Mr. MCCARRAN. It seems to me the bill should have more consideration than the five rule would permit. Therefore, I ask that it go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will go over.

The bill (H. R. 4559) an act to amend section 501 of the Communications Act of 1934, so that any offense punishable thereunder, except a second or subsequent offense, shall constitute a misdemeanor rather than a felony was announced as next in order.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, the same situation applies to this bill. I ask that it go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will go over.

The resolution (S. Res. 137) increasing the limit of expenditures under Senate Resolution 333, 82d Congress, and Senate Resolution 106, 83d Congress, for the Committee on Rules and Administration, was announced as next in order. Mr. SMATHERS. Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be passed over.

The bill (S. 281) to amend section 1 (17) (a), section 13 (3), and section 13 (4) of the Interstate Commerce Act in order to extend to the Interstate Commerce Commission power to prescribe the discontinuance of certain railroad services in intrastate commerce when found to be unreasonably discriminatory against or to constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce was announced as next in order.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. I ask that the bill go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

The bill (H. R. 1026) to amend the Public Health Service Act, with respect to the provisions of certain medical and dental treatment and hospitalization for certain officers and employees of the former Lighthouse Service and for dependents and widows of officers and employees of such service, was announced

rendered valid by the United States or by the nation in which the aircraft is registered if such foreign nation grants a similar privilege with respect to aircraft.

So as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, etc., That section 6 of the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended, is hereby amended by striking subsections (b) and (c) thereof and by inserting a new subsection (b) to read as follows:

"(b) Foreign aircraft, which are not a part of the armed forces of a foreign nation, may be navigated in the United States by airmen holding certificates or licenses issued or rendered valid by the United States or by the nation in which the aircraft is registered if such foreign nation grants a similar privilege with respect to aircraft of the United States and only if such navigation is authorized by permit, order, or regulation issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board hereunder,

and in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations thereof. The Civil Aeronautics Board shall issue such permits, orders, or regulations to such extent only as the Board shall find such action to be in the interest of the public: Provided, however, That in exercising its powers hereunder, the Board shall do so consistently with any treaty, convention or agreement which may be in force between the United States and any foreign country or countries. Foreign civil aircraft permitted to navigate in the United States under this subsection may be authorized by the Board to engage in air commerce within the United States except that they shall not take on at any point within the United States persons, property, or mail carried for compensation or hire and destined for another point within the United

States. Nothing contained in this subsection (b) shall b deemed to limit, modify, or amend section 402 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, but any foreign air carrier holding a permit under said section 402 shall not be required to obtain additional authorization under this subsection with

Second. It would revise the language of the section to permit certain commercial operations in the United States by foreign aircraft in accordance with the Chicago convention and not in conflict with section 402 of the Civil Aeronautics Act; and

Third. It would provide a standard of "public interest" for granting these permits. It would continue the requirement of reciprocity for American aircraft and airmen.

The bill is recommended by the Civil Aeronautics Board and by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend

ask at that time that the bill go over.

as next in order.

Mr. GORE. Over.

THE UNITED STATES

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1402) to amend the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended, to authorize navigation of foreign nontransport civil aircraft in the United States through reciprocity and under regulations of the Civil Aeronautics Board, which had been reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with an amendment on page 1, after line 6, to strike out:

(b) Foreign aircraft not a part of the armed forces of a foreign nation may be navigated in the United States if the foreign nation grants a similar privilege in respect to aircraft.

And insert:

(b) Foreign aircraft, which are not a part of the armed forces of a foreign nation, may be navigated in the United States by airmen holding certificates or licenses issued or

amended, to the CAB.

Originally, section 6 (c) of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 was conceived as a safety-control measure. However, with the enactment of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 and the ratification of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation in 1947, permits issued to the foreign aircraft under section 6 (c) have come to involve primarily an economic determination. Nevertheless, under the reorganization plans of 1940, this function was given to the Civil Aeronautics Administration and not to the Civil Aeronautics Board, which is primarily responsible for economic determinations. S. 1402 would amend section 6 (c) of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 as follows:

First. It would transfer from the Secretary of Commerce to the CAB the function of issuing foreign aircraft flight permits;

the bill may go to the foot of the calendar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With

out objection, the bill will go to the foot of the calendar.

SAFE DRIVING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-BILL PASSED OVER

The bill (S. 2305) to promote safe driving, to eliminate the reckless and financially irresponsible driver from the highways, and to provide for the giving of security and proof of financial responsibility by persons driving or owning vehicles of a type subject to registration under the laws of the District of Columbia was announced as next in order.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of the bill?

Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to enact for the District of Columbia the type of motorvehicle financial-responsibility legislation similar to that which has been adopted in some 43 States. Under the proposed security-responsibility measure, when any motor-vehicle driver or owner becomes involved in a motorvehicle accident in the District, involving personal injury or property damage in excess of $100, he will be required to demonstrate that he is covered by motorvehicle public-liability and property

damage insurance in certain prescribed amounts, or shall be required to deposit security in an amount estimated to cover the injury or damage caused to others than himself as a result of such accident. The maximum amount of security to be required is $25,000. If the driver or owner of any motor vehicle involved in an accident is not covered by liability insurance, or does not deposit the required security, then his operator's license, or nonresident operating privilege, as the case may be, and all of his District of Columbia motor-vehicle registrations, will be suspended until any judgment rendered against him is satisfied.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I should like to ask the Senator from Maryland whether the bill was endorsed by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia?

Mr. BEALL. The bill was endorsed by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, by members of the District Bar Association, the Insurance Commissioner for the District of Columbia, the American Automobile Association, and almost every other agency which has to do with the public safety in the District of Columbia. After the bill was first prepared, there was considerable discussion among lawyers and other interested persons. Another bill was drafted, with some 43 changes in it. We conducted further hearings, and the bill was then practically unanimously approved.

Mr. CASE. Since the bill was reported, there have been some telephone calls to my office with respect to the bill, and some fear has been expressed that it is a bill drawn in the interest of lawyers and insurance companies rather than for the protection of the public. I should like to ask the Senator from Maryland if it is his personal conviction, after having heard the testimony, that the bill is primarily for the protection of the public rather than for the benefit of businesses such as bonding and insurance?

Mr. BEALL. It is definitely for the protection of the public. The same type of legislation is in effect in 43 of the States.

The alternative to this type of legislation might be compulsory insurance. That is definitely what we are trying to avoid. In other words, the owner of an automobile could drive indefinitely if he did not have an accident in the District of Columbia. If he never has an accident, he will never need any insurance, and he will never need a bond. It is only after an accident occurs that he must show financial responsibility.

Mr. CASE. That is, an accident involving damage greater than $100. Mr. BEALL. Yes.

Mr. CASE. I withdraw my objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from Maryland how much insurance the owner of an automobile must have in order to comply?

Mr. BEALL. A maximum of $25,000 for any one accident.

Mr. MCCARRAN. In other words, before the owner of an automobile can obtain a driver's license in the District of Columbia he must carry insurance up to $25,000?

Mr. BEALL. No. He is not required to obtain insurance in order to secure a license. He can pass his examination and get his license. The proposed law would not apply until after an accident had happened and a claim for more than $100 was made against him. Then he would be required to show that he had insurance or a bond up to $10,000 for 1 person, $20,000 for 2 or more, and $5,000 property damage, in any 1 accident.

Mr. MCCARRAN. That simply means that the insurance companies are certain to get more business.

Mr. BEALL. No. The driver could file a personal bond if he wished to do so. Mr. MCCARRAN. Suppose an employee of the Government owns an automobile which he drives in the District of Columbia, but has no other property in the District of Columbia. Must he immediately take out insurance?

Mr. BEALL. He would not have to take out any insurance in order to drive. Mr. MCCARRAN. Until after he had the first accident?

Mr. BEALL. After he had had an accident and a claim had been filed against him for more than $100. The same law is in effect in 43 other States. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one further question? Mr. BEALL. I am glad to yield.

Mr. CASE. The penalty, in case he did not obtain insurance or file a bond, would be merely the revocation of his driver's permit.

Mr. BEALL. The penalty would be revocation of his driver's permit until any judgment against him was satisfied. Mr. CASE. He would not be liable for any criminal penalty?

Mr. BEALL. None whatsoever. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, would the bill apply to transients?

Mr. BEALL. Yes. Some States have a reciprocity law. Under that arrangement the driver's home State would be notified, and it would revoke his license.

Mr. LANGER. Does the distinguished Senator know whether North Dakota has a reciprocity law? I object to the bill until I find out whether my friends can come here to see me without taking out a license.

ance. I believe that if any of the constituents of the Senator from North Dakota wished to visit him here, the proposed law would be a great protection. If one of the Senator's constituents were to have his car smashed by a driver who had no insurance, he would be a great deal worse off than he would be under this proposed legislation. It would be good protection.

Mr. BEALL.

Mr. BEALL. Definitely it would be good protection for the Senator's constituents visiting him from North Dakota. Any of the Senator's constituents could come here and remain for years without having insurance coverage.

Mr. LANGER. I should like to investigate the subject. I wish to be sure that my friends can come and see me without taking out insurance.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. LANGER. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over.

PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO CLARENCE A. BEUTEL

The bill (S. 2104) to authorize the payment of compensation to Clarence A. Beutel, formerly Deputy Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, for the period from September 10, 1952, through June 1, 1953, was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That notwithstanding the provisions of section 1761 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (5 U. S. C. 56), the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is authorized to pay to Clarence A. Beutel the compensation earned by him as Deputy Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation from September 10, 1952, through June 1, 1953.

DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRODUCTION OF TUNGSTEN ORES AND CONCENTRATES-BILL PASSED OVER

The bill (H. R. 2824) to encourage the discovery, development, and production of tungsten ores and concentrates in the United States, its Territories and possessions, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let the bill go over. Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware withhold his

to explain the bill?

Mr. WILLIAMS.

Certainly.

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, this is a bill designed to help free this Nation from dependence upon foreign sources of supply for the strategic metals and minerals-tungsten, manganese, chromite, mica, asbestos, beryl, and ores bearing columbium and tantalum.

The bill lays down a policy that each department and agency of the Government charged with responsibilities concerning the discovery, development, production, and acquisition of strategic or

critical minerals or metals shall undertake wherever possible to decrease or eliminate United States dependency upon overseas sources of supply for such materials and metals.

The bill specifically extends for 2 years the termination dates of existing purchase programs designed to stimulate the domestic production of tungsten, manganese, and the other metals and minerals I named a moment ago. However, the bill would not interfere with existing authority of any of the regulatory agencies to extend such termination dates or to increase the quantity of materials that may be delivered and accepted under the existing programs. Mr. President, this is legislation with a worthy purpose, and legislation which has been well and carefully considered. The Senate committee has rewritten the House bill and has improved it materially. The House bill related to tungsten only; and the Senate language, covering also manganese, chromite, mica, asbestos, beryl, and columbium-tantalum-bearing ores, is vastly preferable to the House language.

The need for legislation of this nature is clearly demonstrated in the Senate report, which shows that we have not yet reached even the halfway point toward achieving our stockpiling goals. This is not a bill, Mr. President, primarily for the assistance of producers of these vital, critical, strategic metals and minerals; it is a bill primarily for the benefit of the security and the national defense of the United States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware further withhold his objection?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I withhold my objection.

Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. I wish to

express my appreciation to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada for his statement in defense of this proposed legislation. I agree with the statement that the legislation is needed. It

is good legislation. It would merely ex

tend to tungsten and several other metals legislation which has been in existence for some time. It calls for no additional appropriation. The money has been made available already in previous appropriations. It is badly needed legislation for our defense, as the

Senator from Nevada has stated.

I do not care to enter into a debate on the bill at this time, unless my distinguished friend from Delaware is inclined to listen to reason. I do not think it would do anything but good to the people of Delaware and to the people everywhere in the Nation.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I have listened to the rather persuasive arguments of the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Nevada as to what the bill will do for our country from the standpoint of defense. Nevertheless, the

committee report contains a letter from the Secretary of Defense in which he recommends against the enactment of the bill because it is against the interests of our national defense. Likewise in the same report there is contained another

letter, from the Defense Materials Procurement Agency, in which they also recommend against the enactment of the proposed legislation.

I ask that the bill go over until we can reconcile the differences of these great experts.

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware withhold his objection?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I withhold my objection.

PURCHASE OF STRATEGIC MINERALS

Mr. MALONE. I wish to join the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in emtion is involved; second, there are no new phasizing: First, that no new appropriaminerals involved; third, we have not yet completed the purchase program, already adopted and for which the appropriation has already been made available; fourth, there is no interference with the authority of the Defense Production Act with respect to further extending the time at their discretion.

Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield?

Mr. MALONE. I am happy to yield. Mr. BUTLER of Nebraska. I believe I can answer the objection of the Senator from Delaware based on the report with respect to the proposed legislation. That report was made before the Defense Production Act was extended. Since the unfavorable report was made, the De

fense Production Act has been extended, and we are continuing the same program which was in existence for several years.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the point out the fact that the extension will Senator from Nebraska is correct, but I be in effect only until July 31. What will happen thereafter is a question which should be answered in connection with this whole program.

I was greatly impressed by some of the

The proposed legislation merely extends the time for fulfilling the authorizations, and appropriations have been made.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. BUTLER] and the Senators from Nevada. I may say that during World War II, with the shortage of tungsten, if it had not been for the law being in effect, it would have been difficult to obtain an adequate supply of this metal. One mine northwest of Boise, Idaho, produced nearly $24 million worth of tungsten. Some officials told me at that time that if it had not been for that discovery we would have been seriously short in that

strategic material. I hope the bill will

pass.

Mr. MALONE. There is no question about the domestic production of tungsten, manganese, and other metals mentioned in the proposed legislation. It is, however, necessary to extend the time to justify the private investments. The bill would give 2 years additional in the mining industries for that purpose. I hope that the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] will withdraw his objections for the next Consent Calendar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask that the bill go over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will go over.

FLYING OF THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES FOR 24 HOURS EACH DAY IN FLAG HOUSE SQUARE, BALTIMORE, MD.

The bill (S. 2111) to permit the flying of the flag of the United States for 24

Baltimore, Md., was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows:

I am not objecting to the bill at this time on the basis of any cost involved. of it. Let us approach the subject realisIf the cost can be justified, I am in favor tically and let us determine what the cost

will be. If it is worth the cost, let us pass the bill. We will not be able to assist this group without some cost being charged against the taxpayers.

NATIONAL DEFENSE SAFEGUARD

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, I will close by saying that it is not a relief bill for the mining industry. It is a bill to extend the time during which the mining industry may produce certain already authorized strategic minerals, for which appropriations have already been made.

Many assertions have been made to the effect that it is impossible to produce tungsten, manganese, and chromite, and many other metals needed for the defense of this Nation in this country; nevertheless they are being produced.

Be it enacted, etc., That notwithstanding any rule or custom pertaining to the display of the flag of the United States of entitled "Joint resolution to codify and America as set forth in the joint resolution emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America," approved June 22, 1942, as amended, authority is hereby confirmed on the appropriate officer of the State of Maryland to permit the flying of the flag of the United States for 24 hours of each day in Flag House Square, Albemarle and Pratt Streets, Baltimore, Md.

SEC. 2. Subject to the provisions of section 3 of the joint resolution of June 22, 1942, as amended, authority is also conferred on the appropriate officer of the State of Maryland to permit the flying of a replica of the flag of the United States which was in use during the War of 1812 for 24 hours of each day in Flag House Square, Albemarle and Pratt Streets, Baltimore, Md.

CONSIDERATION OF BILLS PASSED

TO THE FOOT OF THE CALENDARBILL PASSED OVER

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the first bill sent to the foot of the calendar.

The

The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the next bill passed to the foot of the calendar.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H. R. 5238) for the relief of Franciszek Jarecki.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the Mr. President, the bill grants the status of permanent residence in the United States to Franciszek Jarecki, a native of Poland, and a lieutenant in the Polish Air Force, who on March 5, 1953, escaped from Poland in a Soviet jet MIG-15, which he flew to the Danish island of Bornholm, thus giving the technicians of the free world their first opportunity to examine an undamaged aircraft of that type.

On March 8, 1953, he was admitted to the United Kingdom, where he remained until his entry into the United States on May 1, 1953. In addition to granting him permanent residence the bill would also waive a permanent impediment to his future entry into the United States because of his past membership in the Communist Party of Poland. Naturally he had to be a Communist to be a member of the Polish Air Force.

The Senator from Michigan and the Senators from Massachusetts introduced a bill for the same purpose. The bill, Senate bill 1908, was passed on a previous call of the calendar. In the meantime H. R. 5238, Calendar No. 440, which is now before the Senate, was introduced in the House and passed by the House. It was reported to the Senate by the Committee on the Judiciary on June 15. The Senator from Michigan feels that the Senate should pass H. R. 5238 because of a difference in language. There is a change in language which I believe is more beneficial. Therefore, I ask that the House bill be passed. Naturally the similar Senate bill will not be acted on by the House.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of

Mr. GORE.

Over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will go over.

That concludes the call of the calendar.

selves, and more particularly upon their chairmen. All too often, they in effect make their own rules and do anything they wish.

Of course, the issues are at best complicated and difficult. A congressional investigating committee has, in the nature of the case, a dual function: First, it is in a sense a court with great power over men's reputations and good names. As such, its members should, like any decent judge, be impartial. Second, it must also investigate and, in a sense, prosecute. It must seek to marshal the evidence in a case, and to present it; and it cannot, as can be done in a judicial body, have that function delegated to a special arm. This inevitably creates a conflict of interests within the breast

of every conscientious member of an investigating committee. As one who has been a member of such a committee, I can bear witness to the struggle be

PURPOSES

First, let me say that such committees have played and can play a very constructive part in American public life. Such investigations are required, in the first place, to disclose the need for legislation and the course it should take.

Secondly, such inquiries are also important in checking on the way in which the laws are being administered and on whether the will of Congress is being followed or flouted. The administrative branch almost never investigates itself.

Virtually every great reform in this country has, in fact, been preceded and largely made possible by prior congressional investigations, and the social and political history of this country could not have been written without them. While the Committee on the Conduct of the War hampered Lincoln and the North in the Civil War, the corresponding Truman committee in World War II was of inestimable value in speeding the conduct of the war and saving billions of dollars. The Pujo investigations into the so-called money trust and the Pecora inquiry into the issue of securities made possible the Securities and Exchange Act. A myriad of other reforms have been effected by such committees, of which in recent years I need mention only the Fulbright committee in this body and the King committee in the House.

I am, therefore, not proposing in any sense the abandonment of congressional investigating committees. But in view of their importance and the damage they can do to men's reputations—which are the most precious worldly possessions we have-it is important that we work out rules of fair procedure and adopt them without undue delay. INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES SHOULD NOT USURP

JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

These committees are, in fact, fast becoming legislative courts. At present the committees are, in effect, given a wide hunting license and allowed to cruise at large without any restraint as to rules of evidence, procedures, questioning, or the making of public statements, except for such rules as they im

The

bill will be passed over.

The clerk will state the next bill passed to the foot of the calendar.

fairness or lack of fairness which is followed therefore largely depends upon the members of the committees them

sire to investigate and to expose frequently clashes sharply with the need to be fair and impartial. Some chairmen of committees, such as the Sena-. tor from North Carolina [Mr. HOEY] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], have been conspicuously fair; but not all have been able to reach that standard, and some have erred.

I know also that many of these committees have been badgered by abusive witnesses and their work improperly obstructed by those who have pleaded the fifth amendment as an excuse for not answering proper questions.

This conflict between the prosecuting and the judicial functions was seen long ago in the field of administrative law; and the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 went a long way in trying to separate the investigating and prosecuting functions from the judicial, and in laying down rules of procedures and evidence.

NEED FOR REFORM

We need a similar reform in the work of congressional investigating committees. Our task is made even more difficult by the fact that we are elective officials, and hence, whether we like it or not, politicians. This is an honorable and, indeed, a noble profession, if honorably and nobly practiced. But it is subject to temptations which most judges at least those in the upper courts-do not experience. Of necessity we are concerned with the fortunes of our particular party, and we naturally hope it will win in the elections which always lie ahead. We would be more than human if we were not also concerned with our own political fortunes. Under these conditions there is a natural temptation for the majority on a committee to want to put the other party in a disadvantageous position which will affect the next elections. Individual

members of the committees also find that they can get publicity out of the hearings, and there is therefore a temptation to conduct them with this end in view.

These tendencies are not confined to any one party or group. Looking back over the last quarter of a century, I think we should frankly admit that many bigbusiness men and economic conservatives were treated somewhat unfairly by