every contributory private pension plan established by an employer, the benefits to an individual will be greater than his contributions.

But does this fact make the plan any less an insurance plan?

When a man takes out a private life insurance policy and pays a $50 premium, dies the next day, and his widow receives $5,000, is it any less insurance because she gets a $4,950 windfall?

If you take out a fire insurance policy for $50 and your house burns down the next day and the insurance company pays you $10,000 for your loss, is it any less insurance because you received because you received a $9,950 windfall?

In short, the fundamental principle of insurance is a sharing or pooling of risks with the income and outgo balancing over a period of time. The important point is not so much what you call the program as the essential principles underlying it.

DO YOU HAVE TỎ PAY TWICE?

A common charge against the present system is that the taxpayer will have to pay twice for social security. Once when he pays his social security contribution and again when he pays his general taxes to redeem the Government bond now held by the insurance fund.

So I cannot see how it can be claimed that those contributing to social security are to any extent paying for their insurance twice over.

It seems to me that the test as to whether this is or is not an honest trust fund is the question whether, when this money is needed by the Social Security System, it can call upon the trust fund for the money without in any way increasing the Government debt.

It can.

Certainly if you or I put some money aside as a reserve for some contingency and when this contingency arises we are able to spend this money without increasing our debts, we would have had a real reserve. This is the case with the trust fund.

For those who wish to pursue this subject in more detail I urge them to study the following statement made by the social-security committees of American Life Convention, Life Insurance Association of America, and the National Association of Life Underwriters-February 1945, pages 36-37:

Taxes paid in excess of outgo for old-age and survivors insurance have so far accumulated a reserve fund ** * all of which, except for a relatively small amount of cash, has been invested in United States Government bonds. In addition to the present and future levy of payroll taxes on workers and their employers, other taxes must be levied in the future in order to pay interest and principal on these bonds. If this is so,

They have uniformly and unanimously reported that the charge is false. The reason for the misunderstanding is that while the taxpayer has to pay twice, he doesn't pay twice for his social security. He pays twice because he pays for two separate things.

It has been alleged often that the Government spends the money in the social-security trust fund for its current expenses, but the reason that the Government spends the money when it issues any of its bonds-including those which it has sold to the trust fund-is because the Congress has appropriated and authorized certain sums to be spent.

This money would be spent anyway whether or not such a trust fund was in existence. And if the Treasury did not sell its bonds to the trust fund it would have to raise the money in some other way-either by selling bonds to individuals, banks, insurance companies, and so forth, or Congress would have to raise additional taxes to find the money which it had instructed the executive department to spend.

Bonds sold to the trust fund are as much a part of the national debt as are any other obligations of the Government. It is true, of course, that when these bonds mature all taxpayers will have to contribute to paying them off. But all taxpayers would have had to contribute to paying off these bonds in any case owing to the action of Congress in appropriating the money.

The fact that these sums were invested in the trust fund does not add one nickel to the amount which the taxpayers would have had to pay anyway in redeeming these bonds when due.

taxes to create a reserve fund be collected in the first place? In other words, it is claimed by some that the investment of oldage and survivors insurance receipts in Government bonds is unsound, because the Government spends the money and the only assets the system has to show for it are in effect Treasury I O U's to itself.

The first step in understanding the problem is to agree that payroll taxes are collected so that workers may currently make a contribution to the support of the oldage and survivors insurance system from which they hope later to benefit. The money might conceivably be held in the form of cash to be used when needed. However, the Government must currently borrow large sums, and will later need similar large amounts for refinancing at least some of its rapidly maturing obligations. It is reasonable for the old-age and survivors insurance system, if it has funds available, to take advantage of this opportunity to earn interest on its money by purchasing Government bonds. Moreover, Government bonds held in the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund can be converted into cash. The regular Treasury issues held may be sold directly to the public and the special Treasury issues which are not negotiable are redeemable by the Treasury which can obtain the money by selling to the public an equivalent amount of its regular securities.

Furthermore, the apparent double taxation does not involve an avoidable burden if it can be assumed that the excess of income over outgo which creates the reserve fund is used by the Government for some essential purpose, and does not by its existence and availability stimulate unnecessary expenditures. The purchasing of bonds by the old-age and survivors insurance system means that later on, when it needs money in excess of payroll tax receipts in order to pay benefits, the interest (raised of course by general taxation) on the bonds will be available to meet the additional benefit load. However, if the bonds had not been bought by the system but were

in the hands of the public, then not only would the interest on the bonds have to be raised by general taxation, but additional general taxes would have to be levied to cover the deficit in old-age and survivors insurance operations. Current payroll taxation to create a reserve fund therefore makes possible the use of interest, which the Government has to raise by taxation anyway, for a purpose which would otherwise require further general taxation on its own account.

It is evident, therefore, that the existence of a reserve fund, especially when created under conditions of deficit financing, may tend to lighten the future burden of old-age and survivors insurance on the Federal budget.

I also wish to quote the unanimous report of the 17 members of the Advisory Council on Social Security in 1948 on this point:

This reserve has been invested in United States Government securities, which, in the opinion of the Council, represent the proper form of investment for these funds. We do not agree with those who criticize this form of investment on the ground that the Government spends for general purposes the money received from the sale of securities to that fund. Actually such investment is as reasonable and proper as is the investment by life-insurance companies of their own reserve funds in Government securities. The fact that the Government uses the proceeds received from the sales of securities to pay the costs of the war and its other expenses is entirely legitimate. It no more implies mishandling of moneys received from the sale of securities to the trust fund than it does of the moneys received from the sale of United States securities to life-insurance companies, banks, or individuals.

The investment of the old-age and survivors insurance funds in Government securities does not mean that people have been or will be taxed twice for the same benefits, as has been charged. The following example illustrates this point: Suppose some year in the future the outgo under the old-age and survivors insurance system should exceed payroll tax receipts by $100 million. If there were then $5 billion of United States 2-percent bonds in the trust fund, they would produce interest amounting to $100 million a year. This interest would, of course, have to be raised by taxation. But suppose there were no bonds in the trust fund. In that event, $100 million to cover the deficit in the old-age and survivors insurance system would have to be raised by taxation; and, in addition, another $100 million would have to be raised by taxation to pay interest on $5 billion of Government bonds owned by someone else. The bonds would be in other hands because if the Government had not been able to borrow from the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund, it would have had to borrow the same amount from other sources. In other words, the ownership of the $5 billion in bonds by the old-age and survivors insurance system would prevent the $100 million from having to be raised twice, quite the opposite from the double taxation that has been charged.

be blanketed-in under the insurance program for a minimum benefit.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States has made this proposal. Under their proposal the cost of blanketing-in the uninsured aged-including 2,600,000 persons now receiving assistance-would be paid out of current contributions made by employers and employees.

Under the chamber's proposal Congress would then eliminate Federal eliminate Federal grants to the States for old-age assistance. This cost is now borne out of general revenues.

I find it difficult to justify paying the cost of any benefits to uninsured persons out of the contributions made on behalf of contributors to the insurance system for their own future protection.

We would be breaking faith with the employees and self-employed persons of this country who have paid social-security taxes if we were to use part of their contributions to pay benefits to persons who had not contributed a single cent to the system.

RETIREMENT TEST

Under the present law benefits are paid only to persons who have retired. This was one of the principles upon which the calculations as to the amount of taxes to be paid by employer and employee was based.

Today a man is considered to have retired only if he does not earn $75 a month. This figure seems to me to be unrealistic. It is almost impossible for a worker to find even a part-time steady job which would pay him as little as this, and with the high cost of living it is difficult for the retired man to make both ends meet.

Certainly he should be allowed to earn at least $100 a month and still receive his social-security benefits, and I have introduced a bill to this effect.

However, if the retirement test were eliminated completely, it would cost the system immediately $1,400,000,000 a year and eventually from two to three billion a year more than at present.

So I believe that it would be sounder to keep the retirement test but to liberalize it to meet current needs.

PAY AS YOU GO

In recent years there has been a good deal of sentiment in favor of a so-called pay-as-you-go financing plan instead of the reserve financing embodied in the present law. A number of distinguished persons in business, finance, and insurance have stated that they are in favor of pay-as-you-go.

Obviously, there is much in such a policy that seems attractive. However, I believe that we must give very careful study to the problem before we shift to such a

plan. There are some very important policy questions which must be decided before making a radical change from our present method of financing.

For instance, if we enact the so-called pay-as-you-go plan, how will we make up the loss of interest which now accrues under our reserve system? Will we increase the taxes on employees or employers or will we make up the loss by a Government subsidy? The loss in interest

would eventually be equal to from 15 to would eventually be equal to from 15 to 20 percent of the contributions income.

It is the interest credited to the trust fund for the use of the taxpayers' money before he receives benefits which is one before he receives benefits which is one of the factors which helps make it possible to pay a worker upon retirement, or his close relatives upon his death, more than he has contributed.

Under pay-as-you-go interest earnings would no longer be a major source ings would no longer be a major source of income to the fund.

The end result would inevitably be that 25 years from now, perhaps onequarter of social-security benefits would have to be paid from general taxes.

Estimates are that this amount which would have to be charged to the general taxpayer under a pay-as-you-go plan might well be between two and two and one-half billion dollars a year. This would be more than twice the $900 million we are now paying out of general revenues for old-age assistance.

Some students of social security have suggested a plan by which one-third of the cost would be borne by the employer, one-third by the employee, and one-third from general taxation.

There might be merit to this suggestion, but we should not adopt policies tion, but we should not adopt policies which would inevitably result in such a program without very carefully weighing the consequences.

Under such a plan by 1980 somewhere between three and four billion dollars might have to be charged to the general taxpayer.

It is because of the extreme importance of making such a basic change in our program, without the most careful study, that I am opposing at this time study, that I am opposing at this time the suggestion which has been made that we should freeze the social-security tax for the coming year at 11⁄2 percent and not allow it to rise to 2 percent as provided in the present law.

We are today making promises as to how much to pay those who retire in the distant future. To make no provision to raise the money to pay our promisesto say to our children and grandchildren: We made the promises, it is up to you to fulfill them-seems to me to be cowardly.

CONCLUSION

I have tried to briefly review some of the major changes we need in our social security program. I have also pointed out some of the problems which need further study and clarification.

The important thing is that we should preserve the good features in our present program and strengthen any weak spots we may find.

President Eisenhower has recommended to cover the millions of persons who ed that the insurance system be extendare excluded. The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby, stated in the radio and television program conducted by President Eisenhower on June 3, 1953, that the administration will shortly send to the Congress a piece of legislation which will extend the coverage of old-age and survivors insurance benefits to millions not now covered.

I hope that when this legislation is transmitted to the Congress we will be

able to give it very prompt considera- · tion.

We should do so.

President Eisenhower's recommendations to this end should be given priority over any study, public hearings, or legislative program on the whole subject of social security.

Our social security system cannot be successful unless we take the first step of making it all-embracive so that all the gainfully employed will be covered by some form of public retirement system. The first step and one that should be taken without delay is to broaden coverage to the end that those not now protected are provided for.

As I have pointed out there are many improvements that we should make in our social security program, but I believe we must put first things first.

I believe that we cannot go into every proposal that everyone has ever made and try and decide which are good and which are bad. If we were to do this, it would take several years and in the meantime the people who are still excluded from the insurance system would be losing very valuable rights and very valuable benefits.

that we take immediate steps to extend I believe, therefore, that it is urgent the coverage of the insurance system while, at the same time, study all of the other changes that need to be made.

I recognize that there are many problems connected with extending insurance coverage to the farmers and to the farmhands and domestic help not covered by the present program.

The problem has been studied by many expert groups and all of them are convinced that there are no administrative or social reasons why we should delay in extending protection to those not now covered.

The farmers, doctors, and other groups who are not covered are already helping to pay for the retirement benefit of the persons who are covered. Part of this cost is included in part in the price the individual pays for the manufactured product he buys. It is only right and proper that part of the cost of old-age protection be included in the price of the product which everyone buys.

But while the farmer and doctor is paying for the old-age security of the worker he is not now building up any retirement protection for himself and his family, and what is of even greater importance to him, he is not building up any insurance protection for his family in case of his premature death.

If there are any individuals among the noncovered group who do not wish to be covered, they must remember that the system cannot become an unqualified success without the broader coverage, and that, as is so often the case in a democratic Republic such as ours, they must sacrifice their individual wishes to the good of the greater number.

Federal old-age and survivors insurance is basically sound. We should take the necessary steps promptly to expand and improve it. I shall make every effort to urge the Congress to strengthen the insurance system so that it will be a better and sounder program for all the American people.

VOICE OF AMERICA

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 15 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks and include a chart, if it is eligible to be printed, and also a letter from the national commander of the American Legion.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations we are considering here today are of extreme importance to international security of the United States. The peaceful stable world which we all hoped for and expected after the end of the last war has never come about. Instead of international friendship and cooperation for world progress we are faced today with acute international tension. Our Nation has been forced to make severe economic sacrifices in order to protect our security. We have made great sacrifices on the field of battle in order to protect our Nation and the rest of the free world from aggression. With the world in its present state, armed strength must necessarily interfere with some of those great material advantages which our Nation enjoys.

I do not need to tell you who is responsible for this sorry state of world affairs. You all know that one nation only has destroyed world peace and created the present crisis. You all know that one nation alone is trying to destroy the free countries of the world by aggression from without and subversion from within. That nation is no democracy, it is a dictatorship of the worst type. It is ruled by a small handful of cruel tyrants.

Our country on the other hand is great because it has high ideals and because it stands on a firm moral foundation. Those ideals and those morals will not permit us to wage unprovoked war. We are the strongest nation in the world, but we fight only when attacked. No nation need fear our strength unless it is bent on aggression.

We have set the U. S. S. R. back on its heels. Despite the sacrifices we have made, we are in a very favorable position and we cannot afford to relax our efforts. The people now understand the Soviet menace and they are united against it. The free nations understand this menace and are rapidly moving to strengthen themselves. When Americans are united and determined nothing can stand before them.

We must not relax our vigilance militarily or psychologically. The international information program must be effectively continued.

Now more than ever the United States information program is an essential weapon in our armament of cold war. A few weeks ago the Communists in East Germany committed a grave miscalculation. I want to see that miscalculation-their treatment of the workers of Soviet sector of Berlin-played up, and played up again, so that every wage earner in the world will know about it, and think about it, and never forget it. That will be one of the tasks of the inXCIX-555

formation program for weeks and months to come: To shoot arrow after arrow into that Achilles' heel of communism, and I would like to see the program kept equipped with a good bow and a full quiver.

We must all, you know, recognize the sobering fact that, against our arrows of propaganda, the Communist Party is using guns of propaganda. If once this month the Communists have committed a grave miscalculation, once this month they have also achieved a brilliant success-and that was in Italy. In Italy, the vote for the Communist candidates increased over the vote for 1948. The Italian Communist Party, largest in the Western World, does not conduct propaganda only in certain selected areas, and at certain selected times-election times. It conducts propaganda all over Italy all the time-every day in the week. The ramifications of its highly organized, intensely implacable effort are staggering. To judge that effort by its manifold surface manifestations, and by conservative intelligence estimates, it throws 106,000 full-time workers and $24 million into propaganda every year. For every one American dollar spent on information in Italy, the Communists spend three and a half dollars. For every 1 American employee thrown into information work, the Communists throw 329. Some of their workers work gratis, out of zeal. Others are provided by the party with jobs in front organizations, and in private businesses. It is the humiliating situation of the arrow versus the gun, the firecracker versus the hand grenade.

What about France, the keystone of the arch of European defense? If we recognize it as the keystone, so do the Communists, you can be sure. With national elections taking place eventually in that country-and they may take place soon-what kind of apparatus will the Communists put to work? Tremendous though the apparatus in Italy may be, the apparatus in France almost takes one's breath away. In France, communism is practically a big business. It works with a big business budget and operates at a big business profit. Indeed, communism in France might well be said to be a state within a state.

Communism controls the largest labor union in France. There are thousands of Communists in the French civil service. Three daily newspapers in Paris, 14

Italy..
Ratio.
France..
Ratio..
Worldwide total.
Ratio....

Place

dailies and 61 weeklies in the provinces, 83 literary, legal, medical, engineering, agricultural, and other journals, comic books for children, films and pamphlets and leaflets and posters in immense quantities, radio broadcasts in French from Moscow, Budapest, Warsaw, and Prague-all these are among the big, booming guns in the French Communist armory. The party puts between thirtyfive and thirty-eight million dollars into its propaganda funds and 14,000 men and women into its propaganda personnel, and the funds are simply the top of an iceberg. The part underneath, the money spent by front organizations and covert activities, is many times larger than the part above the surface. It is all the same story again. For every American information dollar in France, there are, at the.very least, 7 Communist dollars; for every American information worker, 61 Communist workers. The arrow and the firecracker versus the gun and the grenade.

It has been said before, and it should be said again, especially here and now, here in the House of the greatest country in the world, now, in this critical year of 1953, so please permit me to say it: The Communists put more effort into two countries, Italy and France, than we put into our effort throughout the world.

Counting their effort in all countries, Italy and France, inclusive, the Communists outspend us, by at least sixteen and a half dollars to one, and they outman us, by at least 166 workers to 1, in the continuing war for men's minds. It is they, in short, who are fighting a war. We are fighting only a battle. Throughout the world, the Communists choose to be major league. We choose to be minor league.

I do not claim that we should match them dollar for dollar or worker for worker. Thank God, we have truth on our side, and you cannot estimate the dollar potency of that. But we do have to make the truth known. It is one of the paradoxes of our times that Communists, who are materialists, believe in making a powerful appeal to that spiritual element in man: his mind and his heart. They believe in putting immense amounts of money, immense accumulations of time and effort and conviction and fanaticism, into their detestable lies. How much do we believe in putting into our truth?

The chart referred to follows:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

1. If the personnel ratios shown on the chart are higher than the dollar ratio, it is because many Communist propaganda workers serve gratis, out of zeal. Others are placed by the party in remunerative jobs

with front organizations, with businesses, and with Government bureaus.

In Italy, for example, in addition to the 106,000 full-time propagandists, it is estimated that there are at least 360,000 persons devoting part of their time to propaganda work.

2. The figure of $1,600,000,000 (spent for overt Communist propaganda propaganda activities only) does not include the propaganda expenditures in Red China or the majority of international front organizations and undercover propaganda.

3. The figures shown on this chart are based on conservative estimates furnished by United States Government sources.

THE AMERICAN LEGION,
Washington, D. C., July 13, 1953.

Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,

House Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCCORMACK: The American Legion, in formal resolutions adopted at its national conventions in 1950, 1951, and 1952, has stated that the way to victory in the battle for peace is to win the struggle for the minds of men.

The American Legion thus has called for a revitalized and independent overseas information campaign, and it now stands squarely behind the President's proposal of Reorganization Plan No. 8 for that purpose.

The House Appropriations Committee, however, has recommended a cut of about 33 percent of President Eisenhower's request. This actually will amount to approximately 50 percent cut in the program after payment of liquidation costs. We are convinced that this represents too small an appropriation. The American Legion, therefore, requests that the Congress appropriate sufficient funds to assure a vigorous and successful campaign in the war now raging throughout the world for the minds of men. Now is not the time to cripple this vital activity; instead, now is the time to strike at the weaknesses and strife behind the Iron Curtain.

The restrictions imposed by the House commitee also would prevent any strengthening of the existing units of the agency. To hold the various information programs to personnel limitations of two-thirds of those now employed would have the effect of freezing each operation into a status quo which the reorganization plan is intended to improve. Such a limitation is completely contrary to the mandate of the American Legion.

As their national commander, I know that the strengthening of this propaganda campaign of the United States is a matter of direct interest to Legionnaires-as it is to all Americans.

We will, therefore, appreciate very much what you personally can do to make certain, in this field, that the United States does not come up with too little, too late.

Sincerely yours,

LEWIS K. GOUGH, National Commander.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

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

Mr. BURDICK.

Mr. LOVRE.

Mr. HARVEY and to include an editorial.

Mr. ROBSION of Kentucky and to inIclude an editorial.

Mr. WOLVERTON in three instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. PRESTON to revise and extend the remarks he expects to make in Committee of the Whole during general debate on the bill H. R. 6200 and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. DEMPSEY and to include a statement made before the Committee on

Public Works of the House by General Reybold.

Mr. HELLER (at the request of Mr. SHELLEY) in two instances and to include two newspaper articles.

Mr. PRICE in four instances and to include extraneous matter.

an address.

Mr. MAGNUSON and to include an editorial.

Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania in two instances.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois in four instances. Mr. MILLER of California to revise and extend the remarks he expects to make on the bill H. R. 6049 to appear in the Appendix.

Mr. MCCARTHY and to include an editorial.

Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin to include in his remarks on the supplemental appropriation bill certain extraneous material.

Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin in three instances and to include extraneous matter. Mr. SIEMINSKI in two instances and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. HAGEN of Minnesota and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. PATTERSON (at the request of Mr. HALLECK) in two instances and to include extraneous matter.

SENATE BILLS REFERRED

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

S. J. Res. 97. Joint resolution to amend the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

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

H. R. 5451. An act to amend the wheatmarketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes; and

H. R. 5710. An act to amend further the Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended, and for other purposes.

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE
PRESIDENT

Mr. LECOMPTE, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on July 13, 1953, present to the President, for his approval, bills of the House of the following titles:

H. R. 4072. An act relating to the disposition of certain former recreational demonstration project lands by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the School Board of Mecklenburg County, Va.;

H. R. 5302. An act to provide for an additional Assistant Postmaster General in the Post Office Department; and

H. R. 6054. An act to amend the act of April 6, 1949, to provide for additional emergency assistance to farmers and stockmen, and for other purposes.

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

843. A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting a report on the audit of the Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government for the year ended June 30, 1952, pursuant to the Government Corporation Control Act (31 U. S. c. 841) and the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U. S. C. 53) (H. Doc. No. 207); to the Committee on Government Operations, and ordered to be printed.

844. A letter from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting a report of the activities providing war-risk insurance and certain marine and liability insurance for the American public, for the quarter ended June 30, 1953, pursuant to Public Law 763, 81st Congress; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

845. A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill entitled "A bill to authorize the Coast Guard to accept, operate, and maintain a certain defense housing facility at Cape May, N. J."; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

846. A letter from the Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, transmitting copies of orders entered in cases where the authority contained in section 212 (d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was exercised in behalf of such aliens, pursuant to section 212 (d) (6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

847. A letter from the Executive Secretary, National Munitions Control Board, transmitting the semiannual report of the National Munitions Control Board for the period July 1, 1952, to December 31, 1952, pursuant to subsection (h), section 12 of the Neutrality Act of 1939 (Public Resolution 54, 76th Cong.); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. S. 630. An act to authorize the conveyance for public-school purposes of certain Federal land in Gettysburg National Military Park, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 783). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H. R. 5328. A bill to provide for the use of the tribal funds of the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, to authorize a per capita payment out of such funds, and for other purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 784). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. Mr. ARENDS: Committee on Armed Services. H. R. 5509. A bill to amend the ArmyNavy Medical Service Corps Act of 1947 relating to the percent of colonels in the Medical Service Corps, Regular Army; without amendment (Rept. No. 785). Referred to

the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. HOPE: Committee of conference. H. R. 5451. A bill to amend the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 786). Ordered to be printed.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 917. A bill for the relief of Luigi Lotito; without amendment (Rept. No. 795). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. HILLINGS: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 953. A bill for the relief of Jekabs Lenbergs; with amendment (Rept. No. 796). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. HILLINGS: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1124. A bill for the relief of Gerda Goerauch; with amendment (Rept.

maintenance of airports by the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan:

H. R. 6279. A bill to amend title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement of employees in the legislative branch; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. By Mr. REED of Illinois:

for printing and reference to the proper calendar as follows:

Mr. BURDICK: Committee on the Judiciary. H. 'R. 806. A bill for the relief of Sullivan Construction Co.; without amendment (Rept. No. 778). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LANE: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1130. A bill for the relief of Golda I. Stegner; with amendment (Rept. No. 779). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1689. A bill to confer jurisdiction upon the Tax Court of the United States to hear, determine, and render judgment upon a certain claim of the United States against the Frank M. Hill Machine Co., Inc., of Walpole, Mass.; with amendment (Rept. No. 780). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. BURDICK: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 5093. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Dorothy J. Williams, widow of Melvin Edward Williams; without amendment (Rept. No. 781). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. ARENDS: Committee on Armed Services. H. R. 5416. A bill to authorize the advancement of certain lieutenants on the retired list of the Navy; without amendment (Rept. No. 782). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 247. An act for the relief of Frans Gunnink; without amendment (Rept. No. 787). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 385. An act for the relief of Anna Solenniani; without amendment (Rept. No. 788). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 781. An act for the relief of Dr. Jacob Griffel; without amendment (Rept. No. 789). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 1791. An act for the relief of Leong Walk Hong; without amendment (Rept. No. 790). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. Senate Concurrent Resolution 34. Concurrent resolution favoring the granting of the status of permanent residence to certain aliens; with amendment (Rept. No. 791). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 723. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Fumiko Sawai Skovran; with amendment (Rept. No. 792). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 752. A bill for the relief of Francoise Bresnahan; with amendment (Rept. No. 793). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 907. A bill for the relief of Wolodymyr Hirniak; with amendment (Rept. No. 794). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Whole House.

Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1160. A bill for the relief of Cornelio and Lucia Tequillo; with amendment (Rept. No. 798). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1358. A bill for the relief of Dr. Marcelino J. Avecilla and Dr. Teodora A. Fidelino-Avecilla; without amendment (Rept. No. 799). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1496. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Hermine Lamb; with amendment (Rept. No. 800). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1649. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Gisela Walter Sizemore; without amendment (Rept. No. 801). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 1674. A bill for the relief of Setsuko Motohara Kibler, widow of Robert Eugene Kibler; with amendment (Rept. No. 802). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 2162. A bill for the relief of Cyril Claude Andersen, Patricia Andersen Hill, and Thelma Andersen McNeill; with amendment (Rept. No. 803). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. WALTER: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 2602. A bill for the relief of Elzbieta Grzymkowska Jarosz; without amendment (Rept. No. 804). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 2622. A bill for the relief of Maria Teresa Ortega Perez; with amendment (Rept. No. 805). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 2623. A bill for the relief of Jose M. Thomasa-Sanchez; with amendment (Rept. No. 806). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. GRAHAM: Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 3728. A bill for the relief of Helen Gertrude Koubek; with amendment (Rept. No. 807). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. ALLEN of California: H. R. 6276. A bill to amend the Ship Mortgage Act, 1920, as amended; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska: H. R. 6277. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the time of filing of noncorporate income-tax returns, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. FALLON:

H. R. 6278. A bill to declare a policy with respect to the operation, management, or

H. R. 6280. A bill to extend temporarily the rights of priority of nationals of Japan and applications for patents; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. REES of Kansas:

H. R. 6281. A bill to abolish free transmission of official Government mail matter and certain other mail matter; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. REGAN:

H. R. 6282. A bill to terminate Federal trust responsibility to the Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Indians of Texas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. SHORT:

H. R. 6283. A bill to facilitate the settlement of the accounts of deceased members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H. R. 6284. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico certain lands and improvements at the United States Naval Station, San Juan, P. R., in exchange for certain other lands; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana:

H. R. 6285. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the leprosy situation in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. KEATING:

H. R. 6286. A bill granting the consent of Congress to a compact between the State of New Jersey and the State of New York known as the waterfront commission compact, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. REED of New York:

H. R. 6287. A bill to extend and amend the Renegotiation Act of 1951; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. DAWSON of Utah:

H. R. 6288. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide that State welfare agencies may be furnished with information regarding the income-tax exemptions claimed by individuals receiving or applying for certain public assistance benefits; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. HALEY:

H. R. 6289. A bill to declare that the United States holds certain lands for the Seminole Tribe of Florida; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mrs. HARDEN:

H. R. 6290. A bill to discontinue certain reports now required by law; to the Committee on Government Operations.

By Mr. TALLE:

H. R. 6291. A bill authorizing the construction of flood-control works on the upper Iowa River, Iowa; to the Committee on Public Works.

By Mr. BERRY:

H. J. Res. 298. Joint resolution authorizing an appropriation for the construction, extension, and improvement of a grade-school building in the town of Mission, S. Dak.; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. PATTERSON:

H. J. Res. 299. Joint resolution providing for a survey of Newington Hospital, Newington, Conn., to determine the feasibility of