Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman and his committee also talked to the military commanders, American and Vietnamese?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, as well as legislators of the Vietnam National Assembly, including the President of the National Assembly.

Mr. GROSS. At that time did the gentleman or his committee have information that this coup would be carried out or was imminent and would be carried out in the near future? Was there any indication of that?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. If there were indications we would have reported to the full Committee on Foreign Affairs and included it in our report. There were no such indications.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. I think that was the report the gentleman made to the committee.

FARMERS AND THE NEW FRONTIER-A REPORT ON THE 1ST

SESSION OF THE 88TH CONGRESS The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN] is recognized for 20

minutes.

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, now that the 1st session of the 88th Congress is drawing to a close, I think it would be appropriate for us all to pause a moment to review again the agricultural record of the New Frontier.

I am sorry to say that for both farmers and taxpayers this record continues to get worse.

Here is what we have seen recently: The parity ratio for 1962 at 79, the lowest level for a year since 1939-Economic Indicators, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1963, page 28. Farm debt at the highest level in history-Farm debt, 1919-63, ERS, USDA, July 1963.

Farming costs at the highest level in history-"Agricultural Prices," Crop Reporting Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 30, 1963, page 1.

Total expenditures of $8.4 billion by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an alltime high, in fiscal year 1964-appropriations, REA and FHA loan authorizations, fiscal years 1933 through 1964, Office of Budget and Finance, USDA, February 1963.

The greatest number of employees116,268-in the history of the U.S. Department of Agriculture "U.S. Budget, Fiscal Year 1964," page 422.

The fewest number of farmers-14.3 million-in the history of our Nation"Farm Income Situation," FIS 191, USDA, July 1963, page 37.

An alltime low-3.6 million-in the number of farms in this country-"Statistical Reporting Service," U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 28, 1963. Farm surpluses at continued high levels USDA press release 3309-63, October 3, 1963, shows CCC investment in farm commodities at $7,256,551,380 as of June 30, 1963. This compares to $6,657,026,599 a year earlier.

Farm income sliding-Farm Income Situation, FIS 191, page 2. Seasonally adjusted second quarter for 1963 shows net farm income at $12.6 billion or $700

million less than 1962 and $200 million less than 1961. Page 34 shows that realized net income from farming after excluding government payments was lower in 1962 than in 17 of the previous 19 years starting in 1943.

Farm legislation bogged down in Congress with only one major bill being enacted into law.

Farmers rejecting the administration's strict two-price wheat control scheme by an overwhelming margin.

HOW DID IT HAPPEN?

What has happened, Mr. Speaker, to cause all these events to transpire? While I realize that an endless argument While I realize that an endless argument can follow from this simple question, I think it suffices to say that the impact of technology and change in agriculture is technology and change in agriculture is by far the most important single reason.

Farmers have been able to master the weather, the soil, seeds, fertilizers and Government officials, and still produce the greatest bounty on earth.

Nostalgic remembrances are from time to time heard concerning the so-called golden era of agriculture when the parity golden era of agriculture when the parity ratio was in excess of 100. World War II, the postwar period and the Korean war the postwar period and the Korean war were, of course, the years of this golden era when American men were fighting and dying for their country.

The wheat fields of France and the rice paddies of Korea were growing land mines in the golden era and the mere fact that the total volume of world consumption is now higher than it was during the 1940's and 1950's is testimonial only to

the fact that there are millions of more people on this planet now than there were just a decade ago.

The actual record of the New Frontier on farm legislation has been dismal.

Do you remember what the 1960 Democratic platform on agriculture said?

The Democratic administration will work to bring about full parity of income for farmers in all segments of agriculture by helping them to balance farm production with the expanding needs of the Nation and the world.

Measures to this end include production and marketing quotas measured in terms of barrels, bushels, and bales, loans on basic commodities at not less than 90 percent of parity, production payments, commodity purchases, and marketing orders and agreements.

What happened to this promise of high prices and strict controls? Present law is clear on the authority of Secretary Freeman to set price supports at 90 percent of parity on the basics now grown under crop controls such as rice, peanuts, cotton and wheat.

He could set these crops at 90 percent of parity with a stroke of his pen. Yet he has not-in fact, not one single farm commodity is now or has been supported at 90 percent of parity by the Kennedy administration.

Why? The reason is simple. The Democratic Party has repudiated 90 percent of parity in practice but not in promise.

Do you remember what Candidate John F. Kennedy said in 1960?

Speaking at the Farmers Union GTA Convention, St. Paul, Minn., October 2, 1960, he said:

Third, I would support farm programs which will raise farm income to full parity levels as soon as it is feasible to do so. By

parity income, I mean an income which will give average farm producers a return on their farming investment, their labor, and their

managerial effort equal to the returns that are earned by comparable resources in other industries.

That, of course, was another promise which falls far short when measured against performance.

As to the parity principle as a bedrock of farm policy, let me point out that the present tobacco price support program which is generally cited as a paragon of virtue by advocates of "supply management" or controls for agriculture is based on a formula apart and distinct from the parity formula. It is a formula designed to prevent a rise in tobacco price supports. It is a frozen ceiling on support prices. Measured in terms of parity, tobacco supports are now in the low 80 range.

Another recent example of this administration abandoning the parity principle is found in the pending cotton bill which calls for substantial new subsidies to textile mills. Under the terms of that legislation the price support for cotton would in future years no longer be related to parity, but would be tied to the cost of production.

WHAT IS HAPPENING?

During this session of Congress only one major farm bill, a 2-year extension of the feed grain program, has been enacted into law.

We all recall how hastily it was forced through Congress in an effort to persuade wheat farmers to vote "right" in last May's referendum.

As things turned out this last-minute effort which prevented the Senate from even correcting a typographical error was as equally futile as the months of high-pressure sales tactics used by Secretary Freeman and the Department of Agriculture to promote the certificate wheat plan.

As a result of numerous abuses, the Secretary was legislatively scolded by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees with the Senate adding this language to the fiscal year 1964 appropriations bill:

Provided further, That no part of the funds appropriated or made available under this Act shall be used, (1) to influence the vote in any referendum; (2) to influence agricultural legislation except as permitted in 18 U.S.C. 1913; or (3) for salaries or other expenses of members of county and community committees established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, for engaging in any activities other than advisory and supervisory duties and delegated program functions prescribed in administrative regulations.

As a result of further congressional disapproval, the Secretary also withdrew the loyalty pledge that he had required of all farmer-elected committeemen.

In spite of all the high-pressure tactics a majority of wheat farmers voted down the strict control plan designed for them by Messrs. Kennedy, Cochrane, and Free

man.

Prior to the referendum many wheat State Members of Congress began to work on a constructive alternative to the administration's "rule or ruin" plan.

After the referendum's defeat, over 50 wheat bills were introduced in Congress, but up to the present time the administration has remained adamant in refusing to consider remedial wheat legislation while preferring to let the wheat farmer "stew in his own juice."

The reason most often cited by the Secretary is that wheat farmers are divided on a program. That argument, however, did not dissuade the Secretary from pushing the 40-year-old, oft rejected, two-price wheat plan through Congress and to a referendum where farmers in only five States found it acceptable.

LIVESTOCK VENDETTA

The administration's displeasure with wheat farmers as a result of the referendum is mild compared to the continuing vendetta it is carrying out against livestock farmers.

Let us recall for just one moment that the livestock industry is, by far, free from government control and subsidy. It has historically been the bulwark of opposition to the fancy control schemes of the New Frontier.

Among other things here are some of the things the administration has been doing to livestock farmers.

First. This administration proposed in 1961 that there be hen, heifer, and hog quotas.

Do you remember section 360 (a) of H.R. 6400, the administration's 1961 farm proposal?

It provided:

SUBTITLE C-MARKETING QUOTAS

Part VII-Marketing quotas for specified agricultural commodities

SEC. 360 (a). This part covers any agricultural commodity including but not limited to the following: corn, tobacco, wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, barley, oats, rye, grain sorghums, flaxseed, soybeans, dry edible beans, grass seeds, vegetables (including potatoes), fruits, tree nuts and seeds, hogs, cattle, lamb, chicken, turkeys, whole milk, butterfat, eggs, hops, honey, and gum naval stores. Any regional or market classification, type or grade of any agricultural commodity covered by this part may be treated as a separate commodity hereunder.

penitentiary for failing to keep a record or for refusing to let a Federal official snoop about his personal records or any other material deemed relevant by the Secretary would seem preposterous had it not been recommended by the Presiit not been recommended by the President of the United States.

Third. Do you remember H.R. 6491 and H.R. 7154, the administration's 1963 proposals on land retirement?

These bills would have removed the $10 million ceiling on the cropland convermillion ceiling on the cropland conversion program and allowed unrestrained sion program and allowed unrestrained grazing of new cropland as well as on the grazing of new cropland as well as on the formerly idle land coming out of the formerly idle land coming out of the conservation reserve program. Needless to say, this would mean a severe hardship for all livestock farmers if Governship for all livestock farmers if Government subsidized grazing were allowed. ment subsidized grazing were allowed. Fourth. Do you realize the extent of livestock imports at this time?

Four hundred and eighty-one million dollars' worth of meat products were imported into the United States in 1962, and ported into the United States in 1962, and 1963 imports are running at the same high rate.

Imports of boneless beef and veal, for example, have risen from 88 million pounds in 1957 to 819 million pounds in pounds in 1957 to 819 million pounds in 1962 an increase of 1,000 percent. The October 28 issue of the USDA publication, "Foreign Agriculture," also shows these figures for 1963:

U.S. imports of red meat in the JanuaryAugust period of 1963 totaled 929 million pounds, up 18 percent from the same period last year.

U.S. imports of boneless beef, the major category, rose by 20 percent to 605 million pounds, and those of canned meat by about 50 percent to 75 million pounds.

Nine ships left Australia during the month of September, with 27,301,120 pounds of beef, 403,200 pounds of mutton, 51,520 pounds of lamb, and 24,640 pounds of variety meats, to the United States.

Meat shipments to the United States from New Zealand totaled 203 million pounds in New Zealand totaled 203 million pounds in the 11-month period beginning October 1, 1962. Beef and veal accounted for 94 percent of these shipments.

Many livestock producers wish that the administration would devote as much effort to control harmful and excessive Happily, this provision was rejected imports as it does to controlling the imports as it does to controlling the American farmer. by Congress.

Second. Do you remember section 440 of H.R. 10010, the administration's 1962 farm proposal?

It provided:

SUBTITLE C-DAIRY

Reports and records

SEC. 440. Each first processor and producer shall keep such records for such period of time and shall make such reports as the Secretary shall prescribe for the purposes of this subtitle. The Secretary is hereby authorized to examine such records and any other records, accounts, documents, and other papers which he has reason to believe are relevant for the purposes of this subtitle and which are in the custody or control of such first processor or producer. Any person failing to make any report or keep any record as required by the Secretary, pursuant to this subtitle, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $2,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.

Happily, this provision too was rejected by Congress, but a proposal to imprison a dairy farmer in a Federal

CIX-1319

In spite of this serious situation nothing is being done to stop it.

Fifth. Do you remember the chicken war in the European Common Market? That is still going on and we are losing it. The Europeans have made no real concessions and they have, in fact, raised U.S. pork levies from 9.5 to 20 percent ad U.S. pork levies from 9.5 to 20 percent ad valorem and have raised U.S. lard duties from 1.6 cents a pound to 4.6 cents a pound, thus substantially reducing these exports to Europe.

I am sorry to see the hostile attitude that this administration has against the livestock industry which is of such prime importance to our Nation's agriculture.

WHERE ARE WE GOING?

The farm program is heading for a fall unless something is done to bring it back into sensible perspective. The pure and simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the present crazy-quilt price support and control program held together by Mr. Freeman was born in depression, matured in war and is now in a faltering position.

The change from rural to urban dominance of both the national Congress and the State legislatures is becoming more and more pronounced.

If farmers of the 1960's and 1970's are going to continue to provide Americans and the world with food and fiber, a new concept of abundance must be formed.

We must forget the foolishness that the New Frontier espouses on agriculture. Ski lifts and snow machines financed by subsidized Government loans, 31 farms for every U.S. Department of Agriculture bureaucrat, and only 140 acres out of a 140,000-acre cropland conversion program sold to the public as a recreation activity are but a few of the wastes and extravagances that must be curtailed if the general public and the Congress are ever to look on farm programs as something more than a multibillion-dollar boondoggle.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call upon all segments and shades of opinion within the agricultural community to give immediate attention to a sound and rational farm program. The Kennedy administration, having complete control of Congress, has the votes to bring this about. The responsibility for the enactment of sound and realistic farm programs, therefore, should be placed where it belongs.

BONDING SURCHARGE APPLICATION ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 24, 1963, the general Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor heard Mr. John F. Fitzgerald, secretary, Surety Association of America, testify concerning proposed amendments to the bonding provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act Landrum-Griffin-and the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act.

During such hearing an extraordinary colloquy occurred between the gentleman from Hawaii, Congressman THOMAS P. GILL, and the witness. The exchange involved the surcharge attached to the rates of bonds required under the Landrum-Griffin Act. Initially a 50-percent surcharge was demanded, but subsequently the surcharge was reduced by 50 percent for labor union officials and, still later, it was similarly reduced for others purchasing the same type of coverage.

This amazing interrogation points out an area of arbitrary power over ratemaking that should be of serious concern to the Members of the House, particularly with regard to situations where Federal legislation compels a party to secure a bond without first examining the rate-setting procedure for fairness.

The colloquy to which I refer follows, including a few questions I directed to Mr. Fitzgerald.

Mr. GILL. Now it brings me to a point that puzzles me a bit. You stated that for fraternal orders, you had a 50-percent surcharge for faithful performance coverage, and you then applied, as I recall your testimony, that same formula to labor unions, and then after a series of meetings with the AFL-CIO officials, you dropped that 50 to 25, and then I believe you also said that you applied the 25 to fraternals as well. Is that correct?

Mr. FITZGERALD. We now apply the 25-percent surcharge to fraternals as well. We did not do it at the same time. It was done for fraternal orders at a subsequent date, I believe.

Mr. GILL. Right. But you have now made the 25-percent surcharge uniform both for fraternals and for union organizations.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILL. Now why didn't you make it 25 percent for fraternals prior to this time? If you can do it now, why couldn't you have done it before the Landrum-Griffin law, or before this question was raised by the AFLCIO?

Mr. FITZGERALD. We could have done it at any time, had we concluded that that was a proper charge.

Mr. GILL. Well, what prevented you from so concluding, if you have now concluded it? Mr. FITZGERALD. There was no reason forthere was nothing to prevent us from concluding that. We could have concluded that.

Mr. GILL. The sharp fact of the matter is that the question was never pressed with you in any serious fashion until the unions came in and said it should be lowered. Isn't that correct?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Substantially, that is correct; yes.

Mr. GILL. So it took a nationwide organization, which was heavily hit by this requirement financially, to come in with certain facts and figures, sit down with your nationwide organization, and say, "Look, you are charging us too much; drop it." You agreed with them, at least up to a point. Isn't that correct?

Mr. FITZGERALD. In point of fact, that is the way it happened.

Mr. GILL. They didn't go to the individual States and appeal and complain. They had to come to you directly as an organization representing all of your members across the country. Isn't that correct?

Mr. FITZGERALD. They did that; and that, if I may say so, is not unusual. In other words, we deal very often with trade organizations representing various segments of business, such as the American Bankers Association, the U.S. Savings & Loan League, and other organizations, each of which has its own problems, and they deal with us in connection with those problems and we try to reach satisfactory conclusions with them.

Mr. GILL. After you had dropped the surcharge from 50 to 25 percent, you decided it probably wasn't fair to leave the fraternals at 50 percent, so you dropped their rates down too. Is that correct?

Mr. FITZGERALD. We try to be consistent. Mr. GILL. But if the unions had never complained, the fraternals would still be at 50 percent. Isn't that right?

Mr. FITZGERALD. There is no assurance that that would have remained indefinitely; no. Mr. GILL. How long had it been at 50 percent?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I do not recall. Mr. GILL. Well, was it 1 year, 10 years, or 20 years, something along that line?

Mr. FITZGERALD. It was, I believe, a substantial number of years, but I would not know how many years.

Mr. GILL. I believe you also stated that one of the reasons for dropping this surcharge was that you found that most of your

losses were of a type that would be covered by a normal dishonesty bond, and not by a faithful performance type bond. Is that not correct?

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is correct.

Mr. GILL. But you don't have any specific examples of losses which would be covered by a faithful performance but not covered by an honesty bond?

Mr. FITZGERALD. There are any number of examples in the public official field. Any number of court decisions applying this type of coverage to specific losses.

Mr. GILL. Yes; but we are interested in the specific field we are discussing here, which is the unions.

Now do you have any specific examples in the union insurance field under either the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No, sir; I have no specific examples.

Mr. GILL. I do not understand the process here, but it sounds to me like you could come up with almost as good a percentage surcharge using a ouija board as you could with whatever process you are using now, unless you have the type of figure that shows the margin of risk that you are incurring by going into a faithful performance bond.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILL. Surely.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Perhaps if the gentleman would clarify a little bit, why was the figure at 50 percent in the fraternal organization kept at 50 percent while this one was reduced to 25 percent?

Although I understand now that you have reduced the other to 25 percent, too. Was there a tremendous change in the loss ratio in the fraternal societies that brought about this reduction of 50 percent of the original surcharge?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No, sir. The change was made in order to be consistent with what we were doing in the labor organization field, and in the public official field.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. In other words, what you are saying is that you had no reason for having charged them 50 percent more, but because you changed it for labor, you are going to change it for fraternal organizations. What you are saying is, "We really didn't have any good reason for that extra 25 percent."

Mr. FITZGERALD. I can't subscribe to that. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Well, what was the reason for doing it? The only reason you give me for changing it was that you changed it for the labor people, so you thought you had better change it for the fraternal orders.

Mr. FITZGERALD. We know that faithful discharge of duty coverage, since it includes something more than honesty coverage, should have a higher charge than honesty coverage.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. You gave it 50 percent for fraternal orders for a long period of time. Mr. FITZGERALD. So now it is a question of judgment as to how much more.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. No; you decided that years ago. You made it 50 percent for fraternal organizations. This was nothing new. Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. You had it at 50 percent. Then, a similar bonding requirement was established for labor organizations. They convince you not to make it 50, make it 25 percent. So you turn right around and say, "We don't want to look inconsistent to fraternals, so we drop them to 25."

If I were representing a fraternal organization, I would be after you with a gun. "Why have you been charging me this extra 25 percent all these years? It takes my labor friend to come in here and shake you down to 25, and you have no reason for doing it?”

What is the answer to that?

Mr. FITZGERALD. The answer is, as I have stated, that we reduced the surcharge from 50 to 25 percent for labor organizations, and we did the same thing, then, for the fraternal orders.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Very nice of you.

DEFEAT FOR THE MIGRANTS

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROSENTHAL] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I read with a great deal of interest an editorial which appeared in yesterday's New York Times, entitled "Defeat for the Migrants," and I believe it is most worthy of being brought to the attention of the Members of this House, particularly in view of the action taken here last Thursday in extending the Mexican farm labor program:

DEFEAT FOR THE MIGRANTS

Once again the corporate farm interests in California, Texas, and Arizona are on their way to using Congress as an instrument for depressing the wages and working conditions of America's most exploited workers-the half-million migratory farm laborers and their families.

The House of Representatives 5 months ago voted to kill the program under which hundreds of thousands of Mexicans are brought in each year to supply cheap labor for the harvesting of U.S. crops. Now the

House has been induced to reverse itself. It has voted a 1-year extension, devoid even of the strings the Senate attached when it approved a similar extension in August.

Under the Senate bill, benefits equal to those guaranteed the Mexicans in such areas as housing, workmen's compensation and transportation would have to be offered to domestic workers as well. The House dispensed with even this meager safeguard when the program for importing braceros came up for a second look. The chances seem strong that the Senate will now consent to the same unreserved extension of the old law.

With national unemployment frozen at a rate of more than 5 percent, the continued importation of foreign workers to aid a comparative handful of large corporate farmers is unconscionable. The Senate ought to exercise the opportunity the House action gives it to scrap the entire program. If it sends it forward, the responsibility for a veto will be the President's.

Mr. Speaker, as pointed out in the editorial, we will have another opportunity to defeat this program when the conference report is returned to the House. However, in view of the terrific pressures which have been brought to bear by the proponents of this legislation, we have no guarantee that the Senate will remain steadfast and will insist on the amendments they attached to the bill when it was before them several months ago.

Failing the insistence by the Senate conferees to include even the minor benefits approved by the Senate, then it will be up to the President to veto the measure.

I had received a letter from the Honorable W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, dated October 30, which indicates that the administration is opposed to

[blocks in formation]

By

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:

Mr. LINDSAY (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. BERRY (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. ANDERSON (at the request of Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin), for today, November 4, and the balance of the week on account of official business with Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

Mr. WESTLAND (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. ARENDS (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. BASS (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. DENTON (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. RODINO (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. THORNBERRY (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

Mr. HAYS (at the request of Mr. ZABLOCKI), through November 14, 1963, on account of official business.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

Mr. ZABLOCKI, for 30 minutes, today. Mr. HOEVEN, for 60 minutes, on Wednesday, November 6.

Mr. HOEVEN (at the request of Mr. REIFEL), for 20 minutes, today, and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

By unanimous consent, permission to extend remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to:

Mr. TRIMBLE and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. EVINS and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. GROSS and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. BOB WILSON and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. CURTIS.

(The following Member (at the request of Mr. REIFEL) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. ALGER in two instances.

SENATE BILL REFERRED

A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. 1129. An act for the relief of Thomas B. Bollers and Earlene Bollers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RES

OLUTION SIGNED

Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found that committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills and a joint resolution of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker:

H.R. 1049. An act to amend sections 334, 367, and 369 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 734, 767, 769) and to add a new section 355 so as to require claims to be filed and to limit the time within which claims may be filed in chapter XI (arrangement) proceedings to the time prescribed by section 57n of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 933n); H.R. 1311. An act for the relief of Jolan Berczeller;

H.R. 1345. An act for the relief of Peter Carson;

H.R. 2260. An act for the relief of Mrs.

Rozsi Neuman;

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,

ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

1346. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installations and Logistics, transmitting reports listing contracts negotiated under authority of sections 2304 (a) (11) and 2304 (a) (16) of title 10 United States Code during the 6 months ending June 30, 1963, pursuant to title 10 United States Code section 2304 (e); to the Committee on Armed Services.

1347. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installations and Logistics, transmitting the July-August 1963 report on Department of Defense procurement from small and other business firms, pursuant to the Small Business Act, as amended; to the Com. mittee on Banking and Currency.

1348. A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a report covering the progress made in liquidating the assets of the former Reconstruction Finance Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1963, pursuant to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Liquidation Act, as amended (67 Stat. 230), and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1957 (22 F.R. 4633); to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

1349. A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting a report on illegal per diem payments to Navy and Marine Corps personnel serving as military inspection representatives in Tokyo and Osaka, Japan; to the Committee on Government Operations.

1350. A letter from the Secretary of the H.R. 2445. An act for the relief of Mrs. Navy, transmitting a draft of a proposed Barbara Ray Van Olphen; bill entitled "A bill to extend for a tempo

H.R. 2754. An act for the relief of Mercedes rary period the existing provisions of law Robinson Orr;

H.R. 2757. An act for the relief of Woo You Lyn (also known as Hom You Fong and Lyn Fong Y. Hom);

H.R. 2835. An act to clarify the status of circuit and district judges retired from regular active service;

H.R. 2968. An act for the relief of Kaz

imierz Kurmas and Zdzislaw Kurmas;

H.R. 3384. An act for the relief of Lee Suey Jom (also known as Tommy Lee and Lee Shue Chung);

H.R. 4145. An act for the relief of certain individuals;

H.R. 6097. An act for the relief of Dr. Pedro B. Montemayor, Jr.;

H.R. 6260. An act for the relief of Wai Chan Cheng Liu;

H.R. 6500. An act to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes; and

H.J. Res. 626. Joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to the establishment of an interstate school district by Hanover, N.H., and Norwich, Vt., and to an agreement between Hanover School District, New Hampshire, and Norwich Town School District, shire, and Norwich Town School District, Vermont.

SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate of the following title:

relating to the free importation of personal and household effects brought into the United States under Government orders"; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1351. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders suspending deportation as well as a list of the persons involved, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended by Public Law 87-885; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1352. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders suspending deportation as well as a list of the persons involved, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended by Public Law 87-885; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1353. A letter from the Acting National Adjutant, National Quartermaster, Veterans of World War I of the U.S.A., Inc., transmitting the reports and the proceedings of our national gathering held in Detroit, Mich., September 22 through 25, 1963, pursuant to Public Law 105, 88th Congress, and a report of receipts and expenditures for the year ended August 31, 1963, pursuant to Public Law 85-530 (H. Doc. No. 172); to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

S. 310. An act for the relief of Kaino REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBHely Auzis. LIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move for printing and reference to the proper that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Wednesday, November 6, 1963, at 12 o'clock noon.

calendar, as follows:

Mr. HÉBERT: Committee on Armed Services. H.R. 6600. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, with respect to the appointment of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; with amendment (Rept. No.

883). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. POWELL: Committee of conference. H.R. 6143. A bill to authorize assistance to public and other nonprofit institutions of higher education in financing the construction, rehabilitation, or improvement of needed academic and related facilities in undergraduate and graduate institutions (Rept. No. 884). Ordered to be printed.

Mr. MILLS: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 8969. A bill to provide, for the period ending June 30, 1964, temporary increases in the public debt limit set forth in section 21 of the Second Liberty Bond Act; without amendment (Rept. No. 885). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

[blocks in formation]

H.R. 9024. A bill to provide for the establishment of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. By Mr. SIKES:

H.R. 9025. A bill to determine the need for

a dam and reservoir on Yellow River, Fla. and Ala.; to the Committee on Public Works. By Mr. BATTIN:

H.J. Res. 792. Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. O'HARA of Illinois: H.J. Res. 793. Joint resolution authorizing the United Spanish War Veterans to erect a memorial in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on House Administration.

By Mr. BOB WILSON:

H.J. Res. 794. Joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of State to convene in the United States in 1965 a World Conference on Oceanography; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts memorializing the President and the Congress of the United States to enact legislation

providing Federal aid for nursing home care for aged veterans, which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. GIAIMO:

H.R. 9026. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Consuelo Salazar; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HAWKINS:

H.R. 9027. A bill for the relief of Chai Tuk Myung; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. ROOSEVELT:

H.R. 9028. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Anna Diana Tsezana; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SCHNEEBELI:

H.R. 9029. A bill for the relief of Staiman Bros.-Simon Wrecking Co.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

434. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Norman Thomas and others, New York, N.Y., to repeal the Smith Act, the Internal Security Act, and the Communist Control Act; to the Committee on Un-American Activities.

435. Also, petition of Harry Bleecher and others, Glen Mills, Pa., requesting support of the civil rights legislation; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SENATE

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1963 (Legislative day of Tuesday, October 22, 1963)

The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by the President pro tempore.

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Merciful Father, by whose good providence we are the sharers of the rich and costly privileges which are our heritage in this dear land where shines freedom's holy light: Climbing the world's great altar stairs which slope through darkness up to Thee, out of the depths of our need for guidance, we beseech, "Lead, Kindly Light; lead Thou us on."

By national and global tasks, too difficult for us, we are driven unto Thee for strength to face what must be faced if freedom is to live on the earth, and for wisdom to rightly interpret the signs of these testing times.

May the spokesmen for the people, who in this Chamber serve in the sacred stewardship of public welfare, by their dedication buttress the cause of our free institutions and the redemption from thralldom of our common humanity, and so be partners with Thee in building the city of God on the ruined wastes of this disturbed and disordered world.

We ask it in the name of the One whose is the power and the kingdom and the glory. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Friday, November 1, 1963, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENTAPPROVAL OF BILLS

Messages in writing from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced that, the President had approved and signed the following acts:

On October 24, 1963:

S. 838. An act for the relief of George Crokos; and

S. 1313. An act for the relief of Tim L. Yen. On October 31, 1963:

S. 1576. An act to provide assistance in combating mental retardation through grants for construction of research centers and grants for facilities for the mentally retarded and assistance in improving mental community mental health centers, and for health through grants for construction of other purposes.

ORDER DISPENSING WITH CALL OF LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, the call of the Legislative Calendar was dispensed with.

TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
BUSINESS

On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent, it was ordered that there be a morning hour, with statements limited to 3 mintues.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business, to consider the nomination on the Executive Calendar.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomination of William Jack Howard, of California, to be Chairman of the Military Liaison Committee to the Atomic Energy Commission, which was referred to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no reports of committees, the nomination on the Executive Calendar will be stated.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Bernard T. Moynahan, Jr., of Kentucky, to be U.S. district judge for the eastern district of Kentucky.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER], I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a statement,

« PreviousContinue »