CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP59-00224A000100550001-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: January 1, 1955
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2000/08/22 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100550001-4
1955 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATE
Corpus Christi, Tex., water works and sewer
revenue bonds, $8,900,000.
Tacoma, Wash., light and power revenue,
$5 million.
Upper Moreland School District Authority
(Pa), $1 million.
Tucson water revenue, Arizona, $3,110,000.
Falls Township School District Authority
(Pa.), $3,460,000.
Fort Worth, Tex., water and sewer revenue
bonds, $3 million,
Detroit, Mich., sewage disposal system rev-
enue bonds, $2 million.
Omaha public power district electric reve-
nue, Nebraska, $12 million.
Bloomington, Ind., water works revenue,
$1,500,000.
Austin, Tex., electric, water and sewer rev-
enue bonds, $15 million.
Purdue University revenue, Indiana, $10,-
250,000.
Michigan highway revenue, $10 million.
Cleveland, Tenn., water and sewer revenue,
$1 million.
New Chicago, Ind., water revenue, $1,100,-
000.
South Bend., Ind., sewerage works revenue,
$17 million.
Lexington, N. C., natural gas system reve-
nue, $1,035,000.
Board of Regents, University of Utah,
$1,800,000.
Central Dauphin County Joint School Au-
thority (Pa.), $2,520,000.
Board of Regents of Kansas building reve-
nue, $2 million.
Portland, Maine, water district, $1,300,000.
Port of New York Authority, $20 million,
Atlanta water works revenue (Ga.), $2,-
200,000.
Livonia, Mich., water supply system reve-
nue, $1,500,000.
Los Angeles department of water and
power, $15,000,000.
New Jersey Turnpike Authority 3s (sec-
ond series), $27,200,000.
Bowling Green State University, Ohio,
$2,350,000,
Rome, Ga., water and sewerage revenue
bonds, $1,000,000.
Lafayette, Ind., sewer revenue bonds,
$4,550,000.
Chicago, Ill., parking facility, revenue
bonds, $4,900,000,
Detroit, Mich., sewage disposal system
revenue, $3,722,000.
Metropolitan Utilities District, Omaha,
water revenue, $6,000,000.
Pennsylvania State Highway and Bridge
Authority, $20,000,000.
Connecticut expressway revenue and motor
fuel tax bonds, $100,000,000.
El Paso, Tex., water and sewer revenue,
$8,000,000.
State Teachers College Board, Indiana,
$2,856,000.
Florida State Improvement Commission
Revenue, $6,000,000.
County of Jefferson, Ky., school building
authority revenue, $1,385,000.
Jacksonville, Fla., municipal parking reve-
nue, $4,000,000.
Rockville, Md., water and sewer revenue,
$1,300,000.
Georgia State Bridge Building Authority,
$10,250,000.
Erie Sewer Authority revenue (Pennsyl-
vania), $5,300,000.
Palmyra Boro Authority sewer revenue
(Pennsylvania), $2,150,000.
Knoxville, Tenn., water revenue, $1,000,000.
Pasadena, Calif., electric works revenue,
..$6,000,000.
Saginaw, Mich., sewer revenue, $5,000,000.
Des Moines, Iowa, sewer revenue, $1,000,000.
State Board of Educaton, Florida, $26,-
692,000.
San Francisco Harbor revenue (California),
$5,600,000.
New York State Thruway Authority reve-
nue, $300;000,000.
University of Texas dormitory revenue,
$3,042,000.
State Roads Commission of Maryland,
$1',290,000.
Board of Water and Sewer Commission
Mobile Revenue, Alabama, $6,000,000.
Lakeland, Fla., light and water revenue,
$3,500,000.
Kokomo, Ind., sewer revenue, $1,250,000.
General State Authority, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, $30,000,000.
Jackson, Ohio, first mortgage water works
revenue, 11,100,000.
Haverford Township (Pa.) School District
Authority revenue, $3,525,000.
Granite City, Ill., sewerage bonds revenue,
$1,335,000.
North Texas Municipal Water District reve-
nue, $9,200,000.
Bradenton, Fla., utilities revenue, $2,200,-
000.
Salt Lake City Suburban District revenue,
Utah, $6,000,000.
Consumers Public Power District revenue,
Nebraska, $2,250,000.
Manitowac, Wis., electric bonds, $1,250,000.
Henderson, Ky., water and sewer revenue,
$2.100,000.
Tampa, Fla., hospital, revenue, $4,500,000.
Gainesville. Fla., public improvement rev-
enue, $1,000,000.
Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas,
$27,000,000.
Puyallup, Wash., sewer revenue, $1,000,000.
Kansas City, Mo., Broadway Bridge reve-
nue, $13,000,000.
State Roads Commission of Maryland, $25,-
000,000.
Elkhart, Ind., sewer revenue, $2,400,000.
Chelan County Public Utility District No.
1, Washington, $8,600,000.
St. John the Baptist Parish, La., gas and
water revenue, $1,760,000.
St. James Parish, La., water revenue, $2,-
220,000.
Department of Water and Power of Los An-
geles revenue, $19,500,000.
Jersey City Sewerage Authority revenue,
New Jersey, $22,000,000.
Louisville and Jefferson County Metropoli-
tan Sewer District, Kentucky, $8.000,000.
Bald Eagle Joint School Authority revenue,
Pennsylvania, $2,050,000.
West Snyder County School Authority,
Pennsylvania, $1,185,000.
Shelby, N. C., natural gas, $1,200,000.
Louisiana State Building Authority, $3,-
750.000.
Ohio major thoroughfare construction
bonds, series "A" (fuel tax), $30,000,000.
Clarksburg, W. Va., water board, first lien
water revenue, $1,776,000.
Lafayette, La., utility revenue, $3,000,000.
Wyoming Township, Mich., water revenue,
$1,000,000.
Orlando. Fla., public-improvement reve-
nue, $3,000,000.
Thomasville, Ga., gas revenue, $1,500,000.
Greenwood, S. C.. public-utility revenue,
$1,600,000.
Denton, Tex., electric revenue, $4,300,000.
Hollywood, Fla., sewer revenue, $4,150,000.
Kansas City, Mo., water revenue, $12,-
000.000.
Cleveland, Ohio, waterworks revenue,
$6,000,000.
Cleveland, Ohio, electric revenue, $5,-
000,000.
Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board,
$7;200,000.
Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Virginia,
$8,200,000.
Holland. Mich., water-supply system reve-
nue, $2,700,000.
Colorado Springs, Colo, water, electric, and
power revenue, $10,000,000.
Wheeling, W. Va., sewer revenue, $2,500,000.
Florida State Board of Education,
$16,542,000.
Maryland State Road Commission,
$180,000,000.
11.`6t 7
Board of Water and Sg vnI Cu_ ma. ;si4 :.,
Mobile, Ella., $4,000,000.
State Public School Bu,.tliog i uti-
Pennsylvania, , $23,610,000. ,
New York State Thn way _ eutl.cri-y,
$50,000,000.
Orlando Utilities ComTlisnlon, Floric:tt,
$4,000,000.
San Jose, Calif., offstreet parking revenue,
$2,450,000.
Louisiana State BuiIdint, Authc iit.y
500,000.
Florida State Improvement Ccmnmissii-n
revenue, $3,400,000.
Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority,
$12,500,000
Department of Waterwor .s of B.trm lord.
Ind? $3,600,000.
New York State Poser Luthorii.v.
$335,000,000.
Corpus Christi Tex. w,'er-irp.-ovrinept
revenue, $1,365,000.
Total, $1,774,377,000.
Issues, 128.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS PtY :1,w Au PHORrrn a
WHICH ISSUE REVENUE Bn>Ni,S ales cua,w ,Y
LEASES, RIG.
GEORGIA STATE SCHOOL BUnDING A 'rTHORri Y
Bonds axe secured by a p ?ior lies or re--
tals received from county I?oards f e?luc;-
tion and 12;overning bodies of ina''per,de' t
school syst4'ms within the Eate pursuant io
lease agreements. The rent 'ls, payable each
September 1, are sufficient to par ins erect
and retire bonds at mattrity, to provi.tie
hazard reserve for insurance. maantenance
reserve and operating funds. Isie State
board of education, a party a-f all lease agree-
ments between local units a rd the but.horil v,
pays the above rentals on behalf of 1M:0
units directly to the author ty.
GEORGIA STATE BRIDGE BUn DING AJTt1'JR1'i Y
Bonds are payable from ;,ledge of rs nts Is
derived from lease to State highway- de par -
ment of certain bridges. ArrnuF ` r' nt,, Is
cover debt service and cost of oper:ctin r. and
maintenance costs of said I ridges.
GEORGIA STATE OFFICE BUDDING f UTEORr Y
Bonds secured by prior ion on revenues
received from various State Iepartr eni 8,1 :6
State agencies. Rentals to be cha ged ea" h
lessee, $3.50 per square foc!1 annu Ily, su!'-
ject to increase if inadegl'ate, arc: pevate
quarterly until October 15 1978, Or retire-
ment of bonds, whichever It later.
GEORGIA STATE HOSPITAI AUTIIC' TITY
Bonds secured by revenues from rents s
and income received under terms of, ieaees
to the Stale board of healt i. Les. ee :grew
to pay quarterly an amour t equa to bona
requirements and reserve th 'refor.
STATE HIGHWAY AND BRIDGI AUTHC:ZITS OF
PENNSYLVAN: A
Bonds are secured by pledge r,r r' nt.,ls
payable by the Commonwe iith tf Per.nsyt-
vania covering projects le: sell by tb' ii'-
thority to the CommonW, kl lth a a' i nt: s,.l
rentals sufficient to meet itie atinaal prin-
cipal and interest requiren ents.
GENERAL STATE AUTHORITY (F THc; ,JOl MO WEALTH OF PENNS' LVANIA
Bonds secured by pledge c all rcl tal' pa'-
able by State of Pennsylvania fron! itt; cc,-
rent revenues under lease covering pro --
ects leased by the authority to tAe
which leases are to provl ' for s.ay' ier.ta
at annual rentals sufficient. to meat annc ai
principal and interest requ cement
PENNSYLVANIA STATE PUBLIC SCHOOl BV'- Dr;TG
AUTHORITY
Bonds secured by pledge .1 lease: be,we n
authority and certain ec4=-ol district.: a
which the school districts are oh gated ?.0
pay out of their current revenues nol.Iding
taxes and reimbursements from the `>ta'e.
Rentals oil all leases plec(,ed are suf:eie ,4
Approved For Release 2000/08/22 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100550001-4
 110688
Approved For Release 0010 ,/2 : C RDP59-00224A000100550001-4
CO GRESSIONAI. RECORD -SENATE July 30
to cover 122 percent of the principal an
interest requirements on all such bonds.
MARYLAND STATE ROADS COMMISSION
Bonds are secured by an annual tax c
stating of such amounts as may be necess ry
of-(a) the proceeds of the 2-percent ex as
tax on the issuance of certificate of title for
motor vehicles, and (b) a 50-percent stare
of the gasoline-tax fund allocated to Ithe
commission.
LOUISIANA STATE BUILDING AUTHORITY
State law provides for servicing of aut)lior-
ity's bonds and prior charges from prod eds
of the 1.47-m111 State ad valorem tax on all
taxable property within the State after y-
ment of principal and interest on certa
bonds of the State.
Bonds are secured solely from pled poi of
revenues from park system earns s as
1. Specified minimum lease rentals from
concessionaries or specified percentages of
lessees' gross revenues, whichever is greater.
2. Gross revenues of facilities operated di-
rectly by the State, and
3. Pledge; of State to collect, to the extent
when necessary when receipts from (1) and
(2) are insufficient, admission fees to Im-
proved areas of each and every State park.
DETROIT-WAYNE JOINT BUII.DINO AUTHORITY
Bonds payable from proceeds. of fixed an-
nual rentals by the city of Detroit and by
Wayne County in amounts sufficient to pay
interest and principal.
ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL CENTER CORP.
Bonds secured by pledge of resources of
special agricultural center fund into which
are deposited rentals paid by agricultural
center board. Bonds carry an additional
pledge of amounts, if needed, from a special
agricultural fund deposited in the State
treasury.
ALABAMA BUILDING CORP.
Bonds secured by leases to various State
departments and agencies. Current debt
service constitutes a prior claim on rentals,
ahead of all other claims.
ALABAMA STATE DOCKS BOARD
Bonds secured by pledge of lease agree-
ments with the city of Mobile. There is
provision 1. or accrual and maintenance of a
reserve fund sufficient to pay principal and
interest for 24 months in advance and for
use of part of earnings under certain condi-
tions for -retirement of bonds.
FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF ADMI:NISTRATION
Bonds issued on behalf of counties and
special districts are secured by the unit's
distributive share of a statewide 2-cent-per-
gallon tax on gasoline and other motor fuels,
and are further secured by full faith, credit,
and taxing power of the local unit.
FLORIDA STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
Bonds are secured by leases of the various
properties to the State of Florida. In the
majority of cases the rental obligations are
equal to aggregate debt-service requirements
on lessor bonds issued in acquisition of the
projects. All rental contracts between the
department and the various instrumentali-
ties provide for purchase by payment of the
rentals; title to vest in the State on com-
pletion of the payments.
ILLINOIS ARMORY BOARD
Bonds are secured by leases of armories
and assigned to a trustee. All rentals under
these leases are paid directly by the State
to the trustee, to be used for payment; of
principal and interest.
LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Bonds are secured as to payment solely
by an irrevocable dedication or an amount
sufficient to pay principal and interest on
the bounds and any required reserves from
the annual franchise tax oa corporations
levied by authority of the State legislature.
MAINE SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY
Bonds secured by lease agreements with
town and community school districts provid-
ing for rentals to be paid by the communi-
ties sufficient to pay principal and interest
on certain admit istrative expenses. Further
provision is rizAde that if the municipality
is delinque in payments to the authority
such,,$fawn, city, or community school dis-
tric from any amount properly payable to
s v& town, city, or oommunity school district
MEDICAL CARP, FOR DEPENDENTS
OF MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, by re-
quest, on half of myself, and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALLI,
I introduce, for appropriate reference, a
bill to provide medical care for depend-
ents of members of the Armed Forces of
the United States, and for other pur-
poses. This bill is requested by the De-
partment of Defense, and is accompanied
by a letter of transmittal explaining the
purpose of the bill. I ask unanimous
consent that the letter of transmittal be
printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
bill will be received and appropriately
referred; and without objection the let-
ter will be p nted in the Rxcoi1D.
The bill OS. 2720) to provide medical
care for dependents of members of the
Armed Forces of the United States, and
for other purposes, introduced by Mr.
RUSSELL (for hiraself and Mr. SALTON-
STALL), by request, was received, read
twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on Armed Services.
The letter of transmittal is as follows:
ASSISTANT SECI:ETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, D. C., Judy 30, 1955.
Hon. RICHARD B. R ISSELL,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is forwarded
herewith a revised draft of legislation, "To
provide medical care for dependents of mem-
bers of the Armed Forces of the United
States, and for other purposes."
This revised proposal is in substitution of
the proposal submitted to the Congress on
January 13, 1955, and introduced in the
Congress by you and Senator SALTONSTALL as
5.934.
Since the submission of our proposal in
January, the Depvrtment has had further
discussions within the executive branch of
the Government and with certain other in-
terested groups and it has been concluded
that the proposal should be broadened to
provide the more detailed program for de-
pendent medical care which would be au-
thorized by this proposal.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that
the draft of bill would be in accord with the
program of the President. Technical im-
provements in all probability may be pro-
posed and certain questions will be further
considered, such, for example, as the cover-
age of widows and other dependents of de-
ceased military personnel and the extent to
which military personnel may be authorized
on their own option to move in and out of
insured status.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
This proposed legislation would authorize
the Department of Defense to provide medi-
cal care for all eligible dependents of mill-
tary personnel wherever located. Hereto-
fore, medical care has been largely confined
to those living near military medical instal-
lations. Although those living at a distance
have been eligible for such care, as a practical
matter adequate medical attention could not
be provided them. Additionally, in con-
gested areas, military medical facilities are
often inadequate to meet the needs.
On April. 1, 1953, the Secretary of Defense
established a Citizens Advisory Commission
on. Medical Care for Dependents of Military
Personnel to study this problem. The Chair-
man of the Committee was Dr. Harold G.
Moulton, president; emeritus of the Brookings
Institution, Washington, D. C. Other mem-
bers were Thomas L. Parkinson, president of
the Equitable Life Insurance Company of
America, New York City; Dr. Lewis Webster
Jones, president of Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, N. J.; Mrs. Eugene Meyer, student
and writer on social problems, Washington,
D. C.; and Dr. George William. Bachman,
senior staff member in charge of health
studies of the Brookigs Institution, Washing-
ton, D. C. In June 1953 the Commission
submitted its report and recommendations,
copies of which were sent to the Armed Serv-
ices Committees of the House and Senate.
Basic recommendations of the Commis-
sion are incorporated into this proposed leg-
islation. Some of the salient features of this
revised proposal are:
1. Dependents of members of the Armed
Forces would be authorized medical care in
accordance with specific limitations set forth
in the bill and as implemented by regula-
tions as prescribed by the Secretary of De-
fense and approved by the President under
the following optional plans:
(a) In military medical facilities, subject
to the availability of space,. facilities, and
capabilities of the medical staff;
(b) Through an insurance plan; and
(c) Through civilian medical sources for
dependents of members of the Armed Forces
not participating in an insurance plan, pro-
vided no military medical facilities are avail-
able to such dependents.
Under option No. 1, the Secretary of De-
fense would be authorized to establish
charges for subsistence provided dependents
of members of the Armed Forces in con-
nection with medical case in military facili-
ties. Further, as a restraint on excessive
demands for medical attention in military
medical facilities, additional charges may be
imposed for outpatient care, but such charges
would be limited to such amounts as are
established by the Secretary of Defense pur-
suant to special findings that such charges
are necessary.
Under option No. 2, members of the Armed
Forces would be entitled to participate in
an. insurance plan wherein the cost of the in-
surance contract would be apportioned be-
tween the member of the Armed Forces con-
cerned and the Federal Government. The
contribution by the member of the Armed
Forces would not exceed 30 percent of the
monthly cost, nor a maximum of $3.00 per-
month, estimated at the time of his filing of
a request to participate.
Under option No. 3, dependents of members
of the .Armed Forces who dd not elect to
participate in an insurance plan and who
are in need of medical care for which mili-
tary medical facilities are not available be-
cause of inaccessibility, lack of space, facili-
ties, or capabilities of the medical staff
would be authorized to receive medical care
from licensed physicians and facilities under
civilian control. However, under this op-
tion no funds would be expended for pro-
fessional service except in accordance with
schedules of maximum fees and costs of
such professional services established by the
Secretary of Defense. AI a restraint on ex-
cessive demands under this option, depend-
ents receiving medical care in civilian medi-
Approved For Release 2000/08/22 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100550001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/22 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100550001-4
1955? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
cal facilities would be required tb pay 30
percent of the first $100, plus 15 percent of
the remainder of the cost of inpatient care
and 30 percent of the cost of outpatient care.
However, in cases of protracted periods of
illness or other hardship cases, the Secretary
of Defense might provide for the transfer of
such dependent to a military medical facili-
ty or take such other appropriate action to
alleviate such hardship.
2. The medical care provided heretofore
has not been complete, and it has differed
in extent in the three Services. The limiting
factor in general has been the availability
of facilities, but at the same time certain
types of illnesses have been excluded. The
Commission recomrnentled uniformity in
practice throughout the Armed Forces as
well as strict limitations with respect to the
illnesses covered. Specifically excluded
from the bill are the following: Hospitali-
zation for domicilary care and chronic dis-
eases, and chronic mental and nervous dis-
orders, the provision of prosthetic devices,
hearing aids, orthopedic footwear and spec-
tacles (however, overseas and in remote areas
of the United States where if available from
military stocks prosthetic devices, hearing
aids, orthopedic footwear and spectacles may
be provided at prices equal to the cost to the
Government), ambulance service, except in
acute emergency, and home calls, except in
special cases as determined by the cognizant
physician. Dental treatment is restricted
to emergency dental care except outside the
United States and in remote areas where
adequate civilian dental facilities are not
available. In such cases dental treatment
might be provided from military dental
sources, but would depend upon the avail-
ability of space, facilities and capabilities of
the dental staff. The bill specifically pro-
vides that dental treatment would not be
authorized at Government expense through
civilian dental sources, except as a necessary
adjunct to medical or surgical treatment.
3. Medical care under the terms of the bill
would be limited to the following: diagnosis;
treatment of acute medical and surgical con-
ditions; treatment of contagious disases; im-
munization; and maternity and infant care.
4. The proposed legislation incorporates
various safeguards, and would give the Sec-
retary of Defense the authority to promul-
gate regulations and to fix such charges as
he might deem appropriate in order to im-
plement this legislation fairly, and to pre-
vent excessive demands for medical care.
This legislation is also designed to be flexible
enough to provide a basis in law for the needs
in this area during peacetime and in times of
national emergency.
COST AND BVDGET DATA
The following tabulation represents esti-
mated costs covering a year of operation un-
der the proposal using the estimated num-
ber of dependents as of December 31, 1954:
Insurance plan
1. Total dependents in United
States as of December 31,
1954----------------------- 2,204,000
2. Dependents to receive care in
other than military hos-
pitals-43 percent x 2,204,000_ 947, 720
8, Dependents to receive care in
other than military hospitals
yc'ho will elect to participate
In a private insurance
plant-95 percent x 947,720_- 900, 334
Estimated costs
4. Gross cost of medical care to
be performed In other than
military hospitals (in-
cludes 10 percent adminis-
trative overhead) --------- $88,000,000
Estimated costs--Continued
5. Less insurance participant
contribution of $3 per
month per family, ..------- $15,000,000
Estimated cost of medical care for depend-
ents who receive medical care in other than
military hospitals who will not elect to
participate in a private insurance plan
1. Gross inpatient care--------- $2,800,030
2. Less patient's contribution-
30 percent of first $100 plus
15 percent of remaining bill_
600, 000
3. Net cost to Government for in-
patient care---------------
2,200,000
4. Gross outpatient care--------
1,400,000
5. Less patients' contribution-
30 percent of cost...---------
520,000
6. Net cost to Government for
out patient care------------
880,000
7. Net cost to Government for
inpatient and outpatient
care-----------------------
3,000,000
Estimated total cost to Govern-
ment to implement legisla-
tion------------------------- 76,000,000
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT TRIPP Ross.
PROPOSED MISSOURI, BASIN COM-
MISSION AND COMPACT BOARD
ACT
Mr. HENNINGS. Mr. President, I in-
troduce, for appropriate reference, a bill
to establish a Missouri Basin Commission
and Compact Board. I ask unanimous
consent that a statement, prepared by
me, in connection with the bill, be printed
in the RECORD.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
bill will be received and appropriately re-
ferred; and, without objection, the state-
ment will be printed in the RECORD.
The bill (S. 2728) to establish a
Missouri Basin Commission and Compact
Board to provide coherent and unified di-
rection for the development of the
Missouri Basin's natural resources, to
give responsible direction to the resource
development activities of the Federal
Government in the Missouri Basin, and
for coordinating those activities with re-
source development activities of the
States, introduced by Mr. HENNINGS, was
received, read twice by its title, and re-
ferred to the Committee on Public Works.
The statement presented by Mr. HEN-
NINGS is as follows:
I am today reintroducing my bill to estab-
lish a Missouri Basin Commission and Com-
pact Board for the comprehensive develop-
ment of the land and water resources within
the Missouri Basin. This measure was intro-
duced in the last Congress, and I regret that
it was not acted upon. I regret Congress
failed to act because the problems of water
resources are increasingly of great impor-
tance. The fact is that we always find our-
selves in some kind of an emergency with
respect to water problems. Either we are
confronted with the devastation of a flood
or we are faced with a prolonged and de-
structive drought. I do not say that we
should not take emergency measures to meet
10619
emergency situations. I do say, howev-r,
that emergency action is no subsAtute l,ir
a carefully planned, well-thought out p. i-
gram that will insure a lasting st,lution co
our long-term problems. In my udgnie t,
the longer we postpone taking an- real ii=td
effective action to conserve our land and
water resources, the more serious t ill be or
situation and the greater will be the e,o-
nomic loss accumulated year afte- year--:ell
because we lack the courage and vision to
put aside our sectional and jur!sciicttux,al
differences and art for the good of be Nat on
as a whole.
My bill deals with the Missouri Basin -a,
vast section of our country comprising aiie-
sixth of our total land area. I . an see no
reason, however, why the policie, propo-ced
in this measure could not serve as a pat-
tern for land and water resource develop-
ment in other parts of the country, or. for
a national land and water resou -ces pu;cy.
We have spent many, many yeas debasing
these issues. We have had a ?lethort,, of
studies and investigations; we ha e had ?.ask
forces and committees and conic rences end
commissions. We have taken nilliote. of
words of testimony and published millior s of
pages of reports. But we don't hi ve a pcacy
We have literally picked the beat brain: it
our country. We have had th. advice- 01
competent engineers, of experts in agr,;u!-
ture and irrigation and reclamati, m, of q-tall--
fled spokesmen in water polluti?,n and fish,
and wildlife conservation and power and
navigation. And now we have r President'_,
Cabinet Committee, and the Hoo ter Commis-
sion, and the Commission on +r.tergo ern-
mental Relations studying the same prob-
lems all over again. But we sti-t don i, nave
a policy.
This just doesn't make sense. We ': no,v
that effective use of our land aid watts re-
sources isn't something that ern just rear-
pen overnight. I takes years= -genera tier s
even-and though we are blessed with ~,re. c
riches in our Nation, we Cann, ~t go o, i ii.-
definitely squandering our reso trees ii. th.s
reckless and profligate fashion.
In this connection, I would like t: calf
the attention of the Senate town article 1%y
Peter F. Drucker in the June issue of ^lar:-
er's. Commenting on this pre -ise iss.e, he
stated in his article:
"The geography textbooks ha _:e it tii .t t, to
United States is favored abcs'. all nations
with natural resources. It is certainly tr, e
that our food-producing capac ty is se great
that we will he able to feed i ven tll ' very
much larger population of 19 5 out, of co-
mestic resources-and at a hi ?;lier at.' ncisrd
of nutrition. And while, 20 ye ers hen e, i lie
United States will be a net imrorter o m?st
industrial raw materials on a ,icantm so* ~e,
it will still produce a much huger share of
its basic needs than other Western coun-
tries. But there is one natural resot,rce in
which the United States, compared tc We t-
ern Europe, has always been badly Sup-
plied. It is a basic one: wate-. Not nni: is
rainfall over large parts of ti e coup l ry de-
ficient, and abundant rainf ill lint ted to
small areas in the northwest tnct sor;tireest,
but because of geography, t;iology, or soil
structure far too much of the rainfaL we get
seems to be lost in run-off ratter thai, sti.red
up in the subterranean wate ? table. Con fu-
ture use.
"During the past 15 years, the 51g,is liavc
multiplied that we are 1lvin. off ot;r watei.
capital-running the risk of repeating with
our water resources the orgy of des:,ruc-:for:
we indulged In with our soil Water tacles,
once depleted, are even more difflcu t tr. re
store than eroded and depeted soil. Yet
we continuously pour new _ojtulation ani
new industries into areas of marginal v.? tier
Approved For Release 2000/08/22 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100556001-4
 i
Approved For Release 2000/08/22 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100550001-4
10690 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE July 0
supply, Inviting disasters that we should
have experience enough to forestall."
The situation in the Missouri Basin com-
bines all the aspects of our natural resources
problem. We find ourselves repeatedly in a
state of emergency growing out of water-
too much of it, or lack of it. I have spoken
in the Senate and elsewhere in great detail
about the land and water problems In the
Missouri Basin, so I shall not again go into
all of the details at this time. Suffice it to
say that repeatedly, over many years, we
have had recurring and terrible floods; we
have had extended and disastrous droughts;
and we have been severely handicapped by
the lack of any adequate organization of all
the diverse agencies and groups concerned
with the problem. What we so urgently
need is a program large enough in scope, in
leadership, In responsibility, and in author-
ity, to match the size of the tasks in the
basin.
The bill I am Introducing today would, I
believe, provide such a program and it would
offer a sound basis for Cie orderly develop-
ment of the great land and water resources
in the Missouri Basin.
The bill recommends the establishment of
a Missouri Basin Commission with authority
to coordinate the activities of the various
agencies operating in the basin-beginning
at the planning stage and carrying: through
beyond the installation of the projects. It
also Includes a provision that would grant
consent to the Missouri Basin States for the
establishment of an interstate compact
board. This provision assures a method
whereby the various States would formally
participate In the program, share in plan-
ning, review proposals of the Commission,
and exercise a distinct function In approv-
ing or disapproving the programs and
budgets for resources development Which the
Commission would submit to the Congress.
From time to time, I have discussed on the
Senat-3 floor and elsewhere many of the
problems arising out of the lack of a co-
ordinated program in the Missouri Basin.
These problems are not new. Ever since the
Louisiana Purchase of 1.803, early settlers and
residents of the basin have periodically
fought a losing battle to protect rich farm
lands, communities, and industrial centers
against the natural hazards of flood and
drought. The records indicate that one of
the worst floods in the basin occurred In
1844, but it was not until 100 years later, in
1944, that the Congress, in. a belated effort
to do something about the repeated losses
In lives, crops, livestock, and residential and
Industrial property, authorized the highly
controversial compromise proposal known as
the Pick-Sloan plan. The plan evolved from
the fact that the many diverse interests
represented in the basin-the various gov-
ermmnetal agencies concerned with land and
water problems, the executives of the several
States, the residents of the Va11e;7-had
failed to come to any substantial meeting
of the minds as to the best method of solv-
ing a highly complex and technical problem.
Now, after more than a decade and the in-
vestment of billions of dollars, there Is still
little real agreement as to the best means
for effectively meeting the water resource
needs of the area.
The Task Force on Natural Resources of
the first Hoover Commission in its report in
January 1949 stated: "The authorized Pick-
Sloan plan is essentially a hydraulic engi-
neering approach to solution of the Missouri
problems, designed to contribute whatever
Water control on streams can accomplish.
Upstream watershed control, water and soil
conservation on farms and ranches, general
review of land use, development of mineral
and*other raw material sources, and social
and economic measures for diversification
and stabilization of means of livelihood are
included only to a limited extent. Although
directed toward a cooperative approach,
there Is no means provided for an Integrated,
dynamic viow of the region as a whole"
That there has been general recognltfon
of the need for coordinated and integrated
planning and development of our Nation's
land and water resources has been clear for
many years. Almost half a century ago
President Theodore Roosevelt in a message
to Congress on December 8, 1908, said :
"Until the work of river improvement is
undertaken In a modern way, it cannot have
results that will meet the needs of this mod-
ern Nation.
"These needs should be met without fur-
ther dtllydallying or delay, The plan which
promises the best and quickest results is
that of a permanent commission authorized
to coordinate the work of all the Govern-
ment departments relating to waterways,
and to frame and supervise the execution of
a comprehensive plan.
. "Under such a commission the antual
work of construction might be entrusted
to the Reclamation Service; or to the mili-
tary engineers acting with a sufficient num-
ber of civilians to continue the work in
time of war; or it might be divided between
the Reclamation Service and the Corps of
Engineers.
"The essential thing Is that the work
should go forward under the best possible
plan, and with the least possible delay.
We should have a new type of work and a
new organization for planning and direct-
ing it."
More recently this same need was ream?-
phasized in a report dated February 19,
1951, submitted by the President's Water
Resources Policy Commission. This Com...
mission had made an exhaustive study of
our Nation's water resources, and in volume!
2 of its rep in entitled, "Ten Rivers in.
America's Future," it devoted at least 100
pages to the problems of the Missouri Basin..
The report pointed out the tremendous im-
portance of the proper use of water in the
whole economy and well-being of the Mis-
souri Basin-and I think summed up the
essence very well In the following sentences::
"Water-or lack of it-is the basic cause of
Missouri Basin. difficulties. It is at the root
of many of its special economic difficulties..
Floods long have plagued settlement along
the river. From one end of the basin to the
other they have exacted an enormous toll in
money and lives. They have carried away
homes and possessions. They have destroyed
crops and drowned livestock. Transportation
has often been disrupted. Even the land it-
self has been destroyed or made useless, and
cities no less than the smaller hamlets and
farms have felt their fury.
"Droughts have left their mark on the
basin. Lands have been abandoned, wheat
fields have become dust bowls for periods.
Cattle have died of starvation and thirst, and
people have been forced off the land. Once
flowing wells now are pumped; many dug
wells have become dry."
The report then went on to say:
"One of the principal missing items for
efficient planning, of operations is the absence
of a measure or guide to the relative impor-
tance of the many various interests involved
in most of the projects. * * * The many in-
terests involved in the basin program will re-
quire coordination for maximum efficiency
and beneficial results. Care must be taken
that operation of projects Is not allowed to
get out of balanco in favor of any one interest
or any one locality or region. A close balance.
must be maintained with respect to all needs
and beneficial effects."
I have long been convinced that without
real coordination it would be infeasible if not
completely impossible to control and effec-
tively utilize the vast water resources within
the Missouri Ba:;in. I have witnessed, as
have many of my colleagues in the Senate,
the terrible devastation caused by the raging
waters of the "Mighty Mo." We have wit-
nessed the equally distressing loss caused by
prolonged drought. The fact that we have
clone nothing to solve these problems is cer-
tainly not to our credit.
It was with these thoughts In mind that
I introduced a bill in August of 1951 to es-
tablish a Missouri Basin survey commission
to make a full and complete study of this
complex question, As I have said, however.
many studies have been made and if the job
ended there, nothing new would be con-
tributed to our thinking. My resolution,
therefore, provided further that the com-
mission be charged with the duty of for-
mulating an Integrated program based on
the total land and water use of the area,
and still further, the commission would be
directed to make positive and specific rec-
o:nmendations for carrying out such a
program.
While my proposed resolution was never
acted upon by the Congress, the commission
was, nevertheless, established by Executive
order of President Truman, The commis-
sion appointed by the President included
Members of the Senate, the House of Rep-
resentatives, and public members, and was
truly a bipartisan or, I might better say, a
nonpartisan commission. President Truman
recognized and pointed out again the need
for an overall program for the basin instead
of the present piecemeal approach which we
have been following. In establishing the
commission he said:
"There Is gener,Ll agreement that these
previous plans contain much that is valu-
able and sound today. There is also general
agreement that there is a need now for a
thorough reevaluation of the whole prob-
lem, in order that all who are concerned
with the basin-Federal, State, and local
governments, and private groups and indi-
viduals-may have the benefit of an expert
and authoritative judgment on what are the
most, important steps that should be taken
in the. future, and which of them should be
taken first.
"That is why I have established this Com-
mission. I want them to review the many
different kinds of problems that exist in the
large area of the basin-ranging from high,
and plains and mountains on the west to
the humid, level lands along the lower river.
I want them to give the country their advice
as to the best way to achieve an orderly,
businesslike development of the resources
of the basin-a development that places first
things first and provides for the greatest
resulting benefits for all the people of the
basin and the Nation."
The Commission on which It was my privi-
lege to serve as Vice Chairman had been
given a tremendous task. Our assignment
was to prepare recommendations for the
better protection, development, and use of
the land and water resources of the Missouri
Basin. The scope of our study was to be
far broader than flood control and drought.
It included irrigation navigation, and hy-
droelectric power development, pollution
control, recreation, fish and wildlife conser-
vation. as well as the highly controversial
question of the allocation of costs for each
of the aspects of resource development. As
I said, this was a big assignment. In the first
place, the Missouri Basin includes all or
parts of 10 States. It embraces 529,000
square miles in the heart of our Nation.
The Commission heard more than 400
witnesses at 17 separa.e hearings. In addi-
tion, we studied reports from Federal and
State resource agencies and the activities
which they regulated. We met in a great
many executive sessions to hear spokesmen
from these agencies. As a result of our
hearings and our further detailed study over
many months, it was apparent that there
hall to be some agency with authority (1)
to determine the scope of operations of the
various Federal bureaus and departments
and (2) to bring these agencies together in
Approved For Release 2000/08/22 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100550001-4