bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

have available to us this procedure of suspension of the rules whereby at least some discussion can be had on the sub

Let us realize that what we are doing here is to continue the program of Federal aid for hospital construction for 2 years, and authorize the expenditure of $150 million a year on the program. We thus continue the program to 1957.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to provide that the tax on admissions shall not apply to moving-picture admissions."

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to extend their remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection.

good results. I very seriously question the extent to which the Federal Government should continue in such a program indefinitely. It can be argued that this program will end after the extension provided by this bill. But you know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that when that time comes, we will be in for another extension of 2 more years, involving an additional expenditure of $150 million a year, plus the administrative costs.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that consideration should be given to a taperingoff program somewhere along the line, and a determination by the committee and by the Congress, as to when the pro

TION ACT

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 967) to extend the duration of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act (title VI of the Public Health Service Act).

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the first sentence of section 621 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, is amended by striking out the word "five" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "seven."

we are going to taper off and get back to the point where local communities and the States become responsible for the program of hospitals and medical care in those areas.

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New Jersey will permit me to proceed at this time, I yield myself 1 minute to state that I demanded a second in order that those who might desire to speak could have the time. There are no requests for time on this side.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES].

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have requested this time only to point out what we are doing in connection with the extension of this particular program. As a member of the Consent Calendar Committee on the Republican side, I objected earlier in the day to the consideration of this legislation by unanimous consent and suggested at that time that some other procedure be used, particularly since we

Federal aid programs.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS].

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, this bill merely provides for an extension of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, generally referred to as the Hill-Burton Act, for a period of 2 years.

This bill was introduced in the Senate by the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. TAFT], with Senator HILL as cosponsor. It passed the Senate on the Consent Calendar. A similar bill was voted out of our Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, extending the act for 2 years.

This bill has the strong recommendation and support of the administration through the Bureau of the Budget and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

I should like to read just 2 or 3 sentences from their recommendation, sentences from their recommendation, which I think is a complete answer to the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES]. In a report to our committee under date of April 17, 1953, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare said among other things in rec

ommending a 2-year extension at this time:

Experience has demonstrated the value of this program and the soundness of its basic administrative provisions. Its survey and planning provisions have promoted orderly planning for hospital services in all of the States. A total of 96,500 beds will have been added to the hospital assets of the Nation upon the completion of projects approved up to January of this year. Furthermore, since most of the hospitals financed under this program are in areas which had few, if any, facilities heretofore, it has aided greatly in meeting the problem of maldistribution of facilities.

Although the expiration date in the HillBurton Act is June 30, 1955, we believe that the enactment of legislation such as H. R. 3171 well in advance of this date is eminently wise. Any further postponement of the passage of legislation extending the act would place the States in a disadvantageous position, with insufficient lead time to assure continuity of their own supporting appropriations and with no firm basis for projection of their planning and priority determinations or for assuring the retention of their technical staffs.

That is what the present administration says about the bill.

The bills in both the House and Senate were originally introduced to extend the act for 5 years; the administration reports that it prefers a 2-year extension and in support of their position, says:

A 2-year extension would assure continuity of this important program for the immediate future and still provide adequate time for appraising the merits of any long-range extension in the light of the broad evaluation of Federal-State relationships and financial

resources.

Mr.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? M HARRIS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. As I understand, if we pass this extension bill, you will have authority to continue this construction program through 1957.

Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman is right. Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. This is 1953; so we have really 4 more years after this one.

Mr. HARRIS. Three more years after this year.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. The gentleman is right, but it would be through on June 30, 1957.

Mr. HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. But when will the Congress take a look at what we are going to do after 1957? Are we going to have a look at that next year or are we going to wait until 1956 to do it?

Mr. HARRIS. The President recommended in his message to the Congress on March 30 of this year, that all Federal-State programs, including this, be thoroughly reviewed. Such a study is under way and out of it will come a recommendation as to what type of Federal-State programs we shall have, and this would come under that category.

Now, there is another matter in connection with the bill as we reported it out of our committee, Mr. Speaker, and that is a problem which it developed applied to only our State of Arkansas. That situation has been corrected and

In 1950, a hospital project in my district was approved for Hempstead County. The State agency, which is the regular authorized agency under the law to administer the program, cooperated with the sponsors in developing the project. With the assistance and cooperation of the State agency, a county election was held to provide a tax for the sponsor's share, the sponsor being Hempstead County. The election was held at the regular election in November, 1950. The people of the county voted overwhelmingly in support of the hospital program. As a result of the election, the quorum court of the county levied a tax on the property in the county. The tax is being collected each year as a result of this action.

Some 2 or 3 months following the election, the State agency advised the local sponsors that they could not expect to receive any Federal funds under the then budget. Our legislature was in session and had provided a tax for a State sponsorship of the Arkansas Medical Center, a worthy and most desirable program. Therefore, future funds under the pattern of Federal budget would necessarily have to go to this and other projects under construction.

For more than 2 years we have been trying to get this matter worked out on a local level with the State agency, without success.

The situation has developed to a somewhat critical stage with the Hempstead County project. Some taxpayers have Some taxpayers have threatened a suit for the return of taxes collected, since they were not being used in the construction of a hospital, it has been reported, and that a petition is to be filed with the quorum court to cease the collection of the tax levy. We have prevailed upon the State agency to relieve the crisis. They have constantly adhered to the position that no funds could be made available. Obviously, something had to be done.

This

Most of the funds last year, all of the funds this year, and all of the funds next year to be allocated to our State were projected to the Medical Center and another important project, St. Vincent's Hospital, in the same area, which also had been started in 1950. would mean that all of the funds, present and future, under the act, would go to these projects, since the act terminates under present law, June 30, 1955. Therefore, we propose here to extend the act for a period of 2 years. I brought this to the attention of the committee and offered an amendment, which would provide that not more than 60 percent of the funds allocated to any one State which would receive an allocation of more than $1 million in any one year, could be utilized in any one service area within the State. The committee adopted this amendment and reported it with the bill unanimously.

As it developed, there would be no application of this amendment to any other State, except Arkansas. We did not know or realize at the time it was adopted. It was agreed to, out of this experience, on the basis of as equitable a

The bill we are considering here, on a suspension of the rules, is a bill that passed the Senate, which is identical with the first section of the House bill, extending the act for a period of 2 years. This bill does not include the amendment referred to. Since the House reported it by our committee, the State agency in Arkansas has reconsidered the matter and with interested parties, including the sponsors of the Hempstead County project, and with the approval of the State Hospital Advisory Council, set up a program for the Hempstead County project, beginning with this year's funds. This relieves the critical situation the sponsors of the Hempstead County project has labored under for some time.

Consequently the necessity of the amendment reported out by the House committee is no longer present and that is the reason why we are taking up the Senate bill and asking that the rules be suspended and pass the bill to extend for a period of 2 years the hospital survey and construction act.

Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARRIS. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. The pending bill does not contain the amendment referred to that would place a limit upon the allocation for a single hospital or hospital area; in other words, this is an extension that does not contain any such provision.

Mr. HARRIS. That is correct. This is an extension for 2 years without any limitation; it is merely a simple extension of the present hospital act for an additional period of 2 years.

Mr. HAYS of Arkansas. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HARRIS. Under the circumstances I am withdrawing the amendment. As it is worked out locally, the amendment is no longer necessary. In order that the record may be clear, I desire to read the following telegram to me Saturday, July 18, from Little Rock, Ark., as follows:

Agreement reached to allocate $50,000 of previously committed Hill-Burton funds this fiscal year and $50,000 next fiscal year and $200,000 of unobligated funds the following fiscal year to the Hope project provided authorization for the Hill-Burton program is extended through fiscal year 1956–57.

J. T. HERRON, State Health Officer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in order that there might not be any misunderstanding as

to the need for an extension of the program, and that not only our committee, as unanimously supporting the extension, but that the Bureau of the Budget, generally considered as the spokesman for the administration, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, who administers the program, are supporting it, I wish to include with these remarks the letter from the Secretary, Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby, as to their position for a 2-year extension and in relation to the study authorized for future program of Federal and State relation

ship, dated April 17, 1953, and addressed to the chairman of our committee, Mr. WOLVERTON, an ardent supporter of this program, which is as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, April 17, 1953. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of February 21, 1953, for a report on H. R. 3171, a bill to extend the duration of the Hospital Survey Construction Act (title VI of the Public Health Service Act).

This bill would amend section 621 of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, as amended, by striking out the word "five" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "ten." The present authority for appropriations under this section expires with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1955. The proposed amendment would extend the authority for appropriations through the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960. The net effect of this amendment would be an extension of the hospital survey and construction program for a period of 5 years beyond its current authorization.

The original Hill-Burton Act (Public Law 725, 79th Cong.) authorized a 5-year program, but in 1949 the Congress anticipated by 2 years the original expiration date and extended the program authorization to the year ending June 30, 1955 (Public Law 380, 81st Cong.).

Experience has demonstrated the value of this program and the soundness of its basic administrative provisions. Its survey and planning provisions have promoted orderly planning for hospital services in all of the States. A total of 96,500 beds will have been added to the hospital assets of the Nation upon the completion of projects approved up to January of this year. Furthermore, since most of the hospitals financed under this program are in areas which had few, if any, facilities heretofore, it has aided greatly in meeting the problem of maldistribution of facilities.

Despite the accomplishments of this program to date, however, the Nation is still faced with a serious shortage of hospital facilities, currently estimated at 733,000 beds. The obsolescence of older hospitals and the growth of our population, together with rising costs and shortages of construction materials during the past few years, have served to offset in large measure the new beds made available under the Hill-Burton program. In other words, we have not substantially reduced the gross deficit in hospital beds which was

accumulated during the depression years and the World War II period. Therefore, termination of the program before some different and effective means has been developed to supplant it would undoubtedly result in further accumulation of a national deficit in hospital facilities.

Although the expiration date in the HillBurton Act is June 30, 1955, we believe that the enactment of legislation such as H. R. 3171 well in advance of this date is eminently wise. Any further postponement of the passage of legislation extending the act would place the States in a disadvantageous position, with insufficient lead time to assure continuity of their own supporting appropriations and with no firm basis for projection of their planning and priority determinations or for assuring the retention of their technical staffs.

We are mindful, however, of the President's recommendation in his message to the Congress on March 30 of this year that all Federal-State programs, including those in the field of health, be thoroughly reviewed in the manner set forth in his message and proposed in the bill, H. R. 4406, which has

been introduced to implement this message. In the light of this recommendation, we believe that the most practical solution would be the enactment of legislation now to provide an extension for 2 years of the present provisions of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act rather than an extension for 5 years as proposed in H. R. 3171. A 2-year extension would assure continuity of this important program for the immediate future and still provide adequate time for appraising the merits of any long-range extension in the light of the broad evaluation of Federal-State relationships and financial

I

Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this measure. agree that hospitals are a very worthy cause; however, Uncle Sam is broke. We are running a deficit. We cannot go on forever extending Federal programs. There are other units of Government which must take over some of these loads.

The present authorization law has another year to run and this bill extends this Federal matching program for 2 more years. It is not necessary at all that we pass this legislation in order to complete the hospitals now under way. If the Federal Government is ever going to withdraw from some of its fields of activity the only way to do it is to withdraw. I, therefore, will vote against this measure.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very good bill. I have no requests for time.

The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the bill?

The question was taken; and (twothirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 345, Rept. No. 886), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6287) to extend and amend the Renegotiation Act of 1951, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means

Burdick

AMENDING PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT Carrigg OF 1949

Case

Chatham Chiperfield Chudoff Cole, N. Y.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 344, Rept. Cooley No. 885), which was referred to the House and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 6342) to amend the Public Buildings Act of 1949 to authorize the Administrator of General Services to acquire title to real property and to provide for the construction of certain public buildings thereon by executing purchase contracts; to extend the authority of the Postmaster General to lease quarters for post office purposes; and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill or any provisions contained in said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour,

to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. DEANE (at the request of Mr. RAYBURN) was given permission to address the House for 40 minutes on Monday next, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered.

Coudert Dawson, Ill. Delaney

Dingell Dodd

Dollinger Dolliver

Holtzman

Howell

Ikard

James

Javits

Kelly, N. Y.

Keogh

Kilday

King, Pa.

Kirwan

Klein Krueger Landrum Lane Latham Lucas McCarthy

Donohue
Donovan
Dorn, N. Y.
Fallon
Fernandez
Fine
Fino
Fogarty
Miller, N. Y.
Frelinghuysen Morano

McVey

Mason

Powell

Reams.
Reed, Ill.
Richards

Rodino

Rogers, Tex.
Roosevelt
Sadlak
St. George
Schenck
Seely-Brown
Shafer

Sheehan

Smith, Va.
Spence
Staggers
Taylor
Tollefson

Tuck
Wainwright
Watts
Weichel
Wigglesworth

Willis Yorty

The SPEAKER. Three hundred and seventeen Members have answered to their names. A quorum is present.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

FIREWORKS

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. CRUMPACKER).

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 116, with Mr. BATES in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent the first reading of the bill was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, general debate is to be confined to the bill, to continue not to exceed 1 hour to be equally divided. The gentleman from

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF New York [Mr. KEATING] will be recog

nized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. KEATING] is recognized.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, while no official, nationwide figures have come to my notice as yet, we may take it for granted, and we do, that this year, as in every year past, the celebration of the declaration of our independence on the Fourth of July, took its usual toll in human life, in personal injuries and in property damage due to the indiscriminate use of fireworks by the general public, particularly children. The last authoritative figures on injuries and deaths resulting from fireworks were compiled by the American Medical Association and

covered 6 years during the period 1937-46-exclusive of war years 1942-45. They showed that throughout the United States, 76 persons had been killed and over 28,000 were injured-an average of more than 12 deaths and 4,600 reported injuries each year.

What concerns us especially as Members of the Congress is that a substantial though indeterminate quantity of the fireworks so disastrously used by the general public were obtained through interstate commerce in circumvention of State laws. That is the field wherein Congress has not only the jurisdiction but the corresponding responsibility as well to render effective assistance in the elimination of this useless annual sacrifice. It is not pleasant for any of us to contemplate the number of small hands, young eyes, and eager lives which would have been saved if Congress had enacted years ago the kind of legislation we now have before us.

You may justly ask indignantly, What has been done to curtail this needless waste of life and limb? Well, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, we have done nothing to meet this lamentable problem. We have merely made provision, through regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, for the safe transportation of fireworks in interstate commerce. Many of the State legislatures, however, have passed statutes designed to prohibit altogether or to regulate the sale and use of fireworks. There presently exists legislation in at least 36 States which is designed to prohibit or limit the sale of fireworks within State borders. Ten other States have regulatory measures which pertain to fireworks, so that as a practical matter, there are only two States, Nevada and Tennessee, which have no legislation at all dealing with this general subject.

Ten

Thus, the States have made a serious attempt to eliminate the wanton loss of life and personal injuries which have resulted in the past from the indiscriminate use of fireworks. And yet despite these efforts, the toll in injuries, deaths and property damage continues at a sickening pace year after year. I must frankly report that this appears to occur not so much through deficiencies in the laws of the States, but principally because those laws have been openly circumvented. So-called "bootleg" fireworks, which are obtained by placing orders through the mails, frequently are shipped in interstate commerce directly into States which prohibit the sale or use of fireworks altogether-except, of course, for authorized public displays.

These products are advertised openly in States prohibiting their use, in comic magazines and other reading matter generally accessible and attractive to children. Such temptation is hard for children to resist and many succumb to the enticement. Moreover, we must not overlook those thoughtless or careless parents who seem determined to provide their children with fireworks whether their use is legal or not. Purchase of illicit fireworks apparently is made even more attractive because of the very fact

It can be seen that in such instances, the channels of interstate commerce are being utilized to frustrate and to thwart the salutary objectives of the laws of the several States. The sale of fireworks, which is prohibited or severely regulated by State legislation, now takes place through the avenues of interstate commerce where the laws of the States are powerless to reach.

I might indicate that this is not a wholly unfamiliar situation. Ofttimes in the past, the States have acted with respect to certain problems only to find that State legislation was wholly inadequate because it could not prevent the transportation of certain commodities in interstate commerce. Such has been the case of distilled spirits which were frequently shipped in interstate commerce although the laws of the State of destination prohibited or otherwise regulated the sale and distribution thereof within the State itself. By means of a number of statutes, including the Wilson Act (Aug. 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313, 27 U. S. C. 121), Webb Kenyon Act (37 Stat. 699, 27 U. S. C. 122), and section 1262, title 18, United States Code, the Congress endeavored to assist the States by preventing the arteries of interstate commerce from being utilized to circumvent State liquor laws. The results achieved have been eminently successful.

The instant bill adopts a similar approach to the problem of fireworks control. I hasten to add that we are not hereby attempting to regulate by Federal legislation the sale, transportation, or use of fireworks within any State. That is a matter which is properly one to be dealt with by the States themselves, and as indicated previously, most of the respective States have enacted legislation on the subject. Our purpose here is to supplement and aid the enforcement of State laws and to assure that the constitutional provisions which relegate transactions of an interstate nature to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government shall not operate to nullify the legitimate efforts of the States to protect their citizens.

To accomplish its objectives the bill recommended by the committee would simply make it a crime knowingly to transport or import fireworks into any State unless such fireworks are to be dealt with in a manner and for a use not prohibited by State law. Stated conversely, the net effect of the bill would be to prohibit the transportation of fireworks in interstate commerce into a State for sale or use otherwise than in accordance with the laws of the States relating thereto. Appropriate penalties are provided therein for violations of its prohibitions. With the committee amendments, the bill would not unreasonably encumber legitimate business transactions of fireworks manufacturers and distributors. Nor would it burden our interstate carriers. It is aimed directly at the bootlegger of fireworks, and it is confidently predicted that its enactment will go far toward the complete elimination of that nefarious business.

The bill adopts an intelligent approach to this very serious problem. It recognizes that primary responsibility for protecting the health and safety of its citizens rests with the States under their general police powers. It takes cognizance of the fact, however, that the arteries of interstate trade and commerce are being utilized to contravene State law and that implementation of State legislation on the part of Congress is necessary to prevent further evasion of State regulation.

This is the type of legislation to which I believe Congress should direct its attention more and more for it preserves the rights of the respective States to govern the activities of their citizens as each State sees fit and brings into force the arm of Federal authority only when the laws of the States themselves are circumvented through traffic in interstate commerce. I believe that this bill, with the committee amendments, is a signal example of a proper legislative approach which will foster and encourage the effective functioning of our Federal system. And we could never have a more important and compelling incentive for proper legislative action than to aid in the protection of the children of America.

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

Mr. KEATING. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BENDER. I congratulate the gentleman on his statement, and I congratulate the committee on bringing in a favorable report on this bill. Thirty years ago as a child State senator I was the author of the antifireworks bill in Ohio. After our experience over these 30 years, I can rather appreciate the need for this legislation.

Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman. However, the gratitude of the country should go primarily to the gentlewoman from Illinois, the author of this legislation, for her tireless work in pushing it in the Congress.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to associate myself with the very distinguished, charming, and most efficient gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. CHURCH], who has sponsored the bill now before us.

We have a most anomalous situation in some of our States, where children might just cut out a coupon from a comic book or magazine and send it out of the State and receive dangerous fireworks, in circumvention of the laws of the State where the children may reside. This bill seeks to prevent the use of interstate commerce to balk protective laws concerning use of dangerous fireworks.

To take one State, the State of Illinois, for example, the records show that during the July 4th weekend of 1952 there were 266 fireworks accidents. There were nine deaths. Eight of those deaths were visited upon innocent children.

There were 36 serious eye injuries. Eight of those 36 cases were children who were blinded.

It is rather tragic for the parents and dear ones of those children to realize that the State in which they reside prohibits the use of those fireworks, yet companies outside that State can with impunity ship in those dangerous pieces of pyrotechnics to the grave disadvantage and possibly grave injury of those children.

Thirty-six States prohibit the use of that type of fireworks. Ten other States regulate the use in some degree. Thus 46 States have statutes seeking to protect the innocent young and others. Only two States, to-wit, Nevada and Tennessee, have no legislation whatso

ever.

The time has come indeed for us to take some action to prevent the use of our interstate transportation facilities to flout our State statutes. That is all this bill does. Originally we provided that the transportation would be illegal where the State makes the reception of fireworks illegal, but we deleted that provision because the Interstate Commerce Commission made some objection to it.

I think we have a fairly well rounded bill. In the interest of humanity, if for no other reason, I think we are entitled to get your full support for this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss THOMPSON].

Miss THOMPSON of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I hope the House will pass this bill because we are all interested in the safety of our children. I remember as a small child I had a rather serious accident because of the Fourth of July fireworks. Just a few years ago, a very good friend of mine, a widowed woman who had 3 children to support, had an accident in her family. Her little boy of about 5 years of age was a victim of a very serious accident, and as a result he was confined in one of our hospitals for more than a year in an effort to recover. He did make a rather good recovery but at a very great expense to his mother.

The other day I received a telegram from my State to this effect:

Hon. RUTH THOMPSON,

House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.: This past July 4 the lives and eyesight of several Michigan residents were lost be

cause fireworks were illegally brought into the State. We urge your favorable support

c H. R. 116 scheduled for House vote soon to prevent future tragedies from occurring in Michigan.

Miss ERNESTINE B. DAVIDSON (For the Detroit Society for the Prevention of Blindness).

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. CHURCH].

to emphasize that that gratitude goes to both sides of the House, for in recognizing the need for remediation of an evil which, indeed, knows no politics and is no respecter of persons both sides of the House indeed gave signal help. It is through a united effort that we have finally brought to the floor a bill to prevent the circumvention of State laws by shipment, through interstate commerce, of fireworks into States where the sales or use of fireworks is prohibited; and where such "bootleg" fireworks have proved, indeed, damaging to the life and limb not only of our adult population but of the children who especially merit our protection. I listened with great interest to the splendid statement of the gentleman from New York [Mr. KEATING], chairman of the subcommittee which has had this bill under consideration. had this bill under consideration. I listened to the equally stirring remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER). They have given to the House an excellent and complete picture of the effort which the States have made to meet this problem, a problem, I would remind you, which is not new. Thirtysix States, indeed, have sought by every means within their power to protect the eyes and limbs and lives of their children by passing explicit laws against the use or sale of fireworks except under certain well-regulated conditions. Ten States, in addition, have assumed some partial control over fireworks. Only two States have failed to make some attempt to save their children, as well as the adults who are also prey to the dangers presented by illegal fireworks.

I would like to say to you frankly, that this will not be an emotional appeal. The problem stands by itself. It is a problem of long standing. It is a human problem.

I, myself, was brought into the picture when the late coroner, A. L. Brody, of Chicago, called my attention to the accident on June 8, 1951, in which 3 children were killed and 5 adults injured in that city through the explosion of bootleg fireworks, obtained in circumvention of Illinois State law by mailing a coupon outside the State. In this case, as in countless others, the children who had mailed the coupon received through shipment by railway express, a package containing such power of destruction as we have no right to allow to pass into their hands.

On July 7 of this year I inserted a formal statement on this bill in the RECORD. This statement carried a full account of which States had passed laws to protect their children and also full evidence of what the problem has been and is, including deaths and injuries, by authentic tables. I also attempted to give full and definite information as to what this particular bill does and does not do. This statement was inserted well in advance of consideration of the bill H. R. 116, on the House floor, in order that every Member might know the facts.

Without stressing further the need for this legislation, which most thoughtful people admit, I would like to point out that in three sessions of the Congress I have attempted to bring forth a bill that would be effective and yet be fair to that

large group in the fireworks industry which indulges in legitimate practice.

Do you all know what I mean when I talk about advertisements in the socalled "funny" magazines? Have you seen such copies as this one in my hand, which appears on newsstands everywhere and which is also subscribed to by our children? It is representative of the countless children's magazines that contain the order coupons with the most attractive looking, though dangerous, advertisements of fireworks. All a child has to do—and there are countless of them who do so, I will tell you-is to tear out the clipping and send in a dollar, or some specified sum, to cover the purchase price of fireworks that may prove their destruction.

In addition, we have found recently that fireworks companies that deal in bootleg fireworks in the States in which the use and sale of the same is forbidden, have been able to purchase the subscription lists of these "funnies" that go universally into American homes and to send directly to the children on those lists long colorful advertisements of fireworks which they will ship-for what?— 50 cents, $1, $5; fireworks, the use of which, I repeat, is uncontrolled, and over which no State, through State laws alone, can provide control; American children merit greater protection at our hands.

To go back to the bill, H. R. 116 lays down no standards for Federal regulation. It sets no method of Federal regulation of the industry. It merely attempts, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. KEATING] pointed out, to prevent the circumvention of State law through the use of the power granted the Interstate Commerce Commission. The gentleman from New York [Mr. KEATING] outlined, as I had meant to do but shall not repeat, the other abuses which are in process of being corrected and shall be corrected by the use of that power.

I have found that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding about this bill. It is difficult for us who have lived with any problem for years to realize that those who have not so lived with it cannot be expected to have similar and equal understanding and knowledge.

I, therefore, repeat again, this bill does not propose to do anything in any State except to enforce the State law. It sustains the definition of fireworks that a given State has itself set up. It does nothing more. It simply says that as a resident of a given State you are entitled to the protection which your State law has set up against use or sale of certain or all fireworks; and that the Federal Government will assist you in obtaining that protection.

H. R. 116 seeks only to protect you and your children—and all American children-by saying that it shall be a criminal offense, punishable by fine or imprisonment, to ship or import in contravention of State law fireworks that have been outlawed by any State.

One particular question has been raised about continuous shipment. I wish to make it clear that through the committee amendment it will be possible to ship fireworks through States