Page images
PDF
EPUB

An "aye" vote on this motion means that we recede from our position and concur in the Senate amendment which provides $12.5 million to carry on the program for another year.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. RADWAN].

Mr. RADWAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the preferential motion of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PRESTON]. We in Buffalo are in a similar situation; we started to improve our airport some years back and while this is underway we are ready with $750,000 matching funds, and these funds cannot be used for any other purpose except to improve our airports.

I think that the best point made by the gentleman from Georgia is the fact that some notice ought to be served on the various municipalities before the Federal Government decides abruptly to abandon this program. To abandon its airport program at this time is discrimination against those municipalities and towns like Buffalo, N. Y., that did not have a fair chance to complete airport improvements before other cities. I realize that some cities such as Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Houston were ahead of us in point of time, and for this reason it is utterly unfair that the program be discontinued before some of the municipalities have a chance to complete their work.

The Buffalo airport serves not only the city of Buffalo and western New York, but also the Army and Navy find great need for the airport, this in spite of the fact that the entire cost of the airport has been carried by the taxpayers of the city of Buffalo.

This may be a close question with many Members of Congress. I believe that the weight of evidence is on our side, and in any event, the appropriation should have the benefit of a reasonable doubt.

I sincerely urge support of the Preston motion.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. JENKINS].

Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I was in hopes that the House conferees would have accepted the Senate's position and therefore there would be $12,500,000 that might be distributed for assistance to cities and counties that have voted bond issues for the construction of airports with the idea that the Federal Government would contribute for the construction of such airports.

Scioto County, Ohio, a few months ago voted a bond issue in the amount of $400,000. These bonds have been sold and are drawing interest which the county must pay. The county has this sum of $400,000 in the bank. The voters of Scioto County cast their votes believing that the Government would come forward with a liberal contribution.

The reason why the people of Scioto County are so much interested is that there is an urgent need for an airport in that section. Their need arises from two principal reasons.

The first reason is that the Government is building a very large atomicenergy plant in that section which will

cost the Government $1,200,000,000. And the Government has contracted to take all the electric power that two very large electric plants can produce. These two new plants will cost about $450 million. These great plants will bring thousands of additional families into that section. And they will bring hundreds of the big-business men of the country into that section for business

The second reason is that before these large Government plants were located in this section we have repeatedly attempted to have an airport located somewhere in the section because there is no airport located within a hundred miles, while there are probably a million people living in that section who would be served by an airport located there and who would patronize such an airport.

Mr. Speaker, if this matter comes to a vote this afternoon, and I think it will, then I shall vote in favor of the House accepting the amendment passed by the Senate, I am as careful as nearly any Congressman in this House concerning the reduction of Government expenses and I have voted accordingly. But the Congress can well afford to do its part with carrying the burden that has been placed on the people of southern Ohio by reason of these large industries that the Government has brought into this section. It is not fair to put all this extra burden on the people who already have as much as they can carry and, again, the people of that section are as patriotic as any people in the United States, and they feel that they had an implied understanding that the Government would do its part in paying for the construction of this proposed airport.

I hope that the Congress will deal fairly with the people in Scioto County and with the people in the neighboring counties and with the people who live in Kentucky, which is just across the Ohio River and within 20 miles of the place where this airport will be located.

Mr. Speaker, all I ask is justice and fair play. If we are denied our just dues today by this House we will continue to fight for fair play and will continue to press our claim.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I

yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CLARDY]. gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CLARDY].

Mr. CLARDY. Mr. Speaker, I probably have as much personal interest in the extension of the airport system as anybody in this House. I have been flyanybody in this House. I have been flying my own plane for 25 years. I have been close to the aviation picture, but I am opposed to the extension of this program 1 inch farther. It has not been properly administered. It is time for a survey and a rewriting of the program if the Federal Government is to continue doling out dollars. I think it time we weaned States and cities.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that here is a wonderful opportunity for those who have been talking of maintaining the position of the President and the administration to do so. We have heard a lot of talk along that line.

The Secretary of Commerce has requested no money for this program this year. He has appointed a committee

to study the situation. I might read his own words to the House.

The following are excerpts from House and Senate Appropriations Committee hearings:

Secretary Weeks, House hearings, page 6:

In the next two items-the "Federal-aid airport program," and the "Liquidation of contract authorization"-we have first eliminated entirely the $30 million.

Let me say parenthetically that we have eliminated that first item, and we have carried on in the second item with the "Liquidation of contract authorization" insofar as we expect to complete it in this fiscal year

coming up. That, in effect, as I see it, lets us catch up to a degree on the program, and will give us an opportunity to do what I understand the Congress has requested several times: Make a resurvey and a reanalysis of this whole airport construction aid program. So we have taken out of those two items a total of $37,500,000.

Secretary Weeks, Senate hearings, page 315:

Senator, as I am informed, the Congress has three times, over the last several years, asked the Civil Aeronautics Administration to resurvey and reanalyze the whole airport-aid program. It has never been done, and this is what we propose to do now to make a real study of that whole program and then submit recommendations to the Bureau of the Budget. We would hope to have them submitted in the form of a report to the Congress.

Under Secretary Murray, Senate hearings, page 315:

I think it means only, Senator, a postponement. There is no desire until we have made this survey to make any such recommendation as that. We do ask for time to take a look at the program in view of the changing pattern that has occurred since the act was originally set up in 1946. The act to date has carried with it appropriations that have been relatively small over the years. We have not had the development of aviation along the lines that were contemplated originally, and we desire to take a view to establish what the Federal role should be and what size it should be, at which point we will ask the Congress for appropriations to carry out that role.

Under Secretary Murray, Senate hearings, pages 316-317:

If you will recall at the end of the last war, we expected to have every Air Force

pilot come back and own a private plane and would need landing facilities for the private craft, the Seabees, the Stinson, and so forth. That has not generally materialized. Corporate aviation has picked up way beyond what was expected at that time. It is quite true that the planes in the air, considerable. But it is a different pattern. the miles flown today, are very great, very The tiny plane has not materialized. At the time, in 1946, there was some evidence that we desired to set up a great network of smaller airports to accommodate this great amount of private flying which just has not materialized on that basis. It is for that purpose that 7 years later it would seem desirable to take a reading as to where we are now. We went out to Kansas City this past week, before the Congress of Aviation Officials, and there is a great deal of thinking on their part that it would be desirable to take a reading on this subject.

Under Secretary Murray, Senate hearings, pages 401-402:

Because we think the role of the Federal Government in the airport program should be reviewed, be evaluated, we desire to take

the time to do that in view of the changing situations which have occurred.

Senator MCCARRAN. Do you not realize that in doing that you are setting yourself up against Congress which has reviewed this matter on two different occasions in the past? First passing the act and then extending it. Was that not a review by Congress? Did Congress not approve the legislation? Why do you propose to destroy it? Mr. MURRAY. Senator, we have no desire to destroy it. We are not making any recommendation as far as the act itself is concerned. We are simply coming before the Congress and within the administrative assessment of the picture, asking that no money be allocated until we can liquidate present contracts which we now have and decide where we are going from this point on within the legislative authority of the Congress.

Donald W. Nyrop, counsel, Conference of Local Airlines, Washington, D. C., and former Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board.

R. W. F. Schmidt, manager, Tucson Airport Authority, Tucson, Ariz.

Thomas K. Taylor, vice president, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Washington, D. C.

J. B. Hartranft, president, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Washington, D. C., who was unable to attend the meeting, was named a member of the group.

Here is a telegram that was handed to me by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORMACK]:

BOSTON, MASS., July 17, 1953. Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives:

Federal airport program for cities hung up between House and Senate. As vice presi

Under Secretary Murray, Senate hear- dent of American Municipal Association, apings, page 412:

Senator, it is the feeling that, since the act first came into being in 1946, the pattern of aviation development has changed sufficiently that in 1953, in the light of the current aviation situation, it would be well to reevaluate the entire program to see what the Federal role in aviation should be, so far as financing airports.

Senator ELLENDER. What do you mean "changed sufficiently"? In what respect?

Mr. MURRAY. In 1946, as you know, it was anticipated there would be a considerable amount of small, privately owned aircraft flying. As I mentioned yesterday, we had the idea that all pilots back from the Air Force would buy their own planes and that we would have a very tremendous light-plane development. That has not materialized. That has a great deal to do with the type of airport plan which you would want to have. Instead of that, we have had a tremendous commercial development, a big feeder development, and a very large corporate aviation development.

I might say that the Secretary in a release dated Friday, May 8, said: UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D. C.

(For immediate release Friday, May 8, 1953) An aviation industry group met today at the invitation of Robert B. Murray, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, to organize for a study of the Federalaid-to-airports program.

Jennings Randolph, assistant to the president of Capital Airlines, Inc., Washington, D. C., was elected chairman of the group, and Melvin H. Nuss, director of the Reading

(Pa.) Municipal Airport and treasurer of the American Association of Airport Executives, was named secretary.

In addition to Mr. Randolph and Mr. Nuss, the following industry members attended the meeting held at the Commerce Department:

peal to you to support a rollcall on Monday for continuation of program. This is of vital interest to about 350 cities. Amount of appropriation not as important as continuation of program itself.

JOHN B. HYNES,

Mayor of Boston.

Now, out of a $12,500,000 appropriation-used because it was easier to calculate allotments being made on area and population basis-Massachusetts would receive $127,880.

Mr. CLEVENGER. The question resolves itself to this: What do we want to do? Do we want to support the administration and the Secretary of Commerce in what most of us think is a healthy time to take a look at it, or do you want to override him?

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

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

Mr. PRESTON. Is it not true that the President asked for $18,000,000 for this program in his revised budget?

Mr. CLEVENGER. The President asked for nothing in his revised budget. There was no request for funds for this purpose in our bill.

Mr. PRESTON. The statements that the gentleman read from the Secretary of Commerce and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, were they not made to our committee prior to the time the revised budget came down to the committee?

Mr. CLEVENGER. No; they were made subsequent to that.

Mr. PRESTON. I think if the gentleman will refresh his memory, we did not have hearings on that budget; the hearings were held on the Truman budget, and then we received the Eisen

Gen. Milton W. Arnold, vice president, Air Transport Association of America, Washing-hower budget later after we had reton, D. C.

Francis A. Bolton, superintendent, Port of Columbus Airport, Columbus, Ohio, and president, American Association of Airport Executives.

Jean H. B. DuBuque, executive director, Corporation Aircraft Owners Association, Washington, D. C.

J. D. Durand, secretary and assistant general counsel, Air Transport Association of America.

Louis R. Inwood, director, division of aviation, Philadelphia Department of Commerce, Philadelphia, Pa.

Foster V. Jones, director of airports, Louisville and Jefferson County Air Board, Louisville, Ky.

A. B. McMullen, executive secretary, National Association of State Aviation Officials, Montpelier, Vt.

ceived the testimony of the witnesses. Mr. CLEVENGER. We had testimony on the Truman budget, but the Secretary made his speech on what this present administration wanted, and there was no request for funds. There was a request for a reassessment of this program, not for its extension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. OSTERTAG).

Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Speaker, while it is evident that a restudy of our Federal aid to airport program is in order, as contemplated by the Department of Commerce, we cannot and should not attempt to ignore certain moral and financial obligations which devolve upon

us as the result of prior commitments under this program.

The fact is that some airport development and construction has been started and pressed to completion by the cities in the firm belief that Federal aid for these projects would be forthcoming at the proper time. The projects were launched with that understanding and were completed with that understanding. In good conscience, we should fulfill the obligation which was assumed by the Federal Government in connection therewith.

The Rochester-Monroe County Airport is a case in point. This project was launched several years ago within the framework of the Federal aid to airports program. Since 1949, there has been on file with the district office of the CAA in Albany a copy of the land purchases, condemnations, and other expenses incident to the project in amounts in excess of $450,000. The officials of Monroe County have been advised that the project is being carried as an active, approved application for Federal aid, and that payment has been withheld only until such time as the runways and new administration building were completed.

That work has now been done, and Rochester now has one of the finest airports in the country, ready to serve our peacetime aviation needs, and, if need be, ready for a defense emergency. Rochester, in brief, has fulfilled its part of the bargain. The Federal Government has not.

The Board of Supervisors of Monroe County has formally petitioned the Congress for the funds for which it is implicitly obligated. I am informed by the Civil Aeronautics Administration, however, that without the funds provided by the Senate, namely, $12,500,000, aid for this and similarly developed projects will not be forthcoming.

In fairness to the municipalities which have expended their funds in good faith and in firm reliance on the assurances given to them by the Federal Government, I believe we should support the proposal to recede from the position taken by the managers for the House and approve the appropriation as recommended by the Senate.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDERBERG).

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my opposition to the motion. I believe I have a personal interest in the matter, because I am being requested at the present time to assist in procurement of some Federal funds for an airport that serves two of the largest cities of my district and one of the largest cities in the district to the south. There is a matter of only approximately $180,000 involved, $90,000 of which will be contributed by the Federal Government and $90,000 among the 3 cities.

I think the time has come when we ought to review this program, because I am convinced that even if the Federal Government will not participate we will still build airports. Here is an airport that was built originally by the Federal Government and which is being used as a commercial airport at the present

time. These 3 cities will build a building, I believe, even if the Federal Government does not participate.

We have a great opportunity to review this program and to do some good. I think it is rather hard to believe that we can compare this airport program with the Federal roads program. There is all the difference in the world. We can compare the Federal airport program more with the railroad program. They built their own depots. I think that is the more logical comparison.

As far as I am personally concerned, although if this appropriation is made I shall try to get some of it for the airport that is involved in my district, I will have no part in voting for it.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl.

Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be well to point out what this bill actually provides and what the committee had in mind in not allowing in the original instance any funds for this particular activity.

If the Senate provision is agreed to, they have a sum of $12,500,000, of which $10 million shall be for the projects of the States. There is $400,000 for Puerto Rico, $25,000 for projects in the Virgin Islands, $400,000 for projects in the Territory of Hawaii, and $175,000 for projects in the Territory of Alaska. There is $1,500,000 of this fund that is necessary for administrative expenses, the payment of salaries to people in the agency, so we have $10 million that actually goes to the States.

I might say further that there is a discretionary fund of 25 percent which the CAA can use wherever they please. Then the balance of $7,500,000 is distributed pro rata through the States, one-half on the basis of area and the other half on the basis of population. I thought it might be well to point out, Mr. Speaker, the manner in which these funds would be allocated if this Senate amendment is agreed to.

The committee felt, or at least a majority of the committee felt, that the recommendations of the Secretary of Commerce should be followed, which, of course, is the recommendation of the President. The recommendation was that this program should be resurveyed, and that some realistic program should be sent to the Congress which the Congress could follow.

I should like to bring to the attention of the House some of the reports we have before us. We had an investigative report. Unfortunately, we do not have time to give it all to the House. Let me call your attention to the airport in Dublin, Ga., and may I say to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PRESTON] that this is not in his district and I am not bringing up the matter of the airport in Georgia because it is the gentleman's motion that is now pending, for he is not involved in this case. This involves Dublin, Ga., and this is one of the jutifications for the program:

At Dublin, Ga., where the primary justification for a runway-lighting project was said to be the fact that numerous ambulance planes carrying litter patients to and from a hospital located nearby used the airport, it was stated by officials of this Veterans' Administration hospital that one patient has

been transported from the hospital by plane since July 1, 1948, and that was done in daylight hours. No patients have been brought to the hospital by plane since that date.

Mr. Speaker, here was a program where they wanted to put lighting in an airport. Their justification was the fact that it was a Veterans' Hospital and they needed lighting for ambulance planes when the fact of the matter is one plane brought in one litter in 1948 and none since that time.

Mr. Speaker, another of the airports that they were considering in this report is the airport at Reno, Nev., now owned and operated by United Airlines. They own and operate it. But, under the program which we were considering the CAA was going to purchase the airport operation at Reno.

Another was the building of a new airport at the Grand Canyon. Funds were to be appropriated by the several branches of the Government to put in a new airport at the Grand Canyon. There is one now within a few miles of the Grand Canyon which the TWA uses, but they wanted to put one in at the rim of the canyon.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have economy and at the same time build up our defense, we simply cannot go along with programs of that kind. I believe in proper programs of this kind and it has been suggested by the Secretary of Commerce that studies are being made, and I submit to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that the head study commission of that is Jennings Randolph, a former Member of this House, a Democratic Member who is an expert in this field. If we are going to cry about supporting the President and the President's program, we have to do it just as much when we are trying to economize and not by spending money as in the days when we were trying to raise money to keep a lot of people on the payroll that the people on the other side would like to keep there. This is the President's program. It is the administration's program. It is a two-way street, whichever way it goes whether in the direction of economy or going along with appropriating money to keep a lot of people on the payroll that the opposition party would like to keep there. If they are sincere in supporting the President, this is the time for them to prove their sincerity. I submit to you that a program will come to us in the future, and that a survey has been made and these programs such as I have pointed out to the House today will be limited.

Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOW. I yield.

Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Can the distinguished gentleman tell me whether if this Senate amendment is not agreed to and the funds are not appropriated for Federal participation this year, if these cities that have already raised the money in order to participate in this program, go ahead and spend that money which they have raised, will they then be able at a later date to get Federal participation on the basis of the money that they have spent?

Mr. BOW. I would say to the gentleman that, in my opinion, it would depend upon the study that is made as to

whether or not they would be included. But, I should like to point out to the House that in this bill we are appropriating $22,700,000 to pay for present obligations of past contracts. So there are $22,700,000 here to take care of obligations. So we are continuing the program from that standpoint. I believe the House should be sustained on this program.

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

Mr. BOW. I yield.

Mr. VORYS. If the Senate amendment is adopted, it will not require the administration to spend a dime on any of this, will it? They have authority to withhold, and they do not have to go ahead with any of these rather silly projects that the gentleman has mentioned that certainly should not be continued.

Mr. BOW. On the basis of area and population, $10 million will have to be distributed to the States.

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

Mr. BOW. I yield.

Mr. TABER. If this thing goes through, and we had $10 million to parcel out amongst 356 communities, that would make something around $25,000 apiece. That is what you would get, about one-twentieth of what you would need for an ordinary airport. So you see what a ridiculous approach this is.

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

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

Mr. PRESTON. The gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER] would not willfully leave the wrong impression with the House, I am sure of that.

Mr. TABER. No, I would not. I want the House to know just what the situation is.

Mr. PRESTON. But is it not the fact that the CAA has the right to determine from a priority standpoint which airfield is entitled to how much, and there is no plan on foot to divide this $10 million equally among 356 communities?

Mr. TABER. Evidently they have put out the propaganda in such a way that they have 356 of them believing that they are going to get it. That is the curse of it; they are going to be fooled; they are not going to get anything.

Mr. PRESTON. The gentleman said just a moment ago that they are all going to get $25,000 apiece.

Mr. TABER. ward an airport. Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

That is not anything to

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is on the preferential motion of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PRESTON] that the House recede and concur in the Senate amendment.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. PRESTON) there were-ayes 71, noes 94.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and eighteen Members are present, a quorum.

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Speaker, on this vote I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. BOW. Is it correct that on this rollcall a vote "yea" will be a vote to support the Senate amendment and a vote "nay" will be a vote to support the House bill?

The SPEAKER. The motion of the gentleman from Georgia is to recede and concur in the Senate amendment. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

[blocks in formation]

Canfield
Carrigg
Cederberg
Church
Clardy

Mr. Clevenger
Cole, Mo.
Cole, N. Y.
Colmer
Coon

[blocks in formation]

Javits

Jensen

Johnson

Jonas, Ill. Jonas, N. C. Jones, N. C.

Judd

Kean
Kearns
Kersten, Wis.
Kilburn
King, Pa.
Krueger

Laird

Latham

Dawson, Utah LeCompte

Davis, Wis.

Derounian

Devereux

D'Ewart

Dodd

Dondero

Donovan

Dorn, N. Y. Dowdy

Ellsworth

Fenton

Seely-Brown Shafer Sheehan Short Sieminski Simpson, Ill. Simpson, Pa. Small

Smith, Kans. Smith, Miss. Smith, Va. Smith, Wis. Springer Stauffer Steed

Stringfellow

Taber

Talle

Lovre

Taylor

[blocks in formation]

Frelinghuysen Merrill

Merrow

Miller, Kans.

Miller, Md.

Miller, Nebr.

Morano

Mumma

Neal

[blocks in formation]

Fino

[blocks in formation]

Barrett

Harris

O'Konski

[blocks in formation]

Fulton

[blocks in formation]

Gamble

[blocks in formation]

Gary

[blocks in formation]

Gavin

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

George

[blocks in formation]

Golden

[blocks in formation]

Goodwin

[blocks in formation]

Graham

Byrne, Pa.

Jones, Ala.

Priest

Camp

Jones, Mo.

Gregory

Rabaut

[blocks in formation]

Campbell

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Rains

[blocks in formation]

Hale

Hand

Riehlman

Chenoweth

Kelley, Pa. Kelly, N. Y.

King, Calif.

Riley

Davis, Tenn.

Deane

Dempsey

Dollinger

Dorn, S. C.

Doyle

Durham

Eberharter

Elliott

Engle

Evins

Keogh

Rivers

Roberts

Robeson, Va.

Rogers, Fla.

Kirwan

Klein

Kluczynski

Knox

Landrum

Lane

Lanham

Lantaff

Sikes

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Selden

Shelley

Sheppard Shuford

Case

Staggers

Sullivan

Sutton

Thompson, La.

Thompson, Tex.

Trimble

Vinson
Vorys
Watts

Wheeler

Wickersham

Wier

Williams, Miss.

Winstead

Withrow

Zablocki

Fallon

Feighan

Mailliard

Fernandez

Marshall

Fine

Matthews

[blocks in formation]

Betts

[blocks in formation]

Bennett, Mich. Bentley

Bentsen

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Morrison for, with Mr. Pillion against. Mr. Delaney for, with Mr. Reed of Illinois against.

Mr. Buckley for, with Mr. Robsion of Kentucky against.

Mr. Powell for, with Mr. Chiperfield against. Mr. Dawson of Illinois for, with Mr. Hope against.

Until further notice:

Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota with Mr. Kilday. Mr. Dolliver with Mr. Chatham.

Mr. O'KONSKI changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."

Mr. SIEMINSKI changed his vote from "yea" to "nay."

Mr. HILLELSON changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded..

The SPEAKER. The question recurs on the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEVENGER].

The motion was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the several motions was laid on the table.

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means may have until midnight tonight to file a report on the bill H. R. 642.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time to make a personal announcement.

When rollcall No. 95 was taken a few minutes ago I was unavoidably detained downtown in a conference with officials of one of the Government departments and a citizen of the congressional disstrict I have the honor to represent. I attempted to get here to vote but unfortunately did not arrive until the Speaker was announcing the vote. Had I been present I would have voted in the affirmative to exclude Red China from representation in the United Nations.

QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his question of personal privilege.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in the Washington Post of Sunday, March 22, appeared an article purported to have been written by Drew Pearson, which carried the following statements:

Small-business men usually get the hairy end of the lollypop in Washington, but not always.

Recently, Joe and Mario Fontana, two small-business men from Iron Mountain, Mich., lost out in the bidding for an Air Force contract and went crying to their Congressman, CLARE HOFFMAN, of Michigan. The Congressman promptly ordered his House investigating committee to investigate the Air Force for refusing to award the contract to his constituents.

All that mattered to HOFFMAN, however, was that the Fontana brothers could bring

[blocks in formation]

Those statements, among other things, charge the Representative of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan with using a subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations for an improper purpose, reflecting upon the integrity of the Committee on Government Operations, its subcommittees and upon the integrity of the Representative of the Fourth Congressional District of Michigan in his official capacity as a Representative.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan states a question of personal privilege. The gentleman is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Speaker, 10 minutes will suffice.

Mr.

That only because the issue involved questions the integrity not only of Congressmen but the chairman of a committee and of the committee itself; and for that matter, of the House. It also involves the question of what procedure, in the few weeks remaining, this House is to follow with reference to subcommittees.

This question arose when the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT] early this year came to me and complained that Iron Mountain, one of the towns in is district, was a distressed labor area where around a thousand people were unemployed. This was a distressed labor area. It is a town where the Ford Motor Co. had formerly a very large plant. The people who were attempting to obtain employment for the citizens of that community, Iron Mountain and the surrounding area, had agreed to put the plant in a state where they thought local industry would be able to bid on a Government contract for planes.

They had been denied that opportunity by the Air Force. At the time the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT] early this year made his complaint about the refusal of the Government agency to permit his constituents to bid, two Members of the other body, Senators FERGUSON and POTTER, also asked that they might be heard.

Instead of referring that matter to the full Committee on Government Operations, instead of referring it to a regular subcommittee which had a staff, which would undoubtedly send investigators out into the field and spend perhaps a week or two in determining this issue which should be determined, in my opinion at least, at once, a special subcommittee was appointed by me, as was authorized by the rules, until last Wednesday, July 15, the full committee attempted to deprive me of that authority. That was a special three-inan committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HILLELSON], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. IKARD] were members. I was chairman.

The Air Force was asked to send over someone to explain the situation.

The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT appeared. The two Senators from Michigan appeared. The Fontana brothers appeared. Other witnesses appeared in behalf of their claim that they had been denied-now, listen-not a

contract, not a contract but an oppor-
tunity to bid on a contract.

After hearing from those witnesses
and the testimony of the Air Force peo-
ple it was agreed by those present that
the Fontana brothers should be given an
opportunity to bid and that their plant
should be resurveyed. Now, a long, long
story can be made out of that situation,
but that, in substance, was the situation.
I ask: Is there anything wrong in a
Government Operations Committee of
this House appointing a special subcom-
mittee to give 2 Senators and 1 Congress-
man an opportunity to present the plea
of their constitutents that they should
have an opportunity to bid on a Govern-
ment contract? If it is wrong then I
was at fault. If it was proper then I
should not be deprived of the opportu-
nity to assist you should the occasion
arise. I am raising this issue now be-
cause last Wednesday the House Com-
mittee on Government Operations killed
off every single special subcommittee that
had been appointed by me, and denied
me the authority to appoint any further
subcommittees.

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

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes. Mrs. CHURCH. I would like to say I would like to say briefly to the gentleman that as a member of the Committee on Government Operations I voted with the gentleman last week to continue the work of those subcommittees and I certainly hope that the investigations would be continued and brought to a fruitful conclusion.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. I thank the gentlewoman. I appreciate her support because the Members all realize her outstanding ability, her willingness to contend for the principles and practices she believes to be sound.

The point is as to whether regular subcommittees with a staff of investigators-and I have no criticism to make of the investigators; it is only human for all of us to want to increase our power, to extend our operations and go on and on, shall take over the functions of the parent committee and each subcommittee become a new regular committee of the House with all the authority of a full committee. But that is no reason why we should throw a roadblock in front of another Member, in front of another committee, or neighbor, even when no good purpose is to be accomplished thereby.

It has been said and vigorously denied that the killing of those special subcommittees which were investigating labor racketeering would end the inquiries into programs which had thrown thousands of men out of work, resulted in extortion and were a disgrace to our civilization. That charge was true.

I do not think there is a single member of the full committee who desires to do anything to aid the extortioner or racketeer. Nevertheless, that action of the committee has that effect. The committee cut off that special subcommittee which has been so highly commended by the people of the Detroit, Kansas City, Mo., and Los Angeles areas as of Saturday next. Why? Just because if they will excuse my language, and I apologize for it-they did not know what they were doing; they

did not foresee the inevitable result of their action. They had not paid attention to what the special subcommittees were doing and they neither called upon nor asked their chairman for any information though the papers of all three cities carried pages of information commendatory of the special subcommittee actions.

It

This matter of bidding at Iron Mountain was settled, the bids were reopened; these gentleman were given an opportunity to bid, which was all the Congressman and the two Senators asked. was established to the satisfaction, I think, of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT], and the Senators that the Fontanas could not in the limited time available carry out the provisions of the contract. Now, that is all there was to that hearing. Could not produce the plans needed in the time allotted, though I may be in error on that point. Yet Drew Pearson came along and said that a Congressman from the Fourth District of Michigan set up that committee and hearing to get votes from his constituents. Why, bless the gentleman's heart, it is 400 miles from Iron Mountain to my district. Iron Mountain is across in the upper peninsula of Michigan. But we asked Mr. Pearson about it because when he charged a committee with acting for improper purposes I wanted to hear from Mr. Pearson whether or not he told the truth-once. He was in; he was put under oath. Here are his statements—just a few:

The CHAIRMAN. I am asking you again, Is that statement true or false, that CLARE HOFFMAN represents those two men?

Mr. PEARSON. I was trying to give you the answer when you interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry I interrupted.
Just say it is true or false.

Mr. PEARSON. I have already testified-
The CHAIRMAN. What do you say now?
Mr. PEARSON. I have already testified that
CLARE HOFFMAN was not their Congressman.
The CHAIRMAN. Then the statement is
false.

Mr. PEARSON. It is false.

He admitted that his statements were false. Then he tried to excuse himself by saying: that if I, a Member of Congress, was trying to help a small-business man up in northern Michigan I was trying to get votes for myself from the small-business man in southern Michigan. His argument was that the man in northern Michigan would tell the small-business man in southern Michigan that I was a good fellow and so the southern Michigander would vote for HOFFMAN. Sound? Yes, but rather far-fetched. But Pearson did not even take stock in that theory because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. POFF] asked him, page 35:

Mr. POFF. Mr. Pearson, had you known that Mr. HOFFMAN was not the Congressman of Joe and Mario Fontana, would you then have written the last paragraph quoted in that article.

Mr. PEARSON. No, I would not.

So his argument falls.

On page 34 Mr. Pearson swears that he made a false statement. In other words, if you were to use a short word, he swears that he is a liar.

Now, I ask you in all seriousness: What would a schoolboy in a debating society do, what conclusion would he

« PreviousContinue »