Page images
PDF
EPUB

the 1949 case of National Mutual Insur

ance

Co. against Tidewater Transfer Co. In that case, while a majority of 5 justices agreed that Congress could require Federal district courts to determine diversity cases involving citizens of the District of Columbia, only 3 of the justices based their conclusion on the grounds that Congress could constitutionally grant nonjudicial powers to article III courts. The two justices who concurred in the majority result expressly approved the doctrine relied upon by the dissenting justices that the jurisdiction of Federal courts, except for those created for the District of Columbia, is described and defined by article III and that where power proposed to be conferred was not judicial power within the meaning of the Constitution, it could not lawfully be exercised by the courts.

Section 2509 of title 28 of the United States Code directs the Court of Claims to render advisory opinions on cases referred to the court by the Congress. This would seem to be a function which Congress could not require of a constitutional court. No one would seriously contend that it is a judicial power in the sense of article III.

Since the present judges of the Court of Claims have indicated that they would raise no objection to continuing to act on congressional reference cases, perhaps the problem is moot, at least temporarily. If in the future judges of the Court of Claims should refuse to act upon congressional reference cases on the grounds that they are not within the proper scope of jurisdiction of a constitutional court, I suppose the simple remedy will be for Congress to redesignate the Court of Claims as a legislative court.

While there are still these doubts in my mind with respect to this legislation, I have determined not to interpose any objection to the passage of the House bill at this time. I think it should be apparent why I am not enthusiastic about the proposed legislation.

However, before the bill is passed it should be amended in two minor respects. The original Senate bill was amended to correct this particular oversight after it was placed upon the Senate Calendar.

Therefore, Mr. President, I have consistently objected to passage of the bill, and I now ask unanimous consent that the House bill 1070, which is No. 510 on the calendar, be substituted for the Senate bill, though the House bill also needs certain amendments, which I think will be offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Tennessee?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 1070) to amend title 28, United States Code.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, with regard to the question discussed by the able Senator from Tennessee as to the right of Congress to establish a constitutional court, or to transfer the United States Court of Claims into the category of a constitutional court, I have a very strong feeling. I believe we have ample right and constitutional authority for

doing that, but at this time I am not going to oppose the House bill, which has already been passed by the House, and which is now before the Senate. The bill is all-essential in order to meet the uncertainty that has been created as a result of the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Williams case.

There is 1 amendment-there may possible be 2 to be offered to the House bill-which, taken from the language of the Senate bill, will clarify and set right the House bill. So, Mr. President, I move to substitute for section 4 of the House bill the language of section 4 of House bill the language of section 4 of the Senate bill, which bears on the subthe Senate bill, which bears on the subject of the appointment of commissioners.

The Court of Claims has at the present time 13 commissioners or examiners; the Senate bill would authorize it to have 15, while the House bill would authorize 15, while the House bill would authorize 20. It seems to me that for the time be

ing two additional examiners or commissioners will meet the emergency or the exigency confronting the Court of Claims. With that amendment, I would gladly support the House bill offered by the Senator from Tennessee, and which has passed the House.

Section 4 of the House bill reads:

SEC. 4. Subsection (a) of section 792, title 28, United States Code, is hereby amended to

read as follows:

"(a) The United States Court of Claims may appoint 20 commissioners who shall be subject to removal by the court."

My amendment is to strike out the foregoing language of section 4 of the House bill, and to insert in lieu thereof the language of section 4 of the Senate bill, which reads as follows:

SEC. 4. (a) Paragraph (a) of section 792, title 28, United States Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(a) The United States Court of Claims may appoint 15 commissioners who shall be subject to removal by the court."

(b) The authority contained in subsection (a) of section 14 of the act of July 1, 1944 (41 U. S. C. 114), respecting the appointment of commissioners of the Court of Claims is hereby terminated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MCCARRAN].

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the able Senator for offering the amendment. I agree that it is a proper amendment. I should like to point out to the distinguished Senator that in my remarks I raised no question as to the power of Congress to create a constitutional court. I raised two questions, the first of which was whether tions, the first of which was whether serious consequences might result from the passage of an act which undertook to destroy the present legislative court and to reconstitute it as a constitutional court.

I raised a further question, which I think is a serious constitutional question; namely, whether the Congress can create a court under article III, and confer upon it specific jurisdiction such as that now exercised by the United States Court of Claims.

Mr. MCCARRAN. I may say to the Senator from Tennessee that in my judgment Congress for the past 20 years has

been conferring special jurisdiction upon article III courts, and we can do it again with respect to the United States Court of Claims. I am not going to labor the matter, because I am entirely content to go along. I am only taking issue with the suggestion that we cannot make the United States Court of Claims an article III court.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARRAN. I yield.

Mr. GORE. Will the Senator agree with the junior Senator from Tennessee that if, in fact, the Congress were to constitute a new court or courts, there would be, ipso facto, a vacancy in all the judgeships?

Mr. MCCARRAN. That might might not be true. The present judgeships might continue.

Mr. GORE. But the bill requires appointment by the President.

Mr. MCCARRAN. That is true.

Mr. GORE. Perhaps it would be for the President to decide if he would renominate the present justices of the Court of Claims or nominate others.

Mr. MCCARRAN. The bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee did not require reappointment by the President.

Mr. GORE. I think it resolves itself into a question of whether we do or do not reconstitute the court. If we change the fundamental character of the court, then reappointment or appointment, as the case might be, would become absolutely necessary, and the appointments would require confirmation.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Again the Senator and I are in agreement on that, as a moot question, because we have agreed on the House bill.

Mr. GORE. We shall get together on that later.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada [Mr. MCCARRAN].

The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be offered, the question is on the engrossment of the amendment and the third reading of the bill.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill (H. R. 1070) was read the third time, and passed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, Senate bill 1349 is indefinitely postponed.

INCREASE IN SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, JUDGES OF UNITED STATES COURTS, AND UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

The bill (S. 1663) to increase the salaries of Members of Congress, judges of United States courts, and United States attorneys, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, this is a bill to provide salary increases for Members of Congress, Federal judges, and United States attorneys.

Because it has become clear to me that Members of the Senate are not in a mood to vote to increase their own salaries, I have previously sent to the desk an amendment which I announced I would offer to this bill, to strike out the provisions for congressional salary increases.

I shall not go into the details, because I think the Members of the Senate are aware of what is involved. The fact of the matter is that the Department of Justice has openly favored an increase in salaries for district attorneys. I have been told that the President of the United States favors the bill so far as the increase for judges and for district attorneys is concerned. I have been informed that the President has so stated privately on at least two occasions, once to representatives of Federal judges and once to representatives of the American Bar Association. However, so far as I know, the President has made no public statement on this point. I consider it possible that the majority leadership might have information with respect to this matter, and I therefore ask the able acting majority leader if there is any information which he can give to the Senate in this connection. I ask that objection be withheld long enough so that the Senator from California may reply to my inquiry.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I cannot at this time answer the question which the Senator has raised. We have no particular objection to the Senator's amendment going into the bill, but I feel that this is a bill which should not be taken up on the Consent Calendar. Personally, I consider that there is need for an adjustment of the compensation of Federal judges and United States attorneys. But I think this is a matter which should be adequately discussed on the floor of the Senate, not under the limitations of the 5-minute rule. For that reason, assuming that the Senator wishes only to have the bill amended, I could have no objection to having it taken up for that

purpose.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment which I offered.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, by request, I ask that the bill be passed over.

Mr. McCARRAN. Will the Senator withhold his request in order that we might determine as to the amendment?

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, by request, I ask to have the bill go over before the amendment is considered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a number of editorials from leading newspapers on the subject of increases of salaries for the judiciary of America.

I ask unanimous consent that they may be printed in the RECORD at this point, as a part of my remarks.

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

[From the Chicago Daily Tribune of June 4, 1953]

FEDERAL JUDGES' PAY Congress has before it a long overdue bill to increase the pay of the Federal judiciary. Salaries of district judges would be raised

from $15,000 to $25,000 a year. from $15,000 to $25,000 a year. The highest judicial salary, that of the Chief Justice of the United States, would be made $40,000. It has long been accepted by the legal profession that a good lawyer must expect to suffer a severe cut in income when he abandons his practice to go on the bench. The honor of the position, the life tenure [on the Federal bench] and pension arrangements are all incentives to these financial sacrifices.

Judges, however, differ in no whit from the

rest of us in that they have to eat, pay rent,

or maintain a home, send their children to college, and pay income taxes. Public honors won't pay these bills, and Federal judicial salaries, by comparison either with the compensation of lawyers or of judges in State courts, are now distressingly low.

It is a rather sad sack of lawyer who can't make the $15,000 a year now paid a Federal district judge. A lawyer with the capacity to sit on the Federal bench usually earns several times that amount. Judges elected to the circuit and superior courts in Cook County since 1951 are paid $19,500 a year. Associate justices of the municipal court, including a number who are a travesty on the judiciary, draw only $500 a year less than a Federal judge does.

Political appointments under Roosevelt and Truman did much to lower the prestige of the Federal bench. Now that that obstacle has been removed, the rehabilitation of the judiciary should not be hampered by the present salary scale, which demands such unreasonable sacrifices that many capable lawyers, for their families' sakes will be forced to decline appointments.

[From the Charlotte News of July 8, 1953] JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS DESERVE MORE PAY

Most of us Americans make considerably less than $12,500 a year. Therefore, it is difficult for the average citizen to become enthusiastic about a proposal to raise the pay of Congressmen and Federal judges when their salaries are equal to or above that figure.

Nevertheless, a good case can be made for raising their pay. Consider these factors: Congressmen and Federal judges certainly should not be, and usually are not, average citizens. They should be the best minds of the Nation.

Congressmen constitute the board of directors, so to speak, for the biggest and most expensive organization in the Nation-the Federal Government. Men charged with directing much smaller organizations in private industry receive several times as much money.

The Federal judiciary has an equally sobering responsibility. As Chief Justice Marshall put it: "The judicial department comes home in its effects to every man's fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his life, his all."

Furthermore, while many private employed citizens making less money receive "fringe benefits," these officials have what could be termed "fringe expenses." Congressmen must maintain a home in expensive Washington, another in their constituency, where they usally maintain an office, too. They are often required to entertain visiting constituents. Even modest campaigns cost money and, if they do not have it them

selves, they are tempted to become beholden to pressure groups that offer to put up the money. Telephone calls and telegrams, above a certain maximum, must be paid by the Congressman. While Congress formerly met but a few months each year, membership in it now is virtually a full-time, overtime occupation.

A judge is often called upon for charitable contributions and because of his position must live, if not pretentiously, in reasonably dignified circumstances. To do this judges increasingly have been driven by necessity to accepting employment as law teachers in

night schools or to writing books and magazine articles instead of devoting their entire time and energy to their judicial offices.

Neither Federal judges nor Congressmen have had a pay raise since 1946. A bill now

before Congress (S. 1663) would increase Congressmen's salaries to $25,000. (The after-tax increase would be but $6,826.) It would increase by $10,000 the present $17,500 salary of judges of the United States Courts of Appeal, Court of Claims, and Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. It would increase by $10,000 the present $15,000 salary of judges of the United States district courts, Customs Court, Tax Court, and it would fix the salaries of United States attorneys at not less than $12,000 nor more than $20,000, thus attracting better qualified men to these important posts.

The North Carolina Bar Association unanimously endorsed this bill at its annual meeting last month. We add our wholehearted approval of its enactment.

[From the Minneapolis Morning Tribune of July 14, 1953]

JUDICIAL SALARIES

When the high cost of living comes up in conversation someone usually concedes that prices are much higher than they were back in the 1930's. But he quickly adds, "Of course, we can't complain because we're all making more money than we were then."

Most Americans, we suppose, would agree that rising incomes have, indeed, eased the pain of paying out more dollars for the necessities of life. Not so our Federal judges, whose incomes have been steadily diminishing since 1939, when their salaries were ruled subject to the Federal income tax. In that year the consumers' price index stood at 99.6. Last November 15 it stood at 191.6, an increase of 92 percent. Thus the $11,696 which remained of a Federal district judge's salary after payment of Federal taxes had purchasing power equal to $6,080 in 1939.

To remedy this situation bills have been introduced in Congress to raise the salaries of all Federal judges by $10,000 a year. If enacted, district judges now receiving $15,000 would receive $25,000. Circuit judges now receiving $17,500 would get $27,500, and so on. Similar increases for Senators and Congressmen also are authorized in accordance with recommendations of the Hoover Commission.

While talk of pay increases seems presumptuous when the Federal budget is out of balance an upward adjustment of judicial salaries is long overdue. It would put a stop to what the American Bar Association describes as "an alarming increase in resignations of experienced judges from the bench," would encourage more able and qualified persons to accept judicial appointments and would restore the independence and self-respect of judges now in office by ending their financial worries.

[From the Greensboro (N. C.) Daily News of July 3, 1953]

FEDERAL LABORER AND HIS HIRE The North Carolina Bar Association, meeting at Wrightsville Beach, passed a resolution favoring the bill pending in the United States Senate to increase salaries of Members of Congress and Federal judicial officers.

The proposed increases would amount to $10,000 to Senators and Congressmen, and the same to Federal judges. Thus Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court would be raised from $25,000 to $35,000, district judges from $15,000 to $25,000, and so on. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would get a $14,500 raise, or `from $25,500 to $40,000. United States attorneys would get not less than $12,000 and no more than $20,000 but could no longer engage in the private practice of law. The United States Attorney General would fix salaries within

those limits, according to the burden of the office of United States attorney in various parts of the country.

The reasoning back of the proposal is that the increases are necessary in order to attract men of the caliber commensurate with the duties to be performed. There is something to this. In order to get able men, the office must pay enough to compete with other businesses and professions for them. Otherwise the offices will tend to be filled with one of two classes: (1) Those who are independently wealthy, or (2) those who are not making any great success in their chosen work.

It may be said on the other hand that the bill comes at a bad time in that the Federal Government is in the midst of an economy move, which is aimed at cutting expenses and balancing the budget. One answer to this is that the proposed increases would total less than $6 million a year, which is small potatoes compared with the national budget, or about one-hundredth of 1 percent. The Hoover Commission, while recommending economy, recommended increasing salaries in the legislative and judicial branches.

The bill therefore deserves serious consideration. Ambassador Bryce in his American Commonwealth took the view that Federal officials should be paid well or not at all. If we paid them not at all, we would be transformed from a democracy to an oligarchy; the alternative would be to pay them well, in order to secure wise and effective men in most important posts.

Of course this line of thought will not apply to Congress if it succeeds in passing a law to exempt living expenses of Congressmen from income taxes; Congress can't eat its cake and have it to.

[From the New Orleans States of June 11, 1953]

SALARY BILL

Members of Congress are in the strange position of wanting to be urged to pass legislation that would benefit themselves.

They need encouragement from the voters back home to pass Senate bill No. 1663, which would raise the salaries of themselves and the judges of United States courts and would make provision for increases, at the discretion of the attorney general, in the salaries of United States attorneys and their assistants.

The bill has been reported favorably by the Senate judiciary committee. That committee's report presents convincing arguments in favor of its passage.

The salary increase for Members of Congress and for the Federal judges would amount to $10,000, except for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for whom the increase would be $14,500.

It is pointed out in the report that the $10,000 increase for Members of Congress would bring the compensation to $25,000, from which a Federal income tax of $5,836 will be taken, leaving a net of $19,164. This is a net gain of $9,536 over the net salary of 1939. But when the increase, in cost of living is considered, the proposed new salary arrangement would buy for a Member of Congress just about what his 1939 salary bought in that year.

An argument that the Federal judges are underpaid is emphasized by a comparison shown between the salaries they receive and those received by some State judges. At present the Chief Justice receives $25,500; the chief judge of the court of appeals of New York receives $35,000. Associate justices receive $25,000; the associate judges of the court of appeals of New York receive $32,500.

In the face of such compelling arguments in favor of the bill, however, there is a good chance Members of Congress will hesitate to pass it-unless they have assurance from

the folks back home that they want the bill passed.

After all, this Congress is dedicated to economy, to cutting expenses. Members who expect to face voters in a year or two will feel that granting themselves a pay raise will be material their enemies could use against them.

As a matter of simple justice to public officials in highly responsible positions, we hope Congress realizes that the voters want those officials properly paid.

[From the Pathfinder magazine of February 4, 1953]

THE ECONOMICAL SALARY

(By Wheeler McMillen)

The citizen who lives comfortably at home on from $3,000 (or less) to $6,000 a year is not likely to rise in spontaneous enthusiasm to insist that his Congressman's salary should be raised from $15,000 to $25,000 or more.

What kind of men go to Congress can mean the difference between first-rate and secondrate Government. Higher pay, if it attracts stronger men, could save billions at the cost of thousands.

Here are some general facts about this question.

Since only Congress can raise Members' salaries, the question always puts them on a spot. No man with sense enough to get to Congress will fail to realize that someone else will be willing to take his job at the present pay.

Why, then, should an ordinary citizen be concerned? Somebody will run.

That, of course, is exactly why. To the ordinary citizen, and to the country, it is tremendously important to be represented in Congress, not by any "somebody," but by wise and able individuals.

One can readily understand why a $15,000 salary, good as it sounds, does not induce men of the highest ability to offer themselves as candidates.

First of all, campaign expenses have to be paid, and the candidate has to pay some or all of them. In some districts, after all the printing, radio, travel, and other legitimate costs for primary and regular election are added up, they may equal a whole year's salary. And only one candidate can win!

The member then has to keep his home in the district. He has to have a place to live in Washington, and even simple living here is expensive.

Once in office he has to contribute to various causes at home, and may have to make occasional trips home. He gets expenses for only one round trip per session, and none for his family.

He usually has to give up his former sources of income in business or profession. He may have no assurance that, if defeated after a term or so, he can return to his old job or to one nearly as good.

At one time, when sessions lasted only 3 to 5 months, a man could serve in Congress and still make a living at his business. No longer, with Congress in session most of every year.

For a House Member, every 2 years brings another campaign. A Senator faces a campaign only 1 year in 6, but must deal with a whole State.

The voter who has a permanent job that brings him a $5,000 ir come, who has only one home, who does not have to travel, and who does not have to campaign every 2 years for his job, may well be better off and more secure than a Member of Congress at $15,000.

We recently asked 150 industrial leaders about congressional pay. They are executives who are accustomed to hiring and evaluating men. Several suggested $20,000, most of them figured $25,000, and some advocated higher figures up to $75,000.

This column remarked 4 years ago that if Congressmen were paid a million dollars a

year each the cost for 435 Representatives and 96 Senators would amount to about 11⁄2 percent of what Government spends. Not a high rate for running the biggest business. on earth. A $75,000 salary, we pointed out then, "would add up to less than $40 million. That would be less than the United States will spend this year for the Bureau of Indian Affairs ($45 million)."

The most economical salary for a Representative or Senator should be big enough that no citizen worthy of the job will feel that he can not afford to serve, whether for 1 term or 6; big enough that it will cover all the inevitable expenses and leave something over; big enough that the ablest and wisest Americans can serve; big enough that nowhere will these offices be available onlyas is too nearly true now-to millionaires, demagogues, recipients of financial support from wealthier friends, or to men whose family or personal obligations permit them to take the chance of sacrifice.

A $75,000 salary will not guarantee topnotch men, and it would attract undesirables as well as the best. It would, however, give us as voters a wider selection, and I think we have sense enough to pick the best. I think the $75,000 figure is wiser than the $25,000 my business friends suggest. It is none too much if it will assure that America's ablest patriots can come to the House and Senate, the only places where the direct spokesmen of the people function in the Government of the United States.

[From the Washington Post] SENATOR IVES TO SEEK CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISES

(By Drew Pearson) WASHINGTON.-IRVING IVES, New York Republican, and one of the few GOP Senators who ran far ahead of Eisenhower in his State, is about to introduce legislation which some of his constituents won't like. However, IVES will be taking an important step for better government.

Furthermore, Eisenhower will give him powerful support.

IVES will tackle the delicate problem of congressional salaries, will propose that they be increased, perhaps even doubled.

What the public may not realize is that while everyone else's salary has increased, while wages have been given periodic boosts, and while the cost of living has zoomed, the salaries of Senators and Congressmen have stood still.

An ambassador's salary has increased from $15,000 to an average of $22,000. The President's salary has gone up from $75,000 a year to $100,000. But Congressmen's salaries have remained stationary.

This is due chiefly to timidity. No Congressman likes to face a reelection fight after he has voted to give himself an increase. An opponent can murder him, partly because the public doesn't understand the problem. This columnist has repeatedly urged that congressional salaries be increased, and that simultaneously the Justice Department crack down hard on any special funds, kickbacks, etc.

Senator IVES is now planning to introduce a bill increasing congressional salaries to $25,000. He is in a better position to do this than some, because, unfortunately, he plans to retire from Congress at the end of the present term, so he will get no benefit from the increase.

President Eisenhower will make a strong move backing him up. Ike may act even ahead of IVES, and urge that the Members of Congress get paid more.

TRAGIC WAR ERROR

One of those tragic errors that sometimes happen in wartime occurred recently in connection with the battle over Old Baldy. It is now being investigated by the Army. Un

fortunately, it involves one of the few LatinAmerican troop units fighting in Korea-the Colombians.

The story is that a battalion of Colombians were defending Old Baldy, backed up by a company of Americans. Just at the wrong strategic moment, the Americans were pulled out by mistake, and the Colombians were ripped to pieces by the attacking Chinese. First reports estimated that over 200 Colombians lost their lives.

Result was that U. N. troops were practically pushed off the strategic hill, finally were withdrawn altogether. After this, the Air Force started plastering the hill with 1,000-pound blockbusters at the rate of 4 every 15 minutes-until the top of the hill was practically blasted off. Yet somehow a few Chinese miraculously survived and clung to the hill.

The Army is now trying to find out who was to blame for the tragic error.

CAMPUS PROBES

When he was president of Columbia, General Eisenhower took a vigorous stand against campus probes by Congress.

Now in the White House, however, the President avoided any direct comment on the House investigation of colleges during a recent chat with a congressional group. Instead, he remarked that there could be no academic freedom "in the abstract”—in other words, it had to be real and thriving, not a matter of lip service.

Academic freedom, said the President, is the result of all our other freedoms and cannot exist separately and independently of the general freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[From the Indianapolis News]
MICKEY MCCARTY SAYS:

Fellow taxpayers: It seems to be pretty generally agreed that President Eisenhower's recent pronouncement of "no tax cuts until next year" has put the skids under a bill to increase the pay of Congressmen, Federal judges, and district attorneys.

The pay-raise measure, introduced by Senator PAT MCCARRAN, Democrat of Nevada, was having easy sailing until the recent Eisenhower edict. It had received the official O. K. of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was scheduled for early passage in the House. Then came the President's request for postponement of some of the automatic tax reductions provided in the existing laws. This stopped the pay-raise measure in its tracks.

AFRAID

Much as they feel they need more money, there are few Members of either House of

Congress who would dare vote additional salary for themselves without first giving the taxpayers a break with form of tax reduction. And even though they did vote to turn the President down by letting the excess-profits tax die on July 1, or by adopting Senator Dan Reed's bill for invidual income tax reductions, there would still be an unbalanced budget to face-at least for a year or

So.

More pay for Congressmen, Federal judges, and district attorneys as provided in the pending bill would further help unbalance the budget. And the President has warned the people that an unabalanced budget further increases their inflation perils in an upset world. So it looks as if no congressional pay raise will be voted this year. It may be possible it can be done in 1954-but then only if a balanced budget and lower taxes are permissible.

TOO LOW

It has seemed for a long time to this observer that both Federal judges and Members of Congress have been underpaid. There's not much doubt that the $12,500 a year base salary and the $2,500 expense ac

count each Congressman gets is not enough to pay for either expenses or service rendered. Although $15,000 looks like a lot of money, the average Member of either House, if he has no outside income from a law firm or business back home, has one heck of a time getting by on it.

Of course, Congressmen do receive certain concessions. They can-if they can prove it to tax officials-get deductions up to $3,000 for the added expense of living in Washington. They get stationery, stamp, and telegram money, and they get funds to pay their aides. They get low-priced meals in the congressional restaurants, free shaves and haircuts, the price of a round-trip ticket home once a year and some other benefits. Some even manage to keep wives and relatives on the payroll to help out the family tives on the payroll to help out the family

budget.

TWO HOMES

The majority of Congressmen, however, have to keep up 2 establishments, 1 back home and 1 in Washington. They also are expected to visit their constituents frequently to hear their gripes and also to keep their own political fences in good repair. They likewise are expected to contribute to every worthy cause originating in their bailiwicks. And they have to dig down in their pockets every month for considerable sums to entertain important visitors from back home, who expect such treatment when they go to Washington.

Although Indiana legislators, elected on a platform pledging strict economy and tax reduction, voted themselves a $10-a-day increase in pay as one of their first official acts, it's a safe bet the Congressmen are going to be extremely wary of any pay raises even though they need the money-before first voting some tax reduction for their constituents.

[From the New York Times of June 24, 1953] CONGRESSIONAL PAY

The decision of the House of Representa

tives to allow its Members to deduct from their taxable income the total cost of living expenses in Washington is not the wisest way to accomplish a laudable purpose. The intention is, of course, to increase net con

gressional incomes, an objective with which we are in wholehearted agreement.

But we think the proposal of the Senate

Judiciary Committee to help Congressmen

meet the increased cost of living is far preferable to the ingenious device just adopted by the House. The Senate committee suggested last month that the salary of all Members be raised from the present sum of $15,000 to $25,000. Considering the importance of the job, this is by no means a

munificent sum; and considering the drop in value of the dollar and the rise in taxes, it gives Congressmen but slightly more purchasing power than their $10,000 salaries afforded them in 1939. The Nation can certainly stand this expense, which would amount to less than $3,700,000 a year, in return for the knowledge that it is allowing at least adequate remuneration to the men who carry the heavy and full-time responsibility of membership in the National Legislature.

Why, then, didn't the House see it this way and approve the proposal for an outand-out salary increase? The answer seems to be that congressional leaders thought this was not the appropriate time in view of the administration's economy drive. But only last month the President himself emphatically supported the suggested pay rise. We regret that Members of Congress seem to be so coy about this matter. We think that they are mistaken if they believe the public would rather see them invent a new way of avoiding taxes than vote a straightforward increase in their level of pay.

RESOLUTION PASSED OVER

The resolution (S. Res. 20) amending the cloture rule with respect to the number required for adoption of a cloture motion was announced as next in order.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, by request, I ask that the resolution be passed over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be passed over.

CONDEMNATION OF LANDS AFFECTING WATER RIGHTS

The bill (S. 1857) to amend certain

statutes providing expeditious judicial proceedings for the condemnation of

lands for public purposes was announced as next in order.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, by request, I ask that the bill be passed

over.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey withhold his objection for a moment?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I gladly withhold my objection.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, I have discussed this bill on several occasions when it has come up on calendar calls. This is a bill which has just one purpose: to protect the water rights now held under State law.

In the arid and semiarid States of the West, water is life. In these States, as many Senators know, the doctrine of prior appropriation prevails with respect to water rights. In the East, a different doctrine, the doctrine of riparian rights, is controlling.

The purpose of this bill is to insure that no taking of land under the Federal power of eminent domain for dam or reservoir purposes shall operate to divest the holders of water rights.

This bill would not prevent the Government from condemning any water rights which it needed; it simply protects the owners of water rights against having those rights taken away from them as a result of a condemnation proceeding to which they are not parties.

Similar legislation has already been put on the statute books with respect to lands or waters condemned for purposes of navigation; and justice requires that a similar provision be enacted with respect to condemnations for dam or reservoir purposes.

I want to say one more word: This bill as introduced contained certain unfortunate expressions which led to substantial misconstruction of its purpose and effect. Amendments approved in the Committee on the Judiciary have entirely cleared up this matter, and the bill as it comes before the Senate is a clean bill, which would not have any effect outside its intended purpose.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I ask that the bill go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION PASSED OVER

The bill (S. 1461) to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, concerning requests of common carriers for

increased transportation rates, was announced as next in order.

Mr. HENDRICKSON.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, a Senate bill for the identical purpose has already Mr. President, passed the Senate. It may be proper to I ask that this bill go over. require the rescinding of the action by The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill which the Senate bill was passed. will be passed over.

The bill (S. 690) to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, to authorize the Administrator of General Services to enter into lease purchase agreements to provide for the lease to the United States of real property and structures for terms of more than 8 years, but not in excess of 25 years and for acquisition of title to such property and structures by the United States at or before the expiration of the lease terms, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order. Mr. LANGER. Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

The bill (H. R. 4484) to amend sec. 365 of the act entitled "An act to establish a code of laws for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, as amended, to increase the maximum sum allowable by the court out of assets of a decedent's estate for funeral expenses was announced as next in order.

Mr. LANGER. Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

The bill (S. 1691) to authorize Potomac Electric Power Co. to construct, maintain, and operate in the District of Columbia, and and to cross Kenilworth Avenue NE., in said District, with certain railroad tracks and related facilities, and for other purposes was announced as next in order.

Mr. GORE. Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

The bill (S. 1396) to authorize the adoption of certain rules with respect to the broadcasting or telecasting of professional baseball exhibitions in interstate commerce, and for other purposes was announced as next in order.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements was annouced as next in order. SEVERAL SENATORS. Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution will be passed over.

BILL PASSED TO FOOT OF CALENDAR

The bill (S. 144) for the relief of the Cavalier County Fair Association, was announced as next in order.

SEVERAL SENATORS. Over. Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask Mr. President, I ask that the bill go to the foot of the calendar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

FRANCISZEK JARECKI, BILL PASSED

TO FOOT OF CALENDAR

The bill (H. R. 5238) for the relief of Franciszek Jarecki was announced as next in order.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I said that I asked that the bill go over at the request of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]. Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. I understand the Senator from Oregon objected

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, that when the bill was called the first time is correct.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CASE. Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

The bill (S. 848) to prescribe policy and procedure in connection with construction contracts made by executive agencies, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

SEVERAL SENATORS. Over. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

The bill (H. R. 5349) authorizing the United States Government to reconvey certain lands to W. C. Pallmeyer and E. M. Cole was announced as next in order.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Over, by request, Mr. President.

because he had not read the bill. I hope he has read it by this time. I think a statement I should like to make would clear the matter up.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. He made the request of the calendar committee.⚫

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that the bill go to the foot of the calendar. Mr. HENDRICKSON. I would agree to that, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the bill will be passed to the foot of the calendar.

subsequently

Mr. HENDRICKSON said: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to Calendar No. 470, House bill 3380, to authorize the exchange of lands acquired by the United States for Prince William Forest Park, Prince William County, Va., holdings therein, and for other purposes. for the purpose of consolidating Federal

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 3380) to authorize the exchange of lands acquired by the United States for Prince William Forest Park, Prince William County, Va., for the purpose of consolidating Federal holdings therein, and for other purposes.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of the bill?

Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. Mr. President, this bill authorizes the Park Service to exchange certain lands of the Prince William Forest Park in Virginia for privately owned lands within the boundaries of the park so as to permit consolidation of the Federal holding. About 800 acres of Federal lands are to be exchanged for 1,500 acres of private

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill lands. will be passed over.

The bill (S. 2175) to amend title VI of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, as amended, with respect to the
retirement of employees in the legisla-
tive branch, was announced as next in
order.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask
that the bill go over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be passed over.

[blocks in formation]

The bill also authorizes relocation of existing easements for utility rights-ofway in a manner which will suit the convenience of both the Park Service and the utility company.

No expenditure of Federal funds is involved.

Favorable reports on the bill have been submitted by both the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of the Interior.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. May I ask the distinguished Senator from Nebraska whether the Morse formula applies to the bill?

Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. I cannot see how the Morse formula would apply in the least. The bill authorizes the Park Service to exchange 800 acres within the park for 1,500 acres of privately owned land within the park. The bill is to the advantage of the Park Service. Mr. HENDRICKSON. I thank the distinguished Senator. I have no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PAYNE in the chair). The question is on the third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

« PreviousContinue »