which have State laws, in continuous shipment. It is also possible-and I know this is of interest to the Members from Delaware and Maryland-to ship in fireworks for storage, for reshipment.

We have attempted to cooperate fully with the legitimate fireworks manufacturer who is entitled also to the rights and privileges accorded him by State law.

I would add that I have discussed this bill with members of the American Pyrotechnic Association; I have discussed it with the fireworks manufacturers in my own State, in Ohio, in New Jersey, and other States; and I have found no legitimate manufacturer who does not admit to me both that bootleg fireworks do constitute a menace, and also that the protection which the committee has written into this bill is fair. In my own State I can say that fireworks manufacturers who at first were a little bit afraid of this bill have dared to come out and say: "We know the problem. We are being blamed today for the accidents and deaths that occur in Illinois. We are willing and should be willing, as members of a legitimate, respected, respectable industry of long standing, to say that we will not fight this admittedly necessary protection of the lives and eyes and limbs of our children."

The legislation has the active support of the American Medical Association, the American Optometric Association, the American Association of Workers for the Blind, the American Foundation for the Blind, the National Fire Protection Association, the Illinois Society for the Prevention of Blindness, the Illinois Medical Society, and the Chicago Junior Association of Commerce and Industry. In addition, many State parent and teacher organizations have expressed strong support for the measure. The legislative director of the National Federation of Women's Clubs actually filed a formal statement with the Judiciary Committee endorsing the bill in principle.

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, my my, my! How times have changed! It has not been too long since our forefathers in the South fought a war to preserve the rights of States to pass their own laws and enforce their own laws and govern themselves. But last year the Republican Party took over the protecRepublican Party took over the protection of the States and their rights.

Again let me show you how times have changed. When I first went to practicing law in my home city I got a letter ing law in my home city I got a letter from a friend of mine whom I had met in the North and who lived in the North. He said he wanted to come to Georgia to practice law. He wrote: "I am an honest lawyer and a Republican." I replied to the young fellow; I said: "Well, plied to the young fellow; I said: "Well, now, if you are an honest lawyer you will not have any competition; and if you are a Republican the game laws will protect you, because a Republican in the South is a rare bird." But now it is open season on Republicans in the South, for they are no longer so rare. A strange thing happened in my own city after the election last fall. Formerly, you know, the Republicans could have held a victory celebration in a telephone booth, but this time there were enough to get a private dining room at a hotel, and they had a victory celebration after President Eisenhower was elected. I do not know what they were celebrating, because my city and my county went overwhelmingly Democratic; the whole district went overwhelmingly Democratic. The State gave Mr. Stevenson the largest percentage of votes of any State in the Union. Yet the Republicans were celebrating their victory in my county.

In the invitation they sent out, and they sent them to all the Democrats in they sent them to all the Democrats in the county, too, and whom do you think

they quoted in this invitation? Why, Thomas Jefferson. Did you ever hear the like of Republicans quoting Thomas Jefferson on States' rights and my friends the Republicans taking over the

I urge this bill upon you. If you have further questions I would be glad to answer them.

On the 5th of July, I picked up my Chicago paper and read of a little boy in the south end of the city who had lost both hands through the premature explosion of his fireworks package, bought by coupon and received through the mail. I wished then that in the 82d Congress, when I first introduced this bill, I had been able to work more effectively; to have been more persuasive; to have been more convincing; so that this bill might have passed before this last July 4th.

I urge it now upon your thoughtful consideration. I know the need; I think that you do, too; and I would remind you that there has never been a time when the American people, certainly the American Congress, and, I will add, legitimate American industry did not welcome just remediation of a problem which could well become a national disgrace.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LANHAM].

little surprised that the gentlewoman from Illinois has just now completed the circle again. The Republicans are trying to protect the States, and interfering gratuitously in the enforcement of State laws.

Have you heard any governor who asked for the passage of this legislation? I do not see anywhere in the report anything about the appearance of any enforcement officer from any State asking that this legislation be passed. If the States are having any trouble in enforcing their laws that regulate the sale of fireworks or that prevent the sale of fireworks, they ought to be able to enforce those laws themselves without calling upon the Federal Government. But if they have to have help why does not the bill provide that any person who shall ship fireworks in interstate commerce shall furnish a list of the persons to whom they were sold to the enforcement officers of the State?

The gentlewoman from Illinois in a splendid impersonal and heart-appealing speech admitted that the fireworks industry is a legitimate one. Why put the burden upon that industry which

she says is a legitimate industry that this bill puts upon it? This makes it necessary that every manufacturer know exactly what the laws are in every State and in every subdivision of every State in the Union.

Mrs. CHURCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mrs. CHURCH. I am happy to be able to tell the gentleman that the question of political subdivisions was taken out of this bill, even in the last Congress. It is now simply a question of the State law.

Mr. LANHAM. Of course, on its face that appears to be true, but I am sure that the first thing you know somebody will be prosecuted for shipping into a subdivision of a State where there is some local law involved. This is made a misdemeanor. It is provided:

Such person shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year or both.

fireworks right at the Tennessee line. I have a company that manufactures Suppose some child came over from Chattanooga and bought fireworks, or the parents came over and bought fireworks, is he to be prosecuted and fined a thousand dollars for permitting that sale to be made? Must he know where the fireworks are going?

I have three grandbabies here in Washington with me. I do not want to see one of them injured with fireworks. Yet on the Fourth of July, my daughter, who is as careful with her children as I think any mother can be, had sparklers

for those children. There was no danger involved. I suppose more children were killed on the Fourth of July in automobile accidents than were killed with

fireworks. It is a wonder to me that children ever get grown because there

are so many hazards. I agree we ought to protect them from all the hazards that we can.

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LANHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. I wanted the gentleman to interpret for me, if he will, the meaning of this language:

This section shall not apply to a common or contract carrier or to a freight forwarder engaged in interstate commerce.

Mr. LANHAM. As I understand it, the bill first made it a violation of the law for any common carrier to transport fireworks. The committee there was simply taking the burden off of the common carrier and placing it entirely upon the manufacturer or the wholesaler who was shipping the fireworks. If this bill provided that fireworks should not be shipped at retail into a State, as the gentlewoman says is being done under these coupon orders, I would have no word of opposition to the bill at all. But here you are placing an intolerable burden upon a legitimate business when the States have all the power at their command to enforce their own laws. With consent obtained in the House before we went into the Committee of the Whole

House, I am including a letter which explains in detail this burden:

ALLEN FIREWORKS CO., Ringgold, Ga., July 5, 1953.

Re H. R. 116
Hon. HENDERSON LANHAM,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LANHAM: We appre

ciate your letter advising that the above bill will come up for action Wednesday.

This bill has to do with prohibiting the shipment of fireworks into States which prohibit the sale and use of them. The original bill put the burden of responsibility on the carrier; however, the committee has now agreed that this would be too much of a burden for the carrier to assume. As the bill is now written, it puts the burden of determining the laws of the various States on the shipper. Our objections now are the same as the carrier's was before the bill was amended.

I would like to point out that all States permit the use of display fireworks. Usually a permit is issued by some local authority.

We ship all over the United States. Information which we would have to collect regarding these local permits would be a terrific problem. We would have no way of knowing whether they were signed by the proper authority or not. Also wish to point out that many States have different laws regarding the sale and use of fireworks. Most but do not define the wholesaler. Neither do any of the State laws define display fireworks. Some States permit certain items and prohibit other items.

As a shipper, we would be under great jeopardy in trying to comply with the Church bill.

We hope you will oppose this bill when it comes up on the floor of the House.

Sincerely yours,

N. L. ALLEN.

Why, I thought the Republican Party had come around to the idea of fewer controls; they were going to see that the Federal Government no longer interfered in the private lives of our people; they were going to do away with all sorts of controls; they were going to do away with farm controls, acreage on farms, on crops that could be planted. Well, they had to go back on that, and here is just another instance of attempting to go down into the lives of our people and prevent parents from having fireworks for their children.

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

Mr. LANHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Are there many instances where the Federal Government uses its police powers to enforce

State laws?

Mr. LANHAM. Occasionally, and I would be in favor of it if you did it the proper way, if you simply required the manufacturer to notify the State enforcement officials where and when fireworks had been shipped into the State. Well, that certainly is all that any State could ask the Federal Government to do. I think that is done in the case of cigarettes.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Yes; I was just going to call that to the attention of the gentleman. Our Committee on Ways and Means was very much concerned about the use of power of the Federal Government to enforce the criminal laws; in other words, any law which had

a penalty attached to it. They could use the device of having the shipper notify the auditor general or proper officer of the State in which it was being shipped, and then the tax could be collected, but that is not using the Federal police power to enforce any State law.

Mr. LANHAM. Yes, I approve of that way of helping the State enforcement officers. If this bill were based upon that idea or if it applied only to the shipment of fireworks at retail, I would have no objection to it at all. I take it for granted the House will pass the bill but I think it is an unwarranted interference with the States, and I am sorry to see the bill brought here in this form.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GOODWIN).

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to aline myself with those who are sponsoring and supporting this very salutary piece of legislation. In my opinion, from the standpoint of public welfare, public health, and public safety, it is one of the most important measures to come before us at this session; a bill to implement and supplement the enforcement of the law in those States which now seek to prohibit the sale of fireworks and who find it more or less difficult to prevent bootlegging, and bootlegging in these pieces of dangerous equipment — explosives — which have within themselves the potentiality which we have seen from year to year of taking such a heavy toll of life and limb, and principally of the children.

I could bring to you, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, no more important piece of testimony than to read this telegram: BOSTON, MASS.

Hon. ANGIER L. GOODWIN,

House Building: Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts, State fire marshal, and Massachusetts Department of Public Safety respectfully urge your support of H. R. 116 pertaining to interstate traffic in fireworks.

OTTIS M. WHITNEY,

Commissioner of Public Safety. Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE].

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I had not thought to rise on this occasion, but after listening to my good friend from the deep South I simply could not help but wonder just who has really come so far from the time when we used to believe it was the duty of the Federal Government to try to help the States enforce State laws rather than try to break down the rights of the States to develop the kind of laws they want within their jurisdiction.

As one who has lived in the South all my life, I want to suggest that there is a different viewpoint from that expressed by my friend and that I am one of those who hold that different viewpoint. I believe that if the State of Texas wants to prohibit the sale of fireworks or wants to prohibit the sale of any other article, it is not the function of the Federal Government to step in and try to supersede our judgment.

It grieves me that one from my section of the country should come before us and suggest that we should extend

the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, which has been stretched to circumnavigate the globe already so that it serves as the excuse if not the reason for regulating practically every commercial transaction.

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

Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LANHAM. I made no statement of that sort at all. I objected to this form of legislation to help the State enforce its law.

Mr. POAGE. That is right, the gentleman objected to having the Federal Government say to the State, that although the people of a given State do not want fireworks sold, we do not want the Federal Government to prevent the sending of fireworks into that State in violation of the State law.

Mr. LANHAM. Do not make the state

ment that I said I wanted the Federal Government interfering.

Mr. POAGE. I am sure the gentleman did not intend to urge Federal interference.

Mr. LANHAM. The gentleman said I wanted to see the Federal Government extending the clause of the Constitution that permits the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce. I did not say anything of the sort. I did not say it could be construed as meaning that.

Mr. POAGE. There is, of course, no justification under the Federal Constitution for any Federal inteference with the sale or prohibition of sale of goods within a State, except as it is done under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Consequently, I do not have to attempt to quote the gentleman from Georgia. I am merely stating it as a fact that there is no other way whereby you can justify this kind of Federal interference, that some people seem to want, except under the commerce clause. I do not think the commerce clause was ever written for the purpose of giving our Federal Government the right to destroy State laws. On the contrary, I have always been very jealous of the right of the States to make their own decisions. I think the States are entitled to make their own decisions. What I am saying about the commerce clause is that it has been stretched so as to be used as the excuse for almost every kind of interference with the right of the States to make their own decisions. If we believe in States rights, if we believe that the people of any given localty should have the right to protect themselves from what they decide may be a menace to their community, then we must agree that this type of legislation, as suggested by the gentlewoman from Illinois is but an instrumentality that would help the States enforce their own laws. It does not interfere with any State. It simply says to the State that "If you in your wisdom make this decision, the Federal Government will back you up within your own territory." But if another State makes another decision, then the other State can act just as it sees fit. Let us give these States the right to make their own decisions. Let us strengthen rather than weaken the power of our States.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts [Mrs. ROGERS].

Mr.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Chairman, I had a telegram similar to the one, which was read into the RECORD by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GOODWIN]. I have heard from the police of Massachusetts asking most vigorously that this bill be passed. I have had many communications and telegrams not only from Massachusetts but from all over the country that the bill be passed. I congratulate with all my heart the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. CHURCH], the Committee on the Judiciary, and everyone who has been interested in the passage of this bill.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to our colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. CRUMPACKER].

Mr. CRUMPACKER. Mr. Chairman, in considering this legislation, and particularly in view of the attacks which have been made upon it, I think perhaps it is best to consider what it does not do. In the first place, the bill does not make a crime of any use of fireworks which is not already illegal under existing State laws. It does not create any new prohibitions of any sort of the use of fireworks. It does not constitute any attempt to hamper or hamstring the present recognized uses of fireworks in States which permit their unlimited use, or use for public displays, or other authorized purposes in States which have laws regulating their use. Secondly, the bill does not prevent or hamper or interfere with the proper business operations of the regularly constituted fireworks manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, or any of the people engaged in that business. This will not stop them from doing anything that they are not prohibited from doing under existing State laws.

Thirdly, this bill does not involve the creation of any new Federal agencies or bureaus. It does not constitute any new Federal encroachment upon State rights. It does not in any way involve the expenditure of new sums of money by the Federal Government or the creation of any new redtape bureaucracy or bureaucratic interference with business operations or with the functions and prerogatives of State governments.

Lastly, the bill does not interfere with any State laws or their enforcement or any State law-enforcement agencies or with the freedom of any State legislature to enact any new laws on the subject of fireworks which it may deem fit and proper. All this bill does is to fill the existing gap, the existing loophole in the enforcement of State laws which prevent their complete enforcement enforcement and the protection which such laws would otherwise give to the citizens of the respective States.

There is nothing new or revolutionary about the manner in which this bill undertakes to do this. It is patterned after a number of pieces of existing legislation. The same method has been used in aid of State laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of convict-made goods, gaming devises, mail-order dentures.

Federal legislation has also been passed to fortify State measures for the preservation of wildlife. The most recent example, and one probably fresh in the memory of Members today, is one passed in the 81st Congress barring the shipment of slot machines in interstate commerce into States where they are prohibited.

The committee in considering this legislation or revising it has done everything within its power to protect legitimate manufacturers manufacturers and legitimate businessmen engaged in this industry in its various phases. It was represented to us that to include interstate common carriers and contract carriers within the prohibition would force them out of business, because the carriers, rather than face the task of trying to keep all of their agents fully apprised as to all State laws on the subject of fireworks, would simply refuse to accept any firewould simply refuse to accept any fireworks for shipment in interstate commerce. So we took the interstate carriers out of the bill. We have made it crystal clear that the definitions that applied to the various State laws shall apply. We have made no attempt whatsoever to define fireworks and set up any Federal agency for determining what fireworks shall be covered. We have also provided that goods may be shipped into a State and held for storage or reshipment or resale back into interstate commerce. That was done on the plea of certain wholesalers that warehouses are maintained in States where the sale of fireworks is prohibited; that they receive the fireworks into the State in interstate commerce, and then ship it back out at some later date in interstate commerce. We put this provision in there to protect those people. We have done everything humanly possible to see that everything humanly possible to see that this bill will in no sense interfere with the proper and normal carrying on of this type of business, and that it will in no sense constitute a new Federal encroachment on the prerogatives of the States. We only propose to do one thing and that is to help the States enforce their own laws to fill the one gap which has permitted widespread violation of existing State laws.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 5 additional minutes.

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. CRUMPACKER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LANHAM. Is it not possible for the State to control this matter by passing a law putting an embargo on the shipmen of fireworks into the State? And under those circumstances, would not the burden be put upon the carrier to return the fireworks or the shipment to return the fireworks or the shipment that came into the State in violation of the law? I understand that Indiana has passed such a law, and several other States are controlling it in that way. My point is that the States can control it if they want to do it, and that the Federal Government ought not to go into it unless the States are totally incapable of enforcing their own laws.

Mr. CRUMPACKER. It is true some State laws are more effective than others, but the fact remains that the complete policing of this thing is extremely difficult, if not utterly impossible. How in the world is any State law-enforcement agency going to be able to determine in advance how many children have clipped coupons out of comic books and sent in a mail order for fireworks, and received them by shipment through railway express or some other interstate agency? How are they going to be able to get search warrants to determine if John Jones is hiding a box of firecrackers somewhere in his basement? The first opportunity they have to be apprised of the fact that there has been a violation of the law or that one is in progress is when the firecracker goes off. Then it becomes more or less public knowledge, but that is too late. The injury may already have been done. The child may have already been injured.

Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRUMPACKER. I yield.

Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska. What will it cost the Federal Government to go into this additional field?

Mr. CRUMPACKER. It will cost nothing, no additional appropriations. It may create an additional workload on the district attorneys and possible prosecutions for violations of the act.

Mr. CURTIS of Nebraska. Will there be any inspectors or other people appointed to enforce this law?

Mr. CRUMPACKER. There will be none whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time.

The CHAIRMAN. There being no further requests for time, under the rule the Clerk will read the bill for amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That chapter 39 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "SEC. 836. Transportation of fireworks into State prohibiting sale or use "Whoever knowingly imports, brings, carries, transports, or delivers for transportation fireworks, in interstate or foreign commerce, into any State in which the sale or use of such fireworks is prohibited by law, otherwise than in the course of continuous interstate transportation through such State, or attempts so to do, or assists in so doing, unless such fireworks are to be used for a public display or other purpose specifically authorized by the laws of such State, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

"In the enforcement of this section, the definitions of fireworks contained in the laws of the respective States shall be applied, but only to the extent that sales or use of such fireworks are prohibited therein.

“As used in this section, the terms 'State' includes the several States, Territories, and possessions of the United States, and the

District of Columbia."

With the following committee amendment:

On page 1, strike out all of lines 7 through 10, inclusive, and on page 2, strike out all

of lines 1 through 13, inclusive, and insert the following:

"Whoever, otherwise than in the source of continuous interstate transportation through any State, knowingly imports or transports fireworks into any State, or delivers them for transportation into any State, or attempts so to do, unless such fireworks are to be delivered, possessed, stored, transshipped, distributed, sold, or otherwise dealt with in a manner and for a use not prohibited by the laws of such State, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

"This section shall not apply to a common or contract carrier or to a freight forwarder engaged in interstate commerce.

"In the enforcement of this section, the definitions of fireworks contained in the laws of the respective States shall be applied.

"As used in this section, the term 'State' includes the several States, Territories, and possessions of the United States, and the District of Columbia."

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee amendment which is substantially an entire redraft of the bill. I am fully in sympathy with the humane and important objective of this legislation.

We have fireworks on the floor of the House, but they are at least controlled

fireworks, and under our rules we have

provision so that none of us gets hurt.

Certainly it is proper for Congress to plug the loopholes to prevent bootlegging of fireworks.

In my district is a very important manufacturer of cap pistols, and the Toy Pistol Cap Manufacturing Association

has its headquarters in my district.

Thirty-two States by their laws have said that cap pistols and pistol caps are not fireworks, and there are 40 States in which pistol caps can be sold so that our children can have these various types of cap pistols and go around and "go bang" not only on the 4th of July but at other times. Statistics of the American Medical Association have been presented to the committee showing that these caps used in cap pistols are not harmful or dangerous.

I wish to ask the chairman of the subcommittee whether it is not the fact that under the committee amendment, in view of the fact that transportation which is not continuous is exempt, and in view of the fact that the definitions of fireworks of the various States are adopted by this law, in any State where cap pistols and pistol caps may now legally be sold they can still be shipped and sold under the committee amendment?

Mr. KEATING. The gentleman is correct, in my judgment, as to the interpretation of the bill; and I might say to the gentleman that that discussion took place in the subcommittee following the appearance before us of a representative of the cap pistol people which had been requested by the gentleman from Ohio. In that connection I want to say that I appreciate, as do all the members of the subcommittee, the fine attitude displayed by the gentleman from Ohio in coming to us with this problem, which is very natural, repre

senting a district in which there is an important manufacturer of cap pistols.

The attitude of the gentleman was, as I am sure all of us will agree, that he was primarily interested in protecting the children and the people who might be using these fireworks. We did try to arrive at something which would take care of those legitimate manufacturers of the various kinds of fireworks. Some States recognize cap pistols the same as other fireworks, but I believe a large number do permit the use of cap pistols. There is nothing in this bill that would stop their being shipped into any State if the State said it is all right to shoot them in that State.

Mr. VORYS. I congratulate the committee for the amendment which protects legitimate manufacturers and lawful sales, but at the same time has fully carried out the spirit that was involved in the original bill filed by our distinguished colleague from Illinois [Mrs.

CHURCH].

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

the committee, that cap pistols are not Is it contended, may I ask someone on dangerous?

Mr. KEATING. No. The committee is not attempting to determine what are or what are not dangerous fireworks. My response to the inquiry of the gentleman from Ohio was simply that in any State which has defined cap pistols ited fireworks, this bill would not proas not falling within the list of prohibthose States. It would only prohibit the hibit the shipment of cap pistols into shipment into the States which define cap pistols as being dangerous fireworks.

Mr. GROSS. Does the prohibition apply to any other form of fireworks?

Mr. KEATING. Yes; all forms of all forms of fireworks. Some States look upon cap pistols as fireworks, some do not. is the way the cap pistol matter came

about.

That

Mr. GROSS. The same rule does not apply to other fireworks that applies to cap pistols?

Mr. KEATING. Oh, yes, exactly the same rule. In other words, any type of fireworks which is permitted in a particular State would be allowed to be shipped into that State under this bill. Some of the States prohibit fireworks by the amount of explosive charge there is in them. This bill would prohibit the shipment into those States of fireworks that exceeded that explosive charge, but would not prevent the shipment of any other fireworks.

Mr. GROSS. A cap pistol can be just as dangerous as any other fireworks; is that correct?

Mr. KEATING. I am not an expert on fireworks. I was at one time, but fireworks have advanced like other things. When I was 10 years old I considered myself an expert on all types of fireworks. I do not claim any knowledge in that regard now, so I would not want to take a position on what was or what was not dangerous. I think that is a matter for the particular States to determine under their own jurisdiction.

Mr. GROSS. Business reasons do not apply in this case at all?

Mr. KEATING. There is no exception in the case of cap pistols.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman from New York for his explanation and I do not yield, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VORYS], who refused to yield to me when he had the floor a few minutes ago.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 2. The analysis of chapter 39 of title 18, United States Code, immediately preceding section 831 of such title, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

"836. Transportation of fireworks into State prohibiting sale or use."

Committee rises. The CHAIRMAN.

Under the rule, the

the Speaker having resumed the chair, Accordingly the Committee rose; and Mr. BATES, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, (H. R. 116) to amend title 18, United having had under consideration the bill States Code, so as to prohibit the transportation of fireworks into any State in which the sale of such fireworks is prohibited, pursuant to House Resolution 313, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

previous question is ordered.

The SPEAKER. Under the rule the

The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on

the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

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

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words with respect to the bills to amend the railroad retirement law which have been referred to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House.

I know that the magnanimity of Members who have had extensive service on that committee will not allow them to scorn as self-laudation either my statement about having introduced in 1932 the first bill, supported by all the railroad labor organizations, to establish a retirement system for railroad workers, or the reference to my constant, although perhaps plodding, efforts ever since to establish and maintain improved standards in the railroad retirement and unemployment insurance systems.

On October 30, 1951, my bill, H. R. 3669, as amended slightly, became Public Law 234 of the 82d Congress. This law provided for substantial increases in the level of benefits for the vast majority of railroad employees and their survivors. The total increase in benefits provided by the 1951 amendments amounts to approximately $108 million a year.

One of the most important provisions for the increase of benefits for retired railroad employees, excluding survivors, was the flat 15-percent increase which applies to all retired annuitants and pensioners. Let me say also that three other significant changes then made in the law provided for higher retirement benefits, namely, the addition of a new benefit for the eligible wife, or dependent husband, of a retired employee 65 years of age or over, equal to one-half of the retired employee's annuity but not exceeding $40 a month; the crediting of the employee for service rendered after the end of the year in which he reaches 65 years of age, up to a total of 30 years; and a new minimum provision as a guaranty under which the total benefits payable to the employee and his family would not be less than if his railroad employment were creditable under the Social Security Act.

In 1951 H. R. 3669, as slightly amended, became Public Law 234, which increased survivor benefits by 33% percent. A new minimum guaranty provision was also added by Public Law 234 under which an employee is guaranteed that the total monthly benefits payable to his survivors will in no case be less than the total amount that would have been paid according to the social-security formula. This provision had the effect in many cases of increasing survivor benefits by more than 33% percent. In fact, the total benefits per family provided by the 1951 amendments are about 43 percent more than was provided by the old law. Surely those in Congress who know of my pioneering efforts to provide a beneficent and sound railroad retirement system, from the very beginning until now, are well aware of the fact that I have constantly endeavored to provide, from revenue produced by reasonable assessments, every benefit possible for the railroad workers of the United States. They know that I carried on the struggle for a sound pension system when the road was rough, although I disapprove of the proposal to give by law a special

advantage to some persons at the expense of their fellow employees.

Whenever amendments have been offered to the railroad retirement law, I have always insisted that in making any change the financial soundness of the system must be assured beyond the slightest doubt. Any proposal for the increase of benefits should and must at the same time provide without any doubt that the financial soundness of the railroad retirement system will be maintained.

At the present time, the railroad retirement account has a reserve of about tirement account has a reserve of about $3 billion. In order to avoid dangerous misunderstanding, however, let me emphasize the fact that the $3 billion is not a surplus, but a reserve. This reserve will take care of only a fraction of the obligations which the railroad retirement system has assumed. Nevertheless, if we observe the care and requirements which were stipulated when the railroad retirement system was established, we can feel certain that the benefits will be paid when they become due.

On the basis of the last-fifth-triennial actuarial valuation assumptions, the cost of benefits being paid under the railroad retirement system is about 13.41 percent of payroll. Tax collections amount to 12.5 percent of payroll. Thus, amount to 12.5 percent of payroll. Thus, there appears to be a difference of approximately 1 percent of the payroll, or about $50 million a year between the cost of the system and the tax collections.

It is very clear and certain, therefore, that the railroad-retirement system is not more than properly financed. If the system is to continue on a sound financial basis, we cannot even consider providing for additional benefits without first providing the means by which additional revenue can be secured to pay the costs which would be added by so doing.

Forty-one bills for the amendment of the Railroad Retirement Act have already been introduced in the House during the 83d Congress. These bills propose to increase benefits for annuitants, pensioners and survivors. Fifteen of these bills are exactly the same as those which were introduced in the 81st and 82d Congress, and said bills were be82d Congress, and said bills were before this committee at the time my bill, H. R. 3669, was being considered. None of these 41 bills provides for 1 cent of additional revenue for the system in order to meet the added costs.

Ten bills, viz (H. R. 122, H. R. 240, H. R. 456, H. R. 528, H. R. 594, H. R. 1378, H. R. 456, H. R. 528, H. R. 594, H. R. 1378, H. R. 1544, H. R. 1736, H. R. 5254, and H. R. 5269) referred to this committee would amend the Railroad Retirement Act so as to provide for a complete retirement annuity after finishing 30 years of service, or at age 60, such annuity to equal one half of the average monthly taxable compensation paid to the employee during his highest 5 years of earnings. No one knows, of course, how many employees would take advantage of such provisions and retire either after 30 years of service or upon becoming 60 years of age. If all those eligible to retire, were to retire in accordance with the conditions stated, it would cost the

system considerably more than $200 million each year, in addition to what is now being paid.

Three bills-H. R. 149, H. R. 239, and H. R. 1738-would amend the act so as to provide that after the completion of 35 years of service or at age 60, a retirement annuity equal to half of the average monthly taxable compensation be paid to such employee, calculated according to the employee's highest 5 years of earnings. Let me point out again, that if all employees were to retire who would be eligible to retire under these conditions, the additional cost to the system would amount to about $200 million a year.

One bill, H. R. 203, would allow retirement after 30 years of service, regardless of age, in accordance with existing benefits formula. If all men, upon finishing 30 years of service were to retire with a full annuity regardless of age, the added cost would be approximately $164 million a year.

It is, of course, impossible to predict how many men would take advantage of such liberalization of benefits and retire before reaching the age 65.

Two bills, H. R. 243 and H. R. 1737, profess to provide for a 25-percent increase in annuities and pensions-H. R. 1737 also includes survivors. I say "profess" because although the titles of the bills mention a 25-percent increase, yet, when we consider the 15-percent increase provided by the 1951 amendments, the formula set forth in the measure would increase benefits by approximately 9 percent above the level of benefits already being paid. A true 25-percent increase in all retirement annuities, spouses benefits, pensions, and survivor benefits would cost $180 million a year.

Nineteen bills provide for the repeal of the proviso in the 1951 amendments which opposes the payment of duplicate benefits. The question is in the last paragraph of section 3 (b) of the act. Some of these bills would also repeal the third proviso of section 3 (e) of the act, which proviso relates, in part, to the reduction of the spouse's annuity by the amount of certain insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.

These 19 bills are as follows: H. R. 356, by Mr. VAN ZANDT; H. R. 2929, by Mr. DAGUE; H. R. 2961, by Mr. LECOMPTE; H. R. 3642, by Mr. PRICE; H. R. 3643, by Mr. PRICE; H. R. 3784, by Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi; H. R. 3787, by Mr. WITHROW; H. R. 3975, by Mr. ALLEN of Californa; H. R. 4163, by Mr. MILLER of Californa; H. R. 4169, by Mr. THORNBERRY; H. R. 4171, by Mr. WAMPLER; H. R. 4272, by Mr. JONES of Alabama; H. R. 4279, by Mr. RHODES of Pennsyvania; H. R. 4670, by Mr. BENTLEY; H. R. 4682, by Mr. POULSON; H. R. 4831, in part, by Mr. VAN ZANDT; H. R. 5065, by Mr. REES of Kansas; and H. R. 5097, by Mr. CUNNING

HAM.

If enacted, these bills would repeal the part of the 1951 amendments which provides for the reduction of the railroad retirement annuity in cases, in which the annuitant, without the payment by him of retirement assessments, is given credit for service rendered before 1937, if, at the same time, such employee is eligible