Many organizations have expressed their support of the principle of equal pay: the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the American Association of University Women, General Federation of Women's Clubs, National Council of Catholic Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Negro Women, the National Education Association, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, National League of Women Voters, National Women's Trade Union League, National Association of Women Lawyers, Young Women's Christian Association, United Church Women.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, in a policy declaration, stated it believed in the equal-pay principle but did not believe in Federal legislation.

The National Association of Manufacturers says:

The principle of equal pay for equal work performance within the wage structure of a

local business establishment is sound and should be observed. Rates of pay should be based on the nature and requirements of each job, irrespective of age, sex, or other personal factors of the worker.

How

Among individual industrialists who have recently been queried on the matter of equal pay for equal work, there appear to be divergent opinions regarding the validity of the proposed legislation. Most industrialists believe in the principle but look with a certain amount of foreboding on national legislation. They prefer an evolutionary program of education rather than legislation. They are concerned about inspectors, penalties, difficulties of enforcement. ever, I recognize that many people in this country, including Members of this Congress, leaders in industrial management, leaders in labor organizations, educators, women's organizations are not fully aware of the advantages and difficulties in the passage and enforcement of such a bill. I think it is important to bring all arguments, pro and con, before you so that you may have all the facts as to the benefits which this bill will bring to all the people.

I think it is wise to take a new look at the woman worker who is so important in our economy.

The typical woman at work today is in her late thirties, and she is married.

She works because she and her family need the money she earns. Her job is probably a clerical or factory job, fulltime. She may work less than a full year in any one place.

Her income runs between $1,500 and $2,000. This amount combined with her husband's salary gives the family an income of less than $5,000. The Women's

Bureau of the Department of Labor fig

ures-1952-show almost 19 million women holding jobs-one-third of this Nation's labor force.

These figures do more than suggest that this woman deserves our attention as "United States citizen, first-class."

It is true also that women generally own two-thirds of all privately owned war bonds, either alone or as co-owner; they hold 40 percent of the titles of 30 million homes in this country; they pay 40 percent of all property taxes; 80 per

cent of all inheritance taxes. They spend 80 percent of the national income.

Women made up 52 percent of the voters in the 1952 election. There are some 2 million more women than men today in our country. With the necessary withdrawal of men for the Armed Services, these figures may continue to increase. This will mean an even greater necessity for women to earn a decent wage. Should national emergencies arise, her services may again be desperately needed by industry.

The present spiritual and economic climate makes this a peculiarly propitious time for consideration of the whole question of equal pay.

Many experts believe that such a bill will stimulate our economy by increasing consumer purchasing power. If we have learned anything from the disturbed business cycles of the past two or three decades, it is that a high living standard and prosperous business conditions cannot exist if the worker cannot buy the products of his or her labor. Yet, if large numbers of women can be hired at less than the prevailing rates for men, their competition is likely to result either in the displacement of the men or in men's acceptance of lower rates. The eventual result is reduced purchasing power and lower standards of living for all workers.

The payment of lower rates to women for work comparable with men's has adverse effect on the best use of workers. By creating so-called men's jobs and women's jobs, it cuts down free choice of work opportunities for all. Men will not take women's jobs because of their lower rates of pay, and men resent the hiring of women for men's jobs for fear that the rates will be cut if women are brought in. This creates what might be called a frozen labor market, and industry itself suffers because of it.

It is to industry's advantage that workers be able to move freely, as the situation demands, from one job to another, but the artificial barrier set up by unequal wage rates prevents industry from employing workers on the most efficient basis. The widespread establishment of a rate for the job, irrespective of sex, would make a genuine contribution toward creating labor mobility and increased industrial efficiency.

many different opinions on the question. I recognize, of course, that there are Before any bill is passed, these viewpoints have to be adjusted and reconciled. There are the points of view of industrial management, of organized labor, of women's organizations, of educators, of the women who work.

I hope that the discussions which may arise from presentation of available facts

will give the American people as a whole an opportunity to express their wishes.

DEFINITION

The increasing number of women in industry has made the question of equal pay for comparable work of growing importance. In two world wars the Federal Government supported the principle eral Government supported the principle of equal pay for women. Various States adopted such legislation.

Equal pay for comparable work by definition is the application of a rate or definition is the application of a rate or

rate range for the job without regard to the sex of the worker. There are sound methods of job evaluation by which it is possible to weigh the duties, responsibilities, and working conditions and fix the rate of pay for each job. Job evaluation has almost eliminated the difficulty of setting up criteria.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Demands for Government action for equal pay arose as early as 1868, when the National Labor Union Convention passed a resolution urging Federal and State Governments "to pass laws securing equal salaries for equal work to all women employed under the various departments of Government."

The Classification Act of 1923 established for Federal workers the rate for the job, irrespective of sex. Just last week the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service approved an amendment to the new Federal pay bill-H. R. 8093-permitting appeal to the Civil Service Commission where persons are passed over on job eligibility lists because of their sex. For many years, women's organizations, labor unions, and many others both inside and outside the Government have urged that the Federal Government should enact an equal-pay law.

Many unions, however, have long pressed for equal-pay provisions in their contracts and in legislation.

to the extent of wage discrimination It is difficult to obtain information as against women throughout the United States. Many instances of unequal pay in individual plants or establishments have come to my attention. The dual method by which employers and unions wage structure in contracts is one avoid paying women the man's rate for the job.

In some arbitration awards interpreting union contracts the arbitrator has held that although women perform the same work as men and receive a lower pay rate, they are not entitled to the in existence for a number of years and same pay since the differential has been the union has implicitly condoned it, making no protestation.

A number of States have passed legislation of one sort or State action cannot of itself reach the another, but national goal. It might be interesting States have done. This recapitulation to take up at this point just what the may serve as background for recommendations looking to Federal legislation.

Achievement by women in the First World War resulted in the passage of equal-pay laws in two States, Montana and Michigan.

Wartime developments and the War Labor Board action have helped collective-bargaining agreements and have helped the establishment of job evaluation systems under which pay differentials based on sex have been abolished.

The demand for legislative action during the Second World War resulted in the passage by a number of States of equal-pay laws. In one decade 12 States passed equal-pay laws.

Today, in addition to Michigan and Montana, there are equal pay laws in Illinois, Washington, New York, Massa

chusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, California, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, and the Territory of Alaska.

However, among these 14 equal-pay laws, very few are free of loopholes. In In Illinois, the Department of Labor has no responsibility to enforce the law. In Illinois and Michigan, the law covers only workers in manufacturing industries. In California, Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, wage discrimination is permitted if sanctioned by a collective-bargaining agreement. In California, Illinois, Maine, Pennsyl

vania, and Rhode Island, laws enumerate many factors upon which wage differenIn New York and tials can be based. Washington, wage differentials are permitted if based on "factors other than sex." The New Jersey law permits "a reasonable factor or factors other than

sex" on which to base wage differentials. Such terminology has, in many cases, been used to evade the intent of the laws. In many States the labor commissioner does not have the power to take wage assignments and sue in behalf of the employee. In most States inadequate appropriations make administration of the

equal pay laws difficult. No State's laws attempt to eliminate inequalities between rates paid for so-called men's and

women's jobs.

Some States require equal pay for teachers and for State employees. Sixteen States and the District of Columbia have equal pay laws for teachers. About

one-half the States have civil-service

systems in which equal pay for men and women is generally required in all branches of the State government.

However, experience has shown that the limited orbit of State laws cannot cure an evil which is nationwide in its extent. Today, practically all American business and industry touches on interstate commerce. Very few businesses or industries operate on a strictly intrastate basis. For this reason, broad, uniform, countrywide Federal legislation would seem to be needed. Such Federal Such Federal legislation could: First, eliminate many labor disputes caused by discriminatory wage practices; second, lessen unfair competition among employers; third, raise living standards of all workers and their dependents; fourth, contribute to maximum labor force efficiency and flexibility; fifth, increase the prestige of the United States among the nations of the world; and, above all else, sixth, grant justice to women workers.

Let me touch briefly on each of these points:

LABOR DISPUTES CAUSED BY DISCRIMINATION

Unrest, and even strikes, result from

employers' resistance to granting equal

pay. Walter P. Reuther testified at a congressional hearing that the fight for equalization of women's rates had prolonged strikes in some plants of General Motors. Joseph A. Beirne, president, Communications Workers of America, has testified that the question of equal pay was always one of the stumbling blocks in contract negotiations.

UNFAIR COMPETITION

The Senate report on the Women's Equal Pay Act of 1950 points out that

employers in the States with equal-pay laws are now at a competitive disadvantage in interstate transactions. Furthermore, it states that Federal legislation would benefit employers now voluntarily applying the equal-pay principle by eliminating unfair competition from those areas paying lower wages to women.

LIVING STANDARDS

Labor unions have presented many exresults in lower wages for men and n amples of how unequal pay for women lower living standards for many American families. Says Mr. T. R. Owens, of

the United Rubber Workers, CIO:

Wherever there are two sets of rates in a

plant, there is a continual attempt to bring all rates down to the lower level. Thus industries with a labor force having large proportions of women have lower wage rates than industries employing chiefly men. This is true, for instance, of the cotton tex

tile industry, where the majority of workers

are women.

Wage differentials occur in industries where studies have been made, for instance, in the meat-cutting industry.

In 1953, women's hourly rate was 5 cents less than men's. Before collective bargaining, it was as much as 102 cents an hour less. This is true of other inthe Labor Department. dustries, as shown by studies made by

It is important, for instance, to remedy

In other countries the matter has had attention of the government. The British Government announced that it would start applying, in all departments, the principle of equal pay for women. By March 1955, the old practice of paying women less than men for the same work would have been completely eliminated. This should affect all British industry.

On August 15, 1945, Pope Pius XII told the Congress of the Italian Catholic Women Workers, "the Church has always held that women should receive the same pay as men for equal work and

output."

JUSTICE TO WOMEN WORKERS

Statistics show that American women work in order to support or help support themselves and their families.

In 1950, the median income of husband-wife families in which the wife was

working was $4,003. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a minimum family budget for a city worker's family of four was $3,727 in October 1950. In many families, the wife's entire earnings are essential if the family is to maintain any kind of a standard of living. As Miss Elizabeth Christman pointed out when she represented the National Women's Trade Union League at congressional hearings, a loaf of bread has the same price no matter who purchases it.

It is interesting that both the political

parties have had equal pay planks in their platforms.

Republican:

For in

A number of important problems still remain in regard to equal pay and collective bargaining. Unequal pay is still the rule where no strong union or no union exists. Unequal pay practices are justified by various devices. stance, names of the same job vary; first, when performed by men; second, when performed by women. Or a man's job is changed slightly or renamed for performance by a woman, at a lower rate of pay. A number of such devices are used to get around the problem.

Regrettably, we have no comprehensive plant-by-plant job-by-job wage data of the extent to which equal pay for comparable work for women and men is practiced in the United States. Weekly earnings of production workers in certain manufacturing industries in several States are striking examples of the lower level of women's earnings.

The United Automobile Workers, CIO, gives an example of how unequal pay for women can force men to accept lower

wage rates. In the Delco-Remy plant in Anderson, Ind., a 16-cent differential existed between male and female rates for the same or comparable work. After V-J Day, management hired more women, while at the same time refusing to hire males, a large percentage of whom were veterans. When management refused to eliminate the differential, the union accepted a compromise. Women were placed on the day shift and new male employees were put on the afternoon shift where the rates were higher.

We favor legislation assuring equal pay for

Democratic:

We believe in equal pay for equal work regardless of sex, and we urge legislation to make that principle effective.

So far they have but gathered dust.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic, social, moral, and political reasons all seem to point to the need for adequate equal pay legislation.

The problem we face as a free Nation dedicated to justice and opportunity for the individual spreads itself out before us as the exigencies of living continue to force women into the labor market. What is the way to meet it? A century has passed since women first were openly accepted as part of the labor force. Now women actually form a third of that force. What is the best way to bring about the result? How can we best insure her receiving the same pay as a man whose work is the same as her own?

It seems to me that is a question with which this Congress must deal in the

very near future.

The bill I introduced in the 83d Con

gress dies at the adjournment hour. While I do not feel that the failure of this attempt was caused by any apparent flaws in H. R. 7172, neither does this preclude the possibility that I may take a different approach at a future session of Congress. What should be in the bill which the 84th Congress considers?

I shall greatly appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the whole matter and shall hope you will let me have your thoughts and your suggestions as a guide for possible future legislation.

WHAT THE 83D CONGRESS HAS

DONE FOR SEATTLE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CANFIELD). Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. PELLY] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives concludes the regular order of another day's business, I rise to speak in a rather personal way.

This session of the 83d Congress will soon adjourn, and from now on our sessions may be longer and our patience shorter. So, while the Members are still in a friendly and receptive mood, I want to take advantage of the situation.

My one purpose in addressing the House today is to discharge the deep sense of obligation I feel to the Members of this body for the unfailing courtesy, help, and cooperation given me since the 83d Congress convened in January 1953.

When I have called on you, Mr. Speaker, or upon the individual Members of this House, for information or sympathetic consideration of a problem, you have invariably earned my gratitude, and the results have been of real importance to the people of Seattle and Kitsap County. We of the First Congressional District owe a great debt to those in the legislative and executive branches of the Government.

(d) Utilization of the merchant-marine reserve fleet at Olympia for storage of surplus wheat.

(e) A congressional fact-finding hearing on on the transportation problems which have plagued the Seattle water

front for so long. It is perhaps significant that there has been no major waterfront shutdown since those hearings; untold benefit to the city has followed.

(f) Favorable consideration of several pieces of legislation, including two resolutions authorizing free import of goods for the third and fourth international trade fairs in Seattle, and a bill which will save the shipping industry thousands of operation dollars annually by allowing quarantine inspections during overtime hours.

(g) The transfer of several MSTS vessels to Seattle from San Francisco as their home port, with a resulting boost their home port, with a resulting boost for Seattle's most important interest, the maritime industry.

(h) Reconsideration at my request of a holdover Defense Department procurement policy, which means that $100 million formerly designated for expenditure each year in foreign shipyards now goes to domestic shipyards.

(i) Successful conclusion of a temporary agreement, through the intercession of the State Department with the

Mr. PELLY. I yield.

Mr. ARENDS. I would like to say to the gentleman from Washington that in like manner we would express ourselves on this side of the aisle by saying that we have enjoyed not only the fellowship but the complete cooperation of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. PELLY], in the legislative programs that we have had up since he has been a socalled new Member. He has been tireless in his efforts and worked continuously for the best interests of the people of his district. It is Members like the gentleman from Washington [Mr. PELLY], who have made possible this fine constructive program we are trying to put through in this Congress.

Mr. PELLY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, let me cite a few examples:

(a) After a quarter of a century of waiting, the Public Works Committee finally recommended authorization of the Ballard breakwater and small-boat basin in Shilshole Bay outside the Government locks.

(b) After years of waiting, Seattle is getting a new terminal post office.

(c) Enough modernization and conversion work has been allocated to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton to keep the yard in its present position as the top public shipyard in the Nation from the standpoint of workload. I might say that this is as it should be, because the performance of the Puget Sound yard has been outstanding with regard to economy of operation, meeting time schedules, and quality of workmanship. This fine record fully justified the Navy's decision to give the yard the first $40 million modernization of a Midway class carrier.

across the Canadian boundary on the Skagit River. This will allow Seattle City Light to meet its power demands without difficulty for at least another

year.

For these actions and many, many more my constituents deeply appreciate the assistance of this Congress and this administration. On their behalf and for myself I extend to this body my sincere gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, since early 1953 we of this House of Representatives have considered and debated, pro and con, many issues important to the American people. issues important to the American people. A good part of President Eisenhower's recommended program has passed the House. By and large, it has been a series of measures designed to be liberal in relation to the needs of the people, but conservative in the spending of their money. All partisanship aside, it is a good program, and if the President is given congressional support during the 84th Congressional support during the 84th Congress, the Eisenhower era will go down as one of the great periods in the history of the Republic.

It has been a great satisfaction to have had a part in liberalizing the socialsecurity system.

It has been even more gratifying to be able to give the hard-pressed wage earners and taxpayers of the Nation tax reductions approximating $7 billion.

The achievements of the 83d Congress in the elimination of waste, duplication, and unnecessary expenditures, in doing and unnecessary expenditures, in doing away with wage and price controls, and in holding the line against the inflation that was destroying our buying power, have all made me proud to be a Member of the legislative branch of the Government. But what has given me the most satisfaction is that I have been part of an administration that terminated the

bloodshed and killing of American boys in Korea.

Right now, fortunately, my district is in good sound economic condition, even considering that the war boom is over. The transition has been far easier than one might have expected.

Since I have represented the First Congressional District of the State of Washington many problems have come to me. Some of these have been successfully concluded, some are now in the process of solution and, of course, there were many which had no solution.

Mr. Speaker, during the two sessions of the 83d Congress I have worked on over 100 matters of major importance to my district. Week by week and day by day they have claimed my attention. Many of these projects, some of them already mentioned, appear to be successOthers, such as fully accomplished. to keeping passenger ships running Alaska, obtaining cargoes for American merchant ships-of vital importance to the port of Seattle-and keeping the shipbuilding industry alive, are continuing problems which obviously cannot be solved at any one time by any single action.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. I feel that the 83d Congress has accomplished a great deal. Personally, after reviewing the legislation we have passed, I have a sense of real satisfaction. Couple this with the record of the administration in such important respects as the great progress in achieving racial equality, in removing poor security risks from sensitive Government positions, in the elimination of waste of taxpayers' money and increasing the efficiency of Government, gives me a sense of pride and of having kept faith with preelection promises.

I will go back to my district with a feeling of achievement. Meanwhile, again, I thank all Members of the House for their cooperation and the great privilege of association with such a fine group of legislators.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION ACT

Mr. McCONNELL submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (S. 2759) to amend the Vocational Rehabilitation Act so as to promote and assist in the extension and improvement of vocational rehabilitation services, provide for a more effective use of available Federal funds, and otherwise improve the provisions of that act, and for other purposes.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH IN

EDUCATION

Mr. McCONNELL submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 9040) to authorize cooperative research in education.

WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON

EDUCATION

Mr. McCONNELL submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 7601) to provide for a White House conference on education.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ON EDUCATION

Mr. McCONNELL submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 7434) to establish a National Advisory Committee on Education.

TELECASTING AND BROADCASTING OF CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CANFIELD). Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MEADER] is recognized for 10 minutes.

of the gentleman from New York [Mr. RIEHLMAN] to consider the matter of

telecasting and broadcasting our committee proceedings. The gentleman from New York [Mr. RIEHLMAN] asked me if I cared to make any comments on revision of this rule with respect to telecasting. I did so. I addressed a letter to him under date of July 16 setting forth my comments on the proposed reconsidings. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I said that eration of telecasting committee hearI believe telecasting and broadcasting should be permitted within the sound discretion of the committee upon the same type of vote by which the commit

of the regular subcommittees, or any of the special subcommittees which may be appointed, shall be telecast or broadcast, whether directly or through such devices as wire recordings, wire tapes, motion pictures. or other mechanical means, unless approved committees. Such consent shall be expressed by unanimous consent of the member of such regular subcommittee or of any special subby ballot and the vote on such ballot shall

not be released to the public unless the vote is unanimous: Provided, That if any member of any regular subcommittee, or any

to call the attention of the House to the very controversial question of whether or not committee hearings should be broadcast and telecast.

Members will recall that in the last Congress the present Speaker of the House [Mr. MARTIN] propounded a parliamentary inquiry and the former Speaker of the House [Mr. RAYBURN] ruled that, in his opinion, committees did not have the power to authorize the broadcasting or telecasting of their proceedings.

My understanding of that statement by former Speaker RAYBURN was that it was not a precedent binding upon the House but merely the expression of an opinion in response to a parliamentary inquiry.

I also understand that the present Speaker of the House has indicated informally that, were the question presented to him for ruling, his ruling would be that the committees in their own discretion could decide what media of communication could be permitted to report the public proceedings of committees.

Mr. Speaker, in the 82d Congress I introduced a resolution to amend the rules of the House to make it clear that committees had the discretion to decide what media of communication could report their hearings.

The Committee on Government Operations, of which I am a member, has taken action in this connection. It adopted a rule which, in my judgment, was unwise. On February 4 of this year on motion of the gentleman from California [Mr. CONDON], the Government Operations Committee adopted a rule, or an amendment to an existing rule, rule 13 (a) and (b). The effect of the amendment is to prohibit regular or special subcommittees from telecasting or broadcasting their hearings except by unanimous consent. With respect to the full committee the rule provides that there must be an affirmative vote of a constitutional majority, in other words, more than one-half of the authorized membership of the committee, before the full committee proceedings could be broadcast or telecast. I voted against that amendment. My colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HOFFMAN], chairman of the Committee on Government Operations, and I, were the only members of the committee to vote against the adoption of that rule.

The committee is now reconsidering that action. A special subcommittee was appointed under the chairmanship

a majority of those present and voting, a quorum being present.

Mr. Speaker, to require unanimous consent on a matter such as broadcasting and telecasting, in my judgment, goes too far in the direction of minority rule. I am impressed by the passage in the introduction of the Rules of the House

by our parliamentarian, Mr. Deschler, to

the effect that the rules of the House are very finely adjusted and so developed that a majority can work its will at all times, even in the face of the most vigorous opposition of a minority.

As I view it, last February the majority of the Government Operations Committee abdicated its power to take action not just to the minority but to one single member. Regardless of the desires of the rest of the membership, one member can block the telecasting of subcommittee hearings.

I think persons who regard those new devices for transmission of news as something to be feared are perhaps a little bit behind the times. I think those new mediums of bringing the Government closer to the people are in the public interest. Eventually I believe the public will insist upon using this instrument for knowing about the public business. Therefore, it is my hope that when the Government Operations Committee considers this problem-and I understand they will do so day after tomorrow-they will unhesitatingly repeal the rule ill advisedly adopted last February.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I ask unanimous consent to incorporate in my remarks a letter I wrote to the gentleman from New York [Mr. RIEHLMAN], on July 16, setting forth my views on this subject.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CANFIELD). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection.

wise unavailable for such vote on such ballot, his consent shall not be necessary, if at least a quorum of such regular subcommittee or special subcommittee unanimously approves such telecast or broadcast.

"Rule 13 (b): *** None of the hearings of the full committee shall be telecast or broadcast by any of the means set forth in rule 13 (a) unless approved by ballot, by a majority of the members of the full committee (not merely a majority of the members present and voting)."

In effect, those rules prohibit telecasting or broadcasting of subcommittee hearings except by unanimous consent evidenced by secret ballot, and of hearings of the full committee except by approval by ballot of a majority of the membership of the full committee (a "constitutional majority").

I oppose that rule on both procedural and substantive grounds.

The general rule in the House of Representatives, and its committees, is that valid decisions are made by vote of a simple majority, that is the majority of those present and voting, a quorum being present (rule XV, 4). The rules of the House are expressly made the rules of its standing committees (rule XI, 25 (a)).

A simple majority can take action on all legislative and procedural questions except those regarded for special reasons as being of exceptional gravity or lasting consequence.

A simple majority vote can declare war, levy taxes, appropriate public funds, raise criminal penalties and decide on all kinds of the limitation on the public debt, impose matters of far-reaching national policy.

Examples of questions requiring more than a simple majority vote are amendments to the Constitution, overriding a veto, expulsion of a Member, rejecting a presidential reorganization plan and conviction on impeachment.

garded as sufficiently important to require a unanimous vote.

No question, procedural or legislative, is re

JULY 16, 1954.

Hon. R. WALTER RIEHLMAN,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military
Operations, Government Operations
Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

DEAR WALTER: You have invited my comment on modification of Rule 13 (a) and (b) of the Rules of the Committee on Govern

ment Operations adopted February 4, 1954.

You may recall I opposed the adoption of this rule. I believe it should be repealed. Rule 13 reads as follows:

"Hearings-the taking of testimony-are to be conducted in an orderly, dignified manner, the committee keeping in mind the

be well taken.

Whether valid or void as a matter of legality, rule 13 (a) and (b) is unwise and unsound. In effect, it deprives the majority of the right to run a committee. Not only does hands of any one member of a subcomit place control in a minority, but in the mittee who, by a single objection, can prevent the broadcasting and telecasting of committee hearings regardless of the wishes of all the other members. This is essentially unparliamentary as the comment of the House Parliamentarian, Lewis Deschler, indicates in this very well expressed passage from the introduction to the Rules of the House:

"From the beginning of the First Congress the House has formulated rules for its

procedure. Some of them have since gone out of existence. More of them have been amplified and broadened to meet the exigencies that have arisen from time to time. Today they are perhaps the most finely adjusted, scientifically balanced, and highly technical rules of any parliamentary body in the world. Under them a majority may work its will at all times in the face of the most determined and vigorous opposition of a minority."

As I appraise the importance of telecasting and broadcasting committee hearings it does not justify requiring action to be taken by a degree of voting more difficult to obtain than that by which all other action of a committee is taken. Certainly the decision on what media of communication shall be permitted to report committee proceedings is simply one of the housekeeping matters which ought to be in the discretion of the majority at all times. It, in my judgment, cannot rise to the dignity and importance of recommending favorable action on bills or resolutions or the filing of committee reports with the House, all of which action is taken by simple majority vote.

Leaving the procedural question, I am unable to agree with the philosophy of rule 13 (a) and (b) on the merits. Public hearings of committees are a legitimate matter of public interest. Any means of communicating the work of a public agency such as a congressional committee to the people of the United States, subject to the control of the committee in its sound discretion, should be effectively utilized to the end that there may be an informed electorate. I have difficulty in distinguishing between agencies or channels of communication where they bear upon reporting of public activities on any basis of principle. The official record of the committee, the transcript of testimony, and the accounts of news reporters, columnists, or commentators are essentially the same, as I view it, as the actual verbatim tape recording, live or transcribed newsreel cameras, and live or transcribed telecasting. If there is a distinction between those media of communication, it would appear that there was less opportunity for distortion, slanting, or editing in the telecasting and broadcasting of proceedings than in other media of reporting committee proceedings which, of necessity, must be hearsay in their character.

Those who would stop or attempt to stop this new and powerful method of bringing Government closer to the people, I predict, will be unsuccessful in the long run. Telecasting and broadcasting are here to stay, and the public will eventually insist upon these new channels for observing the conduct of the public business. I for one have no fear of the public scrutiny of public proceedings. If an individual citizen has the right to be present and observe the proceedings of a committee in person, I see no reason why he should not have the privilege of using the instrumentality of television or of radio broadcasting to observe the conduct

of the Nation's business.

I can foresee that it may be necessary in the future to prevent editing and slanting or exploitation of public proceedings for commercial purposes, but in my judgment these possible abuses cannot be anticipated completely in advance and detailed, rigid rules adopted in a vacuum. These matters should

be left within the sound discretion of the committee to be acted upon when the issue arises.

In conclusion, I might say that I do not share the apparent distrust of the sound judgment of my colleagues which the adoption of these rules implies. I am not obliv

ious to weaknesses in human character and freely recognize that there have been abuses in the past and that there will be abuses in the future, but, by and large, my experience in the House of Representatives has

led me to respect my colleagues and to regard them as mature, sober citizens who can be trusted to exercise good judgment at least as frequently as persons in any other walk of life.

The work of the Congress is important. The complicated problems we face today can best be handled through the committee system where a smaller group of men can give detailed study to a subject. Committees are the point of contact between the elected legislator, the administrative official, and the private citizen. It is the forum where views, opinions, arguments, and facts are expressed and considered. The factfinding process and the interchange of views are necessary as a basis for sound legislation. If thorough consideration is to be given to public problems within the limited time a committee can devote to it, there must be flexibility and freedom in the committee to manage its business. Rigid, straight-jacketing rules which obstruct and delay the committee's work are therefore not in the public interest.

Sincerely,

GEORGE MEADER, Member of Congress.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MEADER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Is it not true, speaking generally, that heretofore the public has been dependent for its information as to the business transacted by congressional committees upon what the reporters and, perhaps, editorial writers and radio commentators and columnists have had to say and write and that the people generally did not hear and see the actual proceedings?

Mr. MEADER. The gentleman is correct, and being an excellent trial lawyer in his home State of Michigan, I know that he is fully aware of the reliability of primary evidence as compared with hearsay evidence, and I think he has very well pointed out that news reports and comments by radio commentators are hearsay; they are secondhand and never can be quite as good as the original article.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. And the accuracy of what the people get depends, perhaps, in the first instance, upon what the reporter hears and understands as to what the witness said. Then again, following that, upon the degree of accuracy with which the reporter transmits his views to maybe the city editor or whoever it is in the newspaper office who writes it. Then you have the rewrite man, while if you had radio and telecast, the people themselves hear and they see what happens and they are able to judge for themselves as to the intent to be conveyed by the witnesses.

Mr. MEADER. I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. I would like to ask the gentleman if he does not agree with me that since a member of the public, any citizen, has the right to be present in person at a public hearing of a committee, he should also have the right to be there, not in person, but through the instrument of telecasting and radio broadcasting devices.

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Yes, I agree with the gentleman in that, and I think that while television may in the beginning have had an attraction for some of us to get in front of the camera and put on a show, most of us have dis

covered that if you are a ham, television will expose you just as quickly as it will promote your good qualities, if you have any, so that in the end what people get through the radio, through the broadcast, and through the telecast, is an accurate picture of just exactly what is going on.

PENDING ATOMIC ENERGY
LEGISLATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. CANFIELD). Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the majority leadership has indicated that the atomic energy bill, H. R. 9757, may be brought up this week. This bill, consisting of 104 pages, and almost as many sections, is an exceedingly complicated piece of legislation. It deals with matters of the utmost importance to America's future. As the Members may be aware from the debate going on in the other body with regard to the companion bill, S. 3690, many serious questions have been raised about the inadequacies of the bill and its failure to protect the public interest at crucial points.

I am greatly concerned, myself, at the numerous shortcomings in H. R. 9757. Later in these remarks I shall set forth the views that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PRICE] and I, as members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, share with regard to what we believe are errors of omission and commission in the atomic energy bill.

Various Members have signified to me their desire to introduce amendments to particular provisions of H. R. 9757. For the convenience of these and other Members who may wish to prepare themselves for the debate on the atomic energy legislation I have assembled 33 relatively brief amendments.

The amendments are numbered consecutively as they would appear in successive sections or pages of the bill, H. R. 9757. However, they are grouped for convenience in discussion. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed at this point in connection with these remarks.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The matter referred to follows:) Amendment No. 1: On page 3, at the bottom, add the following new subsection:

"i. In achieving the maximum contribution of atomic energy to the general welfare

it is essential that the United States, through its own agencies and through other agencies, public and private, undertake a comprehensive program for the production and distribution of electrical power utilizing atomic energy."

Amendment No. 2: On page 4, after line 20, add the following new subsection e and renumber sections e and f as f and g, respectively.

"e. A program for Government and nonGovernment production and distribution of electrical power utilizing atomic energy so directed as to achieve the maximum public benefits of atomic energy development and make the maximum contribution to the national welfare."

Amendment No. 3: On page 10, line 24, after the word "actions", place a comma and insert the following: "equal access to all