Obrázky stránek
[ocr errors]

percent, and the working force is in- market place for 1954. But at Brook-
creasing a million a year.
ings, S. Dak., later, he placed no time
limit on his pledge.

Republicans dismiss the increased un-
employment as conditions resulting
from soft spots in the economy. In-
dividuals without jobs or income may be
soft spots for the Republicans, but
idle workers are in a depression of their


We saw the unusual situation of the Republicans promising to balance the budget, cut taxes, stop deficit spending and reduce the national debt-and then claim credit for a percent reduction in individual income taxes the Democrats had provided to take effect on January 1 this year.

At no time after World War II did the then President Truman ever recommend deficit financing. The fact is that the Truman administration, despite the cost of the Korean conflict, operated the Government on a cash basis. For the 8 years, 1946 to 1953, inclusive, cash operating income of the Government exceeded operating outgo by $6,862,000,000. Excepting 1949, 1952, and 1953, a surplus in revenue was recorded.

At the outset, this administration instituted a "hard-money” policy. It boosted the interest rate on new Government securities and withdrew support from outstanding obligations. Certain Government bonds dropped 10 percent in market value. The smart operators and bankers grabbed these lowpriced securities, thereby boosting their interest return.

The Secretary of the Treasury and his other hard-money advocates soon were forced to abandon this policy and began to support the bonds through purchases. President Eisenhower, using his influence on the Federal Reserve Board, supposedly an independent agency created by Congress, and on the Treasury, shifted to a soft-money policy, to counteract the effect the hard-money policy had on business, employment, and the economy as whole.


The Republicans wanted to avoid an economic recession. Since then the Federal Reserve System has pumped money into the economy, booming certain securities on the stock market, many far beyond their true earning value. If such an operation had been undertaken under a Democratic administration, the Republicans would have condemned it as inflation.

In the first session, the Republican Congress dealt a defeat to the President when it rejected his plea to increase the national debt limit from $275 billion to $290 billion. This session granted the administration a temporary 1-year increase of $6 billion after refusing to fulfill a request for a $15 billion permanent increase.

The Republican platform advocated an economy of “full production."

In December 1952, the last month of the Democratic administration, the Federal Reserve Board's seasonally adjusted index of industrial production stood at 133 percent of the 1947-49 average, the accepted base of 100 percent. For June of this year, it was 124 percent, a drop of 9 percent.

Another promise was eclipsed by performance.

Fewer people were working in July of this year than in the same month in the last year of the Truman administration. In July 1952, the number of jobless was at 1,942,000. In July 1954, the jobless numbered 3,346,000, an increase of 40

[ocr errors]

This administration pays more attention to the manufacturers and their profits than to the condition of the workers. It points with pride to "profits after taxes of manufacturing corporations in 1953," described by a joint report of the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission as "6 percent higher than in 1952."

To counteract the decline in earnings of workers and income of farmers, we Democrats sought to get the Republican Congress to increase the personal exemption on individual income taxes from $600 to $700. This would have saved the taxpayers around $21⁄2 billion-money which could have been used to buy food and goods, thereby stimulating business activity and more employment. But the Republicans defeated this effort. They succeeded in winning, however, on a proposal to exempt from taxation a portion of income from dividends on stocks, thereby giving relief to individuals on unearned income more relief than granted to persons who work for a living.

The Republicans dropped the excessprofits taxes on corporations. This benefited the most profitable of corporations because of the 450,000 operating in this country, only about 50,000 were paying excess-profits taxes.

While the Republicans did reduce excise taxes by $990 million, they continued for a year the Korean increases in excise

taxes amounting to $1,077,000,000, making the so-called excise-tax reduction actually an increase of $87 million. The Republicans sought to make those excise levies permanent, but we Democrats mustered enough strength to defeat that move, which would have saddled the people and business with these levies forever. The Republicans also continued for another year the corporate tax rate of 52 percent, to bring in $2 billion. The peacetime rate previously

was 42 percent.

Now the Republicans continue to claim credit for the 11 percent tax reduction on individual income, which we Democrats provided for in the 81st Congress. What the Republicans did on this was purely negative.

The individual income-tax payers will save $3 billions through positive action taken by the Democrats, yet the Republicans claim they did it.

The Republicans also allowed the social-security taxes to increase from 3 to 4 percent on payrolls, half to be paid by the workers and half by the employers.

On agriculture, the Republicans made big promises in the 1952 campaign. At the national plowing contest in Kasson, when he was a candidate, Mr. Eisenhower stated that he not only favored 90 percent of parity on farm commodity prices but he favored 100 percent in the

After the election, President Eisenhower changed his mind. He went all out for Secretary of Agriculture Benson's proposal, for flexible price supports from 75 to 90 percent. Whenever a minimum is set on price supports, it automatically becomes the maximum.

The Eisenhower administration put full pressure on Congress to adopt the flexible provision. Republicans were told that if they reenacted the Democratic 90 percent rigid price support for the basic commodities of cotton, corn, wheat, rice, tobacco, and peanuts, President Eisenhower would veto the bill, thereby placing into effect the old Aiken Act, passed by the Republican-controlled 80th Congress. This would have made the maximum price support 75 percent.

The Republican compromise of 822 percent was adopted in view of this threat. Despite the fact that it was a compromise, President Eisenhower hailed it as a victory over the farm bloc in Congress.

This victory over the farmers and the farm bloc in Congress comes at a time when farmers are getting 20 percent less for their prdoucts than they were getting 2 years ago. This means another cut of 72 percent to producers of the basic crops.

The victory was a repudiation of the President's own campaign promises for the Republican platform said:

We favor a farm program aimed at full parity prices for all farm products in the market place. *** The Republican Party will create conditions providing for farm prosperity and stability.

In 20 months, Secretary Benson accomplished an unprecedented thing. They turned the town people against the

farmer. I think this effort to turn the townfolks against the farmer was one of the cruelest things I have ever heard of.

Why they did it is pretty obvious. They did it for political reasons, and they used the false argument that Government-held farm surpluses increase the cost of living. This discreditable and Idemagogic tactic will rise to haunt the Republican Party, even though they did it because they are trying to lure into the GOP fold the huge vote in the vast cities across the land.

The Republican-controlled House Committee on Agriculture repudiated the false argument that stored farm surpluses increased the cost of living. In a special study of the problem the committee found that while the prices the farmer receives have dropped, the retail prices paid by consumers have risen.

Out of each dollar spent by the housewife for food produced in this country, the report said the farmer receives 44 cents gross, or 14 cents net, after paying the cost of production, including gasoline, fertilizer, seed, labor, trucks, tractors, and other supplies. Thus with a heavy investment and for the labor of himself and his family, the farmer gets but 14 cents of each consumer's dollar, a small margin,

The 56 cents of the consumer's dollar goes to the processor, the middleman, and the retailer.

the Roosevelt administration in 1934,
and passed by Democrats despite the
GOP cries of "socialism" and "radical-

A typical example cited by the committee was wheat. It reached a peak price of $2.81 a bushel in January 1948. The average price of a loaf of bread was then 13.9 cents. Wheat is now $1.91 a bushel, and the average price of a onepound loaf of bread has increased to 17 cents.

Who are the profiteers under the Republicans-big business? The great mass of consumers and the struggling farmers do not profit.

The Republicans pledged a stabilized economy in their campaign pledges. The cost of living has been constantly increasing. The costs have been increased not only on food, but on utility rates as well. The vast power companies and the telephone companies have increased their rates; the price of gasoline has raised the cost of transportation; and hikes have occurred in almost all lines of services. This accounts for increased earnings by certain elements of industry.

President Eisenhower embraced the principle of the housing program initiated in previous Democratic administrations a program which has made it possible for millions of young couples to acquire homes, for millions of city dwellers to move out of slums into modern, healthy apartments.

The Republican Party has made promises for improved housing and slum clearance. President Eisenhower asked Congress to authorize the construction of 140,000 units of low-cost housing. But the Republicans rebuffed him, 75 percent of the GOP Members of the House voting against his recommendation.

The Republicans cut his request down to 35,000 low-cost housing units, just one-fourth of his request. On the straight rollcall for the 140,000 units, only 51 House Republicans voted for the President's program, and 150 voted against him. On the same vote, 124 Democrats voted for the 140,000 units while 61 voted against. In other words, 66% percent of the Democrats voted for his proposal and 75 percent of the Republicans voted against it.

Yet the compromise on 35,000 units was hailed by administration ballyhooers as a victory for President Eisenhower.

It seems that the Republican publicists around the White House are trying to brainwash the American people to a point where one must ask: "When is a victory a defeat, and when is a defeat a victory?"

The answer could be: "In Republican administration propaganda."

Certainly the Republicans cannot claim a victory for the President on his proposals they rejected:

First. Revision of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act.

When the social-security proposal was brought before the House 20 years ago, every Republican Member who voted, voted to kill the measure on a motion to return it to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Even the revision was a compromise as compared with the request of President Eisenhower, who proposed to cover 10,500,000 in the old-age and survivors insurance system. The Republican Congress slashed the coverage, dealing the President another blow. It did raise the monthly benefit payments in the belief that this would be politically adroit.

It was a strange scene in the House for us Democrats to see this program espoused by reactionary Republicans, who had denounced the social-security system as "socialistic” and “radical” in the days of Roosevelt and Truman.

The mutual security program, also initiated by the Democrats to aid European, Asiatic and other countries to combat communism in the early post World War II years, was continued after the Republicans cut the President's proposal to $2.7 billion. The President needed Democratic assistance in both sessions to defeat the Republican isolationists. In the session just closed, 141 Democrats and only 118 Republicans in the House supported Mr. Eisenhower.

Both the President and the Republican Congress displayed their opposition to public power, as embodied in the Tennessee Valley Authority and great Federal projects that have brought cheap power into western regions which have since prospered.

The determined efforts of this administration to give away to big business electrical power, developed by taxpayers' money, and the Federal Government's great timber and oil reserves and grazing lands are revealed in policy and legislation. Much of this has been accomplished through so-called minor bills, rushed through in more or less disguised form to benefit selected groups and special interests which contribute substantially to Republican campaign funds.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Eisenhower pledged in Tennessee to support the Tennessee Valley Authority. He later reversed himself and cited TVA as "creeping socialism." His recent order to the TVA to let its facilities be used by a new power corporation set up after he entered the White House was a shocking act. Not in my memory has a Chief Executive taken such a drastic step, particularly when an established government function was involved.

This development has caused alarm among many people, especially since the Second. Statehood for Hawaii and administration has committed itself to a Alaska. giveaway policy-a policy by which private interests in many lines are acquiring projects developed at taxpayers' expense for the benefit of the entire country.

Third. The trade, not aid, program. Fourth. The health insurance program.

Fifth. Give 18-year-olds a vote.
Sixth. The internal security proposals.
The Republicans did revise and extend
the social-security program, instituted by

energy, which truly belong to the taxpayers the taxpayers who contributed $10 billion to the development of this source of limitless energy. Only the determined efforts of the Democrats in Congress prevented this policy being written into law as a part of the revised atomic energy bill.

The administration giveaway policy would have gone so far as to let business take over Government patents on atomic

The Republican Party is determined to take care of its own. Thus, legislation to bolster the shipyards by authorizing modernization of old ships and the building of new merchant marine vessels unneeded while thousands of wartime and postwartime vessels rot at their hawsers has been speeded through Congress in the final days of the session.

Now, let us go back for a brief review of the "dynamic" and forward-looking" Republican program:

The major bills enacted were, as I
said before, originally instituted by
Democratic administrations; namely:
First. Reciprocal trade.
Second. Mutual security.
Third. Housing.

Fourth. Social security.

Fifth. Farm price supports.

As for the five positive pieces of legislation enacted by this Congress, the tidelands and St. Lawrence Waterway bills had been before Congress for a long time, and before World War II we Democrats initiated a study looking to the revision of the revenue bill, but were interrupted by the emergency of the allout war in the early forties. The emergency refugee bill was supplemental to previous refugee legislation enacted by the Democrats after World War II.

This administration said it wanted an anti-Communist law. But then it became apparent that the kind of law wanted by the administration was a weak-as-water measure which would have slapped the Communists on their wrists and told them not to be naughty boys. The strong anti-Communist bill finally enacted into law was initiated by the Democrats and passed over administration opposition. It answers effectively the Republican charge that Democrats are traitors to their country, a falsehood of the lowest type.

Throughout this Congress, the Republicans have shown hostility toward veterans of our wars and legislation benefiting them. They have clipped appropriations where possible and blocked measures proposed to improve the condition of the veterans.

Throughout this Congress, the lack of resourcefulness of the Republicans has become more and more obvious, the absence of vision has become more pronounced, and the negative approach to critical problems confronting the Nation is glaringly apparent.

The situation is such between the President, who has embraced much of the Democratic legislative program, and the Republicans in Congress, who have resisted it, that the country will be better off if it returns a Democratic Senate and House in the November elections.

But there is one significant thing that must be cited. While the Republicans denounced the Roosevelt and Truman legislative programs, during two entire

social-security tax will be $124 a year.

A farmer's social-security tax does not become due until he pays his income tax. In short, his first withholding tax for social security will not be due and payable until April 1, 1956. This tax will be on the farmer's income for the year 1955.

sessions of this Congress, they have not sought to repeal one piece of welfare legislation.

In 1952 the people of the United States concluded that they wanted a change. Let me repeat, many of them got it with a vengeance. After these months of change, I want to ask you, Mr. Farmer, Mr. Laboring Man, Mr. Small-Business Man, "What is your financial condition in 1954 compared to what it was in 1951 and 1952?" and ask you wherever you live, in any section of the United States, "Have you been benefited by and are you proud of the change?"


A person to start drawing a social-security pension must be 65 years of age. A person must be in a sense a retired person. He is allowed to earn from his

profession or trade up to $1,200 a year without this income affecting his right to a pension. However, if he earns in salary or wages from his business or farm more than $1,200 a year net, the pensioner forfeits 1 month's pensions for The Grange Stands for Good Government each $80 he earns above $1,200. The pensioner must have paid into the social-security fund withholding taxes for one-half the years between his start under the system, January 1, 1955, and his 65th birthday. Thus, if you are 62 years old on January 1, 1955, you must pay into the fund for 18 months before you can get a pension. If you are 59 years old, you must pay into the fund for 3 years. If 55 years old now, you must pay into the fund for 5 years.

Young farmers, who are under 45, will be permanently insured when they have paid into the fund for 10 years.

Farmers over 65 may qualify by paying into the fund for 18 months. Eighteen months is the minimum one must be covered to get benefits.






August 20, 1954

Mr. MACK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Grange is the greatest farm organization in the world. One of the things in which every granger is deeply interested is good government-government that is progressive, forward looking, efficient, economical, and humane.

The Grange through its national offices has spoken out for many programs it favors in its goal of obtaining better Government.

I am happy to report to my Grange brothers and sisters that the present Congress enacted many, of course not all, ideas, either in whole or in part, for which we grangers stand.


Grangers will recall that about a year ago I took an opinion poll among all of the 99 granges of my district as to how Grange members felt about farmers being covered by social security. Replies from grangers showed that more than 90 percent of all those answering my poll wanted farmers to get the benefits of social security.

I am happy to report that the socialsecurity bill passed by this Congress provides social-security coverage for the Nation's 32 million farm owners. I was happy to work and vote for social-security protection for the farmers. The grangers wanted this. They got their wish.


The new law treats farmers as selfemployed people, not employees. When an employee is covered by social security, his withholding tax is 4 percent of his income. Half of this tax is paid by the employee and half by the employer.

In the case of farmers and all selfemployed persons the tax rate is 3 percent instead of 4 percent and the full 3 percent is paid by the self-employed person.

Thus, if your annual income as a farmer is $2,000, your 3-percent withholding tax for that year will be $60; if your income is $3,000, your tax will be $90; and if your income is $4,200, your

Upon retirement at age 65 you are entitled to a pension equal to 55 percent of the first $110 of your average monthly earnings plus 20 percent of that part of your average monthly earnings that are above $110 a month.

Example: If your average monthly earnings were $200 you get $60.50— which is 55 percent of the first $110— plus $18-which is 20 percent of the remaining $90. Thus, on $200 a month earnings you receive $78.50 a month.

If your average earnings were $300 you receive $60.50 on the first $110, plus $38 which is 20 percent of the remaining $190-or a total pension of $98.50.

If, and when, your wife becomes 65, 'she is entitled to half of what you get. If you receive a pension of $78.50 a month, she will be paid an additional $39.25. If you receive $98.50, she will receive $49.25, the 2 of you receiving a total monthly pension of $147.75.

When an insured farmer dies, his widow is entitled to receive, starting at age 65, three-quarters of the pension the farmer received. If he received $100 a month, she will get for the rest of her life or until she remarries, a pension of $75.

The system also provides a small amount of death benefits to cover funeral expenses.

I will be glad to discuss with you or groups of your farmers, the new socialsecurity law as it affects farmers and all other groups. Most people are interested in this new law.


into highway building and not be diverted to other purposes.

The National Grange always has held that all gasoline tax money should go

The present Congress enacted a bill which, in effect, approves this Grange policy by compelling the use of all funds derived from the 2-cent-a-gallon Federal gasoline tax on highway building.

Heretofore, for many years past, our Government has been collecting about $875 million a year from its 2-cent Federal gas tax.

Of this $875 million collected from the Federal gas tax, Congress spent only $575 million in past years on highways and diverted $300 million or more to other purposes, some of it to foreign aid. Some of the gasoline tax money was actually diverted to build highways in foreign countries at a time when we desperately needed better roads in our own country.

This Congress authorized the expenditure of $875 million annually on building highways, or $300 million more than ever has been authorized heretofore. Thus, all, or practically all, of the gasoline tax revenues will go into highway building. As a result of this expanded highway program Washington State will receive more than $5 million a year of additional Federal funds for building highways.

This is what the Grange wanted. I was happy to support this legislation. I not only supported it, but since I am a member of the Public Works Committee, which prepared this legislation, I was in a position to help write it.


I am, as you know, an advocate of public power development of the Columbia River and its tributaries. I know there is a great deal of talk about President Eisenhower planning to scuttle all public-power development on the Columbia. I put such talk down to politics.

There is talk that there will be no new starts on the Columbia River in the future. There is no foundation for such talk.

It was Truman, himself, when the Korean war began who issued the order against new starts on river and harbor flood-control work. That Truman order remained in effect until after the Korean war ended, which was well into Eisenhower's first year. Truman, not Eisenhower, was the author of the nonew-starts policy.

The Flood Control Committee, of which I am chairman, in its bill this year authorized the expenditure of $180 million for power-dam building during the next 2 years on the Columbia River. That was the largest amount authorized for any river development in any one area of the entire Nation.

This $180 million for Columbia power development was approved by the United States Army Engineers and by the Budget Bureau, which organizations are the President's spokesmen on river-development matters.

This bill authorizing this huge $180 million sum passed both Houses of Congress and will be signed by the President. This does not look like the President is going to scuttle Columbia River power development, does it? Perhaps all this talk about Ike scuttling Columbia River power development is mainly directed

at making election votes rather than hydroelectric kilowatts.

Of course, I know, President Eisenhower says we ought to develop power by partnership arrangements.

Development of power exclusively and solely by the Federal Government never has, and is not now, getting the Northwest additional power as fast as the Northwest needs it. Building of Federal power dams on the Columbia started 21 years ago. In those 21 years the Federal Government has completed little more than 3 million kilovolts of installed capacity-an average of only about 150,000 kilovolts of installed hydroelectric power completed a year. We must have 500,000 kilovolts of additional power annually to keep up with the growing demand of our region. We have been increasing our power supply less than onethird of the amount we require for growth.

Ike wants the local interests, the States, the countywide PUD's and the municipal public-power utilities to get into the picture and help develop pow


ing and the farmer continues to furnish more than half of his support.

The revision law also allows for farmers:

By State, county and municipal bodies working together with the Federal Gov

ernment, we can get more power sooner

and that is what the Northwest needs

and I think what the Northwest wants. The Priest Rapids Dam proposal is one example of what can and should be done.


For several years, the National Grange as pursued with great vigor a campaign for the elimination of waste and extravagance from the Federal Government and the achievement of more efficient and effective Government.

Great progress has been made in this direction by the present Congress. In the first 19 months of the Eisenhower administration $14 billion of wasteful and extravagant spending were eliminated.

President Truman as he left office submitted a budget which he said provided for spending $10 billion more than I would be taken in from revenues. In other words, he predicted a $10 billion deficit for the first 12 months of Eisenhower's administration.

Eisenhower gave a tax reduction not contemplated by Truman. Eisenhower raised veterans' pensions. Eisenhower increased social-security and railroadretirement pensions. Eisenhower provided more money to ease credits in order to encourage more home building. Despite all these and other expanded services which President Eisenhower put into effect, Ike cut the deficit which President Truman predicted would be $10 billion to approximately $3 billionmade a budget deficit reduction of $7 billion. He did this by eliminating or lessening, as Grangers suggested, waste and extravagance from Government. AIDS TO FARMERS IN TAX LAWS

Tax laws enacted by the 83d Congress are of benefit to farmers and farm families in a number of ways. Under the taxrevision law, farmers can claim a $600 dependency deduction for a child regardless of the child's earnings if such dependent is receiving on-the-farm train

Deductions up to 25 percent of farm income for soil and water conservation expenses.

More rapid writeoff of the cost of new machinery, depreciable assets-farm equipment, and so forth. Under the declining balance method of depreciation now permitted, the farmer can write off in the first year twice the amount allowed under the straight-line method.

Removal of the tax on proceeds from sale of cattle when the sale is necessitated by disease, provided the proceeds are reinvested in cattle within 1 year after the close of the taxable year.

Previously, where a farmer did not file a declaration of estimated tax by January 15, he had to file his final income-tax return by January 31. The deadline is now extended to February 15. Also, where a farmer files a declaration by January 15, his final return is now not due until April 15.

Farmers' accounting requirements are eased to permit the use of the farmerpreferred hybrid bookkeeping system.

Another Republican-passed tax law

provides for rapid amortization of farm

grain-storage facilities. Whereas before such facilities could be amortized only over their useful life, this now can be done over a 5-year period. This provision was included in the Technical Changes Act of 1953-Public Law 287, approved August 15, 1953-which was reenacted by the tax-revision law.

Public Laws 531 to 547, Inclusive





Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I am extending my remarks to include my reports or Public Laws 531 to 547, inclusive, to my constituents in the Second District of Illinois, as follows:


H. R. 9040, cooperative research in education Public Law 531 is a new approach in the field of educational research. It authorizes contracts and jointly financed cooperative arrangements with universities, colleges, and State educational agencies for the conduct of research, surveys, and demonstrations. Heretofore the work has been confined to the office of the Commission on Education in Washington. By distributing it among local schools and agencies throughout the Nation, a wider range of experience will be tapped. Moreover, much more can be accomplished and at less expense to Federal taxpayers since part of the money will come from local


of great value to local school boards and others in formulating programs adapted to their own respective problems.

The House passed the measure by a rollcall vote of 296 to 55. I was happy to cast your vote on the affirmative side. Not so, however, in the case of Public Law 532, which was brought up seemingly as a companion bill to Public Law 531 in the apparent hope that deceptive doubling-up would catch the champions of popular education offguard and asleep.

Eventually will come from the research and surveys recommendations covering every phase of school construction and administration. These will be made available as optional help-aids (take or leave) to anyone desiring them. Conceivably they can be


H. R. 7434, National Advisory Committee on Education

This bad law (sought to be covered up by the good law preceding) opens the door for another attack on popular education in its present cultural functioning similar to that in the early thirties when in the name of economy a determined drive was made to reduce the curriculum in the public schools to little more than the three R's. I have vivid recollections of those days, and the happy opportunity my nightly radio broadcasting over WCFL gave me to participate in a historic and successful battle to save our schools.

Public Law 532 creates a National Advisory Committee on Education to initiate and conduct studies of problems of national concern in the field of education and to

blueprint for Congress its legislative program in the educational field. A pretty big order, I would think, and one that would require the best efforts of the outstanding educators of the Nation.

I think you will be shocked, as I was, when the measure came up in the House, to learn that Public Law 532, presumably for the advancement of education, actually bans from control of the committee the men and

women of greatest knowledge, experience,

and devoted interest in the field of education. Originally the measure completely disqualified educators from committee membership. Later the ban was mildly sugarcoated to concede them the possibility of a minority representation by specifying that a majority of the committee should not be professional educators. It did not make it mandatory to include a single educator, but strictly forbid the educators, if any, exercising majority control.

The intent is as crystal clear as the ring. ing of a bell. With school population increasing and costs mounting, this marks the beginning of another drive for educational curtailment. It is on the same pattern as recent attacks upon our colleges, universities, and educational foundations.

I regard Public Law 532 as one of the most potentially evil enactments of the 83d Congress. It passed the House 179 to 157, a narrow majority of 22, possible only because of the 99 absentees. I voted "No."

Fortunately, the day was saved in part by stripping the measure of authorization of immediate funds. Hence until another Congress provides the money the National Advisory Committee on Education will exist only on paper. If the friends of our schools had been less alert the sneak attack on popular education might have resulted in a greater degree of immediate peril.


H. R. 7466, Pine River Irrigation District, Colorado

Just another reclamation project that did not pay out according to the calculations, Public Law 533 gives the district until 1994 to pay back in easy installments Uncle Sam's $3,300,000 investment.


H. R. 9242, Military and Naval construction authorization

Construction of public works, housing and facilities for the Army, Navy, Air Forces and Alaskan Communication System totalling

$837,369,600 are authorized by Public Law 534. It takes 29 printed pages to list all the projects in continental United States and overseas. This will give you an idea of overseas authorizations. Five and fivetenths million dollars for family housing and other facilities at Keflavik, Iceland; $6 million for housing and medical and other facilities at Okinawa; $13 million for Guam.

The act limits expenditure for permanent barracks within continental United States to a unit cost of $1,700 per man, $5,000 a man for bachelor officers quarters.


S. 2583, indemnities for swine In 1952 vesicular exanthema, a contagious disease, threatened swine in Oregon and other States. The Secretary of Agriculture declared an emergency in August of that year and Federal funds were made available to cooperate with various States in indemnifying owners for swine destroyed to prevent spread of the plague. Public Lad 535 provides for the payment of indemnities for swine destroyed in July 1952, prior to the declaring of the emergency. The amount involved is about $3,300.


S. 2786, fire protection compact About 21 percent of the standing timber in the United States is in 10 Southeastern States, which produce half the Nation's pulpwood, a third of its timber. Recent severe drought has intensified the forest-fire hazard beyond the protective capacity of the States acting individually. Public Law 536 gives the necessary congressional consent to a compact entered into by the 10 States to pool resources in preventing and fighting the fire destruction of our timber.


S. 3197, donations to defense effort During World War II, American citizens, motivated by a patriotic desire to contribute more than their required share, made voluntary gifts to the Government totaling more than $7 million. Such gifts to the extent of $365,000 continued to come in during 1953. Public Law 537 authorizes the acceptance of conditional as well as unconditional gifts. Conditional gifts are those earmarked for specific purposes, as recreation, medical supplies, etc.


H. R. 1067, Tax Court of the United States

This authorizes the Supreme Court of the United States to prescribe uniform rules of practice and procedure (in the 11 courts of appeals) for review of decisions of the United States Tax Court.


H. R. 2846, Hawaii

To aid Hawaii to complete pier 2 in Honolulu Harbor Public Law 539 gives back to the Territory 3 acres of land for which the Federal Government has no need.


H. R. 4854, Irrigation

Public Law 540 aims at the reclamation (largely for fruit growing) of some 6,000 acres of arid land in a mountainous region along the Columbia and Okanagan Rivers in the central part of the State of Washington. It is expected that the irrigation of this land will make it possible for the fruit growers and other farmers benefited to pay back within 50 years $2.5 million of the estimated $4.5 million cost. The $2 million balance of the Federal Government's investment would come from water power revenues. That is on the general pattern of irrigation projects. Uncle Sam eventually to get back his money, part from the sale of water power, part from agricultural profits made possible by the

conversion of arid waste into cultivable research organizations and individuals.


What Public Law 540 does is to authorize the construction of the Foster Creek division as part of the Chief Joseph Dam project, which if and when carried to completion will entail a total expenditure of at least $35 million with expected reimbursement of $20 million from sale of water power, $15 million from land owners.


H. R. 4928; Uncle Sam helps out a city Fifty years ago the United States brought 48 acres of farmland in New Jersey and set up a quarantine station. Now it is the center of Clifton, a thriving city of 75,000 which has come with the passing of a half century. Mushrooming Clifton is territorially congested, needs a site for outgrown municipal buildings. The only available site is 14 of Uncle Sam's acres which are presently used as burial ground for dead animals from the quarantine station. Public Law 541 reflects the proper cooperative spirit of Federal Government in relation with municipal government by authorizing the sale of the 14 acres to Clifton for a new city hall. Then Uncle Sam can buy an incinerator for the disposal of his dead animals.


H. R. 6882, Vermejo reclamation project Because of a debt owing to the liquidating RFC in connecting with the Vermejo reclamation project in New Mexico, Public Law 542 provides a financing and repayment plan to enable the proposed conservancy district to work things out on a time-payment basis.


H. R. 8549, Breaks Interstate Park In 1953 Congress gave consent to Kentucky and Virginia to enter into a compact for a bi-State park on a fork of the Big Sandy River. Public Law 543 approves the compact which the two States since have ratified. This is in an area of great scenic beauty. Virginia has appropriated $50,000 and Kentucky $25,000 for the start of development. Autoists may wish to jot it down.


H. R. 7664, Columbia River Basin The Priest Rapids Dam and Reservoirs was approved by the Flood Control Act of 1950 as a unit in the comprehensive plan for flood control and water power in the Columbia River Basin. Estimated cost: $364 million.

Despite the rapidly expanding demand for hydroelectric power in the area, the Federal Government has not gone ahead with the project. Local interests desiring to take over, Public Law 544 gives the necessary authorization to Public Utility District No. 2, Grant County, Wash. (a nonprofit public body under State law), to enable it to get a license from the Federal Power Commission.

Similar arrangement has been made in other areas where local interests have wished to hasten developments on the Federal program for which appropriations were lagging. It amounts to local governments relieving the United States from the responsibility of financing. That I think is sound. Nevertheless, each proposal of this nature should challenge careful study to make certain that (1) the Federal interest in relation to the flood-control program in its entirety is completely protected, and (2) the public is assured fair and nondiscriminatory rates with first call in the purchase of power and energy going to public bodies and cooperatives.


S. 2367, contract research This is an amendment to the BankheadJones Act permitting the Department of Agriculture to carry on all its research projects by contracts with public and private

Heretofore only research in the marketing field could be let out by contract. The rest had to be done by the Department personnel.

You will find interest in the fact that well over $1 million a year in market research contracts have been let. Secretary Benson told the Congress the contract plan was more efficient and economical than leaving the work to the Department's researchers.


H. R. 8983, historical site in Oklahoma Oklahoma plans to restore and preserve as a historical museum the old Indian agency building (of Territorial days) at Muskogee. Public Law 546 conveys the property, including parking space for touring autoists and others. This being in Oklahoma, the Congress, of course, was alert in seeing that oil and mineral rights were reserved.

Public Law 546 indexes, as have others covered in these reports, the definite trend throughout the country in the restoration and preservation of historic places. Here, I think, is the true reflection of the love of and loyalty to country that have been instilled in Americans by the teachings in our schools and colleges.


H. R. 5731, dam at San Diego, Calif. During World War II the United States acquired 135,000 acres of land in San Diego County, Calif., now occupied by the United States naval hospital, the naval ammunition Depot and Camp Joseph H. Pendleton, a major Marine Corps training center. Included is 21 acres, through which runs the last stretch of the Santa Margarita River before reaching the Pacific Ocean.

Public Law 547 authorizes the construction of the De Lux Dam (cost: $22.6 million) in that area to serve the joint purposes of Navy and the water users in the Fallbrook Public Utility District. The district will have 56 years in which to pay its $7 million contribution.

Meeting the Chinese Red Menace With an Economic Program for the Chinese People To Help Them End the Communist Regime and Reestablish Nationalist China-Part I






Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Speaker, every day the Chinese Communists tell the world, especially the American people, that they will take over Formosa by force of arms and warn us against helping Nationalist China's valiant leader, President Chiang Kai-shek, in driving back the invaders.

A major war in east Asia may be in the offing. We should be prepared for any eventuality. We are committed to help Nationalist China. Our cooperation should be in every field where the objective could be most effectively achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert in the RECORD a statement by Mr. Vicente Villamin, a man who has made profound and practical examination of the differ

« PředchozíPokračovat »