A TRIBUTE TO LABOR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 6, 2014
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 7, 1959
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

frn A 6/i-1 () r
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
\-1
t ? -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
acreage being planted in allotted crops.
'These allotments are already in existence
and are being planted and even if Public
Law 835 is not amended the acreage will
go into an allotment pool and will be
available for allotment under the pro-
visions of that act. The allotment will
be in existence even after the land is
inundated.
It is simple justice to take care of peo-
ple being displaced in the construction of
Federal reservoirs. The Government,
with or without the consent of the own-
ers, purchases or condemns these lands.
It is often times years before the actual
flooding takes place and in the mean-
time the former owners are given a pri-
ority in leasing them. In the Eufaula
Dam area in my district, and I am sure
there are comparable situations through-
out the country, some of the better land
of the county is being taken 'over because
bottom lands are taken when these big
lakes are built. Some of the displaced
farmers have farmed these lands since
before statehood-50 or 60 years, with
farms having come down through gen-
erations. The allotments on their land
-are geared to their farming oterations.
The farms are valueless without the al-
lotments and conversion to any other
kind of operation would require many
years work and untold expense.
Another consideration is that unless
farmers can begin now to plan for next
year, they will be faced with the forced
sale of their equipment at considerable
loss since there will be so many sales in
a slick time. In addition, many farmers,
and this is true in my district and others,
are finding it practically impossible to
find a farm to rent in so short a time.
It is important to remember that the
amount of land devoted to these re-
stricted crops in reservoir areas is rela-
tively insignificant in terms of State and
national acreage. Furthermore, these
allotments have been planted for years
and will not contribute to the surplus.
But the loss of these crops is a personal
disaster to the farmers involved and an
economic blow to their areas. If the
Government is to deal fairly and respon-
sibly with .a hardship situation created
by Federal construction, it is compelling
upon it to correct a problem which has
arisen inadvertently through the enact-
ment of Public Law 835.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, this
bill is necessary to correct a serious in-
equity in the law regarding acreage al-
lotments in areas where farmers are dis-
placed through exercise of eminent do-
main.
In our State of Oklahoma, where
thousands of acres are being acquired for
needed reservoir construction, we can
substantially reduce the hardship of
hundreds of our citizens under this pro-
posal.
The able gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. ALBERT], who is one of the great-
est friends the American farmer has in
Washington, has clearly- explained the
terms of the bill and its need to correct
an injustice. ?
I join my colleague in Urging favorable
action on this bill.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
. suspending the rules and passing the
bill.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds hav,Mg voted in favor thereof) the
rules were suspended and the bill was
passed.
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
REMARKS
. - Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speer, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have permission to extend their re-
marks in the RECORD immediately pre-
ceding passage of the bill H.R. 8343, and
that all Members may have 5 legislative
days in which to extend their remarks in
the RECORD on this legislation.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Okla-
homa?
There was no objection.
A TRIBUTE TO LABOR
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent for the immedi-
ate consideration of House Concurrent
Resolution 435, which I send to the
Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read the House concurrent
resolution, as follows:
Whereas American labor has raised its
standards of productivity to heights un-
equaled in world history; and
Whereas the efforts of American labor have
brought to this country a standard of living?
that has no parallel; and
Whereas American labor has served the
Nation in peace and war; and
Whereas American labor has been a bul-
wark of freedom; and
Whereas the first Monday in September is
traditionally set aside to commemorate the
services of working men and women to our
Nation: Therefore be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring), That the Congress
does hereby express its deep realization and
appreciation of the basic role that labor
plays in our economy and of the contribu-
tions that American working men and
women have made to America's well-being.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request, of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the House concurrent resolution.
The House concurrent resolution was
agreed to, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
SUSPENSION OF THE RULES
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and pass
House Resolution 379, which I send to
the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read the House resolution,
as follows:
Resolved, That it shall be in order for
the Speaker at any time on Thursday, Sep-
tember 10, 1959, and at any time during the
remainder of the week, to entertain motions
to suspend the rules, notwithstanding the
provisions of clause 1, rule XXVTI.
The SPEAKER. Is a second de-,
manded?
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand a second.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, is the gen-
tleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. HALLECK. No.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that a second be
considered as ordered.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MCCORMACK, Mr. Speaker, this
resolution speaks for itself. I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self such time as I may consume within
20 minutes.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.) ,
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no
copy of this resolution before me. There
is probably only one in existence 'and it
is at the Sneaker's desk. Let me ask the
gentleman, this provides for suspensions
over what period of time?
Mr. -McCORMACK. Thursday, Fri-
day, and Saturday of this week.
Mr. GROSS. This resolution, if
adopted by the House, will give the lead-
ership of the House authority to bring in
legislation during those 3 days, regard-
less of what it is and without conform-
ing to a rule of the House which provides
that 6 days prior to adjournment, upon
adoption of an adjournment resolution,
suspensions may be in order.
Now you are asking for authority to
bring in legislation at any time during
the 3 days specified, without previous
notification to the Members of the
House, and without having adopted an
adjournment resolution; is that correct?
Mr. McCORMACK. Well, the gentle-
man overlooks the fact?and I am sure
when I call it to his conscious mind, he
will appreciate it?that this does not
abdicate authority. The leadership is
very careful in regard to it. Any bill
that is brought up on this basis .has to
receive the approval of the Speaker, of
the minority leader, and the majority
leader. Even if anyone does not ap-
prove of it, the bill will not come up.
That is an arrangement that we have
had throughout the years from time to
time.
Mr. GROSS. If who does not approve
of it?
Mr. McCORMACK. Any one of the
leadership. I might advise my friend?
and I am sure he will remember it?that
the leadership does not exercise that as
an arbitrary power. The Speaker and I
do not put down bills on the list, on the
agenda, without consulting with the
Democratic Members, and then seeing
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
16916 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
that the Republican Members are con-
sulted with. And, the Republican leader
naturally does the same thing. So, this
resolution thoroughly protects the rights
of the Members and, as I said before,
when I submitted my unanimous con-
sent request last week, insofar as it is
humanly possible for me, as majority
leader, I will announce the day before
the bills intended to be brought up under
suspension. That is only after screen-
ing.
Mr. GROSS. I am glad?please do
not take quite all of my time?that the
gentleman says insofar as it is humanly
possible to do so, which may have some
meaning and it may not have any mean-
ing whatever. In other words, it is en-
tirely within the discretion of the gentle-
man on any one of those 3 days to call
up a bill without previous notice of any
kind.
Mr. McCORMACK. No. The matter
of discretion and the exercise of discre-
tion are two different things. Now, the
entleman recognizes that.
Mr. GROSS. I hope the Members of
the House understand what suspension
of the rules means, and I am sure they
do, but I want to remind them that it
means exactly what is stated; all rules
are suspended. You cannot offer an
amendment. Debate is limited to 40
minutes and strictly controlled. The
House cannot work its will. Not even
a motion to recommit is in order. There
is a bill coming up, a highly controver-
sial bill, this afternoon under suspen-
sion. That bill should never have been
brought here under suspension.
Mr. McCORMACK. Under suspen-
sion.
Mr. GROSS. I do not want to belabor
this issue, but I am unalterably opposed
to this method of legislating. Let me
say to the Members of the House that
I have heard some of you say that it
would be well if we could abolish the
last 2 weeks of the session because of
some of the legislation that goes through.
And I point out that this resolution is
before you now without the slightest
previous notice or warning. Vote for this
resolution and you can expect to get
some more of that legislation, legisla-
tion that perhaps you do not want and
you cannot work your will on. Now, go
ahead and vote for it, but do not com-
plain thereafter. I am opposed to it. -
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 1 minute.
IVIr.'Speaker, I think the Members of
the House have confidence in the in-
tellectual honesty of the leadership on
both sides. Certainly, the leadership on
both sides falls over backwards, so that
no one Member will feel that there has
been a sharp practice engaged in, not
only next Thursday, Friday, and Satur-
day but throughout the entire year.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, is the
gentleman speaking on his own time?
Mr. McCORMACK. Yes.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. McCORMACK. I yield to the
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I just
want to say that I have ? been here not
too long, 25 years. I have been here
when my side has been in the majority
and I am here now and have been here
most of the time when my side has been
in the minority. So far as I can remem-
ber, this sort of an arrangement has
always been worked ' out, and I have
found it -to be very successful, bringing
about orderly determination of legisla-
tive matters before us so that we can
adjourn in some sort of a reasonable
time. So far as I am concerned, I am
for this resolution. I am sorry that ob-
jection was raised to it. As far as I am
concerned, as minority leader, certainly
I have been diligent, as diligent as I
might have been expected to be, in doing
the things that the people on my side
expect me to do. There are many areas
where we can work together for the ac-
complishment of things that are good
for the country and need to be done, and
certainly in that area I want to coop-
erate with the majority leader. I want
to say to the gentleman from Iowa that
we had agreed to suspension a little
while back.
I called a meeting of not only the
leadership on my side-of the aisle but the
ranking Republican Members and sent
over a list of the bills, one by one, to
determine whether or not they should
come up under suspension. r think out
of that list that was submitted to me
there were four or five we thought should
not come up under suspension. Certainly
it seems to me there is no reason why
this sort of resolution should not be
adopted and I ask the Members on my
side to vote for it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self 1 additional minute.
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
HALLECK] says this is orderly procedure
but I say to yeti it is harsh procedure be-
cause under this proposal for suspension
of the rules the membership may not
have adequate notice as to what legisla-
tion is to be brought before the House. I
point out to you that this House has met
on approximately 9 Fridays during the
past 8 months. We could have had or-
derly procedure; we could have con-
sidered far more bills under the 3-day-
notice rule, so that we would know what
is going on, if the Thursday to Tuesday
club had not been in operation so much
this session. Now we are asked to accept
a semigag rule and I protest.
Mr. McCORMACK. I think that is to
the credit of the House, acting upon busi-
ness that has come before the House
throughout the weeks.
The SPEAKER. The question is, Will
the House suspend the rules and pass the
resolution?
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. GROSS) there
were?ayes 163, noes 5.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Under the agree-
ment previously made, further, proceed-
ings under this resolution will go over
until tomorrow.
Septerdber
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Ways and Means have until midnight
tonight, September 7, 1959, to file a re-
port on the bill H.R. 8684, the so-called
dealers' reserve bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
have heretofore announced a list of bills
that the chairman of the Committee on
?Ways and Means will sometime this
week, and probably 'tomorrow . or
Wednesday, call up by unanimous con-
sent. I am adding to that list the bill
H.R. 8684 concerning which the chair-
man of the Committee on Ways and
Means has lust obtained unanimous con-
sent for the committee to file a report
by midnight tonight.
INCREASED PER DIEM ALLOW-
ANCE FOR TRAVEL
Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I
move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5196) to increase the maxi-
mum rates of per diem allowance for
employees of the Government traveling
on official business, and for other pur-
poses, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representative of the United States of-
America in Congress assembled, That section
3 of the Travel Expense Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C.
836) is amended by striking out "$12" and
inserting in lieu thereof "$15".
SEC. 2. Section 4 of the Travel Expense
Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 837) is amended by
striking out "6 cents" and inserting in lieu
thereof "7 cents", and by striking out "10
cents" and inserting in lieu thereof "12
cents".
SEC. 3. The second sentence of section 4 of
the Travel Expense Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 837)
is amended by inserting immediately after
"the actual cost of" the following: "parking
fees,".
The SPEAKER. Is a second demand-
ed?
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that a seCond be con-
sidered as ordered.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may require.
Mr. 'Speaker, H.R. 5196, reported by
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, will amend the Travel Expense Act
of 1949 to increase the maximum per
diem allowance for subsistence and
travel expenses for regular Government
employees while engaged on official busi-
ness from the present $12 per day to $15
per day. As you know, the per diem is
an amount allowed in lieu of reimburse-
ment for certain actual travel expenses
including food, hotel rooms, and inci-
dental expenditures. The bill will also
permit the reimbursement of the actual
cost of parking fees for privately owned
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
1959 ? - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
vehicles vhen engaged on official busi-
ness. Furthermore, it will increase the
maximum mileage rate for privately
owned automobiles and aircraft when
used on official business from the pres-
ent 10 cents per mile to 12 cents per
mile, and for motorcycles from the pres-
ent 6 cents per mile to 7 cents per mile.
This is a bill to give to the President
and heads of executive departments and
agencies the authority and the discretion
to set per diem rates and mileage allow-
ances for employees that are more in
line with present-day travel expenses
than the existing maximum would allow.
I wish to emphasize that the allowances
contained in this bill are only maximums.
We are merely raising the ceiling. The
Bureau of the Budget and the depart-
ment heads set rates based on their
knowledge of the costSolikely to be in-
curred on a given trip. There are vari-
ous rates within the departments and'
between departments?some of which
will not be disturbed by this bill. The,
department head has the discretion and
will keep the discretion to set the specific
figure so long as it does not exceed the
ceiling we put into the law. But it is
clear that revision has been made neces-
sary since the last ceiling was set in
1955 and it is the duty and obligation
of the Congress to set maximum rates
that will not require Government em-
ployees to pay the cost of doing Govern-
ment 'business out of their own pockets.
We all know that travel costs have
Increased. The only questions before
the committee was how much have they
increased.
The bill as originally introduced called
for an increase in the maximum per
diem from $12 to $16 per day. The com-
mittee, based on the evidence available
of it, reduced the proposed increase to
$15.
The original bill called for an increase
in per diem for consultants serving with-
out compensation from the present $15
to $16 per day. The committee rejected
this increase because it wished to keep
regular employees and consultants on
the same expense basis as far as may be
practicable.
The original bill proposed an increase
in the actual expense proviso of the
Travel Expense Act and the Administra-
tive Expenses Act?the latter covering
consultants?from the present $25 to $30
per day. This was rejected by the com-
mittee.
The bill as introduced would have
raised the mileage allowance for motor-
4ycles from 6 cents to 8 cents per mile.
fl'he committee reduced this to 7 cents,
per mile. It retained the increase for
autos and aircraft from 10 to 12 cents.
In all the committee took a conserv-
ative approach to the problem while still
realistically recognizing the fact- of in-
creased cost of travel in recent years.
During our hearings representatives of
Government employee organizations pre-
sented testimony showing present-day
costs of travel and all strongly supported
this legislation.
The Bureau of the Budget presented
evidence based on data taken from actual
expense accounts of Government em-
ployees and data from outside sources
showing that the total average cost of
subsistence?that is for the items such as
food, hotel, and so forth, included in the
per diem?was now $14.30 per day. The
full details of the Budget Bureau's study
is contained in the report on the bill and
the interrogation will be found in the
printed hearings. The Bureau proposed
an increase in per diem from $12 to $14
per day. The committee, however,
agreed on $15 per day inasmuch as the
Bureau's own figures showed a cost of
$14.30 per day. Furthermore, the Bureau
admitted that its study was not "scien-
tific," thus leaving considerable room for
error.
The Bureau of the Budget opposed any
increase in auto mileage allowances but
members of the committee were aware
from their own experience that the cost
of operating an auto has increased since
1955. Gasoline is higher, tires are
higher, oil is higher, and the autos them-
selves cost more. As you know, just
last week it was the will of the House to
raise the gasoline tax 1 ,cent per gallon.
One company which specializes in devel-
oping automobile standard allowances
estimates that 12 cents per mile is the
cost of operating one? of the low-priced
three cars for 10,000 miles. This esti-
mate takes into account the cost of gaso-
line, maintenance, and tires, as well as
the, fixed' costs of taxes, insurance,
licenses, and depreciation. It was
pointed out in the hearings that the In-
ternal Revenue Service recognizes that
121/2 cents per mile is a proper allowance
for private employers to grant their em-
ployees.
The inclusion in the bill of the provi-
sion for the reimbursement of parking
fees was done on the recommendation of
the Bureau of the Budget which had
found that this had become a significant
item of expense to Government em-
ployees who use their cars for official
purposes and upon the fact that reim-
bursement of similar costs such as toll
charges are already authorized by law.
The provisions in the original bill re-
defining the term "continental United
States" were deleted inasmuch as this
would have reduced the present subsis-
tence allowances for travel in Alaska and
Hawaii. Travel costs in Alaska and
Hawaii are still higher than in the main-
land States and under existing regula-
tions issued by the Bureau of the Budget
higher per diem allowances are paid.
We were not able to obtain any accu-
rate estimates of the total cost to the
Government of the increases in maxi-
mum rates proposed by this bill. Dur-
ing the hearings the Bureau of the Bud-
get made a rough informal estimate that
an increase in the per diem rate from
$12 to $14 would possibly cost in the
neighborhood of $20 milliOn, and that
this could'be absorbed in the 1960 budget
without supplemental appropriation re-
quests. Following this rough estimate
the increase to $15 as proposed here may
cost in the neighborhood of $30 million.
The committee anticipates that this fig-
ure may also be absorbed.
Reliable figures on the cost to the Gov-
ernment of any increase in mileage al-
loivance are likewise not available. The
Bureau of the Budget acknowledged this.
We do know that the maximum mileage
rate is relatively meaningless so far as
16917
computing costs to the Government is
concerned. Much of the travel author-
ized by the various departments and
agencies is at a rate below the author-
ized maximum. A substantial amount
of auto travel may not exceed the cost
of travel by common carrier. In these
cases frequently more than on official
Government traveler travels in the same
automobile. Only one mileage rate is
authorized, and the Government saves
the transportation costs of one or more
employees. -As the report states: "If fig-
ures were available taking into account
all of these factors, it is not unreason-
able to believe that the net cost to the
Government of the proposed 2 cents per
mile increase would be insignificant. In
no case may auto mileage be authorized
in excess of the cost of travel by common
carrier unless there is a determination
that transportation on a mileage basis
is more advantageous to the Govern-
ment."
I believe that the bill, H.R. 5196, is a
fair and reasonable exercise of our leg-
islative responsibilities. We only seek to
do justice to our Federal employees who
must necessarily travel to perform their
duties.
I hope the bill will be passed by an
overwhelming vote.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. GRANAHAN. I yield to the gen-
tlewoman from Massachusetts.
Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr.
Speaker, I am very much impressed with
the very fine explanation of the bill by
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania and
am impressed by her fairness. I have
seen the gentlewoman from Pennsyl-
vania at meetings of Federal employees.
Anyone who has will agree it is a rare
sight because of the affection, respect,
admiration, and appreciation they have
for her and her very fine work. They
are her most loyal and enthusiastic sup-
porters.
I am very sure this bill will pass be-
cause it is only a matter of justice to our
dedicated civil servants, a reimburse-
ment of money that should be theirs for
expenses for things needed to do thefl
Government's work. Again I commend
the lovely and the gracious Mrs. GRANA-
HAN, who is working so hard in the inter-
est of the Federal employees, and for
good and efficient Government.
Mrs. GRANAHAN. I thank the dis-
tinguished gentlewoman from Massa-
chusetts for her very fine remarks and
her great contribution to this bill.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
.
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. GRANAHAN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. FASCELL. I would like to coin-
. mend the gentlewoman for-the very clear
analysis she has before this House of the
legislation under consideration. I would,
like to ask her this question: Is it not a
fact .that the basis upon which the fig-
ures were arrived at in the Committee is
the same basis that is used by industrial
concerns throughout the country?
Mrs. GRANAHAN. That is correct.
Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tlewoman yield?
Mrs. GRANAHAN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
16918 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Septenaer 7-
Mr. LANE. I, too, want to compliment
the gentlewoman for her very fine re-
port on a very, very important bill. I
am satisfied, too, that the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania [Mrs. GRANAHAN] and
her very able committee having studied
this subject at some -length and have
brought'in to us a very fine report and
I wish to congratulate her upon her ex-
cellent presentation.
Mrs. GRANAHAN. I thank the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, the Travel
Expense Act of 1949, as amended in 1955,
must be updated, to accord with present
realities.
No fairminded person expects that
employees of the Federal Government
who must travel on- official business,
should dig down into their -own pockets
to pay for such expenses.
Apart from equity, it is a practical
impossibility for Federal employees to
do so, because their wages and salaries
are substandard in the first place.
Expense accounts which cover more
than lodgings, meals, -and transporta-
tion have been recognized as an essen-
tial cost of doing business by private
enterprise for generations. Employees
can draw on their respective companies
for travel expenses necessary in the per-
formance of their work, or be reimbursed
for the same.
We are asked to amend the Travel Ex-
pense Act of 1949, as amended in 1955.
It is time that we did so, because the
per diem standards of 4 years ago are
hopelessly inadequate today. Unless we
upgrade these allowances to a realistic
level, we shall force more and more ex-
perienced employees out of the Govern-
ment service in sheer self-defense. The
present obsolete per diem allowance and
mileage allowance compels them to pay
for the difference between such frozen
allowances and actual costs, out of their
own meager salaries. In effect, it results
in a pay cut.
- Small wonder that the wasteful turn-
over in Government personnel is higher
than in any other group of employees.
Even the Bureau of the Budget has
admitted that the total average cost of
the subsistence items included in the per
diem is now $14.30 per day and not $12 as
the present law provides. -
The Bureau's testimony stated that:
"In our review we found that the present
$12 maximum is inadequate to cover the
subsistence expenses ?which a traveler
would normally incur in a day." The
Bureau arrived at this conclusion after a
study of actual expense accounts of Gov-
ernment employees, including hotel
rooms, meals, and such incidental ex-
penses as tips, fees, laundry, cleaning,
and pressing, telegrams for room reser-
vations, and so forth.
But this cost -figure is an unweighted
average of the lowest set of expense
figures.
This bill also provides for an increase
in mileage allowance from 10 to 12
.cents for the use of privately owned
automobiles and airplanes used by Gov-
ernment employees on .official business.
It is apparent that the cost of operat-
ing an automobile has increased during
the past 4 years.
The Internal Revenue Service recog-
nizes that 121/2 cents per mile is a proper
and reasonable allowance for private
employers to grant to their employees
for travel expenses incurred in the course
of their work.
Not only is the cost of the automobile
itself, and the cost of gas, oil, tires, con-
siderably higher than in 1955, but the
maintenance costs, insurance, and taxes
have also gone up.
Opposition to the recommended in-
crease in mileage allowance for Govern-
ment employees become academic in the
fact of congressional action authorizing
a penny-a-gallon increase in,the Federal
gasoline tax. For good reason, the Con-
gress itself has added to the cost of
operating a car.
The costs of travel subsistence and the
cost of operating an automobile on offi-
cial business have both increased since
1955.
If we are to retain dependable Federal
employees and avoid the much greater
cost of excessive turnover in Government
personnel, we must provide 'them with
realistic allowances while they are
traveling on official Government busi-
ness.
' If we do not, they will have to cut
corners, resulting in an impairment of
their efficiency and a loss to the proper
functioning of Government.
By raising the maximum per diem
from $12 to $15 and the mileage allow-
ance from 10 to 12 cents per mile we
shall avert this danger.
H.R. 5196 will hold the line against
deterioration in Government service
caused by false economies.
(Mr. LANE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
? Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentlewoman yield?
-Mrs. GRANAHAN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I would like also
to commend the? gentlewoman for the
great work she has done in the commit-
tee and the way she pressed hard in our
committee for this legislation. I would
like to ask her if this is not true: That
what we are doing is trusting the admin-
istration within this ceiling. They may
set the rate as much lower as they deem
necessary in appropriate cases. Is that
right?
Mrs. GRANAHAN. That is true; they
do not have to use the maximum.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. And, in addition
to that, in no case can this automobile
mileage be authorized where the rate by
common carrier is lower, unless in those
cases where it would be deemed advan-
tageous for some other reason to have
the travel done by automobile rather
than by common carrier. Is that true?
Mrs. GRANAHAN. That is true. -
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BARRY askdd and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Speaker, it is with
a certain feeling of regret that I feel
it necessary to oppose the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania because I know she
is devoted and sincere in her efforts to
make this bill workable' so fai? as the
emloyees of the Government are con-
cerned and for the betterment of good
Government. However, I would be re-
miss in my oblikations were I not to point
out that there is a certain carelessness
in this legislation when we say to a de-
partment of Government: "The maxi-
mum you are allowed by regulation to
spend for travel allowance is 8 cents per
mile, but by statute Congress is now
allowing 12 cents per mile." Either this
Congress is economy minded and we are
going at economy from the standpoint
of principles or we are careless. Are we
going to set the price at .12 cents a mile
when there is not a business in the Na-
tion, that allows more than 10 cents a
mile? I believe if you are going to estab-
lish the principle of economy the place
to do it is righ_t,,here in the Congress.
How is a bureau of our !Government
going to practice economy when we here
say: "Go ahead, up it to 12 cents a
mile"? There is only 5 percent of the
businesses in the Nation that ev6n
10 cents a mile. Ninety percent of them
allow 8 cents a mile or below. So, from
the standpoint of principle, it shows a
certain carelessness or callousness with
regard to the efforts this Nation is pres-
ently engaged in when we hear the max-
imum shall now be 12 cents per mile.
There IS another part of this bill which
we did not object to very strenuously,
but which demonstrate the same type of
carelessness. The other phase of the bill
has to do with the per diem allowance'
f or travel. I refer your to paragraph 3
of page 48 of the hearings, and I would
like to read to you the statement which
I made then:
I have had an opportunity to look over
the 1955 hearings before the Subcommittee
on Government Operations. The same two
firms were employed by the Bureau of the
Budget; namely, Harris, Kerr, Forster & Co.,
were employed then and they also are em-
ployed presenely. In the 1955 hearings, it
is stated that the firm of Harris, Kerr,
Forster & Co. quoted the single room aver-
age in 1954 was $7.30. The new rate for that
same grouping?is $9.04, representing an in-
crease of approximately 20 percent. Also
employed in 1955 was the firm of Horvath &
Horvath,, and at that time they estimated
the rate was $6.82 for a single room. At the
present the average single room rate by the
same company is $8.11. There again that
represents an approximate 20 percent in-
crease in cost. Therefore, I am led to the
conclusion that when the birector of the
Bureau of the Budget in his recommenda-
tions raised the expense allowance from $12
to $14, he was following a consistent patteria
and we would be well advised to stay within
the confines of our actual cost experience. ?
May I also refer you to page 16 of the
hearings of the 86th Congress which
gives a summary of the Bureau of the
Budget recommendations. The distin-
guished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
[Mrs. GRANAHAN] referred to the increase
in tax on gasoline. She raises that point
so that perhaps the minority would be
willing to go up a penny and therefore
bring this legislation to unanimous
agreement. I would refer the gentle-
woman to the Internal Revenue Code
where she will find that gasoline taxes
are a deductible item, so that all of this
increase would not be applicable to in-
creased costs of operation. It should be
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-IRDP61-00357R000500140001-1
1.9 5 9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
pointed out that a 1-cent increase in gas-
oline would amount to less than a tenth
of a cent increase cost on a per-mile
basis. -
I would also like to call attention to
several other statements that have been
made. The Bureau of the Budget op-
poses any increase in the allowance, and
states:
The present rates are adequate and we rec-
ommend no change in the statutory maxi-
mum mileage allowance.
Also the General Accounting Office
stated:
We have no information as to the need for
an increase in the mileage allowance for use
of Privately owned vehicles on Government
business.
Mr. Speaker, this business of ade-
quately ascertaining what an automobile
costs per mile is not easy, but there are
certain firms who make that their spe-
cialty, one of which is R. E. Runzheimer
& Co. I have had submitted to me
recently by the chairman of the Govern-
ment Operations Committee some infor-
mation which would purport to show
that the average per-mile cost of a 1-
year-old automobile would be slightly
more than 12 cents. I have taken oc-
casion to analyze these figures and I
would like to acquaint you with just what
goes into making the alleged cost figure
to operate a 1958 Chevrolet automobile,
based on 10,000 miles use per year.
There are certain fixed costs, and I would
invite you to think of those as one cate-
gory, and then there are variable costs in
another category. Let us examine the
fixed costs first. For such an automobile
it is estimated that $647.74 goes for de-
preciation, for 10,000 miles in 1 year, and
the rest of the fixed costs such as in-
surance and licenses are only $153.24?
making a total of $800.98 or 8 cents per
mile. So that of the total fixed costs
approximately three-quarters of that
cost is in depreciation.
But, now, what are the variable .costs?
The variable costs are estimated to be
only $399 or 4 cents a mile. So, here we
have a situation where, of the total al-
leged cost of 12 and some odd cents a
mile, over half of that or 6.47 cents is in
depreciation.
.Now, I say to you, first of all, does a
person use his automobile every single
day for Government business? What
about holidays? What about Saturdays?
The entire depreciation would be paid
by the Government based on 10,000 miles
a year of Government use. Is it right
to charge Uncle Sam $647 depreciation
for a private individual to use his car 5
days a week and not charge the individ-
ual anything for depreciation for the use
of his car on weekdays for personal use
or on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays
for personal use.
I say it is unconscionable to allow 12
cents a mile when there is no industrial
firm in this Nation that allows 12 cents
a mile and when total depreciation can
be chargeable to Uncle Sam even though
the automobile may be used extensively
for private use.
Now, there are many other spots in
this bill that could be economized upon,
No. 157-17
but the minority do not strenuously
object to them.
Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr: BARRY. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KEARNS. I think the gentleman
has propounded his ideas very well.
Here we are now at. 3:15 on Labor Day;
and if I. could present a resolution, it
would be that all Members were reported
present to pay tribute to industry and
labor in this great country of ours on
this day.
Mr. BARRY. I thank the gentleman
and join with him in such a tribute.
Mr. REFS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRY. I yield to the gentleman
from Kansas.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Approximately,
what is the cost of this legislation, that
is, additional cost to the Government,
on mileage?
Mr. BARRY. The additional cost to
the Government would only eventuate
were the heads of departments to allow a
greater allowance under a directive in
the form of Government regulations.
That does not mean to me that we should
set sights that would tend to make the
department head raise the allowance.
This bill is not a directive; it only
authorizes.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Assuming that
the Government operated under these
higher figures, does? the gentleman have
any idea how much it would cost?
Mr. BARRY. It would go into the
millions; but in order actually to esti-
mate the cost, one would have to know
the number of miles traveled by privately
owned automobiles and then compute it.
I do not know, but it would be very large.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentlemati yield?
Mr. BARRY. I yield.
Mr. FASCELL. Is it not true that in
response to the question of the gentle-
man from Kansas [Mr. REEs] the gen-
tleman from New York did not know the
answer? `And neither do I.
Mr. BARRY. I said I did not know
the answer.
Mr.. FASCELL. That is, we cannot
estimate how much the increased mile-
age allowance is going to cost the Govern-
ment, except from the testirriony we have
which is that it is insignificant and can
be absorbed under present allocations
and appropriations.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Nobody knows
what it is going to cost.
Mr. FASCELL. Not on the mileage
allowance.
Mr. BARRY. That is one of the rea-
sons I am opposed to the bill. We do not
know what it will cost.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRY. I yield.
Mr. HOSMER. What is the travel cost
figure for a year for a Chevrolet?
Mr. BARRY. For depreciation $647.74.
Mr. HOSMER. That would be 6.47
cents per mile on a 10,000-mile-basis.
Mr. BARRY. That is correct.
Mr. HOSMER. And what is the figure
for operation?
16919
Mr. BARRY. $399 or approximately 4
cents a mile.
Mr. HOSMER. That brings it to 10.47
cents a mile or almost 11 cents a mile
actual cost.
Mr. BARRY. There are other fixed
costs such as insurance and license, and
so forth.
Mr. HOSMER. Then it would bring it
to over 12 cents a mile according to the
gentleman's own figures?
Mr. BARRY. That is true, but that
assumes the ?use of an automobile for
10,000 miles on Government business 365
days a year.
Mr. HOSMER. Oh, no..
Mr. BARRY. Yes, it does.
Mr. HOSMER. That is a miscalcula-
tion, because no matter why ,it is used,
the wheels turn around for 10,000 miles
and we get our cost figure an that basis;
that is, whether it is used on Government
business or by the individual for himself.
As a consequence, you come up with some
11.47 crnts per mile _cost plus some ad-
mitted extras which have not been in-
cluded. So actually we are getting by at
12 cents a mile for less than it cost the
man to take his car out and use it on
Government business. I think that is a
pretty good bargain.
Mr. BARRY. If the gentleman will
permit me to correct his statement, the
depreciation used in the calculation is
based on the use of the car for the first
10,000 miles. But there are several fac-
tors to be considered. First, there is the
assumption that the car is driven 10,000
miles a year on Government business.
If the car is driven more than that there
is no depreciation on the cost of this
further use as all depreciation was
charged to the first 10,000 miles of Gov-
ernment use.
Mr. HOSMER. I realize that, and I
am delighted to have the gentleman cor-
rect me, but thus far he has not done so.
Mr. BARRY. The other factor in-
volved is this. Basically a 1958 car is
not the average car used by a Govern-
ment employee. The figures given by
Runzheimer show that there is even a
lesser depreciation on cars 2, 3, and 4
years of age.
Mr. HOSMER. My car costs me $85 a
month on capital cost, and that is an
old 1954 De Soto. Perhaps I am ineffi-
cienk in the operation of the car?and
I probably am?but I am probably in the
same category with other individual
drivers who drive their own car as dis-
tinguished from an organization which
furnishes cars to its employees and 'has
the facilities to keep them operating effi-
ciently. As a matter of fact, I do not
think the average individual can possibly
drive his car for as low a cost as cars
that are furnished by Avis or any other
car renting firm which has the facilities
to keep the cars in perfect operating con-
ditions at all times.
Mr. BARRY. I think if the gentleman
will refer to some of the Runzheimer
figures he would be assured that the
average costs for running a car in. this
country have been well Substantiated not
only by them but by the Automobile As-
sociation of America and on the basis of
10,000 miles use per year that, they are
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
16920 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
in accordance with the figures that I
have indicated.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRY. I yield.
Mr. COLLIER. During the course of
the hearings on this proposed legisla-
tion did any Government employee
testify to the effect that he was losing
money?
Mr. BARRY. I am very glad the gen-
tleman brought up that question. There
is nothing in the record and there was
nothing during the hearings to show
? that anyone submitted such information
with respect to' the insufficiency of auto-
mobile allowances, in the first place.
There was no showing that anyone was
injured. There were no letters sub-
mitted by any branch of Government or
by any employee at the hearings or to
the committee that there was a need for
this increase in allowable mileage rate.
So far as I am concerned this was
dreamed up ? and I classify it in the
spend-spend classification and I was
therefore unwilling to agree that it go on
the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in
the RECORD my statement to the Govern-
ment Operations Committee as follows:
STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN ROBERT R. BARRY
ON MR. 5196, BEFORE THE HOUSE GOVERN-
MENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman, I am unable to concur in
the recommendation of the Committee on
Government Operations that the current
Miximum mileage allowance for civilian em-
ployees of the Government be increased from
10 "to 12 cents per mile for the use of pri-
vately owned airplanes and automobiles
while on official business. No evidence or
testimony was presented to the committee
which would demonstrate a need for the in-
crease. In fact, the Bureau of the Budget
recommended against an increase.
The report of the Bureau of the Budget,
and the' testimony of a representative of the
Bureau of the Budget when the committee
was considering the increase (H. Rept. No.
683, to accompany H.R. 5196) was to the
'effect that the current rate is adequate.
This conclusion was supported by reference
to various reports, as follows:
The American Automobile Association, in
a recent report on driving costs, indicated
that 10 cents per mile is generally sufficient
to cover variable and fixed' costs, including
? amortization.
Runzheimer & Co., a Chicago accounting
firm specializing in automobile standard al-
lowances, last year computed costs on a low-
priced car 1 year old. Variable costs (gaso-
line and oil, maintenance, and tires) were
estimated at 3.77 cents per mile. Fixed
costs (insurance, license and registration
fees, and depreciation) were estimated at
7.01 cents per mile, computed on the basis
of annual mileage of 10,000 miles. The total
cost thus was estimated as 10.78 cents per
mile. It was recognized that this figure
would vary depending upon annual mileage
and age of the car. For example, the Red
Book, published by the National Market Re-
ports, Inc., giving official used-car valuations
shows that depreciation on a low- and mid-
dle-priced car, 5 years old, driven 10,000 miles
a year, would be 1.7 cents per mile lower
than for a 1-year-old car having a total per
mile cost of 10.78 cents.
The Dartnell Corp., a Chicago manage-
ment &insulting firm- which makes annual
surveys of mileage allowances paid by pri-
vate business, reports that no mileage allow-
ances in excess of 10 cents per mile was paid
by the companies surveyed which reimburse
employees on a flat mileage basis. The sur-
vey for 1958 showed that 88 percent of these
companies allowed 8 cents per mile or less
and that only 5 percent allowed as much as
10 cents per mile.
The National Industrial Conference Board,
Inc., in a 1959 report "Studies in Personnel
Policy, No. 170", based on studies in 1958,
reported that of 103 manufacturing firms
surveyed, only 10 percent authorized a flat
mileage allowance in excess of 8 cents per
mile.
The report of the Bureau of the Budget
also stated that a large majority of the Fed-
eral agencies from whom recommendations
were obtained saw no need for increasing
the present rate of 10 cents per mile. .
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MEAGER].
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MEADER
asked and was given permission to pro-
ceed out of the regular order and to re-
vise and extend his remarks and include
extraneous matter and that his remarks
apnelix following action on the pending
bill.)
Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
FASCELL].
Mr. FASCELL. The only point at is-
sue on this legislation today seems to be
the, question of mileage allowances. The
gentleman from California [Mr. Hos-
m Ertl who preceded me, put his finger
exactly on the ansWer to the question.
The Budget Bureau in analyzing the
question as to whether there should be
an increase in the mileage allowance
over what is presently allowed i,n the act,
which is 10 cents per mile, recommended
no change be made in the statutory
maximum mileage allowance. This rec-
ommendation was--as stated by the
Bureau?based upon the following col-
lective 'data: Two major agencies re-
ported that they did not need it. One
agency recommended 12 cents a mile.
Two 'agencies recommended 11 cents a
mile. The Bureau of the Budget said
this was not a sufficiently broad base to
enable theni- to make recommendation.
Then they went on to say that a recent
report of the American Automobile Asso-
ciation quoted that 10 cents a mile cov-
ered all costs of driving an automobile,
including the amortization of the cost of
the vehicle. At this point we arrive at
some differences of opinion. First, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. BARRY]
takes issue with the fact that deprecia-
tion is considered part of the cost of the
operation of an auotmobile. I am not
an accountant. But I point out, Mr.
Speaker, that the general standards used
by most industrial concerns include de-
preciation as the major part of the cost
in computing the cost of the operation of
an automobile: I have here a brochure
from the American Automobile Associa-
tion which quotes Runzheimer & Runz-
heimer, the very agency used by the
Bureau of the Budget and also the
agency which establishes this national
standard criteria used by over 200 in-
dustrial concerns. Here is what they
say very simply about depreciation:
It is included as part of the fixed cost.
For most motorists the largest single expense
of owning a car is depreciation.
Septeber
There seems to be no question about
it despite the opinion of the gentleman
from New York [Mr. BARRY], there is no
way you can avoid depreciation in com-
puting cost and be fair, adequate, and
proper. Depreciation is a normal part
of the cost of operating an automobile
whether it be owned and operated by an
employee of the Government or of
private.enterprise.
In this same report Runzheimer &
Runzheimer goes on to compute, just as
the gentleman from California [Mr.
HosmEa] did in his head a moment ago,
that the actual cost of operating a 1958
Chevrolet 8-cylinder, 4-door sedan at
10,000 miles is 11.998 cents per mile, or
12 cents a mile for all practical purposes.
So we have two different figures on cost
per mile of operation, both attributed to
the same source. In order to reconcile
the figure of 10 cents and 12 cents a mile
we asked Runzheimer & Runzheimer
about their figures. Theil? telegraphic
reply to the committee was that the
10-cent figure, cited by the Bureau of the
Budget, was dated December 1957; and
the second group, or 12 cents per mile
cost of operation cited by the American
Automobile Association in this brochure
is dated January 6, 1959. Furthermore,
even the 1959 figures are now under fur-
ther revision for publishing in the Octo-
ber issue of Sales Management maga-
zine. think it is a fair assumption that
cost, figures will be higher and not lower.
S6 12 cents per mile seems to be a
proper figure allowable as computed and
compiled by Runzheimer & Runzheimer
as of January 1959.
This is the latest cost figure available
to us. The additional cost on this single
item has not been estimated because it is
practically impossible to do so. But the
committee is of the opinion that the
total cost to the Government of this
single item would not be significant.
Mr. Speaker, since this issue is the only
one which has been raised in objection
to this bill, and since I respectfully sub-
mit the objection has been fully an-
swered and eliminated, this bill should
be passed and Government employees
thus assured they will receive fair treat-
ment.
[Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan ad-
dressed the House. His remarks will
appear hereafter in the Appendix.]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time
has expired.
The question is, Will the House sus-
pend the rules and pass the bill as
amended?
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. BARRY) there
were?ayes 73, noes 17.
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the agreement entered into, further pro-
ceedings under the call will go over un-
til tomorrow.
Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
extend my remarks in the RECORD just
preceding the vote.
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
P959. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Michigan?
There was no objection.
? GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend or revise and extend their re-
marks at this point in the RECORD on the
bill just under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
woman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEADER. Mr. Speaker, I de-
sire to call the attention of the House to
an article in the September 1, 1959, issue
of the Bulletin of the -American Society
of Newspaper Editors. This article is
written by Clark Mollenhoff, a reporter
for the Des Moines Register, who has
made a special study of a very impor-
tant subject. I refer to the right and the
power of the Congress to obtain infor-
mation from the executive branch of
Government.
Increasingly congressional committees
have been confronted with a refusal on
the part of agencies and departments of
the Government to provide information
necessary for the congressional commit-
tees to make intelligent judgments in
their legislative jurisdiction and in their
investigative work.
The article reviews briefly the history
of the efforts on the part of Members
and leaders in the House of Representa-
tives, including the efforts of my col-
league, the gentleman from Virginia, the
Honorable PORTER HARDY, Jr., chairman
of the Foreign Operations and Monetary
Affairs Subcommittee of the House Com-
mittee on Government Operations. I
commend this article to the attention of
all Members of Congress because of its
basic importance to the prerogatives and
to the rights and powers of the Congress
of the United States. I am not, in in-
serting this article, endorsing all of the
statements made by Mr. Mollenhoff, par-
ticularly those which relate to legal
problems.
There are two paragraphs particu-
larly which I wish to call to the attention
of the Members. One is this paragraph
which I read as follows:
The Congress has made its intentions clear
on this matter of executive privilege. Sup-
porters of HARDY'S position concede that the
cutting off of funds for the ICA would still
leave the Attorney General in a position in
Which he could thwart the will of Congress.
I do not concede that is an accurate
statement of the law.
Another paragraph I will read is as
follows:
Some consideration is being given to fur-
ther legislation that would give the Comp-
troller General the right to go to court to
force production of records without relying
on the Attorney General, a member of the
executive family.
If there is such a movement I know
nothing whatever about it.
This matter is now of exceptional in-
terest because the other body is con-
sidering the mutual security appropria-
tion bill which contains language offered
by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
HARDY] and unanimously adopted by the
House of Representatives. When that
bill becomes law we will test whether or
not Congress may use its power of the
purse to compel respect by Government
agencies for the congressional power of
investigation.
Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MEADER. I yield.
Mr. HARDY. First of all, let me com-
mend the gentleman for calling the at-
tention of the House to the article by
Mollenhoff in the American Society of
Newspaper Editors Bulletin and also for
calling attention to these particular two
paragraphs. It seems to me there is a
fundamental error in that approach. In
the first place it is inconceivable to me
that anybody in the executive branch of
the Government would need any prod-
ding to enforce the law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Michigan
has expired.
Mrs. GRANAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 2 additional minutes to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. MEADER. I yield further to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. HARDY. Let us raise no question
about this. Personnel in the -executive
branch who are concerned with this mat-
ter are all sworn to uphold the Consti-
tution and to carry out the law. Let
there be no assumptions -that there will
be willful violations either of the pro-
vision of the Mutual Security Act which
relates to furnishing information to Con-
gress or to the' companion provision
which the House put in the appropriation
bill.
Mr. MEADER. I thank the gentleman
and agree with him that this provision
should cause no difficulty whatever. It
will however compel officials and agents
in the executive branch of the Govern-
ment to respect the right of the Con-
gress to be more informed and accurately
informed and completely informed about
the public business.
Mr. HARDY. If the gentleman will
yield further, I would just like to make
this observation. The gentleman from
Michigan has been most diligent in try-
ing to preserve and protect the rights of
the Congress and I commend him for
bringing this matter to the attention of
the Congress at this time. ?
Mr. MEADER. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. Speaker, I insert the text of the
Mollenhoff article at this- point in my
remarks:
[From the Bulletin of American Society of
Newspaper Editors, Sept. 1,1959]
MOLLENHOFF REPORT?NEW PATTERN DEVELOPS
IN FIGHT AGAINST THE BROAD CLAIM OF Ex-
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
The problem of secrecy in the executive
branch of the Government received the at-
tention of the Senate and House, and a pat-
tern developed that could become a standard
means of fighting the broad claim of execu-
tive privilege.
_Irritated with the refusal of the Interna-
tional Cooperation Administration to make
certain interrial reports available to Congress
and the General Accounting Office, Repre-
sentative PORTER HARDY attached amend-
ments to the bills for authorization and ap-
propriation in the foreign-aid area.
16921
The first Hardy amendment was attached
to the foreign-aid authorization bill in the
House, and was accepted by the Senate. It
provided simply that all reports of the ICA
and of an inspector general established for
the ICA should be made available to the
auditors of the General Accounting Office
and the properly authorized committees and
subcommitees of Congress,
THE PRESIDENTS PROTESTS
President Eisenhower signed the foreign-
aid authorization bill with this provision in
it, but commented at the time that the ex-
ecutive branch would continue to exert its
executive privilege to refuse to make avail-
able inspector general reports, evaluation re-
ports, and reports with recommendations in
them. The President reasoned that there is
a constitutional right for the executive
branch to withhold any testimony on rec-
ords involving advice or recommendations
within the executive branch of Government.
Representative HARDY took sharp issue
with this, and declared that President Eisen-
hower and the legal advisers in the White
House were using an "item veto" to state
what parts of the law would be obeyed and
which would not.
At this Point, HARDY was successful in at-
taching an amendment to the foreign aid
appropriations bill. It provides that funds
shall be cut off from any division of the
ICA 20 days after a request for informa-
tion is refused GAO or a proper committee
- of Congress.
Despite sharp criticism of this by President
Eisenhower as an invasion of the power of
the executive branch, HARDY gained support
of Democrats as well as Republicans on the
Senate side of the Capitol.
HARDY ACTION MAY BE IMITATED
HARDY pointed out that Comptroller Gen-
eral Joseph Campbell has informed the Con-
gress that "executive privilege" claims are
hampering his access to records in the audit-
ing of the Navy, Air Force, and ICA. HARDY
declared that he is only one of many con-
gressional committee chairmen who are con-
cerned about the refusal of the executive
branch to make information available.
Others have indicated to HARDY and to
Representative JOHN Moss that they will
seek to use the same type of amendments
used by HARDY to force production of records
by other departments.
HARDY declared that it is absurd for the
executive branch to claim that it is uncon-
stitutional for Congress to use its power over
the purse strings to force executive agencies
to account to Congress on the expenditure of
public funds.
The Congress has made its intentions clear
on this matter of executive privilege. Sup-
porters of Hardy's position concede that the
cutting off of funds for the ICA would still
leave the Attorney General in a position in
which he could thwart the will of Congress.
Some consideration is being given to
further legislation that ::ould give the
Comptroller General the right to go to court
to force production of records without re-
lying on the Attorney General, a member of
the executive family.
NATIONAL SECURITY NOT INVOLVED
There has been a tendency on the part of
some in the executive department and some
newspapers to treat the executive privilege
problem as if national security was involved.
The ICA, Air Force, and Navy have ad-
mitted there is no problem of defense secrets
or diplomatic secrets involved in the refusal
to make reports available to the GAO and
Congress. There are specific laws which al-
low secrecy where military security or diplo-
matic matters are involved.
What is at stake is the claim of the ex-
ecutive department that it can arbitrarily
withhold any record from the GAO or Con-
gress if that record contains any recom-
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
16922 CONGRESSIONAL
mendation or advice. Leonard J. Saccio, Dep-
uty Director of the ICA, has admitted to
CoRgress that under this definition almost
any paper or document could be withheld
from the GAO or Congress.
-
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
OVERSEAS ERENTIALS AND
ALLOWANCES ACT
?Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move
to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 7758) to improve the administra-
tion of overseas activities of the Govern-
ment of the United States, and for other
purposes, with amendments, which I
send to the Clerk's desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Overseas Differen-
tials and Allowances Act".
TITLE I?PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
Part A?Purpose
SEC: 101. The Congress hereby declares that
it is the purpose of this Act to improve and
strengthen the administration of overseas
activities of the Government by?
(1) providing a means for more effectively
Compensating Government employees for the
extra costs and hardships incident to their
assignments overseas,
(2) providing for the uniform treatment
of Government employees stationed overseas
to the extent justified by relative conditions
of employment,
(3) establishing the basis for the more
efficient and equitable administration of the
laws compensating Government employees
for the extra costs and hardships incident to
their assignments overseas, and
(4) facilitating for the Government the
recruitment and retention of the best quali-
fied personnel for civilian service overseas.
Part B?Definitions ?
SEC. 111. As used in this title, title II, and
section 522 of title V. the term?
(1) "Government" means the Government-
of the United States of America;
(2) "Government agency" means (A) each
executive department of the Government,
(B) each independent establishment or
agency in the executive branch of the Gov-
ernment, including each corporation wholly
owned (either directly or through one or
more Corporations) by the Government, (C)
the General Accounting Office, and (D) the
Library of Congress;
(3) "Bmployee" means an individual em-
ployed in the civilian service of a Govern-
ment agency and more specifically defined
in regulations prescribed by the President,
but including ambassadors, ministers, and
officers of the Foreign Service of the United
States under the Department of State;
(4) "United States", when used in a geo-
graphical sense, means the several States of
the United States of America and the Dis-
trict of Columbia;
(5) "Continental United States" means
the several States of the United States of
America, excluding Alaska and Hawaii but
including the District of Columbia; and
(6) "Foreign area" means any area (in-
cluding the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands) situated outside the United States,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Canal Zone, and the possessions of the
United States.
TITLE II?ALLOWANCES AND DIFFERENTIALS IN
FOREIGN AREAS
Part A?General provisions
SEC. 201. Notwithstanding section 1765 of
the Revised Statutes (5 U.S.C. 70), the al-
lowances and differentials provided by this
RECORD ? HOUSE
title are authorized for and may be granted
only to,an employee officially stationed in a
foreign area unless otherwise provided in
this title?
(1) who is a citizen of the United States,
and
(2) whose rate of basic compensation is
fixed by statute or, without-taking into con-
sideration the allowances and differentials
provided by this title, is fixed by administra-
tive action pursuant to law or is fixed ad-
ministratively in conformity with rates paid
by the Government for work of a comparable
level of difficulty and responsibility in the
continental United States,
except that such allowances and differentials
may be paid to an employee officially sta-
tioned in a foreign area who is not a citizen
of the United States to the extent that the
payment of such allowances and differentials
to such non-citizen employee is authorized
by any provision of law other than this title.
SEC. '202. Allowances granted unde this
title may be paid in advance, or advance of
funds may be made therefor, through the
proper disbursing officer in such sums as
may be deemed advisable in consideration
of the need and the period of time during
which expenditures must be made in ad-
vance by the employee or employees. Any
advance of funds not subsequently covered
by allowances accrued to the employee or
employees under this title shall be recover-
able by the Government by setoff against
accrued salary, pay, compensation, amount
of retirement credit, or other amount due
from the Government to such employee or
employees and by such cther method as may
be provided by law for the recovery of
amounts owing to the Government.
SEC. 203. The allowances and differentials
authorized by this title shall be paid in
accordance with regulations prescribed by
the President establishing rules governing
payments thereof and the respective rates
'at which such payments shall be made, the
foreign areas, the groups of positions, and
the categories of employees to which such
rates shall apply, and other related matters.
Part B?Quarters allowances
SEC. 211. Whenever Government-owned or
Government-rented quarters are not pro-
vided without charge for an employee in a
foreign area, one or more of the following
quarters allowances may be granted to such
employee where applicable:
(1) A temporary lodging allowance for the
reasonable cost of temporary quarters in-
curred by the employee and his family (A)
for a period not in excess of three months
after first arrival at a new post of assign-
ment in a foreign area or a period ending
with the occupation of residence quarters,
whichever shall be shorter, and (B) for a
period of not more than one month imme-
diately preceding final departure from the
post subsequent to the necessary evacuation
of residen0 quarters;
(2) A living quarters allowance for rent,
heat, light, fuel, gas, electricity, and water,
without regard to the limitations of section
3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended
(31 USC. 529); and
(3) Under unusual circumstances pay-
ment or reimbursement for extraordinary,
necessary, and reasonable expenses, not
otherwise compensated for, incurred in ini-
tial repairs, alterations, and improvements
to an employee's privately leased residence
at a post of assignment in a foreign area, if
such expenses are administratively approved
in advance and if the duration and terms
of the lease justify payment of such ex-
penses by the Government.'
Part C?Cost-of-living allowances
SEC. 221. The following cost-of-living al-
lowances may be granted, where applicable,
to an employee in a foreign area:
(1) A post allowance to offset the differ-
ence between the cost of living at the post
September 7
of assignment of the employee in a foreign
area and the cost of living in Washington,
District of Columbia;
(2) A transfer allowance for extraordi-
nary, necessary, and reasonable expenses,
not otherwise compensated for, incurred by
an employee incident to establishing him-
self at any toost of assignment in a foreign
area or at a post of assignment in the United
States between assignments to posts in
foreign areas;
(3) A separate maintenance allowance to
assist an employee who is compelled, by
reason of dangerous, notably unhealthful,
or excessively adverse living conditions at
his post of assignment in a foreign area or
for the convenience of the Government, to
meet the additional expense of maintaining,
elsewhere than at such post, his wife, or his
dependents, or both;
(4) An education allowance or payment of
transportation costs to askst an employee
with the extraordinary and necessary ex-
penses, not otherwise compensated for, in-
curred by reason of his service in any foreign
area or foreign areas in providing adequate
education for his dependents, as follows:
(A) An allowance not to exceed the cost
of obtaining such elementary and secondary
educational services as are ordinarily pro-
vided without charge by the public schools in
the United States, plus, in those cases where
adequate schools are not available at the
employee's post, board and room, and periodic
transportation between' such post and the
nearest locality, where adequate schools are
available, without regard to the limitations
of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as
amended (31 U.S.C. 529); but the amount of
the allowance granted shall be determined
on the basis of the educational facility used;
(B) The cost of transporting dependents
of an employee to and from a school in the
United States to obtain an American sec-
ondary or undergraduate college education,
not to exceed one trip each way for each
dependent for the purpose of obtaining each
type of education; but no allowance pay-
ments under subparagraph (A) of this para-
graph (4) shall be made for any dependent
during the twelve months following his ar-
rival in the United States for secondary edu-
cation pursuant to authority contained in
this subparagraph (B). Notwithstanding
section 111(6) of this Act, transportation, for
the purpose of obtaining undergraduate col-
lege education, may be authorized under this
subparagraph (B), under such regulations
as the President may prescribe, for depend-
ents of employees who are citizens of the
United States stationed in the Canal Zone.
Part D?Post differential
SEC. 231. A post differential may be granted
on the basis of conditions of environment
Which differ substantially from conditions of
environment in the continental United States
and warrant additional compensation as a
recruitment and retention incentive. Such
differential also may be granted to any em-
ployee who is officially stationed in the
United States and who is on extended detail
in a foreign area. Additional compensation
paid as a post differential shall not in any
instance exceed 25 per centum of the rate of
basic compensation.
TITLE III?MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
Part A?Storage
SEC. 301. (a) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of
section 911 of the Foreign Service Act of
1946 (22 U.S.C. 1136 (4) and (5) ) are amend-
ed to read as follows:
"(4) the cost of packing and unpacking,
transporting to and from a place of storage,
and storing the furniture and household
and personal effects of an officer or 'employee
of the Service, when he is absent from his
post of assignment under orders, or when
he is assigned to a post to which he cannot
take or at which he is unable to use such
Declassified and Approved For Release @ 50-Yr 2014/01/06: CIA-RDP61-00357R000500140001-1
70'