Page images
PDF
EPUB

refer to their first recommendation, which reads as follows:

"That decisions on trade policy be based on national interest rather than the interest of particular industries or groups; that in cases where choice must be made between injury to the national interest and hardship to an industry, the industry be helped to make adjustments by means other than excluding imports, such as through extension of unemployment insurance, assistance in retraining workers, diversification of production, and conversion to other lines."

Another point which is often overlooked is the fact that we have already gone a long way toward reducing tariffs and other import restrictions into the United States. Our tariffs are not so high as many people suppose. It is estimated that 58 percent of all our imports came in duty free in 1952. Of the dutiable items, the average of all duties has been reduced 73 percent from 1935 levels. This reduction in duties has been brought about not only through the reciprocal trade agreements, but also by the fact that many commodities have specific duties expressed in dollars and cents per pound or other unit. Where such duties have not been changed as prices have gone up, the amount of the duties expressed as percentages of the current values of the commodities are much less now than they were 20 years ago. It very definitely remains to be seen how much further the people of the United States are prepared to go in reducing our tariff duties.

I should like now to discuss briefly the second question which I raised regarding how many dollars our friends abroad could earn if we took off our restrictions. We are greatly indebted to Dr. Howard S. Piquet, economist with the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. Dr. Piquet made a very careful analysis, commodity by commodity, to determine the degree to which imports would increase if all tariff duties and quotas were simultaneously suspended temporarily. His findings are published in his recent book, Aid, Trade, and the Tariff. Dr. Piquet's study indicates that if all United States tariffs had been suspended in 1951 imports into the United States would have been from $800 million to $1,800,000,000 more than they actually were. If quotas as well as tariffs had been suspended, the increase in our imports might have been from $1,200,000,000 to $2,600,000,000 more than they were in 1951. This larger figure would have been equal to 58 percent of the money spent on foreign aid in that year. This, however, makes no allowance that many commodities not now imported at all might enter a free United States market. The study suggests, therefore, that the United States probably could import enough goods and services to close the dollar gap if it announced a long-term policy of free trade.

It is possible, however, that adjustments would be made by domestic industries to meet competition from abroad, and there is some doubt as to whether or not other countries could actually compete with the advanced production methods of the United States. The issue becomes not so much one of entirely eliminating the need for aid by means of trade, but rather substituting part of the aid through more liberal trade policies than we have adopted heretofore.

In his address to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce on May 15, Mr. Walter Williams, Under Secretary of Commerce, discussed the subject in terms of More Trade, Less Aid. Mr. Williams emphasized that American industry generally does not need to fear competition from abroad. He stated that "the productivity of American labor in most of our industries is so much higher than the productivity of labor in rival industries abroad that the difference in wage levels is more than offset. In most of our industries

we need have no fear. The fact of the superior productivity of American labor is the safeguard against unemployment or reduced standards of living." He goes on to say that "while we do export raw products in substantial quantities, the bigger part of our exports consists of fully manufactured commodities. This has been the case for some time. Every year since before World War II over 50 percent of our total exports has consisted of manufactured commodities." He then makes this significant point:

"These exported manufactures compete advantageously with the products of other countries in every market in the world. Were it not for the fact that so many countries now deliberately limit their imports from the United States as a means of conserving their dollars, American-manufactured goods would be exported even more extensively. This is not the kind of fact that supports fears of foreign competition. This kind of fact clearly indicates that the greater part of American industry has nothing to fear from the competition of foreign products."

While we are talking about tariffs, quotas, and other restrictions upon imports to the United States, we should also keep in mind that we are not alone in this respect. In fact, some of the most restrictive policies against the free exchange of goods in international commerce exist outside of the United States. Conversely, there is no other area in the world where such a volume of free exchange of goods and services takes place as within our own borders. If Western Europe had the same degree of free trade as that between the various States on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the need for United States aid might very largely disappear. The preferential treatment within the British Commonwealth of nations is another instance of restrictive policies which retard the free flow of goods and services in an important economic area. Under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements program we have often obtained reduction in duty on the part of other countries, only to find import quotas and exchange restrictions preventing us from selling certain commodities in any substantial quantity. So, while we are talking about international trade as requiring a twoway street, we should keep in mind that trade restrictions exist on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. If our ultimate aims of a prosperous free world are to be accomplished, it is necessary that other countries adopt in practice as well as principle the policies which they are urging upon the United States.

Now let us look at this whole problem from another angle. We are concerned at this Institute with the general theme of "Who holds the keys to peace and war?” Trade is important and dollars are important, but attitudes of mind are more important. Any discussion of aid by trade within this general theme would be incomplete without consideration of the psychological factors involved. One of the factors that occurs to me as having a very decided effect upon the attitude of other people toward the United States is the complexity of our customs regulations. Both President Eisenhower and President Truman have emphasized the necessity for more businesslike customs procedures in order to promote better relations between the United States and other countries. In addition to customs regulations, we need to change the attitude, not only of our public officials, but also the attitude of the people of the United States toward purchasing goods from abroad. The report of the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security which I referred to a little while ago contains a statement that many goods take longer to pass through United States customs than it took Columbus to discover America. According to this report, the collectors' offices reported 723,000 unliquidated

entries on hand December 30, 1952. Cases requiring 2 to 4 years for decision are common, and during all this period the importer is unable to determine what his liability will be on goods he is selling in the American market. I think this situation is a reflection of the attitude of the American people toward international trade. Apparently most of us do not care whether or not the Customs Bureau acts in a businesslike manner. It certainly must be most exasperating to people across the seas when they are faced with such an attitude.

Folks often say to me that it must be exceedingly difficult to understand the oriental mind. During the past few years I have had an opportunity to travel in the Orient and I have had many interesting conversations with folks from that part of the world. One remark which I shall always remember is that of a Chinese who said: "You Americans are hard to understand. You talk as if you thought you were good businessmen, but you never want to sell anything; all you want to do is to give it away." Originally, people in other parts of the world became acquainted with Americans when the Yankee traders of the eastern seaboard put a few articles in their sailing ships and went out to other countries. These men traded the things which they had on board for the things which other people had to exchange and then they brought these articles back and sold them for a profit in the Colonies. The Yankee traders established a reputation as good bargainers. Because they were good bargainers, other people respected and admired them, and thus other folks came to have a high regard for the business ability of Americans.

I sometimes wonder if we may not have lost ground in recent years in the area of psychological attitudes. It is sometimes hard for other people to understand why a great, rich, businesslike nation would give away so much. In many instances it has been very difficult and often impossible for the people of other countries to understand why we do it. Not understanding our motives, they become suspicious of us. Furthermore, in all too many cases, the people have not been able to see how they themselves have received any benefit from the aid programs of the United States. So it seems appropriate for us to reexamine our whole foreign policy in the light of the effect that it has upon the attitude of other people toward the people of the United States.

While in Washington recently I picked up a pamphlet at the office of the United States Chamber of Commerce. The title of this pamphlet was "Whither Bound Japan?" As I read this thought-provoking document, I recalled the stimulating conversation a few of us had in Tokyo in the fall of 1949 with General MacArthur and members of the SCAP organization. At the time of the surrender in 1945. General MacArthur and his army were confronted with some 80 million conquered people who did not have enough to eat. Before the war they had imported rice from Korea and Formosa. These sources of supply were no longer available to them. After a few efforts to get the folks back home to realize the situation, the general sent a message to the War Department saying, in effect, send me more food or more troops.

The United States then embarked upon a program of supplying food for the Japanese. Much of this food was in the form of wheat from the Pacific Northwest. As a result of the things that were done at the time of the occupation, Japan has become one of the important customers of Oregon wheat producers.

The Japanese are an industrious, selfrespecting people. They work hard and they produce all of the food their land will yield. They still lack 3 million metric tons

of rice and wheat which they must have to feed their growing population. They also need to import cotton, petroleum, and a lot of other commodities. As Japan looks to the future, these industrious, self-respecting people do not want us to support them. They have manufactured goods to sell, and they want to pay their own way. They are going to produce articles for sale somewhere in the world. Wherever in the world they sell their manufactured goods, that is where they will be able to buy the rice and the wheat and the cotton and the petroleum and coking coal and the iron ore and the wool and the bauxite they must have. With our present tariff policy and general attitude toward imports into the United States, it is exceedingly difficult for the Japanese to earn dollars with which to buy the wheat and other things which they need. Temporarily they were able to get dollars from the United States Treasury during the occupation and as a result of our expenditures in connection with the Korean war. Obviously that is not a permanent solution to the problem.

I have tried to visualize just what Japan might sell to the United States. She used to sell us silk, and still might sell us some, but it is hard to imagine the women of America switching from nylon stockings. She might sell us some cameras, microscopes, telescopes, and other precision optical instruments. She can produce excellent chinaware and ceramics, and of course toys, fireworks, and many novelty items. But it is entirely possible that in spite of their low wage rates, the Japanese could not sell enough in the dollar area to pay for all the things they need to buy. In the face of this situation, what is going to be our attitude toward trading with Japan? Are we going to discourage trade by irritating customs regulations, import quotas, discriminatory tariffs, and other devices? Or are we going to express at least a willingness to accept what she has to offer in payment for the food and industrial commodities which she needs to buy from us?

If we, by our attitude toward imports, prevent the Japanese from buying in the markets of the free world, where else can they get the things they must have in order to exist? Where else but in Red China and Russia? One of the challenging questions which was raised by General MacArthur when we talked with him in 1949 was whether the people in the States realized the issues which are at stake; whether we realized what we must do if we are to play the role which history has assigned to us as the leading creditor nation of the world.

What I have said about Japan applies to even a greater degree to our relations with England, France, Italy, and Western Germany. Here is a paragraph from an editorial in the New York Times, Monday, June 8, 1953:

"Meanwhile, word from countries as diverse as Japan and Argentina, France and Australia shows that the Communist world is feverishly speeding up its drive to increase trade between the Soviet and nonSoviet worlds. Insofar as this trade is con

fined to nonstrategic commodities, our Government's policy is not against it. But it is clear that the Communist traders' objective is seriously to weaken or to eliminate the existing curbs on sales of strategic goods to them. To the extent that our country follows a protectionist policy, we play into Moscow's hands on this issue. It is a tribute to the free world's solidarity that to date the Communist propaganda on this issue has largely failed, but the strength

of this Communist drive will undoubtedly

increase. It would seem wise for our own governmental policies to be planned with this factor in mind."

This is only one of many indications which have come to my attention in recent months that if the United States is not willing to trade with the industrial nations of the free world, there are other folks who would very much like to trade with them, and I do not need to elaborate on what effect this would have upon the security of the United States.

Now, just a few words by way of summary and conclusion. The policy as stated by the Eisenhower administration points out the need for removal of barriers to the free. exchange of goods and services-not only on the part of the United States but on the part of other countries as well. These barriers are not only in the form of tariffs but also involve import quotas, exchange restrictions, and customs regulations. The dollar gap, which amounted to some $36 billion during the 7 years 1946 through 1952, could probably not have been completely eliminated if the United States had adopted a policy of unlimited free trade, but such a policy on our part, along with a similar policy on the part of other countries, might have been very helpful. We have gone a long way toward removal of trade barriers during the past 18 years. Any further steps by us to

reduce trade restrictions should be accompanied by assistance to the industries and laboring people who would be affected by such a policy. Reducing trade barriers on our part should also be accompanied by comparable action on the part of other countries. The psychological factors involved in this whole problem are, perhaps, more important than the economic factors. In order to regain the respect of other people, we need to reestablish ourselves as good traders. We need to insist that we get value received for what other folks buy from us. Somehow or other the governments of the world need to permit the people of the world to trade with another. If this can be done, then trade may well become the basis of mutual respect and confidence which alone can result in mutual security.

ASSISTANCE RENDERED BY SENATOR FERGUSON IN CONNECTION WITH BILL GRANTING IMMUNITY IN CERTAIN CASES

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, it has always been my intention to give credit where credit is due. It occurs to me that full credit may not have been given to the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON] in relation to a matter where credit is deserved.

Some days ago the Senate passed a bill (S. 16) providing for the granting of immunity from prosecution to witnesses before congressional committees under certain conditions and subject to certain restrictions and safeguards, in order that the Congress may be in a position to require the testimony of a witness even when he claims his privilege against selfincrimination under the fifth amendment. That bill has been under consideration by the Judiciary Committee for several years; I put the history of the legislation in the RECORD the day it passed. In all that time the committee has had, and I have had as author of the legislation, the assistance, guidance, and support of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERGUSON]. Throughout the consideration of that bill, during the time it has been before the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Michigan has given to the bill the benefit of his fine training

in the law, his experience, and his ability. He was the author of a major amendment to the bill; namely, the provision requiring concurrence of at least two members from each major party, before the granting of immunity could be authorized. He spoke for the bill in committee, while he was a member of the committee, and on the floor of the Senate; when I took the floor to urge that this bill be brought up, he arose and supported my request. It would be unjust to allow this opportunity to pass without paying tribute to the splendid work done by the Senator from Michigan in behalf of this bill, in cooperation with the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, while the Senator from Michigan was a member of the committee, and his fine support of the bill on the Senate floor.

I regret exceedingly that the Senator from Michigan has found it necessary to resign from membership on the Judiciary Committee, and to become a member of another committee. It has been a deprivation indeed to the Committee on the Judiciary that the Senator from Michigan has not been able to remain on it, because his fine training, experience, and background have always been of great benefit to the committee.

I hope the Senator from Michigan will continue to maintain an interest, as by action with respect to S. 16 indicates he will, in legislation coming from the Committee on the Judiciary; and that we may always have his fine assistance in the handling of such legislation on the floor.

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS AND STOCKMEN-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6054) to amend the act of April 6, 1949, to provide for additional emergency assistance to farmers and stockmen, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be read for the information of the Senate.

(For text of conference report, see pp. 8656-8657 of House proceedings, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of Friday, July 10, 1953.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the report?

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should like to have the able chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry make a brief explanation of the conference report.

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. President, I should like to inquire whether the distinguished chairman has discussed the matter with the distinguished minority leader, the senior Senator from Texas

[Mr. JOHNSON].

Mr. AIKEN. I have not. I cannot conceive that either the acting majority

leader or the minority leader would have the slightest objection to the consideration of the conference report.

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. President, I now understand there is no objection.

Mr. AIKEN. The committee of conference agreed substantially to the Senate bill, with the exception of the section relating to emergency feed and seed laws. This section was stricken by the Senate on the ground that it was covered by other legislation. However, after discussing the matter with the House conferees, it was agreed that probably it would be better to have language in the bill covering the item. So, the conference report contains a modified version of the provision for emergency assistance in furnishing feed and seed, which was originally stricken out of the bill by the Senate. This proThis provision does not create any new authority. It is simply a question of whether the funds for carrying out this authority shall come from the President's emergency fund or from the disaster loan revolving fund. Many agencies, particularly the Civil Defense Administration, are interested in the President's fund; and the Budget Bureau has assured us that from an accounting and administrative viewpoint, it is preferable that this assistance be furnished from the disaster loan revolving fund. Language which appeared to invite discrimination in waiving payment for feed and seed has been removed; and in view of the explanation of the Budget Bureau and removal of the objectionable language, the conferees believe that the provision should be included in the bill.

Mr. CARLSON. Do I correctly understand from the conference report that funds for feed and seed loans would come from the disaster relief fund?

Mr. AIKEN. Not now. They would have come from the disaster relief fund had the provision which was stricken by the Senate remained out of the bill. The fund will now come from the revolving fund of the RACC, or what formerly was the RACC agency. It was feared that the President's emergency funds might become exhausted in case of serious disasters of another nature. Therefore the Bureau of the Budget thought it would be better to have the agricultural disaster loans for feed and seed paid out of the revolving fund rather than to take a chance on calling on another fund which might at some time prove to be inadequate.

Mr. CARLSON. Do I correctly understand that the feed and seed loans at the present time, and under the present program, will be handled as they have been handled in the past, through the same funds which were available in previous years for feed and seed loans?

Mr. AIKEN. After this bill becomes law, the feed and seed loans will be made out of the revolving fund, rather than the President's immediate disaster fund.

Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate very much the statement of the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

XCIX- -540

Mr. AIKEN. The Senate conferees agreed that the situation would be improved, and the House conferees agreed that by changing the language of the House provision the bill itself would be improved, and there would be no chance for misunderstanding or ambiguity. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield.

Mr. CARLSON. Do I correctly understand, then, that upon the final enactment of the legislation emergency funds will be provided for financing loans in the disaster area for livestock; second, that loans will be provided for feed; and, third, that emergency loans will be provided for feed and seed?

Mr. AIKEN. It provides for loans for agricultural purposes of any kind in disaster-areas. It provides for nationwide loans on livestock on a temporary, 2year basis; and it provides for loans for feed and seed in disaster areas, to be made from the revolving fund of the Department of Agriculture rather than from the President's disaster fund.

Mr. CARLSON. I wish to commend the Senator and his committee for the diligence with which they have handled this critical and very much needed piece of legislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The report was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OF WHEAT MARKETING QUOTA PROVISIONS OF AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF

1938

being the Wiggins airways renewal investigation case.

There being no objection, the dissenting opinion was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MEMBERS LEE AND ADAMS DISSENTING

We dissent from the majority's refusal to renew Wiggins for the same basic reasons set forth in our original dissenting opinion in this proceeding. We are unable to adopt the majority's conclusion that the area involved in this proceeding is too weak to justify from an economic standpoint a properly established local air transportation system. On the contrary, we believe that the establishment of a sound local service pattern providing these communities with rapid transportation to their major trade centers would have just as good a chance for success as similar systems in other sections of the country. We are convinced that if Wiggins were given a proper route system and permitted to operate this system with DC-3 or an adequate feeder aircraft, Wiggins, just as the other local service carriers have done, would be able to make a satisfactory showing in the public interest.

We regard the majority's decision as particularly unfortunate because it is made in opposition to urgent requests on the part of representatives of cities and State civic interests as well as outstanding representatives of the political subdivisions of New England, all of whom are particularly well versed in

the needs and deficiencies of the air transportation system of New England. We cannot agree with the majority that the natural interest which these public-spirited New England citizens have expressed should be ignored when even the majority cannot deny that the route system which Wiggins was operating could have been substantially improved in this case so that the cities in the New England area could have had the benefit of a true local service experiment. JOSH LEE. JOSEPH P. ADAMS.

CEEDINGS AGAINST NORTH AMERICAN AIRLINES

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives disagreeing to CIVIL AREONAUTICS BOARD PROthe amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5451) to amend the wheat-marketing-quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes, and requesting a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. AIKEN. I move that the Senate insist upon its amendments, agree to the request of the House for a conference, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. AIKEN, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. THYE, Mr. ELLENDER, and Mr. HOLLAND conferees on the part of the Senate.

LOCAL AIRLINE SERVICE IN NEW ENGLAND-DISSENTING OPINION OF JOSH LEE AND JOSEPH P. ADAMS

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] and myself, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD the dissenting opinion of the Honorable Josh Lee and the Honorable Joseph P. Adams, both members of the Civil Aeronautics Board, in docket No. 5055 et al., decided July 3, 1953,

Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. President, on Saturday, the distinguished junior Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] spoke to the Senate briefly concerning the pending enforcement proceedings which have been brought by the Civil Aeronautics Board against North American Airlines. Because of the lateness of the day, the Senator from Alabama spoke only briefly, and obtained permission to insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the remainder of his speech and a memorandum. I had also intended to speak on Saturday concerning the same problem, but because other Senators were obviously anxious to adjourn the Senate, I deferred saying anything until today.

Over the past week I received numerous telegrams from people in Missouri protesting against enforcement proceedings against North American Airlines and urging that I speak against this action.

This is a matter on which up to this time I have not had an opportunity to familiarize myself in detail, and for this reason I was very much interested in the remarks of my good friend, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN].

ANDERSON COLLEGE

LIBRARY

ANDERSON, INDIANA

45177

For several years, as one of the air traveling public, I have been aware of the growth of the so-called nonscheduled air lines and of their great contribution to American aviation. I also have been aware of the fact that from the inception of regulation by the Civil Aeronautics Board, the air transport industry has had a shrinkage in the number of scheduled air lines from 16 to 13, rather than a growth.

We in the United States have long since come to feel that we do not fear or oppose bigness, as such, in industry or anything else. On the other hand, we have for many years been opposed to monopoly in any form. We have laws which prohibit the growth and development of monopolies, but these conspiracies in restraint of trade nonetheless as we well know-and as last year I showed in connection with the international oil cartel-continue to develop. I hope a monopoly is not threatened in the air transport industry, but I must say, on the basis of considerable evidence referred to by the Senator from Alabama and on the basis of the questions which he raised in his speech on Saturday, I am compelled to express great concern over the administration of the Civil Aeronautics Act by the Civil Aeronautics Board.

The Senator from Alabama stated on Saturday that the North American Airlines is the largest, most reliable, and most experienced carrier among the independent nonscheduled air carriers. He noted that they receive no subsidy from the Treasury, and have never received a subsidy; that they have a fine record of safety. The charge against them seems to be that they are guilty, in the eyes of the Civil Aeronautics Board, of flying too frequently, too regularly, and in some instances, of conducting their business in a manner similar to that of the certificated carriers in regard to honoring passenger passenger tickets among each other. The Senator from Alabama stated that the regulations which this carrier is charged with violating had been repeatedly challenged in recent hearings conducted by the Senate Small Business Committee, in the course of which the Senator said it was shockingly revealed that these regulations had a premeditated motive designed to deprive one segment of the aviation industry-the nonscheduled independent carrier-of economic survival.

As I understand, the Civil Aeronautics Board is determined to go forward with these enforcement proceedings, which would put this large independent carrier out of business, in spite of protests from congressional committees and Members of Congress. It seems to me that in view of the findings and recommendations of the Senate Small Business Committee and the importance of this carrier to the air transportation industry, the decision of the Civil Aeronautics Board to proceed at this time with the enforcement action can be questioned. While my immediate interest in this matter has been occasioned by the appeals from my fellow citizens in Missouri, I have for a long time viewed the economics of the air transportation industry with increasing concern.

It has been charged repeatedly that this industry is threatened with monopoly. While I have not had an opportunity to fully acquaint myself with the facts concerning the charges of an air cartel, I am aware, as are other Members of Congress, that these charges are being made from sources which appear substantial and reliable.

In view of this situation, I think the Congress should investigate quite thoroughly the administration by the Civil Aeronautics Board of the air-transport industry, and either should lay to rest the charges which have been made, or should take some action to correct the alleged trend toward monopoly, if the charges are substantiated.

In any case, I wish to indicate now that I am very much concerned with this problem and intend to go into the matter thoroughly. At a later date, after I have had more time to study this matter, I shall speak on the problem at much greater length.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD following my remarks, a number of telegrams which I received in protest against the Civil Aeronautics Board's pending enforcement proceeding.

There being no objection, the telegrams were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

KANSAS CITY, Mo., July 9, 1953. Senator TOM HENNINGS, Jr., Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: As a war veteran I thought I was fighting for democracy but ever since I have come home and watched the CAB killing off civilian enterprise in aviation I ask myself if I was fighting for bureaucracy at home. DALE BOWERS.

KANSAS CITY, KANS., July 9, 1953. Senator TOM HENNINGS, Jr., Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Recently had to see my son, a Korean veteran, in the naval hospital in San Diego and thanks to North American Airlines was able to afford the trip which major airlines made which keeps prices down.

These are serious charges, and many other serious questions were raised on Saturday about this pending enforcement proceeding. One must remember that this nonscheduled carrier was organized by veterans of World War II, with the help of and on the urging of the Federal Government, and without airmail subsidy. This group of companies have demonstrated that without the airmail subsidy, which the regularly prohibitive. You should fight for any group scheduled airlines get, they were able to operate safely a fine air transport service to the public, at greatly reduced cost. This is a type of free enterprise about which America can be proud, and one which it appears to me we wish to encourage, not destroy.

VINCENT ABELL.

KANSAS CITY, Mo., July 9, 1953. Senator TOM HENNINGS, Jr., Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Livelihood of myself and family depend on North American Airlines in Kansas City.

[blocks in formation]

KANSAS CITY, Mo., July 6, 1953. Senator THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Urgently request you advise what specific steps you will take to prevent CAB from its harassment and destruction of North American Airlines, which employs over 400 people and last year carried 8,700 people in and out of Kansas City. Currently CAB using flimsy technical grounds to bring lengthy and expensive proceedings with view to killing North American. Understand Senator THYE and Senate Small Business Committee have intervened, as has Senator TOBEY, but Board disregards all merits involved and is bent upon strangulation by regulation, which is designed to destroy all independent enterprise and aviation. Despite court intervention, CAB is launching its extermination proceedings July 6.

Feel your voice should be raised on Senate floor to prevent economic murder. This is not only vital to the traveling public of Missouri but to the breadwinning veterans who built this industry. Upon your effecAmerica belongs to few subsidized monopoly tiveness depends question whether air over airlines or the American public. Please advise action which you will undertake.

i

V. GORDON, Regional Manager, North American Airlines.

KANSAS CITY, Mo., July 9, 1953. Senator THOMAS HENNINGS, Jr., Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: Feel North American Airlines survival absolutely necessary as a last stand to save free enterprise in aviation. It is the largest nonsked with perfect safety record; provides air transportation to millions in low income bracket. As originator of air-coachtype service, creating new flying market, which will be left without air transportation or forced to pay double on luxury line of monopoly system.

V. GORDON, Regional Manager.

REAPPRAISAL OF FEDERAL-AID

AIRPORT PROGRAM

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may address the Senator for approximately 5 or 6 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Nevada that he may proceed at this time for 5 or 6 minutes, notwithstanding the 2-minute rule during the morning hour?

The Chair hears no objection, and the Senator from Nevada may proceed.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that announcement has been made that a group of 12 Members, named by the Commerce De

partment, for the announced purpose of reappraising the Federal-aid airport program, expects to have final recommendations ready in September. It is reported these recommendations will be transmitted to the Transportation Council of the Department of Commerce.

According to the reports which have reached me, subcommittees of this 12man group already have prepared individual reports on such matters as the current status of the Federal-aid airport program, the history of Federal aid, and

so forth.

It is said, Mr. President, that the objective of this 12-man group, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, is to determine what should be the future responsibility of the Federal Government with respect to development of a national program of civil airports.

Mr. President, I wish to say once more what I have said on previous occasions, namely, that the determination of policy with respect to the future responsibility of the Federal Government in connection with maintenance and development of an integrated system of civil airports, is something to be determined by the Congress, not by the Department of Commerce.

There is nothing wrong, of course, in a study by the Department of Commerce or by the Civil Aeronautics Administration of the responsibilities imposed upon that Department and upon that Administration under the Civil Aeronautics Act, as amended. Nor is there any reason why the Department or the CAA should not make recommendations to Congress for changes in the basic legislation, if they deem such a recommendation justified.

I hope, however, that the Department of Commerce, if it has any recommendations to make with respect to modification of the program which Congress has laid down in this regard, will make them to the proper legislative committees of the Congress, and will not attempt either to put such recommendations into effect by administrative fiat, or to accomplish them by administrative cutting of the budget, or even to bring them about by provisions written into or left out of appropriations bills.

It is my contention, Mr. President, that if a Government agency thinks its functions should be cut, thinks duties imposed upon it by the Congress should

no longer be performed in behalf of the Federal Government, it is both the right make recommendations to the Congress. and the duty of that department to But it is neither the right nor the duty of the department to set itself up as making policy, or as changing the policy Congress has laid down. Furthermore, I greatly deplore the tendency, which I have noted in especial force this year, and particularly in the Commerce Department, and more particularly with regard to the Federal airport program— the tendency to seek approval of administrative changes, even though involving basic shifts of policy, by the Appropriations Committee, rather than by the Legislative Committee which nor

mally handle the Department's prob

lems.

Mr. President, I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and I would do nothing to demean that committee nor to take from it any of its proper jurisdiction or responsibilities. I simply do not believe it is the proper jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, nor a proper responsibility of the Committee on Appropriations, to authorize basic changes in the organic law of any of the departments. function is to be ended, it should be ended through legislation reported in an orderly manner by the proper legislative

If a

committee. If a function is to be changed, the same is true. The tendency to seek the lopping off of functions by mere failure to appropriate, and the change of functions by riders or limiting language in appropriations bills, is a tendency which is leading us in the wrong direction, and which can only end, eventually, in both confusion, with respect to the administration of the laws, and confusion and dissension with respect to the prerogatives and responsibilities of the varying committees of the Congress.

I do not believe the Appropriations Committee desires to make any attempt to take over the legislative responsibilities of the various standing committees of the Senate; and I think any department or agency in the executive branch which seeks to put the Appropriations Committee in the position of doing so, should be brought up sharply and turned back into the proper channels.

I do not mean by anything I have said, Mr. President, to imply that I have read the mind of the Secretary of Commerce, and that I know what he proposes to do with the eventual report of the group which he appointed to reappraise the I have Federal-aid Airport program.

simply been putting in the RECORD some views which I hold rather strongly, and which I felt might be of interest not merely to the Secretary of Commerce, but also to my colleagues and especially my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. FERGUSON. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

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

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CASE in the chair) laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees.

(For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.)

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A
COMMITTEE

As in executive session, The following favorable reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. LANGER, from the Committee on the Judiciary:

Joseph P. Willson, of Pennsylvania, to be United States district judge for the western

district of Pennsylvania, vice Owen M. Burns, deceased;

George H. Boldt, of Washington, to be United States district judge for the western district of Washington, vice Charles H. Leavy, retired;

William Cozart Calhoun, of Georgia, to be United States attorney for the southern district of Georgia;

Edwin R. Denney, of Kentucky, to be United States attorney for the eastern district of Kentucky, vice Claude P. Stephens, term expired;

John W. McIlvaine, of Pennsylvania, to be United States attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania, vice Edward C. Boyle, resigning;

John C. Crawford, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States attorney for the eastern district of Tennessee;

Hugh K. Martin, of Ohio, to be United States attorney for the southern district of Ohio;

Millsaps Fitzhugh, of Tennessee, to be United States attorney for the western disexpired;

trict of Tennessee, vice John Brown, term

William M. Steger, of Texas, to be United States attorney for the eastern district of Texas;

John Strickler, of Virginia, to be United States attorney for the western district of Virginia, vice Howard C. Gilmer, Jr., term expired;

James L. May, of Alabama, to be United States marshal for the southern district of

Alabama, vice Vernon P. Burns, term expired;

Frank O. Bell, of California, to be United States marshal for the northern district of California, vice John A. Roseen, resigning;

Thomas J. Lunney, of New York, to be United States marshal for the southern district of New York;

Roy A. Harmon, of North Carolina, to be United States marshal for the western district of North Carolina, vice Jacob C. Bowman, term expired;

Harold Sexton, of Oregon, to be United States marshal for the district of Oregon; Howard S. Proctor, of Rhode Island, to be United States marshal for the district of Rhode Island;

Richard A. Simpson, of Virginia, to be United States marshal for the eastern district of Virginia; and

Nogi A. Asp, of Washington, as examiner in chief of the Patent Office.

« PreviousContinue »