their inward tranquility. It would neither be difficult nor costly to create thus little islands of peace, attractive and beautiiful, in the center of the uproar of the city. In the silence of these refuges men could, in lifting up their thoughts to God, rest their muscles and their organs, relax their spirit, clarify their judgment, and receive the strength to support the hard life under which our civilization crushes them.

It is when prayer becomes a habit that it operates on the character. It is necessary, therefore, to pray frequently. "Think of God more often that you breathe," said Epic tetus. To pray on rising and then to behave the rest of the day like a pagan is absurd. Very brief thoughts or mental invocations can hold a man in the presence of God. All conduct is then inspired by prayer. Thus understood, prayer becomes a way of life.

In the same spirit the Reverend Albert E. Day, pastor of Baltimore's Mount Vernon Place Methodist Church, writes:

Right prayer is not humanism in meditative action. It is the human flinging himself upon God in dedication and trust. It is essentially a religious act. Properly understood, it is the supreme religious act. It is man "at the end of his tether," reaching out

to the untethered God; man, having done all that he can, seeking the God who finds in man's extremity His great opportunity; man, having confessed the bankruptcy of his false self, seeking from God the recreation and release of his true self.

And, finally, the words of an authentic representative of the Jewish faith, Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof, of Pittsburgh, Pa., past president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis:

We know, too, that prayer itself which brings us into God's presence is often its own blessing. The very fact that we lift up our thoughts to Him makes our thoughts clearer. The very fact that we reveal our wishes in His sacred presence makes our desires purer. The fact that we earnestly ask for help and for support strengthens us. Whenever with all our heart we seek for guidance, that in

itself will make clear our path. Often, the earnestness of our prayer is its own best answer. In whichever way our help comes, whether through expressing our inner needs, or through the gift of an all-loving Father, whether our prayers deserve to be answered or not, how and when they are answered, in what mysterious way God sends us His help, we leave that to His infinite power, but we continue to seek Him that we may be ever near Him and feel the blessing of His presence. Not in complete knowledge but in complete faith, do we speak the words of the ancient writer (Psalms 121:2): "My help cometh from the Lord, who made heaven

and earth."

We think of what prayer means to us and then we multiply it a million times and more to realize what prayer has meant to the human race. In many generations all over the world, in sorrow and in joy, in trouble and in triumph, in sickness and in health, the children of men have turned in their devotions to the Eternal Father. How many thoughts have been ennobled in all history, how many desires purified, how much strength has been found in time of trouble, how much hope in despair. We cannot calculate the comfort and the strength and the blessing which prayer has brought to the children of man.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people will approve this action today. I trust it will be unanimous, and I trust that we will interpret the measure to our constituencies in the light of our religious traditions and the ideals of Government growing out of those traditions.

Religion is essentially a personal matter and I never discuss it without the fear of intrusion. Still it has its public expression and the founders of this Government recognized that fact. I am reminded by this reference to the American tradition of religious freedom that the first amendment to the Constitution which guarantees it is one of history's most significant documents. The American doctrine has two facets, and both must be viewed with understanding.

First, the framers had a distrust of man; they recognized his frailty, and this applied not only to politicians and military men who had misused power, it applied even to the ministers. No man, according to this philosophy, could be trusted with power over the minds of his fellow man. But, again, the first amendment represents something besides distrust of man. Its positive aspect explains the reverence we have for it. It reveals a high opinion of man as God's creation. It encourages individual faith.

In granting full freedom of worship the authors revealed a faith that men would not abuse the privilege, that social stability would not be lost in the renunciation nunciation of control over religious forms. The Constitution reflects a faith that individual judgments in the supremely important issues of human life and destiny would not have a destructive impact. The authors dared to trust the individual in this vital realm of life. Thus, it should be clear that our democratic ideal of religious freedom is not in disparagement of religion. Our governmental foundations are essentially spiritual. George Washington spoke for the young Nation when he said in his Farewell Address that decency and morality in public life are not possible without the inspiration of religion. It is the American policy, however, to let the citizen seek an outlet for this divinely given right in ways that appeal to him so that each man worships God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, again, as proof of our daring spirit in granting full freedom, we allow each to reserve to himself the privilege of not worshipping at all if he chooses not to do so. The resources of a positive faith recognized by the Constitution will save the Nation from any theoretical damage by those of infirm faith; they, too, must be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I would like further to refer to the fact that the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, Dr. Braskamp, is giving almost full-time service now to a ministry which is greatly needed. I know this proposed action would be gratifying to him.

Building

There is ample precedent for this proposal. posal. In the early days of the Republic, services were held in the Capitol Building because churches were not available. In the early part of our history there was little fear that constitutional principles would be violated in the recognition of religion. It is only because at times some have exploited religion that we have felt restraints in speaking of it as a great force in our work.

I know every Member of the House would share my conviction that to exploit religious faith is ignoble.

In the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, in the midst of a difficult debate, stood in that assembly when feelings were ruffled and suggested that they pray. He added:

I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

Mr. Speaker, I expect to use this room to pray for forgiveness when I irritate my colleagues, and I know there are occasions when I do. And as we pray for ourselves we will doubtless pray for our country-that is certainly an appropriate prayer.

For the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, I hope the resolution will be approved and that we will be able to strengthen the confidence of our people in the integrity of the Congress and its religious interests-not by gestures or pretense but by actions and decisions growing out of good habits of prayer and worship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include in these remarks three statements on the subject of prayer and a bibliography as follows:

PRAYER: A SHORT SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT Books

Barth, Karl: Prayer according to the catechisms of the Reformation; stenographic records of 3 seminars adapted by A. Roulin. Translated by Sara F. Terrien. Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1952, 78 pages. (BV210.B333.)

Bett, Henry: The reality of the religious life; a study of miracle, providence and prayer. New York, Macmillian Co., 1949, 159 pages. (BT97.B48 1949a.)

Bro, Margueritte (Harmon): More than we are. New York, Harper, 1948, 144 pages. (BV210.B73.)

Campbell, Donald James: The adventure of prayer. New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1949, 92 pages. (BV210.C25.)

Carrel, Alexis: Prayer; translated by Dulcie de Ste. Croix Wright. New York, Morehouse-Gorham Co., 1949, 54 pages. (BV210.C335.)

Clark, Glenn: The soul's sincere desire. Silver anniversary ed. Boston, Little, Brown, 1950 (first edition 1925), 113 pages. (BV210.C55 1950.)

translated by Ruth Bethell. First American Claudel, Paul: Lord, teach us to pray, edition. New York, Longmans, Green, 1948, 95 pages. (BV215.C58 1948)

Day, Albert Edward: An autobiography of prayer. First edition. New York, Harper, 1952, 223 pages. (BV210.D38.)

Donne, John (1573-1631): Prayers; selected and edited from the earliest sources, with an essay on Donne's idea of prayer, by Herbert H. Umbach. New York, Bookman Associates, 1951, 109 pages. (BV245.D65.)

Fosdick, Harry Emerson: The three meanings: prayer, faith [and] service. Garden City, New York, Garden City Books, 1951, 3 volumes in 1. (BV4832.F6 1951.)

Freehof, Solomon Bennett: In the House of the Lord. New York, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1951, 162 pages. (BM669.F68 1951.)

Frizzell, John Henry: For days of crisis, a book of prayers. Boston, Christopher Publishing House, 1952, 75 pages. (BV245.F74.)

Garrett, Constance: Growth in prayer. New York, Macmillan, 1950, viii, 156 pages. (BV210.G33.)

Gore, Charles, Bishop of Oxford: Prayer and the Lord's prayer; with an introduction by Angus Dun. First edition, New York, Harper, 1947, xv, 124 pages. "A reprint of papers published in commonwealth, mostly in 1896." (BV210.G684.)

Gossip, Arthur John: In the secret place of the Most High. New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1947, 210 pages. (BV210.G69.)

Graef, Richard: Lord, teach us to pray; translated from the German by Sister Mary Hildegard Windecker. New York, F. Pustet Co., 1952, 193 pages. (BV210.G6963.)

Harkness, Georgia Elma: Prayer and the Common Life. New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1948, 224 pages. (BV210.H347.)

Havig-Gjelseth, Christian: Prayer and its power; translated by Bernhard H. J. Habel. Minneapolis, Augsburg Publishing House, 1947, 99 pages. (BV210.H3733.)

Hughes, Henry Trevor: Prophetic prayer, A history of the Christian doctrine of prayer to the Reformation. London, Epworth Press, 1947, viii, 132 pages. (BV207.H8.)

Kelpius, John (1673-1708): A method of prayer; edited, with an introduction, by E. Gordon Alderfer. New York, Published in association with Pendle Hill by Harper, 1951,

127 pages. (BV209.K315 1951.)

Kirchberger, Clare, editor: The coasts of the country; an anthology of prayer drawn from the early English spiritual writers. Introduction by Godfrey Anstruther. London, Harvill Press, 1952, 266 pages. 1952.)

(BX2177.K54

Laubach, Frank Charles: Prayer, the mightiest force in the world. New York, London, etc., Fleming H. Ravell Co., 1946, 95 pages. (BV210.L37.)

Lee, Robert Greene: The Bible and prayer. Nashville, Broadman Press, 1950, x, 132 pages. (BV214.L4.)

Macartney, Clarence Edward Noble: Prayer at the golden altar. Grand Rapids, Mich., Zonderman publishing house, 1944, 99 pages. (BV210.M23.)

McNabb, Vincent Joseph: The craft of prayer. Westminster, Md., Newman Press, 1951, 105 pages. (BV210.M283 1951.)

MacNutt, Frederick Brodie: The prayer manual, for private devotions or for public use on divers occasions. Compiled from all sources, ancient, medieval, and modern, with a foreword by the Archbishop of Canterbury. London, A. R. Mowbray, 1951, xvi, 272 pages. (BV250.M3.)

Marshall, Peter: Mr. Jones, meet the Master; sermons and prayers. New York, Revell, 1950, 192 pages. (BX9178.M363M5 1950.)

Miller, Basil William: Praying Hyde, A man of prayer. Grand Rapids, Mich., Zondervan publishing house, 1943, 132 pages. (BX9225.H9M5.)

Miller, Basil William: Remarkable answers to prayer. Kansas City, Mo., Beacon Hill

Press, 1950, 159 pages. (BV220.M5.) Miller, Samuel Martin: Have faith in God; He answers prayer. Rock Island, Ill., Augustana Book Concern, 1952. 156 pages. (BV210.M62.)

Moore, Thomas Hendrick: The morning offering. New York, Apostleship of Prayer, 1952, 162 pages. (BV210.M755.)

Oursler, Fulton: Why I know there is a God. Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday, 1950, 192 pages. (BT101.08.)

Pardue, Austin, Bp: Prayer works. New York, Morehouse-Gorham Co., 1949, x, 127 pages. (BV220.P23.)

Peyton, Patrick J.: The ear of God. Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday, 1951, 226 pages. (BV210.P47.)

Poling, Daniel Alfred: Faith is power for you. New York, Greenberg, 1950, viii, 212 pages. (BV220.P6.)

Radcliffe, Lynn James: Making prayer real. New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952, 254 pages. (BV210.R3.)

Shoemaker, Helen Smith: Prayer and you.. With intrduction by E. Stanley Jones. New York, F. H. Revell Co., 1948, 157 pages. (BV210.S47.)

Stephens, John Underwood: Prayers of the Christian life, for private and public worship. New York, Oxford University Press, 1952, 154 pages. (BV 245.S67.)

Swarthout, Lind: Captain Eddie Rickenbacker. God still answers prayer. Grand Rapids, Mich., Zondervan publishing house, 1944, 115 pages. (E748.R4S8.)

Villiness, George N.: Man relating himself to God in prayer. Fort Worth, Tex., Seminary Hill Press, 1951, 116 pages. (BV210.V43.)

Vining, Elizabeth (Gray): The world in tune. Wallingford, Pa., Pendle Hill, 1952, 32 pages. (BV210.V54.)

Wesley, John: Prayers, edited by Frederick C. Gill. New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1952, 124 pages.

(BV245.W4.)

Whiston, Charles Francis: Teach us to pray; a study of distinctively Christian praying. With an introduction by Nels F. S. Ferré. Boston, Pilgrim Press, 1949, xx, 243 pages. (BV210.W43.)

Wieand, Albert Cassel: The gospel of prayer, its practice and psychology as revealed in the life and teaching of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich., W. B. Eerdmans Publishing co., 1953, 245 pages. (BV215.W47.)

These references were provided by the Legislative Reference Service under the direction of Dr. Ernest S. Griffith and were assembled by Harold E. Snide, of the History and General Research Division.

Government. The sanctuary which this legislation will establish will be completely nonsectarian and nondenominational.

It will not be, and should not be, a large assembly hall through which demagogues and hypocrites can parade their religion. Rather, it will be a small, simple, sanctified retreat, midway between the Senate and House Chambers, to which the elected Representatives of the people, in the discharge of their sometimes awesome and bewildering responsibilities, may repair for meditation and prayer.

Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Mr. Speaker, one need go no further than the Declaration of Independence to learn that one of the cornerstones upon which this Nation was founded was a deep-seated belief in a divine providence.

Franklin's admonition to turn to prayer in the Constitutional Convention undoubtedly prevented its ending in failure and gave to us our great charterthe Constitution.

The creation of a sanctuary for prayer and meditation is in complete accord with Christian doctrine. We find, according to Matthew-chapter 6, verse 6-that Christ told his followers:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Congressman BROOKS HAYS and others who cooperated with him on making available in the National Capitol Building a room for spiritual meditation and prayer, preserving therein the principles of religious

There was no objection.

Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, in all that has been said there is much wisdom. A number of Members have spoken to me concerning this resolution, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members may extend their remarks on this resolution at this point.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of Congress I want to commend the author and cosponsors of this most praiseworthy legislation. When I came to Congress on January 3 I did not know, as I am sure most people in the Nation still do not know, that there is no place in the Capitol Building where one can commune in holy solitude with his Maker. I was told that the reason was the fear that the establishment of such a place would contravene the traditional American concept of separation of church and state.

To my mind that fear is wholly unfounded. The concept of separation is based on the maxim that the Government should not either champion or oppose any particular religious faith to the exclusion of the others, and, conversely, the church should not attempt. to dictate the political structure of the

only embraces the idea of freedom from coercion in some particular religion but also it embraces the at least equally important idea of opportunity to worship. I feel that the establishment of this room for meditation and prayer should be a spiritual help to us in Congress and an inspiration to our country and our friends beyond the seas.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, before landing on the New England shores the Pilgrims entered into a covenant and agreed to the Mayflower Compact. That historic document began with a prayer: "In the name of God. Amen."

Amid the vicissitudes and discouragements of Valley Forge George Washington sought the quietness of the snowcovered campground for a place of prayer.

I join with other Members of the House in expressing deep appreciation to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HAYS] in sponsoring, and to the House in approving the resolution authorizing the Speaker to set aside a room in the Capitol to be used by Members of the House and the. Senate as a place of prayer and meditation.

In these days when circumstances and events of a troubled and frustrated world so often try our patience and test our faith and fortitude, it is important that

we spend some time each day in medi- FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF INVEStation and prayer.

It is my understanding that this room is to be a private place for the individual meditations of Members. It is not, as I understand, a meeting place for groups or planned programs. But rather a place where we can draw aside when we will for communion with our own consciences and with our Creator. Moses could not hear the voice of God until he turned aside from herding sheep to the burning bush on the edge of the desert. This place of prayer in the Capitol, I am sure, will prove to be extremely helpful to Members of the Congress.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to; and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

TIGATING AND SELECT COMMITTEES, 83D CONGRESS

Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to include a table.

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

Iowa?

Investigating and select committees, 83d Cong., Jan. 3 to June 30, 1953

Committees

Agriculture Committee (general) (Congressman HOPE, Kansas, chairman), H. Res. 161, Apr. 15, 1953...

Armed Services Committee (general) (Congressman SHORT, Missouri, chairman), H. Res. 125, Feb. 24, 1953; H. Res. 156, Mar. 5, 1953. Defense Production (Joint Committee) (Senator CAPEHART, chairman), Public Law 95, June 30, 1953, fiscal year 1954---District of Columbia Committee (Congressman SIMPSON, Illinois, chairman), H. Res. 270, June 11, 1953.

Education and Labor Committee (general) (Congressman MCCONNELL, Jr., Pennsylvania, chairman), H. Res. 115, Feb. 24, 1953; H. Res. 116, Mar. 5, 1953.

Foreign Affairs Committee (general) (Congressman CHIPERFIELD, Illinois, chairman), H. Res. 113, Feb. 24, 1953; H. Res. 145, Mar. 5, 1953--Fourth of July 1953 (commemorative observance, Declaration of Independence), H. Con. Res. 85, June 30, 1953--. Government Operations Committee (general) (Congressman HOFFMAN, Michigan, chairman) clause 8 of rule 11, H. Res. 150, Feb. 25, 1953... Interior and Insular Affairs (general) (Congressman MILLER, Nebraska, chairman), H. Res. 109, Mar. 5, 1953; H. Res. 117, Mar. 16, 1953--Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee (general, also newsprint), H. Res. 126, Mar. 5, 1953 (Congressman WOLVERTON, New Jersey, chairman), H. Res. 127, Mar. 5, 1953; H. Res. 128, Mar. 16, 1953_Judiciary Committee (general) (Congressman REED, Illinois, chairman), H. Res. 50, Feb. 24, 1953; H. Res. 66, Mar. 5, 1953. Judiciary Committee (Congressman REED, Illinois, chairman), privileges of the House in re: Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's, Inc., H. Res. 190, Mar. 26, 1953___.

Kitty Hawk, N. C. (air flight), S. J. Res. 42, Public Law 32, May 22, 1953Post Office and Civil Service Committee (general) (Congressman REES, Kansas, chairman), H. Res. 32, Feb. 24, 1953; H. Res. 148, Mar. 5, 1953. Small Business Committee (select committee) (Congressman HILL, Colorado, chairman), H. Res. 22, Feb. 3, 1953; H. Res. 131, Feb. 24, 1953... Un-American Activities Committee (general) (Congressman VELDE, Illinois, chairman), sec. 17 of House rule 11 (H. Res. 5); H. Res. 119, Feb. 24,

1953..

Veterans' Affairs Committee (Mrs. ROGERS, Massachusetts, chairman), H. Res. 34, Mar. 5, 1953; H. Res. 168, Mar. 16, 1953...

Ways and Means Committee (general) (Congressman REED, New York, chairman), H. Res. 91, Feb. 24, 1953; H. Res. 123, Mar. 5, 1953, and H. Res. 243, May 27, 1953....

Total.....

1 Necessary expenses.

ELECTION CONTESTS Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. LECOMPTE. Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a brief announcement which I believe will be of interest to

every Member of the House on both sides of the aisle. In the years I have served in the Congress, there has never been a Congress when there has not been at least one or more election contests over seats in the House of Representatives.

I think that in all cases this House during the years has reached a judicial

Mr. LECOMPTE. All Congresses, in my experience, have done a splendid job in handling difficult cases.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and House for 30 minutes today, following was given permission to address the the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered.

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 7

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve

itself into the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 261) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1953; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be confined to 3 hours on Reorganization Plan No. 7 and 2 hours on Reorganization Plan No. 8, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] and myself.

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

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, did I understand the gentleman to say that he suggests general debate be limited to 3 hours on each one of the plans?

No; 3

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. hours on the first one, and we may not use and probably will not use all of that time; and 2 hours on the second one.

Mr. HALLECK. From what inquiry I have made, I have not found many who are interested in speaking very much on these plans on our side. I do not know what the situation is on the minority side. We had hoped that these two matters might be disposed of this afternoon at a reasonable hour.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. We have practically no requests for time on our side. We consider the matter noncontroversial; that is, most of us. As far as I am personally concerned, I would encourage the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HOFFMAN] to request a lesser amount of time. I should think possibly an hour altogether on plan No. 7 and an hour on plan No. 8 would be sufficient. I do not know what the requests for time are on the gentleman's side.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I am never in favor of a long debate either in the House or in the committee. I have no objection to following that suggestion, to make it an hour on each side for each one of the plans. That would suit

me.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, do I understand the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] suggests that an hour for both sides would be satisfactory, which would mean half an hour on each side, on each plan?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That was my suggestion, in view of the fact that I have no requests for time.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, are there Members on our side who desire to speak who think they will need more than the time suggested by the gentleman from California?

They

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. want time. What is the hurry? I have never delayed proceedings here in the House.

Mr. HALLECK. I do not anticipate that there will be any delay.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I am not conducting a filibuster.

Mr. HALLECK. But certainly, when time is fixed, and considerable time is allowed, in our experience many times other matters are brought up.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 261, with Mr. FORD in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the resolu

tion.

By unanimous consent, the first reading of the resolution was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the consent request the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HOFFMAN] will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] for 1 hour. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HOFFMAN] is recognized.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from

Mr. HALLECK. Extraneous matters come up which are discussed, and I would suggest a certain limitation if we can know definitely in what time the matter can be concluded.

Mr.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Speaker, the Reorganization Act was adopted over my violent protest. Under that act 10 hours of general debate is allowed.

Mr. HALLECK. That is exactly right. The gentleman could insist on the full 10 hours of general debate, if he wished to do so, but I certainly would not expect him to do that.

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Michigan restate his request? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on House Resolution 261, dealing with plan No. 7, be limited to 1 hour a side.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan if he discussed the matter of time with anyone on the Democratic side.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes; with the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD).

Mr. McCORMACK. When? Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. morning.

This

Mr. McCORMACK. Did Mr. HOLIFIELD go to the gentleman or did the gentleman come to him?

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I think he came over here. Do you want me to run around over there? Inasmuch as the gentleman on several occasions has expressed a minimum of admiration for me I do not want to make myself welcome in his house.

Mr. McCORMACK. All right, now, except that the minority is going to insist upon its rights at all times. I just wanted the RECORD to show that in this case the minority was not consulted as to time.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Oh, well, that is not so.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan asks unanimous consent that debate on House Resolution 261 continue not to exceed 2 hours, the time to be equally divided between the two sides. Is there objection?

There was no objection. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

favor of the plan, 10 minutes, all the gentleman requested.

the foreign policy and overseas operations area. Some of the top men who testified before us have privately expressed their regret that more sweeping changes could not be made more rapidly. Yet they recognize, as we all must recognize, that the United States has reached the point at which every move in international operations must be studied for its possible repercussions in every sensitive sector of the globe.

In the hearings on these plans three factors struck me with considerable force.

The first point is the sincerity with which the Eisenhower staff has responded to President Eisenhower's desire that they work together in harmony as a team. By word and deportment they have revealed that no thought of personal status or struggle for prestige will hamper their work. In so doing their difficult jobs, these men will quietly and naturally find the way in which they can best work together. It is my earnest plea that we give this new team a chance to divide the load of responsibility among them as they can best carry it. This plan accomplishes such a division in an orderly manner.

This is the specific and tangible consequence of the President's message of June 1, asking for a clear focus of responsibility within the executive branch for the conduct of foreign affairs, and for an integration of various activities formerly scattered among several agencies and programs.

At this point I would like to pay tribute to the staff of the International Operations Subcommittee for their outstanding work during these hearings and in research work in the development of the reports on both plan No. 7 and plan No. 8.

No one who has had the opportunity to question men like the Under Secretary of State for Administration, Donald B. Lourie; the Director of Mutual Security, Harold E. Stassen; and the Under Secretary of State, Walter Bedell Smith, whom I am proud to claim as a constituent, can avoid a reawakened feeling of pride and of confidence in their concept of the new, hard-hitting instrument of foreign policy we are forging today. These members of the new team have moved with care and deliberation to work with President Eisenhower to develop a plan which may have some unforeseeable weaknesses but which is a constructive step toward providing the action agency so needed to implement a vitalized for eign policy.

Careful consideration of the public welfare and a deep realization of the need for stability both at home and abroad argue strongly against hasty and improvised action toward reorganization in this area. This plan and plan No. 8 to be presented later today are far from the end of reorganization required in

The second point is the amount of

the Bureau of the Budget that nearly 11 million dollars will be saved by the pro

posed reorganization of the United

States information services alone. I realize that future savings are difficult to predict with certainty at this stage of reorganization. Harold Stassen stated that with the reduction in personnel afforded by reorganization under Plan 7 he will cut staff to the point at which he can close up some of the buildings now occupied in Paris. Incidentally, the payrolls of the Mutual Security Agency show a greater reduction than those of any other of the agencies we examined.

And, incidentally, let no one sneeze at a $10 million saving. A special subcommittee on which I served at the request of our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, together with the International Operations Subcommittee, saved another ten million the other day by our investigation of a single overseas building program. A hundred of these savings would amount to a billion dollars, a good round sum of money. To paraphrase our parental admonitions, if we take care of the ten millions, the billions will take care of themselves.

The third striking point brought out in the testimony was the fact that the Department of State employs 42,000 people today, as contrasted with 13,000 in 1946. Here is one explanation of the faults of operation and the errors of decision as well as the graver errors of indecision charged against the Department. Where can we hope to find a statesman who is at once politically astute, a natural intellectual leader of the Western World, and a born executive capable of directing a loosely knit body of 42,000 people? This is a frustrating and very nearly preposterous situation, which demands immediate attention.

Many criticisms have been leveled at the proposal to separate policy making from the execution of policy, but in view

of the choices before us many of these criticisms seem academic. After this After this plan is put into effect the size of the Department of State itself will be reduced by nearly one-half. Critics of the proposal warn us that there will be friction between the Department of State and Foreign Operations Administration. Of course there will be some friction. There will be two bodies rather than one. But there will also be more accomplishment. May I illustrate with a simple example?

Here is a fat boy weighing 420 pounds. He is not much help on the gridiron. By some legerdemain or legislative magic we make two out of him, and squeeze a lot of lard out in the process. Now we have a couple of potential half-backs. They will doubtless get their signals mixed occasionally. Each will want to carry the ball. Despite the best will and understanding of the heads of these bodies the flesh will remain weak and will be subject to a conditional response known as jealousy. But the two normal bodies, nevertheless, move faster than the overweight fat boy on whom we operated.

The irritation and frustration within a department of 42,000 people are of a different nature than those appearing between departments, just as the frictions in the fat boy are concealed from the naked eye. Let us say that these frictions lie in the realm of biochemistry. Medical students and experts in administration, like Dr. JUDD, might call them by their scientific Latin name-sluggishus circulus memorandus. The common or lay term for this condition is redtape. This condition deteriorates in time to chronic decisiono delayus, which in more advanced stages takes the form of total paralysis.

Even in this advanced stage there appears no external friction whatever to the lay eye. The patient is amiable and even complacent. He blames Congress for his troubles. But there is friction between this hulk and the American people-friction we have promised our constituents we will eliminate.

I do not want to oversimplify the very real organization problem before us. During the hearings we repeatedly warned the administration representatives of the difficulty of separating policymaking from action. But I think the Department of State is already sensitive enough on this point, and knows, furthermore, that much of policymaking is only the summation of thought and experience from all parts of the Government. In full understanding of the problem but without full knowledge, yet, of the best manner of coping with it, the administration has put forward plan 7 as a transitional stage, the best next step on the road. Walter Bedell Smith showed full awareness of the problem when he said:

Well, you all know as well as I do that you cannot draw a clear-cut line of demarcation between the man who makes the policy

and the man who carries it out.

There is a sort of twilight zone in between, and you cannot divest entirely the policymaker ** * of all responsibility for the coordination or for general supervision over the implementation of that policy.

I should like to quote also from Harold Stassen:

At this point let me emphasize again that all these programs and operations which I have discussed as the responsibility of the Director of the Foreign Operations Administration will be planned and carried out under the direct supervision of the President and

in conformance with United States foreign policy as determined by the Secretary of State, military policy formulated by the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Treasretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Treasury's judgment on monetary and fiscal policy. The participation of the Director of Foreign Operations in the sessions of the National Security Council, the Cabinet, the Munitions Allocation Committee, the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems, and the Defense Mobilization Board assures normal and regular awareness of overall policies and effective implementation of program decisions.

And, under further questioning, Mr. Stassen added, extemporaneously:

I believe that President Eisenhower is the ablest administrator in the world today. I think there is no man that has his quality of pulling together a problem and developing an organization to carry it out. * This is his conception of the best way to carry out the very complex and very vital relationship of the United States to the rest of the free world, with the objective of peace and so much at stake. And my own approach to it is: I will administer whatever the President wants me to administer, and I will administer the way he wants it administered, and I am honored to endeavor to carry out the operation side of this foreign-economic phase, with its direct relationship to Defense and State and the other departments which are involved.

Every topman who appeared before us, by word and attitude reflected us, by word and attitude reflected President Eisenhower's insistence on teamwork. I do not believe for one minteamwork. I do not believe for one minute that this plan is a perfect solution to the problem of organization, just as I do not believe there is a perfect solution this side of heaven to the global troubles which these men now courageously face. Troubles of organization are magnified by troubled times. These are troubled times, indeed. To carry such responsibilities requires sound administration, a responsive organization and streamlined operational techniques, as well as able leaders.

At this stage in the new administration, it is important that President tion, it is important that President Eisenhower's Reorganization Plan No. 7 be allowed to go into effect. Accordingly, I shall vote against House Resoluingly, I shall vote against House Resolution 261 which disapproves the plan. I urge you, my colleagues, to vote "no," so that a start may be made in the reorganization of the Department of

State.

Many of us have deplored conditions in the Department in the past and voiced our impatience at the slowness of change in organization and procedure in this vital agency. Today we have an opportunity to start on a longrange reorganization program by allowing Reorganization Plan No. 7 to go into effect. This is one "no" vote that is constructive that is progressive— that represents a first short step in the right direction.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. LANTAFF).

Mr. LANTAFF. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to compliment the committee and the staff of the Brownson subcommittee that prepared this very excellent analysis and report on Reorganization Plan No. 7.

As has been explained to you, the purpose of the plan is to ease the respon

sibilities that have heretofore fallen on the Secretary of State. We are by this plan setting up a new agency, called the Foreign Operations Administration. We are also organizing what is known as the International Information Agency. At the top of this pyramid structure will be the State Department laying down policies to be followed by these operating groups.

The committee, and I think most of our members, have several reservations about this plan. Those reservations are

well set forth in the committee report. Actually, it violates many of the principles of good organization which were recommended to the Congress by the Hoover Commission. It is absolutely the opposite of the principles contained in the reorganization plan we were asked to adopt for the Defense Department. There we sought to strengthen the Secretary of Defense so that we could pinpoint responsibility. We gave him the authority to go with the responsibility. Here, however, we are separating these agencies and giving the Secretary of State the policy-making powers, and two other groups the operating powers.

It was the sentiment of most of us on the Democratic side that since the President had personally considered this plan and since he felt that this would work and would help to straighten out some of our operations overseas, we on the minority side decided to go along with the President, although we do have certain reservations.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANTAFF. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. We are placing the responsibility definitely upon the President and this administration.

Mr. LANTAFF. That is right. The responsibility is definitely on the President in the field of foreign policy, and for this plan. He has said he would like to have this organization in order to carry out his responsibility in the field of foreign policy. As the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, we as Democrats want to go along with him in fixing that responsibility for our foreign policy and for the implementation of that policy.

There are two things I do think we should make a record on today. One is that this plan cannot possibly or conceivably work unless the Director of the Foreign Operations Administration and unless the Director of the new International Information Agency definitely subordinate themselves to the Secretary of State. If they assume those positions and then start building empires, as ofttimes many are wont to do in Washington, then this plan will fail. So I think the Congress should warn those who will take over operations under this plan that the Director of the For