« PreviousContinue »
tion of the language and legislative history pertaining to section 12 (d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended.
This procedure is indicated, not only by legal provision, but by Commission intent; and as proof of my charge, I call your attention to a letter dated April 15, 1954, addressed to Joseph M. Dodge, Director, Bureau of the Budget, and signed by Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. On page 2, paragraph (4) under the heading "Cancellation Is Provided as Follows," subparagraph (a):
"(a) For TVA to continue to receive and
AEC to pay power at the contract rates during a 3-year notice period. This period should be sufficient to permit TVA to make other arrangements for the meeting of the requirements of the Memphis area.”
It is obvious that when the 3-year notice period is announced, TVA is put on notice "to make other arrangements for meeting the requirements of the Memphis area."
What arrangements could TVA make? Could TVA come to Congress during this anti-public-power-administration, and obtain authorization for the originally contemplated Fulton steam plants? Would TVA not be told that it had better "negotiate a definitive contract with Dixon-Yates"?
This is the boobytrap designed for TVA by cunning legal minds.
Afraid to come out in the open and make a frontal attack, they, like all cowards, have resorted to devious and tricky methods to accomplish their end.
Their end is to prevent TVA building the Fulton plant; use the credit and administrative devices of the Government to subsidize a favorite private utility; pad upward the TVA yardstick rate; and thereby extort from the pockets of the American people many hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the benefit of private utility groups operating under monopoly franchises.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, there is another subject which requires some real consideration, and that is the subject of the international provisions of the atomic energy bill which is pending. An attempt is being made to sell the people of the United States on the idea that there are provisions in that bill which will strongly strengthen the President's hand in dealing with the international peacetime use of atomic energy. There is a section in the bill, section 124, I believe, which is entitled "The International Atomic Pool." I make the statement tonight that this international atomic pool section 124 is as phony as a $3 bill. It reads as follows:
The President is authorized to enter into an international arrangement with a group of nations providing for international cooperation in nonmilitary applications of atomic energy, and he may thereafter cooperate with that group of nations pursuant to sections 54, 57, 64, 82, 103, 104, or 144 (a); Provided, however, That the cooperation is undertaken pursuant to an agreement for cooperation entered into in accordance with section 123.
And I have made an extensive study of this international section 123 and 124. I have come to the conclusion that in place of facilitating the President, it puts restrictions and curbs him in the negotiation with these foreign nations.
There are three methods in this bill of international cooperation. One is called an agreement for cooperation. And that is on a very low level and it has many obstructions to exchanging information or material.
The next one is what is known as an international agreement. The "international agreement," if it comes up to that stage, has to come to the Congress of the United States for approval. The President has the right now to send any kind of an international agreement to us for approval. Therefore, you cannot give him the authority. The administration has that authority.
The third and highest level of cooptution of the United States gives to the eration is the treaty level. The ConstiPresident the treaty power, and the Congress cannot add to that treaty power. The Constitution gives it to him. But, mark you well, that when the President now comes to negotiate a treaty or an international agreement or an agreement for cooperation, his hands are not untied. He is not free to negotiate. And remember this, the President, in his message of February 17, stated that there would be conferences with these other nations, and following the conferences he would call upon the Congress for additional legislation to implement those conferences. Those conferences have been taking place, as I understand, but the President has not yet sent up any recommendations to help him make this international pool arrangement. So I maintain that section 124 in this bill, with the title "International Atomic Pool" is put in the bill strictly from the standpoint of propaganda value, and to make the people of the United States think that this bill is implementing the President; it is something the President has not asked for and has not sent up a legislative draft for; something which is being prematurely inserted at this point because it is being inserted without the President's request. Therefore, I say it must be in there for a purpose. If the purpose is not to help the President and to add to his powers, it must be to tie his hands, to put curbs around him, to put provisions around his negotiations which will direct those negotiations into a certain channel, a channel which the sponsors of this bill must be interested in. I say it should not even be in the in. I say it should not even be in the bill. The President has not asked for it. He has not sent up a list of advice to follow to formulate legislation to help him form an international pool; and, as I say, Congress is premature in trying to consider it. I point to the President's address of February 17, as an indication of what I am talking about.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am going to put an extended analysis on this particular subject in the RECORD. The title of it is "The Atomic Pool Is Empty." I ask unanimous consent that my remarks on that subject be extended at this point in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SHEEHAN). Is there objection? There was no objection.
THE ATOMIC POOL IS EMPTY Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, there are many phantoms dancing around the atomic energy bill before the Senate, and I want to bring one of them to earth right now.
The belief that the atomic energy bill would implement President Eisenhower's
proposal for an international atomic pool is completely unfounded. This is one pool that has no water, so far as the legislation is concerned.
Section 124 of the bill has the caption "International Atomic Pool." It is a phoney. That section would confer no new authority on the President and, in fact, would take away some he has now. The President's hands would be tied in negotiating with other countries on atomic pool arrangements.
When the President sent a message to the Congress on February 17 of this year, asking for revisions in the atomic energy law, he included this statement:
These recommendations are apart from my proposal to seek a new basis for international cooperation in the field of atomic energy as outlined in my address before the General Assembly of the United Nations last December. Consideration of additional legislation which may be needed to implement that proposal should await the development of areas of agreement as a result of our discussions with other nations (83d Cong., 2d sess., H. Doc. 328, p. 4).
We have heard nothing more from the President on legislative implementation of the atomic pool plan. In fact there is no plan, only the original proposal, couched in the vaguest terms, which the President made in an address to the United Nations General Assembly.
According to the accounts we read in the press, in the first blush of worldwide enthusiasm over the atomic pool proposal, the President directed Secretary of State Dulles to confer with Soviet representatives. So far as I know, nothing came of it. The Soviet bear did not change into a lamb.
Perhaps the Soviet bear will never learn peaceful habits, but that dismal prospect is no excuse for closing the door completely to future negotiations on peaceful uses of atomic energy in which all nations participate. Section 124 of the atomic energy bill, however, would close that door. The security guarantees and other conditions it would impose on other nations as the price of our cooperation would never be fulfilled by some nations in a hundred years. And this cooperation, mind you, is supposed to be "in the nonmilitary applications of atomic energy."
Let us take a closer look at the spurious authorization for an international atomic pool contained in section 124 of the atomic energy bill.
First of all, it would authorize the President to enter into an international arrangement. That much of the authorization certainly is superfluous. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946-the McMahon Act-the President's authority to enter into international arrangements was recognized. International arrangement was defined in the McMahon Act as "any treaty approved by the Senate or international agreement hereafter approved by the Congress, during the time such treaty or agreement is in full force and effect." Under his constitutional power as head of the United States, the President can enter into treaties or international agreements, the latter requiring, in atomic energy matters, concurrence by both Houses of Congress.
The pending atomic energy bill accepts the McMahon Act definition of "international arrangement," and so confers no new authority on that score. However, the new bill evolves a lesser species of international transaction called an "agreement for cooperation." Agreements of this sort stand separate and apart from international arrangements, according to the definition of the latter in section 11k of the bill, and yet section 124 requires that an international arrangement for an atomic pool be carried out by agreements for cooperation as prescribed in section 123.
In other words, the President's existing authority to make treaties or international agreements relating to the peacetime uses of atomic energy would be narrowed, not broadened, by the terms of this bill. Presumably, he could go ahead and make the treaty or international agreement, but it would remain a scrap of paper unless and until the other nation or nations involved could fulfill to our satisfaction the stringent conditions leading to agreements for cooperation.
Since an "agreement for cooperation" is excluded by definition from "international arrangements," the confusion is compounded by the terms of section 121, carried over from the McMahon Act. Section 121 says that any provision of the bill or any action of the Commission which conflicts with the provision of an international arrangement shall be of no force or effect. An agreement for cooperation certainly is a provision of the bill or an action of the Commission. If an international arrangement is made which conflicts with a subsequent agreement for cooperation, the latter is nullified according to the wording of section 121. And yet section 124 requires the agreement for cooperation to follow through on the international arrangement. This means again that the President, in making international arrangements, must not go beyond the restrictive conditions of agreements for cooperation, or else sections 121 and 124 contradict each other, and section 124 contradicts itself.
The confusing and contradictory wording of section 124 is brought out in relation to section 123. The international arrangement could be entered into with a "group of nations" but the agreements for cooperation are to be made with individual nations-except a Department of Defense agreement with a regional defense defense organization. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] has said a great deal on this point. He would strike section 124 as so much "eyewash" and amend the sections involving agreements for cooperation to enable the President to enter an international atomic pool arrangement without the need for obtaining further congressional approval.
I believe the Senator from Rhode Island is overoptimistic in the expectation that section 123 would encourage the formation of an atomic pool. In the first place, as I stated, it would shut the door in the face of the Soviet Union, even though the purposes of the cooperation are to be nonmilitary. Secondly, the number of nations fulfilling the guaranties would be so small that for all prac
tical purposes the pool would be a droptical purposes the pool would be a droplet.
Let us look now at the fields in which agreements for cooperation could be made, and what conditions they must fulfill.
The Atomic Energy Commission would be authorized to cooperate with other be authorized to cooperate with other nations by distributing special nuclear material, section 54; permitting the promaterial, section 54; permitting the production of special nuclear material by persons outside the United States, section 57; distributing source material, section 64; distributing byproduct material, section 82; permitting the importation or exportation of atomic production or utilization facilities, section 103; permitting the exportation of utilization facilites used in medical therapy or of production and utilization facilities used in research and development, section 104; communicating restricted data relating to reactor development and other applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, section 144a; and, through ful purposes, section 144a; and, through the Department of Defense, communicating restricted data in certain limited military aspects, section 144b.
For cooperation to be exercised on any of those fields just listed, "agreements for cooperation" would have to be made with each of the nations involved or permissibly with a regional defense organization on the military aspects. These agreements for cooperation must include, first, a description of the terms, conditions, and so forth, of the cooperation; second, guarantees that security safeguards and standards will be maintained; third, guarantees that material transferred will not be used for atomic weapons or other military purposes; and fourth, guarantees that material or restricted data transferred will not be used and get into the hands of unauthorized or outside parties.
Before proposed agreements, including terms and guarantees as described above, can become effective, they must be, first, approved by the Atomic Energy Commission, or the Department of Defense in certain cases; second, approved by the President with a written finding that they constitute no unreasonable risk to our defense and security; and third, submitted to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy for a 30-day period. on Atomic Energy for a 30-day period.
Although none of us is prepared to argue that restricted information shall be communicated freely, without any safeguards, whatever, still it is evident that the old, stale notion of an atomic bomb monopoly still dominates the approach in section 123. It proceeds on the assumption that atomic information is a one-way street, that we have everything and other nations have nothing. This is the sheerest self-delusion and it is a self-delusion that is self-defeating. In trying to protect ourselves we may hurt ourselves.
Suppose Great Britain, or one of the many other countries actively engaged in conducting atomic research comes up with a crucial invention or discovery that would be of strategic significance that would be of strategic significance to the military phases of our own atomic energy program. That supposition is neither absurd nor far-fetched. It is entirely within the realm of possibilities. Under section 123 of the bill, could Great Under section 123 of the bill, could Great
Britain be expected to communicate her findings to us when we lay down a condition that any material we transfer to her will not be used for atomic weapons. or even for research and development in the military field?
Under section 144b, the President could authorize the Department of Defense with the assistance of the Atomic Energy Commission, to cooperate with any other nation or regional defense organization to which the United States is a party and to communicate to that nation or organization restricted data necessary to first, development of defense plans; second, training of personnel in use of, and defense against, atomic weapons; and third, evaluation of capabilities of potential enemies in atomic warfare. But any activity under this section again is subject to the conditions for agreements for cooperation laid down in section 123.
One of those conditions is "that any material to be transferred pursuant to such agreement will not be used for atomic weapons, or for research or development of atomic weapons, or for any other military purpose." It says "material," not "special nuclear material." In other words, as I read the section, any data or possibly training equipment transferred under section 144b to allies engaged in mutual-defense activities, could not be used for the military purposes intended. Frankly, like some other parts of the bill already discussed, it doesn't make sense to me.
I will propose a series of amendments designed to remedy the serious defects in the international activities section of the bill and to untie the President's hands in this field without at the same time surrendering congressional prerogatives.
First I propose, on page 52, in line 12, that the word "approved" be stricken and the words "submitted to the President" inserted in lieu thereof. This will have the effect of preserving the President's authority to initiate and undertake agreements for cooperation without being subject to a veto by the Atomic Energy Commission or the Department of Defense.
As the bill now stands, both the Commission and the Department must approve proposed agreements for cooperation.
Surely the President should obtain their advice on the sufficiency of the guaranties, but it should remain with him to decide whether the Nation ought to take the calculated risk of entering such agreements in certain cases where the guaranties may not be as adequate as we may wish. In our system of government, the President is in the best position to weigh the international factors and to balance the risks. Technical and professional personnel in the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense are not in that position.
Secondly, I propose on page 52, in line 22, after the word "purpose" and before the semicolon, to insert the following: "except where the President determines that such uses will bring reciprocal benefits and be otherwise advantageous to the United States." This would allow the President, in very special and rare circumstances, to allow material to be
transferred for atomic weapons research and development or for other military purposes when our country would gain benefits therefrom, whether in achieving mutual defense objectives or in getting valuable atomic discoveries or other information from other countries.
Thirdly, I propose on page 53, in line 16, before the period, that the following be inserted: "after which period of time the agreement shall take effect." is a technical amendment which would allow the President to make changes in proposed agreements for cooperation when the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has signified disapproval in any particular, before the 30-day period expires in which the proposal lies before the committee. The amendment would remove doubt as to the time the agreement takes effect while allowing some flexibility for modifications within the 30-day period.
Next, I propose that section 124 be completely rewritten as follows:
SEC. 124. International Atomic Pool: The President is authorized to enter into an international arrangement with any nation or number of nations or with an organization representing any or all of such nations providing for international cooperation in the nonmilitary applications of atomic energy. The President is further authorized to request the cooperation of or the use of the services and facilities of the United Nations, its organs, its specialized agencies, or other international organizations in carrying out the purposes of this section. Any agreements made by the United States under the authority of this section with other governments and with international organizations shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of article 102 of the United Nations Charter. In the event further legislation is necessary to implement an international arrangement authorized by this section, the President shall transmit recommendations therefor to the Congress.
This amendment would meet in part the objections of both the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BRICKER]. It would authorize the President to negotiate an international atomic pool arrangement with one or more nations or with all nations, or with an organization representing them, without the binding restrictions of section 123. At the same time, being an international arrangement, the proposal would have to get approval from both Houses of Congress, according to the stipulation in section 11k.
Furthermore, the President would be authorized to call on the United Nations or any of its agencies in working out the international atomic pool. The precedent for such authorization is to be found in mutual aid legislation.
It is strange that so little has been said about the United Nations in debate on the international activities sections of the bill. The President made the proposal originally before the United Nations General Assembly, yet the authors of this bill look upon the idea as strictly a bilateral proposition between the United States and individual nations under the terms of section 124 as modified by section 123. I believe we should enlist the help of the United Nations and utilize its resources in attempting
to promote peaceful concerted endeavor in applying atomic energy for the common benefit of mankind.
Finally, any agreement made under the amendment would have to be registered with the U. N. secretariat pursuant to article 102 of the United Nations Charter.
My final amendment proposes, on page 58, in line 18, after the word "That", to insert the following: "unless the President determines that the common defense and security will be endangered thereby." The purpose of this amendment is to allow the President the necessary minimum of discretion in determining that our own defense and security might be jeopardized unless our allies, in certain conceivable circumstances could have more information than that relating to the external characteristics of atomic weapons.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Members will support these amendments and give some real assistance to the President. If they do not accept these amendments I hope they will join me in striking section 124 from the bill in the interest of not placing additional curbs on the President in his vital international negotiations on an international atomic pool.
THE NEW RED COLONIAL EMPIRE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. FEIGHAN] is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, since a number of Members of the House have asked me for the details of my statement made Monday in New York, and because a number of other interested organizations and individuals have also been seeking some of the details made in my statement, I am taking this occasion to acquaint the Members of the House and others interested with the major conclusions I have reached as a member of the Select Committee to Investigate Communist Aggression.
Having just returned from a 5-week mission to Europe as a member of the Select Committee to Investigate Communist Aggression, I am all the more firmly convinced that communism is an international criminal conspiracy. This international criminal conspiracy is planned and directed in every detail by a despotic gang of tyrants now holding forth in the Moscow Kremlin. The Russion Communists today, just as in the days of Lenin and Stalin, form the elite group sustaining the conspiracy. That elite group utilizes a supporting cast of local puppets and quislings to control the largest and most brutal slave empire ever known to mankind.
There can be no doubt, based on the evidence put before our committee in hearings held in London, Munich, and Berlin, that the plan of the Kremlin criminals is to colonize the world. By this process, they expect to destroy all the remaining free and independent nations and to make them completely subservient to the autocratic will of Moscow. As their evil plan unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that the Russian Communists are cast in a super role, thus playing the customary place of "drones." All the other peoples of the enslaved nonRussian nations are forced to labor and die for the glorification of the new Red Colonial empire. That new colonial empire now imprisons 28 distinct nations and parts of 4 other nations containing over 800 million
The Committee, under the able chairmanship of Congressman CHARLES J. KERSTEN, of Wisconsin, conducted its business in accordance with the highest bipartisan tradition. The singular goal of the committee was to get the hard, cold facts about Communist aggression; its strategy, tactics, and final objectives. To that end a large number of witnesses from practically every nation and area within the Red colonial empire presented testimony before the committee. All of these witnesses gave evidence based upon their own personal experience under Communist tyranny, and most of them suffered unbelievable torture at the hands of the criminal conspirators. These witnesses came from every walk of life-clergymen, laborers, businessmen, diplomats, farmers, soldiers, policemen, teachers, journalists, border guards and even children. In addition we heard several former participants in the criminal conspiracy who revealed some startling facts concerning the part the key figures in the Moscow Kremlin play in the ruthless slaughter of those who oppose the design of the Red colonial empire. The sum total of the evidence presented to the committee by these victims of Communist aggression leads me to these basic conclusions:
1. That the madmen of the Moscow Kremlin are working overtime to attain their goal of a world colonial empire.
2. That in all our dealings with them, we must recognize them as the leaders of a ruthless criminal conspiracy and accordingly must discard any notion that we, as a free and independent nation, can coexist with this conspiracy.
3. That the leaders of this criminal conspiracy regard the United States as the principal roadblock to the fulfillment of their plan for a world colonial empire and will attempt a sneak attack on the United States as soon as they feel they have a 50-50 chance of winning an all-out war.
4. That our best chance for national survival, while avoiding world war III, rests on our all-out support of the principle of national independence for all the nations now held captive within the Red colonial empire. The burning aspirations of 90 percent of the people of all the nations so enslaved is for national independence-complete separation from Moscow tyranny and a rightful place in a community of free and peaceful nations. By placing our moral and political support behind the natural aspirations of 90 percent of the enslaved people, we can strike a death blow at the plan and timetable of the Red colonial empire. As a first step in that direction, I strongly recommend to President Eisenhower that he immediately establish the national military units, long advocated by Chairman KERSTEN, to be made up of escapees from communism and attached to the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Who are the 28 enslaved nations? They are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Byelorussia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaidzhan, North Caucasia, IdelUral, Cossackia, Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, China, Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Outer Mongolia, Tibet, Kassakstan, Turkestan, Uzbeck, Tirgish, and Kirgish.
Four partly occupied are North Korea, East Germany, East Austria, northern Indochina.
The three disseminated or destroyed are Crimean Tatars, Kalmuchs, and Chechin-Ingush. These are the three nations which Colonel Burlitski testified about, the way in which they were forcibly deported by Stalin after World War
II. Colonel Burlitski is a former lieutenant colonel of the MKVD who defected within the past year.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
By unanimous consent, permission to extend remarks in the Appendix of the RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks, was granted to:
Mr. DOYLE and to include appropriate material.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan and to include a newspaper article.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to Mr. VINSON for an indefinite period on account of official business.
SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to address the House for 10 minutes on tomorrow, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered.
SENATE ENROLLED 3ILLS SIGNED The Speaker announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate of the following titles:
S. 95. An act for the relief of Mrs. Donka Kourteva Dikova (Dikoff) and her son Nicola Marin Dikoff;
S. 98. An act for the relief of (Mrs.) Betty Thornton or Jozsefne Toth;
S. 102. An act for the relief of Francesco Cracchiolo;
S. 110. An act for the relief of Christopher F. Jako;
S. 203. An act for the relief of Yvonne Linnea Colcord;
S. 222. An act for the relief of Mrs. Dean S. Roberts (nee Braun);
S. 246. An act for the relief of Gerrit Been; S. 267. An act for the relief of Pantelis Morfessis;
S. 278. An act for the relief of Szyga (Saul) Morgenstern;
S. 308. An act for the relief of Filolaos Tsolakis and his wife, Vassiliki Tsolakis;
496. An act for the relief of Dr. Samson Sol Flores and his wife, the former Cecilia T. Tolentino;
S. 552. An act for the relief of Anna Urwicz;
S. 587. An act for the relief of Carlos Fortich, Jr.;
S. 661. An act for the relief of Nino Sabino Di Michele;
S. 790. An act for the relief of Irene J. Halkis;
S. 794. An act for the relief of Paulus Youhanna Benjamen;
S. 795. An act for the relief of Josef Radziwill;
S. 830. An act for the relief of Samuel, Agnes, and Sonya Lieberman;
S. 841. An act for the relief of Dionysio Antypas;
S. 843. An act for the relief of Rabbi Eugene Geigelstock;
S. 855. An act for the relief of Kirill Mihailovich Alexeev, Antonia Ivanovna Alexeev, and minor children, Victoria and Vladimir Alexeev;
S. 891. An act for the relief of Albina
S. 912. An act for the relief of Bruno Ewald Paul and Margit Paul;
S. 915. An act for the relief of Augusta Bleys (also known as Augustina Bleys);
S. 917. An act for the relief of Stefan Burda, Anna Burda, and Nikolai Burda; S. 937. An act for the relief of Virginia Grande;
S. 945. An act for the relief of Moshe Gips;
S. 986. An act for the relief of Mrs. Ishi Washburn;
S. 1129. An act for the relief of Jozo Mandic;
S. 1267. An act for the relief of Irene Kramer and Otto Kramer;
S. 1313. An act for the relief of Olga Balabanov and Nicola Balabanov;
S. 1362. An act for the relief of Rev. Ishai Ben Asher;
S. 1477. An act for the relief of Gerhard Nicklaus;
S. 1490. An act for the relief of David Maisel (David Majzel) and Bertha Maisel (Berta Pieschansky Majzel);
S. 1841. An act for the relief of Carlo (Adiutore) D'Amico;
S. 1850. An act for the relief of Dr. John D. MacLennan;
S. 1860. An act for the relief of Amalia Sandrovic;
S. 1954. An act for the relief of Anthony N. Goraieb;
S. 2036. An act for the relief of Joseph Robin Groninger;
S. 2065. An act for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. Hendrik Van der Tuin;
S. 2677. An act for the relief of Michio Yamamoto;
S. 2820. An act for the relief of Mrs. Erika Gisela Osteraa;
S. 2960. An act for the relief of Barbara Herta Geschwandtner;
S. 3197. An act to authorize the acceptance of conditional gifts to further the defense effort; and
S. 3605. An act to abolish the offices of Assistant Treasurer and Assistant Register of the Treasury and to provide for an Under Secretary for Monetary Affairs and an additional Assistant Secretary in the Treasury Department.
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE
Mr. LECOMPTE, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee did on this day present to the President, for his approval, bills of the House of the following titles:
H. R. 130. An act to amend the act approved June 27, 1947 (61 Stat. 189);
H. R. 5185. An act for the relief of Klyce Motors, Inc.;
H. R. 6642. An act for the relief of Mrs. Augusta Selmer-Andersen;
H. R. 6786. An act authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to purchase improvements or pay damages for removal of improvements located on public lands of the United States in the Palisades project area, Palisades reclamation project, Idaho;
H. R. 7466. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to execute an amendatory repayment contract with the Pine River irrigation district, Colorado, and for other purposes;
H. R. 8026. An act to provide for transfer of title to movable property to irrigation districts or water users' organizations under the Federal reclamation laws;
H. R. 8983. An act to provide for the conveyance of certain lands by the United States to the city of Muskogee, Okla.; and
H. R. 9005. An act to continue the effectiveness of the act of July 17, 1953 (67 Stat. 177).
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 12 minutes p. m.), under the previous order of the House, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 22, 1954, at 10 o'clock a. m.
MOTION TO DISCHARGE
JUNE 30, 1954. To the CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVII, I, HAROLD C. HAGEN, of Minnesota, move to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 590) entitled, "A resolution providing for the consideration of the bill H. R. 9245," which was referred to said committee June 17, 1954, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to wit:
1. Harold C. Hagen. 2. James G. Fulton. 3. Otto Krueger.
4. John E. Fogarty. 5. Edward J. Hart.
6. Robert J. Corbett. 7. Antoni N. Sadlak.
8. Horace Seely-Brown, Jr.
9. Robert Crosser.
10. Thomas J. Lane.
11. Herman P. Eberharter.
12. H. R. Gross.
13. Roy W. Wier.
14. Eugene J. McCarthy.
17. Wayne N. Aspinall.
25. Chester E. Merrow.
48. James A. Byrne.
54. Francis E. Walter.
60. William J. Green, Jr.
62. Thomas J. O'Brien.
63. Barrett O'Hara.
66. James T. Patterson.
67. William C. Cole.
68. Harlan Hagen.
69. Isidore Dollinger.
70. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr.
71. Abraham Multer.
72. Thomas S. Gordon.
73. Mrs. John B. Sullivan.
74. Peter F. Mack, Jr.
82. A. S. J. Carnahan,
84. James G. Polk.
85. Michael J. Kirwan.
86. William Henry Harrison.
87. Philip J. Philbin.
88. Sam Yorty.
89. Robert H. Mollohan.
90. Louis C. Rabaut.
91. Lester Johnson.
92. Alfred D. Sieminski.
93. Henderson Lanham.
96. James J. Delaney.
99. Leroy Johnson.
109. Clair Engle.
110. John Lesinski.
125. Clarence Cannon.
126. John Jarman.
127. Tom Steed.
128. Laurie Battle.
129. Joseph L. Carrigg.
131. Robert B. Chiperfield.
132. Ed Edmondson.
134. Clifford Davis.
140. Norris Cotton.
148. James H. Morrison.
150. Thaddeus M. Machrowicz.
152. James W. Trimble..
153. A. S. Herlong, Jr.
154. Dwight L. Rogers.
170. R. W. Hoffman.
173. J. E. Van Zandt.
180. Charles E. Bennett.
192. William G. Bray.
198. J. Ernest Wharton.
200. Aug. H. Andresen.
214. Carl T. Durham.
This motion was entered upon the
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
1759. A letter from the Deputy Postmaster
1760. A letter from the Secretary of Com-
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUB-
Mr. MILLER of Nebraska: Committee on
Mr. TOLLEFSON: Committee on Merchant
Mr. ALLEN of California: Committee on
Mr. HOPE: Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. VAN PELT: Committee on Merchant
Mr. D'EWART: Committee of conference.