this whole field of international financial and monetary problems, which is done only by the National Advisory Council. A great proportion of the development loans made by the Export-Import Bank and the International Bank fall directly in the field of agriculture. Many other projects are indirectly related to agricultural development. It seems to me that exclusion of the Secretary of Agriculture from membership on this Nation's principal policy group in the field of international finance is a grave mistake, His judgment and experience should prove of great help to the National Advisory Council, not only in determining Export-Import Bank policy, but in the coordination of our overall policy in all other matters of international finance.

I was interested in an amendment to do just this, but in the rush to push this legislation through before this session is over, it now appears desirable to wait until a latter date. We should give our thoughts to this matter, and since there is apparently no opposition to including the Secretary of Agriculture on this top policy board, we should consider this in future legislation which may be considered.

bill because it is still under consideration in the other body. I should say if action is concluded on that tonight I would prefer to proceed with it immediately following the appropriation bill.

Mr. RAYBURN. If it is not possible to consider the atomic energy bill then, what would be next?

Mr. HALLECK. My present inclination would be to call up the omnibus river and harbor bill. In any event, I shall keep in touch with the gentleman from Texas and keep him informed as best I can of what will be called up.

Mr. RAYBURN. Of course I know the gentleman will do that, but other Members would like to know what may come up.

Mr. HALLECK. I appreciate that, too.

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

There was no objection.

CARDINAL WYSZYNSKI AND RE

LIGIOUS PERSECUTION

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MADDEN] is recognized for

table.

HOUR OF MEETING TOMORROW

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow.

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

Mr. RAYBURN. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, of course, many Members would like to know the program for tomorrow. What bills are to be called up?

Mr. HALLECK. I have just had a discussion with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. TABER], and I think they will be ready to go on tomorrow with the further consideration of the supplemental appropriation bill. How long it will take to conclude that I do not know.

There is some report in the press that the other body might complete action tonight on the atomic energy bill, and that of course is a matter we want to pass on.

Also, the Committee on Public Works has reported out an omnibus river and harbor bill, in respect to which there is much interest, and that will be on the agenda for consideration.

Of course, the bills made in order by the rules that have just been adopted will also be up for consideration.

Mr. RAYBURN. Which specific bill does the gentleman think will be called after the appropriation bill is disposed of? Will that be the atomic energy bill?

Mr. HALLECK. I cannot say definitely in respect to the atomic energy

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and to include a letter.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, the morning papers announce an armistice entered into by France and the Communists involving Indochina wherein 13 million more human beings in southeast Asia pass under the yoke of Communist slavery. The people of the world are aware that one of the main weapons used by the Communist leaders in the Kremlin is their insidious and well organized attacks against all religions. Communism is fundamentally atheistic and antigod. Communism cannot endure and expand where freedom of religious worship thrives.

As a member of the special committe authorized by this Congress a year ago to investigate Communistic aggression, we have taken testimoney of several hundred witnesses both in this country and Europe, a great number of whom were priests, nuns, ministers, and rabbis, representing all religious denominations. The revelations recorded by our committee outlined in detail the inhuman treatment given leaders of religion by the Communists. Imprisoned clergy received more barbaric brain washing and torture than any atrocities committed in world history.

This week I have received hundreds of petitions containing approximately 20,000 signatures from citizens of East Chi000 signatures from citizens of East Chicago, Ind., and adjoining area, askcago, Ind., and adjoining area, asking that the case of His Eminence Stefen Cardinal Wyszynski and other priests and religious coworkers under arrest in and religious coworkers under arrest in Poland, be presented to and investigated Poland, be presented to and investigated by the United Nations. The 20,000 sigThe 20,000 signatures of citizens making this request reflect the minds and desires of all freedom loving Christian Americans in the

hope that the delegates to the United Nations representing the United States when they meet in New York on September 17, take up for consideration the case of Cardinal Wyszynski as well as other leaders of religion now under arrest in Communist Poland and other countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Whenever the Communists take over a country, they proceed to destroy the old order and systematically and cruelly inflict their tyranny upon leaders of religion. In all representative countries, their main opposition and difficulty has been to curtail and abolish religious thought. Cardinal Wyszynski of Poland along with other church leaders like Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary, Cardinal Stepinac of Yugoslavia, and hundreds of priests, ministers, and nuns have endured untold torture, brain washing, and communistic cruelty in their fight to preserve their church and religion in these captive countries. Up to now, the representatives of the free countries in the United Nations have neglected and omitted to charge the Communist members of the United Nations with their crimes against representatives of religion. I am today asking the State Department and United Nations Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge that one of the first things to be considered at the September meeting by the United Nations membership is the unlawful arrest and criminal torture inflicted upon representatives of the church in communistic countries.

In 1948, Archbishop Stefen Wyszynski became the Roman Catholic primate of Poland. Under his church leadership he was polite but firm with civil authorities; he was uncompromising on principles. On the other hand, Communist authorities did not relax their rigid control over the church and their close surveillance over the activities of the church leaders was intensified. Under flimsy pretext or trumped up charges, church leaders were arrested, imprisoned, and in some cases, condemned to death and executed. Six bishops and several hundred priests were imprisoned from Cardinal Wyszynski's diocese. In a sermon denouncing the actions of the Communist police, he narrated the true conditions under which the church was struggling; where priests were not allowed to visit patients in hospitals or prisons. He asked that all true Poles demand justice and fairness in the practice of their religion. This sermon led to the Cardinal's arrest and incarceration. The usual trumped-up charges of spying for the United States, the Vatican and antistate activities were preferred against him. Years ago when the Roman Catholic Primate of Yugoslavia, Cardinal Stepinac and Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary were arrested and imprisoned on ridiculous and unfounded charges by Communist regimes of those countries, then it was thought that these primates were but two of many religious leaders in their respective countries and therefore at the time, it was assumed by some, more or less naively, that other religious leaders were free and their leadership remained unchallenged. Unfortunately, this simple assumption was misleading, for the deadly Communist police state

extended its ruthless treatment to other religious leaders. The arrest and imprisonment of Bishop Nastitch of the Eastern Orthodox Chuch of Serajevo in Yugoslavia in 1948, the removal and arrest of Calvinist Bishop Ravasz and that of Lutheran Bishop Ordass in Hungary on some trumped-up charges and the wholesale elimination of both Protestant and Catholic leadership in all Baltic countries is definite proof that Communists regard all religions as heresies and religious leaders as arch-traitors to their totalitarian regime. On September 22, a military court in Warsaw sentenced the the Most Reverend Czeslaw Kaczmarek, Bishop of Kielce, to 12 years imprisonment, while 3 priests drew prison terms ranging up to 12 years "on charges of spying for the Vatican and the United States." And the arrest and forced "retirement" of Cardinal Wyszynski clearly proves that even the highest spiritual leader voicing the united opinion of more than 25 million faithful Poles cannot be safe and free to speak the truth about the dreadful and deadening Communist police state in Poland today. My wholehearted sympathy goes to all those innocent souls suffering under totalitarian tyranny until the Communist oppressor is overthrown with the aid of the free world by the righteous wrath of patriotic and freedom-loving Poles, and once more may they enjoy physical and spiritual freedom in their beloved homeland. Let us all hope that that day is not far off.

I do hope that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and United Nations Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge will bring about, through our representatives at the United Nations, a complete investigation of religious persecution behind the Iron Curtain and a demand of Communist leaders that false arrests and inhuman tortures inflicted upon religious leaders under their domination, be terminated, and further that those now under political arrest be granted their freedom.

Hon. JOHN FOSTER DULLES, The Secretary of State,

JULY 21, 1954.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I received approximately 20,000 signatures from members of 14 Roman Catholic churches in East Chicago, Ind., and adjoining area, asking that the case involving the arrest and persecution of His Eminence Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski and other priests and coworkers under arrest in Poland be presented to the United Nations.

Under separate cover I am forwarding the petitions with the above-mentioned signatures.

I believe that our United Nations Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and our United States delegates to the United Nations General Assembly should take this urgent matter of religious persecution of Cardinal Wyszynski and others up on the floor of the United Nations for investigation and determination immediately upon convening September 17, 1954.

You will find enclosed a copy of the speech I have this day delivered to the Congress, outlining in further detail the unfortunate barbaric persecution of religious leaders behind the Iron Curtain. By presenting these facts to the United Nations, it would further arouse the people of the free world as well

TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1933, AND INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

Mr. WOLVERTON submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (S. 2846) to amend certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Mr. MADDEN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. He was also a member of the Katyn Massacre Committee which investigated the Katyn Forest tee which investigated the Katyn Forest massacres in the 82d Congress. He is also a member of the special committee created by the Congress in this session to investigate communistic aggression. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MADDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SAYLOR. I would like to congratulate the gentleman on the stand which he has taken. The persecution of the clergy and religious people of all faiths behind the Iron Curtain has been such as to shock the conscience of Christians everywhere in the world. I hope, as a result of your statement, that official action is taken, so that free worship of Almighty God anywhere in the world may become a reality. I commend the gentleman and those who associate themselves with him.

Mr. MADDEN. I wish to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. MADDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I wish to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MADDEN], who has a very keen perception of the diabolical schemes of the madmen of the Kremlin. I feel that your disseminating these views to the people of this country and the free world will make it possible to establish a firm and positive policy by which we will be able to bring liberation, freedom, independence, and peaceful existence, only after we have destroyed the demonical schemes of the madmen of the Kremlin.

Mr. MADDEN. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, who is also a member of the special committee created by this Congress to investigate Communist aggression.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. (Mr. SHEEHAN). The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.

THE 30:1 RATIO?

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mr. SIEMINSKI. Mr. Speaker, in Korea, the Reds learned that firepower overwhelmed manpower.

What now of horsepower? It outpulls manpower.

What steps are the Reds taking to close the power gap between their world and ours?

At the moment, for each person in Asia, there is available, on the average, less than one horsepower. In America, for each person, the average is around 30 horsepower. Thus, the gap in horsepower between East and West could be expressed as 30:1 in favor of the West. To dominate the world in peace as well as in war, it would appear that the Reds must first close the power gap, then pass the West, with a ratio in their favor.

In what way will the Reds power the East, before attempting to blanket the West?

A clear answer to that question might well guide the Congress in its vote on the use of atomic power. One or two observations might be helpful.

I am told that there is little water power in the East, that Russia has only four great rivers and China fewer than that.

Thus, factors of strategy, tactics and economics lead one to conclude that the

Reds will power their lands with atomic plants.

It took the blood of Korea to re

affirm the superiority of firepower to

manpower.

What treasure will the future require, before the superiority of atomic power for peacetime pursuits is established, if ever?

What then of horsepower and the 30:1 ratio?

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED

Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the House for 5 minutes today following the special orders heretofore entered.

President Eisenhower today stood firm on his controversial plan for the AEC to buy private power through TVA.

And the second one:

A bitter fight has been touched off in the Senate by Mr. Eisenhower's recent order to the Atomic Energy Commission to sign a long-term contract with the Dixon-Yates private utility group to supply power to the TVA to replace TVA power to be furnished to the AEC.

Senators from the TVA area have contended Mr. Eisenhower had no right to order the AEC to sign such a contract.

At his weekly news conference Mr. Eisenhower rejected the contention that the AEC is an independent agency over which he has no direct control. The President said the AEC could not be classed as independent in the way that some other Government commissions are. He said there are times when he is compelled to exercise his authority over the Commission.

This was in reference to the President having directed the AEC to sign a contract for private power, over the objections of the majority of the five Commissioners who held

that the contract exceeded AEC authority.

Mr. Speaker, I could hardly believe my eyes when I read this excerpt from the news ticker tape today. I do not know who is advising the President in regard to the independence of the Atomic Energy Commission, and I would be the first to say that the President had been conferred certain authority in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 as amended. But that authority is specifically spelled out in the Atomic Energy Act, and it goes to the point of granting to the President the right to appoint the members of the Commission and to designate one of them as chairman.

I want to comment at this time that the members of the Atomic Energy Commission must be confirmed by the Senate and that they serve for terms of 5 years. At the beginning these terms were staggered so that none of the 5 terms would expire at any one time.

Then there are certain prerogatives in the act. The President can appoint a general advisory committee for terms of 6 years each, and this committee is usually composed, has been in the past, of scientists. The scientists, of course, act in an advisory capacity.

Then there is another section of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 which provides that once each year the President shall set for production purposes, the amount of special nuclear material. That is the substance from which atomic hydrogen weapons are made. He sets the amount.

Then there is still another section of the bill which grants to the President the authority to transfer from civilian hands to the military atomic weapons when they are needed to be transferred for the defense of the Nation. That particular provision was written in especial

ly so that no trigger-happy general could take one of these atomic bombs and start dropping it anywhere in the world and start an atomic war.

We wrote that provision in because we realized that the atomic weapon so far exceeds in capacity to destroy normal weapons that we must put a solemn obligation on the President that the President and the President alone can designate when and where an atomic weapon is to be used. But the general provisions of the act were written by the Congress to guide the Atomic Energy Commission and with these exceptions I have noted, with possibly 1 or 2 other minor exceptions, they apply to the Atomic Energy Commission as an independent commission set up just like any other independent commission is set up under the statutes enacted by the legislative body into law. I think that this is one of the most astounding statements I have ever heard of to cast a reflection upon whether the Atomic Energy Commission is an independent commission or not.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gentleman and after he makes his remarks I have still another excerpt I want to read.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. As I under

stand the proposition, the President by the exercise of his Executive authority

if he had a mind to could order all

Executive functions to be handled by the Atomic Energy Commission. If he could tell them to make a contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority why could he not say, "Carry out all other Executive directives and fiats."

Mr. HOLIFIELD. As far as I can see, that statement would apply equally to other duties and responsibilities of the Atomic Energy Commission as outlined in the statute. But if we are to accept the President's statement it would go far beyond that, and allow the President to also order them to do things which are not outlined in the statute, such as the negotiation of the definitive contract with the Dixon-Yates people.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. I read from the press release:

There are times when he is compelled to exercise his authority over the Commission.

Is not that statement within itself an acknowledgment that there is no authority for AEC to make a contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, it might apply to that.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. If they did not make a contract with TVA would they be derelict in any responsibility that the AEC has under existing law?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Not that I know of,

especially in view of the fact that 3 out of the 5 commissioners stated that this is an awkward and unbusinesslike thing for them to do and that it went far beyond the original purpose of the act, and involves them in extraneous matters over which they thought they should not be concerned.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. An extraordinary function which they never real

ized they would be called upon to carry out?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I think the gentleman quotes some of the reasons that they gave.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. The legal justification was not based upon a hypothesis such as contained in the DixonYates agreement, was it?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The general manager, Mr. Boyer, in his testimony before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy when this legislation was requested, specifically limited it, and I am using his words when I say he limited it, in its application to the three existing atomic energy facilities-Oak Ridge, Portsmouth, and Paducah.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. He was not differentiating then the proposal that they are now considering, the DixonYates proposal?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That was unheard of at that time.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. The legal analysis for the opinion which was considered by the AEC was based upon an examination of the three existing contracts and not some hypothetical contract that Dixon-Yates brought in later on?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. I may say to the gentleman from California that

I want to make a study of that proposal and examine it thoroughly myself.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I want to read an

other excerpt from the ticker tape that goes as follows:

The President said it had long been his policy to change his plans if someone showed him a better way of accomplishing his purpose.

I will come back to that sentence later. He then said that his action on the power contract was motivated by fear of the consequences of continued Government power development in one area of the country without providing similarly for the redevelopment of other river basins. As for anyone saying he wanted to destroy the TVA, the President said the politest way he could answer that was that such an interpretation was in error. On the contrary he said he was prepared to support the TVA with all his heart. A reporter said that one of the principal objections to his position stemmed from the fact that 3 AEC members opposed signing the power contract but had to do so on Presidential orders. Mr. Eisenhower was then asked whether he felt he could order independent agencies to execute administrative policies to which they were opposed. The President said in the first place that he was governed by the recommendation of the Attorney General. He added that someone must exercise responsibility when the chips are down. He said that was his position in this power contract, adding that he did not believe the AEC could be classed in the same independent group with, for example, the ICC.

Now, this is in addition to the first excerpt that I read, further confirmation of an amazing position which the President finds himself in. In the first sentence he said that it had long been his policy to change his plans if someone showed him a better way of accomplishing his purpose. Well, I certainly believe that a better way of accomplishing his purpose would be for the President to exercise executive authority in the

executive field and allow the independent commissions set up by statutes enacted by the Congress to exercise their functions under those statutes which were passed by the legislative body.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Could the gentleman from California tell us how many proposals the AEC considered other than the Dixon-Yates proposal?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The AEC only considered_one_tentative proposal by the Burch-Von Tresckow group, and I believe that was given a very short study and an immediate rejection without what I would call due consideration.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. And did that same group later on resubmit a subsequent proposal?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I understand that they did.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Was it considered?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Not that I know of. Now, I find it hard to reconcile the President's actions and his words. We know that when he was in the campaign, in a speech at Memphis, Tenn., he indicated that the Tennessee Valley Authority was an indication of how Government could work its will for the benefit of the citizens. Maybe the gentleman

from Tennessee [Mr. PRIEST] could more properly quote his words in that speech.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I cannot quote his words exactly in that speech. The gentleman is correct in the interpretation he has put upon what he said, including, at the same time, I believe, the statement that if he were elected President, the Tennessee Valley Authority would continue to be operated at maximum efficiency. But, before that statement, he did, as I recall, emphasize that relationship that existed between the local

area and the Federal Government and used it as an example of how Government could work its will for the benefit of a region or for the people of a region. Mr. HOLIFIELD. How the Federal Government and the local bodies could

operate together for the benefit of the

people of the area.

Mr. PRIEST. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now, is it not true that after the President was elected he issued a statement in which he labeled the Tennessee Valley Authority "creeping socialism"?

Mr. PRIEST. He cited it as an example of what he would call creeping socialism.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And this happened to be, as I remember, on June 17, 1953, when he labeled the Tennessee Valley Authority creeping socialism. And, this may be partly incidental, but on June 16 or 17, 1954, a letter came up from Mr. Hughes of the Budget Bureau directing the Atomic Energy Commission to proceed to negotiate a definitive contract with the Dixon-Yates group. Is that not true?

Mr. PRIEST. That is correct. I believe it was 1 year to the day from the

time the press comment with reference to creeping socialism was made.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is it not true that the site for the Dixon-Yates powerplant is across the Mississippi River on the Arkansas side; and it is generally considered completely outside of the Tennessee Valley area?

Mr. PRIEST. Certainly it is outside of the Tennessee Valley area. And since the gentleman has mentioned it, that has been one rather interesting phase of this question to me. It has been argued even on the floor of the House, as the gentleman will recall, that the proposed site of the Fulton steam plant was outside of the Tennessee Valley area. That has been argued here. Yet, the site of that plant is in the State of Tennessee on the east side of the Mississippi River and certainly is much more closely related to the Tennessee Valley area than a site across the Mississippi River, West Memphis, Ark., which is in another State. It has been a little difficult for me to reconcile arguments that this is part of the Tennessee Valley area and that the site proposed for the Fulton steam plant was outside of that area.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Pursuing that point one step further, the Dixon-Yates proposal plans to build a 600,000-kilowatt plant and transmit the energy to the middle of the Mississippi River, thereby retaining its complete jurisdiction under the Arkansas Utilities Commission whatever may be its name. Then the 600,000 kilowatts are picked up by a transmission-line connection in the middle of the river which the TVA is directed to construct at a cost of $9 million to bring that current into the Tennessee Valley area and to the people of Memphis, Tenn.; is that not so?

Mr. PRIEST. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. So this is in no sense an extension of the TVA territory, but it is an invasion from across the river in the State of Arkansas of a

600,000-kilowatt block of power into the TVA area. Therefore it is a direct at

tack upon the recognized area of distribution which is generally considered the Tennessee Valley area.

Mr. PRIEST. I think the gentleman used a very apt word when he referred

to it as an invasion of that territory.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. And therefore it might well be termed, as the President of the United States is well acquainted with military terms, an invasion of the public power area which the Tennessee Valley Authority has been serving and is seeking to serve in the State of Tennessee.

Mr. PRIEST. And an invasion which the Tennessee Valley Authority is directed to accept, even to assist in its completion, by building a power line halfway across the river, so that the invasion can be consummated.

reading again from the excerpt: Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right. Now,

Mr. Eisenhower was then asked whether he felt he could order independent agencies to execute administrative policies to which they were opposed. The President said in the first place that he was governed by the recommendations of the Attorney General.

I want to comment upon that. This is the first information that the Attorney General has interpreted section 12 (d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as giving the President authority to direct the Atomic Energy Commission-in this Dixon-Yates matter and this is a very important statement, if the President has been correctly quoted. I read the words from the excerpt, because he said in the first place he is governed by the recommendations of the Attorney General. I suppose he means as to the legality of this action. Heretofore the only legal authorities who have said that the Atomic Energy Commission was entitled to do this, to negotiate this Dixon-Yates contract, were the legal minds within the Commission itself. Now apparently for the first time we have the Attorney General recommending it.

I understand that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. JONES] directed an inquiry to the Attorney General some time ago on this point. Is that a fact?

Mr. JONES of Alabama. It was last

week. I directed an inquiry raising certain legal points with respect to the President's authority to use the Atomic Energy Commission to execute contracts for the Tennessee Valley Authority. This morning I received a letter from the Attorney General stating that that type of service was not for the legislative branch of the Government but was an executive function. Therefore, he felt constrained not to give opinions to Members of the House and Senate. This was the substance of the letter. He did not

state that he had not advised the President on his legal authority, and I presume that the advice had been given by the Attorney General to the President in advance of the Attorney General's letter to me.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. This is the first time we have had any indication that the President has been acting upon the would certainly be interesting to me as Attorney General's recommendation. It

a Member of Congress and as a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic

Energy to see the Attorney General's opinion on that particular authorization, because in appearances before our committee this section, section 164 of the pending Cole-Hickenlooper bill, which is a verbatim carryover from section 12 (d) of the Atomic Energy Act, has been pointed to as giving them authority to consummate such a contract.

Let me say that there is a provision in this bill which, in my opinion, the President of the United States could use under certain circumstances for this purpose, and that is the provision in the bill which gives the President the right to exempt the Atomic Energy Commission from ordinary contract provisions when it is an emergency and when it is in furtherance of national defense needs. This section has never been referred to by any member of the Commission as their authority because the President must make a finding that it is necessary in the national defense.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. The President already has those inherent rights to use extraordinary measures in time of peril or distress or when the security of this country is involved.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right. Let me read this section 162:

The President may in advance exempt any specific action of the Commission on any particular matter from the provisions of law relating to contracts whenever he determines that such action is essential in the interest of the common defense and security.

There has never been any appeal to that section because they know this is valid only for defense purposes. The Dixon-Yates power is for the commercial, residential, and industrial uses of the people in the Memphis area. It is not for an Atomic Energy Commission defense plant or any other defense plant. Mr. JONES of Alabama. So that fact is not even under consideration.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That fact is not even under consideration. So the Attorney General must be relying, if he has made an opinion, on section 12 (d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 as amended, which is now the law governing the Atomic Energy Commission's actions.

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

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. PRIEST. Has the Attorney General or any representative of the Department of Justice made any statement before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy with reference to the legality of the question we are here discussing?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. No; neither the Attorney General or any of his representatives have appeared on this point before the joint committee. We have only had the testimony of the commission and the testimony of their lawyers that they are authorized to go ahead on the basis of their interpretation of the words "in connection with" which are used in section 164, which is, in my opinion, straining the English language beyond the point of forbearance.

Mr. PRIEST. And is it not true that the legal staff as well as the commission previously had stated that the authority to sign such contracts applied only in the case of Paducah, Oak Ridge, and Portsmouth under section 12 (d) of the act?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Boyer, speaking for the AEC, made such a statement. Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. The gentleman from Tennessee a moment ago stated that the President said the TVA was an example of creeping socialism, and at the same time he stated, as I understand it, that TVA was a historical fact. Does the gentleman from California know that at that time the United States Government, that is this administration, had representatives in Israel and in Jordan trying to reconcile those two States to the construction of a project of the Tennessee Valley type to resolve the tremendous and delicate question of water rights in those countries?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right, the gentleman has stated it perfectly.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. It was not a demonstration or an example of creeping socialism so far as those two countries are concerned, was it?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. No; I think it was exporting one of our tried and true American procedures.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. And it was a forceful, dynamic demonstration of democracy at work as far as those two countries are concerned, was it not?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I presume it was a part of the President's "dynamic" foreign policy because he authorized it, and he has stated on several occasions, that is either the President or his Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, that they are advocating a "dynamic" foreign policy.

Mr. JONES of Alabama. Does the gentleman know whether or not there is pending with any committee here any authorization for the expenditure or a request for expenditure for the construction of a Tennessee Valley Authority type project in those countries?

Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am not aware of it. I would suggest that the gentleman scrutinize very carefully the items provided for in the foreign aid bill. He might find some money appropriated for that kind of engineering project along the lines of the project that he has spoken of in those foreign countries, but I am not aware of it personally.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take the time of the Members of the House at this late hour, but at this point I ask unanimous consent to place in the RECORD my own remarks and some extracts from official documents under the title "The Dixon-Yates Contract Contains a Boobytrap for TVA."

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection. The statement referred to is follows:

as

any event in the amount of at least 100,000 kilowatts in each year, absorbing associated proportions of costs. Buyer may assign any balance to another governmental agency at an increased price to be approved by FPC; such price to include recognition of any increased costs then encountered or foreseen by seller. To extent such capacity is not used by buyer or assignee, buyer will reimburse seller for pro rata proportion of base capacity charge, as adjusted, and taxes."

Note that in subparagraph (a), that after the new plant starts full-scale operation, the Dixon-Yates group grants to the Atomic Energy Commission (1) the right to give a 3-year termination notice; and (2) the Atomic Energy Commission is given the right during the 3-year termination notice period to assign to "another Government agency, at contract rates, including all taxes and other adjustments."

After

Now we turn to subparagraph (b). the 3-year termination notice period has expired, several privileges and obligations are in order.

(1) Dixon-Yates "shall be entitled to and will absorb capacity as rapidly as load growth will permit"; this could allow Dixon-Yates to absorb, for its own use, the complete capacity of its plant (600,000 kilowatts) in the 4th year of its full-scale operation, with Atomic Energy Commission concurrence.

(2) "But in any event," it will absorb 100,000 kilowatts in the fourth year and 100,000 kilowatts per year for 5 successive years. This formula permits legally com

plete recapture of plant capacity in one fell swoop, immediately after the end of the 3year notice period-or gradual absorption of capacity from the 4th to the 9th year by Dixon-Yates.

(3) During this absorption period, of from 1 to 6 years, the Atomic Energy Commission is permitted to assign the unabsorbed capacity to another Government agency (obviously the TVA, as no other Government agency could use such residue), but not at contract prices-"at an increased price to be approved by the FPC." The FPC, in setting this increased price, must "include recognition of any increased costs then encountered or 'foreseen'" by Dixon-Yates. This is an amazing provision, in view of the fact that "other conditions" clause on page 3 of the appendix would allow additional increases

FOR TVA

(By Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Member of
Congress)

Among the many boobytraps in the proposed Atomic Energy Commission-DixonYates contract is a possible development which has not as yet been discussed.

A letter under date of April 10, 1954, signed by Mr. E. H. Dixon, president of the Middle South Utilities, and Mr. J. M. Barry, chairman of the executive committee of the Southern

Co., was sent to the Atomic Energy Commission, attention of Gen. K. D. Nichols, General Manager. The concluding paragraph of the letter reads as follows:

"The attached appendix sets forth an outline of additional matters in our proposal, including the more important provisions which will be embodied in a contract growing out of it. We are ready to negotiate a definitive contract at your early convenience."

On page 5 of the appendix referred to, under paragraph (7), entitled "Termination," subparagraphs (a) and (b), the following language occurs:

"(a) After commencement of full-scale operation, termination will be allowed on 3 years' notice, during which period assignment may be made to another governmental agency, at contract rates, including all taxes and other adjustments.

"(b) Upon termination seller shall be entitled to and will absorb capacity at least as rapidly as load growth will permit, but in

Commission, as well as any increase coming under the vague clause "other conditions."

This means, in effect, that TVA can be put in the position of building a $9 million transmission line from the Dixon-Yates terminal to its distributive area; use the 600,000-kilowatt capacity for 3 years, and then have a gun placed to its head through legal right to withdraw the 600,000 kilowatts, unless TVA would agree to pay the increased rates allowed under the wide-open clause noted heretofore in the contract.

Surrender to the threat would force the costs of the TVA and its customers upward, and would destroy the yardstick on rates.

Once the TVA yardstick is padded upward and destroyed, the private utilities throughout the South would reap millions of dollars out of the pockets of electric energy

users.

You may say that such a development is unlikely, and that it would involve another collusive agreement on the part of the Atomic Energy Commission and DixonYates.

My comment is that the contract makes it possible legally. The policy of the administration is anti-TVA, and I believe the independence of the Atomic Energy Commissioners is no longer to be relied on-when they are directed by the President to carry out his policy. This is evident by the testimony given before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, which, in my opinion, shows a lack of courage to object to a clear viola