Mr. CONDON. Mr. Chairman, I subMr. Chairman, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the position taken by the gentleman from California [Mr. SHELLEY] and am in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH). During the emergency of World War II, the Richmond shipyards in my district built more ships than any other yards in the world had ever built in a comparable period of time. It is a shameful folly to see our shipyards fall into disuse and to see the skills which we have developed be dissipated away from the waterfront. I certainly believe that this body must preserve the American merchant marine and our shipbuilding industry by appropriating the money recommended by the President and embodied in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. "ECONOMY" WHICH WILL HURT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS

Mrs. KEE. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations can take all the bows it wishes to for the remarkable economy record it has compiled in reporting out this supplemental appropriation bill. But unless the Congress reverses some of the actions of the committee, millions of Americans will be hurt by this kind of economy.

It is not economy, Mr. Chairman, to leave our women and children and, in fact, all the people of this country, medically unprepared for the unimaginable horrors of atomic or hydrogen attack. True, this bill saves $35 million out of a proposed $60 million for emergency medical and rescue supplies and equipment.

But would it really be economy if thousands or millions were to die for lack of this stockpile of essential supplies? I do not think so. The scientists talk about these horrible bombs in terms like megadeaths-meaning millions of deaths. The committee acted on this matter as if the threat were really far away.

God grant that this might be true. But certainly the world and standards of political morality in the world are not such that we can take this threat calmly or ignore it. We must be prepared to enable our people to survive whatever the future may hold in store. I do not think $35 million would be considered much of a saving if it meant unnecessary loss of many lives for lack of adequate lifesaving supplies.

SAVING $119,000 AT THE EXPENSE OF JOBLESS VETS

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am extremely conscious of the problems of the young ex-serviceman, or the discharged reservist, in trying to reestablish himself in civilian life. It is a particularly difficult task for him right now in many sections of the country, and particularly in States like West Virginia where the incidence of unemployment is very high.

In connection with the regular Labor Department appropriation bill acted on earlier this year, we heard how the Bureau of Veterans Reemployment Rights is running 5 and 6 months behind in acting on the cases of returning veterans who have been unable for one reason or another to get their old jobs back. Now

the matter is again brought to our attention in the requests made by this bureau tion in the requests made by this bureau for a supplemental appropriation to bring that backlog closer to a current status. It asks for a very small amount $119,000. I am amazed that this request has been denied by the Committee on Appropriations.

Are these boys and girls coming back from the service, and denied their rights under the GI bill, to sit and cool their heels for 6 months or more before the heels for 6 months or more before the Government agency set up to protect their rights can get around to their their rights can get around to their cases?

Is this economy? I think not.

ALL JOBLESS WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

AFFECTED

A further provision of this bill, as it has come from the Appropriations Committee, similarly affects all of the hundreds of thousands of American workers and their families who are dependent upon unemployment compensation.

The President asked for an additional $43 million for the administration of unemployment compensation and the employment services in the various States. The committee has allowed only $4,600,The committee has allowed only $4,600,000. Now what does that mean? It It means that those eligible for unemploymeans that those eligible for unemployment compensation will have to wait longer for action on their cases. It means they will have to wait longer for means they will have to wait longer for their checks. It means they will have to their checks. It means they will have to wait longer for any help from the employment service leading toward other jobs.

It means the youngsters coming out of school looking for their first jobs will have to wait in line-way back in the line-for any attention from the overworked employment service people.

Let us go back a moment, Mr. Chairman, and see how this request for additional funds originated. The President says his advisers made a serious miscalculation when the budget was prepared originally in estimating the amount of originally in estimating the amount of unemployment we would be having at this time. They did not ask Congress this time. They did not ask Congress for nearly enough funds for the kind of program now needed-to process the unemployment compensation claims of those out of jobs and help them to get new jobs. But before that admission was made and steps taken to correct it, Congress went ahead and cut what the adgress went ahead and cut what the administration now tells us was already an inadequate figure. So instead of the funds it really needs of about $260 million for the current fiscal year which lion for the current fiscal year which started July 1, the Bureau of Employment Security will be at least $40 million short-that is, adding up the cuts made in this bill and in the regular appropriation. This kind of economy, Mr. Chairman, hurts people who are most in need of help those out of work. ELIMINATING THE NEW HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

PROGRAM

There are many, many instances of similar economy in this supplemental appropriation bill, Mr. Chairman, and I cannot begin to cover all of them in the time allowed. Other Members, I am sure, will discuss cuts in programs affecting various industries, and so on.

But I do want to make mention of several items which hurt our people on

human terms. The Congress has just recently passed, with much ado, an extension of the Hill-Burton Hospital Construction Act to provide for Federal aid for the construction of specialized types of hospitals-diagnostic or treatment centers, hospitals for the chronically ill, rehabilitation facilities, and nursing homes. Now we are asked to appropriate funds to carry out this program. The President asked for only $35 million for construction funds for this purpose for the first year of the new program's operations instead of the $75 million authorized under the new law. The committee, practicing economy, has not voted a single dollar for this purpose. Why did we pass the bill for the program if we do not believe in voting the funds to carry it out? This kind of economy is disillusioning to the folks who thought they would be helped by the new law we passed. But no money is provided to carry out the law.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROGRAM ALSO
ELIMINATED

I have called to the attention of the House several times in recent months, Mr. Chairman, the alarming problem of juvenile delinquency and the need for corrective action to prevent this terrible waste of human resources. In my home county we are trying to meet this problem affirmatively on the local level by joint efforts on the part of an aroused and interested citizenry. We are trying to chart a new course in a very difficult problem area. Recently we had Dr. Martha M. Eliot, Chief of the Children's Bureau, come to talk with us and outline some of the areas in which she thought our group action could accomplish the most.

She informed us of big plans in the Children's Bureau for setting up a special program in juvenile delinquency work, to obtain and disseminate information in this vital field the better to help community efforts such as our own program back home. The people in our county were much encouraged by this.

But along comes this bill, Mr. Chair-. man, acting on Dr. Eliot's request for a modest $165,000 for the juvenile delinquency study by appropriating exactly nothing. Not a cent. So the special study cannot go forward. I do not believe that kind of "economy" is very helpful to the mothers and fathers of America and the teachers and clergy and youth leaders seeking help in curbing a growing national menace of juvenile delinquency.

"LITTLE AID TO EDUCATION" PROGRAM GETS NO FUNDS

A last word, Mr. Chairman, on the matter of help for our hard-pressed schools, now bulging at the seams and with teachers carrying a frightfully heavy pupil load at frightfully low pay.

The administration's approach to this problem has been one of delay and "study." It has avoided any attempt to get help to our schools but has proposed a series of research programs in this field.

With much ado, again, the Congress passed three bills in this area-one for a cooperative program of research with the colleges on educational problems; one for

a national advisory committee to advise the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on school problems, and one for a White House Conference on Education. Out of all of these studies, including the White House Conference a year and a half from now, the administration hoped to get enough information on the needs of education to recommend a Federal policy in this respect.

It has been my position that these programs were woefully woefully inadequate. They "study" a problem we know just about all we have to know about. We know our schools need financial help. How are they to get it?

But little as this aid-to-education program of the present administration has been, it is all we have at this point. It is a puny thing, but perhaps of some use. Not under this bill, however. For under this appropriation bill, not a single dollar is appropriated to carry out any of these programs-not a dollar of the $100,000 requested for the cooperative research program, not a dollar of the $175,000 requested for the national advisory committee, not a dollar of the $1,750,000 just authorized recently for the White House Conference.

The "little aid to education" program, under this bill, becomes the "no aid to education" program. I am deeply disappointed.

Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned in my remarks awhile ago that I had an amendment at the Clerk's desk, which would provide that whatever ship construction ship or reconstruction money is provided in this bill, must be spent in shipyards in the continental United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman desire to offer his amendment now? Mr. ROONEY. I offer my amendment now, Mr. Chairman.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ROONEY to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH]: Add the following: "Provided further, That all ship construction, reconditioning and betterment of vessels appropriated for herein be performed in shipyards in the continental United States."

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

Mr. ROONEY. I yield.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I will say, as far as I am concerned, that I am very happy to join in that amendment.

Mr. ROONEY. I thank the gentleman. I knew he would.

Mr. Chairman, in my remaining time may I point out with regard to the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH), that not only the National Advisory Council, but the Defense Establishment is in favor of this proposed ship construction. The Department of Defense a year ago stated that for defense purposes there was a deficiency of 214 merchant vessels in our merchant fleet; 43 large tankers, 6 large passengercargo ships and 165 other vessels. If we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH), as I feel we are, we would merely be restoring 14 of the 214 vessels

required as a minimum for the national defense.

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

Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, we have been monkeying with this subsidy business for a long time. The result has been that we have almost driven the American merchant marine off the seas. There has been no study made, there has been no analysis made of this situation by the Maritime Commission nor the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. If we continue, we are going to drive the American merchant marine off the seas and over to other countries in this hemisphere. I understand that a block of ore boats, to carry 60,000 tons apiece, are being built in Japan and undoubtedly will be operated under the Venezuelan ly will be operated under the Venezuelan flag, to carry ore from Venezuela to Philadelphia. We are creating a situation under which the American people cannot travel on American ships. It is impossible for them to get dinner after 7 o'clock in the evening.

What bothers me about this situation is that if we go on that way, God help the American merchant marine. Let us try to find a way out instead of trying to dig ourselves in deeper.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. JUDD].

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this amendment. Each year when we have had the foreign-aid bill before us, I have opposed as strongly as I could, the provision that required that 50 percent of the shipping used in that program be in American bottoms. I did not think that was the fair or right way to take care of our merchant marine. Each year some tens of millions of dollars of the appropriations advertised to the American public as foreign aid was actually money to subsidize our own merchant marine.

But the merchant marine must be taken care of, and this amendment provides a part of the right way to do it. We have got to have an American merchant marine and an American shipbuilding industry. We cannot compete on even terms with the cheap labor of countries which do not have the high standard of wages and of living that we enjoy in the United States. Provisions like those in this amendment are part of the price we pay for our high standard of living and for our national security. I am glad to pay that price.

This is the proper kind of legislation to keep our merchant marine on the high seas, to keep it up-to-date, and to keep it adequate, both because of our commercial interests, and even more as a part of our national defense.

I hope the amendment will be agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. ROONEY] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH).

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. TABER) there were-ayes 117, noes 32.

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WIGGLESWORTH] as amended.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. TABER) there were-ayes 123, noes 41.

So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ALLEN of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9936) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1955, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

HOUR OF MEETING TOMORROW

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

Mr. TABER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, this is the situation. If we are going to get that foreign relief bill marked up in the Committee on Appropriations, and the House meets at 11 o'clock, it will be impossible to do it before Thursday and we will not be able to report it before Tuesday of next week and take it up on Friday. That is the situation we are in here. I just want to know what the program is.

Mr. HALLECK. I withdraw my request, Mr. Speaker.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I have taken this time in order to announce generally to the membership what has been a matter of some discussion among the leaders and the chairman and ranking members of the committees. As I am sure everyone knows, suspensions which were in order for last Monday have been transferred to tomorrow.

We expect to call up under suspension of the rules on tomorrow the bill H. R. 9888, extending the Korean GI bill of rights for 1 year, which has been reported by the committee. We also expect to call up under suspension of the rules, the bill H. R. 9020, having to do with veterans' benefits, amended by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. We also expect to call up under suspension of the rules what have come to be known as the postal rate and postal pay bill, as reported out by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with the amendments which were voted in committee. The suspension will include both of those bills. I

might say that both bills have been reported and the reports are available and will be available in the morning, as well as a committee print which will indicate the final form of the measure upon which the motion to suspend the rules will be made. We also propose to call up under the suspension of the rules the bill H. R. 7130, having to do with forfeiture of citizenship. It has also been suggested to me that if time permits, these bills from the Committee on Public Lands might be called:

S. 2380, to amend the Mineral Leasing Act.

the close of a session with the majority carrying the responsibility for the progress of the program, that we would be subjected to a veto from the side of the minority.

I am not going to argue the merits of these measures at this time, as the gentleman has in some measure, except to point out that similar action was taken in the 80th Congress, and I taken in the 80th Congress, and I checked the RECORD and there was not even a rollcall on the passage of measures at that time that involved the matter of rates and pay.

Mr. RAYBURN. The gentleman un

H. R. 8498, authorizing construction of works to reestablish the Palo Verde irrigation district.

S. 3385, providing for more effective extension work among Indian tribes.

S. 2864, to approve an amendatory repayment contract negotiated with the North Unit Irrigation District, and so forth.

As I say, I do not know how many of those we might have time for. I have discussed that with the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. MILLER] and I thought I might at least list them as a possibility. I might say to the Members on our side, before I conclude, that we hope to have a conference which should not run too long as soon as the House adjourns, which I hope will be shortly.

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

Mr. HALLECK. I yield.

Mr. RAYBURN. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have ever heard of so many bills proposed to come up on one day under any circumstances, much less under suspension of the rules. I might say also, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think while I was either Speaker or majority leader that I ever called up, or allowed to be called up under suspension of the rules, any bill until I had consulted with the minority leader. If my memory serves me correctly, I never recognized any Member to move to suspend the rules unless it was agreeable to the minority leader. This program is not agreeable to me. I think it is a terrible thing that in order to increase the wages or salaries or compensation of postal employees, we have to throw two bills together. I want to say now for myself, although I do not know what might be the course others may take, if the increases in postal salaries and the increase in rates on postage stamps from 3 cents to 4 cents come up together, it certainly shall not have my support.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the gentleman's opinions.

I have not checked the RECORD, and certainly I am not going to do so, to determine whether or not the gentleman ever permitted any suspensions when he was Speaker that were not concurred in by the minority leader. As the gentleman knows, as we proceed through the session necessarily there are discussions, because a two-thirds vote is involved, with the minority as to what the situation is, but I have never understood it to be the practice, and certainly it is not in the rules, as we come up to

ter the adjournment of the 80th Congress. One of the reasons why I never agreed to recognize anybody for suspension of the rules without the consent of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. MARTIN], was on account of what had happened to me on some of these occasions, and it will probably happen to the gentleman tomorrow.

Mr. HALLECK. I discussed the matter in respect to the veterans bill, to which I have made reference, and it has been the practice, ever since I have been here, to call up those bills under suspension, whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in power.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary may have until midnight tonight to file certain reports.

the request of the gentleman from PennThe SPEAKER. Is there objection to sylvania?

There was no objection.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION TO INCREASE SALARIES AND PROVIDE OTHER BENEFITS FOR FOSTAL EMPLOYEES, AND FOR POSTAL RATE INCREASES

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from the request of the gentleman from Kansas?

There was no objection.

Here is a summary of the amended bill. It provides:

First. A permanent 5 percent increase for all postmasters, officers, and employees in the postal field service with a minimum of $200 except in the case of fourth-class postmasters and hourly rate employees.

Second. A fourth longevity grade for personnel of the postal field service.

Third. A reclassification for all postmaster, officers, and employees in the postal field service by requiring that the Postmaster General submit to Congress by March 15, 1955, a proposal for job evaluation of the positions of postal field service personnel. This proposal must contain schedules which set forth grades and salaries of postal field service positions, and provisions assuring postal employees (a) of the right to appeal their classification to the Civil Service Comission; (b) that those on the rolls when the plan, or any part thereof, becomes operative will not suffer any loss in salary; and (c) that they will not be downgraded. This plan will take effect unless disapproved within 60 days by a majority of either House of Congress, a quorum being present.

Fourth. An increase in the allowable per diem for employees in the transportation service to $9 per day from the present rate of $6 per day.

Fifth. A uniform allowance of $100 annually for those employees required to wear uniforms.

Sixth. A modification of present law which restricts the number of permanent appointments in the Federal service. This will permit the granting of permanent appointments to a large number of temporary and indefinite employees in the postal field service.

Seventh. A biweekly pay period for personnel of the postal field service. Total cost of bill, $151,533,000. Legislation to be considered concerning increases in postal rates is included in the provisions of H. R. 6052, as reported by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. A complete analysis of the measure is contained in a report that has been on file for some time. A summary of postal-rate provisions is as follows:

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the House has announced that legislation will be considered on tomorrow providing for increases livery outside the office of mailing. in salaries and for other benefits for postal employees, and together with this legislation and included therewith, will be further legislation considered for certain increases in postal rates.

The bill as reported increases from 3 cents to 4 cents the rate on the first ounce of first-class letter mail for de

Because of time limitations allowed in considering these proposals on the floor of the House, I am making a brief statement with respect to these measures. Complete analysis of these proposals is included in reports of the bills, when reported to the House.

Legislation to be considered to provide for increases in pay, and for other benefits, for postal employees is contained in H. R. 9836, as amended by the committee, and reported without opposition by the Committee on Post Of fice and Civil Service.

I think it well to observe that much has been said that first-class mail more than pays its way. This applies to what is known as drop-letter mail. It is mail delivered from the post office where it is mailed. This legislation does not change that rate of 3 cents per ounce. The 4cent rate applies only to the first ounce on mail delivered away from the office of mailing.

AIRMAIL

The rate on domestic airmail is increased from 6 cents to 7 cents an ounce.

SECOND-CLASS MAIL

First. In addition to the 10-percent increase due April 1, 1954, under existing law, this bill will increase the rates on second-class mail in 3 increments of 10

percent, effective April 1, 1955, April 1, 1956, and April 1, 1957. These increases, are based on the rates in effect prior to Public Law 233, 82d Congress, and are applied on the portion of publications for delivery outside the county of publication. The increases do not affect publications of nonprofit religious, educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, labor, veterans', or fraternal organizations or associations.

Second. The publication, or portions thereof, delivered outside the county of publication on which rates are increased as explained in paragraph 1 above, will be subject to a minimum charge of onefourth cent per copy, compared to the present charge of one-eighth cent. The one-eighth cent minimum remains the same as at present for publications of the nonprofit associations or organizations listed above.

Third. The present transient secondclass mail is eliminated and in the future these mailings will be carried at the third-class rate for those publications of 8 ounces or less and at fourthclass rate for those publications weighing over 8 ounces.

THIRD-CLASS MAIL

First. The rate for individual pieces of third-class mail is increased from 2 cents for the first 2 ounces, plus 1 cent for each additional ounce or in some cases, 12 cents for each 2 ounces-to 3 cents for the first 2 ounces plus 12 cents for each additional ounce or fraction thereof.

Second. The rate on third-class matter mailed in bulk is increased from 14 cents per pound and 12 cents minimum per piece to 16 cents per pound and 12 cents minimum per piece.

Third. The fee for a permit to send third-class mail under the bulk mailing rate is increased from $10 a year to $50 a year, with the privilege of purchasing a 3-month permit at $15.

Fourth. Odd-sized pieces of thirdclass mail will be subject to a minimum charge of 5 cents, representing an increase of 2 cents per piece.

Fifth. The minimum charge on thirdclass matter mailed at bulk rates without individual addresses, for delivery under regulations prescribed by the Postmaster General, will be 2 cents per piece.

Sixth. No increases will be made in bulk rates on third-class mailings of books and catalogs of 24 pages or more, seeds, cuttings, bulbs, roots, scions, and plants not exceeding 8 ounces in weight, or on mailings of nonprofit religious, educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, veterans', or fraternal organizations or associations.

CONTROLLED CIRCULATION PUBLICATIONS
Controlled

circulation publications will be subject to a rate of 11 cents per pound with a minimum charge of 12 cents per piece.

BOOKS

The committee struck from the bill the provision which would have increased postage on books by $4 million, or approximately 25 percent.

INCREASED REVENUE

Following is the estimated total increase in postal rates when all the rates are in effect:

Since that time much of the land has been terraced and grassed waterways installed. Improved rotation practices have been adopted. Much of the poorer upland has been reseeded to grass and the native grass im

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?

There was no objection.

Mr. MILLER of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to revise and extend my remarks and include a letter from Mr. Glenn Stockwell, of Randolph, Kans., showing what a group of intelligent and progressive farmers can do in the way of soil conservation and flood protection when they cooperate in measures for that purpose:

RANDOLPH, KANS., July 14, 1954. Hon. HOWARD S. MILLER,

House Office Building,

Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I would like to tell you of my experience on my farm and in my neighborhood with watershed management as a means of flood control. My farm is located on Crooked Creek in northern Riley County, Kans. This creek is typical of many in this section. The creek is bordered with rich farmland that is highly farmed. The uplands are rough and steep. Through improper farming and pasture management the watershed has deteriorated and floods on the creek were becoming more frequent and

severe.

In 1937 we had a very severe flood that destroyed acres of crops, washed out miles of fencing and drowned livestock. It was evident that we would either have to abandon the farmland along the creek or find some method of controlling the runoff waters. My neighbors and myself consulted with technicians of the State college, and the Soil Conservation Service. We visited some of the demonstration projects on which watershed development was being tried out. We were soon convinced that our remedy was in a proper management and develop

ment of our watershed. It would have to be a community effort.

At least 15 impoundment structures have been built. Some of this work has been done under ACP assistance but much of it has been done at the farmers' own expense in order to accelerate the work.

The results have been outstanding. We went through the 1951 and 1952 flood periods with practically no flooding although we were in the area of high rainfall. During the 60 days of rainfall of May, June, and July 1951, the water was almost continuously trickling from our terraces but at no time did it assume flood proportions. We can now farm our lowlands with confidence and erect fences that are necessary for our livestock business without fear of having them washed away.

We are now experiencing a severe drought and are finding that the greatest benefits from our work may come in drought periods. In spite of the dry weather we have just finished harvesting one of the best wheat crops of our experience. Our springs are still flowing and we have plenty of water in our pastures. Our farm has been in the family for 97 years and we are just now developing a system of watershed management that will make the farm a stable and permanent proposition. I believe that an accelerated soil conservation and watershed development program would be the greatest boon that this country could receive. The benefits would be manifold and so widespread as to benefit the entire economy of our Nation. Sincerely yours,

GLENN D. STOCKWELL, Sr. Mr. Speaker, at this point I include a communication from the Kansas Livestock Association:

KANSAS LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION,
Topeka, Kans., July 13, 1954.

Representative HOWARD S. MILLER,
House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MILLER: The following night letter was sent to Secretary of Agriculture Ezra T. Benson, July 13:

"Record heat 114° common yesterday. No rain past 2 weeks in most of Kansas. Crops and grass are burning. Stock-water situation becoming critical. Forced cattle marketing started. Some truckers report bookings 2 weeks ahead. Beef-purchase program, to be effective, should start at once. Price paid for beef should warrant stronger cattle prices. Contracts should be for delivery dates requiring immediate purchase by processors."

A. G. PICKETT, Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, that telegram was sent a week ago and the heat and drought continue. The conditions are worsening daily and stockmen are compelled to liquidate their cattle.

It is my understanding that the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to institute a cattle-buying program to meet this emergency. I am one Member of Congress who believes it time to begin.

MY RECORD ON REA

Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay a compliment to the fine work the officials of REA cooperatives have done throughout the Nation in bringing light and power to millions of farmers in the last several years, which greatly increases the wealth of the Nation by making an outlet for the use and purchase

of electrical appliances, amounting to billions of dollars a year, which is an aid to business and to the economy of the Nation, lifting at the same time much hard work from the farm women of America.

FREE ENTERPRISE

As I have often said, I regard REA as one of the finest examples of free enterprise at the grassroots. The officials who direct the management of REA cooperatives have done a splendid job, nationwide.

The five REA cooperatives serving my congressional district have made every loan payment on time, and are ahead with their repayments now $1,763,954. This fine record shows they are paying off their loans faster than they come due.

When I came to Congress in 1942, only 49 percent of the farms in Illinois had electric light and power. Now, 12 years later, we have 95 percent served.

VOTED FOR $2,649,000,000

In these 12 years I have voted for REA loan funds a total of $2,649,000,000, which is $75 million more than was requested by Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and the Bureau of the Budget acting for those Presidents. We appropriated____ $2, 649, 000, 000 Presidents requested------- 2, 574, 000, 000

This shows we appropriated $75 million more for the REA loan fund than was requested by these three Presidents.

I thought the farmers should have these facts. I decided to give them to you because I have learned that a false campaign is being started by those who hope to gain political advantage by charging I had not adequately supported the REA. These loans are repaid with interest.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VURSELL. I yield.

Mr. H. CARL ANDERSEN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. VURSELL] has throughout his 12 years in this House always fought for what he has considered to be just and fair treatment for the farmer in every respect. I recall the many times in which he has appeared before my Subcommittee on Appropriations for Agriculture in behalf of such programs as REA. I have noticed that during these 12 years the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. VURSELL] has always voted as I have relative to REA loan allocations. I am positive in my own mind that during these years, he and I have voted for $155 million above and beyond what the budget has requested of the Congress. There is no better friend of REA and the farmer than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. VURSELL].

Mr. VURSELL. I sincerely appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. ANDERSEN], the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture.

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

Mr. VURSELL. I yield.

Mr. HORAN. I just want to say that in my opinion the gentleman from Illinois is as good a friend of REA as there is in the Congress, and has been all down through the years. He has fully sup

Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of these gentlemen, who are members of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Appropriations Committee of the House know that I have fully supported the loan funds for REA in every session of the Congress for the past 12 years.

The farmers generally know that I have not only supported the REA loan fund to extend light and power to the farmers of Illinois and the Nation, but that I have supported soil conservation and research and extension work; that I helped to write and pass the farmto-market roads program-to pull the farmers out of the mud; that I have supported the Farmers' Home Administration loans to assist farmers to own their homes-and I note from a recent report that 50 farm loans have been granted to farmers in Marion County; that I have voted at all times and am still voting in this session to help the farmers on every front.

I have owned and operated farms most of my life. I helped to organize, as a charter member, nearly 40 years ago, the Farm Bureau in Marion County, and am still a member.

NAIL CHARGES DOWN

Mr. Speaker, I want to nail these false charges down by giving you the record of my support of REA loan funds, carefully compiled by a member of the staff of the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for Agriculture.

May I point out that, in order to save time on the House floor, on many occasions, no record vote is taken. When the Members are in agreement they often pass the bill by a voice vote rather than take the time to call the roll of 435 Members, which must be called twice on a rollcall vote.

Twelve years ago the first REA appropriation bill I was privileged to vote for came in the 1st session of the 78th Congress.

It then went to a conference committee of the House and Senate. When it came back to the House, Congressman RANKIN moved that the House approve the Senate figure increasing REA appropriations to $30 million. The record shows that I voted "yes" on the Rankin, substitute-CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 89, part 5, page 6361-which was defeated. This shows I voted to increase REA appropriations $10 million. 78th Cong., 2d sess., 1944 Budget request.House committee approved---House approved-

$20, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 20, 000, 000

I supported the $20 million although there was no record vote. It went to the Senate, which increased the amount to $40 million. The conference committee representing the House and the Senate compromised at $25 million. No one opposed the conference report. I sup

amount appropriated.

79th Cong., 1st sess., Budget request_---House committee approved___ House approved‒‒‒‒ Senate approved‒‒‒‒‒.

1945

$150, 000, 000

60, 000, 000

60, 000, 000 125, 000, 000

Mr. CANNON of Missouri offered motion to recommit, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Volume 93, part 5, page 6030, to provide $300 million for the Agriculture Adjustment Administration, $75 million for school lunches, and to increase REA $25 million. I voted against it because of the enormous sum added for AAA in the House.

On final passage of conference report I voted "yes" on the rollcall vote for $225 million-CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 93, part 5, page 6031; 315 of the Members voted "yes" and only 38 voted "no."

80th Cong., 2d sess., 1948 First deficiency 1948 budget request_

Committee approved..
House approved.

$175, 000, 000 75, 000, 000 175,000,000

In other words, we in the House increased the committee request by $100 million. Mr. CANNON of Missouri offered motion to recommit, and increase REA by $100 million. by $100 million. I voted "yes" on record vote, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Volume 94, part 3, page 3995, and also voted "yes" on record vote for final passage on April 1, 1948. Senate also approved the amount.