2046 you up by writing to Senators Ives and LeH- MAN, of New York, asking them to vote against bill H. R. 4567. Very truly yours, GEORGE BISHOP, Councilor, Earu F. CARTER, Secretary. WINNETKA, ILL., February 18, 1950. My Dear SENATOR: I am writing this letter in opposition to two provisions of H. R. 4567, the displaced persons bill now in the Judi- clary Committee of the Senate, but which may be reported out any day. I am opposed to changing the cut-off date, nemely the test date by which an alien must have become displaced, from December 22, 1945, as in the present law, to January 1, 1929. 1 am opposed to increasing the total num- ber of displaced persons to be admitted from 205.0C0, as in the present law, to 320,000 Already there has been serlous evidence before the Serate Judiciary Committee of frauds in cbhtaining admissions of displaced persons. But making the test date for be- coming displaced as late as January 1, 1949, 1s almost an invitation to fraud. It surely makes it easy for fake displaced persons to enter. The Stratton bill providing for the ad- mission of displaced persons was introduced in the House on April 1, 1947 Thereafter any dissatisied persons in central Europe knew that the easiest way to get into the United States was to become displaced. He might well have sald, “So, that’s the way to do it, is it? Become displaced. I shall proceed to displace myself at once” H R. 4567 allows 15 months after the Stratton bill was introduced in which he could have displuced himself. The war ended in Europe on May 6, 1945, The present law allows 7 months after the end of the war in Europe for a person to register as displaced. It is no answer to say that people have become displaced since December 22, 1945, as the result of internal troubles in their countries. Our country simply cannot let in displaced persons when- ever there is a revolution or war in any country. There are 800,000 displaced Arabs. There may be scon millions of displaced Chinese. They have as much right to preferred treatment as being displaced as any of the persons in Europe. We cannot take in all the distressed people of the world, any more than in case of the death of many parents in an epidemic one family could adopt four children without doing injustice to its own three children. There is not unlimited room in this coun- try. The Census Bureau last July estimated our population at over 150,C00,000. There are sound students who believe that that is 15,600,000 more than a desirable population for our country. At any rate we are near if we have not passed the desirable limit of our population Yet it is proposed to admit 320,000 immigrants in advance of the quotas. It is true that the displaced persons now ad- mitted will be charged against the quotas for later years. But I estimate that it will take 15 years for the quotas to absorb the dis- placed persons admitted in advance. For all that time we could not, in effect, reduce our immigration quotas, for they would be mortgaged to the future. And it is safe to predict right now that long before 15 years are up, we will be beset with urgent, fervent pleas, backed by all the political pressure, indeed terrorism, that the friends of the immigrant know so well how to employ, that we soften our hard hearts and give those countries back their quotas. H.R 4567 means that the already grievous diversity of our population will be further increased. In 6 States and in 15 cities of over 100,0CO population, 40 percent or less CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE of the white population ts of native parent- age. These proportions are ominous. I do not mean that the foreign born or their children are less worthy or law-abiding than the old native stock, but I do mean that all of us are handicapped by this excessive di- versity. Democracy, law, and law enforce- ment, even literature, need for their best de- velopment a people that has lived a long time together, who understand each other, with common standards and _ traditions, stirred by what Lincoln called the same “mystic chords of memory” Our politics has long been bedeviled by the Piopaganda of alien-minded groups. The late Chief Justice Taft was only one of many compctent observers who felt that our woe- fully diverse population was one of the chief causes of our bad record in crime and in law enforcement. And now with a serious housing shortage, with serious unemployment, the displaced persons bill would add 115,0C0O persons to the number to be admitted under the 1948 act I believe deeply that H. R. 4567 should bo defeated Very truly yours, Fowarp R_ Lewis. P S—As a matter of identification, I may say that Iam the author of “America. Na- tion or Confusion, u Study of our Immigra- tion Probleins,” published by Harper & Bros. in 1928, and of “A History of American Po- lticil Thought, from the Civil War to the Wor! War,” published by the Macmillan Co. in 1937 I am a member of the American, Ilnois and Chicago Bar Associations ER L. COLORADO RIVER DAM AT BRIDGE CANYON The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 75) authorizing the con- struction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appur- tenant dams and canals, and for other purposes. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. clerk will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: The Aiken Hendrickson Martin Benton Hickenlooper Maybank Bre ster Will Millikin Bricker Hoey Morse Butler Holland Mundt Byrd Hunt Murray Cain Ives Neely Capehart Jenner O'Conor Chapman Johnson, Colo, O'Mahoney Chivez Johason, Tex Robertson Connally Johnston, S C, Russell Cordon Fefauver Saltonstall Darby Kem Schoeppel Donnell Kerr Smith, Maine Douglas Kilgore Smith, N J. Downey Knowland Sparkman Dworshak Langer Stennis Enstland Leahy Tait Ecton Lehman Taylor Ellender Lodge Thomas, Utah Fergu; on Long Thye Flanders Lucas Tobey Frear McCarran Tydings Fulbright McCarthy Watkins George McClellan Wherry Gillette McFarland Wiley Graham Mcifellar Williams Green McMahon Withers Gurncy Magnuson Hayden Malone The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mary- BANK in the chair). A quorum is present. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the junior Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Kerr]. FEBRUARY 21 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Oklahoma, is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a copy of Senate bill 75 as re- ported to the Senate by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. It was my privilege to be a member of that com- mittee during the many months it con- sidered Senate bill 75. I personally at- tended the hearings of the committee for many weeks, during which time repre- sentatives of some of the great States of the Union presented their views with respect to the proposed project, and made their a1guments upon it. Mr. President, the battle now being waged is a battle for water. Many speeches have been made on the floor of the Senate dealing with the cost of the proposed project. The speeches have been profound and persuasive. But in the final analysis, the comparative im- portance of the cost of the project to the settlement of the title to the water is insignificant. The battle for water is not new among the people of this land nor among the people of this earth. In the first book of the Bib’e, we read of one of the his- tc_ic struggles of antiquity for water. In the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis, we learn that in the early dawn of the life of the race, water was a controlling factor in the welfare of man. I read from Genesis 26: And Isaac digged again the wells of water which they had digged in the days of Abra- ham his father; * * * And Isaac’s servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water And the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac’s herdmen, saying, The water is ours * * * And they digged another well, and strove for that also. * * * And he removed from thence, and digged another well, and for that they strove not and he called the name of it Rehoboth; and he said, For now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land. Mr. President, a strange modern coun- te1part to that story from antiquity took place before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and also has taken place here on the floor of the Senate. I wish to say that the committee was impressed by the viewpoints which were discussed; by the statements of facts which were made; and by the arguments which were presented to us. The com- mittee was impressed by the sincerity and the effectiveness of both sides. The committee decided that there were equi- ties in favor of those who had the view- point that the State of Arizona had title to this water and also equities in favor of those who took the position that the water belonged to other States. The committee sought to protect the rights of both sides. It felt that if Ari- zona owned the water rights that were in controversy and if the project she proposed was economically sound, it should be authorized. On the other hand, the committee felt that in view of the fact that the great State of California claimed an interest in this water, she had a right to her day in court; and the committee sought a solution which would meet the requirement of giving
1950 both these States the rights to which they were in fact entitled. The evidence showed that the project was economically justified if Arizona in fact owned the water. In the debate, statements have been made with reference to how many acres are involved and how much the cost per acre is, As I sat in the committee, week after week, listening to the testimony in this controversy, I became convinced that more than 100,000 acres were involved. I became convinced more than 225,000 acres were involved. I became convinced that this matter involved more than the 725,000 acres of irrigable land which Ari- zona showed were involved. I became convinced that the 73,000,000 acres of land in the State of Arizona were in- volved in this controversy; that no accu- rate figure of per acre cost could be arrived at that did not recognize that the total number of acres was 73,000,000. I became convinced that if this project were authorized, it would be the eco- nomic Magna Carta for a great State. I became convinced that it represents the difference between growth, progress, and prosperity, on the one hand, and stagnation and creeping paralysis, on the other. As I understand the figures which have been given to the committee, and which are to be found in the authorization measure now pending, the total amount is for $708,000,000, of which the Bridge Canyon power project involves $441,000,- 000, and the irrigation project involves $267,000,000. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield to the Sen- ator from California? Mr. KERR. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Does not the Senator know there is an additional authorization for a huge project, beyond the figures the Senator has given, an authorization for tunnels and other facilities amount- ing to $550,000,000 more? Mr. KERR. As I understand the bill, that is not a direct authorization pro- vided by the legislation now pending be- fore the Senate. The bill in that re- gard will speak for itself. Mr. President, among the parties in- terested in this matter there is no con- troversy with reference to the economic feasibility of the $441,000,000 authoriza- tion for the Bridge Canyon power plant dam and program. The controversy is over the $267,000,000 authorization to carry approximately 1,250,000 acre-feet of water a year to central Arizona for irrigation purposes. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KERR. I yield. Mr. DOWNEY. Does not the Senator know that the Bureau of Reclamation estimates the irrigation benefits of the first item of this project at approximately $400,000,000? Mr. KERR. Mr. President, we have seen a considerable decrease in the cost of construction during the past 12 months. A few minutes ago, I was called from this floor by the president of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE YMCA in my home city of Oklahoma City, where the board of directors have Just opened the bids for the building of a great YMCA plant there. The esti- mates had 1anged up to $1,750,000. The low bid they have just received is for $1,250,000, or approximately 30 percent below what the estimates have been. I have the feeling that the $267,000,000 will be ample to pay for the irrigation phase of this great development program. In that regard, the evidence is ample to sustain the conclusion that the sale of the power from the power project will reimburse the Government, with inter- est, for the power dam and power project, and for the total cost of the irrigation project, without interest, in a period of 73 years. This, I understand, is with the exception of approximately $9,000,000. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KERR. I yield to the Senator from California. Mr. DOWNEY. Does the Senator mean, by the remark he has just made, that the Government of the United States will be recouped for the interest upon the great power investment? If that is the Senator’s meaning, I wish to say it is totally erroneous. Mr. KERR. That is my understand- ing of the figures. Mr. DOWNEY. Then, if I may say so, if the Senator from Oklahoma believes the Treasury of the United States will be recouped for this huge sum of interest on the power investment, that is not the project that is before us. So, if the Sen- ator knew the facts, I think he would probably change his conclusion. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, Iam mak- ing my statement based upon the evi- dence which was adduced before the com- mittee, of which I was a member. The distinguished senior Senator from Cali- fornia was there. He is as able as any living human to make his viewpoints known, and to do so as effectively as any- one can. I wish to say that I have en- joyed the portions of his presentation I have heard, and I look forward with pleasure to the rebuttal which I know will soon be presented. Mr. President, there has been consid- erable discussion here in regard to what this power would be worth if it were de- voted to industrial development within the State of Arizona. It has been in criticism of a proposal to use a certain percentage of the power to pump into the irrigation district of central Arizona the water which will be made available. I wish to say, Mr. President, that I be- lieve that the people of Arizona are in the best position to Judge in what man- ner they would like to have their part of the power used. It is not difficult for me to understand that they would have some desire to have a “say” in respect to how the power is to be used. After all, this project is located entirely within their State. And, after all, agriculture is, within itself, their greatest industry. In fact, agriculture is the greatest in- dustry in the Nation. It is the basis of all industry. I have had some trouble in my own mind figuring out what would be the basis of the support of an in- dustry, no matter how advantageously 2047 it might be using available power, if there were not agricultural production to give food and clothing and shelter to the peo- ple engaged in and dependent upon the industry, as well as other people living in the State. In view of the fact that the program is the only foundation upon which the present agricultural structure of Arizona can continue to rest, and in view of the fact that the project is the only foundation upon which a greater agricultural structure can be developed in that great State, I can understand why her citizens take the position that a part of the power developed at this great power project should be used to pump Arizona’s part of the water to the important agricultural center of the State. On the other hand, it was the cone clusion of the committee that if Cali- fornia owns this water, she should be entitled to use it. I want to say that while we have @ great respect and re- sard for Arizona, we have an equal re- gard and affection for Califorma. It was my pleasure to visit that fine State a little while ago, while I was Governor of Oklahoma. The distinguished Gov- ernor of California said to me, “What do you think of our State?” “Oh,” I said, “it is a marvelous State, one of the great- est in the Nation.” He said, “Why, you are really enthusiastic about it, aren’t you?” I said, “I certainly am. I would not insult the intelligence of 150,000 Oklahomans who have deliberately chosen to move to California and to live here, by arriving at any other conclu- sion.” (Laughter.] California has one of the proudest histories and records of achievement of any State in the Union. She has developed an economy second to none. On my visit to California a little while ago, I was led to the conclu- sion that in all probability she will be- come the most populous State in the Nation by 1960. I think she really will. I warned her that unless she conserved her other water resources—— The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma hag expired. Mr. McFARLAND. I yield 7 minutes more to the Senator from Oklahoma. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen= ator from Oklahoma is recognized for 7 minutes more. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I warned her that unless she conserved a greater part of her water resources, by 1970 some other great State, like Texas or Okla- homa, would have gone around her and would have achieved first place. Calis fornia is a proud State with a great peo- ple. I know that she does not want the water unless it is hers. On the other hand, I know that she does not want Ari- zona’s development retarded, if the water is rightfully that of the State of Arizona. Therefore, the committee adopted the amendments offered by its distinguished chairman, the Senator from Wyoming (Mr, O’Manoney], and of one of its great Republican members, the junior Senator from Colorado, wherein provision was made that the entire project above the Bridge Canyon power project and the irrigation project would be authorized, that the Congress would be entitled to
2048 appropriate money immediately for the power project and dam, which were unanimously approved; that, at the same time, the State of California or any other State that had an interest in the con- troversy would be authorized to go into the Supreme Court and there seek to establish title to any part of the water; that if such action were taken, no ap- propriation would be made by the Con- gress for the irrigation part of the proj- ect, until such time as title to the water hed been declared legally vested in the State of Arizona. The amazing thing about it is that the State of California was before the com- mittee seeking favorable action upon a bill giving her a right to go to court to settle title to the water. We were re- minded that on two previous occasions Arizona had taken California into the Supreme Court to settle that very ques- tion, and that in both cases Califorma had come there to say to the Court that it had no jurisdiction of the controversy; among other reasons, for the reason that there was no justiciable issue. I think that is a kind of technical term known to the law as a legalized or duly recog- nized argument. At any rate, Arizona had California in the Supreme Court twice. Cahfornia said, ‘There is no jus- ticiable issue.” The Supreme Court said California was right, and dismissed the cases. Lawyers have advised the com- mittee, end it is my opinion, which was agreed to by the other members of the committee, that there can be no jus- ticiable issue on which California could maintain a case in the Supreme Court, even were she authorized to go there, unless and until a project were author- ized which would constitute an actual threat to California’s right to use the water. Therefore, the committee did that which recognized the claims of both sides to the controversy. On the basis of the economic justification of the project, if the water were available, it recommended jts authorization. On the basis of Cali- fornia's desire to have her case litigated, she was given that permission, if she would exercise it within 6 months from the passage of the bill. And in the event she, or any other State in the Colorado Basin should take the case to the Court for action, that would automatically stop any appropriation of the Congress with reference to the irrigation project, until the question was settled. So the controversy was resolved in order that the two States might live together in peace and harmony, and the water rights of both be equitably settled. If the waters belong to Arizona, she will not be denied victory in the hour of her triumph by having been delayed during the years the case would have been in Court, and then have to start over again in order to get the project with which to main- tain her economy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma has expired. Mr. KERR. If I may be permitted a concluding sentence, Mr. President, I submit in wisdom and equity and justice, the committee reported the bill on a basis which recognizes the rights of both Btates, and makes such provision that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the rights which they may have, as determined by the Court, will be recog- nized and honored and developed by the Congress. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains available to us? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 46 minutcs; the Senator from Arizona, 30. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada LMr, MaALone]. NEVADA-—THE COLORADO RIVER Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering setting a very dangerous precedent. The Congress has never, to the knowledge of the junior Senator from Nevada, appropriated pub- lic money to divert water from an inter- state stream system in the absence of an interstate agrcemcnt, or an adjudication by a court of compctent jurisdiction. Mr. President, I continue to hear of the controversy built up between California and Arizona. It should be emphasized again that there are five States in the lower basin not two, and that they in- clude Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Cali- forma, and Arizona. It must also be emphasized that not one of those States at this time has any definite amount of water allocated to 1t from the Colorado River. This will be the first time, Mr. Presi- dent, in the history of this bedy, if it sees fit to do so now, that the Congress of the United States has appropriated a sub- stantial sum of money, practically $1,- C00 090,020, to be appropriated to assist a State on an interstate stream system to appropriate water that may belong to other States in the basin of five States, in the absence of an interstate compact, or an adjudication by a court of com- petent jurisdiction. It has never been done, certainly so long as I have been a member of the com- mittee or have had any knowledge of the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs. It has never even been considered. Mr. President, I have attended commit- tee hearings presided over by the chair- man, the senior Senator from Wyoming. The first question he always asks is, “Do the Governors and State engineers of all the States included in this basin agree to this, and is there an interstate agree- ment?” Mr. President, this project, S. 75, has been the only exception. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. MALONE I yield. Mr. HAYDEN. The junior Senator from Nevada is very familiar with the Boulder Canyon Act, is he not? Mr. MALONE I am, Mr. HAYDEN. That act authorized construction of the All-American Canal for the benefit of the people of California, did it not? Mr. MALONE. It authorized the con- struction of Boulder Dam now Hoover Dam. Mr. HAYDEN. Was the consent of the State of Arizona obtained to the pas- sage of that bill? Mr. MALONE. Six of seven Colorado River Basin States signed the Colorado FEBRUARY 21 River compact before the project could be started. There was an interstate compact dividing the water between the upper and lower basin. Mr. HAYDEN. The Senator has just stated that Congress has never passed a bill to assist a State on an interstate stream, when more than one State was interested in the water, without first having obtained consent of all the in- terested States. Mr. MALONE. I did not say that. I said that this body had never appro- priated money to take water out of an interstate basin in the absence of an in- terstate compact dividing the water—or an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. HAYDEN. There was no inter- state agreement, there was nothing; Congress simply appropriated the money in that instance, over the protest of Ari- zona, because we had some right to the waters for irrigation purposes. So that is one precedent, which I am sure is very old and very sound, against the proposi- tion that Congress cannot act without the consent of all the States. Mr.MALONE. I beg to differ with the Senator. I have very httle time, but I want to clarify the issue. There was an interstate agreemcnt between the upper and the lower Colorado River Basins, which was approved by the Senate of the United States. It wasa six-State agree- ment. The interstate agreement was approved by the Senate of the United States and cnly then could the money be appropriated. There 1s no interstate agreement here, and the entire five lower basin States are included, not just the two States of California and Arizona. The Senator from Arizona will remember that in 1927, when I think the senior Senator from Arizona had just arrived in the Senate, and when I was State enginecr for the State of Nevada, and we were both very close to the Boulder Dam project, and there was definitcly an interstate agree- ment, which was signed by six States, as approved by the United States Senate before construction could be begun on Boulder Dam. The Senate judged that the upper basin was fully protected under the Colo- rado River compact when approved by six of the seven States of the basin, in- cluding the California imitation, which was the question at issue. Mr.HAYDEN. No. That was a pow- er plant. I am talking about irrigation works which divert water from a stream about which there is a dispute. Mr. MALONE. It was one authoriza- tion, the dam and the canal. Mr. HAYDEN. There was a provision in the bill which resulted in the irriga- tion of 400,0C0 acres of land in California, Arizona is in that basin, and its consent was never obtained to the legislation. Is that not a correct statement? Mr. MALONE. Again, I must beg to differ with the Senator. In the first place, there were not 400,000 acres put under cultivation. Flood control and water stabilization was provided for a considerable part of the 400,000 acres. The 400,000 acres was mostly in cultiva- tion at that time, before the project was constructed, and before the All-Ameri-
1950 can Canal was constructed. I beg the pardon of the senior Senator from Ari- zona. There was an interstate agree- ment dividing the water between the up- per and lower basins and six States signed it to protect the upper basin’s water supply before anything was done on the project. Furthermore, I want to emphasize that n> new water was taken out of the river except to put on land already irrigated out of the same river. Mr. President, as I have said before, this will be the first time that the Con- gress of the United States has seen fit to appropriate a large amount of money to help one State appropriate water out of an interstate stream system which never before had been utilized, even in flood- times. There has always been, so far as the junior Senator from Nevada knows, either an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, as in the case of the Platte River in Colorado and other interstate rivers. The litiga- tion in each case was finally settled be- fore the Congress of the United States appropriated a substantial sum of money for the construction of any project. In this case there is no interstate agreement and no adjudication yet it is proposed to appropriate public money to assist one of the basin States. In order to make my point clear, Mr. President, in our western country, where water is the lifeblood of the State, the limit of a State’s develorment is the mit of that State’s water supply. A State can appropriate water out of an interstate stream if it furnishes the money through private sources or State appropriations. They might then appro- priate water belonging to another State. But when a State comes to the Congress of the United States for such an appro- priation they have always been sent back for an interstate agreement or for an adjudication by a court of competent ju- risdiction prior to consideration by this body. Mr. President, I want to read briefly from a letter from the Secretary of the Interior which accompanied the report on this project. I shall read a very small portion of it: Assurance of a water supply is an im- portant element of the plan yet to be re- solved. The showing in the report of the availability of a substantial quantity of Col- orado River water for diversion to central Arizona for irrigation and other purposes is based upon the assumption that the claims of the State of Arizona to this water are valid. It should be noted, however, as the regional director and the Commissioner of Reclama- tton have pointed out, that the State of Cclifornia has challenged the validity of Ari- gona’s claim. If the contentions of the State of Arizona are correct, there 1s an ample water supply for this project. If the con- tentions of California are correct, there will be no dependable water supply available from the Colorado River for this diversion. While the necessary water supply is physically avail- able at the present time in the Colorado River, the importance of the questions raised by the divergent views and claims of the States ir apparent. The Bureau of Reclama- tion and the Department of the Interior can- not authoritatively resolve this conflict. It can be resolved only by agreement among the States, by court action, or by an agency hav- ing jurisdiction. The report is, therefore, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE transmitted to the Congress for its informa- t.on and such action as it deems appropriate under these circumstances. I feel confident that, in considering the project, the Congress should and will give this conflict the full consideration it deserves. The submission of this report is not intended in any way to prejudice full consideration and determina- tion of this controversial matter. Mr. President, I digress for a moment to say that in 1985 a committee of State engineers was appointed to determine the supply of water necessary for the lower-basin States. The junior Senator from Nevada was State engineer for Ne- vada at that time, and he and the State engineer of California and the State en- gineer of Colorado constituted the com- mittee. I shall not go into detail rela- tive to the report. It will be found on page 1503 of the CONGRESSIONAL REcoRD of February 6. Suffice it to say that the committee found that the State of Ne- vada could beneficially utilize 900,000 acre-feet of water. The letter from the Secretary of the Interior to the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs did not take Nevada into account. It merely took into account the claims of Cali- fornia and Arizona. During the time I was State engineer of Nevada, from 1927 to 1935, it was nec- essary to establish the claims of the State of Nevada above the clamor of the two States of California and Arizona. As junior Senator from that State from 1947 until the present time, we now have problems of again identifying the claims of the State of Nevada. SolIsay it is time that the claims of other States are con- sidered here. Neither Nevada, nor any other lower-basin State at this moment has any water whatever allocated to it from the Colorado River through an in- terstate agreement or adjudicated to it by a court of competent jurisdiction. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kr- FAUVER in the chair). The time of the Senator from Nevada has expired. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Rec- orp at this point Senate Joint Resolution 145, which, in our opinion, if adopted by this body, would provide for an adjudica- tion of the water, and there would be no objection to any feasible project after the water is divided by an interstate agree- ment or by a court of competent juris- diction. There being no objection, the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 145) to authorize commencement of an action by the United States to determine interstate water rights in the Colorado River, was ordered to be printed in the RrecorpD, as follows: Whereas the development of projects for the use of water in the lower Colorado River Basin is being hampered by reason of long- standing controversies among the States in said basin as to the meaning and effect of the Colorado River compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the Boulder Canyon Adjustment Act, the California Limitation Act (Stats. Cal. 1929, ch. 16), various con- tracts executed by the Secretary of the In- terior with States, public agencies, and others in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River, and other documents and as to vari- ous engineering, economic, and other facts: Now, therefore, be tt Resolved, ete., That, for the purpose of avoiding a multiplicity of actions and ex- 2049 pediting the development of the Colorado River Basin, the Attorney General is hereby directed to commence in the Supreme Court of the United States of America, against the States of Artvyona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and such other parties as may be necessary or praper to a determinae tion, a suit or action in the nature of inter- pleader, and therein require the parties to assert and have determined their claims and rights to the use of waters of the Colorado River system availabie for use in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, the long-standing precedent of demanding an interstate agreement or an adjudica- tion by a court of competent jurisdiction should be maintained by the Senate of the United States. The basic fact—long recognized by this body—that the Congress cannot deter- mine and adjudicate water rights among the western arid States has not changed. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the junior Senator from Washington. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized. Mr. CAIN. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Washington does not take lightly or derive any pleasure from the delivering of a statement in opposition to a resolution favored by citizens gen- erally in Arizona. I have recently been in Arizona. Ihave seen the country which would be affected by the central Arizona project. I have flown over it, up and down every river and lake, and have traveled over it by car. More than that, I have talked at great length with many of the fine Ari- zona people who are sponsoring this project. There are no finer people any- where. I have listened with real syme- pathy, understanding, and, as they have described their need for more water, and their hopes of getting it from the Colo- rado River. I should like to see some way found for them to get it. Iam convinced that some reasonable way must be found for them to get it. Nevertheless, I am going to vote against Senate bill 75, feeling that it does not serve the best interests of the Nation, or of the reclamation States, or even of Arizona itself, for the following reasons: First. The President, on January 3, 1950, created by executive order a Water Resources Policy Commission to study and report, not late than December 1950, on the whole fleld of reclamation policy, including the very issues that are tied up in this bill. In his budget mes- sage he asked that major water resources legislation be deferred until that Com- mission reports. The work of that Com- mission is too vital to the whole reclama- tion West, to undermine it in advance by piecemeal legislation for projects of this magnitude. Second. Senate bill 75 is an example of blank-check delegation of power to administrative officers. The bill does not disclose the cost of the project, but authorizes appropriations without lmit. It fixes no repayment period other than the useful life of the project, as deter- mined by the Secretary, with no control by the Congress. Third. The central Arizona project will cost at least $700,000,000, accoraing to the majority report, and I note that
2950 section 1 of the bill authorizes, in addi- tion, an 80-mile tunnel which would cost several hundred million more. The pro- ponents of the project tell me that power revenues will pay it all back; they admit that the irrigators cannot pay much more than the bare operation and main- tenance costs. And even if the capital is recovered in that fashion, no one has been able to tell me where the money is coming from to pay the interest to the Federal bondholder from whom the money is borrowed to build the project. I have seen figures showing that, even if all the capital is recovered, the tax burden will approximate a billion dollars in this way, of which the taxpayers of the State of Washington would bear about $18,000,000. One of the questions we have been told is intended for study by the President’s Water Resources Policy Commission is this question of ac- counting for interest. Without express- ing any opinion either way at the mo- ment, it does seem that the Commission ought to have a chance to consider that question before we close the door by a record-breaking precedent of this kind. My fourth reason for opposing S. 75, Mr. President, is that there exists a long- standing water controversy over the waters of the Colorado River. I remem- ber that in the Eightieth Congress, and again in this Congress, the Senators from Nevada and California joined in a reso- lution granting the consent by Congress to a suit in the Supreme Court, which is apparently the only way of determining the controversy. This was opposed by Arizona. I am in favor of speeding that issue to the Court. Now I find that Arizona, reversing her earlier position, has seized upon the consent to sue, has annexed her whole project to it, and that we find in S. 75 both a consent to suit and an authorization for a billion-dollar project. Iam against that way of doing business. Ido not want to be committed to all the economic innovations, included in the resolution, which the President’s Water Commission was created to con- sider, just to resolve one additional issue—and an important one—namely, the water supply. Someone has called that “burning down the house to roast the pig.” In conclusion, I am in favor of doing one of two things; either of recommit- ting S. 75, or, preferably, striking out all after the enacting clause and providing for consent to suit, in order that litiga- tion may promptly get underway. I believe the Senate should hold the rest of the bill until the President’s Wa- ter Commission reports next December, just 10 months from now. Then we will know how much water the project is to be designed for, how much it will cost” and whether it can be built under feasi- bility standards which the Commission will approve for the whole West; not just one project. I am impelled to these conclusions be- cause I am for the fullest development of the West by every sound, economical project. The central Arizona project admittedly does not meet the standards of the present law, and we will not know until the President’s Commission reports what general standards we may be asked to approve. It is not good for the West, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE or the Nation, if we approve this one project, as an exception to the law that binds the rest of us, tying up a very large portion of the reclamation budget for the whole country, until we know what the rules of the game are going to be for the other reclamation States. When the water rights have been de- termined by the courts, and the Water Resources Commission has reported, I shall willingly support any feasible proj- ect which will provide Arizona with the additional water which it is entitled to and must have. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, we have approximately 28 minutes left, and I yield to my colleague, the junior Sen- ator from California, whatever portion of that time he desires to take. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I should like to say at the outset that there is no animosity on the part of the State of California or the representa- tives of California in the Senate toward the aspirations of Arizona or any other State in the Union to have the economic development to which it is untitled. By the very nature of our Federal system, each of the States of the Union, small or large, sits here with an equa! voice and an equal vote. As one who in part repre- sents one of the great reclamation States of the West, I have tried not to look with any narrow viewpoint on the problems of not only the reclamation States of the West, but of the States in the TVA area and other areas of the country. I believe that has been the general viewpoint of other Members of the Senate. My objection to the proposed legisla- tion, Mr. President, is that it in fact breaks down the sound standard of rec- lamation laws which has served the Na- tion for a period of 50 years or more. In fact, it throws away the yardstick. I should like to say to the able Senators who represent other States in the West which may have reclamation projects in being or in prospect that there is nothing which would be more detrimental to the future of western reclamation than the adoption of projects which are unsound from a technical and an economic point of view. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that the authorization under the pending legislation is in the neighborhood of a billion and a quarter dollars. That is a great deal of money in a period when the national debt is in excess of $250,000,000,- 000, when, under the budget of the Pres- ident of the United States, we will be operating $5,000,000,000 in the red for the next fiscal year, and when we will close the current fiscal year with a deficit of more than $5,000,000,000. The able Senator from Wyoming [Mr, O’MaHONeEY], the chairman of the Com- mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, this morning tried to draw some com- parison between the project we are dis- cussing, unsound and uneconomic as it stands in the pending bill, with the Boulder Canyon Act and with the Hoover Dam construction. There is no fair com- parison between the two. The fact is that the entire reimbursable cost of the Hoover Dam is being repaid into the Treasury of the United States, with in- terest at 3 percent. Originally the in- FEBRUARY 21 terest was set at 4 percent. Before a bit of concrete was poured for the Hoover Dam it was required that contracts be in being, primarily with public and private power interests, and irrigation interests in the State of California agreeing to take the part of the output of power which was allocated to the State of Cali- fornia, and pay for it, whether they had any use for it at that time or not. Firm contracts were required. The fact is, I underscore and repeat, that every dollar of the reimbursable cost of the Hoover Dam is being paid back in principal into the Treasury of the United States, with interest at 3 percent. That is not the case with the central Arizona project. So I submit there is no comparison between the two. Mr. President, the able Senator from Wyoming made the argument that in the critical period in which our nation now finds itself, with the cold war per- haps becoming a little warmer, it is im- portant that all the States and all the Senators unite and avoid controversies in regard to projects. He at least threw out the suggestion that such division of opinion might jeopardize our solidity at this time. I am for sound projects wherever they may be located, be they in the valley of the Tennessee, in the New England States, in the Middle West, in the great South, in the Pacific Northwest, or on the Pacific coast, but I submit that for the Senate to approve a project which is unsound on its face would not con- tribute to the economic stability of the Nation, or to the solvency of the Federal Government, and I submit that if we undermine the solvency of the Federal Government, and if we undermine the sound economic stability of the Nation, by adopting unsound projects, we do not contribute to the national strength. To the contrary, we contribute to national weakness. Mr. President, the time we have at our disposal is very limited. One of the great difficulties we have had to face on the floor of the Senate has been caused by the very heavy program which every Member of the Senate has to deal with. There have been only a handful of Sen- ators on the floor of the Senate available to listen to the arguments. There are some who think this is merely a contro- versy between the State of California and the State of Arizona. The able Senator from Nevada has made perfectly clear that that is not the case because there are other States which are directly in- volved in the question of water allocation. Far more important than the matter of water allocation so far as the Senate of the United States is concerned is the question, what will this bill do to the sound reclamation laws under which we have operated for a long period of time? I have already mentioned the fact that the pending bill on its face throws the yardstick away. What do I mean by that? Under the present laws we have a yardstick, namely, that in order for a project to be feasible it must be possible that it be repaid in a period of 40 years, without interest so far as the irrigation features are concerned, and with inter- est so far as the power features are con- cerned. There is a 10-year period of grace allowed in the case of somc proj-
1950 ects, so that it may be said there is a period of from 40 to 50 years. Mr. President, that means that there is a standard which applies not only to California, Arizona, Nevada, the Upper Basin States, and the Lower Basin States, but to every State which may have a project, so that it can be meas- ured and it can be seen whether it is feasible or not. Mr. President, what is the fact about the project we are considering? It tears up the yardstick. It throws itaway. No longer is there a 40-year period, no longer is there a 50-year period, no longer is there a 60-year period, no longer is there a 65-year period, no longer is there a 70- or 75-year period. The decision is left entirely in the dis- cretion of the Secretary of the Interior. The only limitation is that he himself must find that it does not exceed the useful life of the project. There have been Roman aqueducts which lasted for periods of hundreds of years, and Ro- man roads which have lasted for much longer periods of time. I believe that the bill leaves things so wide open that the Secretary of the Interior could set 100 years or 150 years, were he inclined to do so. Even by the admission of the proponents themselves, it will take at least a period of 75 years to repay the cost of this project. If there is any Senator in this Chamber so naive as to believe that once we destroy the yard- stick, once we throw it away, we will be able to turn down other projects as un- economical and as unsound from a fiscal point of view as this one, then let him stand up now, because any other project in any other State of the Union which is as unsound from a fiscal point of view, as unsounc economically as this one can come in and under the old theory of the camel getting his nose under the tent, and say, “Why, you threw away the yardstick for the Arizona project. Now throw away the yardstick so far as we are concerned.” How can we deny the same consideration of other States with projects of their own who want precisely the same terms and conditions as Ari- zona receives? Having taken that step, the Federal Treasury is opened to a vast log-rolling, pork-barrel type of situation. We will have opened the doors not to $1,250,000,000 in this project, but ulti- mately to billions upon billions of dollars which must be paid by the already over- burdened taxpayers of the Government. But that does not end the story, be- cause once having given these terms and conditions to this one project in central Arizona, then how can we deny them to projects which are now under construction, and hold them to tougher terms? Are we going to require the great Boulder Canyon project to repay every dollar in principal, with interest at 3 percent if the same requirements are not attached to the project we are now considering and to other projects? How can we place a yardstick on projects which are now in building if we destroy the yardstick in the case of the project now under consideration? Mr. President, $1,250,000,000 is a great deal of money. I submit that even though the argument is made that the terms of the initial part of this con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE struction project are only $708,000,000, yet the terms of this authorization itself provide that once the Appropriations Committee has appropriated as much as $100 for the specific purpose of the cen- tral Arizona project, with its tunnels, then $500,000,000 becomes authorized without further authorization action by the Senate of the United States. So I submit again that it is a $1,250,000,000 authorization project. Let us now consider a few comparative figures. If Senators will turn to page 1946 of the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorp of yesterday they will find that, in order to give the Senate some comparisons, I placed in the Recorp what the total au- thorizations for river and harbor devel- opment and for flood control are in a number of State groups. Take the New England States, for ex- ample, Connecticut, Maine, Massachu- setts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Altogether the total authori- zation for rivers and harbors and for flood control, general, is only $348,400,- 000, roughly one-quarter of what would be the cost of this one project in the State of Arizona. Let us take the North Central States, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The total authorization for rivers and harbors and flood control, general, is $1,265,000,000. Almost pre- cisely the same amount as is included in this one project in the State of Arizona. Let us take the Middle Atlantic States of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The total au- thorization for rivers and harbors and flood control, general, is $988,000,000, substantially less than the $1,250,000,000 of this one project in the State of Ari- zona. Mr. President, that is a great deal of money. Iam sorry that we do not have more time and a larger attendance on the floor of the Senate of the United States, so I could call to the attention of more Senators, and at greater length, some of the documents which I placed in the ReEcorD on February 8. Perhaps if any Senators have their copies of Concres- SIONAL ReEcorps before them they will be interested, in the time before the vote, to look at some of the letters I placed in the Rrecorp. I shall briefly quote from a few of them. One fs a letter written by Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army. I shall quote from it, but I am not taking what I quote out of context. It contains the general substance of his remarks. It appears on page 1651 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of February 8. I read as follows: The legal and economic premises upon which the project as a whole is based appear to be open to serious question, particularly with respect to water rights and to the analy- sis of the economics of the works. IT shall now read from a letter written by Charles F. Brannan, under date of May 5, 1948, when he was Assistant Sec- retary of the Department of Agriculture. The project was submitted to the De- partment, and this is what Mr. Brannan had to say in his letter, which appears on page 1652 of the CONGRESSIONAL REcorRD: We cannot help b-1t feel that, in the long run, piecemeal plauning and authorization 2051 of the basin program will be inefficient and wasteful. I now read from a letter from the Fed- eral Power Commission on the same question. The letter appears beginning on page 1652, and I read from page 1653 of the ConGRESSIONAL REcorD, as follows: The Commission staff believes that the Glen Canyon Reservoir project on the Colo- rado River upstream from the Bridge Canyon site should be initiated very soon after the Bridge Canyon Reservoir is constructed. This will be necessary to prolong the period of usefulness of the storage capacity at Bridge Canyon, which would otherwise prob- ably be entirely filled with silt in from 40 to 50 years. The testimony of the best experts of the Government indicates that the cost of the project cannot possibly pay out in 70 years, because the dam will be filled with silt in from 30 to 50 years. So, un- Jess large works are built above this dam to guard it from accumulation of silt, the project cannot possibly be made to pay out on any sound economic basis. I now wish to read from a couple of messages by the President of the United States. I am sorry there are not more Members of the Senate present on the Democratic side of the aisle. There are times when I do not agree with the Presi- dent of the United States. But I think in these messages he sent to the Congress vetoing some bills which contained un- sound proposals, he did state some good doctrine, which I should like to read. Mr. WITHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. KNOWLAND. Iam sorry, but-—— Mr. WITHERS. I merely wish to ask the Senator the one question: How many Republican Senators are there present? Mr. KNOWLAND. There are not as many present as I should like to see. I have already pointed that out. I am sorry that the full membership of the Senate, except those who are necessarily absent by reason of sickness, cannot be on the floor at this time. This is what the President of the United States said in his message to the House of Representatives in returning House bill 3788: I wish also to point out to the Congress that H. R. 3788 deals with another issue which I believe should be first considered in basic law. I refer to the authorized period of repayment. There has been a tendency during our some 45 years of experience under the reclamation laws to increase the period of repayment of construction costs. Despite this trend I believe the matter of further extensions to periods greatly in excess of the 40 years (plus, in some cases, a 10-year de- velopment period) now generally authorized, 4s a matter of such vital concern to the Na- tion as a whole that it should be carefully reviewed as a principle of general application. I believe the President of the United States is eminently sound in that posi- tion. Now what has he done and what new factor has come into the picture since the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs acted? ‘The President has ap- pointed a water policy commission for the purpose of considering some of these facts, considering some of these yard- sticks. I am entirely sympathetic with the point raised by some of my friends in other reclamation States that due to
2052 increased costs, due to the fact that some of the easier projects have been built, it is no longer possible to keep them within a 40-year period. I personally would have no objection and would be inclined to favor any reasonable exten- sion 1n such cases from 40 to 45 years, perhaps even to 50 years. There might be some conditions under which the peri- od could be extended to 60 years, but if that were done it should be done by general legislation so we would still have a yardstick, and would not be destroying the yardstick, as we are proposing to do by the pending bill I am willing to sup- port legislation of that kind. But I say that the pending proposal would be de- structive of sound reclumation in the West and destructive of sound projects all over the country. Mr President, my time is drawing to aclose Despite the courtesy of my col- league from California, I wish to leave at least 5 minutes of time for him to con- clude the remarks he began this morn- ing and ably presented. I pointed out to some Senators who were present a telegram which had been received by me from Mr Carlton L Nau, general manager of the American Public Power Association I shall not take the time to read the entire telegram, I shall read only section 3 of it. (3) President's water resources policy com- mission is currently studying need for sub- sidies for inigation, fexsibility standards, relation between water and hydroelectric power, etc The bill should not be approved until commission has opportunity to study and report I hold in my hand a letter addressed to Hon ALEXANDER WILEy, under date of February 21, 1950, from Mr J. T. Sanders, legislative counsel for the Amer- ican Grange I read the last paragraph of that letter: We prre also opposed to authorizing the irngation portion of the Bridge Canyon proj- ect because (1) it 1s reported thit the actual cost of putting the inrigation water on the land would be over $1,700 per acre If this ds thue it is in violation of our policy as passed by the last annual session of Lhe Na- tional Grange that we are opposed to “up- proving any pio,ect for expenditure of funds unless a sound appraisal shows benefits in excess of costs" This applies both to a proj- ect as @ unit and any integral put of a project We are quite certaln that the Irri- gation portion of this project does not meet this important policy of requiring that bene- fits from the proposed works must exceed the cost of them Mr President, at this time, before yielding the fioor, I wish to submit a mo- tion, which I shall read Tinove that the bull (S 75) authorizing the consti uction, operation, and mainte- nance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes, be recommitted to the Committee on Interior and Insular Af- fairs, for further study and report. Mr. President, I make that motion be- cause I beheve the proponents of the measure themselves admitted by their amendment, carher today, in striking out the nonreimbursable features, that the bill had not been given the careful study CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE it should have. The President’s Policy Commission is to make a report. This bill does violate sound reclamation prac- tice. I believe the proper way for us to procecd is to recommit the bill and await the report of the President’s Policy Com- mission. Mr. President, I submit the motion. I yield now to my colleague the senior Senator from Califorma |Mr. Downey]. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator request the insertion in the REc- orp of the letter and telegram to which he has previously referred? Mr. KNOWLAND. Yes, dent; I do The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, they will be printed at this point in the Recorp The letter and telegram are as follows: Frnruary 21, 1950. Mr. Presi- Hon ALEXANDFR WIL.yY, Senate Office Building, Washington, D C Drar SENATOR WilEY This letter is written in response to your telephone request for the views of the National Grange on the proposed Bridge Canyon project of the Colo- rado River It is our judgment that the authorization of this project at the present time is unjus- tified for the tollowing reasons 1 There is no other major watershed in the United States where the use of water for irrigation power and other purposes is as important to the welfare of the watershed as in the Colorado watershed As yet there hasn't even been a pretense of a careful over- all study of the comparative economic uses of water of the Colorado River in all its possible alternative uses Until a careful study of the best potential use of the water resources of the river is made no one will be uble to Judge soundly and wisely on such piecemeal projects as is proposed for the Bridge Canyon Such a project if built, or if construction is begun, would estublish irretricvable priovity of water use that may or may not be the best possible use of the water From the evidence presented, the Bridge Canyon irrigation use appears to be indeed among the most wastelul of possible uses of the resources of the river The National Grange at its last annual session stated that "We recognize the ur- pent need for coordinated development nud uce of resources on major watershed ureas”, aud we recommended that a watershed board be set up tor each major watershed to co- ordinute the watershed planning and devel- opment and thus forestall Just such unco- o1dinuted wasteiul projects as the proposed irrigation portion of the Bridee Canyon proj- ect appears to be We therefore believe that this project should not be authorized until it can be adequately studied and fitted into its rightiul position tn an over-all watershed plan of development for the Colorado 2 We are also opposed to authorizing this project which involves the fixing of water usage rights between States that is still in bitter controversy In our 1948 annual ses- blon we passed a resolution opposing the as- fignment of the use of water in controversy between States until the dispute had been referred to the Federal courts and adjudi- cated by them In stating this we are aware of the amended provisions of the bill but fear that if the bill were passed appropriation might also be passed and irretrievable com- mitment of water might ke made or wasteful construction might be started. 3 We are also opposed to authorizing the irrigation portion of the Bridge Canyon pro)- ect because (1) it is reported that the actual cost of putting the irrigation water on the land would be over $1,700 per acre If this is true it is in violation of our policy as passed FEBRUARY 21 by the last annual session of the National Grange, that we are opposed to approving any project for expenditure of funds unless @ sound appraisal shows benefits in excess of costs. This applies both to a project as a unit and any integral part of uv project We are quite certain that the irrigation portion of this project does not meet this important policy of requiring that benefits from the proposed works must exceed the cost of them We would like to see both new authoriza- tlon and hew construction of such major resources development be held to u minimum pending an effective balancing of the Federal budget and pending the development of an over-all plan of watershed development anid administration that will prevent such unce + ordinated authorization or comnmutments cf vast sums as are involved in the Bridge Canyon project Very sincerely yours, J T Sanvers, Legislative Counsel. FEBRUARY 19, 1950 Hon WILuiaM F KNOWLAND Respectfully urge recommittal to commit- tee S 75, central Arizona project, for the following reasons 1, Colorado River is glaring example of lack of over-all cocrdinated planning for most effective use of resources of entire basin Its development as a whole should be carefully studied by an impartial board to assure most economical use of all its resources 2 Reclamation features of project contrary to power policy statement adopted by APPA Power rates overburdened with 8400.0.0,000 capital irrigation investment which irrigators cannot pay Spending such vast sums t) reclaim land to produce agricultural prod- ucts which now are surplus is totally with- out econonine justification 3 President's Water Resources Policy Com- mission is currently studying need for sub- sidics for irrigation, feasibility standards, re- lation between water and hydroelectric power, etc The bill should not be approved until Commission has opportunity to stucy and report CarLtTon L Nau, General Meneger, Amertcan Public Power Association Mr DOWNEY Mr President, in the verv bricf time remainins to m2, I wish first to reasscrt the accuracy and validity of the charts which are displayed in the Chamber When both the distinruished Senators from Arzona were on the floor, I challenged any Member of the Senate to question or deny the accuracy of these charts I acreed to yield from my own tme to permit such objection to be made. So I think 1t would be unfortunate 1f, during the closing period, when there is no opportunity to reply, any attack were made upon the accuracy of these charts I say that particularly because there has been no argument here by any Senator, except by the Sonator from Oklahoma {Mr Kerel, asserting the economic feasi- bility of this project. I say in all kindness, because I have for the great Senator from Oklahoma deep respect and love, that he made sev- eral serious errors 1n lus statement, three of them being of very great importance. In the first place, the Senator from Oklahoma evidently is not aware that, under this grotesque plan, the interest upon the power investment does not go into the Treasury but goes to help finance the farms. The Senator from Oklahoma admitted his misunderstand- ing of that; and my statement is correct,
1950 The distinguished Senator from Okla- homa assumed as the allocation for farm benefits, $272,000,000. He is wrong in that case by almost $150,000,000, because the Bureau of Reclamation allocated ap- proximately $400,000,000, which, of course, includes the allocation for the power benefits to the farm enterprises. But the farm allocation is approximately $400,000,000. The distinguished Senator from Okla- homa evidently did not realize the clear, unequivocal language of Senate bill 75 in providing, in the authorization of the additional tunnels, an additional threat of $550,000,000 against the taxpayers of the United States. Mr. President, I have no time to read into the REcorp at this point that provi- sion of the bill, but I ask unanimous con- sent to have the appropriate provision, which I shall identify later, inserted at this point in the REcorD. There being no objection, the portion of Senate bill 75 referred to was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: That construction of the tunnel and that portion of the canal hereinabove described irom the reservoir above the dam at Bridge Canyon to a junction with the aqueduct hereinafter authorized shall be deferred until Congress by making appropriation expressly therefor has determined that economic con- ditions justify its construction, and in order to provide a means of diversion of water from the Colorado River to the main canal pend- ing the construction of said tunnel and said portion of the canal and for use thereaiter as supplemental and stand-by works the Sec- retary is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate from appropriations authorized by this act an aqueduct from Lake Havasu to and connecting with the main canal in the vicinity of Cunningham Wash, and pumping plants to raise water from Lake Havasu to such elevation as may be required to provide gravity flow of such water to the main canal. Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, a dif- ference as to facts has arisen on this floor before. I have asserted, and I now reassert, that under the pending pro- posal, the farmers of Arizona cannot build their own distributing system after the water is brought to them, water that 1s pumped 1,000 feet and carricd across 300 miles of desert. They cannot even build their distributing system—the first time that has ever occurred in the his- tory of reclamation, Mr. President. They cannot pay $1 upon cither the principal or the interest of either the power or the farm benefits. O Mr. President, we are told that large profits and great prosperity will come to Arizona if this project is constructed. Yet here is a bill under which the farm- ers of Arizona will pay not one cent upon any portion of the project, including the building of their own distributing system. The Senator from Arizona denied that. Let me explain what it is. The Bureau of Reclamation estimated $450 per acre-foot.to be the ultimate which could be paid by the farmers, and stated that that would not even provide for operation and maintenance. Mr. Presicent, at this time I ask unanimous consent to have a statement on this matter printed at this point in the ReEcorD, inasmuch as there is not suffi- cient time for me to read it to the Senate. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CENTRAL ARIZONA IRRIGATION PROJECT—REVE- NUE FROM BALES OF IRRIGATION WATER COM= PARED TO OPERATING EXPENSES Paragraph (8), page F-24, of Report on Central Arizona Project, Appendixes, Decem- ber 1947: “(3) Project returns: Revenues accruing to the project are derived from the sale of irrigation water, municipal water, and elec- tric energy. Irrigation returns are based on an average delivery to the farm head gates of 636,000 acre-feet annually during the 50-year repayment period It has been determined by various economic studies described in appendix C of this report that #4 50 an acre- foot represents the practical Hmit of the farmer’s payment ability.” Annual revenue’ €36,000 acre- feet, at $4.50, mukes the an- nual revenue from the sale of irrigation water ._.....--..--- $2, 862, 000 Annual expenses: Annual irriga- tion, operation, and mainte- nance expenses, and reserve for replacements (table F-8, pp. 209-210 of H. Doc No. 136, cen- tral Arizona project) -.-..---- 3, 104, 000 Deficit of revenues to meet annual expenses_...-.-.~ 242, 000 Mr. DOWNEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona takes the figure of $475, instead of $4.50, as the correct figure for operation and maintenance; and he says the extra 25 cents an acre- foot will go for the payment of the capital or interest of this project. Mr. President, that 25 cents an acre-foot, even if 1t should ever eventuate—and the statement of the Bureau of Reclamation does not show that it will, for the Bureau fixes $450 as the ultimate capacity of the farmers to pay—will not make even a dent in the huge hundreds of millions of dollars and billions of dollars with which we are dealing in connection with this matter. Mr President, in conclusion, let me say that the Senate will do itself no good by placing the seal of its approval upon an extravagant, wasteful project in this fateful period The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Cah fornia has expired. The Senator from Arizona is recog- nized. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from Tennessce |[Mr. KEFAUVER]. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, no issue presented to the Senate in a long time has been so thoroughly debated as has this one. It certainly places a great many Members of the Senate in a very difficult position, to have to decide be- tween the arguments of the distinguished and able Senators from California and the arguments of the equally distin- guished and able Senators from the great State of Arizona. I know that many Members of the Senate would like to be able to agree with the position of both the Senator from Arizona and the Sen- ators from California, but, of course, that 4s not possible. 2053 So, in a situation such as this, we can only try to consider the project and the debate on it from the viewpoint of what, in the long run, will be in the best inter- ests of the country. I am glad to have these very few min- utes to explain the reasons why I feel compelled to vote for approval of this project. In the first place, Mr. President, all of us are agreed upon the fact that the only way the United States can progress in these critical times, can pay something on the great national debt, and can keep an increasing population employed, 1s by the correct and scientific development and use of our natural resources. So, in connection with the Bridge Canyon Dam, there seems to be no question that the dam is a correct development of the water of the Colorado River at that point. Thave a feeling that we ought to be mak- ing plans—as indeed we are—for the development and use of all our falling waters; I believe that is one of the gieat- est assets the Nation has. The Bridge Canyon Dam does require a great deal of the money to be author- ized under this measure; and as to that there is no question. The second proposal, and, of course, the one that it bitterly contested, is that dealing with reclamation and the use of water in the State of Arizona. In the first place, however desirable it may be for the development of Arizona and for the people of Arizona, they do not have a right to this water if there is a Supreme Court dccision to the contrary. So the question as to the right to the water will have to be determined; and it cannot be determined, as I understand the matter, unless there is a justiciable case before the Supreme Court. So pro- vision is made for that. The next consideration is this: If Ari- zona should be determined by the Su- preme Court to be entitled to the use of this water, then I think all of us agree that the 200,000 people of Arizona and the great amount of acreage in Arizona should have water from somewhere’ I have not heard any Member of the Sen- ate explain where else the necessary water for them will be obtained, unless from this project. Mr. President, I concede that the cost figures, as presented by the charts which are now displayed in this Chamber, and which are uncontroverted—although we may reach different conclusions from them—seem to be high. Yet, as I have listened to the argument and as I have read portions of the hearings, 1t seems to be fairly well substantiated that the an- nual benefits will exceed the annual cost; I believe the ratio set forth 1s 1.63 to 1. So the project is feasible, even though it will take a long period of time to pay for itself. But, Mr. President, what if the project is not carried forward? What if the people of Arizona, if it is decided that they are entitled to the water, are not furnished the water? I think we should consider what would happen then. It seems to be to be uncontroverted that approximately 200,000 people are very vitally affected, that many of them
2054 will have to leave the State of Arizona for economic reasons, and many of them will be unable to carry on and support themselves there, unless this water is furnished to them. So, Mr. President, there will be a direct benefit to the Fed- eral Government, by virtue of the fact that those people will be able to sustain themselves and to contribute to the econ- omy of the Nation. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Tennessee has ex- pired. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield one more minute to the Senator from Tennessee. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for one more minute. Mr. KEFAUVER. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, one of the great bene- fits flowing from projects of this kind is the increased purchasing power of the people, the increased income taxes they pay. It has been shown on the chart which is displayed before us that this project will cost the taxpayers of other States large amounts of money. Of course, Mr. President, any great project is a burden, in the beginning, on the taxpayers of other States; but it should be borne in mind that the people who will be benefited will be able to make an additional, a larger, contribution to the tax income, and they will purchase farm equipment and farming implements and other things which will add to the economy of the people in other States of the Union. So there are great indirect benefits from having the people imme- diately affected in a better economic con- dition and in using the land in the State of Arizona. Mr. President, it has been stated here that, as to cotton and certain other crops which would be raised to a larger extent if the land were developed, we already have surpluses in those commodities, and that we do not need larger production. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield the Senator one more minute. Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, on that basis, our whole conservation and agricultural program would stand con- demned, because that has been the pur- pose of the improvement of our soil, and, in an expanding economy, I think it highly necessary that we bring into use- ful production, through reclamation and irrigation projects, all the land we can, and that it is a part of the healthful de- velopment of this great country. So, with all due deference to the splendid at- titude the opponents of the project have always manifested toward such a project, and recognizing the enlightened pub- lic attitude they have taken, I feel that for these reasons I shall be compelled to vote tor the pending measure. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, will my colleague yield to me? Mr. McFARLAND. I yield to the senior Senator from Arizona. Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, the Senators from California have freely as- serted that if this bill should pass both branches of the Congress that the Pres- ident will be sure to veto it. With that assertion I most respectfully disagree, I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE base my judgment as to what he will do upon what the President said at Phoenix, Ariz., on September 24, 1948: The harnessing of the Colorado River for beneficial uses is a dramatic thing as well as a matter of good business. It’s the kind of empire building I like. I want to see the day when all the waters of that mighty river will be put to their best possible use. Today half of the water that could be sup- plied by the Colorado River system 1s still flowing down to the sea without being used. That water ought to be put on the land and used to turn out power. That's where it 1s needed for homes and crops and industry. The big problem, of course, is to eettle the division of the waters among the States of the Colorado River Basin, since there is not enough to meet all needs. The upper-basin Siates have recently arrived at a basic agree- ment, which I hope will soon be translated into a working compact. The question of the water rights of the lower-basin States is a tough one and in- volves many complex problems. This is of tremendous importance in Ari- zona, because your population and your in- dustry and agriculture have advanced more rapidly than water resources have been made available to sustain them. The lack of water 1s the limiting factor in your development right now. And in order to plan intelligently for the future you need to know how much water you can count on. The Secretary of the Interior has just sent to the Congress a detailed report on a vast project for bringing water to central Arizona. He has found that tnvestigations made over a period of yeurs show this project to be economically feasible But it depends on taking a lot of water from the Colorado. And the Secretary pointed out that Arizona's right to take this water from the Colorado River is challenged by her sister States. His recommendation for favorable consideration of the project was therefore conditioned upon Arizona's claims to the water being sub- Btantiated. Harry Truman, as the Indians say, does not speak with a forked tongue. This bill, S. 75, does just what he asked to have done when he spoke in Phoenix. As reported to the Senate, with the O’Mahoney-Millikin amendment, it pro- vides a way for a final determination by the Supreme Court as to whether Ari- zona’s claim to water from the Colorado River can be substantiated If that Court decides against Arizona, then the central Arizona project will not be eco- nomically feasible and will not be built. We, in Arizona, are willing to do just what the President suggested and take our chances on the result of a Supreme Court decision. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I yield to the junior Senator from Colo- rado. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss some of the special interests of the State of Colorado in the pending matter. Colorado furnishes about 70 percent of the water in the river at Lee Ferry, the dividing point between the upper basin and the lower basin, and 64 percent of the water in the river at the Mexican boundary. Colorado development, prosperity, and welfare depend upon the beneficial con- sumptive use of that share of the water of the Colorado River available to Colo- rado under the 1922 Colorado River com- pact and the 1949 upper Colorado River compact. FEBRUARY 21 The protection of Colorado’s interest in the Colorado River requires that the documents which constitute the law of the river be given full validity and be construed and applied in accordance with their true spirit and intent. The docu- ments constituting the law of the river are: First. Colorado River compact of 1922, Second. The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928. Third. The California Self-Limitation Act of 1929. Fourth. The Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act of 1940. Fifth. The United States-Mexico water treaty of 1944. Sixth. The upper Colorado River com- pact of 1949. The long standing quarrel between California and Arizona is a serious im- pediment to the necessary and orderly development of the Colorado River Basin, in which every State in that basin has a most important interest. The issues in- volve the integrity and the application of the documents involving the law of the river. For example, there are two points in conflict between California and Arizona, which are of vital interest to the upper-basin States. These are, first, the method of measuring consumptive use of water, and, second, the method of charg- ing reservoir evaporation losses. Senate bill 75, authorizing the central Arizona project, affords a workable meth- od for composing the vexatious disputes which concern the construction and ap- plication of the documents which con- stitute the law of the river. It appears that, for any Supreme Court litigation to determine effectively the rights to the use of Colorado River water, the United States is a necessary party. The bill as amended in committee gives the consent of the United States to its joinder in such an action to determine the right to the use of Colorado River water under the documents constituting the law of the river. In my judgment, the effect of several of the California amendments would make it impossible for the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction because there would not be a justiciable controversy. I wish to add one more comment. It seems to me the Congress, at every stage of the matter, will be in complete control of the situation. It can handle itself ac- cording to the economic condition of the country. It can handle itself according to the decision of the Supreme Court. This is a practical method of bringing to the Supreme Court, and ending for all time to come, these vexatious dis- putes which have kept the river basin in a state of turmoil, and have made un- certain the proper development of that great stream. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, in the few minutes that I have remaining in which to sum up the arguments that have been presented in behalf of the project, I may say I am not unmindful of the great responsibility resting upon me. Our State has a long history of irrigation. As has been pointed out, a prehistoric people with their own hands dug canals and developed irrigation sys- tems. The water shortage forced them to leave the State. Our modern-day irri-
1950 gation system dates from the 1860's. To be exact, construction on the first canal was begun in 1867. With horse-drawn machinery and their bare hands these pioneer citizens again began the build- ing of what is now an agricultural em- pire. There is not time this afternoon to outline that history. I mention it only because I feel that the Senate must rec- ognize the importance of the project to the people of the State of Arizona. There is now in cultivation in central Arizona, and there will be affected by the project, some 725,000 acres, practically all of which will receive supplemental water. The controversy in regard to Colorado River water has been long drawn out. In the meantime, over a pe- riod of 20 years, we have overdeveloped by borrowing from our underground water supply at the rate of more than 468,000 acre-feet per year, according to the Bureau of Reclamation. In the end this will spell disaster to the people of the State of Arizona. However, this will not recur in the future since the State of Arizona has adopted an underground water code which prevents overpumping. There is no salvation except the authori- zation of this project. I appreciate the fact that the able Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN] and the able Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'Manuoney] have afforded us the means of fighting this out in the courts. We have tried to get into court on several occasions. At every step of the road we were faced with opposition from Cali- fornia. For the first time, on the last day of the hearings on Senate bill 75, the opponents filed a resolution authoriz- ing litigation, They wanted to defeat the pending bill. They wanted to delay the project, while we went into court again. But the Supreme Court has said on several occasions, ‘There does not exist a justiciable issue, because there is not a project which is threatening the interest of the State of California.” That is what the Court said in ihe past. I per- sonally feel that we should not be re- quired again to go into court, but the opposition wanted to litigate. We are now willing to litigate. Are they? No. Now they come before the Senate of the United States and argue, “This is a costly project.” Mr. President, I want to say a word in regard to the amendments, The amendments which have been offered are crippling amendments, pure and simple, designed to defeat this bill and this project. I hope the Senate will yote them down. Time does not permit a de- tailed discussion of them, but I want the Senate to know that the committee, composed largely of Senators learned in irrigation law, and other Senators fa- miliar with irrigation problems gener- ally considered every phase of the proj- ect, including everything proposed in the amendments, and favorably report- ed the bill with amendments. Last night, at the last minute, 11 amend- ments were submitted for the first time, They have been analyzed by representa- tives of the upper-basin States. In the analysis, which I have on my desk and which I have not time to read here, the representatives of the upper-basin States have said that these amendments CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE are crippling amendments, designed to defeat the bill. I think the Senate will agree that the bill should be voted up or down on its merits, and not killed indi- rectly by crippling amendments. In all 28 amendments have been submitted for this purpose. That is not a fair or proper way to do business. The opponents of the project talk much about the cost and call it “a fan- tastic project.” But it is their figures which are fantastic. The Bureau of Reclamation has made a report showing that the project is feasible if water is available. The Bureau's engineers have reported that the benefits are 1.63 to 1. The choice before us is: Shall we accept the arguments of those who are opposing this project and who would oppose any project? If we were to follow their own statements, there is not a single feasible project in the Colorado River Basin. Are we going to stop development on the Colorado Piver? Are we going to allow 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 acre-feet of water to run wastefully into the ocean? I hope the Senate will not approve that kind of inconsistency this afternoon. We have heard much about the costs. But we have eliminated the nonreim- bursable cost to the point where there is approximately only $9,000,000 left in such nonreimbursable items. The basic law itself authorizes for such items. The opponents like to talk about the Boulder Canyon Project Act. It provided $25,- 000,000 for nonreimbursable cost. That money went to subsidize the power in- terests of Southern California, according to the testimony before the committee. That is the situation as we find it. Our Arizona people have testified they are able to pay $4.75 an acre-foot for water. The Reclamation Bureau has found such a sum can be paid. Accord- ing to the testimony of Mr. Vaud Larson, representing the Bureau of Reclamation, that sum would pay not only the opera- tion and maintenance cost, but a part of the construction cost. Compared with the rate in other States, the power rate is fair and reasonable. It provides a sub- sidy of only 0.72 of a mill as compared with 0.68 of a mill for the Central Valley of California project. That subsidy rate is less than the Big Thompson project in Colorado, which is 0.89 of a mill. It is far, far less than the amount provided for in the Missouri Valley project, where it is 2.47 mills. These figures demon- strate, I believe, that this project will pay out; and the Bureau of Reclamation figures prove it, as their own report shows. It is true, Mr. President, that we shall not pay interest on the irrigation fea- tures of the project. These controversial features amount to approximately $267,000,000. But no other irrigation project in the Nation is compelled to pay interest on the irrigation features. That is our national policy. The flood-control people get their money for nothing, and I am glad of that. I have voted for such a policy and shall continue to vote for it. I invite attention to the fact that of all the reclamation projects authorized in the entire United States, the great State of California gets 22 percent of the total. I do not regret that. I am willing to help the State of California or any other State. We are not as large as Califor- 2055 nia and we gratefully accept our smaller share of the funds that are made avail- able for reclamation purposes. That is all we are asking for now. My. President, what is this argument all about? It has become abundantly clear during the course of this debate. It is simply a question of whether Southern California power users shall receive cheaper power or whether the people of Arizona will be able to survive. If proof was needed, it was revealed this afternoon by the introduction of a power company telegram. They admit they are willing to construct the power end of the project. They say, “Just take the irrigation off, and we are willing to let it go. Let our power users in Cali- fornia have cheaper power.” It has not been denied, and cannot be denied, that unless the East and West Mesa projects in the Imperial Valley are developed, California does not need and cannot use a single drop of additional water beyond its own self-limitation act. Yet these are the very projects which California’s own university says are un- economic, have not soil fit for agricul- tural development, and should not be developed. In fact, the Secretary of the Interior has held in the Bureau’s feasi- bility report, based on the land classifi- cation of California’s own university, that these lands are not irrigable, and, therefore, he will not permit their irri- gation. That is the situation. Are we going to save Arizona from disaster? It has been estimated that up to 250,000 Amer- ican citizens will be made displaced per- sons if this project is not authorized, We have built up an agricultural empire in Arizona. Our people depend upon an agricultural economy. It has been pio- neered by men like the father of my colleague [Mr. HaypEN]—men who went out there and, with their bare hands, through toil and sweat, cleared the fields. Mr. President, this is one of the sound- est projects ever reported for Senate approval, There is no reason for all the propaganda and argument against it, except to give California industrial in- terests cheaper power which would allow the water to flow on down to Mexico as it is doing now. That is the issue before the Senate today. Let me say again, Mr. President, that the distinguished Senator from Wyo- ming [Mr. O'MaHoney] and the distin- guished Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], who are acknowledged au- thorities in this fleld and unbiased in this matter, have presented a solution. They have heard the testimony and have read the record, which has been long and voluminous. They are impartial. They want to see each State receive what it is entitled to. The amendments which have been submitted by them afford that opportunity. I know of no better law- yers in the United States Senate, or in the United States, for that matter, than these able Senators. I would take their judgment on any matter concerning irri- gation law because they have made a life-long study of it. I hope the Senate will vote in accordance with the recom- mendation of these eminent Senators. This is the only way we have of ever settling this problem because, unless this
2056 project is authorized, there would not be @ justiciable issue. That is all there is to it—a justiciable issue. All we are asking for here this after- noon is an opportunity to have this con- troversy finally settled judicially. That is the issue; there is no other. I feel certain that the people of California as a whole, apart from those who have special interests, would join us in this endeavor. It is to mutual welfare of both Arizona and California—and to the United States as a whole—that we all get together in the interest of irrigation. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sena- tor’s time has expired. All time for debate has expired. Mr. LUCAS. I suggest the absence of ® quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hendrickson Martin Benton Hickenlooper Maybank Brewster Hill Millikin Bricker Hoey Morse Butler Holland Mundt Byrd Hunt Murray Cuin Ives Necly Capehart Jenner O'Conor Chapman Johnson, Colo. O'Mahoney Ohavez Johnson, Tex. Robertson Connally Johnston, 8.C, Russell Cordon Kefauver Sxitonstall Darby Kem Schoeppel Donnell Kerr Smith, Maine Douglas Kilgore Smith, N J. Downey Knowland Sparkman Dworshak Langer Stennis Eastland Leahy Taft Ecton Lehman Taylor Ellender Lodge Thomas, Utah Ferguson Long Thye Flanders Luces Tobey Frear McCarran Tydings Fulbright McCarthy Watkins George McClellan Wherry Gillette McFarland Wiley Graham McKellar Williams Green McMahon Withers Gurney Magnuson Hayden Malone The VICE PRESIDENT. A quorum is present. Under the unanimous consent agreement debate is concluded, and the Scnate will proceed to vote now on all amendments and motions, and the final passage of the bill. There are a number of amendments which have been printed and are lying on the table. Several of them are to committee amendments, and they will have to be considered first, as the com- mittee amendments will first be disposed of. There are other amendments to dif- ferent portions of the bill. The Senator from Califernia LMr., EKNowLanp] has made a motion to re- commit the bill, and that takes preced- ence of all amendments, and will be voted on first. The question now is on the motion to recommit. Mr. WHERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll, Mr. CORDON (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Youne]. If he were present and voting he would vote “nay.” If I were permitted to vote I would vote “yea.” TI withold my vote, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. ROBERTSON (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANpERSoN], who is absent on public business. If he were present he would vote “nay.” If I were permitted to vote I would vote “yea.” I withhold my vote. The roll call was concluded. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Sen- ator from New Mexico [Mr. Anprerson], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Hum- pHrey], and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Pepper] are absent on public busi- ness. The Senator from Oklahoma I[Mr. Tuomas] is absent by leave of the Senate. I announce further that if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers], who is absent on public business, would vote “nay.” Mr. SALTONSTALL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire IMr. BnrrpceEs] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Van- DENRERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youna] is absent by leave of the Senate, and his pair with the Senator from Ore- gon [Mr. Corpon! has been announced previously. The result was announced—yeas 30, nays 56, as follows: YEAS—30 Aiken Flanders O'’Conor Brewster Hendrickson Saltonstall Bricker Hickenlooper Smith, Maine Byrd Ives Smith, N J. Cain Kem Taft Donnell Knowland Tobey Douglas Lodge Tydings Downcy Malone Wherry Dworrhak Martin Wiley Ferguson Mundt > Williams NAYS—56 Benton Hoey McKellar Butler Holland McMahon Capehart Hunt Magnuson Chapman Jenner Moybink Chavez Johnson, Colo. Millikin Connally Johnson, Tex Morse Dirby Johnston, S.C. Murray Eastland Kefauver Neely Ecton Kerr O'Mahoney Ellender K:lgore Russell Frear Langer Schoeppel Fulbright Leahy Sparkman George Lehinan Stennis Gillette Long Taylor Graham Lucas Thomas, Utah Green McCarran Thye Gurney McCarthy Watkins Hayden McClellan Withers Hill McFarlund NOT VOTING—10 Anderson Myers Vandenberg Bridges Pepper Young Cordon Robertson Hunnphrey Thomas, Okla. So Mr. Know.anop’s motion to recom- mit was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will not entertain the different amcnd- ments which have been submitted unless the sponsors of the amendments rise and offer them. The Chair is adviscd that the Senator from California [Mr. Know .anp! has an amendment to a com- mittee amendment which is now pend- ing, and which will be stated. The amendment was submitted by the junior Senator from California on behalf of himself and his colleague [Mr. Downey]. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 3, in line 25, in the committee amendment, after the colon, it is proposed to insert the following: “Provided, however, That FEBRUARY 21 the construction of Bridge Canyon Dam and of works for the utilization of the waters of the main stream of the Colo- rado River, herein authorized, shall not be commenced unless and until the Con- gress shall have authorized the construc- tion of reservoir capacity in the upper basin of the Colorado River in a total amount which the Secretary of the In- terior shall find to be adequate to assure, by the control of silt, a useful life for the Bridge Canyon Reservoir not less than the repayment period, and to assure river regulation required for the production of firm power during such repayment period in the annual quantities contemplated by the report of the Department of the Interior on the central Arizona project contained in House Document No. 136, Eighty-first Congress, first session.” Mr. KNOWLAND. On that amend- ment, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sen- ator will state it. Mr. McFARLAND. As I understand, the vote is on the amendment hereto- fore offered by the Senator from Cah- fornia {Mr. DownEy] for himsclf and his colleague, to the committee amendment? The VICE PRESIDENT. That is cor- rect. The Sccretary will call the roll. The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CORDON (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from North Dakota |Mr. Youna]. If he were present and voiing he would vote “nay.” If I were permitied to vote, I would vote “yea” I withhold my vote. Mr. ROBERTSON (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from New Mex- ico |Mr. ANDERSON], who is absent on public business. If he were present and voting, he would vote “nay.” If per- mitted to vote, I would vote “yea.” I withhold my vote. The roll call was concluded. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Minnesota | Mr. HiumpHrey!, the Senator from Pennsyl- vania !Mr. Myers], and the Senator from Florida | Mr. PErPer] are absent on public business. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers] is paired on this vote with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SAL- TONSTALL]. If present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay” and the Senator from Massachu- setts would vote “yea.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire I[Mr. Eripces] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Michigan | Mr, Van- DENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Younc] is absent by leave of the Senate, and his pair with the Senator from Ore- gon [Mr. Corpon) has been announced previously. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] is detained on official busi-
1950 ness and is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachu- setts would vote “yea” and the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 29, nays 56, as follows: YEAS—29 Brewster Hendrickson o'Conor Bricker Hickenlooper Smith, Maine Butler Ives Smith, N J. Byrd Kem Taft Cain Knowland Tobey Douglas Lodge Tydings Downey McCarran Wherry Ferguson McClellan Wiley Flanders Malone Williams Gillette Martin NAYS—56 Aiken Hill McMahon Benton Hoey Magnuson Capehart Holland Maybank Chapman Hunt Millikin Chavez Jenner Moree Connally Johnson, Colo. Mundt Darby Johnson, Tex. Murray Donnell Johnston, 8.C. Neely Dworshak Kefauver O'Mahoney Eastland Kerr Russell Ecton Kilgore Schoeppel Ellender Langer Sparkman Frear Leahy Stennis Fulbright Lehman Taylor George Long Thomas, Utah Graham Lucas Thye Green McCarthy Watkins Gurney McFarland Withers Hayden McKellar NOT VOTING—11 Anderson Myers Thomas, Okla. Bridges Pepper Vandenberg Cordon Robertson Young Humphrey Saltonstall So the amendment offered by Mr. KNOWLAND, for himself and Mr. Downey, to the committee amendment, was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The first committee amendment will be stated. The first amendment of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs was on page 3, line 20, after the colon to strike out “Provided, however,” and insert “Pro- vided, That this authorization shall not include (a) any works, dams, or reservoir at the Glen Canyon site or any other site in the Upper Colorado River Basin, or (b) «ny dam, reservoir, or works in the Lower Colorado River Basin which would flood the Glen Canyon site; Provided Jurther,” The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the committee amend- ment. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, is the vote on the first committee amend- ment? The VICE PRESIDENT. Yes. With- out objection, the first committee amendment is agreed to. The Secretary will state the next com- mittee amendment. The next committee amendment was on page 9, after line 1', to strike out sec- tion 12, as follows: Src. 12. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any moneys in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be ~ecessary to carry out the provi- sions of this act. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I now offer the amendment proposed by my colleague [Mr. Downry] for himself and for the junior Senator from Cali- fornia, No, 12. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be stated. The LgGIsLaTive CLERK. On page 8, it is proposed to restore the matter pro- posed to be stricken out in lines 12 through 15, and to insert at the end of line 15 the following: Before any money ts appropriated for the construction of any works authorized by this act, or any construction work done or contracted for, the Secretary of the Interior shall make provision for revenues by con- tract, in accordance with the provisions of this act, adequate in his judgment to insure payment of all expenses of operation, main- tenance, and replacements of said works and (e) the repayment of construction costs allocated to power, with interest thereon at not less than 2 percent per annum from the date of expenditure, within 50 years from the date when electric energy is first ready for delivery from the Bridre Canyon power plant, and (b) the repayment of construc- tion costs allocated to irrigation, without iIn- terest, within 60 years from the date of completion of the main irrigation works, and (c) the repayment of construction costs allocated to water supply for municipal and domestic purposes, with interest thereon at not less than 2 percent per annum from the date of expenditure, within 50 years from the date when water is first delivered for such purposes: Provided further, That the amount to be repaid in net revenues from the delivery of water for irrigation purposes shall be not less than the cost of the irriga- tion distribution system and drainage sys- tem to be constructed under this act, and in addition thereto 25 percent of the other estimated costs allocated to irrigation ” The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on the amendment offered by the Senator from California [Mr Know- LAND! for himself and his colleague [Mr. Downey! to the committee amendment. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, on this question I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. GEORGE (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the senior Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas], who is absent by leave of the Senate. If he were present and voting, I am advised that he would vote “nay.” If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote “yea.” I withhold my vote. Mr. ROBERTSON (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the junior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], who is absent on public business. If he were present, he would vote “nay.” If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote ‘“yea.”” I withhold my vote. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Sen- ator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Senator from Minnesota IMr, Humpurey], the Senator from Penn- sylvania (Mr. Myers], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Pepper] are absent on public business. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. THOMAS] fs absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers] is paired on this vote with the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr, SALTONSTALL]. If present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Massa- chusetts would vote “yea.” Mr. YY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Brinces] is absent by leave of the Senate. 2057 The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Van- DENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youn] is absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota would vote “nay.” The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. SALTONSTALL] is detained on official busi- ness and is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania {[Mr. Myers]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massa- chusetts would vote “yea” and the Sen- ator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 31, nays 54, as follows: YEAS—$31 Aiken Ferguson McCarran Brewster Flanders Malone Bricker Frear Martin Butler Gillette Smith, Maine Byrd Hendrickson Taft Cain Hickenlooper Tobey Capehart Ives Wherry Douglas Jenner Wiley Downey Kem Williams Dworshak Knowland Ecton Lodge NAYS—54 Benton Johnson, Colo Millikin Chapman Johnson, Tex. Morse Chavez Johnston, 8. C. Mundt Connally Kefauver Murray Cordon Kerr Neely Darby Kilgore O'Conor Donnell Langer O'Mahoney Eastland Leahy Russell Ellender Lehman Schoeppel Fulbright Long Smith,N J Graham Lucas Sparkman Green McCarthy Stennis Gurney McClellan Taylor Hayden McFarland Thomas, Utah Hill McKellar Thye Hoey McMehon Tydings Holland Magnuson Watkins Hunt Maybank Withers NOT VOTING—1i11 Anderson Myers Thomas, Okla. Bridges Pepper Vandenberg George Robertson Young Humphrey Saltonstall So the amendment offered by Mr. Knowtanp, for himself and Mr. Downey, to the committee amendment, was rejected. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, there is another amendment to the com- mittee amendment—No. 13, offered by the Senator from California [Mr. Dow- ney] and myself. I ask that it be read at this time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair advises the Senator that the amendment comes to a section of the bill other than the one affected by this committee amendment. The amendment to which the Senator refers relates to a renum- bered section. The question recurs on ugreeing to the committee amendment on page 9, after line 11. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next amendment of the committce will be stated. The next amendment of the committee was, on page 9, beginning in line 16, to insert a new section 12, as follows: Sxc. 12. If any State or States within 6 months after the effective date of this act shall begin a suit or suits in the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the right to the user of water for diversion from the main stream of the Colorado River
2058 through aqueducts or tunnels to be con- structed pursuant to this act for beneficial coneumptive use in Arizona, and to adjudl- cate claims of right asserted by such State or States or by any other State or States, under the Colorado River compact, the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057), the Cali- fornia Self-Limitation Act (Cal. Stat. 1929, ch. 16), and the Boulder Canyon Project Ad- jJustment Act (54 Stat. 774), consent ts hereby given to the joinder of the United States of America as a party in such action or actions. Any State of the Colorado River Basin may intervene or be impleaded in such suit or suits. Any such claims of right affected by the project herein authorized and asserted by any defendant State, impleaded State, or in- tervening State under said compact and stat- utes, or by the United States may be adjudi- cated in such action. In any such suit or suits process directed against the United States shall be served upon the Attorney General of the United States. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is_ any amendment proposed to the committ2e amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next amendment of the committee will be stated. The next amendment was, on page 10, after line 13, to insert a new section 13, as follows: Src 13. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act: Provided, That no moneys appropriated under the authority of this act shall be expended for the construc- tion of works authorized by this act which are required solely for the purpose of dl- verting, transporting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial consumptive use in Arizona, during the period of 6 months after the en- actment of this act and during the pendency of any suit or sults in which the United States shall be Joined as a party under and by virtue of the consent granted in section 12 of this act. The pendency of a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint shall be considered pendency of a suit or suits for the purposes of this act’ Provided further, That power sales contracts shall be made with a view to the reservation of generating capacity sufficient for the operation of all features of the project and that rates for power shall be fixed in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws; and that revenues derived from the sale of power shall be credited in accordance with the provisions of the act of May 9, 1938 (52 Stat. 291, 318). Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, to the committee amendment I call up our amendment No. 13, which is offered on behalf of the senior Senator from Cali- fornia [Mr. Downey] and myself. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment to the committee amendment will be stated. The LEcIsLATIVE CLERK. On page 9, beginning with line 16, it is proposed to strike out all through the colon in line 4, page 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following: Sec. 13. Consent is hereby given to the joinder of the United States of America as a party in any suit or suits, which any State of the lower basin of the Colorado River as that basin is defined in the Colorado River compact may move for leave to file in the Supreme Court of the United States within 6 months from the effective date of this act for the adjudication of claims of right as. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE serted by such State, by any other State, or by the United States, with respect to the waters of the Colorado River system as de- fined in said compact In uny such suit or suits, process directed against the United States shall be served upon the Attorney Gen- eral of the United States. Sec.14 No authority shall be exercised hereunder and no work shall be commenced and no moneys appropriated or expended on or in connection with the works or struc- tures provided for herein which are required for the purpose of diverting, transporting, and delivering water from the main stream of the Colorado River for beneficial consump- tive use in Arizona unless and until the right cf the State of Arizona to take and use 1,200,- 000 acre-feet of water per annum from the main stream of the Colorado River by means of said works or structures shall have been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, and if the Supreme Court does not determine that the State of Arizona ts entitled to so take and use said quantity, the authorization for the construction of said works shall cease The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senators from California to the committee amendment. Mr. KNOWLAND I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CORDON (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the junior Senator from North Dakota |Mr. Younc]. If he were present and voting, he would vote “nay.” If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote “yea.” I withhold my vote. Mr. ROBERTSON (when his name was called). On this vote, I have a pair with the junior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], who is absent on public business. If he were present, he would vote “nay.” If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote “yea.” I withhold my vote. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Sen- ator from New Mexico iMr. Anprerson], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Hum- PHREY 1], the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers], and the Senator from Flor- ida {Mr. Pzoprer) are absent on public business. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers] is paired on this vote with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr, SaL- TONSTALL]. If present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Massachu- setts would vote “yea.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BripcEs] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. VAN- DENBERG] js necessarily absent. The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Younc] is absent by leave of the Senate, and his pair with the Senator from Ore- gon [Mr. Corpon] has been announced previously. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] is detained on official busi- ness and is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania {Mr. Myers]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachu- setts would vote “yea” and the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay.” FEBRUARY 21 The result was asnounced—yeas 27, nays 58, as follows YEAS-—-27 Brewster Ferguson Malone Bricker Hendrickson Martin Butler Hickenlooper O’Conor Byrd Ives Smith, Maine Cain Knowland Smith, N J. Donnell Lodge Taft Douglas McCarran Wherry Downey McCarthy Wiley Dworshak McClellan Williams NAYS-—58 Aiken Hoey Maybank Benton Holland Millikin Capehart Hunt Morse Chapman Jenner Mundt Chavez Johnson, Colo Murray Connally Johnson, Tex. Neely Darby Johnston, 5. C. O’Mehoney Eastland Kefauver Russell Ecton Kem Schoeppel Ellender Kerr Sparkman Flanders Kilgore Stennis Frear Langer Taylor Fulbright Leahy Thomas, Utah George Lehman Thye Gillette Long Tobey Graham Lucas Tydings Green McFarland Watkins Gurney McKellar Withers Hayden McMahon Hill Magnuson NOT VOTING—11 Anderson Myers Thomas, Okla. Bridges Pepper Vandenberg Cordon Robcrtson Young Humphrey Saltonstall So the amendment offered by Mr. KNOwLANnND, for himself and Mr. Downey, to the committee amendment, was re- jected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion now recurs on agreeing to the com- mittee amendment on page 10, after line 13. The committee agreed to. The VICE PRESIDENT. The next committee amendment is the one on page 11, after line 11, inserting section 14, as amended by the amendments heretofore proposed by Mr. McFarianp. Without objection, the amendment, as amended, is agreed to. The amendment, as amended, is as follows: Sec. 14, (a) In aid of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the works authorized by this act, there is hereby granted to the United States, subject to the provisions of this section, (1) all the right, title, and interest of the Indians in and to such tribal and allotted lands, including sites of agency and school buildings and related structures, as may be designated from time to time by the Secretary in order to provide for the construction, operation, or mainte- nance of said works and any facilities inci- dental thereto, or for the relocation or recon- struction of highways, railroads, and other properties affected by sald works; and (2) such easements, rights-of-way, or other in- terest in and to tribal and allotted Indian lands as may be designated from time to time by the Secretary in order to provide for the construction, operation, maintenance, relocation, or reconstruction of said works, facilities, and properties: Provided, That be- fore designating any tribal lands, or any easements, rights-of-way, or other interests in tribal lands, the Secretary shall make every reasonable effort to negotiate a con. tract for the purchase of such lands or interests on reasonable terms from the tribe of Indians concerned, and that the Secretary shall proceed with the designation of lands or interests under this section only if he finds that reasonable efforts to negotiate amendment was
1950 with the tribe of Indians concerned have been made, but have not resulted in, and are not apt to result in, @ mutually satis- factory agreement. The Secretary is au- thorized to provide in any such contract for the payment of compensation in the same forms through which compensation may be made pursuant to a designation under this section, and any tribe of Indians entering into such a contract is authorized to execute the conveyances or other instruments needed for its effectuation, notwithstanding any provision of law or of any tribal constitution or charter to the contrary. (b) As lands or interests in lands are designated from time to time under this section, the Secretary shall determine the just and equitable compensation to be made therefor. Such compensation may be in money, property, or other assets, including rights to electric energy developed at any of the generating plants herein authorized. In fixing such rights to electric energy, includ- ing the rates and other incidents thereof, the Secretary shall not be bound by section 4 of this act. Any Indian tribe or individual Indian owning lands or interests designated under this section who is dissatisfied with the determination of compensation made by the Secretary shall have a right of action against the United States to recover such additional sums of money, if any, as may be requisite under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or under any treaty or agreement made by the United States, to pro- vide just and equitable compensation for the taking of the lands so designated. Such action may be instituted in the United States district court for the district where the lands or interests are situated or in the Court of Claims, at the election of the plaintiff. The amounts of money determined as compen- sation hereunder for tribal lands shall be transferred in the Treasury of the United States from funds made available for the purposes of this act to the credit of the appropriate tribe pursuant to the provisions of the act of May 17, 1926 (44 Stat. 560). The amounts due individual allottees or their heirs or devisees shall be paid from funds made available for the Purposes of this act to the superintendent of the appropriate Indian agency, or such other officer as shall be designated by the Secretary, for credit on the books of such agency to the accounts of the individuals concerned. (c) Funds deposited to the credit of al- lottees, their heirs or devisees, muy be used, in the discretion of the Secretary, for the acquisition of other lands and improvements, or the relocation of existing improvements or the construction of new improvements on the lands so acquired for the individuals whose lands and improvements are acquired under the provisions of this section. Lands so acquired shall be held in the same status as those from which the funds were derived, and shall be nontaxable until otherwise pro- vided by Congress. (d) Whenever any Indian cemetery lands are required for the purposes of this act, the Secretary is authorized, in his discretion, in Heu of requiring payment therefor, to establish cemeteries on other lands that he may select and acquire for the purpose, and to remove bodies, markers, and appurte- nances to the new sites. All costs incurred in connection with any such relocation shall be paid from moneys appropriated for the purposes of this act. All right, title, and interest of the Indians in the lands within any cemetery so relocated shall terminate and the grant of title under this section take effect as of the date the Secretary authorizes the relocation. Sites of the relocated ceme- teries shall be held in trust by the United States for the appropriate tribe, or family, as the case may be, and shall be nontaxable. (e) The Secretary is hereby authorized to perform any and all acts and to prescribe CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE such regulations as he may deem appropri- ate to carry out the provisions of this section. (f) Nothing in this act shall be construed as, or have the effect of, subjecting Indian water rights to the laws of any State. The VICE PRESIDENT. That com- pletes the committee amendments. The bill is open to further amendment. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I call up at this time amendment No. 7, offered by my colleague [Mr. Downey] and myself. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will state the amendment. The Cuier CierK. On page 5, line 18, it is proposed to change the semicolon to a colon and insert: “Provided, That un- less the Secretary determines that the net revenues from the delivery of water for irrigation purposes will be at least sufficient to return to the United States the cost of the irrigation distribution system and drainage system to be con- structed under this act, and in addition thereto 25 percent of the other estimated costs which can properly be allocated to irrigation, then the irrigation works au- thorized in this act shall not be con- structed.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from California {Mr. Know tanp] for himself and his col- league [Mr. Downey]. Mr. KNOWLAND. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ROBERTSON (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], who is absent on public business. If he were present and voting, he would vote “nay.” If I were permitted to vote, I would vote “yea.” I withhold my vote. The roll call was concluded. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDER- son], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuMpuHrey], the Senator from Penn- sylvania [Mr. Myers], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. PEPPER] are absent on public business. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers! is paired on this vote with the Senator from Massachusetts {Mr. SaL- TONSTALL]. If present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay.” and the Senator from Massa- chusetts would vote “yea.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire I[Mr. Bripces] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. VANDENBERG! is necessarily absent. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr, Younc] is absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota would vote “nay.” The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] is detained on official busi- ness and is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myrgrs]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachu- setts would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay.” 2059 The result was announced—yeas 28, nays 58, as follows: YEAS—28 Aiken Flanders Martin Brewster Frear O’Conor Bricker Hendrickson Taft Butler Hickenlooper Tobey Byrd Ives Tydings Cain Kem Wherry Capehart Knowland Whiley Douglas Lodge Williams Downey McCarran Ferguson Malone NAYS—58 Benton Holland Maybank Chapman Hunt MiJlikin Chavez Jenner Morse Connally Johnson, Colo. Mundt Cordon Johnson, Tex. Murray Darby Johnston, 8 C. Neely Donnell Kefauver O’Mahonhey Dworshak Kerr Russell Eastland Kilgore Schoeppel Ecton Langer Smith, Maine Ellender Leahy Smith. N. J. Fulbright Lehman Sparkman George Long Stennis Gillette Lucas Taylor Graham McCarthy Thomas, Utah Green McClellan Thye Gurney McFerland Watkins Hayden McKellar Withers Hill McMahon Hoey Magnuson NOT VOTING—10 Anderson Pepper Vandenberg Bridges Robertson Young Humphrey Saltonstall Mycrs Thomas, Okla So Mr. KNow.Lanp’s amendment, on behalf of himself and Mr. Downey, was rejected. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. Pu.esident, I send forward the last amendment which I intend to offer, which is numbered 9, and ask that it be stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from California. The CHIEF CLERK. On page 6, line 7, beginning with the colon, it 1s proposed to strike out all through line 10 und in- sert in lieu thereof the following: ‘as provided in this act: Provided, That the repayment period for costs allocated to power shall not exceed 50 years from the date when electric energy is first ready for delivery from the Bridge Can- yon power plant: Provided further, That the repayment period for costs allocated to irrigation shall not exceed 60 years from the date of completion of the main irrigation works: Provided further, That the repayment period for costs allocated to water supply for municipal and do- mestic purposes shall not exceed 50 years from the date when water is first deliv- ered for such purposes.” The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agrecing to the amendment offered by the Senator from California. Mr. KNOWLAND and other Senators requested the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ROBERTSON (when his name was called), On this vote I have a pair with the Senator from New Mexico LMr. An- DERSON] who is absent on public business. If he were present, he would vote ‘‘nay.” If I were permitted to vote, I would vote “yea.” The roll call was concluded. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Sen- ator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Senutor from Minnesota (Mr.
2060 HuMmpuReY], the Senator from Pennsyl- vania |Mr. MyYErs], and the Senator from Plorida (Mr. Pepper] are absent on public business. The Senator from Oklahoma I[Mr. THoMas] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Myers! is paired on this vote with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SaL- TONSTALL]. If present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay,” and the Senator from Massachu- setts would vote “‘yea.” Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Michigan {Mr. VAN- DENBERG|! is necessarily absent. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. YounG! is absent by leave of the Senate. If present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota would vote “nay.” The Senator from Massachusetts [ Mr. SALTONSTALL] is detained on official busi- ness, and is paired with the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. MyYers]. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts would vote “yea,” and the Senator from Pennsylvania would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 31, nays 54, as follows: YEAS—31 Aitken Ferguson Malone Brewster Flanders Martin Bricker Gillette Mundt Butler Hendrickson Smith, Maine Byrd Hickenlooper Taft Cain Ives Tobey Capehart Kem Whiley Douglas Knowland Willlams Downey Lodge Wherry Dworshak McCarran Ecton M-Clellan NAYS—54 Benton Hunt Maybank Chapman Jenner Millikin Chavez Johnson, Colo. Morse Connally Johnson, Tex Murray Cordon Johnston,8 C Neely Darby Kefauver O’Conor Donnell Kerr O'Mahoney Eastland Kilgore Russell Ellender Langer Schoeppe} Fulbright Leahy Smith, N J. George Lehman Sparkman Graham Long Stennis Green Lucas Taylor Gurney McCarthy Thomas, Utah Hayden McFarland Thye Hill McKellar Tydings Hoey McMahon Watkins Holland Magnuson Withers NOT VOTING—11 Anderson Myers Thomas, Okla, Bridges Pepper Vandenberg Frear Robertson Young Humphrey Sa'tonstall So Mr. KNOWLAND’s amendment was rejected. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be offered, the question {s on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question now is, Shall the bill pass? Mr. KNOWLAND. I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CORDON (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE the junior Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Youne]. If he were present and voting he would vote “yea.” If I were permitted to vote I would vote “nay.” I withhold my vote. Mr. GEORGE (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the senior Senator from Oklahoma [Mr, THOMAS] who is absent by leave of the Senate. If present he would vote “yea.” If I were permitted to vote I would vote “nay.” I withhold my vote. Mr. ROBERTSON (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the junior Senator from New Mexico !Mr. ANDERSON], who is absent on public business. If he were present and voting he would vote “yea.” If I were permitted to vote I would vote “nay.” I withhold my vote. The roll call was voncluded. Mr. FREAR. Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the senior Sen- ator from Pennsylvania {[Mr. Myers], who is absent on public business. If he were present and voting he would vote “yea.” If I were permitted to vote I would vote ‘‘nay.”’ I therefore withhold my vote. Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico |Mr. ANDER- son}, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Humpurey], the Senator from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Myers], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. PEPPER] are absent on public business. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Tuomas] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate. Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Erinces] is absent by leave of the Sen- ate. The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Van- DENBERG] is necessarily absent. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Youne! is absent by leave of the Sen- ate and his pair with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Corpdon] has heen an- nounced previously. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL! is detained on official busi- ness. If present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts would vote “nay.” The result was announced—yeas 55, nays 28, as follows: YEAS—-55 Benton Hunt Magnuson Butler Jenner Maybank Copehart Johnson, Colo Millikin Chapman Johnson, Tex. Morse Chavez Johnston, S.C Mundt Connally Kefauver Murray Darby Keir Neely Fastland Kilgore O'Mahoney Ecton Langer Russell Eltcnder Leahy Schoeppel Fulbright Lehman Sparkman Gillette Long Stennis Graham Lucas Taylor Green McCarran Thomas, Utah Gurney McCarthy Thye Hayden McClellan Watkins Hill McFarland Withers Hoey McKellar Holland McMahon NAYS—28 Aitken Flanders Smith, Maine Brewster Hendrickson Smith,N.J, Bricker Hickenlooper Taft Byrd Ives Tobey Cain Kem Tydings Donnell Knowland Wherry Douglas Lodge Wiley Downey Malone Wiliams Dworshak Martin Ferguson, O'Conor FEBRUARY 21 NOT VOTING—13 Anderson Humphrey Thomas, Okla. Bridges Myers Vandenberg Cordon Pepper Young Frear Robertson George Saltonstal) So the bill (S. 75) was passed. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE A message from the House of Repre- sentatives, by Mr. Maurer, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed, without amendment, the following bills of the Senate: 8.204. An act for the relief of Eugenio Matsterrena Barreneche; 8 229. An act for the relief of E. W. Eaton Coal Co.; 8.309. An act for the relief of Gabe Bud- wee, S 321. An act for the relief of Lloyd D, Lyles; 8 481. An act for the relief of the legal guardian of Clarence Herbert Hartman, a minor; 8 563. An act for the relief of the P. 8. Cook Co,; S 914. An act for the relief of Gladys Inez Greenwood; 8.1449. An act for the relief of Robert B. Workman, S 1916, An act for the relief of Edna A. Baueser; S 1933 An act for the relief of C. L. Lefiingwell and others; and 8.2520 An act to authorize the sale of certain allotted devised land on the Winne- bago Reservation, Nebr. The message also announced that the House had agreed to the following con- current resolutions of the Senate, cach with amendments, in which it requcsted the concurrence of the Senate: S. Con. Res. 44. Concurrent resolution fae voring the suspension of deportation of cer- tain aliens, and S. Con. Res. 45 Concurrent resolution fa- voring the suspension of deportation of cer- tain aliens. ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The message further announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the enrolled bill (S. 1990) to amend sec- tion 429, Revised Statutes, as amended, and the act of August 5, 1882, as amended, so as to substitute for the re- quirement that detailed annual reports be made to the Congress concerning the proceeds of all Sales of condemned naval material a requirement that information as to such proceeds be filed with the Committee on Armed Services in the Congress, and it was signed by the Vice President. TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE BUSINESS By unanimous consent, the following routine business was transacted: PETITION Mr. ELLENDER presented a telegram in the nature of a petition from J. Se- gari & Co., of New Orleans, La., by Jo- seph O. Segari and Elliott W. Fassbender, Sr., partners, relating to the importation of potatoes from Canada, which was re- ferred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. COMPULSORY HEALTH INSURANCE—RES- OLUTION OF DELAWARE STATE DENTAL SOCIETY Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I have received a resolution adopted by the
1950 Delaware State Dental Society on Feb- ruary 15, 1950, memorializing the Con- gress to refrain from imposing upon the citizens of this Nation any form of com- pulsory health insurance, and I ask unanimous consent that the resolution may be appropriately referred and print- ed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was rcferred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Whereas the American people now enjoy the highest level of health, the best stand- ards of scientific medical and dental care and the finest medical and dental institu- tions ever attained by any major country in the world; and Whereas these accomplishments of Amer!- can medicine and dentistry are the results of a free people working under a system of free enterprise; and Whereas in all countries where government has assumed control of medical and dental care the experience has been a progressive deterioration of medical and dental stand- ards and care, to the detriment of the health of the people; and Whereas this problem has been adjudged so serious by the people of Delaware that reso- lutions from its State legislature have me- morialized Congress not to pass such legisla- tion: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Delaware State Dental So- ciety: 1. That the Congress of the United States be asked to refrain from imposing upon the citizens of this Nation any form of compul- sory health insurance, or any system of medi- cal or dental care containing the principles of federalized compulsory health insurance; 2 That the Honorable JoHN J WILLIAMS. the Honorable J. ALLEN Frear, Jr, and the Honorable J Cates Boacs, Members of the Congress of the United States from Delaware, be, and they are hereby, respectfully re- quested to use every effort at their command to prevent the enactment of such legislation; 3. That copies of this resolution be trans- mitted to the President of the United States, the Presiding Officers of the United States Senate and the United States House of Repre- sentatives, and to each Senator and Con- gressman trom Delaware. LITHUANIAN INDEPENDENCE Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I present for appropriate reference a resolution adopted by priests and members of Our Lady of Vilna Parish and their guests assembled in the parish hall, Worcester, Mass., on February 16, 1950, in celebra- tion of the thirty-second anniversary of Lithuanian Independence Day. The res- olution favors recognition of the inde- pendence of Lithuania. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Reccrp. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Whereas the United States of America has ever defended the God-given right of all na- tions to determine for themselves the form of government under which they desire to live; and Whereas the United States of America with Great Britain signed the Atlantic Charter, the principles of which guarantee all nations, both large and small, this right of self-rule without interference of any kind from any outside and alien source; and Whereas the United States of America joined with the Allies in World War II to assure for the entire world a just and last- ing peace which can and shall exist only when all nations, both large and small, live XCVI——130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE as free and independent nations in accord- ance with recognized principles of justice and charity; and Whereas the Republic of Lithuania, a small freedom-loving nation, which made astounding advancement and progress in all fields of endeavor during the 21 years of her tndependence (1918-39), has been for- cibly and unjustly denied the exercise of this right by a cruel and ruthless Soviet and hes been refused a place and a voice in the United Nations by the great powers who have acquiesced to the unjust and immoral de- mands of the Soviet; and Whereas authoritative sources of informr- tion clearly indicate that the present policy of Soviet Russia calls for the shameless com- mission of the international crime of geno- cide upon liberty-loving Lithuania by the complete destruction and annihilation of Lithuania's Government and of her cultural, educational, economic, industrial, and agri- cu'tural systems: Now, theretore, be it Resolved, Theat the United States of Amer- ica continue to maintain and uphold its present policy of recognizing the de jure independence of Lithvania despite the un- just absorption of Lithuanta’s territories .within the Russian orbit; be it further Resolved, That the United States of Amer- ica insist upon invoking the principles of the Atlantic Charter, thereby guaranteeing the immediate and positive restoration of the independence of Lithuania; be it further Resolved, That the Republic of Lithuanta be admitted and accepted as an active mem- ber of the United Nations and that her officially appointed representatives be per- mitted to enjoy with full privileges the status of duly-elected delegates of that organiza- tion, be it further Resolved, That the Government of the United States of America ratify the Genocide Convention, ratification of which would open up the way for Lithuania to present her cage against Russia to the entire world, be !t further Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded to the President of the United States, His Excellency, the Honorable Harry S. Truman; to the Secretary of Stute, the Honorable Dean Acheson; to the head of the United States delcgation to the United Na- tions, the Honorable Warren R. Austin; to the chairman of the Senate subcommittee now considering ratification of the Genocide Convention, the Honorable Bricn McMahon; to the Senators of Massachusetts, the Hon- orable Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr, and the Hon- orable Leverett Saltonstall; to the Repre- sentative of the Fourth Congressional Dis- trict of Massachusetts, the Honorable Harold D Donohue, and to the press CONSTANTINE A. VaSyYSs, Chairman. Mrs TEKLA MAZEIKA, Secretary BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr HOLLAND: § 3089. A bill for the relief of Antonino Firetto; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. McCARRAN: S.3090 A bill for the relief of Lieutenant (junior grade) Charles W. Ireland, Supply Corps, United States Navy, and for other pur- poses; to the Committce on the Judiciary, By Mr. McMAHON: S 3091. A bill for the rellef of Master Stanley (Zachne) Hiller; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. LODGE: S.3092. A bill to recognize the Italian- American World War Veterans of the United States, Incorporated, a national non-profit nonpolitical war veterans’ organization, for purposes of bestowing upon it certain bene- 2061 fits, rights, privileges, and prerogatives; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. McCARRAN: 8.3C93. A bill to amend section 82 of the Hawalian Organic Act relating to the supreme court of the Territory of Hawaii and temp- orary vacancies therein; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. LEHMAN: 8 3004. A bill for the relief of Miriam Rosenblum; to the Committee on the Judi- cilary (Mr. THOMAS of Utah introduced Senate bill 3095, to assure that expenditures under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, as amended, for education and training yield @ prover return both to the veteran and to the Nation as a whole, which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare, and appears under a separate heading ) SERVICEMEN’S EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING PROGRAM Mr. THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, at the request of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, and recommended by the President, I introduce for appro- priate reference a bill providing a serv- icemen’s educational and training pro- gram, and I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory statement of the bill by me, together with a letter from the Ad- ministrator of Veterans’ Affairs, under date of February 20, 1950, be printed in the REeEcorp. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be reccived and appropriately referred, and, without objection, the explanatory statement presented by the Senator from Utah will be printed in the Reccrp. The Chair hears no objection. The bill (S. 3095) to assure that ex- penditures under the Servicemen’s Re- adjustment Act, as amended, for educa- tion and training yield a proper return both to the veteran and to the Nation as a whole, introduced by Mr. THomas of Utah, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The explanatory statement and letter presented by Mr. Tuomas of Utah are as follows: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT BY SENATOR THOMAS OF UTAH As will be recalled the letter of transmittal of this draft Icgislation, which was referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare by the Vice President, also referred to the message of the President of the United States to the Congress datcd February 13, 1950. Mr. President, the subject matter of this draft legislation poses one of the most dif- ficult problems before the Congress On the one hand we have the natural desire to give to every veteran his full share of earned benefits through service in the late war, and, of course, in World War I. On the other hand we must be vigilant with respect to any exploitation or attempted exploitation of the veteran for unconscionable private gain. The Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare invited, in fact urged the Administrator to present a solution in the form of a draft bill, and these efforts are appreciated. Sober consideration will be given to the proposals reflected in this draft, in the light of the considerations mentioned, and in the light of the fact that this committee unanimously reported a bill containing features believed to be greatly in the public interest, a bill which passed the Senate but which had not been acted upon in the House during the closing days of the first session, or this ses- sion prior to the President’s message.
2062 VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., February 20, 1950. Hon. ALBEN W. BARKLEY, President of the Senate, Washington, D.C. Drar Mr. PRESIDENT: At the request of the President, there is transmitted herewith a draft of a bill entitled “A bill to assure that expenditures under the Servicemen's Read- justment Act, o5 amended, for education and training yield a proper return both to the veteran and to the Nation as a whole” This draft bill is furnished for the use of the Congress in its consideration of legisla- tion to implement certain recommendations contained in the report of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget which accompanied the message of the President of the United States to the Congress, dated February 13, 1950 (copy of House Doc. No. 466 enclosed), concerning the education and training pro- gram under the Servicemen'’s Readjustment Act. The specific recommendations to which the proposed draft relates are Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, under the general heading ‘“Recom- mendations" in the concluding part (pt. IV) of the mentioned report. Certain other recommendations (Nos. 2 and 3) contained in the report submitted to the Congress by the President are not included in the enclosed draft for the reason that they are embodied in the budget of the United States Government for the fiscal year 1951, previously submitted by the President and appearing under the heading "Readjust- Ment benefits’ (p. 136, pt. II, House Doc. No. 405). Sincerely yours, Car. R. Gray, Jr., Administrator. PRINTING OF COMMITTEE PRINT EN- TITLED “HIGHWAYS AND THE NATION'S ECONOMY” Mr. O’MAHONEY submitted the fol- lowing resolution (S. Res, 232), which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration: Resolved, That the committee print en- titled “Highways and the Nation’s Economy,” prepared for the use of the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, be printed with illustrations as a Senate document. AMENDMENT OF UNITED STATES CODE~ AMENDMENT Mr. McCARRAN submitted an amend- ment in the nature of a substitute, in- tended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 638) to amend title 28, United States Code, which was referred to the Commit- tee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS—AMENDMENTS Mr. TYDINGS submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 5472) authorizing the con- struction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and har- bors for navigation, flood control, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. LEHMAN submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 5472, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOT- MENTS—AMENDMENTS. Mr. WHERRY submitted an amend- ment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 398) relat- ing to cotton and peanut acreage allot- ments and marketing quotas under the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed. Mr. WILLIAMS (for himself, Mr. Ivzs, Mr. SALTONSTALL, and Mr. HenpRrICKsONn) submitted amendments intended to be proposed by them, jointly, to House Joint Resolution 398, supra, which were or- dered to lie on the table and to be printed. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED OR PLACED ON CALENDAR The following bills were severally read twice by their titles and referred, or ordered to be placed on the calendar, as indicated: H R. 4316. An act to repeal the authority to assess certain owners of nonmilitary build- ings situated within the limits of the Fort Monroe Military Reservation, and for other purposes; and H.R. 6539. An act to amend Public Law 626, Eightieth Congress, relating to the Army Institute of Pathology Building; to the Com- mittee on Armed Services. H R 6562 An act to amend the Veterans Regulations and the World War Veterans” Act, 1924, as amended, to provide additional compensation for the loss or loss of the use of a creative organ; to the Committee on Finance. H. R. 7220. An act to expedite the rehabili- tation of Federal reclamation projects in cer- tain cases; ordered to be placed on the cal- endar, TRIBUTE TO SENATOR WILEY FROM THE NORTHWEST REPUBLICAN (Mr. KNOWLAND asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article in tribute to Senator WILEY from the Northwest Republican, which appears in the Appendix.] THE BUSINESS OUTLOOK IS WHAT WE MAKE IT—ADDRESS BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE [Mr. KEFAUVER asked and obtained leave to have printed in the REcorgp an address delivered by Hon. Thomas C. Blatsdell, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Commerce, before the Economic Conference on the Business Out- look, in Chattanooga, Tenn., February 17, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] DISPLACED-PERSONS LEGISLATION— MINORITY REPORT [Mr. KILGORE asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial entitled “Minority Report,” from the New York Times of February 19, 1960, with re- aspect to the displaced-persous bill, which appears in the Appendix ] WILLIAM P. ROGERS—EDITORIAL FROM WASHINGTON POST [Mr O’CONOR asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorial, entitled ‘Modern Investigator,” paying tribute to William P. Rogers, published in the Washington Post of February 21, 1950, which appears in the Appendix J BOUNTIFUL FUTURE—ARTICLE BY DAVID CAMELON {Mr. WILEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Bountiful Future,” written by David Camelon and printed in the February 19, 1950, issue of the American Weekly, which appears in the Appendix.) ONE BIG BILL—EDITORIAL FROM WASH- INGTON DAILY NEWS [Mr. MCCLELLAN asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an editorlal entitled “One Big Bill,” published in the Washington Daily News of Monday, February 20, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] FEBRUARY 21 ADVICE TO THE CAB—ARTICLE FROM AMERICAN AVIATION MAGAZINE [Mr. GURNEY asked and obtained leave to have printed in the Recorp an article en- titled “Advice to the CAB,” published in the American Aviation Magazine on February 15, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.] DISPLACED PERSONS—ARTICLE BY WILLIAM A. MILLEN (Mr MAYBANK asked and obtained leave to have printed in the RrEcorp an article relating to displaced persons, written by Wil- liam A. Millen, and published in the Wash- ington Evening Star of February 20, 1950, which appears in the Appendix.) COMMUNISTS IN GOVERMENT SERVICE Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, it goes without saying that the address delivered yesterday by the able Senator from Wis- consin {[Mr. McCartuy] presents some very serious charges against the State Department, whether the charges be con- sidered singly or together. I believe that those who have read the Recorp, or those who heard the statements made by the Senator from Wisconsin, will not deny that the charges cast a dark cloud of suspicion upon the loyalty of many per- sons who are now serving in the State Department of the Government. I be- lieve also, after reading the Recorp this morning, that the charges present serious implications to the safety and security of the Nation. In my humble opinion, the charges can neither be ignored nor bargained with. It seems to me that a complete and thorough investigation of the charges should be made. On last evening, in the debate with the able Senator from Wisconsin, I advised the Senator that we would with all con- venient speed act to have the charges investigated. After a discussion of the question this morning at a meeting of the Democratic conference and the Dem- ocratic policy committee, and after dis- cussing it with the distinguished chair- man of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions [Mr. ConnaLLty], we have agreed upon a resolution, which I send to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will read the resolution. The legislative clerk read the resolu- tion (S. Res. 231), as follows: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are em- ployed by the Department of State as charged by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCar- THY|. The committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its investigation, together with such recommendations as it may deem desirable, The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the resolution? Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I shall not object to the consideration of the resolution, but I should like to say that last night when the Senator from Wis- consin made his charges I asserted at once the matter was so important that, as & member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I would move to have the com- mittee investigate the charges, and today
1950 at the meeting of the Committee on For- eign Relations I renewed that statement. I am glad, of course, that the majority leader has recognized the importance of the subject, about which there must be no misunderstanding at all. I believe the charges should be promptly and thor- oughly investigated. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to make one further statement for the Recorp. I appreciate what the Sen- ator from Massachusetts has just said. I know of his statement of last evening. The Reorganization Act, under the caption “Committee Powers,” provides as follows: Suc. 134. (a) Each standing committee of the Senate, including any subcommittee of any such committee, is authorized to hold such hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and docu- ments, to take such testimony and to make such expenditures (not in excess of $10,000 for each committee during any Congress) as it deems advisable. Each such committee may make investigations into any matter within its jurisdiction, may report such hear- ings as may be had by it, and may employ stenographic assistance at a cost not exceed- ing 25 cents per hundred words. The only reason the Senator from IIli- nois, together with member. of the policy committee, decided to submit the resolu- tion was to make certain that the Sen- ate take affirmative action, declaring that the Foreign Relations Committee is the proper committee to handle the in- vestigation. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the resolution submitted by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas]? Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the nght to object—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Nebraska reserves the right to ob- ject, and is recognized. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I am heartily in favor of the proposed investi- gation. The distinguished majority lead- er has provided in the resolution that the investigation shall be conducted by the Committee on Foreign Relations. It is perfectly agreeable to me that that should be done; but the question arises, whether the appropriate committee is the one mentioned, the Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments, the Committee on the Judiciary, or sole other committee. If the resolution is properly referred it will receive the treatment it should receive. I merely make the general suggestion. I shall not object to the request. I have looked over the resolution very hurriedly. Does the resolution contain a provision for power of subpena? Should not such a provi- sion be contained in the resolution? Mr. LUCAS. I believe committees have that general power. Mr. WHERRY. If it is certain that the committee has such general power I shall not insist that a provision of that sort be contained in the resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. Under sec- tion 134 of the Reorganization Act the committee does have that power. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to raise the parliamentary inquiry as to whether the resolution will require open hearings. I want to make a brief comment on the question of the nature of the hearings which are proposed to be held under this resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. That will de- pend on the committee. The resolution itself makes no provision about it. That is a matter which is within the control of the committee or any subcommittee. Mr. MORSE. That is what I thought, Mr. President. I want to suggest an amendment to the resolution, because in my opinion this matter has already been made the business of the Senate. It was made the business of the Senate, in my judgment, by the address made by the distinguished Senator trom Wisconsin LMr. McCartuy] last night. I want to point out to the Senate that I think we need to be on guard in Amer- ica these days about star-chamber pro- ceedings, and about keeping from the American people the people’s business. I do not know of anything of more vital concern to the American people, nor that is more their business than questions as to whether there is being housed within the Government of the United States persons disloyal to our form of govern- ment—disloyal persons who are seek- ing, as termites, to undermine this great democratic system of freedom of ours. Mr. President, one of the essentials of American freedom is an open-book pol- icy. By that I mean that our judicial processes, our investigatory processes, our trial processes should be conducted in open hearings subject to the checking of public opinion. I happen to be one who believes that we have already gone too far in America in very recent years toward secrecy and more secrecy in conducting the affairs of our Government and in particular in determining the loyalty of our citizens. We are developing within the minds of the American people a se- crecy complex which is resulting in fear and suspicion, so that good neighborli- ness almost no longer exists across Our land. People are beginning to suspect their next-door neighbors, which, of course, was one of the patterns of totali- tarianism built up in Germany, against which we went to war. It is also a pat- tern of totalitarianism that character- izes the police state of Russia. I think that right now is the time to call a halt to trial by secrecy and rumor in America. I think the resolution gives us an oppor- tunity to call a halt to this police-state approach to loyalty investigations. The charges made by the Senator from Wis- consin [Mr. McCartuy! concern the business of all the people of the United States. They should not be examined behind the closed doors of any Senate committee. Mr. President, I should like to suggest that the Senate go on record this after- noon as making perfectly clear that there is going to be no executive session when examination is made into the question as to whether the people’s Government is becoming undermined by Communists in the State Department or elsewhere in the Government. I think the time has 2063 come for a return to the open-book ap- proach to the protecting of our judicial processes and our investigation processes in this country. The innocent will not be injured by an open hearing nearly as much as they will be by the rumor, smear, and gossip that will ooze out of closed sessions of a committee whose proceedings are not available to a free press and a free people. Therefore, Mr. President, I should like to see Members of the Senate stand up and be counted on whether they are will- ing this afternoon to say that such in- vestigations as are made by the Foreign Relations Committee shall be made in open hearings so that the people of the United States who have the right to have their business transacted in an open- book fashion, will know what facts are brought forth in support of the serious charges made by the Senator from Wis- consin {Mr. McCartuy]. We do not have to keep disclosed from the American people the facts with respect to what is happening in connection with the Gov- ernment. I think that here is an oppor- tunity for us to call a halt to a tendency toward secrecy. If the Senate is to consider and act upon the resolution, Mr. President, I shall write out an amendment on a pad in a moment which will add the pro- vision that not only shall the hearings be held, but that they shall be open public hearings. I want open hearings so that the people of the United States may see and hear all the evidence pre- sented in regard to this most serious charge which, if true, presents to us something which threatens the very se- curity of the country and of the people themselves. The VICE PRESIDEN TL. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the resolution submitted by the Senator from Illinois. Mr, IVES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will say I cannot disagree too much with what the very able Senator from Oregon has just said, but I should like to point out to him that the method he proposes also contains dangers. Many an innocent person may be victimized by charges and careless statements made under such a process. Before following the suggestion made by the Senator from Oregon I think we would do well to consider that side of the question. Mr. President, I do not like to see this particular investigation limited to the charges made by one particular individ- ual. I have a very high regard for the distinguished junior Senator from Wis- consin, but if we are going into this mat- ter it seems to me that we very definitely should not limit the investigation to those charges. If there are conditions in the State Department which ought to be in- vestigated they certainly ought to be in- vestigated in full, and the investigation should not be limited in any respect. Therefore, I move to amend the resolu- tion—— The VICE PRESIDENT. That is not in order until the Senate proceeds to con- sider the resolution.
2064 Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I was going to say that it was my purpose to move—— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator cannot move to amend the resolution until it is under consideration. The question now is: Is there objection to the present consideration of the reso- lution submitted by the Senator from Wlinois? Mr. IVES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to say that I intend at the proper time to move to amend the resolution offered by the dis- tinguished Senator from Illinois by de- leting the words “as charged by the Sena- tor from Wisconsin {Mr. McCartuy].” That would give us a clear investigation of the type which it seems to me should be undertaken if any investigation at all is to be conducted. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, while I am very happy that the Senator from Illinois has gone as far as he has with his resolution, I think the investigation should not be restricted solely to the cases I have developed. I do not claim and never have claimed to have knowl- edge of all those in the State Depart- ment who are communistically inclined and all those who are disloyal. I be- lieve that if the investigation is to be of any value it must go beyond merely an investigation of the cases I have dis- closed. Mr. FERGUSON rose. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the Sen- ator from Michigan reserving the right to object? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, Mr. President, [ reserve the right to object. I wish to say that I am heartily in agreement with the proposed investigation. It is clear from the language of the resolu- tion itself that the Senate is asked to yote upon the question as to whether the committee shall investigate, not in accordance with the provisions of .ection 134 of the Reorganization Act, which gives a committee the right to investi- zate without any resolution being adopted by the Senate. Therefore I delieve there should be added to the reso- lution the provision that all files and jJocuments relating to matters to be in- vestigated shall be delivered to the in- vestigating committee so that the com- nittee may make a complete investiga- tion for the Senate. If this were a mat- ter which would be acted upon by a sommittee under the rules of the Senate, the subject matter and extent of the mvestigation would be within the discre- ion of the committee. But when the Senate orders an investigation, as it can lo by adopting the resolution, then we should be certain that all the documents wnd all the files and all the records re- juired will be given to the committee ‘o that the Senate will know, when the eport is made by the committee, that it 1as had complete knowledge of the mat- ers the Senate wants to have investi- ‘ated, Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should ike to say a word in response to the Sen- tor from Michigan. There can be no uestion that under the provision in sec- ion 134 respecting committee powers jenate committees have the power to yhich the Senator refers. In other CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE words, by the proposed resolution the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations cannot be given more power than it al- ready has under the Reorganization Act. All we are trying to do is to give the Committee on Foreign Relations juris- diction of the proposed investigation, rather than have the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on Expendi- tures in the executive departments or some other committee immediately take jurisdiction which, in my opinion, any one of those committees can do under the Reorganization Act. But if the Sen- ate acts upon the resolution now pro- posed to be considered, we would have the judgment of the Senate established, and then we would have a standing com- mittee of the Senate conduct the investi- gation. The sole reason for presenting the resolution is that we may not have two or three committees investigating the matter simultaneously. If we adopt this resolution, we throw the prestige of the entire Senate behind the investiga- tion. It was only last night that I ob- served during the debate that Members of the Senate serving on three commit- tees were sparring a bit to see if the in- vestigation could be channeled into this committee or that committee or some other committee. As a result of that, it occurred to me that perhaps it would be the better part of wisdom for the Senate itself to make that decision. That is the basic reason we have brought forth the resolution. Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. AIKEN, Mr. BREWSTER, and other Senators ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. LUCAS. I yield first to the Sen- ator from Michigan, who previously has spoken on this subject. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, as I understood, the Senator from Illinois stated last night that he wanted a com- plete, thorough investigation to be made. The point was raised on the floor, time after time, that an iron curtain has been lowered around the files with re- gard to the loyalty to the United States Government of its employees. Certain- ly unless that curtain can be raised, I think there will be no real investigation into this matter. Therefore, when the Senate author- izes this investigation, it authorizes and directs the committee to make the in- vestigation—not within its discretion, but as an order from the Senate; and I think the resolution should say, both in effect and in words, that the investiga- tion should be complete, in that all files should be delivered to the committee, so that a complete investigation could be had. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I yield now to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. AIKEN, Mr. President, I wished to ask the Senator from Illinois whether he contemplates that adoption of the resolution he has offered, directing the Foreign Relations Committee to make the investigation, will deprive the Ap- propriations Committee or any other committee of any power given it by law to make investigations in the course of its work. The resolution, if adopted, FEBRUARY 21 will not deprive the Appropriations Committee of the right to make investi- — gations; will it? Mr, LUCAS. Obviously, Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee or any other Senate committee could investi- gate anything it might desire to inves- tigate, if it felt that the subject matter were under its jurisdiction under sec- tion 138 of the Reorganization Act. However, if the Senate adopted the resolution referring the investigation to the Committee on Foreign Relations, it would seem to me to be somewhat out of line for some other committee imme- diately to begin to investigate the same subject matter. That is the sole reason the Senator from Illinois, along with other members of the Democratic policy committee, believed it advisable and the better course to bring this matter di- rectly to the Senate and have the Senate act upon it, so that we shal’ know ex- actly where we are going. Mr. AIKEN. Although the resolu- tion is in the nature of a directive to the Foreign Relations Committec, at the same time it will not deprive any other committee of any of its legitimate rights to ascertain facts; will it? Mr. LUCAS. No; if three other com- mittees desired to make an investiga- tion of the same subject matter, I as- sume that they could do so. But I think it would be very bad taste for them to do so, after favorable action by the Sen- ate on a resolution of this kind. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object—and I do not intend to object—but speaking apropos of the point raised by the Senator from New York, which I think is a very good one, I wish to read into the Recorp a let- ter which I addressed to the Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson, under date of January 26, 1950: JANUARY 26, 1950. Hon. Dean G. ACHESON, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. Secretary: On March 21, 1947, the President issued Executive Order 9835 which established a procedure for the investigation of the loyalty of Government employees. This order was issued 34 months ago and it seems reasonable to assume that & final decision should have been rendered as to the loyalty of employees who were em- ployed by the Department of State prior to July 1949, I would appreciate it if you would advise me whether there are any individual cases where a final decision has not been made as to whether the employee is considered loyal as set out in Executive Orde: 9835. If a final determination has not been made, I would appreciate Knowing the total number of cases not yet cleared for loyalty and the num- ber of those who have assignments in the Far Eastern Division. I will be pleased to receive the above in- formation as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, WitiaM F’. KNOwWLAND. Under date of February 3, 1950, I re- ceived a brief acknowledgment from Mr. John E. Peurifoy, Deputy Under Secre- tary, reading as follows: DEPARTMENT oF Stare, Washington, February 3, 1950. The Honorable Wiut1am F. KNOWLAND, United States Senate. My Dear SENATOR KNowLann: I refer to your letter of January 26, 1950, in which you
1950 request certain information with regard to the progress of the loyalty program in the Department of State. The material requested by you 1s being gathered and will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, JoHN E. Peuriroy, Deputy Under Secretary (For the Secretary of State). Then, under date of February 16, I received the following letter: DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 16, 1950. The Honorable Wit1am F,. KNOWLAND, United States Senate. My Dear SENATOR KNOWLAND: I refer to your letter of January 26, 1950, and to my acknowledgment of February 3, 1959, with regard to the progress of the loyalty pro- gram in the Department of State. As of June 30, 1949, the Department and the Foreign Service had a combined total of 13,917 American employees on its rolls, Of this number, all of those who are pres- ently employed have been completely proc- essed under Executive Order 9835, except 826, which are receiving active attention. Two of these individuals are employed in the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs. A care- ful analysis of the administrative opera- tions of the Department's participation in the loyalty program indicatcs that the pre- ponderance of those cases on whom final results have not been achieved are those whose forms had been returned by the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation for clearer fin- gerprints, inaccuracies, and for incomplete- ness. The Department and its 291 fleld posts throughout the world initiate several thousand personnel transfers in a single year. Due to distances and time required to recontact employees, it has been estab- lished that a considerable time lag neces- sarily develops between the initial submission of a loyalty form and the resubmission of the corrected form which is acceptable to the Federal Bureau of Investigation tor its loyalty-checking purposes I should like to emphasize that in addi- tion to the Department’s participation in the President's loyalty program ull persons proposed for employment in the Depart- ment and the Foreign Service are investi- gated for security and suitability prior to appointment. During these preappointment investigations available sources which would indicate subversive activities are checked and persons are appointed only after the Department ts satisfied as to their security. Sincerely yours, JOHN E PEuRIFoy, Deputy Under Secretary (For the Secretary of Stute). Upon receipt of that letter, I addressed the following communication to Mr. Peurifoy, under date of February 20, 1950: Frrsuary 20, 1950. Hon Joun E. Pruriroy, Deputy Under Secretary, Department of State, Washington, D.C. Drar Mr, Peuriroy: Your letter of Feb- ruary 16 has been received in reply to mine of January 26. I wish to thank you for sending me the information and would like clarification on the following points: 1. In addition to the 326 who are now receiving active attention, how many (a) resigned during the course of the investi- gation, or (b) were removed by administra- tive action? 2. When an employee resigns while under investigation or is removed as a result of the investigation, does such a notation show on his record, or is he free to go to some other Government department and gain a posl- tion of responsibility without the previous facts being known to the cmploying agency? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE . 8. Of the 326 cases which are receiving active attention, will you please break them down to show how many of them have been pending for 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, etc., up to 1 year, and how many of them have been pending for over 1 year's time? With best personal regards, I remain, Sincerely yours, Wiu.t1am F, KNowWLAND, T have not yet received a reply to the last letter, but, of course, the time has been a little short for the Department to have replied to it by now. Mr. IVES, Mr. BREWSTER, and other Senators addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from California still reserve the right to object? Otherwise, debate is out of order. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I rescrve the right to object, in order that I may yield to the Senators who have asked to be yielded to. I yield first to the Senator from New York, who was first on his feet, I believe. Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator whether he thinks the proposed amendment to the resolution, as referred to by the Senator from New York, is not only in order but desirable. M.. KNOWLAND. I think it 1s not only in order but essential. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the request for the present consideration of the resolution submit- ted by the Senator from Illinois? Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President—— The VICE PRESIDENT. Is the Sen- ator from Maine reserving the right to object? Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, re- serving the right to object, and I expect to object, I should like to state briefly the reasons why I shall do so. I am very much gratified that the majority leader and his associates have acted so promptly in this matter, and I wish to give whatever commendation they will accept from me in that behalf. I note that they consulted with the Democratic policy committee and with the Democratic conference. Certainly, that is most appropriate. But I sugecst that the matter is of such importance that the question of whether the reso- lution in its present form is completely adapted to secure the objective all of us have in view is worthy of at least one night’s consideration. So I should like to have the Commit- tee on Foreign Relations, which I belicve to be probably the appropriate body to £0 into the matter, and its distinguished chairman, given an opportunity to con- sider whether the form of the resolution is completely calculated to accomplish its objective. Therefore, I object to consideration of the resolution at this time. The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection having been made, the resolution will lie over for 1 day, under the rule. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold his objection for a moment, and yield to me? Mr. BREWSTER. Yes. Mr. McCARTHY. Personally, I think the sooner we can set the machinery in motion, the better. However, perhaps 2065 one very important amendment should be made to the resolution. Whether we adopt the resolution tonight or tomor- row does not concern me greatly, but I believe that unless we provide that what- ever committee is given this task shall have the right to subpena such records as it considers necessary, the investiga- tion will be completely meaningless. In other words, if we begin an investigation, and say to the State Department, “We shall not ask for your files or for in- formation from you,” then there is no purpose in beginning the investigation. I was in hope that the resolution could be adopted tonight; but, if not, I trust that by tomorrow the Senate will con- sider very seriously the wisdom of adding to the resolution an amendment empow- ering the committee to subpena any rec- ord it considers necessary—keeping in mind that we are not attempting to ob- tain information as to the source of the information possessed by any investiga- tive agency, for I believe to do so would be a great mistake I do not think we should ask the FBI or any other investi- gative agency to disclose the source of its information; because if we were to do so, we would greatly hamper its work, But I think we are entitled to call for the information to which I have re- ferred. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr President, per- mit me to suggest to the Senator from Wisconsin that this investigation may or may not prove to be a somewhat his- torical one, in view of the conflict of opinion which has bcen developing in recent years 1n regard to the respective rights of the executive and the legisla- tive branches of the Government. The Senator from Illinois, the majority lead- er, last night pointed out that that ques- tion had been raised throughout the century. Certainly, within the last few years, it has become very much more acute as a result of the position of the Executive, particularly the present Pres- ident, in ordering executive departments not to permit evidence to be disclosed. If the matter is to be gone into properly, I think at least the Senate should be assured that whatever appropriate pro- visions in the resolution can and should be made, will be taken care of. I should certainly welcome the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Relations as to the precise form of authorization they would desire in order to do justice in the case. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BREWSTER. I think the matter is far too important to dispose of in any such fashion as that suggested here to- night. Without questioning in any way the form of the resolution or the posi- tion of the majority, I think the whole Senate should have at least 24 hours in which to think it over, to consider whether amendments are desirable, and to consult the various authorities, in order that it may be determined eventu- ally whether the legislative branch has the :ight to subpena subordinates in the Executive Departments and demand they produce the files, or whether the President of the United States by issu- ing an Executive Order has the right to block completely the investigatory pow- ers of this body.
2066 We are speaking of something that is very fundamental, and I suggest to the Senators on the other side that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that s0me day there may be a President who is not in complete accord with Senators on the other side, and that at such time they themselves might also desire to have the legislative body possess power to se- cure information vital to the exercise of its functions. Mr. McCARTHY and Mr. LUCAS ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maine has objected. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, just a moment, if the Senator will withhold his objection. I want to make this state- ment. I have conferred with the Sen- ator from Texas, the distinguished chair- man of the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions, and with other Members of the Senate. We believe that the amend- ment which was suggested by the able Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] is in keeping with the best interests of what we believe to be a thorough and fair in- vestigation. I should like to modify my resolution by striking out, if I may, the words, “‘the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartuy].” Mr. IVES. ‘As charged.” Mr. LUCAS. “As charged by the Sen- ator from Wisconsin.” Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator can modify his own resolution. Mr. McCARTHY and Mr. FERGUSON addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Maine withhold his objec- tion? Mr. BREWSTER. Yes; I shall be happy to withhold it. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine will yield, I sug- gest to the Senator from Illinois as an- other amendment, to add “that in the conduct of the investigation the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is in- structed to procure, by subpena, and examine the complete loyalty and em- ployment files and records of all the Gov- ernment employees in the State Depart- ment.” Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I am not going to agree to any amendment of that character or of that scope at this time. It seems to me we should have complete confidence in the Committee on Foreign Relations to make a thorough, fair and impartial investigation. The Committee on Foreign Relations has the power to investigate this subject tomorrow, if it so desires, without the resolution. To start now, tying the hands of the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, it seems to me would be a very unwise course. The only purpose of the Senator from Tilinois and those on this side of the aisle who are extremely interested in pursuing the proper course here, is to see that one committee does the work, and does a thorough job; that is all. Otherwise, there would be no point in offering the resolution. In other words, if we are to start tying this amendment onto the resolution, and that amendment onto the resolution, we shall merely refer the resolution to the Committee on Foreign CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Relations, and they can proceed to do what they choose to do. I merely make that suggestion for whatever it is worth. There is nothing in the Legislative Reor- ganization Act which compels the Senate to adopt the resolution. I was only at- tempting to pursue a course which I thought to be fair and feasible, and one through which we could get the best re- sults from a thorough investigation of the subject matter discussed by the Sen- ator from Wisconsin last night, or any other charges that may be leveled against anyone in the State Department. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine withhold his objec- tion for a moment? Mr. BREWSTER. I withhold the ob- jection, though I am not changing my mind. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the Sena- tor from Oregon? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall take but a minute to make a comment on the remark of the Senator from New York in regard to my proposed amend- ment, which I shall send to the desk at the close of my remarks. I want to say I am in complete agreement with the Senator from New York in respect to his amendment. I am in complete dis- agreement with the Senator from New York in his evaluation of my proposed amendment, and for the following rea- sons. I want to point out, Mr. President, in our country, under our judicial system, whenever anyone is falsely accused of crime and indicted therefor, a great damage must necessarily be done to him as the result thereof, and is done to him. Yet, we have found over the decades of our existence that, after all, the best way to protect the innocent and the surest way to convict the guilty is through the open courtroom, through public trial. Public trial is simply basic to the concep- tion in this country of what a fair trial is. I should like to call the attention of the Senate to what I think is a demonstrable fact, namely, that the executive branch of the Government today, throughout its departments, is honeycombed already with a great deal of fear and suspicion on the part of a great many innocent and loyal and fine Federal employees. Many of the Federal employees are dis- turbed about the gossip about disloyalty charges which are running through the hallways of most of the executive de- partments of the Government today. People by the thousands are working for this Government under the shadow of suspicion as to their loyalty, because I think we have mishandled the whole loyalty program of the Government. Congress has mishandled it, too, in the form of executive committee sessions. We mishandled it when we walked away from a basic concept of American justice, namely, that people accused of wrong- doing, including disloyalty to our form of government, should be tried in public, A charge of disloyalty is a charge of treason. Disloyalty, treason, Commu- nist allegiance are all one and the same to me. In many respects disloyalty is FEBRUARY 21 the most heinous of crimes. I say when we walked away from the open trial, when we walked away from that basic American right of an individual citizen to be confronted by his accusers, to meet in the open courtroom his detractors, to have the opportunity before the Ameri- can people who, in the last analysis, must be his judges, to submit his evidence and his answers to accusations we started down a road toward police-state pro- cedures in America. When we started down that road, Mr. President, I tell you we started on a wrong course in America. I cry out today in plea to my fellow citi- zens—turn back, turn back before it is too late. Mr. LODGE rose. Mr. MORSE. We will be continuing on that course under this resolution, if we do not make perfectly clear that these very serious charges of the Senator from Wisconsin, which have thrown not 200 people in the State Department, but all the people in the State Department to- day, under serious suspicion, be heard by the American people through their Sen- ate committee in the broad daylight of public hearing examination. Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. In just a moment. I think, Mr. President, we are dealing here with something that is fundamental to the rights of the innocent in this country. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I take it for granted, Mr. President, I think the presumption at least is very great, that some of these people covered in the blanket accusation of the Senator from Wisconsin will be proved to be innocent. I want their in- nocence established in an open hearing in America, I want to do my part to bring to an end the growing tendency in America of convicting people in secret, of condemning them among their co- workers, under a shroud and cloud of suspicion, when they have not had the opportunity that I thought was basic to American justice and jurisprudence, namely, of establishing their case in an open court or in an open hearing. Mr. President, you cannot get away from the fact that when you go into this type of a Senate hearing you are going into something that in all respects is a trial. Men's reputations, men’s veracity, men’s character, one of the things that is dearest to a man, his reputation of loyalty to his government, all are going to be on trial in these hearings. I do not want these precious human values on trial, Mr. President, even before the For- eign Relations Committee of the United States Senate in an executive session, where the records of the session cannot be made available to the American people. Furthermore, as we all know, executive sessions of Senate committees are being conducted these days by leaks. We know that if these hearings are ex- ecutive what will get out of the com- mittee will be report by leak after leak after leak—but twisted and distorted re- ports, Mr. President. Unfortunately, re- port by rumor, report by leak, seeping out of executive committee hearings do not protect people who are on trial be- fore a committee of the United States
1950 Senate. I want to say as a lawyer, and I mean no refiection on any other lawyer in this body, but I can speak for myself, Mr. President, and I want to say as a lawyer here this afternoon I should be ashamed of myself did I not raise my voice here for an open hearing on the question as to whether some 200 people in the State Department are guilty of what I think is the most heinous crime— treason. We are proposing to investigate charges that more than 200 State De- partment employees are Communists or Communist sympathizers. If they are guilty of treason, if they are Commu- nists, if they are Communist sympa- thizers, I want them proved guilty in an open hearing, not in the secrecy of star- chamber proceedings by any committee of the United States Senate. Mr. President, I say that you cannot get away from the basic principle for which I am arguing this afternoon. You cannot get away from the fact that we are dealing here with the rights of free Americans to have established in an open hearing charges that any given Federal employee is disloyal to our Government. Any citizen of high or low position is entitled to public hearing on the accusa- tions of the Senator from Wisconsin. Character assassination by rumor, gossip, smear cannot go on successfully in a public hearing where the accused can confront his attackers. There is no ade- quate substitute for the good old Anglo- Saxon public trial as a procedure for es- tablishing both innocence and guilt. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. In just a minute. I think the time has come, Mr. Presi- dent—— Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I think the time has come when we should put a stop to trial by secrecy in America. We should come back to the open court room that our founding fathers established. After all, it is the soundest system of judicial proc- ess yet established by men in this world. I now yield to the Senator from Wiscon- sin. Mr. McCARTHY. In view of the Sen- ator’s statement, I wonder if he would go along with me wholeheartedly with an amendment providing that the commit- tee have the right to get material which is now denied them, to subpena rec- ords, and so forth. Mr. MORSE. I would always go along with the Senator on that point subject to the rules of jurisdiction and of evi- dence. Mr. MCCARTHY. I intend to propose such an amendment tomorrow. Iam not concerned with whether the Senator’s amendment is agreed to. So long as we have a hearing, determine the facts, and have available to us the files when neces- sary, whether the hearing be in public or in executive session is no concern of mine. I am ready to present the infor- mation which I have. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be printed and lie on the table. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment offered by the Senator from Oregon CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE will be received, printed, and He on the table. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. LONG. I should like to ask the Senator, because I am certain he wants to do the right and fair thing for all Federal employees, if he would not feel that there might be some comparison, not to a trial in which a man is actually found guilty, but rather a grand jury proceeding to ascertain whether to prefer charges. Mr. MORSE. The grand jury by anal- ogy in this case has already returned an indictment in the form of the statement ‘of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Mc- CartHy]. It has been broadcast from coast to coast. I say, Let us have the proof in support of the charges and have it In an open courtroom. Mr. LONG. I do not consider the Sen- ator from Wisconsin to be a grand jury. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the consideration of the reso- lution? Mr. BREWSTER. I object, Mr. Presi- dent. The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolu- tion will go over, under the rule. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, under the rule the resolution goes over. I under- stand we can bring it up tomorrow by adjourning today. That is what the Sen- ator from Illinois proposes to do. The VICE PRESIDENT. If the Sen- ate adjourns today, the resolution will come up automatically tomorrow. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS I yield. Mr. WHERRY. My suggestion was that it lie on the table, and therefore we could get away from the morning hour. Mr. LUCAS. The hour is getting rather late. It is 10 minutes before 6. Tomorrow is Washington's Birthday, and, immediately following the reading of Washington’s Farewell Address, we shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the pending resolution and ask that it be printed and He on the table. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amend- ment will be received, be printed, and lie on the table. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. LONG. I should simply like to clarify my previous statement concern- ing the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartTHy!] which might be misunder- stood. I feel that the charges made by the Senator from Wisconsin certainly do not stand in the position of a charge made by agrand jury. Iam sure the Sen- ator is acting in all good faith in want- ing to sce that all persons suspected of disloyalty to this country are investi- gated, and if there is any substantial basis for the charges, they will be pre- ferred against them. I feel that the Senator has not had an opportunity to 2067 hear the defense of those persons against whom he prefers charges. Therefore we are in no position to feel that a grand jury has acted and has preferred charges, because, in all probability, we shall find that the great majority of the persons investigated will have a reasonable and probably a good defense against any charges which are preferred. I do not feel that we can properly Jook upon any of them as persons who have actually been charged by a grand jury, or that we should look upon any of the charges as being correct until we have actually heard their defense, have heard both sides, and are in position to say there is a substantial basis for the charges. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator from Louisiana feel that the Senator from Wisconsin is in the analogous position of a prosecutor who has filed an infor- mation or prosecutor’s indictment? The Senator from Wisconsin has released his serious charges to the American people. Therefore do we not have what amounts to an indictment by way of a prosecutor’s information against these State Depart- ment employees? Are we not confronted now with the job of passing judgment on whether we think there is a prima facie case supporting the information? Under our system of justice that certainly should be done in public and not behind closed doors. Mr. LONG. It seems to me more as though the Senator from Wisconsin is in position of one who merely suspects an unknown person of having committed some crime or some offense. No names have been given. In this instance I do not even consider it comparable to a case in which a private citizen goes to the dis- trict attorney and asks the district at- torney to bring a case before the grand Jury. Mr. MORSE. If the Senator from Louisiana were an employee of the State Department today, would he think the charges which have been made against the State Department employees would reflect on him as an employee, irrespec- tive of the fact that no names have been mentioned? Mr. LONG. There is some reflection, but I do not believe the average person feels that the employees of the State Department are Communists or are dis- loyal to this country, unless and until there has actually been some proof of the accusation that certain unnamed per- sons have been disloyal. Iam inclined to feel that the loyalty review boards are doing their job, and when they review a@ person and find him to be loyal, they are probably acting in the best interests of the Nation. I have confidence in them. I am strongly inclined to doubt that we shall find a great percentage of the accused persons are Communists. Mr. MORSE. Does the Senator have any question about the fact that many employees in the State Department feel, as a result of these charges, that their loyalty has been besmirched by these nameless accusations against approxi- mately 200 employees? I think that those who make such charges sould