dent is engaged in boondoggling when he advocates the expenditure of $82,600,000 for maritime activities?

Mr. CLEVENGER. I did not say so and the gentleman cannot put words in my mouth.

Mr. ROONEY. When the gentleman opposes this pending amendment which the President has asked for, does he not, in effect, accuse him of starting a boondoggling project?

Let me say to the gentleman with regard to his ill-advised remarks on labor in the shipyards and his statement that he does not understand why we cannot build ships at the same cost at which they are built in foreign shipyards: I daresay that if the gentleman inquired around, he would find that every other Member of this House knows the answer to that question. They do not pay the wages in foreign shipyards that are paid in American shipyards. Our standard of living, thank God, is higher and entirely different from what it is in foreign countries. Is there anything very wrong about that? So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to stop building our own ships? I understand that at the present time in Great Britain alone there are about 550 ships on the ways. How many ships are on the ways in the United States? How is one supposed to feel when he sees, as I did on television last night, the brand new luxury Italian liner Cristoforo Colombo? I give Italy and the Italian people great credit for building that liner, which has just come off the ways and which is making her maiden trip. But what has the American merchant marine outside of the liners United States, America, Constitution, and Independence? Why is it that we carry only a small share of the trans-Atlantic passengers?

Does the gentleman not think it is worthwhile to have the American flag flying over representative vessels putting in at ports of call throughout the world, for American prestige? Does he not think that this is worth something in dollars and cents at a time when the world is so chaotic and when we have such dangerous international complications as have developed within the last year?

Would the gentleman defy the President, or is he going to be so bold and reckless, as I suggested here yesterday, as to stand up and support the President of the United States?

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

Mr. ROONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. PELLY. The gentleman mentioned the figure 500 as the number of ships being built in English shipyards. Is it not true that 120 of those are being built for Americans?

Mr. ROONEY. They are being built with American money, there is not a bit of doubt about that.

Yesterday, in connection with the American merchant marine, I said you would be decimating it if you refused these ship-construction funds. I fear that that was an understatement so far as this situation is concerned. I should have said you would be destroying the American merchant marine.

Mr. PELLY. Is it not true that the foreign shipyards have a 2 years' backlog of work, when by October we will have only 3 ships under construction in our own shipyards?

Mr. ROONEY. I believe that is so, may I say to the gentleman, and I compliment him on being interested in unemployment in the shipyards, as he should be.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the pending amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH] and the perfecting amendment which I shall offer.

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes, 5 minutes thereto close in 40 minutes, 5 minutes to be reserved to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON].

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. TOLLEFSON].

(Mr. YOUNGER, Mr. SEELY-BROWN, Mr. SCUDDER, Mr. DORN of New York, Mr. ALLEN of California, and Mr. PELLY asked and were given permission to yield the time allotted to them to Mr. TOLLEFSON.)

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Mr. Chairman, let me first express my appreciation to those Members who have yielded their time to me, as I did hope I would get more than the short time allotted to me to say something about this item in the appropriation bill.

I am satisfied that the gentleman from Ohio, who is the chairman of the subcommittee handling this matter, has no desire to destroy or kill the American merchant marine. I feel that he does I feel that he does not have complete understanding of the American merchant marine.

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

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I yield.

Mr. TABER. Does the gentleman realize that this amendment, and the operation of the subsidy system, is rapidly driving the American merchant marine off the high seas?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. No; I do not. Mr. TABER. Well, the statement I have made is correct.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I would dispute the gentleman's word, or rather the position that he has taken with respect to that argument. Let me discuss this matter just a moment. I started to say that I I started to say that I am satisfied that the gentleman from Ohio does not understand that the American merchant marine is the fourth American merchant marine is the fourth arm of our defense, and is so considered by the military authorities of our Nation. At the conclusion of World War II the admiral in charge of naval operations made the statement that if it had not been for the American merchant marine fleet, the Navy never would have been able to accomplish its mission in Europe. You do not fight a war without a merchant fleet. The Navy does not carry the men and the materials and guns and whatnot to the farflung fighting fronts overseas. Those items of war are carried by the American merchant marine. The military recognizes that

fact. In recent months the National Security Council, the Office of Defense Mobilization, and military representatives have made it clear that there is— First. A serious deficiency of tankers in our reserve fleet.

Second. They have made it clear that we need some high-speed new tankers which might have an opportunity to evade the attacks of submarines operated by the enemy.

I do not know whether the House knows it, but today Russia owns six times as many submarines as Germany did at the outset of World War II.

Third. The agencies that I have mentioned have indicated they recognize the plight of the commercial shipbuilding yards in the United States.

He

My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, made reference to a statement made by Admiral Leggett to the effect that the private or commercial shipyards promise to be the most vulnerable area of our whole defense program. Now, Admiral Leggett did not say that the most vulnerable area was the possibility of the shortage of battleships, tanks, and guns and so forth. said it was the plight of our commercial shipyards. The President recognizes that and so he sent to the House through the appropriate agencies two tanker bills. One went to the Committee on Armed Services and one to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Both of those tanker bills were approved by the House without a single negative vote. They passed the House without a single negative vote on the theory that we needed those tankers as a matter of national defense. Some reference has been made to operating subsidies here and to construction subsidies. Let me say with respect to the tanker bill of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries there is not 1 penny of construction differential subsidy. All that the Government is doing is buying for about one-third the cost of construction these tankers, from operators who agreed to build new high-speed tankers. There is not 1 penny, as I have stated, of construction differential subsidy in that bill. Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I yield.

Mr. SHELLEY. And contrary to the statement previously made, these tankers which are to be turned in are not overage, but rather are underaged tankers, is that not correct? And they also have some useful life remaining in them and will be held in reserve.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is correct. They have at least one-half of their useful life left in them. ful life left in them. The Navy testified before our committee that they will be a welcome addition to the reserve tanker fleet.

Some reference has been made to operating subsidies. The gentleman from Ohio made some mention of that. Let me say that there is not 1 penny of operating subsidy in this bill nor in this amendment. There is no operating subsidy in connection with the construction of these ships. tion of these ships. So that argument is a diversionary argument, and is merely a straw man. The gentleman from Ohio criticized the Mariner construction

program. I am quite amused at that because those mariners were built at a cost of $350 million, and the program was sponsored by the Committee on Appropriations itself. Those mariners were not built under legislative authority emanating from the appropriate legislative committee of the Congress, but they were built under a rider attached to an appropriation bill, and our committee has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Mr. ALLEN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I yield.

Mr. ALLEN of California. Is it not true that under those circumstances the 10 tankers and the 4 passenger ships that will be built will be built by private industry suiting the vessels to the need of the trades rather than being built by the Government, as was the case with the Mariners?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is correct. Had the mariner program come through the proper legislative committee, I am satisfied we would have had a mariner construction program that would not receive the criticism it is receiving today. But I want to emphasize the fact that that was a matter that came out of the Appropriations Committee, not out of the appropriate legislative committee of the House.

I want to say a word about the four liners that are proposed in the bill under this item. Those liners must be built under a contract which the operators today have with the Government. The present liners are about 24 years old and 2 of them are being operated today under waivers from the Coast Guard because they do not meet the safety requirements for operating ships at sea. The two Grace Line vessels do meet Coast Guard requirements. Recently the Coast Guard have said they did not know how much longer they could continue to waive safety requirements. As I have stated, the Government has entered into a contract with these operators whereby the operators are compelled to replace the four liners. This is the means by which they hope to replace them. These liner operators will put up 55 percent of the construction money.

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

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I yield.

Mr. McCORMACK. There are certain indisputable facts that prompt the adoption of the Wigglesworth amendment, and I hope also the Rooney amendment. First, the private shipyards in the country are in bad shape.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is correct. Mr. McCORMACK. Second, the President recommended it himself.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is right. Mr. McCORMACK. Certainly the President took into consideration not only budgetary conditions but the necessity of trying to do other things that will help our private shipyards and at the same time inure to the benefit of our national defense.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is correct. And the Congress itself has acted upon the two tanker bills.

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

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the time allotted to me to the gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I thank the gentle

man.

Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. O'NEILL. I want to subscribe to the remarks of the gentleman. I realize he knows this problem thoroughly. I agree particularly with the remark which I think many Members have overlooked, that the merchant marine is the fourth arm of our national defense.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. O'NEILL and Mr. DEVEREUX yielded the time allotted to them to Mr. TOLLEFSON.)

Mr. TOLLEFSON. There was one thought that I neglected to mention, and that is a simple one. If the Congress subscribes to the theory that our American marine fleet is the fourth arm of defense-and we need one indeed-and that has been the philosophy of this Congress in the 1936 Merchant Marine Act and it was the philosophy expressed in the 1920 Merchant Marine Act-if the House subscribes to that philosophy, it must come to this conclusion: If we are going to have an American merchant marine, there is only one way we can have it, and that is by Government assistance. We cannot build ships as cheap as they can be built in foreign shipyards. Therefore, we need a construction subsidy. Nor can we operate our ships as cheaply as foreign nations can, and therefore, we must have operation subsidies. The Congress has recognized that. Why should we abandon that philosophy now? It has proven itself to be worth while.

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

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. COUDERT. The gentleman has just referred to the fact that the Congress had adopted a policy, and in support of that policy the Congress has

authorized and voted subsidies.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. That is correct.

Mr. COUDERT. Would the gentleman mind telling the House what, if anything, either his committee has recommended or the Congress has done beyond mended or the Congress has done beyond mere subsidy to compel improvement in efficiency and economy in the operation of construction of ships?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. From the standpoint of legislative action, of course we have done nothing to compel any operating economies. But our committee constantly insists upon the Maritime Administration doing so.

Mr. COUDERT. Has any Government agency to the knowledge of the gentleman from Washington done anything to bring about economies and improvement in operations? Or done anything ment in operations? Or done anything beyond recommending more, bigger, and better subsidies?

Mr. TOLLEFSON. From the testimony before our committee I am convinced that the present Maritime Administration is constantly stressing the need for economy in operation of the American merchant marine.

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

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHELLEY. In answer to the question just put by the gentleman from New York [Mr. COUDERT], the answer is that the General Accounting Office has come up with constructive criticisms in the operation of the entire program which have been accepted.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, [Mr. SHELLEY] is recognized.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. CONDON and Mr. YoRTY yielded their time to Mr. SHELLEY.)

Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Chairman, I must congratulate the Appropriations Committee on exceeding the expectations of the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY] when he said on the floor of the House the other day that the committee under its present leadership would not approve enough money to build three whaleboats. In comparison with that expectation they have been absolutely munificent in approving $11,100,000 for four Liberty ship conversions under this bill. But, when we compare this puny appropriation with the very modest request by the Maritime Administration for $82,600,000, or with the far greater needs of our shipping lines, our reserve fleet, and our shipbuilding industry the committee has done next to nothing.

Mr. Chairman, comment was made that only 3 out of 35 Mariners have been sold. That is true because as soon as the Mariners were finished they were immediately taken over by the United States Navy for operation in the hauling of supplies to Korea. It must be remembered that the Mariners were started just as we got into action in Korea. Those finished were turned over to the Navy for 6 months' operation on test runs for the hauling of troops, equipment, and supplies on all of the seas of the world.

Only three have been sold because since the time bids for their sale were called for one company on the Pacific coast asked for the three. Several other companies are now negotiating for the purchase of Mariner vessels with modifications to meet the requirements of the trade routes in which the vessels will be used.

Comment was made that none have ever been loaded. The fact is that as fast as they have been finished they have been outfitted and made ready for sea and used by the military and they have proved to be very valuable ships for military purposes.

As to the four passenger vessels-the companies which operate these subsidized vessels are required by the law enacted by Congress and now referred to as the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to replace their vessels when they are 20 years of age, and what the committee

proposes to do is to renege on a Government contractual responsibility. They are under contract with us-the Government of the United States to do what the Wigglesworth amendment will allow to be done. By adopting the amendment we are keeping our part of the contract. What, in heavens name, is wrong with that?

We have not the passenger ships. During World War II we paid to the British Government $125 for every commissioned officer and $100 for every enlisted man who traveled on the Queens. We paid over a billion and a quarter dollars to the British Government because we did not have the passenger ships. A board composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce, Navy, Army, the Munitions Board, and other governmental agencies immediately after World War II made a report emphasizing the shortage of passenger vessels available to the military in the event of another war and calling upon the Congress to make available money and a program for the building of such vessels so that the situation in which we found ourselves at the outbreak of World War II would not occur again.

The Merchant Marine Committee and

the Federal Maritime Administrator are endeavoring to correct that situation at the lowest possible cost to the American taxpayer and in complete conformity with the law as it exists and as it has existed.

have expressed their indignation—and justifiably so that ships are being built in foreign yards while our yards remain idle.

I have protested that situation on the floor of the House as the Members well know. I will further say to the gentleman from New York that I have protested this sugar-coated proposition of off-shore procurement repeatedly on the floor of the House; and I will say to him and to others who have voted for these foreign giveaway programs in the past, that as you continue to vote for those programs in the future you will find your money and the American merchant marine going where the woodbine twineth and the whangdoodle whangeth.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. COUDERT] is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, and my good friend from New York [Mr. ROONEY] very frankly stated what this operation is. This is simply a relief bill for shipyards. Now, I have no objection to shipyards being put on relief. It may be necessary to have shipyards, but I think probably a

cheaper way than putting shipyards on

relief that are not able to compete with foreign yards would be to set up schools in which to maintain the mechanics and operators who have no ships to build. All sorts of ways might be considered.

Frankly, my criticism of the whole

Mr. SHELLEY. I yield.

Mr. SEELY-BROWN. Is it not true that that program is less costly to the American people than the old program operated on the boom-and-bust concept?

Mr. SHELLEY. The gentleman is abThe gentleman is absolutely correct. Here we are engaging in an orderly replacement program whereby we take out of service old and obsolete vessels and build in their place a new vessel, modern for military conversion and usage-fast and able to travel without convoy-outfitted to handle passengers in peacetime troops in wartime comfortably and safely. We keep our commercial sealanes open and meet a defense need with a graduated program instead of repeating the mistakes of World Wars I and II. What were those mistakes? They have been mentioned on this floor many on this floor many times—the country found itself twice in a generation involved in world wars and without a merchant marine. Friendly countries couldn't help us. We had to build at any price any kind of vessel to meet the immediate emergency. As a result we boomed the cost up and paid $10 instead of $1, and we busted the fleet later because they did not meet commercial needs. I think that is what the gentleman means, and he is absolutely correct. This approach is the logical way to prevent a recurrence of that type of situation.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] is recognized.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY] and others on the floor this afternoon

structive suggestion in the 8 years I have been here for improvement in the method of the construction of ships. Here we sit in the Congress merely doling out bigger and better subsidies to maintain shipyards that may be for all I know or any of us in this committee knows completely obsolete.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BONNER].

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. If there ever was a time in the history of this Nation when we need to build vessels it is now.

This is not what has been referred to as a WPA program for shipyards. This is a fundamentally sound program. It has a great deal of merit. We need the four passenger ships to replace ones that are practically worn out.

In the committee we have taken particular care to see that there is no subsidy in connection with the tanker bill if it is carried out as the conference report has been agreed on, and I am sure it will be carried out in that manner in the contracts let by the Maritime Commission.

Many in this House never stop to think what would happen to the American economy if it were not for the American merchant marine.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. MILLER].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this shipbuilding program should be initiated immediately. It is necessary to pick up declining employnecessary to pick up declining employ

ment in the Nation's shipyards. This is particularly true on the west coast where shipbuilding is almost nil and where ship repair and modernization are at a new low. A deplorable condition frought with the hardship born of unemployment.

If we are to preserve the skills peculiar to shipbuilding and the all important know-how we must act with celerity and dispatch.

While the immediate and to be served is important there are other basic reasons that cannot be contravened or disregarded.

A well organized smoothly functioning merchant marine is indispensable to our national economy if we are to develop and hold an overseas market to absorb the great productive capacity of this country. This can be directly translated into jobs in our automobile, refrigerator appliance and other plants producing durable goods. Jobs here are vitally important.

Agricultural surpluses can find markets among the growing hungry popula

tions of the world but we must have ships to carry them overseas.

mercy of nations no matter how friendly

Our commerce must not be at the

who control world shipping. We must have American ships to maintain the freedom of the seas and our proper place among the nations of the world.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives I am mindful of the pertinent and compelling reasons for a vigorous, stable merchant marine as an integral part of our Defense Establishment. Two world wars have taught us the value of having ships, ships, and more ships.

A healthy merchant marine is more than just ships. It is the terminals, docks and the ancillary services used by ships. We need the yards and docks to build, repair and maintain a fleet of vessels, too.

We must, above all, preserve the men with the skills peculiar to the sea be it as sailors, radio operators, ships' officers or engine room crews. A knowledge of electronics is as important on sea today as a knowledge of cordage. The art of building ships can be lost unless we continually exercise it.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I said in the beginning that we need a shipbuilding program now to pick up the waning employment in our shipyards.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON].

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, it is rather astounding to me this afternoon to sit here and hear some of the statements that have been made by members of the Appropriation Committee as to the lack of necessity for a merchant marine or a shipbuilding program. I wish that those who have the responsibility of deciding these questions from an appropriations standpoint would take time out and visit shipyard localities and see for themselves why it is so necessary to keep together shipbuilding organizations. There is no industry in this Nation of ours that requires so many varied

You cannot train such workers overnight. They require long years of apprenticeship and training, and the failure to do that creates a situation which was mentioned by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. SEELY-BROWN]. A failure to keep up an efficient working force in our shipyard industry creates a boom or bust situation insofar as a working organization is concerned, resulting in the industry being busted, weak, and inefficient for lack of organization when a real emergency arises that needs ships built in a hurry.

This idea of cutting down appropriations for ships, both naval and commercial, with the idea that it saves money is an unwise policy. It is pennywise and pound foolish.

How well I remember the situation that confronted us when World War I broke suddenly upon us. It caught us with neither an adequate Navy or merchant marine to carry our troops and supplies to Europe. Our shipbuilding industry was at a low ebb. We had to send out an S O S for workers to build ships. Shipyards were without adequate or

ganizations to make even a nucleus

around which an organization could be met. The call for men to work in shipyards went far and wide. It was desperate because the need was desperate. It brought in men from all over the country who were attracted because of the high pay that was offered. They were accepted regardless of whether they knew anything about ship construction. Hatters, waiters, trolley car operators, shoemakers, tailors, bakers, butchers, candlestick makers. The variety was such that it would be impossible to describe them all.

narily it would be appropriate to send this bill back to the committee, but it would accomplish nothing. Therefore it is necessary for us on the floor of the House to amend this bill so it will provide a shipbuilding program, at least the start of such a program.

For the reasons I have given, and many more I could give if time permitted, I will more I could give if time permitted, I will support the amendment now under consideration that provides for the building of 4 passenger-cargo ships and 10 tankers. This, together with some repair work on our ships, will provide approximately $170 million worth of work for our shipyards.

If this amendment is adopted in the House and concurred in by the Senate it will preserve our shipbuilding industry and bring joy to the hearts of our shipworkers and their families.

I appeal to the House to adopt this amendment by such a large majority that there will be no doubt as to the policy this House approves.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON].

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the House cannot always be wise, the House cannot always be right, but, Mr. Chairman, it can be consistent.

This House is overwhelmingly committed against subsidies of any character, and yet we have before us here, Mr. to the fewest number of beneficiaries in Chairman, the greatest subsidy payable to the fewest number of beneficiaries in all the history of legislative gratuities. Fewer men owning these shipyards are getting the largest amount of free Govgetting the largest amount of free Government money of any of the subsidies that we so generously bestow.

Could these men build ships? Of course not. They had to be trained over long periods of time even for the smallest task. All of the time they were being paid the high wages. This added millions upon millions of dollars to the cost of the ships. And, not only was the

delay that was caused while all of this training was going on. The net result was a tremendous loss of money and a great increase in cost of every ship.

Did we learn our lesson from all of this? I regret to say we did not. When World War II came upon us we were again caught without an adequate number of either fighting ships or merchant marine. Whereupon we had to go through the same process I have described with respect to World War I. In addition we had to charter ships of foreign nations to carry our troops and supplies while we were busy building the ships which we should have had, but, which we did not have. Expense added to expense as a result of our pennywise pound-foolish policy.

And, now today, notwithstanding the lessons of the past and the present urging of President Eisenhower for an adequate shipbuilding program, the Committee on Appropriations comes before us denying the necessity for a shipbuilding program. And, the committee takes this attitude in defiance of the wishes of President Eisenhower. How long will it

many years of observation, that there has been more money wasted on these shipyards than on any enterprise in which the United States Government has Government has subsidized.

And, there is another sacred principle which is being violated here-the principle of private enterprise. We are being told all along that business does not want the Government to engage in private enterprise; that they want to be left alone; that they want to be left free to work out their problems without Government interference. That is the stereotyped statement regularly made by every chamber of commerce and of every manufacturers association in the country. They believe religiously in free enterprise. And here we propose to violate every principle of private enterprise by doing for them what they can do for themselves.

Why, Mr. Chairman, in 1953, private enterprise built 15 ships, and already in 1954 they have built 6 more ships. All 1954 they have built 6 more ships. All we have to do is to give free enterprise a chance to go along uninterrupted and unimpeded by Government handouts

and they can and will build all the ships we need.

Appalling waste has marked the expenditures of these huge subsidies. They have built ships that were not needed. They have constructed fleets that never sailed.

With the money they hope to receive through this amendment they are proposing to alter the design of ships that are now under construction-ships that have not yet been completed.

Can you imagine any sensible, responsible group of men countenancing such colossal waste and inefficiency?

It was disappointing, too, Mr. Chairman, to note the emphasis placed this afternoon on the fact that the President is displeased with the action of the Committee on Appropriations in reporting out this bill without the ship subsidy in it. The Committee on Appropriations has spent months in investigating, in holding hearings and making studies of this problem. The committee has brought in a recommendation against this expenditure.

Immediately the President sends word up here to disregard the Committee on Appropriations. I yield to nobody in my admiration for and my devotion to the President of the United States. I have supported him when the Members on three branches of the Government—the that side opposed him. But there are legislative, the judicial, and the executive. Why should the executive branch dictate to the legislative branch? Why have any Committee on Appropriations

at all?

Mr. Chairman, effort has been made to camouflage this amendment as a labor amendment. As a matter of fact it involves no labor issue of any kind. That has been thrown in here merely to cloud the issue. The great labor organizations, the A. F. of L. and the CIO, have announced no position on it and have taken it up with none of the Members I have heard discuss it.

The beneficiaries are a few privileged shipyard owners who have become accustomed to consider Government handouts as their vested right.

We have denied subsidies to the farmer. We have insisted on free enterprise without Government interference. Let us apply those principles without prejudice or favor. Let us defeat this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY].

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, before speaking to the amendment, may I ask unanimous consent that all Members may extend their remarks at this point in the RECORD?

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Our need for a strong, privately owned and operated merchant marine has been recognized and established by law for many years. It has been recognized recently by the President. High Army and Navy officials and officers say that the present condition of the merchant-ma

rine fleet makes it the weakest link in our national defense. Their testimony was overwhelming and unanimous and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps we do not have the best possible way of developing and maintaining a strong merchant marine-that is a question for much further study but this is no time to quibble and procrastinate on that score. We must have ships and our shipyards must be enabled to keep their essential skilled workers busy.

The ship construction which would be authorized by the amendment under discussion is a vital part-but only a partof the overall program that should be started and carried out immediately. Time is one thing we simply cannot afford to lose.

Mr. WILSON of of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the appropriation of funds for additional court facilities for the new judges, which are to be appointed as a result of the omnibus judgeship bill which passed earlier this session.

The General Services Administration has asked for $220,000 for additional courtroom facilities to improve the crowded courtrooms in the Federal Building in San Diego, in my district.

Approval of this appropriation will be additional evidence that Congress, the Administrator of the Courts, and the General Services Administration are in agreement that the new judge should sit in San Diego.

Such was the clear intent of the Judiciary Committee and the Congress in approving the omnibus judgeship bill earlier this session. The only testimony presented last year showing the need and requesting the services of an additional judge for the southern district of California was presented by the San Diego Bar Association and other interested San Diego citizens. The committee was impressed by the need shown by the crowded calendar of the one district judge sitting in San Diego. However, rather than writing the place of residence into the bill, as had been done for San Diego's first judge, the committee decided such a policy might lead to additional problems, and eliminated designation of all places of residence for all judges in the bill. In doing so, they left the residence decision to the judicial council, but stated clearly in the report accompanying the bill that the committee was impressed with the need for a second judge at San Diego.

Despite this clear statement of intent by Congress, the judicial council reportedly has left the determination of the place of residence up to the presiding judge in the southern district, Judge Leon R. Yankwich, of Los Angeles. Judge Yankwich appears to have decided to ignore the intent of Congress in the assignment of the second judge. He has made several public statements to the effect that the second judge is not needed at San Diego, despite the fact that a second judge has sat at San Diego almost continuously for the past year or so. In recognition of the caseload at San Diego, Judge Yankwich has assigned a second additional judge on a rotation basis, allowing 8 of the 10 southern district

In adopting the policy of rotation, Judge Yankwich is in effect doubling the cost of the second judge Congress has provided for the San Diego area.

The cost of assigning an extra judge to San Diego on a rotation basis amounts to more than double what a San Diego resident judge would be paid. Each judge and his clerks and bailiffs would be entitled to per diem expenses of approximately $40 per day week in and week out, plus mileage at 7 cents per mile to and from their homes, some over a hundred miles away.

This extra cost could be eliminated if Judge Yankwich and the judicial council would follow the dictates of Congress; which has set up the additional judgeship for San Diego's expressed needs, which is today approving the construcwhich is today approving the construction of his courtroom in San Diego, and which provides the funds for operation of this court and all courts.

San Diego needs the second resident Federal judge provided by Congress. I submit that any other assignment by the judicial council or the southern district judges would be a capricious, arbitrary, and extravagant decision directly contravening the intent of Congress.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this bill, perhaps more than any other we have taken up this session, shows what is wrong with the Republican Party when it is put in charge.

The Eisenhower administration, in the 1952 campaign, attacked all the programs of the Democratic administrations and said they were terrible and would be ended. That was the usual Republican campaign or propaganda and we were all used to that after all those years when the Republicans were out, so we did not take it too seriously.

But the Eisenhower crowd apparently believed their own campaign oratory. When they came in down here they brought in thousands of efficiency experts and big-business men to show how to get the Government out of all of the so-called unnecessary operations started under the Democrats.

Well, all last year the administration was tearing these programs apart and throwing them away as fast as they could find them. The majority in the Congress went along with that idea wholeheartedly and had a wonderful time slashing the appropriations and eliminating programs.

Now, after more than a year of studying the situation, the Eisenhower people discover they made some horrible mistakes. The aviation people came in and told them how wrong they were to kill the airport-aid program. The business people came in and said: "Say, you do not really want to kill off those census studies and statistical reports; business needs them."

The maritime industry came in and said: "Are you fellows aware that you are letting the merchant marine and the shipbuilding industry collapse? You better get busy and get things back on the track.”

The hard-money program turned sour and unemployment began to grow and here there was not enough money in the

So, on one thing after another, the administration had to send up supplemental requests for more funds for these programs. The budget turned out to be full of mistakes, but you can always correct mistakes of that kind by just appropriating enough money in time.

But what happened? The Republicans up here who had been so happy about cutting out all the old Democratic programs suddenly woke up to find that the Republican administration wanted them put back in the budget again.

All this time, our Republican friends up here have been bragging about cutting the budget and cutting out Democratic programs. When anyone complained-particularly any businessmen back home who were damaged in their businesses by these these cuts-our good friends on the Republican side had a snappy comeback-they said: "Do you want a balanced budget or not? Do you believe in Republican economy or not?"

What was a good Republican businessman to say to that? Even if it put him out of business, he had to agree economy and a balanced budget were just what the chamber of commerce ordered.

Well, the Republicans are really in a spot now. The President says, just forget some of that stuff last year about knocking out the airport program, or the ship subsidies, or big bureaucracies for employment compensation, or these boondoggling censuses, and so on. We find we made a big mistake. Give us all the money back again.

According to some of the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee, in the printed hearings on this bill, the lid is off on every foolish thing.

Well, Mr. Chairman, it is not really that bad at all. These things turn out to be not so foolish after all. Maybe there was some foolishness in cutting them so hard before the administration woke up to how important these programs are to business and industry and the general public and also to the security of the country.

Any of our Republican colleagues who feel it might make them look foolish to vote this year for the very things the Eisenhower administration told them last year were not necessary can always tell their constituents they are just following the Republican line.

But the Appropriations Committee apparently believes in following the Eisenhower line in one direction only-toward cutting the budget. So we have this bill before us cutting and cutting the very appropriations the President says must be increased-not lowered.

It is quite a dilemma for a conscientious economizer who has spent years in Congress yearning for Republican austerity budgets and now finding that it costs money to run the Government even when the Republicans are in.

Let us forget the 1952 promises and legislate for the good of America. Otherwise, we could economize the country into disaster.