman will find that where the Navy was justified in making these payments or where the Army was justified in making the pupil adjustments, or where the Wier bill sup- plemented the local funds, all of those communities will qualify under this bill. That has been our problem. Each time we got it to where we thought we had it adjusted exactly right we would have to open it up and find some way to take care of a situation. We think we have taken care of the situation to which the gentleman refers. Mr. SASSCER. Even though techni- cally according to the formula they might not come under it, is the spirit of the bill that if they had heretofore qualified they could get payments? Mr. BARDEN. I would not care to mislead the gentleman. There is no clause in this bill that would in effect say that any school district which has heretofore received money from any of the sources to which the gentleman re- fers is automatically blanketed in here. However, under the formulas that we have set out in the bill, any district that is receiving payments from a Federal Government activity, be it Navy, Army, Air Force, or whatever it may be, will be covered, Therefore, virtually all the cases to which the gentleman refers will be taken care of. Mr. SASSCER. I was not particular- ly referring to the impact on them, but take for instance the naval powder fac- tory at Indian Head. That is an old area, but the Government has been mak- ing some contribution to the county authorities for the children living on the reservation. It is possible—I do not know; I have not had a chance to spell it out—that they may not have had the impact to bring them under this formula. I was disturbed for fear that that partic- ular community might lose what it was heretofore rightfully getting, due to the fact that it did not qualify. Mr. BARDEN. In order that we may have it all together, may I ask the gen- tleman from West Virginia if they gave the Indian Head case any study? Mr. BAILEY. Our committee did not pay particular attention to the installa- tion at Indian Head except that we have @ report from the school district there which shows they will qualify under the provisions of this bill. The gentleman JULY 13 from Maryland need have no further worry. Mr. SASSCER. I thank the gentle- man very much. Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield to the gentile- man from Minnesota. Mr. JUDD. May I ask the gentleman how much this bill will cost in addition to the amounts that are being spent for this purpose now by various Federal agencies? On page 7 of the report it appears we are spending during the cur- rent year about $17,000,000 through 12 different agencies. This bill will coor- dinate the program and get it on a sound basis. How much more, roughly, does the gentleman think it will take to do the job that ought to be done? Mr. BARDEN. The best estimate the committee could make through its work with the department and in gathering all the data we could gather was that it would cost a total of approximately $32,000,000. As an explanation for the additional amount, may I cite the case of one base which I happen to know of in North Carolina that had approxi- mately 600 children dumped into that district, whercas before the base was put there the property was on the tax books at about $140,000. But 600 children were put in there. Under the Wier bill which was passed by our committee it provided that the local school district must show a deficit in order to qualify for funds under that bill. Unfortunately, in that particular instance, perhaps, in North Carolina we put people in jail who operate Govern- ment agencies at a deficit and so we had to choose between the jail house and the poorhouse. We picked the poorhouse and did not get a dollar of the funds. So there is one instance where a con- siderable amount of money will be used which heretofore was not. Mr. JUDD. I do not know many places where the money can be used to better advantage. As one who formerly served with the gentleman from North Carolina when he was chairman of the old Committee on Education, during which service I came to have for him the greatest admiration, affection, and regard, I commend the gentleman and his committee for reporting this bill. I have resolutely opposed Federal aid to education where Federal money would be given to every teacher or for every child in areas where they do not need it as well as in those where they do. This bill deals with flelds where the Federal Government should function, giving aid in areas where it is particularly respon- sible and where we cannot expect the local agencies to do it. Mr. BARDEN. MayI point out to the gentleman that these payments go to the district affected. They do not go through the State set-up. Mr. JUDD. That is right. 'They go where needs exist which the Federal Government should meet. Mr. BARDEN. The relief goes di- rectly to the point where it is needed. Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield.
1950 Mr. SADLAK. I have searched the report and have not found, as previously was the case when we had measures like this up for consideration, any list of the communities which are affected which would be entitled to these payments. Would the gentleman refer me to any part of the hearings where there might be a list of the districts particularly af- fected? I recall previously when we had up for consideration a bill along this same line the point was raised that the funds pro- vided might go down to districts in the State of Texas, for example, and the Texas community would be getting these funds where previously in Connecticut we had provided for all the school factli- es, Mr. BARDEN. May I point out to the gentleman that my folks got on one of those lists, but did not get any money. However, we could not make up a list without going out to each one of these various areas and gathering the data to see just which district would come under the bill and to what extent. We did do this; we used this precaution; we sent experts out to fit these formulas to the particular districts and to see how they worked out. We used those districts, for example, as guinea, pigs to make sure we had them. But it would be impossible for us to list them, because some would be going out and some might be in better shape than they were last year. And then who knows how many districts there might be that would come under it in the next 60 days? Mr. SADLAK. I am particularly in- terested here because there was only one district in Connecticut which qualified previously and that was the Groton-East Hartford district. I was interested to know whether it is now included and provided for in his legislation. Mr, BARDEN. I am sorry I cannot give the gentleman that information. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield. Mr, McCONNELL. May I suggest to my colleague from Connecticut who has just referred to a very important question concerning his district that he suggest to the local educational agency that they examine carefully the provisions of sec- tion 4 (b) so that they may find out octet they do qualify under this sec- on. Mr. JUDD. They will qualify if they deserve to, will they not? Mr. McCONNELL. That is right. Mr. McSWEENEY. Myr. Chairman, will tle gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield. Mr. McSWEENEY. Will not this pro- gram of necessity be an elastic program because the situation will be changing from time to time? Mr. BARDEN. Positively. This sit- uation might arise, for example. If we were to become involved in war activities where emergency conditions would exist throughout the country, this act ts de- signed to take care of that very kind of emergency. Mr, WHITAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARDEN. I yield. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. WHITAKER. In my district, I have a situation where there is a plant which cannot be used except in case of war, It will depend on the situation as to whether or not the plant will be re- activated. If it should become activated, as I understand it, then that locality has &@ means of securing help in their school troubles. There will be 600 students come in when it is activated. Do I make myself clear? Mr. BARDEN. If I understand the proposition the gentleman is speaking of, he will be taken care of: If it is a ques- tion of reactivation, and those students come in, there is no question but that the situation will be taken care of. I want to thank the House for its at- tention to this matter. I appreciate so much the kind remarks made by the gen- tleman from Ohio, and others, in behalf of this bill. I will say frankly I do not know of any opposition to it. I think we have a good piece of legislation, and I hope it will meet the approval of the House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chairman, we have very few requests for time on this side. If the gentleman wishes to pro- ceed now, we will go on later. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. BAILey],. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. I would like to say to the gentleman and my colleagues that I especially appreciate the work the gen- tleman has done on this legislation, and I want to give him public credit for se- curing a splendid bill. We are all in- debted to him. Mr. BAILEY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his very complimentary remarks. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, BAILEY. I yield. Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to join with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lucas], in the remarks he has just made. I would like to ask the gentleman if he would discuss briefly two questions, The first, on page 24, which we discussed ir the com- mittee, the formula. You have point 1, line 11, “10 or more children, or 3 per- cent.” It seems to me to be very low. It does not seem to me, with only 10 chil- dren or 3 percent, that an area is very hard hit. The second point is that you go back to 1938 in using these figures. It seems to me we should have used a later date, 1940 or 1941. I cannot see how we were getting prepared for war in 1938, and I do not think we should go back that far now. Mr. BAILEY. I appreciate the point the gentleman has made, and I shall endeavor during the course of my re- marks to answer his questions, Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY, I yield. Mr. YATES. I would like to ask the gentleman whether a city, like the city of Chicago for instance, which has had 10095 a tremendous influx of industrial work- ers, attributable to the war, many of whom are still within the city, could qualify under the provisions of this act, or whether it is intended for rural com- munities. Mr. BAILEY. With the tremendous school enrollment and the tremendous wealth in those larger cities, they will not have sufficient Government or Fed- eral programs to qualify under the terms of this bill, because we have eligibility percentages set up that will be explained to the gentleman during the course of the discussion. Mr. Chairman, when Uncle Sam he- comes a resident of any community and through his activities in national de- fense, and in the development of our natural resources, creates an undue bur- den on the other citizens and taxpayers of that governmental unit, as a matter of justice and in all fairness, he should expect to assume his proportionate share of the cost of Government in the taxing unit in which he has become a resident, even though his residence is of a tem- porary nature. Let me at this time disabuse the minds of any of my colleagues that the legisla- tion proposed in H. R. 7940, now before you for consideration, has anything to do with Federal aid to education. It makes no provisions for grants or ald. It provides only for the discharge of a Government obligation created by the Government itself through its activities in national defense, the development of atomic energy, the reclamation of lands, and the control of floods in our rivers and streams. Many Members of the Eighty-first Congress, including Members of the other body, realize the serious situa- tion confronting several hundred of the Nation’s school districts due primarily to the Government’s activities. On convening of the Eighty-first Congress, more than 40 Members introduced legis- lation dealing with different phases of this problem. These Representatives’ proposals were referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor, of which I have the honor to be a mem- ber. They were considered by our com- mittee and it was found that the prob- lem was a diversified and an intricate one and would necessitate an extended survey to ascertain the extent of the Government’s responsibility. Our com- mittee also realized that the haphazard manner in which this problem has been handled in the past was entirely unsat~ isfactory. Many of you will recall that it was necessary during the period of the Sec- ond World War for the Government to take cognizance of this serious problem. Legislation was enacted early in the war to provide not only maintenance and operation assistance, but also to supply money for needed school facilities, This legislation is commonly referred to as the Lanham Act. It was hoped that after VJ-day, the Government would be able to drop this program of assistance during the postwar period on the as- sumption that with the demobilization of our armed forces and the deactivation of our wartime facilities, would permit
10096 the affected school taxing units to re- turn to their prewar normal program. This was a false assumption. Only a limited number of our wartime activi- ties were deactivated and in many in- stances new installations having to do with national defense have been estab- ished. Many others have been reacti- vated to the point where hundreds of these school districts are overburdened and are wholly unable to meet from their own resources the added burden for which the Government is directly responsible, Mr. Chairman, only yesterday I re- ceived, and I want to read into the Rec- orp, this telegram. It is from Tucson, Ariz.: Tucson, Ariz,, July 11, 1950. Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Three thousand workers will modity planes 1m former plane plant in school district. Ex- pect 500 more pupils in September. Con- tinue having pupils from Federal housing project within district. Providing for future citizens should be second only to imme- diate problem of war. H. R. 7940 must be passed. Huipa Scxvucn, Principal, Sunnyside School. Our committee decided that the prob- lem was of sufficient import that it should receive the study of a special committee, and in due time, two groups were designated to hold public hearings to secure adequate data on which the committee could base legislation. I had the honor to be named as chair- man of one of these special study groups and I had with me in this work, the able assistance of the Honorable Tom STezp, of Oklahoma; the Honorable Lreonarp Irvine, of Missouri; the Honorable Ricu- akp Nixon, of California; and the Honor- able THrusron B. Morton, of Kentucky. The other special group was under the direction of the Honorable THomas H. Bourke, of Ohio; assisted by the Honor- able Roy W. Wier, of Minnesota; the Honorable Cari Perkins, of Kentucky; the Honorable SAmust K. McConneELt, Jr., of Pennsylvania; and the Honorable THomas H. WenrveEL, of California. I wish, at this time, Mr. Chairman, to extend my appreciation and thanks to the members of these special groups for their untiring efforts and able contribu- tion in the preparation of the legislation as proposed in H. R. 7940. May I take the liberty of saying at this time, that no proposed legislation coming before the Eighty-first Congress, has had more attention than this legislation which has consumed several months in the course of preparation. Mr. LANHAM, Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Georgia. . Mr. LANHAM. At this time I want to congratulate and thank these two subcommittees for the splendid work they have done in making a survey of the entire country and of the school situa- tion in each section; not only that but to congratulate this subcommittee for the fine work it has done in bringing the bill before the House. While I am not a member of the Com- mittee on Education and Labor, I was CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE permitted to sit in with this committee for a short time while the bill was being drafted. I had to go back to my own committee work, but I was with the com- mittee long enough to know just what problem it had before it and how difficult it was to bring cut a bill like this which is fair to all sections of the country and which will, I am sure, solve our problem. I want to again congratulate not only the subcommittees but the entire Com- mittee on Education and Labor for the fine work they have done. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia has ex- pired. Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield th: gentleman 10 additional minutes. Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the able gentleman from Georgia for his very complimentary remarks on the work of my special committee and the com- mittee as a whole. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. BUCHANAN. I join with the other members of the committee in com- mending the chairman of the subcom- mittee on the activities in which that committee has been engaged in clarify- ing many of the provisions of the orig- inal legislation that was introduced. I feel as though the situation in my own congressional district has been ade- quately covered and I thank the gentle- man for his very kind consideration. Mr. BAILEY. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Wisconsin. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. I have not been able to find the information in the bill that I desire. May I ask if the bill includes reservations on which Indians are living and who go to the public schools in those communities? Mr. BAILEY. I think the gentleman will find a provision covering that where the Indians are attending what we call the white or public schools. Certain sections of them are covered in this bill, Indian-reservation schools, of course, are exempted. Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. In a dis- trict where we have a public school and there is an Indian reservation close by and the Indian children attend the pub- lic schools; will they be included in this legislation? Mr. BAILEY. Yes. It has been difficult legislation to write in that the problems confronting our committee were found to be different as our working groups carefully checked our Army, Navy, Air Force, and marine in- stallations, as well as our atomic-energy plants and our extensive fleld of en- deavor and land reclamation and flood control. I take considerable pride in the knowledge that our committee has done an excellent job in the preparation of this legislation, and I sincerely hope that it receives the careful consideration of every Member of the House. Our subcommittee, in the study of this intricate problem, soon discovered that the manner in which if has been han- JULY 13 dled in the past was cumbersome and jnadequate. Both the Eightieth and the Fighty-first Congress had dealt with this problem by temporary legislation in the form of the Landis Act of the Eightieth Congress and in the form of the Wier Act of the Eighty-first Congress, In ad- dition, we learned that at least 10 other governmental departments were in one way or another making contributions from their appropriations, wholly inade- quate, I might add, in an effort to meet the situation. It was the decision of our committee, and in order to avoid dupli- cation and overlapping authority, as well as to achieve a measure of economy, that the problems could best be solved by a unified administration and a unified appropriation, such as is provided in the pending legislation. Our subcommittee held a week’s hear- ings in the city of Washington to ascer- tain from the several governmental units involved what their activities along this line had been in the postwar period and to ascertain what their wishes were as to how the matter should be handled in the future. It was the unanimous opinion of all of the several governmental de- partments involved that they wanted to get out of the field of education, and as a result heartily endorsed the committee's proposal to unify the Government’s ef- forts in this field by placing the whole program under the supervision of the United States Commissioner of Educa- on, In addition, our subcommittee con- ducted extensive hearings in the field and received testimony from not only the affected school district officials but from the officials of the Government installa- tions in the several impacted school districts. I have here some 2,700 printed copies of testimony taken at 24 statistical points throughout the Nation, ranging from Boston in the East to Jacksonville, Fla., in the South, to San Diego, Calif., Los Angeles, and Seattle, Wash., in the far West, with intervening midcontinent centers, Testimony was had from over 600 individuals, representing at least 42 of the 48 States in the Nation. In addition to our formal testimony, our subcommittee, through carefully prepared questionnaires through the sev- eral State departments of education, endeavored to ascertain the extent of the Government impact. This statis- tical data was compiled in the form of a subcommittee report to our whole com- mittee and presents in concise form the problems of the individual school dis- tricts, classified by States. Our committee also was able to com- pile dependable data from 410 of these affected districts, more than one-half million boys and girls for which the Gov- ernment has a direct responsibility to provide an adequate school program. In these affected districts alone we found that the Federal Government had ac- quired by purchase and had taken off the tax rolls of the several school districts 250,000,000 acres of land, currently valued at $13,500,000,000. This amount, if assessed at the current tax rates of the several districts, would yield an amount in excess of $193,000,000 an-
1950 nually in operating expenses of schools— an amount greater in excess of approxi- mately $32,000,000 proposed as an annual expenditure under the provision of the pending legislation. Now, Mr, Chairman, at this time I feel sure that there is considerable interest in the minds of the Members of this Eouse as to the approximate cost of this legislation, and I would like, if the com- mittee will bear with me, to take some time in explaining what the approximate cost will be. In the previous discussion on this measure our chairman, the able gentleman from North Carolina, advised that the program would cost approxi- mately $30,000,000. If I am permitted to do so, I would like to give a break- down of this approximate cost, if the gentleman will bear with me and give me time; otherwise I would like to in- sist that some other member of the com- mittee give the information. May I in- quire of the gentleman from North Caro- lina as to his wishes in the matter? Mr. BARDEN. The gentleman has not used all of his time, but I will try to give him such time as he may need. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON. I want to know, spe- cifically, if there is a plant transferred to the National Industrial Reserve on January 1, 1949, which now pays no taxes, whether such a township, for ex- ample, in Pennsylvania, that has such @ plant in it, would be given assistance under this particular bill as it might have been under H. R. 7804. Mr. BAILEY. Is the title to the prop- erty still in the Federal Government? Mr. FULTON. No; it was transferred tu the National Industrial Reserve on January 1, 1949. Mr. BAILEY. Is that in a stand-by status? Mr. FULTON. Yes. Mr. BAILEY. Then it will be eligible under the bill just as if it was reacti- vatea, if a Federal program still exists. Mr.FULTON. Does this bill also apply to communities where there are Federal housing projects that are near plants that are suffering from lack of taxes, because the Federal housing projects are not paying taxes? Does this bill cover that situation? Mr. BAILEY. It covers it completely, for the information of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. FULTON. I thank the gentleman. Mr, BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, at this point may I say that our committee at- tempted to ascertain the approximate cost of this program as contained in leg- islation proposed in H. R. 7940. If you have the bill before you I would like to call attention to section 2. There, my friends, we propose to discharge an obligation caused by the Federal Gov- ernment going into a district and pur- chasing a considerable amount of land, taking it off the tax rolls, and thereby reducing the ability of the local school board to meet its school needs. Now, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts who raised the question, that the intent of this legislation is to try to recompense the impacted school CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE districts due to the war activities con- nected primarily with World War IT. Many of you Members of the House will recall that prior to the outbreak of World War II our defense activities started somewhere along the summer of 1938 and the early part of 1939. The acquisition of these properties preceded the actual outbreak of the war. Asa result we have confined it to the acquisition of property since 1938 due to the war impact. Now, we estimate, gentlemen, that the approx- imate cost to the Government to reim- burse the districts for the loss of tax values from these lands will be approxi- mately $1,000,000. Section 3 (a) of the bill does not deal with the acquisition of land but deals with the impact of chil- dren in the school district. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BAILEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Ohio. Mr. BREHM. I want to congratulate the gentleman on the splendid work he has done on the subcommittee in draft- ing this bill, and ask him this question: Is there any opposition to this bill from any quarter? Mr. BAILEY. None that I know of, I may say to the gentleman, for which I am deeply thankful. Mr. Chairman, as a basis for the esti- mates of the amounts required for the 1951 fiscal year by this bill, I submit the following data: SECTION 2. LAND ACQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT This is, in reality, a guess. Data have been obtained on Jand acquisitions since 1939 by the Department of the Interior, Department of Defense, and Department of Agriculture. These data show acre- age acquired and value of the land but it does not show this acreage in relation to the total land in the schoo] district from which it was acquired. Reports to the subcommittees show only the value of the land acquired plus improvements on that land. It is believed that the num- ber of school districts eligible under this section is not large, although acquisi- tons of land since 1939 have been exten- sive. SECTION 3A. CHILDREN RESIDING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY-~SECTION 6. CHILDREN FOR WHOM NO LOCAL AGENCY IS ABLE TO PROVIDE EDU- CATION The Department of National Defense on the basis of information from each installation reports that there will be 97,481 school children living on Federal property under its jurisdiction at the be- ginning of next school year, and that the local share of the cost of their edu- cation will be $11,071,997. This is at the rate of $142 local cost per child. This Department also reports that an addi- tional 10,000 school children will be liv- ing on Federal property during the year as the result of Wherry housing con- struction for which no estimate of cost was given. It is believed that the 67,500 children is a reasonable accurate figure, but that $140 as the local cost per child is much too high. The total cost of current op- erating expenses per child in the United States last year, according to statistics of the United States Office of Education, 10097 was just under $200. Of this amount the local share was approximately $105 and the State share was $95, These data include big cities as well as rural areas. The schoo) districts reporting to the sub- committee reported a per pupil cost of approximately $140 with the State share at $76 and the local share including Fed- eral funds at $71. The local share with- out Federal funds was $60 per child. For the purpose of this estimate it is believed that $80 local cost per child is reasonably accurate fpr the school dis- tricts affected by Federal activities. It is believed that 7,500 children of the 87,500 under jurisdiction of the Depart- ment of National Defense will be living on Federal property where no Federal agency has authority or is able to pro- vide schooling for the children, leaving 80,000 for which some educational agency can provide education. The 7,500 will require the full per-pupil cost set at $200 per child, or a total of $1,500,000 for section 6 The 80,000, at $80 cost per child, is $6,400,000. The Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of Interior reports 2,700 children living on Federal property at $200 per child, or a total cost of $550,000. They report $21,000 for 160 children on Bureau of Mines installations, $33,000 for 250 children living on Fish and Wild- life properties, and $56,000 for 333 chil- dren living on national parks. In addi- tion, the Department reports almost 10,000 non-Indian children living on In- dian reservations with a total cost of $1,000,000. Amounts per child vary for these different groups, depending on location. It is believed that these re- ports are reasonably reliable. They have been accepted as submitted. They amount to $1,660,000 for approximately 13,500 children. The Housing officials report 310,000 housing units under their jurisdiction, with 293,000 presently occupied. The latest available figure shows $15,000 pay- ments in lieu of taxes a year for these units, of which 40 percent, or $6,000,000, was for schools. The national average is about seven-tenths of a school child per dwelling unit. The Housing officials report the number of school children in their units is higher than the national average, or from eight-tenths to one school child per unit. On this basis there would be from 235,400 to 293,000 school children in wartime housing units. Some of these units are located in areas where the school district will not be eligible because of the 3-percent limitation, and some additional ones may be transferred to private owner- ship. For the purpose of this estimate it is assumed there will be 200,000 eligi- ble children in these housing units at $80 per child. This amounts to $16,000,000 from which is to be sub- tracted the $6,000,000 payments in lieu of taxes for school purposes, leaving $10,000,000 for wartime housing. The total in this section 3A arrived as set forth above is approximately $18,- 060,000 and for section 6 is $1,500,000. SECTION 38, CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS ARE EMPLOYED ON FEDERAL PROPERTY The Federal agencies gave little or no information on the costs of this section because it is difficult tm ascertain ‘The