to say that on many occasions my vote on a question has been changed on the floor of the Senate by reasoned argument that I cannot answer and still hold to the point of view with which I started. That is one of the primary functions of this body.

I speak respectfully of the Senate, but I do not see why I should not say this, because I believe it to be true. In some instances and they are too numerous to assure protection of representative government-no matter what argument or what evidence or what proof is presented on the floor of the Senate, many Members will not change their thinking on the issue at hand. It is true that oftentimes they will meet a colleague in the corridor and will say to him, "You certainly were correct about that one," but they will not vote with that colleague. And when he is asked, "Why didn't you vote with us, if you thought we were right on the issue," the answer frequently given is, "Well, unfortunately, I was committed."

Mr. President, I wish we could do something about that, but it seems to me that matter rests with the individual Senator. After all, it is a matter of subjective values.

I do not know why Members let themselves become committed to such an extent that no matter what is said during the debate on the floor of the Senate or no matter what proof if offered on the floor of the Senate, they still will not change their votes. A change in the rules of procedure will not necessarily guarantee a change in that attitude on the part of the Senators, though I think it will help, because the procedures which are followed have much to do with the judgments that are formed.

If we had the kind of rule I intend to propose next week, it would forbid meetings of committees while the Senate was in session, and it would provide that the Senate should meet on certain regular days unless the Senate itself recesses. Certain days would be reserved for committee meetings, and it would provide that we should go to work in the Chamber in the morning, not at 12 o'clock noon, as we do now. There is no reason why the Senate should not sit from 9:30 to 12:30, then take a recess until 2 o'clock for lunch, and come back at 2:30 to continue in session until it decides to recess. A slap-happy way of running the hours of the Senate breeds inefficiency.

Mr. President, I know this speech will not be popular with my colleagues, but I have been a Member of the Senate long enough to look at the results; and I am satisfied that a rule change of the kind I have suggested would greatly increase the efficiency of the Senate.

There are a few other changes in the rules I shall recommend for the protection of minority rights. Saying that makes me look something like a special pleader; and we must watch out for that. But I think I am leaning over backward, since no one will ever rise in the Senate to contradict the point I now make.

I care not who the Senator may be, if I ever feel that his procedural rights are being violated, I shall be on my feet to protect him. I think he has that coming to him as a matter of right. But there is

also a selfish phase of it which affects all the others of us, since one of us may be the next one to be in such a position. I have been the next one many times, when my minority rights were not protected. So I think I can speak with at least a little experience, if not with authority, on the subject.

Notice is important if we are to protect the rights of minorities. Many a time action of which I had no notice has been taken against me in the Senate on some matter involving my interest. So I think it important that we adopt a rule which will protect the minority. I know we do a great deal of talking about how careful we are to protect brothers in the fraternity. It is good talk. But I notice such talk is engaged in mostly by those who are seldom in the minority. Let a Senator leave the floor and seat himself in the lunchroom downstairs, and straightway someone rises to make a unanimous-consent request regarding regarding something of some kind which he knows full well he could not get by with if that particular Senator were not eating his lunch. One must eat once in a while.

A Senator may have had the experience of having objected to a unanimous-consent request that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a bill on the calendar, and then, oddly enough, being called out of the Senate Chamber to answer a long-distance telephone call, as happened to me on one occasion, to find on his return that the bill was quickly passed on motion.

I laugh about it, because I am not the one who is being hurt. When those things are done, it hurts the Senate, not the individual Senator. That is why I interrupted today to express my respect ful disagreement with my good friend the Senator from Colorado [Mr. JOHNSON], when he made a statement to the effect that under the unanimous-consent rule Senators always protect each other. I had a little chat with the Senator afterward, and he said, "Well, Wayne, I was not aware that that was not always the case." I can say it is not always the case.

I use myself as an example in this connection, only because of an important principle I am seeking to protect, which has to do with the protection of the procedural rights of each Member of this body. Such protection is not afforded under the present rules; at least, the present rules are so vague that they can be abused, once the steamroller seeks to overrun the minority, or when the objective is to circumvent the minority. I hope that when I propose changes in the rules next week, the Committee on Rules and Administration will give very careful consideration to them, because the rules are devised, not to protect the representative of the minority party alone, but to protect all minorities in the Senate, I care not who they may be, and to protect them for decades to come. The Senate is now operating under bewhiskered rules; it is operating under rules which, for the most part, have not been changed for decades. There is need of a shave in the case of the Senate rules, a little face tonic, and perhaps some facelifting, too, in order to remove some of the wrinkles. The plastic sur

gery I intend to propose next week in the form of rules will do the job, if we can get the Senate to subject itself to being placed on the operating table.

VOTES FOR 18-YEAR-OLDS

be

Mr. President, I had intended to speak at greater length than I shall speak on the next topic of the report of the Independent Party, that is, a renewal of my suggestion that 18-year-olds given the right to vote. I think our failure to give 18-year-olds the right to vote amounts to a criticism of our 150 years of free education in the United States. It seems to me to be a sad reflection on the American school system, and one which is not deserved. On questions involving affairs of state, political issues, and problems of statesmanship, I will put the judgment of the average 18-year-old alongside the judgment of the average older citizen anytime. I know 18-year-olds pretty well. I have been in a position to evaluate their thinking for about 21 years in classrooms. I know something about them from the standpoint of a parent, and I say we are prejudiced and wrong in our reluctance, as a people, to give 18-* year-olds the right to vote.

Here again I think there is also involved a moral principle. I do not believe we can justify asking 18-year-olds to die for the country and at the same time not permit them to exercise their right to vote in the determination of its policies.

Various measures along this line, phrased in different language, have been introduced by colleagues. I shall be glad to support any of them which will accomplish the desired result, but I send to the desk now and ask to have printed at this point in the RECORD, as a part of my remarks, a proposed constitutional amendment which will give to 18-yearolds the right to vote. I do not insist upon the language of the particular amendment as drawn. Any of the other proposals which will accomplish the same objective is all right with me. I particularly like the way in which I have worked this one out. Therefore, I submit it today, Mr. President, and ask to have it printed and appropriately referred.

There being no objection, the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 103) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to grant to citizens of the United States who have attained the age of 18 the right to vote, introduced by Mr. MORSE, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as an

amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. The Congress shall have power

to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"SEC. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States

within 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have one other little item before I make the main speech which I rose to make, I may say to my friend from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], So he can gage his time accordingly. I am sorry Mr. President; I have two other items, but each is brief.

I understand the so-called Continental Shelf bill, involving the cil under the Continental Shelf, goes to conference on Monday. The bill as passed by the Senate contains the Hill amendment, but the House bill does not have the Hill amendment in it. I desire to invite attention to the fact that the Senate, by a yea-and-nay vote, voted for the Hill amendment. I have received a flood of

communications in recent days regard

ing the Hill amendment. I respectfully urge the Senate conferees to hang taut on the Hill amendment, and to make no compromise on it.

I believe, Mr. President, it would be better to let the bill go down in this apparently very short session of the Congress and to pick up the battle at the next session of Congress, than to compromise in the conference on this bill

the interests of the schoolchildren of America. I think the Senate conferees should take the position that the Hill amendment is a "must." It or nothing. Let us start the battle all over in the next session of Congress. Mr. President, when I express that point of view, I am confident I express the point of view of millions of American people who have become interested in the Hill amend

ment.

If the Eisenhower administration could have that amendment enacted, it would have something good to take to the American people during the recess. But that is about the only thing good that is left for them to take to the people, with the sorry record they have made in this session of the Congress.

I say, let us keep our eyes on the conference, because that is going to be one of the tests, in the dying days of this Congress, as to whether there is the slightest hope for the protection of human values in the public interest under this sorry administration.

Yesterday, Mr. President, during my absence, there occurred a little discussion in the RECORD with reference to House bill 5349, Calendar 454, which came up on motion, although a call of the calendar was scheduled for today. It is an interesting commentary. I shall pass over it lightly. There was a brief discussion on the floor of the Senate, as the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD shows on pages 9041 and 9042, as to what the position of the Senator from Oregon would be as to transfer of certain land in Texas. It was pointed out that the legislative assistant to the Senator from Oregon had made the suggestion that it was the Senator's wish that the bill go over until he could be present. When I heard there was going to be a calendar call today, I

drove far into the night last night and arrived early this morning in time for the calendar call, to discover that the bill had been passed.

I am very happy to report that no injury was done to the people, because the bill meets the Morse formula. The bill provides adequate compensation for the property conveyed. But it was not an emergency bill, and it could have waited. I am very glad that upon my return and upon further analysis of the bill I found it reconcilable with the Morse formula. But it would have been very easy to get in touch with me and find out whether, if I were present, I would object to the bill on the unanimous-consent calendar. If I would, I think it would have been a manifestation of brotherly love if it had been brought up today by motion rather than during my absence yesterday.

PROBLEMS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

brief speech on the problems of the Dis

Mr. President, I now turn to a very

trict of Columbia. This not only is a

report of the Independent Party as a member of the Committee of the Whole, but as to this subject I am also making a report as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to which I have been "bumped." But it is an interesting committee, Mr. President. The work is very important. The basic principles of good government are involved in any committee on which one

works.

I am glad I have a good sense of humor about this whole committee matter. One of my very conservative Republican friends said to me a few days ago in the cloakroom, "Now that you have had your fun"-I do not know why he thought there was any fun connected with it"and you have shellacked us a good many times, I will tell you what you should do. You should walk back into the Republican conference and say, 'Here I am. I am a Republican, after all.' If you will do that, I will do everything I can to get back your committee assignments."

At first I thought he was speaking facetiously. But when I realized he was not, I made very clear to him that when I resigned from the Republican Party, I resigned. I made very clear to him that I mean what I say, and that he would not be seeing me back in the Republican conference. Being one of those who voted to kick me off my committees in the name of "party regularity," he was confidential enough with me to confess that he felt very bad about it, because he said, "We never did answer you, for the reason that there are no answers. You are quite right when you point out that the precedent established will rise to plague the Senate for many years to come, until it is corrected. I am for correcting it."

Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean to give the impression that this. confession of faith of my Republican colleague represents a political conversion on the part of very many Members on this side of the aisle, although quite a number of other Senators have said to me, to the same effect, that they were sorry they had been placed in a position where they had to vote to kick me off my committees.

When I was out talking to the people, I noticed that that is another action taken by the Senate at this session of the Congress the people see through. They know it was not either fair or right. I am perfectly willing to let it rest with the people, both in my State and in the Nation.

But having been bumped to the Committee on the District of Columbia, I have proceeded, as is my duty, to take an active interest in the affairs of the District of Columbia, and I shall discuss today the subject of putting into practice in the District of Columbia the democratic processes.

The Senate Committee on the District of Columbia has unanimously voted to report a District of Columbia home rule bill. It contains an amendment I shall discuss, which was adopted in the committee by a vote of 5 to 3. The bill provides for the election of a mayor, instead of for his appointment by the President.

It is an awful thing, it is an imposition, it is wrong, for Congress to give the President of the United States the job of

selecting a mayor for the city of Washington. I do not believe his office should be so burdened, looking at it from the standpoint of the President. But also I think it is wrong as a matter of public policy to do so. Congress should either give the people of the District of Columbia real self-rule, or else stop trying to fool them. The appointment by the President of the United States of a mayor for Washington, D. C., cannot be reconciled with the democratic process.

I made a fight in committee for a provision for the election of a mayor. It was the first major issue with which I had to deal in committee, and I am very grateful to my colleagues on the committee for having given me a hearing, and for their kindly reception of my amendment. Even the chairman of the committee, who voted against me—and the record will speak for itself-was kind enough to say at the time of the discussion in committee that, as chairman, he felt he should vote against my amendment, but that he believed he would be inclined to vote for it on the floor of the Senate, when he sat here as an individual Senator and had to pass judgment on the bill as a whole.

A great many persons have said to me, "I think you are right in principle, but there are some practicalities in the situation that cause me to wonder whether or not it is wise to put the provision in the bill." I always prick up my ears, so to speak, when I hear people begin to talk about practicalities as an excuse for denying a principle.

I will tell you, Mr. President, how important I think this particular provision is. I think it determines whether there will be home rule in the District, because the election of a council is not sufficient. If the mayor is to have the right to veto, as he should have-and I shall have something to say about the veto power before I finish—and if there is to be an election system, the mayor and the council should be elected.

Then I would go so far as to say Congress should leave to the elected representatives of the people the question whether or not they, in turn, wanted to

adopt a city-manager system, under which a city manager would be selected. This is one of the modern trends in the whole field of municipal government in the United States.

I would leave it to the council and the mayor, if both the mayor and the council were elected, to determine the question of adopting a city-manager system for Washington, D. C. I think that will be some years in the future. But the residue of power under the democratic process ought to be left to the elected representatives of the people.

Sometimes the argument is made that the Federal Government has a great interest in the District of Columbia. Of course it has. But is it desired to argue that because the Federal Government has a great interest in the District of Columbia, Congress has lost faith in the democratic process; that it cannot trust the citizens; that it cannot trust their elected representatives to protect the Federal interests, with all the supervisory control over the Federal interest that Congress would necessarily retain anyway?

Of course, with the ultimate control Congress has in the field of appropriation, purse strings control, there is no real reason for opposing the election of a mayor. The reason is an imaginary one. We had better pierce the veil, draw it aside, and see what the opposition really is. There are economic interests in this city that do not want an elected mayor, because they do not have ultimate faith in the democratic process. That is why they do not want an elected mayor. In municipality after municipality in this country there is the same kind of opposition. Influence, pressure, and control can be exercised much better when the system does not rest upon free elections in which the people ultimately control. That is exactly what this opposition means. I wish to say to the economic forces in the District of Columbia that have fought all forms of home rule for years, and have taken the completely phony position, the intellectually dishonest position, that they could not give any support to home rule until we first pass some legislation which gives the people of the District voting representation in the Congress of the United States, but they must think the people are pretty dumb not to see through that scheme. They know very well that their chances of holding up the passage of that kind of legislation, as proved by the years they have done so successfully, with all the constitutional questions and all the legal problems which are involved, are much better than are their chances of holding up home rule in the District of Columbia so far as local elections are concerned. So they build up what amounts to a strawman argument.

I refer to the board of trade. I have dealt with boards of trade before. My recommendation to boards of trade all over the country is, "You ought to clean out those in your membership who do not believe in the democratic processes, because a demonstration of a lack of faith in the democratic processes is fuel for the furnaces of subversive propaganda in America." I put them in the same

class, because these are days when we ought to rededicate our faith in the democratic processes in America, in rule by the people.

I am for having the economic interests of America subject also to democratic processes, whether they be boards of trade or trade unions. I am just as strong for the application of the democratic processes to all economic groups as I am with respect to any one of them.

With that little introduction, Mr. President, I make the following arguPresident, I make the following arguments in support of an elected mayor:

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENTS TO S. 999 TO PROVIDE AN ELECTED MAYOR FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Senate bill 999 provides for what is commonly known as the strong-mayorcouncil form of local government. It creates a local government of distinct and separate branches, comparable in that respect to the Federal Government, and each branch-executive, legislative, and judicial—has powers and duties vital to the proper operation of the whole. The extent to which this bill provides home rule or self-government for Washingtonians, therefore, is dependent upon how much voice the people are to have in each of these three branches of the local government.

The legislative branch is to be wholly elected, including a nine-man council and a nine-man board of education, the latter, of course, having some executive or administrative functions in its special field. The legislative branch is endowed with complete local power, though not sovereignty, with but a few proper restrictions, such as a prohibition against the levying of any tax on Federal property. With this there can be no quarrel.

The judicial branch is not modified by the pending bill, although it would appear that the Council would have the power to make such changes in the manner of selecting judges and in the arrangement and composition of the municipal courts as it might desire. But the Council, particularly at first, might hesitate to risk congressional ire by providing for elected judges, or for judges appointed by locally elected officials. And thus for the present, at least, the judicial branch of the local government judicial branch of the local government will continue to be mainly under the direction of the Federal Government, for judges on the municipal court and the municipal court of appeals are appointed by the President with the advice and by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

We come then to the executive branch of the proposed local government. It is of the proposed local government. It is proposed that the chief executive offiproposed that the chief executive officer of the District-with all that that broad language implies-shall be a Mayor, appointed by the President, by Mayor, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of 4 years.

The Mayor is to have many important powers-such as preparation and submission to the Council of the annual mission to the Council of the annual budget; appointment of employees, debudget; appointment of employees, department heads, members of boards and partment heads, members of boards and commissions; preparation of proposed legislation for the Council and for Conlegislation for the Council and for Congress; and a veto power over acts of the Council. The mayor is also responsible Council. The mayor is also responsible for the disbursement of all moneys, for

an accounting system, monthly financial reports, assessment and collection of taxes, and other phases of the city's financial operations.

Speaking, for a moment, of the veto power of the mayor, it was interesting, during our hearings, to note that one of the distinguished witnesses raised a question as to whether or not the mayor should be given veto power over the Council. I asked to have the professional staff of the District of Columbia Committee prepare a research memorandum for the use of the committee, taking a group of American cities with a population of 100,000 or over and checking their procedures to see to what extent the mayors have veto power. I was satisfied, on the basis of my own knowledge, that it was a common procedure, and I felt that, on the merits, it is a power which ought to be granted to the mayor. The staff prepared such a memorandum, which I submitted to the committee. In the organic laws of the overwhelming majority-all but three or four-of cities of 100,000 population or more, there are provisions for a veto by the mayor, according to a study which I have had made.

To deny the people any voice in the selection of the mayor obviously is to deny them a large measure of the home rule which they want and expect from this bill.

Actually, the proposal before us is about 143 years out of date. Washington had an appointed mayor and elected Council from 1800 to 1810. But as long ago as that, the system was found wanting and revised to provide for the election of the mayor. A mayor continued to be elected until the creation of the short-lived territorial regime of 1871-74, after which Washingtonians sold their birthright of local self-government for a mess of Federal aid.

It is highly doubtful that the provision for an appointed mayor will win any converts to the cause of home rule. Indeed, many opponents of local suffrage find their greatest strength is in arguing that this measure is so diluted as to be worthless.

They play both ends against the middle. Some of the opponents of home rule take the position that it is bad because the mayor is appointed. They then take the position that it is bad because in the first instance we do not guarantee to the people of Washington voting representation in the Congress. They simply do not want home rule, so they will adopt any means or any argument which they think will help them postpone what to them is the "evil day" when the democratic processes are bound to prevail once again in the District of Columbia, as they did from 1810 to 1871, when the people of this city elected their mayor.

Mr. President, during the hearings on the home-rule bill, there was another argument which interested me, an argument made very sincerely by well intentioned and devoted supporters of home rule. It was their willingness to go along with an appointed mayor on the basis of the old "half a loaf is better than none" theory. Some of them very kindly suggested to me that they hoped I would

change my mind and not insist upon my amendment on the floor of the Senate. They took for granted, apparently, that my amendment would not be adopted by the committee. I guess they were a little surprised to discover that they should have been addressing their remarks to the other members of the committee, instead of to me. Their argument was, "Let us get started with this bill, and then maybe at a later time Congress will grant us the privilege of having an elected mayor."

Mr. President, of course, I take the position that it is a matter of right, not of privilege. I take the position that we cannot reconcile granting the right of home rule to the people of the District, provided in the bill, and at the same time fail to provide for the election of a mayor. So to the well-intentioned advisers who appeared at the hearing and urged me to drop my amendment for an elected mayor, I say, "You were wrong as to what the committee would do, and you are wrong as to what Congress will do once Congress comes to understand the merits of the bill."

I believe Congress will recognize the fact that we have, particularly in this time when democratic processes are being challenged around the world, a great opportunity, as well as a great obligation, to put those processes to work in the Capital of the United States, which in a figurative sense is also the capital of the world.

Mr. President, furthermore, it is argued that if the amendments to the bill are accepted the District's situation will remain compromised by the fact that it has no representation in the body which is trying to write its charter and which will remain its supreme legislative authority, namely, the Congress. There is, regrettably, nothing we can do about that in this proposed legislation. It will require an amendment of the Constitution, very probably, to provide the District with voting representation in Congress and with membership in the electoral college.

So, Mr. President, I say this afternoon, let us not compromise and impair needlessly the small portion of American rights we propose to dole out to the 800,000 voteless citizens of Washington. The bill offers them a voice in one-third of their local government and none in their National Government. Let us accept the amendments to the bill and thereby turn at least two-thirds of the local government over to the people who are paying for nine-tenths of it.

Mr. President, I close this subject matter by saying that the bill rests on the calendar of the Senate. It is my sincere hope that we will be given an opportunity to vote it up or down before adjournment. The committee is ready to lead a discussion on the bill if it can be brought up by motion for consideration.

Mr. President, I close my weekly report this afternoon with the announcement that come next Friday I intend to give another one of my speeches dedicated to George W. Norris on the subject of natural resources and the conservation thereof.

RECESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

CAPEHART in the chair). Pursuant to the order previously entered, the Senate will stand in recess until 12 o'clock noon on Monday next.

Thereupon (at 4 o'clock and 24 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess, the recess being, under the order previously entered, until Monday, July 20, 1953, at 12 o'clock meridian.

SENATE

MONDAY, JULY 20, 1953 (Legislative day of Monday, July 6, 1953) The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess. Rabbi Jacob Agus, Baltimore, Md., offered the following prayer:

O Master of the Universe, in humility and love, we pray for Thy help and guidance, that our Nation might be guidance, that our Nation might be blessed by our deliberations and that we might be blessed in serving as faithful custodians of its great heritage and its noble vision.

It is for peace we pray, the true substance of peace founded on understandstance of peace founded on understanding and tolerance, enabling ever greater numbers of men to move from the som

ber shadows of fear to the sunlight of freedom and dignity.

Vast is the power of our Nation, the power for destruction as well as for construction; may we never use it but as Thy trustees, in humility, in justice, and in the love of all men.

Menacing are the manifold dangers on the horizon today; may we face them steadily, yielding neither to fear nor to pride.

Many are the crosscurrents that would confound our course; may we see the goals of our Nation straight and truethe building of good and freemen, not the pyramiding of power; the fostering of dignity and happiness, not the vain search for triumph and glory; the building of a great and dedicated society, not the tinsel symbols of blind arrogance.

Upon us the eyes of a hundred and fifty million of our countrymen are turned; may we serve thine image, O God, within them, not the "idols of the marketplace," which glitter momentarily in the false glare of popular favor.

May Thy light and Thy strength ever be with the President of the United States, with the Members of this Assembly, and all who labor for the good of our Nation. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. KNOWLAND, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Saturday, July 18, 1953, was dispensed with.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENTAPPROVAL OF BILLS

Messages in writing from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries, and he announced that

the President had approved and signed the following acts:

On July 17, 1953:

S. 2199. An act to allow States during major disasters to use or distribute certain surplus equipment and supplies of the Federal Government; and

S. 1644. An act to amend the act of May 27, 1940 (54 Stat. 223), as amended, and the act of February 14, 1931 (46 Stat. 1111), to remove the limitation upon the rank of the Director of Music, the leader of the Military Academy Band, and to remove the limitation upon the pay of the leader of the United States Naval Academy Band, and to authorize the appointment of the present leader of the United States Navy Band to the permanent grade of commander in the Navy.

On July 20, 1953:

S. 2394. An act to amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1953.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Maurer, its reading clerk, announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 1802) to amend the act of Congress approved March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1214), as amended; asked a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. MILLER of Nebraska, Mr. D'EWART, Mr. SAYLOR, Mr. ENGLE, and Mr. REGAN were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments

of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 5376) making appropriations for civil functions administered by the Department of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954, and for other purposes; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin, Mr. HAND, Mr. CEDERBERG, Mr. TABER, Mr. CANNON, Mr. RABAUT, and Mr. RILEY were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESO

LUTIONS SIGNED

The message further announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills and joint resolutions, and they were signed by the Vice President:

H. R. 127. An act to quitclaim interest of the United States to certain land in Placer County, Calif.;

H. R. 233. An act to release all the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to all fissionable materials in certain land in Marion County, Ind.;

H. R. 674. An act for the relief of Irene F. M. Boyle;

H. R. 765. An act for the relief of Tien Koo Chen;

H. R. 779. An act for the relief of Ida Baghdassarian;

H. R. 781. An act for the relief of Johanna C. Willemsen;

H. R. 819. An act for the relief of Monika Klein;

H. R. 820. An act for the relief of Mrs. Pia Biondi;

H. R. 847. An act for the relief of Robert J. Rickards, Conception Sotelo Rickards, and Walter John Rickards;

H. R. 892. An act for the relief of Betty Robertson and Irene Robertson;

H. R. 947. An act authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue to Tom Gwin a patent in fee to certain lands in the State of Mississippi;

H. R. 978. An act for the relief of Harue Fukushi;

H. R. 1070. An act to amend title 28, United States Code;

H. R. 1106. An act for the relief of Hannelore Mayerl Fulbright;

H. R. 1143. An act for the relief of Mary Francina Marconi, Fernanda Guzzi, Anna Ferraro, Mary Laudano, and Julia Pisano;

H. R. 1211. An act for the relief of Isak Benmuvhar;

H. R. 1308. An act to amend the Color of Title Act;

H. R. 1330. An act for the relief of Mrs. Liane Lieu and her son, Peter Lieu;

H. R. 1571. An act to amend the Alaska game law;

H. R. 1886. An act for the relief of Paul Myung Ma Chung;

H. R. 2160. An act for the relief of Clemintina Ferrara, Maria Garofalo, Rosetta Savino, Maria Serra, Albina Zamunner, and Fedora Gazzarrini;

H. R. 2392. An act for the relief of Lee Kwang Nong (George Clifford Roeder);

H. R. 2506. An act for the relief of certain members of the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart;

H. R. 2652. An act for the relief of Constance Brouwer Scheffer;

H. R. 2779. An act to provide for perfecting the title of C. A. Lundy to certain lands in the State of California heretofore patented by the United States;

H. R. 2787. An act for the relief of Josefina Hoorn (Dmytruk);

H. R. 3581. An act to further the policy enunciated in the act of October 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 927), to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest by providing for a National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States;

H. R. 3670. An act for the relief of Mrs. Julia Gamroth;

H. R. 4110. An act for the relief of Mrs. Marie Weir;

H. R. 4302. An act to revive and reenact the act entitled "An act authorizing the State of Michigan, acting through the International Bridge Authority of Michigan, to construct, maintain, and operate a toll bridge or series of bridges, causeways, and approaches thereto, across the St. Marys River, from a point in or near the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., to a point in the Province of Ontario, Canada," approved December 16, 1940;

H. R. 5705. An act to amend the existing law to provide for the automatic renewal of expiring 5-year-level-premium-term policies of United States Government and national service life insurance;

S. J. Res. 37. Joint resolution to authorize the erection of a memorial to Sara Louisa Rittenhouse in Montrose Park, District of Columbia;

S. J. Res. 82. Joint resolution to provide for the reappointment of Robert V. Fleming as citizen agent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; and

S. J. Res. 83. Joint resolution to provide for the appointment of Owen Josephus Roberts as a member of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

On request of Mr. JOHNSON of Texas, and by unanimous consent, Mr. KILGORE was excused from attendance on the sessions of the Senate this week.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING

SENATE SESSION

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee dealing with alien property be permitted to hold hearings this afternoon, notwithstanding the session of the Senate. In explanation, I may say that a number of bills have been introduced by Senators on both sides of the aisle, and also bills have been introduced in the House, dealing specifically with funds for veterans who have been incarcerated in enemy camps. This involves the consideration of appropriations and also other matters connected with alien property. The subject is of such urgency that there is no other way to handle it except by holding a hearing this afternoon.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be permitted to meet tomorrow morning in case the Senate should meet at 10 o'clock.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF
ROUTINE BUSINESS

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the quorum call there may be the customary morning hour for the purpose of allowing Senators to introduce bills and joint resolutions, to make insertions in the RECORD, and to transact other routine business, with the usual limitation on speeches of 2 minutes.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I

move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of executive business, for action on nominations under the heading "New Reports."

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

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting several nominations, which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

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

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF A

COMMITTEE

Joseph Campbell, university administrator, of Cooperstown, N. Y., was born in New York City on March 25, 1900, the son of Thomas and Anne (Conneil) Campbell. He graduated from Columbia University in 1924. He is married and has 5 sons, 2 stepdaughters, and 1 stepson. From 1925 to 1927 he was connected with the firm of Lingley, Baird & Dixon, accountants. He subsequently served as comptroller of the Valspar Corp. until 1932, and later headed his own accountfirm, Joseph Campbell & Co. He became assistant treasurer of Columbia University in 1940 and has been treasurer and vice president in charge of business affairs since 1949. He is vice president and director of the Lincoln Building Corp., trustee of the Central Savings Bank, director of the American Re-Insurance Co., treasurer and trustee of Morningside Heights, Inc., trustee of the American Insurance & Annuity Association of America and the Manhattanville Neighborhood Center, and the House of the Holy Comforter. He was awarded the Certificate of Merit by the Office of Scientific Research and Development for his services during World War II, and also received the award of the Manhattan District (the Government wartime atomic-energy enterprise) for his services during the war. His member

ships include the New York State Chamber

of Commerce, the American Institute of Accounts, the Real Estate Board of New York, the Connecticut State Society of

CPA's etc.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no further reports of committees, the nominations on the Executive Calendar under New Reports will be stated.

UNITED NATIONS

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of John Alanson Perkins, of Delaware, to be representative of the United States of America to the second extraordinary session of the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Dr. H. van Zile Hyde, of Maryland, to be representative of the United States of America on the Executive Board of the World Health Organization.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.