4. Finally, for obvious reasons the domination of foreign petroleum sources by countries unfriendly to us would greatly weaken our strategic position.

The signal significance of Mr. Warren's sound counsel is not primarily because he spoke as a responsible official of the Government charged with direct defense responsibilities for oil and gas, although that is highly important as is his acknowledged record of accomplishment in that office. I think it is of greater significance that he was a former president of IPAA at a time when it was actively seeking similar restrictions against foreign oil, as it is now. No one can challenge his understanding of all the facts and arguments surrounding this problem.

May I quote from an editorial written recently in the New York Journal of Commerce by W. M. Jablonski with reference to this statement by Mr. Warren and say that I subscribe to it completely as a well merited tribute. The quotation is:

Mr. Warren's appeal shows courage and statesmanship. He is slated to leave PAD shortly to return to his own Texas oil producing circles-and he might easily have chosen a better topic for winning a popularity contest back home.

He has shown concretely that responsibility and integrity in Government requires putting national welfare and national security ahead of the special interests of any one group-even if it is your own.

Mr. Warren's example, and his warning on national security, deserve the most careful consideration of every Member of Congress before voting on the proposed legislation to restrict foreign oil supplies.

Able and experienced men from the oil industry have analyzed the proposals and have made their views regarding them a matter of public record. I want to submit a few of these comments here. According to Eugene Holman, president, Standard Oil Co., New Jersey:

Legislative curtailment of oil imports would

Impair the flexibility of oil supply and transport which is essential if the needs of the Armed Forces and the consuming public of our own country and the rest of the free world are to be met;

Tend to create a less favorable climate abroad for present and future American investments;

Injure thousands of large and small businesses which now use heavy fuel oil for heat and power;

Limit the privilege of consumers to use the fuel of their choice and force many of them to heavy expenses for altering equip

ment;

Raise the general level of fuel costs to fuel consumers and, therefore, raise the costs of many goods and services to the general public;

Jeopardize military fuel supplies; Constitute a breach by the United States of international agreements voluntarily entered into by it and otherwise gravely disturb our country's international relations.

B. Brewster Jennings, president, Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., emphasizing certain other implications of the proposals has drawn the following conclusions in regard to them:

1. Current reductions in domestic production are temporary in their nature and do not require corrective legislation.

2. The continuing high rate of exploration for and development of new oil reserves in the United States is evidence that the domestic industry has not been injured.

3. Because the United States consumes far more oil than the rest of the world combined and yet has only approximately onequarter of the world's proved reserves, substantial imports are desirable and, in the long run, essential to the maintenance of our highly industrial economy and our wartime security.

4. Arbitrary restrictions on imports from friendly countries cannot but have an adverse effect on the economies of those countries and on their good will toward us.

Finally, we believe that legislation restricting oil imports of the type now pending would be detrimental to our national secu

rity and in time would be regretted by all.

Finally, I believe the following comments of J. W. Foley, vice president and assistant to the chairman of the board, the Texas Co., point up still further aspects of the problem:

The Texas Co. yields to none in its recognition of the importance of domestic resources. About 80 percent of its total assets are located in the United States. Other domestic oil companies importing from foreign countries are more or less in the same position.

It would certainly be unwise for any of these companies to do anything in the field of imports which would impede the development of their own important domestic holdings.

Just as unwise, in my opinion, would be the proposed governmental regulation of imports, which could react to impede the industry's ability to cope with the country's ever-increasing demand for petroleum products.

Militarily we are living in an era of tension and uncertainty. It is also a period in which mechanization and the scientific approach to defense and attack exceed anything we have known before. Speed and mo

bility-the jet airplane, the ship, the submarine, the tank, the truck-are at the heart of our military security preparedness. Oil and oil products are the lifeblood of that speed and mobility. It is clearly certain that we could not satisfy from domestic sources alone the enormous appetite for oil represented by United States and free-world defense, added to the requirements of European recovery and our own expanding economy.

The fact is that this country needs both a healthy domestic oil industry and a healthy American-owned foreign oil industry. The balance between the two may at times appear to be uncertain, but the free play of economic forces is a far better balance wheel than governmental regimentation or control.

Before leaving crude oil, I believe it is important that everyone concerned with this question have before him some basic facts on developments in recent years with respect to our domestic crude-oilproducing industry. Few American industries have shown such strength and growth. In the last 15 years crude-oil production increased almost 100 percent, rising from 3,300,000 barrels daily in 1938 to 6,262,000 barrels daily in 1952, the highest in the 94-year history of the domestic oil industry. While production has declined slightly from the peak months of last year, production in March averaged 6,491,000 barrels daily, or over 3 percent higher than in the industry's best year. The foundation of this expanding production was a growing rate of exploration and drilling activity. Ex

ploratory or wildcat wells drilled during the same period rose over 400 percentfrom 2,400 in 1938 to 10,100 in 1952while the increase in total wells drilled was from 26,500 to 44,400 annually. These facts hardly suggest that imported oil is causing serious injury to domestic crude-oil producers.

In my foregoing remarks I have shown that residual fuel oil imports have not had any significant relationship to the loss of markets by the coal industry. I have shown that we cannot get along without foreign oil. And I have shown that operations in the domestic oil industry are close to the highest level in history.

Now I want to point out the serious consequences which the proposed restrictions would have on the areas which consume imported residual fuel oil and on our international trade and foreign

relations.

First let me indicate the magnitude of the proposed cut in residual fuel oil imports. Last year we imported 361,000 barrels daily of residual fuel oil. Virtually all of these imports were consumed in New England, with which I am familiar, and the other east coast States. This area as a whole accounts for half of the total consumption of residual fuel oil in the United States. Imported residual fuel oil represents 45 percent of the total supply of this product available to the east coast consumers. If the proposed restriction on residual fuel oil imports were in effect in 1953, this area would lose 285,000 barrels daily, or 79 percent, of the imported supplies which were available last year.

As most residual fuel oil consumers are unable to shift to other fuels without costly plant alterations, if at all, the effect on east coast users of imported residual fuel oil would be calamitous. Testimony given before the Ways and Means Committee indicates that the conversion costs of residual fuel oil consumers not equipped to burn coal could well run into millions of dollars, that a more drastic shortage of residual fuel oil would be created than in 1947-1948 when residual fuel oil prices increased 86 percent, and that independent marketers would be discriminated against and their investment jeopardized by the curtailment of their supplies because they could not purchase residual fuel oil from domestic sources in quantities sufficient for the demands of their customers.

As serious as these consequences would be to our east coast economy, they represent only a part of the risk involved in these proposals to restrict our oil imports. Another aspect I have already mentioned-the essentiality of foreign oil to our security.

There is a final danger which, like any risk to our security, should be of vital concern to every section of the United States and to every American citizen. This is the danger to our international trade and to our international relations.

This danger is sharply illustrated by the case of Venezuela, from which directly or indirectly we obtain almost all of our residual fuel oil imports as well

as most of our imported crude oil. A country with which we have enjoyed friendly and mutually beneficial relations for many years, Venezuela is now one of our best cash customers. Venezuela buys from us a wide variety of products from all sections of the United States-dairy and pork products, eggs, fruits and fruit juices, and other foodstuffs; refrigerators, radios, and other home appliances; automobiles, machinery, and other metal products; chemicals, and textiles. Last year our exports to Venezuela were valued at approximately $500 million. In addition we enjoy further benefits from sales of insurance, shipping and engineering service, and from returns on American investment in Venezuela. Altogether every dollar that we pay for Venezuelan oil comes back to us and many more in addition. It is markets of this kind that create employment, and enable us to raise our standard of living as well.

The enactment of the proposed restrictions on petroleum imports would violate our trade agreement with Venezuela in which we obtained valuable concessions for products, would upset this mutually valuable trade with Venezuela, and strain our friendly relations with that country. Such action would not be understood by either Venezuelans or by other friendly countries who can make their own way only if we are willing to buy from them the things they have to sell. It would be in direct conflict with our program of reducing aid and increasing trade.

Surely the enactment of proposals of such small and doubtful benefit to the industry they are principally designed to help and holding such great potential danger for our east coast economy, our exports from every section of the United States, our security, and our international relations, would be ill-advised and contrary to the national interest.

The position of the administration with reference to this bill has been made crystal clear. The consistent testimony of the several Cabinet members before the Ways and Means Committee bears out the fact that the administration is opposed to the bill. It should be defeated on the floor of the House. Any reliance upon disapproval in the other body or upon a Presidential veto certainly does not meet the issues and does not discharge our individual and collective responsibility.

In conclusion I want to submit two brief statements which were made before the Committee on Ways and Means and which support the conclusions I have indicated in this statement.

The first is the statement of Walter Raleigh, executive vice president of the New England Council, and is as follows: SUMMARY

1. The New England Council, by an affirmative vote of its members (713 to 162), approves the extension of the present Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. This it does on the ground that the interests of the Nationrequire a constructive and enlightened foreign-trade policy. Accordingly, while recognizing that there is room for improvement of the handling and administration by the Tariff Commission and the Executive Department the council must oppose those provisions of the Simpson bill which would

2. The council also opposes the specific provisions of section 13 of the Simpson bill which would impose certain damaging restrictions on the import of petroleum products and fuel oil. It opposes these oil-quota provisions on the ground that they are contrary to the national interest, that they involve a threat to our national security, and that they deprive the whole Atlantic seaboard and New England of an important source of fuel on which it now relies.

WHAT IS THE NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL?

The New England Council is made up of about 3,000 dues-paying industrialists and others from the 6 New England States. It is an active, militant, and nonpartisan organization, formed and maintained in the belief, that New England, by hard work and by making the best use of its human and natural resources, can in 1953 continue to make an important contribution to the national economy and hold its own in the business life of the Nation. The purpose of the council is to see that New England does the best with its real resources, which include a tradition of efficient industry, an intelligent labor force, and native energy and ingenuity. The council attempts to arouse New England to its own defense whenever it is threatened, as at present, by wholly outside interests seeking to deprive New England of resources and existing benefits available to it.

GENERAL POSITION ON THE MEASURE The New England Council vote indicates the general view of a broad cross-section of New England leadership that today foreign trade is an important factor in the whole important problem of foreign relations. The reciprocal trade agreements program has for a considerable period contributed to a breaking down of those trade barriers which impede cooperation among the countries of the free world. The program has provided a generally satisfactory mechanism for negotiating arrangements for greater cooperation and the council vote is an indication of the opinion of its membership that under proper leadership the program can be continued to make an effective contribution to our national foreign policy. Others are more competent to speak on the general aspects of the program than I, and I wish to devote the principal portion of my statement to a particular problem which directly affects New England as well as other portions of the Nation.

OPPOSITION TO THE OIL QUOTAS OF THE SIMPSON BILL

1. The proposed oil quotas: This committee is, of course, familiar with the two explicit oil quotas contained in section 13 of the Simpson bill. The first is a limitation of petroleum imports of all types to 10 percent of the total United States demand during the corresponding quarter of the preceding calendar year. The second limits imports of residual oil (sometimes called heavy No. 6 or bunker C oil) much used in New England for industrial plants, public utilities, and heating large buildings. These imports of foreign residual oil, under section 13 of the Simpson bill, could not exceed 5 percent of the total United States demand for residual oil in the corresponding quarter of the preceding year.

The possibilities of administrative relaxation of these stringent restrictions are negligible under the bill (see H. R. 4294, sec. 13, pp. 14-15). The quotas can be modified only if the total supply of residual oil and coal (which many users in New England find less satisfactory and more subject to supply and price fluctuations than oil) is inadequate. Apparently price considerations do

not enter into the relaxation provisions. Under the bill, New England can be forced to pay an artificially increased price for the fuel its climate and industrial operations demand. If the supply at that price is adequate, New England will get no relief under the administrative provisions of the law (p. 15, lines 4 to 6) which in any event would be complicated and difficult to utilize.

New England likes the convenience of oil as one of its fuels. It does not like the prospect of having to submit to arbitrary limitations on its sources of supply of fuel to keep its mills running and its employees working. The council approves heartily of the greatest possible competition for the fuel business of New England, an area which must import every bit of industrial fuel which it uses because New England possesses no oil wells or coal mines of its own.

2. What will the restrictions do to supply and price?: The first or general restriction on imports of all petroleum products is not immediately as important to New England as the restriction on residual oil. However, in time the general restriction will become burdensome. New England, as I have said, must import all its fuel and all its oil. Restrictions or increased tariffs on these products are bound to be disadvantageous to New England. New England's best interests are served by the greatest possible choice of fuel supplies from all markets, foreign and domestic.

The restriction on residual oil is immediately very damaging to New England. On the basis of 1952 demand, total imports of foreign residual oil into the whole United States will be limited by section 13 to 27 million barrels. New England alone imported more than that amount from abroad in 1951, probably about 35 to 40 million barrels, according to Army engineers figures.

A reduction in foreign supply for the country as a whole, estimated at about 100 million barrels of foreign residual oil, and for New England of about 20-30 million barrels of foreign oil, obviously will increase price, even if replacement of supply from domestic sources is possible. New England doubts that such replacement is either probable or possible because the production of domestic residual oil depends primarily on the demand for the higher priced components (gasoline, kerosene, light fuel oils, diesel oil, etc.) which make up 80 percent of the content of domestic crude oil. Southwestern domestic oil producers are not going to turn crude oil into residual unless they can sell the 80 percent of higher priced products or unless the price of residual goes up sharply.

New England would be seriously hurt if it were caught in a price squeeze caused by shortage. It experienced a small shortage of residual oil in 1947-48 (estimated by Boston's oil dealers at about 10 percent) and the price then went up over $1 a barrel, or 50 percent, in 12 months, only to go back to former levels again when supplies from abroad could be increased. A cut of a third to a half its present annual consumption of 60 million barrels, by the exclusion of most foreign residual oil, would inevitably mean very much sharper price increases than in 1947-48. If all residual oil used in New England were to go up $1 a barrel, New England's annual fuel bill would be increased by $60 million, without any possible benefit to New England whatsoever.

One further point should be mentioned. Many industrialists and building owners in New England have already installed expensive equipment for the use of heavy fuel oil. For them to convert to other fuels or to provide alternative equipment for use in case of oil shortage would be an extremely expensive matter. In addition, if they were forced to convert, the lack of competition for the other new fuel might also result in continuing increased costs.

Neither does New England want to see the oil quotas put into effect indirectly by other

provisions of the Simpson bill. We think section 6 and some of the earlier provisions of the bill are filled with unfortunate language that not only will hamper the reciprocal trade agreements program but may be `applied or distorted in effect into import restrictions on oil of the sort specifically found objectionable in section 13.

3. New England as a producer: New England has an interest in these oil quotas not only as a consumer of oil but a producer of manufactured goods.

Over 97 percent of the residual oil imported into the United States comes from Venezuela. Venezuela gets 90 percent of its dollar exchange from exporting oil to the United States.

The Simpson bill will cut Venezuela's residual oil exports to the United States by over $165 million a year. This means that Venezuela no longer will have the dollar exchange to buy all the half billion dollars' worth of United States products a year which it bought in 1952.

This will hurt New England which is responsible for a good part of the national production of the United States items of the type sold to Venezuela. New England does not know just how much its share of Venezuela's trade is, but we do know that Venezuela is a good customer and New England does not lightly throw away or offend good customers.

Particularly is this aspect of the problem important, when we recall that in 1952 a new reciprocal trade agreement was made with Venezuela. Venezuela then extended its tariff concessions to cover about 60 percent of all United States exports to Venezuela in return for lower United States duties on Venezuelan oil. To repudiate that agreement now, by the Simpson bill, would not only be damaging to New England but an affront to Venezuela and all Latin America, which could only regard the action as a gross and intentional breach of faith.

Conclusion: The New England Council urges that the oil quota provisions of section 13 be excluded entirely and that the other provisions of the bill be modified to remove all possibility of imposing indirect restrictions on oil imports. We feel that the administration of the present act can be made more satisfactorily protective of domestic industry. On the other hand, we believe that the act affords means of relief from real injury and that the President's request for a simple extension of the present act should be heeded pending intensive study.

The second is a statement of Donal M. Sullivan, executive secretary, Independent Oil Men's Association of New England, Inc., and is as follows:

First off, I wish to thank the committee and its distinguished chairman, for permission to the Independent Oil Men's Association of New England to present four witnesses, of whom I am one, on the matter of H. R. 4294, the Simpson bill.

The others will be John P. Birmingham, of White Fuel Corp., South Boston, Mass.; John J. Gill, of Petroleum Heat & Power Co., Providence, R. I.; and Martin J. Ryan, of Buckley Bros., Bridgeport, Conn.

Independent oilmen in general, and members of the Independent Oil Men's Association of New England, in particular, have a most important role in the marketing of the fuel oils which are consumed in the six New England States. Anything which affects the supply of crude petroleum or its products affects their customers, the individual and corporate consumers of New England, and affects them.

New England, as is well known, depends upon outside sources for every drop of oil which its people use.

It is not my purpose here, nor is it that of my associates, to presume to be expert on the momentous issue of the foreign-trade

policy of our country in its role as leader of the free world. We do not underestimate the tremendously involved problem on which the responsible leaders of the present Government of the United States must decide, and decide wisely, with the fate of our country and of the world conceivably in the balance. I may note with interest that the President has stated that "The very prosperity of this country is inextricably tied up with the prosperity of those countries with whom we must trade in this world," but I have no special qualification to discuss the proposition.

The committee already has an imposing record, pro and cor, on the troubles of the coal industry and their origins, and we shall add little to that. The function of our witnesses, as I see it, is to delineate certain fears and present certain facts and figures relating to New England.

My own discussion will be brief and general, and will require much less than the 20 minutes the committee has so graciously allowed. The other three witnesses will bring the story down to the level of the individual and corporate consumer in New England.

Before I speak of the residual oil provisions of the bill, I would like to say that the specific restrictions on crude oil imports appear dangerous to New England interests, but, because of the vast complexity of overall domestic supply and demand for crude and distilled petroleum products, it is difficult to state the danger beyond the obvious generality that short supply is bad for New England and that increased prices for gasoline and light heating oils would not be welcome to New England consumers.

The importance of residual oil imports to New England, by contrast, is striking and specific.

The United States Bureau of Mines reports, for the 1951 calendar year, that 60 million barrels of residual oil 1 was consumed in New England. An examination has been made of the United States Army Engineers' figures on tanker receipts for the 11 principal New England ports, for the same year of 1951.

Port by port, this is the extent to which New England is dependent on foreign residual: Bucksport, Maine, 89 percent; Searsport, Maine, 100 percent; Portland, Maine, 87 percent; Portsmouth, N. H., 30 percent; Salem, Mass., 100 percent; Boston, Mass, 78 percent; Fall River, Mass, 61 percent; Providence, R. I., 40 percent; New London, Conn., 59 percent; New Haven, Conn., 51 percent; Bridgeport, Conn., 54 percent. Overall, for the 11 ports named, for the year 1951, the figures show that 64 percent of the residual oil brought into New England came from foreign sources.

Converting this 64 percent figure to twothirds (for convenience), and applying it to the 60 million barrel consumption figure, this conclusion is reached:

New England depends upon foreign sources for 40 million barrels of residual oil per year. H. R. 4294 (the Simpson bill) would limit imports of foreign residual oil to 5 percent of the previous year's demand. Application of this percent to the 60 million barrel consumption figure adds up to 3 million barrels of residual oil from foreign sources for New England. Assuming, with a hope which might well not prove justified, that New England would get its 20 million

1 By way of definition, it may be stated that a "barrel", in oil industry terminology, means 42 gallons. Crude oil is the basic petroleum from which all petroleum products are extracted by the refining processes. Residual oil, or heavy oil, is used for bunkering of ships and as fuel for industrial furnaces and power plants. It is also blended with other oil for specialized industrial and commercial purposes.

barrels of domestically produced residual, this would leave New England with 23 million barrels or 38 percent of the 1951 New England demand.

The loss would be 62 percent.

What would happen to the price of residual oil in New England under these circumstances? It is a fair estimate that it would rise from the present Boston price of $2.17 per barrel to upward of $3.50 per barrel. No one can tell the exact steps in price increase nor the ultimate pinnacle which would be attained. Anyone can tell that the price would go up and go up drastically. Assuming that New England could get its 60 million barrels at the artificially bloated price, the cost to New England industry could be somewhere between $70 million and $90 million. It may be presumed that willing voices would be found to remind the individual and corporate consumer of New England of the cause of their ensuing woes.

Actually, of course, it is doubtful that New England would get its necessary supply or anything like it, because of the improbability of supplementation of foreign residual by domestic residual to the extent necessary. The specific effects of such short supply in New England will be detailed by our other witnesses.

So much for the probable effects, in general, in New England, of the proposed law.

The board of directors of the Independent Oil Men's Association of New England is unanimously opposed to restriction of oil imports. The opposition is complete. It is not confined to objection to the specific limitations in the Simpson bill. It extends to amendments proposed in the bill which would facilitate administrative imposition of restrictions on oil imports to New England. I cite sections 4, 6, and 14 of the bill.

We are opposed to any formula, legislative or otherwise, which would deny to New England consumers or New England industry the American opportunity to purchase on a free market at a fair price the petroleum products necessary to their welfare.

SEPARATING SUBSISTENCE FROM TUITION PAYMENTS UNDER KOREAN GI BILL

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced an amendment to Public Law 550-the Korean GI bill-which was enacted in 1952. The same amendment was introduced today by Senator SMITH, of New Jersey, on the Senate side.

This amendment is simple and in substance accomplishes the same purpose as the Nixon amendment that was passed in the Senate last year, and my amendment of 1952 on the House side, which was given a rule to be heard by the Rules Committee. However, due to the fact that the bill was heard under a suspension of the rules, no amendment was possible.

The amendment which I have introduced today in effect separates subsistence from tuition and pays the $30 a month which was originally designated in a lump-sum payment as tuition as payment to the college or university. All universities will be treated equally and will be paid a total of $270 a year.

This eliminates discrimination as between universities and treats all educa

tional institutions on the same basis.

More important than that, it eliminates discrimination as between veterans and will pay to every veteran exactly the same amount of tuition.

During the past year students have in some schools been going tuition-free and pocketing the sum that was set up in the lump-sum for tuition. That kind of an arrangement proved highly discriminatory as between veterans, and in those instances where no tuition was paid, that veteran would receive $30 more in subsistence than the veteran who paid all the $209 for tuition.

Mr. Speaker, I have received over 300 telegrams in the past week advocating the change in this law. The evidence before the subcommittee of which I am chairman showed that there had been a considerable change in the number of students who were attending private colleges and universities. It further proved that they were being discriminated against and were being hurt by this method of payment.

Under this amendment I have introduced there certainly can be no fault to be found by public institutions as they will receive exactly the same amendment as the private schools.

I believe this is an equitable solution to the objections that have arisen in the past year and I feel sure will do justice to all of the parties involved. At this time I am taking an opportunity to place in the RECORD a statement of the Association of American Colleges by the committee on Public Law 550 of which Chancellor William P. Tolley, of Syracuse University, is chairman, and telegrams from some of the schools interested in this matter:

STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LAW 550, WASHINGTON, D. C., JULY 16, 1953 Public Law 550 (The Korean GI bill) will, on August 20, 1953, have been in operation 1 calendar year. Experience has shown that the act is educationally unsound and the cost differential between the low-tuition and high-tuition institution becomes the determining factor in the veteran's selection of the college he chooses to attend.

This differential operates to the detriment of the veteran and of both public and private colleges. The act creates inequality among the veterans themselves in that those in free or low-cost institutions receive in effect a bonus for subsistence purposes.

The low-cost institutions have to accommodate a disproportionate number of veterans with a resulting inability to serve the students who constitute their normal clientele and are thus obliged to seek admission to more costly institutions. The hightuition institutions find some veterans gravitating to the low-cost colleges in order to reserve for subsistence purposes all or most of their Federal allowances.

Consequently, the Association of American Colleges, composed of 699 accredited colleges and universities, at its 1953 annual meeting resolved that the association should seek the amendment of Public Law 550, and that a committee be appointed to further this purpose.

After consultation with many key persons in the field of higher education, the committee proposes that such an amendment take the form of a direct payment to the veteran for subsistence and a direct payment to the college of a partial educational cost grant for each veteran enrolled. Although

the amendment, as proposed, would not require the additional expenditure of Federal funds, it will correct many of the inequalities under the present law.

It is the carefully-considered judgment of the committee that:

1. The proposal is to the educational advantage of the veteran, because it treats all alike.

2. It will help to preserve a sensible balance between low-cost and high-cost institutions. This balance, traditional in America, should be maintained in the interest of the most creative and constructive system of higher education. The welfare of the enrolled veteran and the welfare of the institution cannot logically be separated.

3. The proposal will ensure the use of public funds for the purposes for which they were intended.

4. In the case where communities maintain their tax-supported institutions, it will eliminate the double taxation permitted under the present law. We submit the proposal as the best method yet devised, in our judgment, to arrive at a solution to the problems created by Public Law 550.

Chancellor William P. Tolley, Syracuse University, chairman; President John G. Baker, Ohio University; President Gordon K. Chalmers, Kenyon College; President Philip G. Davidson, Jr., University of Louisville; President I. Lynd Esch, Indiana Central College; Vice President John E. Fields, University of Southern California; President Vincent J. Flynn, College of St. Thomas; President Francis P. Gaines, Washington and Lee University; President William H. Gill, Colorado College; President Rufus C. Harris, Tulane University; President Theodore H. Hesburgh, Notre Dame University; President Walter C. Langsam, Gettysburg College; President Albert A. Lemineux, Seattle University; President J. Walter Malone, James Millikin University; President M. E. Sadler, Texas Christian University; President Robert J. Slavin, Providence College; Dean Robert M. Strozier, University of Chicago; President John J. Theobald, Queens College (New York).

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

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the discussion of this matter by my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, concerning the colleges. The gentleman is doing an admirable work. I am thoroughly in accord with the viewpoint expressed by my friend. I hope the law will be changed so that the colleges, and particularly the smaller colleges, will not be intentionally discriminated against.

Mr. SPRINGER. May I say that this amendment is supported by all of the denominations; Catholic, all the protestants, the Churches of Christ in America, which includes every denomination, including the Mormons.

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

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

the support of many Members of Congress.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I wish to acknowledge the assistance that was given last year by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK] at the time that my amendment was pending, and he has reiterated his support of it this time, for which I wish to thank him as well.

WILLIAMSBURG, VA., July 10, 1953. Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.: Have read and considered carefully Tolley report on revised Nixon amendment. Enthusiastically support the committee's modificacation to Public Law 550. A. D. CHANDLER, President, College of William and Mary.

LOS ANGELES, CALIF., July 10, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives:

I earnestly urge adoption of the revised Nixon amendment to Public Law 550. CHARLES S. CASSASSA, S. J., President, Loyola University of Los Angeles.

NORTHFIELD, MINN., July 7, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives: The important function of private higher education in our Nation and the welfare of the veteran himself demand change in Public Law 550. I heartily support the revised Nixon amendment.

CLEMENS M. GRANSKOU,
President, St. Olaf College.

CHICAGO, ILL., July 7, 1953. House of Representatives: St. Xavier College, Chicago, wishes to support the revised Nixon amendment. Mother MARY HUBERTA, President.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

PRINCETON, N. J., July 7, 1953. House of Representatives: Princeton University supports amendment to Public Law 550 sponsored by Association of American Colleges.

J. DOUGLAS BROWN, Dean of Faculty, Princeton University.

PORTLAND, OREG., July 5, 1953. Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.: Board of higher education, Disciples of Christ, representing some 2 million members and over 30 collegiate institutions, strongly urge favorable action on your amendment to Public Law 550 allowing at least $30 monthly allowance to colleges on veterans educational cost. Above action taken in meeting, Portland, Oreg., July 5, 1953.

H. L. SMITH, President.

WACO, TEX., July 9, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Baylor University supports and urges passage of the revised Nixon amendment.

W. R. WHITE, President.

PROVIDENCE, R. I., July 6, 1953.

House of Representatives: Providence College supports the revised Nixon amendment and sincerely hopes that

GREEN LAKE, WIS., June 30, 1953.

Congressman WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,
New House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: The Association of American Baptist Educational Institutions in annual session at Green Lake, Wis., June 26-30, resolved to support such amendment to Public Law 550 as will designate that a certain portion of the monthly allotment paid directly to the veteran shall be used by him specifically toward the payment of tuition and fees at the veteran's chosen institution, and further resolved to express its appreciation to Representative SPRINGER and other Members of the Congress who seek appropriate means to assure payment of a reasonable amount of each veteran's grant for the educational purpose for which it is designed.

RONALD V. WELLS, Director, Division of Secondary and Higher Education, Board of Education and Publication, American Baptist Assembly.

Institutions represented were: AldersonBroaddus College, Phillippi, W. Va.; Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Center, Mass.; Baptist Institute for Christian Workers, Bryn Mawr, Pa.; Baptist Missionary Training School, Chicago, Ill.; Benedict College, Columbia, S. C.; Berkeley Baptist Divinity School, Berkeley, Calif.; Bishop Col

Lewisburg, Pa.; Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Kans.; Colby College, Waterville, Maine; Colgate Rochester Divinity School, Rochester, N. Y.; Colorado Women's College, Denver, Colo.; Denison University, Granville, Ohio; Eastern Baptist College, St. Davids, Pa.; Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pa.; Florida Normal Industrial Memorial College, St. Augustine, Fla.; Franklin College, Franklin, Ind.; Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Mich.; Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, Mich.; Keuka College, Keuka Park, N. Y.; Leland College, Baker, La.; Linfield College, McMinnville, Oreg.; Matner School, Beaufort, S. C.; North American Baptist Seminary, Sioux Falls, S. Dak.; Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ill.; Ottawa University, Ottawa, Kans.; the Peddie School, Highstown, N. J.; Shaw University, Raleigh, N. C.; Shurtleff College, Alton, Ill.; Sioux Falls College, Sioux Falls, S. Dak.; Storer College, Harper's Ferry, W. Va.; Divinity School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.; University of Redlands, Redlands, Calif.; Wayland Academy, Beaver Dam, Wis.; William Jewell College, Liberty, Mo.; American Baptist Assembly.

FULTON, MO., July 1, 1953. Congressman WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Urgently recommend action on Springer amendment to Public Law 550.

WILLIAM W. HALL, President, Westminster College.

CALDWELL, IDAHO, July 1, 1953.

WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House Office Building: Telegraphing our Idaho Representative heartily endorsing Springer amendment

Public Law 550. Was formerly hesitant to see this law changed. All private colleges need money but not at the cost of Government subsidy. However, your amendment avoids that danger and deals fairly with veterans and both public and private institutions. Congratulations.

PAUL M. PITMAN, President, College of Idaho.

FORT WORTH, TEX., July 6, 1953. Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives: Strongly urge adoption of revised Nixon amendment.

M. E. SADLER, President, Texas Christian University.

LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, Easton, Pa., July 2, 1593.

Hon. WILLIAM LEE SPRINGER,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SPRINGER: I wish to place Lafayette College and myself on firm record in favor of your proposal to amend Public Law 550, to the effect that there be a division in the funds available to veterans as between the tuition and the subsistence.

This is very important to every private college in America and would be of actual service to each veteran. It would make it possible for him to choose his college without undue pressure toward the tax-supported, tuition free, public institution. Very sincerely yours,

RALPH C. HUTCHISON.

OBERLIN, OHIO, July 6, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM L. SPRINGER,

House of Representatives:

In interest of veterans, public as well as private colleges and public generally strongly urge your support of revised Nixon amendment to Public Law 550.

WILLIAM E. STEVENSON,
President, Oberlin College.