Page images

have before me the following newspaper Members of the Congress and the White
Members of the Congress and the White

MORSE STOPS WHITE HOUSE PICKET BILL The House-passed bill to prohibit picketing of the White House was stopped cold in a Senate District Subcommittee yesterday by Senator WAYNE MORSE, Independent, of Oregon, who said it would infringe rights of free speech and petition.

MORSE, holding the proxy of Senator MATTHEW M. NEELY, Democrat, of West Virginia, voted down Subcommittee Chairman SAM W. REYNOLDS, Republican, of Nebraska.

Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the full committee will not permit this bill to be pigeonholed.

The President and the White House are entitled to at least as much respect and protection as any other official or building in the Nation's Capital, yet we find that picketing is prohibited on the sidewalks and buildings of the Capitol Grounds, the Supreme Court, the foreign embassies, and practically all other important public buildings except the White House.

The purpose of H. R. 9344 is to treat the White House exactly as the Congress has already treated the embassies, the Capitol Grounds, and the Supreme Court with respect to physical demonstrations and picketing.

The bill has passed the House. It was introduced and sponsored there by a member of the Texas delegation, Representative BRADY GENTRY, of Tyler. It was he who first called my attention to the need for this legislation. Representatives GENTRY came to Washington at a time when Communists and other sympathizers of the convicted Rosenberg spies were surrounding the White House in an attempt to influence the actions of the President in behalf of the Rosenbergs. This caused Representative GENTRY to inquire as to the status of the law and to discover that the White House had not been given the same protection against possible violence that had been given to other major public buildings and officials here in Washington.

Justice Holmes once said that freedom of speech does not mean the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Neither does it mean the right physically to surround the White House, the courts, the Congress, or foreign embassies with a mob which might lead to violence.

In the recent attempted mass assassination in the House of Representatives we saw just what the ardor for a cause can lead to in the case of those who are misguided. There was evidence of the same thing in the attempted assassination of Mr. Truman at Blair House. What if such determination should seize a mob of picketers which is picketing the White House? What better opportunity would those of evil design want than that provided in such circumstances? As such picketings wear on through the As such picketings wear on through the weeks, there might come a time when weeks, there might come a time when passions become high and tempers wear thin. At such a time anything might happen. Therefore, reasonable precautions should be taken to remove the postions should be taken to remove the possibility of such an occurrence in a country where neither compulsion nor violence is a part of our Government. That is the purpose of H. R. 9344.

It is late in the session, and I hope that the full committee, when it meets again, will take up the bill, and not permit it to remain pigeonholed. I hope it will take favorable action on the bill so the Senate will be given an opportunity to vote on it before adjournment.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.

Mr. MORSE. I am asking the Senator from New Mexico to yield for a few moments. It will not take long, because my reply to my good friend the Senator from Texas will be short; but I think, as a matter of personal privilege, I should be allowed to reply, and the speech I make should not be counted against me in connection with the measure pending

before the Senate. I make that as a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I

The hearings before the subcommittee disclosed, according to the testimony of Chief of Police Robert V. Murray, that yield, and do not object to the unani

the police officers of the District of Columbia spent 5,000 man-hours, at a cost of about $10,000, in order to police the picketing on that occasion.

This bill does not refer to labor disputes or any possible legitimate cause for picketing. It merely prohibits such demonstrations on the sidewalks and streets surrounding the White House when done "for the purpose of influencing the actions of any court, officer or agency of the United States."

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] is reported as saying that the bill would infringe the rights of free speech and petition. Would the Senator want to permit such pickets to parade in the gallery of the Senate, at our doors, or would he favor demonstrations of any nature in the gallery? Obviously, the prohibitions against such actions are in the same category and prohibit free speech and petition to the same extent. However, there are other peaceful and proper means which the people have for petition, contract, and persuasion of

mous-consent request.


tices, policies, and procedures of the District of Columbia Committee, that the action will not stand.

I think the Representative from Texas [Mr. GENTRY], as I said following his remarks in the committee yesterday, made a very able presentation of the point of view of the proponents of the bill, as did the Senator from Texas this afternoon. I wish to pay a compliment which, in my judgment, is very deserved, to the new Senator from Nebraska [Mr. REYNOLDS], who sat for the first time in committee yesterday as the chairman of the committee. I thought he was exceedingly fair and professional in his conduct of the hearing, and he certainly presented his point of view in support of the bill in a very able manner. But, Mr. President, I disagree with the objectives of the bill, a majority of the committee disagree with the objectives of the bill, and, in accordance with the parliamentary rights of the majority of the committee, with instructions from the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. NEELY], whose proxy I held, we simply followed the ordinary course, when a majority disagrees with a bill, of asking for indefinite postponement, and that motion carried.

Mr. President, I now read from page 18 of the official transcript of the hearings. The following occurred as the hearing closed:

Senator REYNOLDS. I gathered Senator MORSE is opposed to the bill.

Senator MORSE. I made that very clear at the full committee meeting the other day. Senator REYNOLDS. I did not happen to be a member of the committee at that time. Senator MORSE. I will be happy to review briefly my point of view to the full committee.

I think the passage of the bill would be a great mistake as far as its symbolism to the rest of the world is concerned. I think that the right to picket in the United States is an essential part of freedom of speech and freedom to petition the Government. If we have not police departments-and we have one here that can do the job-if we have not police departments that can maintain order when American citizens petition their Government, why, then, let us get police departments that can.

mocracy. OFFICER. The

Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Mr. MORSE. I am very glad the Senator from Texas has made his case before the Senate this afternoon in support of the picketing bill. The Senator from Texas and I are lawyers, and, as we said out in the cloakroom in a conversation earlier this afternoon, we can disagree with each other as lawyers and still go together to lunch afterward. We said that because of the reports which had been made to the effect that the difference between us was on a different plane than simply a professional difference of two men who hold different points of view on the issue now before the Senate.

can best be stated, I think, by the exMy reply to the Senator from Texas temporaneous remarks I made in the committee yesterday, following a very brief hearing on the bill. I shall have something to say about future hearings on the bill in case the action of the subcommittee of yesterday should not stand. I fully expect, under the prac

There is always a risk of living in a deThere is always the risk of being free, and sometimes in a free country some wild-heads get out of hand now and then. But that is part of the risk you run when you live in a nonpolice state.

The reason why I asked Mr. Bryan the question as to whether or not he thought picketing could be maintained before the executive department of any police state was to bring out my point that of course it could not be. I do not propose to be a party to police-state methods in the United States.

I just do not know a President-I cannot imagine a President who would say, "Deny to Americans the right to walk in orderly fashion in front of the White House by way of orderly petition." I want it orderly. It can be kept orderly.

But you see, most of these picketing entourages defeat their own purpose. They hurt their own cause because most of them by sign and attitude demonstrate the weakness of their own case. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, in my judgment it is a very precious right-this right to petition your Government and to demonstrate by way of petition in an orderly fashion. I think it is part of being free. I think that the right of American citizens to walk in an orderly fashion before the executive department of

this Government is a pretty important right right to exercise freedom of speech, subject, of petition.

I am not worried about the danger of mob rule. The right to picket the White House symbolizes to the world that the President is just a citizen who sits in the White House. He is just a servant of the people. He is not our master. We have the right to petition him in an orderly fashion.

Well, now, let us take the Capitol grounds and the Supreme Court picketing restrictions. A distinction can be drawn and I will draw it, although I will not stand on the distinction. But as far as the Congress is concerned, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves that we hide behind a piece of legislation that prevents American citizens from petitioning us by walking in front of the Capitol Building in an orderly picket line. Such political cowardice. Of course it ought to be repealed. If people want in an orderly fashion to petition the Legislature of this country, they ought to petition it and be allowed to petition it.

Now, when you come to the Supreme Court you come to another phase of this system of government by checks and balances. I seriously question the propriety of a political petition before a judicial body that acts on the basis of the judicial record. I think there is quite a distinction between an attempt to politically petition a court and politically petition lawmakers, because the court's function is not a political function— it is a judicial function.

I would go along with the protection of the court from political interference just as I have been heard to say so many times on the floor of the Senate of the United States that political considerations should not ever be taken into account in judicial determinations. That is why, for example, I felt in the tidelands bill this year that the case ought to be decided on the law and not on political pressure. The case ought to be decided on the basis of constitutional principles.

As I said facetiously at one point in the course of that debate, of course, I believe in Supreme Court decisions even when they go I believe they are just as much against us. government by law when they are against But us as they are when they are for us. there were some who thought they were political decisions when they did not like the results.

I would recognize a distinction between protecting a court from political petition, but not the President and the Congress. They should be subjected to political petition through freedom of speech. And because I think there is this very important principle of the right to petition the political departments of our Government-the executive and legislative I shall cast my vote against reporting out the bill.

Senator REYNOLDS. I am just as jealous as Senator MORSE is of the constitutional right to petition.

Then the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. REYNOLDS] made what I consider to be a very able argument in support of his position in favor of the bill. I shall not speak to that at this time, but the record of the hearing speaks eloquently for him, and undoubtedly he will speak for himself a little later, if he cares to do so.

I read further from the record of the committee hearing:

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, will you permit a brief further comment?

Senator REYNOLDS. Certainly. Senator MORSE. I want to point out three points, in contradistinction to the views expressed by the Senator from Nebraska.

No. 1: The right to picket is the right that has been sustained time and time again by the Supreme Court as a right that relates to the right to petition government, and the

of course, as the decisions make clear, to reasonable legislative regulations. There is no question about the fact that this right to picket is definitely connected by judicial decision with the right to petition and to freedom of speech.

Second, I would like to call the Senator's attention to the fact that in colonial days— in the times of our Constitutional Conventions-large numbers gathered at the seat of the Conventions and petitioned against the Constitution—that is, even before it came into being there was strong public demonstration against even adopting the Constitution. So that this right and this form of democratic demonstration really existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution.

You will find it in some of the judicial decisions—a review of this innate and democratic instinct on the part of the American people. If you are going to keep your government your servant and not your master, you must be able to petition your government.

The Senator spoke about the matter of labor picketing. Of course, some of the worst examples of picketing abuse are in the field of labor. I have had on more than one occasion something to say about it in a quasi-judicial capacity where a picketing line was an illegitimate picket line and represented what the Senator has in mind, namely, an abuse of the right to picket. But some of the worst riots in the history of this country have arisen over labor picketing.

The Haymarket riot, for example, and one of the famous Los Angeles cases is another.

There is always, as I said earlier, the risk in a democracy, if we are to remain free, that some ill-advised groups will get out of hand. But we have our checks for those. It is one of the risks you have to run if you are going to be free.

If I recall the Omaha situation correctly that the Senator refers to, it was not a picketing situation. It was almost a lynch situation. It was a case of where they wanted to take the law into their own hands.

Senator REYNOLDS. I was simply referring to what a mob can do when it gets out of hand.

Senator MORSE. Surely. We take judicial notice of that. You get it, of course, in your lynch-law situations, too. But our courts have made it perfectly clear that under the police power of the State or the Federal Government there is a duty of the lawenforcement officers to see to it that the right of freedom of speech and the right of petition is carried on in a very orderly fashion. I have always insisted on that, and one reason why I asked for the regulations to be put into the record of this hearing is that I think when you come to examine these regulations—I have never read them but I have read many others-I think you are going to find very reasonable checks already on the books that will guarantee adequate power on the part of the Police Department to maintain order. That we must have.

I do not want any picket line-labor picket line, political picket line, demonstration picket line-that is not subjected to reasonable police power check.

Now let me point out that you will find if you check cases, a considerable number of judicial decisions on the so-called political demonstration line. I refer to those political demonstration lines in the late thirties up and down the west coast. Some of them got into court and the courts held that they were primarily political demonstration lines against the shipment of scrap iron to Japan. The major cities on the west coast, port cities, had those lines. They taught a great lesson. It is too bad that the country as a whole did not heed them.

I remember in respect to one at Portland, Oreg., there were those who thought I ought to be fired from the University of

Oregon because of the public position I took on it. I pointed out what the line was seeking to demonstrate was that much of the scrap iron was going to come back in the bodies of American boys. In the opinion of the reactionaries that made me some sort of a wild-eyed radical who ought to be dismissed from the State payroll, and we had a very interesting time over there. But time proved me right. That picket line, I think, performed a great educational service.

You see, in a democracy sometimes things have to be dramatized in order to get people to understand; and so long as it is done in an orderly fashion and so long as adequate police power exists to control it, I am not going to vote to take that form of public education away from the people; nor that basic right of petition and freedom of speech.

The last point I want to make is that I do not share the Senator from Nebraska's point of view as to the exercise of a judicial function on the part of the President of the United States in the Rosenberg case and similar cases. He is exercising an executive function if he exercises his power of pardon. He exercises an executive function which our constitutional fathers put in the Constitution as a check on the judiciary.

There is no question about the fact in my judgment that a study of the history of the pardon concept will show it is a political power. It is a case of where the people thought it was wise to give to their political leader the power to check a judiciary that, in the case of the Federal judiciary, is appointed for a lifetime and, therefore, is not subject to political check by direct check upon the individual himself wearing the robes.

You have your political check, it is true, through the legislative process.

So I would say that this right to petition the President of the United States on a pardon matter is simply carrying out the right to petition him to exercise a political power that he has in the Constitution.

There is nothing more I can add to my point of view, except detail for the record. I have laid down, I think, the basic principles on which I object to this bill.

Senator REYNOLDS. I think the Senator has made his position crystal clear. I hope that the chairman has made his position equally clear.

Senator MORSE. I have great respect for the Chair's point of view.

Senator REYNOLDS. Apparently our views are diametrically opposed to each other. I assume that you have Senator NEELY's proxy to vote as you vote.

Senator MORSE. That is right.

Senator REYNOLDS. Do you care to make a motion?

Senator MORSE. I simply move that the hearings be adjourned.

Senator REYNOLDS. The hearing is adjourned.

Should the subcommittee make a recommendation to the main committee? Senator MORSE. I will move that the bill be indefinitely postponed.

Senator REYNOLDS. Let it be recorded there are 2 votes to indefinitely postpone the bill, and 1 vote "no." It will be so reported to the main committee, reserving the right of the chairman to bring in a minority report.

Senator MORSE. Oh, surely.

Senator REYNOLDS. Thank you, gentlemen. (Whereupon, at 10:50 a. m. the hearing was adjourned.)

Mr. President, I have nothing more to add, at least at this time, except two very brief remarks.

First, I wish to point out the right to picket Buckingham Palace exists; and the Queen of England is not only the head of the state, but she is also the

head of the English church. I think that right, as it exists in England, is a demonstration of the source of the almost instinctive impulse of the American people to insist upon preservation of the freedom to speak and the freedom of petition. It is rather basic in American jurisprudence and it is rather basic in American political philosophy. In view of the time limitation this afternoon, when I am speaking on time which has been yielded to me by unanimous consent, it would be improper for me to take the time to discuss a series of cases which bear out the general observations which I made yesterday in the committee meeting.

The last point I wish to make is that in the committee yesterday we simply followed the parliamentary procedure which is typical of Senate committees. After there had been some hearing on the bill, a majority of the committee reached the conclusion that further consideration of the bill should be indefinitely postponed.

We heard really only three witnesses. We heard Representative GENTRY, of Texas, who spoke for the bill. Representative HIESTAND, of California, was unable to be present, and by unanimous consent, his statement was made a part of the record. It was only a one-page statement, supporting the testimony of Representative GENTRY.

The Assistant Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia appeared to inform us that the Commissioners had no objection to the bill, but a reading of the record will disclose that his testimony was not what might be called strong advocacy. He pointed out that the Commissioners approved the bill, but there was not very much testimony.

The Chief of Police testified neither for nor against the bill, as he made clear in answer to a direct question which I put to him. He pointed out what the cost of supervising such picket lines is in terms of dollars and man-hours, but made it very clear in answer to a direct question which I put to him that he was neutral with regard to the bill, and that the District of Columbia Police Department could maintain order in any picket line stretched in front of the White House or elsewhere in the District of Columbia.

That was the case. Having heard it,

I exercised my parliamentary right as a member of the committee to move the indefinite postponement of the bill. I think that is where it will rest. But if it does not, we shall have some hearings, or the committee will have to deny to me my right as a member of the committee to hearings on a bill which I think is fundamental in its relationship to what I consider to be some very precious rights.

If we are really to consider the bill, notwithstanding the indefinite postponement which was voted yesterday, I shall urge upon the committee that I be accorded the right—and I doubt if there is a member of the committee who would deny it to me-to insist upon some extensive hearings, because we shall have to make a full and detailed record of the whole history of freedom of speech and the right to petition. I shall wish to bring to Washington a group of out

standing leaders, a group of constitutional scholars, a group of people who share my point of view with regard to the bill. A very precious principle is at stake, and I certainly will desire full and fair hearings. I do not think there will be a single vote in the District of will be a single vote in the District of Columbia committee to deny me the right to such hearings.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. President, I appreciate the suggestion of the Senator from Oregon that I reply to his argument, but I shall not do so at this time. Any argument I may have will be made before the committee in support of minority views which I propose to submit to the committee.


Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, as previously announced, the Senate will meet on Saturday. We expect to hold evening sessions all this week. The unfinished business is Senate bill 3690, proposing amendments to the Atomic Energy Act.

When the pending bill is out of the way, we hope to schedule for consideration a number of other bills, with respect to some of which previous announcement has been made, although they will not necessarily be taken up in the order in which they are mentioned. They are Calendar No. 644, House bill 6287, a bill to extend and amend the Renegotiation Act of 1951.

Calendar No. 1315, Senate bill 2910, a bill providing for the creation of certain United States judgeships, and for other purposes.

Calendar No. 1720, Senate bill 3706, a bill to amend the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.

Calendar No. 1794, Senate bill 880, a bill to amend the license law of the District of Columbia.

Calendar No. 1797, Senate bill 2601, a bill to provide for Federal financial assistance to the States and Territories in the construction of public elementary and secondary school facilities.

Calendar No. 1774, House bill 7815, a bill to provide for the construction, bill to provide for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Cougar Dam, in Oregon, and so forth.

security extension bill, when it is finally In addition, there will be the social reported from the Finance Committee, the foreign aid authorization bill, and the farm bill.

I am also hopeful that during the week we may have the conference report on the tax bill. The conferees have been in session today. Also, perhaps, this week we shall have the conference report on the housing bill.

In addition to the legislation which will be carried over from Friday to Saturday, we expect to have a call of the calendar for the consideration of bills to which there is no objection, beginning at the point where the previous call was concluded.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. When does the majority leader expect to reach a vote on the unfinished business?

Mr. KNOWLAND. When the debate has run out and the amendments have been disposed of, we expect to vote.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I understand that; but when does the distinguished majority leader estimate such an eventuality might take place?

Mr. KNOWLAND. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has been a Member of this body longer than has the Senator from California. I have seen times when I became a little despondent as to the possibility of reaching an early vote, and then, as if by some miracle, the procedures were hastened along. I am merely saying that whenever the debate is concluded, I hope all Senators will remain in attendance so that we may start voting on the amendments, on the third reading of the bill, and on the final passage of the bill itself.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KNOWLAND. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. GORE. It had been my understanding that the distinguished majority leader expected the debate to continue until 9 o'clock tonight, and that if it were not concluded at that time, it would be resumed tomorrow.

Mr. KNOWLAND. That is correct. Mr. GORE. I thank the majority leader.


Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its labors this evening it stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

ADMISSION OF COMMUNIST CHINA TO THE UNITED NATIONS Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement I recorded for the American Friends Serv"Our Friend in Washington," on the subice Committe's radio program entitled ject of seating Communist China in the United Nations, be printed in the body of the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:


In recent days the issue of the possible seating of Red China in the U. N. has been forcefully presented to the public, but in what I consider to be a misleading manner. As far as I know, there has been no official announcement that any one of our allies is going to propose the admission of Red China into the U. N., as a unilateral undertaking. It is, of course, possible-and even likelythat such a proposal might be made as part of a Far Eastern agreement for the settlement of the Korean and Indochinese conflicts. I have no inside information on this, but Prime Minister Churchill might well have discussed this possibility with President Eisenhower during his recent visit here. This is the only explanation for the recent excitement of Senator KNOWLAND and his rash statement that if Red China is admitted to the U. N. he will urge and insist that the

United States withdraw from the U. N. and resign its membership in that world organization.

two major subjects, one of which I have already discussed.

On behalf of the President of the

As a result of this statement by Senator United States, Vice President NIXON deKNOWLAND, there has been a sharp division of opinion in the Senate. There has been support for Senator KNOWLAND's position by some Republicans and by some Democrats, including the minority leader, Senator LYNDON JOHNSON. There has been strong opposition to Senator KNOWLAND's position that is, to his demand that the United

States withdraw from the United Nations if Red China is admitted-on the part of numerous Democrats, including, I may say, myself, and by Senators FULBRIGHT, GILLETTE, and SPARKMAN, among others.

The great danger, in any public discussion of this issue, is in failing to perceive that there are really two issues involved. One is the question of whether the United States Government should agree to the admission of Red China into the United Nations. The second issue is whether the United States should withdraw from the United Nations if Red China is, in fact, admitted by formal action of the United Nations.

As far as I am concerned, as of the present moment, I am opposed to admitting Red China into the United Nations. I am strongly and unreservedly opposed to such a move unless and until Red China can prove that she is willing to accept the full obligations of U. N. membership, including a devotion to peace and a respect for the integrity and sovereignty of her neighbors. The Communist regime must show that it is willing to conduct itself on a civilized basis and willing to contribute to the establishment of security, justice, and world peace. Until such a time I will continue to oppose it and I think the United States Government should oppose it.

But the worst and most disastrous attitude we could possibly take is the attitude expressed by Senator KNOWLAND—namely, that if the United Nations should at some time agree to the admission of Red China over our protest, we will withdraw from the U. N.

To take that attitude is to assume the same rigid and inflexible posture that has long characterized Soviet Russia. To take that attitude is to foreclose all possibilities of peaceful settlement of the Far Eastern conflicts by negotiation and agreement. The implication of this attitude is that our only solution to the situation in the Far East is total war. That solution will never be accepted by the other nations of the free world. I do not think it will be acceptable to the American people.

Any proposal to withdraw from the U. N. is, in my judgment, nothing but madness. To do so would be to abdicate our role of world leadership, won at such great cost. It would, of course, seriously cripple the U. N., but it would cripple us even more. It would isolate us. It would leave us friendless and alone. We would be without allies and without the respect and confidence of the other free nations of the world.

The United Nations, despite any imperfections it may have, and despite the many disappointments we have experienced as a result of its shortcomings, is still the best hope of peace and security in the world. Under no circumstances should we consider abandoning our membership in this great organization. We would be forfeiting our world leadership and our strength.


Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, it is seldom that I deliver two addresses in one day to this distinguished body. Today I am impelled to take the floor on

livered one of the most important addresses ever given in America. In it, the Chief Executive clearly demonstrated the need for more and better highways for a growing America. I say that this is a most challenging and a thrilling thing for the President to do. It pleases me beyond measure that recognition of a long time problem has been given by the top leader in this country.

This is not a new situation which the President is demanding that we take action on at this time. It has been with us and it has been known to us but not until the President spoke out in a forthright and clear manner, were Americans generally made aware of the sever necessity for building the roads that we need for the cars that we now own and operate and will own and operate in the future. In fact, the President says that $50 billion within the next 10 years-in addition to current normal expenditures-will be only a good start on the highway system we need for a population of 200 million Americans.

Mr. President, I believe that in the past we have lacked imagination with respect to the real need of the American public for highways.

I believe that the President, in speaking out, has stimulated and will continue to stimulate the imagination of the American people to the point where they will go to work now in the building of needed highways.

Most certainly, the economic growth of the United States demands an integrated and cooperative approach to the highway problem by the Federal Government and the 48 State governments.

Despite substantial, and sometimes sometimes magnificient, efforts by local government to provide 1954 model highways for 1954 model traffic, all efforts are essentially limited and even haphazard until together all interested authorities can devise the grand plan proposed by the President. The American economy is a unified economy of many widely separated but interdependent areas, industries and crops. The highway net essential to their common development must be based on a unified, an integrated plan. For the development of the absolutely necessary highway pattern, the common thread of Federal interest is essential.

My record with respect to highway development is such that I can thoroughly endorse the President's program oughly endorse the President's program of $50 billion overall increase in what we now spend for highways throughout the United States. Earlier in this session I introduced a highway measure that would have provided $2,208,000,000 Federal contribution for assistance to the States in new highway construction. I addressed the Senate at the time the Federal highway-aid extension bill was under debate and pointed out extensively the need for more highway funds. I must admit that I did not go quite so far as the President, but I am now saying to my colleagues that I am wholeing to my colleagues that I am wholeheartedly in accord with his proposal, and I intend to work for its adoption.

I know that the President's program will cause some concern to those who favor a reduction in Federal-aid payments to the States. In times past I also have favored the elimination, wherever possible, of such grant-in-aid programs. In the instant case, however, I am firmly of the opinion that the Federal Government has a national interest in our highway system for defense purposes. That interest cannot constitutionally be delegated to the States. Those who would argue against Federal participation, I believe, would not disagree with this principle, although they might not agree with respect to the amount of money to be spent for this purpose.

Not so many years ago we were told that the point of complete economic development had been reached and that there were no more frontiers to be opened. I believe that America is just starting, and will continue to have frontiers. It seems to me the President's proposal is ample demonstration that there are new horizons.

Because the people of this great Nation must continue pioneering, then we of the Congress must at all times keep pace with our ever increasing population. Americans have every right and should expect that their Government will do those things for them which are necessary and proper. In the field of highway construction we have traditionally assigned this responsibility to Government and the record of the past four decades shows that the various levels of Government have been able to meet this responsibility. But they have met the responsibility only in terms of the amount of money available to highway departments to do the job.

It has been a lack of money that has prevented the full development of our highway systems. As I stated, I believe we lacked imagination of what was going to be necessary in the future, rather than that we did not want to spend money for the highways.

There is no doubt in my mind that the building of highways affects every part of the Nation. No State can any longer build highways only to its border, and fail to connect a good highway with a good highway in another State. Those days are past. A highway system affects every hamlet in America. It affects the value of real estate along the highway and near the highway. It develops new horizons so far as the development and the building of small business are concerned. If we wish to help small business, here is one way in which we can actually help it. When I speak about small business, I mean a small business with a few employees, perhaps 25, although the new social security bill recognizes employers who employ as few as 4 people. That is the kind of business that will be promoted by the development of highways, and what makes America great is small business combined with big business. So by expanding and improving our highway system America can grow and be better able to defend itself.

It would be a sad thing indeed if in the event of an atomic attack we lost thousands of our citizens because we did not have the roads to permit them to speedily

evacuate under bombardment. It is a sad thing that thousands of our American citizens lose their lives every year because of the inadequacies of our highway system. That is a condition we can remedy. It is an outrage upon the heavily taxed motorist that he is not given the roads which are in good repair and in the best possible condition for his motoring pleasure. A large volume of our commercial goods are moved over highways by trucks, and we must have roads to keep the flow of commerce uninterrupted.

It would seem to me that every Member of Congress of both the House and Senate ought to study with extreme care the President's proposal. After such study there ought not to be a single vote against it in either House. I am told, and I read in the newspapers that certain things are national "musts." I am not sure in many instances that they are really vital requirements, but I am certain this highway construction program is in fact a "must."

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point the address prepared by the President and delivered by the Vice President before the Conference of Governors at Bolton Landing, N. Y.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ADDRESS OF VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON ΤΟ THE GOVERNORS CONFERENCE, LAKE GEORGE, N. Y., JULY 12, 1954 Governor Thornton, distinguished Governors of the States of the Union, the distinguished First Ladies of the States of the Union, guests of the governors conference:

I want you to know, first of all, that it is a great privilege for me to have had the opportunity to attend this conference for the brief time that I have today. There are a number of reasons for this. I haven't the time to mention them all, but there are 2 or 3 that I think would be of interest to you. One is that I have had the opportunity to see really very well this beautiful New York countryside. As we have sat here in the Sagamore Inn and looked out on the view from this window on Lake George I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no view in the United States which excels this one.

Now, Governor Dewey, I know that you will agree with that. You will note that my language is very, very careful in that respect; and Governor Knight will agree with me that that is the highest praise that a Californian could pay to any other view in America.

And the second reason that I am very privileged to be here is that it has given me an opportunity to renew acquaintances with the governors of the States, many of whom I have met at previous conferences that have been held in Washington, and in other areas.

One regret I have is that we have not had the opportunity to have renewed acquaintances with the first ladies of the States, but I see them in front of me, rather than in back of me, as the governors are, and that in itself is a reward, you can be sure.

May I say, too, that I realize that for each of us who is here tonight, that certainly it is a great disappointment that the President of the United States, who was scheduled to address you, is unable to be here because of the death of a member of his family who was very close to him, and very dear to him.

I am here, therefore, as a substitute. But no one, as you know, can substitute for the President of the United States, and I wouldn't

be so presumptuous as to indicate to you limited obligations: For national security, that I could. for foreign affairs, for leadership within the community of 48 States.

But the President had a message that he particularly wanted to deliver to this conference. He was good enough to give me the notes that he had made for delivery of that message. Now, incidentally, I know that his appearance at the conference was advertised as being an informal speech by the President, and I know that all of you will concur from his previous appearances before your conferences that in making this informal, such as previously, the President is very, very effective. But, having seen these notes, as you will learn in just a few moments, I can tell you that the President follows the rule that the best informal speech is the one that is very well prepared. And fortunately, those notes are available for me to talk to you this evening. Unfortunately, of course, the personality, the anecdotes, the interpolations, which make the notes live, as only the President can make the notes live, I cannot, of course, effectively bring to you. But I would like to bring to you the message as it has been set down in the notes, and then if time permits, perhaps to add at the end a few remarks of my own:

"The 48 States are represented at this conference, and each of them-in area, in population, in wealth-is greater than many independent nations in the world today. Each of them is great in potential achievement, because joined with 47 others, they form the mightiest of temporal teams-the United States of America.

"Now, against that background, where is the United States going, and by what road? What are the purposes of the United States of America, for the building of a cooperative peace. The strengthening of America and her friends are overriding purposes that must have a sound economic base. How can we assure such a base?

"At home, the United States of America must be an example of national progress in its standard of living. Measured by the prosperity, the culture, the health of the free individual, America is the best market place for American products.

"Abroad, the spiral in the world's standard of living means a spiral in purchasing power. And this, of course, is to the advantage of every American producer, every sound American investment in better world living standards will earn rich returns for America. And in a period of crises, ignited by circumstances often beyond present control or immediate remedy, we must maintain a military dike on our defense perimeter. But behind it we must achieve the fullest possible productive strength, exploiting every asset, correcting every deficiency in our economic situation. We don't want a blueprint for a regimented economy, but we must have vision, comprehensive plans, and cooperation between the States and Federal Government.

"And the road we should take is outlined by the American philosophy of government. What is that philosophy? The President likes to think of it in these terms: It is rooted in individual rights and obligations-expressed in maximum opportunity for every individual to use rights and to discharge obligations-maintained by keeping close to the individual his control over his government-it is sparked by local initiative, encouraged and furthered by the Federal Government. Financed traditionally by demanding of visible, tangible, and profitable return on every dollar spent. A tax economy of enterprises, directly or indirectly, which are self-liquidating.

"Now, that philosophy, applied to public affairs, is the middle road between chaos on the one side, and regimentation on the other.

"It is significant that in the United States we talk of individual rights, we talk of States rights-but not of Federal rights, because the Federal Government is normally considered a depository of certain well-defined and

"Now, in that light, what are the domestic jobs that must now be done to further the purposes of America? What is the prospect before us?

"First, on the bright side, we live in a dramatic age of technical revolution through atomic power, and we should recognize the fact that the pace is far faster than the simpler revolutions of the past. It was a very long generation from the Watt steam engine to a practical locomotive. It was less than 9 years from the atomic bomb to the launching of an atomic-powered submarine. We have seen a revolutionary increase in opportunity, comfort, leisure, and productivity of the individual.

"Thirty years ago, the machine economy was almost entirely limited to factories and transportation. Today it is in every area of living, even in the garden patches and on the front lawns.

"Look at the prospects in population. In 1870, the population of the United States was 381⁄2 million people, and our population growth in the previous half century was one of the wonders of the world.

"In 1970, the population of the United States, it is estimated, will reach 200 million. It will grow in the next 16 years as much as the entire population of the United States was in 1870.

"So much for the credit side. On the dark side, as we look into the future, we see a shortage of 300,000 classrooms in the grade schools of the country, a shortage of 813,000 hospital beds, an annual increase of 250,000 disabled who require vocational rehabilitation. And we have also dislocations in our economy requiring undesirable Government intervention-everything from subsidies even to outright seizure and control, in the recent past.

"Also on the dark side, we have a transportation system which in many respects it is true is the best in the world, but far from the best that America can do for itself in an era when defensive and productive strength require the absolute best that we can have.

"Now all of these needs must be attended to, along with the other unlimited problems in which we have common interests and common responsibilities. And all of them require some measure of FederalState cooperation. Some are insoluble, except in closest cooperation.

"For example, the top priority in our planning must be given to transportation, and to health and efficiency in industries to the national defense and the national economy. A Cabinet committee has just been established by the President to explore and to help formulate a comprehensive transportation policy for the Nation, taking into account the vital interests of carriers, shippers, the States and communities, the public at large. But more specifically, our highway net is inadequate locally, and obsolete as a national system.

"To start to meet this problem at this session of the Congress, we have increased by approximately $500 million the Federal moneys available to the States for road development. This seems like a very substantial sum. But the experts say that $5 billion a year for 10 years, in addition to all current, normal expenditures will pay off in economic growth; and when we have spent $50 billion in the next 10 years, we shall only have made a good start on the highways the country will need for a population of 200 million people.

"A $50-billion highway program in 10 years is a goal toward which we can-and we should-look.

"Now, let us look at the highway net of the United States as it is. What is wrong with it? It is obsolete, because in large part it

« PreviousContinue »