134

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

Mr. HARNESS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 423, making in order the bill H. R. 4071. The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H. R. 4071) to amend sections 301 (k) and 204 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. HARNESS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] and yield myself such time as I may use.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. gentleman from Indiana is recognized. Mr. HARNESS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the bill H. R. 4071, reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, amends sections 301 (k) and 304 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The proposed amendments are necessary to permit Government seizure of contaminated food and drugs in interstate commerce, and thereby protect the consuming public from a possible menace to health.

Under the original Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Government was empowered to seize and condemn foods and drugs that became adulterated or misbranded after interstate movement had ceased if they remained unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken packages. The provision proved most successful in protecting the public health and safety. But the language in the 1906 bill was thought to confer powers of seizure which were too broad, and when the act was revised in 1938 language was inserted to guarantee against unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of this authority to seize and condemn interstate shipments.

The language of the 1938 bill limited to a single interstate shipment seizure action on misbrandings that were not genuinely serious and that had not been the subject of a prior court decision in favor of the United States.

Even this restricted language continued to be effective until 1946 when the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the present terms of the law did not authorize seizure and

condemnation of food which became contaminated while stored in a warehouse where it was placed after its interstate journey. Since this court decision the Government has been handicapped in its enforcement of the Food and Drug Act. It was testified before the Rules Committee by members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce that for a period of some 40 years the Government had exercised the authority which this act would give them. That is, that it had the right to seize contaminated food in protection of the public interest and the public health. But because of this court decision the hands of the enforcing officials of the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Agriculture were tied so that they cannot now protect the public interest and the health of the people.

The rule which we have before us making this bill in order is an open rule As providing for 1 hour general debate. far as I know, there is no opposition either to the rule or to the bill itself.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the presentation which the gentleman from Indiana has just made is fair. This was the testimony given to the Rules Committee by members of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which committee was unanimous in reporting the bill. It seems to be desirable legislation.

Mr.

Mr. HARNESS of Indiana. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4071) to amend sections 301 (k) and 304 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 4071, with Mr. RIZLEY in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with. Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, as has already been stated by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HARNESS) and by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] this legislation comes before the House with the unanimous report and approval of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce after hearings had been held.

Mr. Chairman, the bill H. R. 4071 is a very simple one. It is designed to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in two respects. First, section 304 (a) which gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to seize adulterated or misbranded goods. The section now authorizes such seizure when the articles are introduced into interstate commerce, while being in interstate commerce and while held for sale. The

JANUARY 13

bill proposes to clarify the words "while held for sale." This clarification is necessary in view of a recent decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in United States against PhelpsDodge Mercantile Co. Certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court in that case. The circuit court of appeals held that under the terms of the present law the Government was not authorized to seize and condemn a fccd which became contaminated while stored in a warehouse where it was placed after completion of its interstate journey. The bill, therefore, contemplates making clear that the Government has such power by inserting after the words "while held for sale" the following: "(whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce."

The legislative history of the 1938 act which supplanted that of 1996 makes it clear that Congress intended to extend the protection of the law to consumers in cases of adulteration and misbranding, regardless of whether the forbidden act occurred before the article was sent on its interstate journey, while it was in transit, or upon completion of its interstate journey when it was placed in a warehouse waiting for sale.

The testimony presented showed that some 20 percent of the seizures of adulterated and misbranded foods instituted during recent years involved cases where the adulteration clearly resulted from insanitary conditions or other causes during storage after interstate shipment. In a great many other cases, it would have been impossible to prove that contamination or deterioration occurred before the interstate journey ended. The great bulk of the commodities involved in this problem are those which become contaminated by rodents, insects, and other vermin.

The second amendment concerns section 301 (k). This section prohibits the doing of any act with respect to any food, drug, or cosmetic while held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce, if such act results in the article being misbranded. Here, again, a recent court case, Jordan J. Sullivan against United States, makes a clarification of the statute desirable. The question in that case was whether the statute was limited to the first sale after shipment in interstate commerce. The bill would resolve the doubt by adding the words "(whether or not the first sale)."

In addition, the bill would extend this subsection by making it applicable to adulteration as well as misbranding, thus making the section coextensive with the seizure section, section 304 (a), which I mentioned before. Both amendments are designed to protect consumers against adulterated and misbranded products. Without these amendments, serious enforcement problems are presented. The national grocery and pharmaceutical organizations are supporting the bill because it protects their nationally advertised and distributed products against adulteration and misbranding while awaiting sale.

It should also be emphasized that the State food and drug officials, at their fifty-first annual conference at Carls

1948

bad, N. Mex., in June of 1947, adopted a resolution supporting in every way the present bill. The resolution reads as follows:

In the matter of H. R. 3128 and 3147 and S. 1190 now pending before the Congress:

Whereas recent decisions by the Federal courts have seriously restricted the applicability of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, to interstate shipments of foods, drugs, cosmetics, and therapeutic devices that become adulterated or misbranded after the completion of their interstate transportation, thus drastically curtailing the public protection heretofore afforded under the Federal act; and

Whereas the States and local authorities bave, by common understanding, come to rely in great measure upon the Food and Drug Administration for the inspection and supervision of interstate shipments of foods, drugs, cosmetics, and devices to insure that, from these sources, only products that are free from adulteration and misbranding are delivered to consumers, thus permitting the assignment of the inspectional staffs of State and local agencies to problems more particularly concerned with the commerce of the States; and

Whereas the activities of the Food and Drug Administration in connection with suca goods have been very effective against products which have become contaminated with filth, or otherwise adulterated or misbranded at destination; and

Whereas the Food and Drug Administration has successfully maintained a program of surveillance over commodities falling within this category without friction or confict with State law-enforcement agencies exercising like functions with respect to products in the commerce of the State; and

Whereas the funds and facilities of State and local agencies are generally inadequate to afford satisfactory consumer protection from abuses which occur in this field unless their eforts can be supplemented by enforcement activities under the Federal act; and

Whereas it has long been the policy and practice of the various State and local agencies and the Food and Drug Administration to plan their respective programs so that the regulatory activities of each will harmonize with and supplement the operations of the other, through the pooling of resources for concerted action where conditions require, or the planning for careful division of work so that personnel can be deployed for maximum coverage to give the consuming public and responsible industry the greatest degree of protection possible within their respective and concurrent jurisdictions; Be it therefore

Resolved, That the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United States in Annual Conference assembled in Carlsbad, N. Mex., express its firm belief in the soundness of the proposal to amend section 304 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act so as to extend the jurisdiction of the act to products shipped interstate which may become adulterated or misbranded after the interstate transportation has been completed; and that such jurisdiction be extended to the limit of the constitutional authority of the Congress so as to include not only the first sale but subsequent sales as a means of consumer protection and to prevent undue burdens on legitimate interstate commerce; and be it further

Resolved, That it is the belief of this assoclation that the provisions of section 301 (k) should be extended to prohibit acts which result in adulteration as well as misbranding and should be so framed as to be coextensive in all respects with the amended seizure provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as above proposed: Be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded by air mail to Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Rep

resentatives; to Hon. ROBERT HALE, chairman, subcommittee of the House; and to Hon. WALLACE H. WHITE, JR., chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate.

The Congress has time and again given expression to its interest in enacting laws that will adequately protect the consuming public against improper food, drugs, and cosmetics. This bill seeks to do that. It is necessary because of the unexpected decisions already referred to. I ask for the unanimous approval of this bill by the House so that there may be no doubt as to the desire of the House to provide adequate and effectual means of protecting the public against impurity of food, drugs, and cosmetics.

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the purpose of this legislation has been well emphasized and the need of it fully explained by the chairman of the committee. It has a unanimous report. I believe the bill is in the public interest and hope that the House will support the committee.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. HALE).

Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HARNESS) and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WOLVERTON], have already given you an explanation of this legisla-. tion, and I presume no further remarks from me are necessary. But, as I had the distinction of being the chairman of the subcommittee before which this bill was heard, I would like to make a few comments of my own.

The bill makes two amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. It amends, in the first place, section 301 (k) of the present law, which is enforceable by criminal and injunction proceedings, and prohibits the doing of any act with respect to an article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic, while it is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce. The bill adds the words "(whether or not the first sale)."

Under the decision on May 12 last of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Sullivan against the United States, the court restricted the power of the Federal authorities to seize contaminated, misbranded, and so on, drugs, to the time of the first sale after shipment in interstate commerce. Under this bill the Federal authorities could seize contaminated goods until they came into the hands of the ultimate consumer.

Similarly this bill, H. R. 4071, amends section 304 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which now authorizes, among other things, seizure and condemnation of any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or "while in interstate commerce." Section 2 of the bill amends this provision by inserting after the words "while in interstate commerce" the words "or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce."

This language is also, apparently, necessitated by the decision of the Circuit

135

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the so-called Phelps-Dodge case referred to on page 2 of the report- United States v. Phelps Dodge Mercantile Company (1946, 157 Fed. 2d, 453, certiorari denied (67 S. Ct. 675)).

The report on this bill is, in my opinion, an admirable document. It has been prepared with great care. I am at liberty to say this because I had nothing whatever to do with its preparation.

The point of these amendments is that they greatly facilitate the enforcement of this legislation by the Federal authorities, as to which the courts have rendered what we believe to have been unduly narrow and restrictive decisions.

As the distinguished chairman of our ccmmittee has pointed out, there is no opposition to the bill. As a matter of fact, it was on the Consent Calendar last spring but was challenged, I think entirely due to the fact that it was a little complicated and probably not fully understood, when it came up on the Consent Calendar. The bill is cordially received by the trade. See in this connection an article in the Food, Drug, Cosmetic Law Quarterly for September 1947. I think the bill should receive the unanimous vote of the House.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Connecticut Mr. MILLER).

Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the bill now before us-H. R. 4071-makes two amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which are vitally important to continued effective operation of that act.

Section 301 (k) of the present law prohibits the doing of any act with respect to an article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic, while it is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce, if such act results in the article being misbranded. The first section of H. R. 4071 amends the subsection by inserting "(whether or not the first sale)" after the words quoted above, so as to make it clear that the subsection is not limited to the case where the act occurs while the article is held for first sale after interstate shipment. This section also extends the coverage of the subsection to acts which results in adulteration as well as to those resulting in misbranding.

Section 304 (a) now authorizes, among other things, seizure and condemnation of any article of food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded when introduced into or while in interstate commerce. Section 2 of the bill amends this provision by inserting after the words "while in interstate commerce" the words "or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce." The language added, except for the parenthetical expression, is identical with language now contained in section 301 (k).

The necessity for the amendment to section 304 (a) of the act arises from a Circuit Court decision in the so-called Phelps-Dodge case which case the Supreme Court refused to review. The decision in the Sullivan case makes necessary the amendment to section 301 (k). These decisions will be discussed by

136

other members of the subcommittee to which this bill was referred.

The Phelps-Dodge decision brought to an end an important protective public service that has been carried out for 40 years under the present law and the original Food and Drug Act of 1906.

The hearings on the subject matter of this legislation were held durin; the last session on H. R. 3128 and H. R. 3147. Those bills proposed to amend only section 304 (a). It was after the introduction of those bills that the decision in the so-called Sullivan case was rendered. As a result of that decision and discussion during the hearings, your committee decided on the advisability of introducing the bill here reported amending both sections 301 (k) and 304 (a).

The testimony before the committee, including testimony of representatives of the food and drug industry, was overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation on which the hearings were held. We feel satisfied that there will be no substantial opposition to the further changes made by the bill now before us.

The enactment of the proposed amendments will not have the effect of excluding State authority. The Federal Food and Drug Administration has worked cooperatively with the several States and these amendments should not disturb that excellent relationship. The Federal Food and Drug Administration presents us with an excellent example of the good results that can flow from proper cooperation between Federal and State agencies working in the same field of endeavor. They should be commended.

These proposed amendments were approved unanimously on June 20, 1947, by the Association of Food and Drug Officials, primarily made up of State and city enforcement officers, in its annual conference attended by representatives of 32 State-enforcement organizations.

The amendments are also strongly supported by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., and the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Associ

ation.

During the hearings the committee did reccive a letter from the Indiana Canners Association, Inc., signed by A. F. Dreyer, secretary, in opposition to the proposed amendments. This association does, however, recommend certain other amendments to the Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. As an indication of the attitude of this association toward the problems of public health I wish to read just one sentence from their recommended amendments. They suggest:

The law be amended so as to prohibit the destruction of food which is admittedly fit for food, and prohibit the condemnation of food which is fit and suitable to feed to inmates of charitable institutions.

To the everlasting credit of those who administer our Pure Food and Drug Act, let me remind you that this agency adheres to but one standard of inspection and that standard applies equally to those who buy expensive foods and those who must eat the food served to inmates of charitable institutions. Food is fit for all human consumption or it is not fit for any.

I will not discuss the constitutional questions raised during the consideration of these amendments. Suffice for me to say that I am confident that the Congress wishes to go as far as constitutionally permissible in protecting the American consumer. There is certainly ample authoritative precedent for these amendments, both within and without the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Section 301 (k) of the act now prohibits "the alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole, or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if Such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being misbranded."

Our proposed amendment to section 304 (a) gives the seizure law precisely the same jurisdiction as that which Congress gave to the misbranding law in section 301 (k) in 1938. To disapprove this amendment is to argue that the protection of the purity of food is less important than the honest labeling of food.

We find precedent for this amendment outside the act in two supplemental enactments by Congress. The first is the Seed Act of 1912, as amended in 1926, which provides that misbranded seed shall be liable to a Government seizure proceeding if it is being, first, transported in interstate commerce; or, second, held for sale or exchange after having been so transported.

The second precedent is the Caustic Poison Act of 1927, which provides that a misbranded dangerous caustic or corrosive substance shall be liable to such a proceeding if it is being, first, shipped in interstate or foreign commerce; or, second, held for sale or exchange after having been so shipped.

Consequently there is nothing new about this jurisdictional amendment of section 304 (a) now before you because Congress wrote an identical seizure authority into the supplemental acts to which I have just referred. No one can reasonably argue that such acts should have a stronger seizure law than the far more important Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

It is difficult to visualize the magnitude of the breech in consumer protection that has occurred since the PhelpsDodge decision. A spokesman for the Pure Food and Drug Administration testified before our committee that it is a conservative estimate to say that an average of more than 20 tons of contaminated articles would be seized daily except for the immunity conferred by this court decision. The committee in its files had several photographs that show very graphically just how our food supply can become contaminated. I don't think it is necessary to display these pictures in order to impress the House with the necessity of the early enactment of these proposed amendments.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. LODGE).

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, reliable reports indicate that Communist leaders,

JANUARY 13

meeting in Milan, have decided on a Communist uprising in April for the purpose of setting up an independent popular republic in north Italy unless Moscow gives a counter order.

Top Communist leaders from all parts of Europe have been attending a congress of the Italian Communist Party in Milan. It is reported that Palmiro Togliatti, head of the Italian Communists, informed a small circle of top Communists that a new regime could be set up at Milan within 6 days and that Russia would give it unlimited support.

I have thought for some time that a serious attempt would be made by the Communists in the early spring of this year to capture the governments of France and Italy by internal force. The strikes and riots of last December were, I believe, only a forerunner of what we may expect. Serious strikes in Italy at this very moment are the cause of great concern.

Mr. Chairman, we must address ourselves not only to the economic recovery of Europe, not only to an effective, energetic, and resourceful information program, but also to the problem of somehow bolstering the police in these countries in order that they shall not become police states. This is the responsibility of the administration. We must help to preserve these bastions of liberty against the onslaughts of Red fascism.

Communist domination would jeopardize the European recovery program, the national security of the United States, and the peace of the world.

We must resist the conquest of Europe by internal force just as we would resist overt acts of war.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That subsection (k) of section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U. S. C. 331 (k)), is amended to read as follows:

"(k) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article is held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded."

SEC. 2. Subsection (a) of section 304 of such act, as amended (21 U. S. C. 334 (a)). is amended by inserting immediately after the words "when introduced into or while in interstate commerce" the following: "or while held for sale (whether or not the first sale) after shipment in interstate commerce."

The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore having resumed the chair, Mr. RızLEY, 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. 4071) to amend sections 301 (k) and 304 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, pursuant to House Resolution 423, he reported the bill back to the House.

1948

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOLSOM DAM (H. DOC. NO. 496)

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States which was read and referred to the Committee on Public Lands and ordered to be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:

The estimates of appropriation for civil functions of the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, in the 1949 Budget, include $3,370,000 for beginning construction of the Folsom Dam on the American River in California. This project was authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers in the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, "substantially in accordance with the plans contained in House Document No. 649. Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable

"

The Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, and the State of California are agreed that the initial plans for a reservoir of 355,000 acre-feet capacity should be revised to provide a reservoir of 1,000,000 acre-feet. This will not only provide more adequate storage for flood control but will also provide adequate storage at the Folsom Dam site for irrigation, hydroelectric-power production, and other uses consistent with the conservation of water resources in the Central Valley area. The Corps of Engineers is completing construction plans for the dam on this revised basis and work can be started promptly.

The Folsom Dam and Reservoir is a key unit in any plan for the full development of the water resources of the Central Valley. There is an urgent need for this structure, not only from the standpoint of flood control but also to provide additional electric energy and conservation of water to meet growing demands in the area. The Corps of Engineers should therefore be given funds to start building the dam at once under the authority of existing legislation. At the same time the authority contained in existing law for the construction of Folsom Dam should be expanded to permit the Bureau of Reclamation to construct and operate a power plant.

The power plant at Folsom must be integrated with the hydroelectric-power plants at Shasta and Keswick, constructed and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and with the Delta-Mendota pumping plant of the Central Valley project-all of which must be operated as a unit. To achieve such coordinated operation, the Folsom Dam and Reservoir, once constructed, should be transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation for operation and maintenance.

After the transfer, the dam would be operated for flood control in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary of the Army, as provided in section 7 of the Flood Control Act of 1944.

The transfer to the Bureau of Reclamation would assure that Folsom Dam and its important related developments would be operated in coordination with other Federal conservation structures in the Central Valley to yield the greatest possible benefits. Power produced at the Folsom Dam would be used as a second source of energy for the Delta-Mendota pumping plant and for other irrigation pumping. The income from the disposition, under Federal reclamation laws, of the power there produced would assist not only in amortizing the cost of the Folsom Dam and power plant, but also in paying an appropriate share of the cost of irrigation canals and other works needed to distribute water from Folsom Reservoir to irrigation districts, cities, and suburban areas. Unless this income from power revenues is provided for in accordance with established practice under reclamation law many related developments proposed in the Central Valley, particularly in the American River basin and nearby areas of California, will not be financially feasible.

I recommend therefore that the Congress expand the present authorization for the construction of Folsom Dam to provide, (1) For the transfer of the dam and reservoir, upon its completion, to the Bureau of Reclamation for operation and maintenance as a coordinated unit of the Central Valley project under the Federal reclamation law; (2) for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation of a power plant, afterbay and necessary transmission lines; and (3) for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation of irrigation canals and related works needed to deliver water from the reservoir to irrigation districts, cities, and suburban areas. There are pending in the Congress two bills (H. R. 4152 and H. R. 4157), either one of which, if enacted into law with appropriate amendments, would accomplish these purposes.

HARRY S. TRUMAN. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 12, 1948.

CALENDAR WEDNESDAY

Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that business in order on Calendar Wednesday of this week may be dispensed with.

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

There was no objection.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS Mr. VAN ZANDT asked and was granted permission to extend his remarks in the RECORD and include an article, Natural Gas Shortage in Pennsylvania Is Not Improving.

Mr. MACKINNON asked and was granted permission to extend his remarks in the RECORD in two instances and to include an editorial and a newspaper article.

Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin asked and was granted permission to extend his remarks in the RECORD and to include two articles.

137

Mr.

SPECIAL ORDER GRANTED Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 10 minutes today after the other special orders.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Under

The SPEAKER pro tempore. the previous order of the House, the gentleman from California [Mr. BRADLEY] is recognized for 30 minutes.

OCEAN SHIPPING AND RECOVERY

PROGRAM

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Speaker, within the limits of time I shall be glad to yield to any Member at any time for question or comment, and to answer any question within the limits of my ability.

Mr. Speaker, the funeral of an adequate American merchant marine has been arranged by the State Department. The pallbearers may well be some 16 foreigners. The mourners will all be Americans. The Outline of a European Recovery Program prepared under the direction of the State Department, aims a near mortal blow at our present merchant marine. It may be that this Congress can save the patient's life and disappoint those who hopefully anticipate the reading of the last will and testament.

I intend to speak briefly of the ocean shipping section of this proposed recovery program, to outline the events which preceded these proposals and to give my reasons for believing them thoroughly unsound.

I want it clearly understood that I favor reasonable help to western European nations, and to their citizens to enable them to regain their economic footing even though such help is an additional burden upon our taxpayers. But I do not comprehend, as a part of that help, a program which will strip us of a part of our principal defense assets and will relegate our entire shipping industry to a very inferior standing among the fleets of the world.

Under the proposals of the State Department we shall sell to European nations some 200 ocean-going steamships, and, in addition, transfer to them on a temporary basis up to 300 more bulk cargo ships under bare-boat charter. In substance, Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal to transfer 5,000,000 tons of American ships-about 25 percent of our reserve dry-cargo fleet-to foreign nations under the Marshall plan. It is a proposal to transfer foreign about half as many ships as now constitute our entire privately owned ocean-going merchant marine. This astonishing proposal has come forth even though the me: chant fleets of the 16 Marshall-plan nations will exceed the level of their prewar capacity when their present cor.struction programs are completed. This proposal is made notwithstanding the fact that in 1951 these same nations expect to have 10,000,000 tons-over 20 percent-more shipping than they had prewar. It is made notwithstanding the fact that even after allowing heavy withdrawals for obsolescence in 1951 they will still exceed their 1938 capacity by the equivalent of

1948

SENATE

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1948

The Chaplain, Rev. Peter Marshall, D. D., offered the following prayer:

We are glad, our Father, that troubles are cannibals-the big ones eat up the little ones.

But may it not be so with our duties and responsibilities. Help our Senators to keep a sane perspective, lest the big issues overshadow the lesser ones, and they fail to do Thy will with them. In all things, big and little, reveal to us Thy wisdom and Thy love.

Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. DESIGNATION OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The Chief Clerk read the following letter:

UNITED STATES SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1948. To the Senate:

Being temporarily absent from the Senate, I appoint Hon. HARRY P. CAIN, a Senator from the State of Washington, to perform the duties of the Chair during my absence. A. H. VANDENBERG, President pro tempore. Mr. CAIN thereupon tock the chair as Acting President pro tempore.

THE JOURNAL

On request of Mr. WHERRY, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Monday, January 12, 1948, was dispensed with, and the Journal was approved.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages in writin from the President of the United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Chaffee, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H. R. 2759. A bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, so as to provide limitations on the time within which actions may be brought for the recovery of undercharges and overcharges by or against common carriers by motor vehicle, common carriers by water, and freight forwarders; and

H. R. 4071. A bill to amend sections 301 (k) and 304 (a) of the Federal Food, Drug. and Cosmetic Act, as amended.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the Acting President pro tempore:

H. R. 389. An act for the relief of the dependents of Carl B. Sanborn;

H. R. 645. An act for the relief of Ben W. Colburn;

H. R. 769. An act for the relief of the estate of Ruth Horton Hunter;

H. R. 1155. An act for the relief of the estate of W. H. Rodgers, deceased;

XCIV-10

H. R. 1175. An act for the relief of the estate of Daphne Ward Pope, deceased:

H. R. 1319. An act for the relief of Calvin J. Frederick;

H. R. 1426. An act to extend veteran-preference benefits to widowed mothers of certain ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen; H. R. 1531. An act for the relief of William P. Gillingham;

H. R. 1645. An act for the relief of Mrs. Leona McMinn Winkler;

H. R. 1933. An act for the relief of Mrs. Elizabeth F. McCombie;

H. R. 2056. An act for the relief of J. C. Bateman:

H. R. 2348. An act for the relief of Charles J. Smith;

H. R. 2891. An act for the relief of Mattle A. Horner;

H. R. 3068. An act for the relief of Alfred Thomas Freitas;

H. R. 3146. An act to amend section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved August 28, 1937, and for other purposes; and

H. R. 3754. An act for the relief of Oscar and Anna Carlblom.

ATTENDANCE OF A SENATOR JOHN H. OVERTON, a Senator from the State of Louisiana, appeared in his seat today.

NECESSITY OF AN ADEQUATE AIR FORCE Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, in this morning's paper is the announcement by the President's Air Policy Commission that our present Air Force, with its 55 groups of 580 heavy bombers, 2,300 fighters, and 8,000 other planes, is inadequate even today and would be hopelessly wanting in 5 years.

This is the latest survey affecting the defense of the United States and, of course, it is completely authoritative. It is of particular interest to note that the Commission recommends as a first step the building up of a first-line force of 12,400 new planes organized into 70 regular Air Force air groups. Added to that would be 27 National Guard and 34 Reserve groups.

In the Boston Herald of last Sunday appeared an article by Gen. H. H. Arnold, wartime chief of our Air Force, which states:

Any potential enemy knews our military situation; the only ones who do not realize it are our own people. The cold truth is that at present we are almost as badly off, in a military sense, as we were before Pearl Harbor. Our Air Force today is a one-punch outfit. We are little better than a third-rate power in the In a very few years, every last airplane will be obsolete.

air.

Of course, we say we have the atomic bomb. We comfort ourselves by stating over and over that it would take Russia 2 or 3 or 4 years to get that bomb into mass production. But do we remember how long it took us, last time, to get ourselves ready? If we started rebuilding at full speed, tomorrow morning, we would require several years to reach our full fighting strength. Five full years

were consumed last time in reaching our maximum in air power.

General Arnold makes precisely the same recommendation as is made by the President's Air Policy Commission in the paper this morning. He makes this statement:

The minimum requirement for the Nation's air security is an air force in being of 70 combat groups.

145

Late at the last session of Congress, I offered an amendment to the Army appropriations bill which would have provided the funds for 70 air groups. It received a good deal of support on the floor of the Senate, but it was not adopted. I rise this morning to express the hope that at this regular session of Congress the Appropriations Committee will not be bound by any short-sightedness or lack of understanding on the part of the Bureau of the Budget, and that it will include in the appropriation bill adequate funds for 70 air groups. We must have an air force in being, an air force which is immediately ready, not a skeleton air force. For this reason 70 air groups are the minimum.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the article by Gen. H. H. Arnold, entitled "We'll Lose the Next War."

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WE'LL LOSE THE NEXT WAR
(By Gen. H. H. Arnold)

And it's the last war
If we have another, this

We won the last war. we'll ever win. Nation will lose.

We'll lose, and the enemy we fight will lose, because victory in atomic warfare is no longer possible. One nation cannot defeat another nation today. That concept died with Hiroshima. War is like fire: you can prevent fire, or you can try to put it out, but you can't "win" a fire, because fire is destruction.

If we fought Russia, the best we could hope to achieve is a moral victory, and that would be small comfort to the remnants of our people, crawling amid the burnt-out foundations and charred chimneys of a ruined nation.

So we must not, we cannot, talk about waging war with Russia. Even if we wiped out Russia, we would be wiped out in the process. War itself is defeat. We must talk about waging peace. We must wage peace with all the air power, with all the machines and money and men that we used to fight Germany and Japan. We must be stronger than any other nation in the world, because I am convinced we are one of the few nations in the world today that genuinely, devoutly, and unselfishly want peace.

Where do we stand, then, at this most critical moment in our Nation's history?

How does our air power compare today with that of other nations, either potential allies or potential enemies? Are we strong enough to prevent another war?

ONE-PUNCH OUTFIT

During the war, as commanding general of the Army Air Forces, I was responsible for two and a half million men. I still feel a deep responsibility toward these men, and I believe they want to know the facts.

That is why I am breaking a 2 years' silence to state these facts frankly. Any potential enemy knows our military situation anyway; the only ones who do not realize it are our own people. The cold truth is that at present we are almos as badly off, in a military sense, as we were before Pearl Harbor.

If another attack comes, the first blow will again fall through the air. Our Air Force would hit back with all the power it has. It could probably hit the enemy a staggering blow. But then it would be all over for us. Our Air Force today is a one-punch outfit. Without the ability to launch a sustained counteroffensive, we would have to surrender or be annihilated.