READJUSTMENT OF POSTAL RATES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 54
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Document Release Date: December 16, 2013
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: February 28, 1958
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1 e), 0/7
e ;
2698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.? SENATE ? February 28
of the United States Department of Com-
merce's lernational trade-fair program in
1955.
Propaganda-wise Russians have announced
a sputnik model will be operating in their
exhibit. And in another move to show their
scientific superiority, they will bring in
"space dogs" used in rocket experiments.
Americans will base their exhibit, follow-
ing the MIT plan, ora display showing how
this Nation and its people are restless, dy-
namic, changing, and possessed of a tre-
mendous creative and scientific talent.
At the moment, however, a tightfisted
Congress threatens to dilute the effectiveness
of the United States Brussels show,
A House Appropriation Subcommittee, un-
der Brooklyn Democrat Representative Jonrr
J. ROONEY, has refused to appropriate $2 mil-
lion additional funds to the United States
$12.8 million fair.. budget.
:Unless the extra funds are voted, fair
officials say, the American pavilion and ex-
hibits will shut down at 7 p. m. each day,
while the neighboring Soviet exposition hall
will operate until 10 p. m.
The darkened hall beside the Russian
brightly lit building each night will put the
United States in a tragic spot, publicity con-
scious officials say.
Congressional parsimony/United States
aids say, has been responsible for the prior
cuts in the fair budget from a requested $15
million to $12.8 million.
FORTY-TWO NEW ENGLAND COMPANIES
Despite the shortage of funds at present,
New Englanders will have a large part in
projecting the picture of America.
James S. Plant, former director of Boston's
Institute of Contemporary Art, has charge of
all cultural, architectural, and design de-
tails for the United States exhibit. Like
Mrs. Howard, he is. a deputy commissioner
general.
The Boston institute, under Plaut's direc-
tion, has put together an exhibit of 150
objects from lawnmowers, plastic boats, and
time clocks to land cameras.
Contributing to this exhibit and others in
the United States pavilion and hall of inter-
national science, are 42 New England com-
panies, including 22 from Massachusetts.
While the Brussels fair is not a trade show,
these companies will contribute to industrial
design exhibits to illustrate how the Nation
lives.
Included among the industrial design ex-
hibitors are Polaroid, Kendall, and Savage
Arms from Massachusetts; United States
Rubber and American Luggage from Rhode
Island; Fuller Brush, Stanley Works, and Su-
perior Electric from Connecticut.
In a crafts exhibit, 12 showings will be by
New England artists. Six will come from
New Hampshire and five from. Connecticut
Among the craft exhibitors will be James
liAcKinnell, of Deerfield, a worker in stone-
ware and enamels, and Robert J, King, of
NeWburyport, a silversmith. From New
Hampshire will be Karl Brerut, of Thornton,
an enamel worker.
New Englanders in the aggregate also have
a role in the film America?the Land and the
People, designed to show fair viSitors how
this Nation lives, works, and plays.
In a full-color wide-screen production the
film will illustrate the region's colonial
houses, tall elms, stone walls, old church
spires?what the film writers call New Eng-
land of Robert Frost and Edward MacDowell.
Another continuously running repeater
film for European and visitors from the rest
of the world will show Vermont farms, New
England churchgoers; a Cape Cod saltbox
house; Concord street scene in Cambridge
and the Slade Spice factory in Boston.
In addition to cultural exhibits, there
will be a number of scientific exhibits in
which high voltage engineering and Sylvania
Electric Products scientists will demonstrate
the scientific and engineering prowess ?the Mr. MORSE. I am sure the Senator
United States. can count. The Senator may have been
s there right in his estimate, by a count of 1 or 2
Senators.
d. Mr. President, I am disturbed about
the entire section 103. I am not so sure
that my amendment should not seek to
READJUSTMENT OF POSTAL RATES1 strike the entire section. If in the course
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, jj of the discussion today that seems to be
ask that the unfinished business be laic deemed proper, I may ask for permission
before the Senate. to perfect my amendment to" that end.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there I wish to speak first to the matter of
policy, from a legislative standpoint, of
including in legislation of this type a
declaration of policy. I consider it sur-
plusage; but, as surplusage so frequently
is, it will be a great source of future
trouble, I think, in the handling of postal
legislation.
I believe that if this language is left
in the bill, I have the right to ask the
question, What is the purpose of leaving
it in? The purpose must necessarily be,
it seems to me, an attempt to exercise
some influence in the future as to post
office policy. There are so many ques-
tions raised by this language which will
have to be applied to unforeseen condi-
tions of the future that from the stand-
point of the art of legislation I believe
the language to be undesirable.
A suggestion was called ,to my atten-
tion by members of the press gallery
who, I think, presented some unanswer-
able arguments against including the
language which I seek to strike from the
bill. They said, "You can be sure the
magazine lobby would love to have the
language remain in the bill," because it
would place the magazine lobby in the
position of saying in the future, "Ah, but
the 85th Congress committed itself to a
policy." We all know the precedential
value of such an argument. Yes; it could
be pointed out that the Senator from
South Carolina said, in his colloquy with
the Senator from Ohio, that we cannot
bind future Congfesses, and that future
Congresses always have the right to adopt
whatever ratemaking policy they desire.
We all know that; but we also know what
happens so often in the legislative proc-
ess when someone can say, "But in 1958
the Congress of the United States said
this shall be the Post Office policy, by
way of a declaration of policy set forth
in section 103 of the act of 1958."
Mr. President, I speak to the general
proposition first, namely, that from the
standpoint of legislative art, this pro-
vision is very inartistic. It is not good
legislative form. All of section 103 can
be deleted from the bill, and not one
iota of it will be changed. If that is
not so, then what the Senator from
South Carolina said last Wednesday af-
ternoon falls to the ground.
The provision either is koing to have
some legislative binding effect or it is not.
If it does have some legislative binding
effect, then the chairman of the commit-
tee and those members of the committee
supporting the provision had better
Stand up and tell us what the legislative
binding effect is. If the provision does
not have such an effect, then it is sur-
plusage, or, as I said last night in debate,
it is a stump speech written into the
bill. I am against including in bills what
might be considered stump speeches.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
further morning business?
If not, morning business is do
objection? If not, the Chair lays before
the Senate the unfinished business.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H. R. 5836) to readjust postal
rates and to establish a congressional
policy for the determination of postal
rates and for other purposes.
Mr. MORSE obtained the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from Oregon yield
to me, in order that I may Suggest the
absence of a quorum?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TAL-
MADGE in the chair). Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoasE]
to strike out lines 15 through 25 on page -
26 of the bill, and to renumber the fol-
lowing subsections. The clerk will read
the language proposed to be stricken out.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
(2) The collectioh, transportation, and
delivery of first-class mail is the primary
function of the postal establishment. The
cost of first-class mail shall be (A) the entire
amount of the expenses allocated to first-
class mail in the manner provided by this
title plus (B) an amount determined to be
the fair value of all extraordinary and pre-
ferential services, specially designed facilities,
and other factors relating thereto. The costs
of other classes of mail and special services
(except the fourth-class mail) shall be com-
puted on an incremental or "out of pocket:
cost basis.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should
like to have the attention particularly
of. the chairman of the committee, the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Joim-
sroNl, the ranking minority member of
the committee, the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. CARLSON], my colleague, the junior
Senator from Oregon [Mr. NEUBERGER],
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Prtox-
/AIRE], and also the Senator from Ohio
[Mr. LAuscnE] , who really raised this
question, I think in an unanswerable
form, last Wednesday.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. CARLSON. If my colleague will
recall, last evening I said if he would
wait until this morning we would have
more Senators present on the floor than
we had last night. ?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:? SENATE
message concerning the military phase of the
operation are impressive. Here he points out
the effect American encouragement and con-
tribution has had in inducing major self-help
by other nations associated with the United
States in free world defense. These, he de-
clares, "have spent over five times as much as
we have expended on military assistance."
Moreover, their coopeiation has supplied
forward bases for military purposes and has
laid an essential industrial foundation for
support of their own military forces. But
outside the military area is the field of tech-
nical assistance and economic de elopment--
to help governments meet the -legitimate de-
mand of peoples in less.dg-eloped countries
for education ando hriproved material 'stan-
dards of living: In this field, too, a tre-
mendous volume of self-help is induced as
local labor,and resources are added to a,
modicum of dollar investmetit.
But Americans cannot afford to look at the
question of self help entirely from one end
of the program. Americans, too, are might-
ily helping'themselves by the contributions
they have made and in all likelihood will con-
tinue to make to the mutual_Aecurity-pro-
gram. They are buying-defense more eco-
nomically through5ooling of resources than
any nation could buy, it alone. They are
creating markets for their products, oppor-
tunities for investment, and sources of raw
materitals. They are countering the attrac-
tions of Communist Ideology by helping peo-
ple to find they can defeat poverty without
surrendering freedom.
The more successfully that is done, the less
of a threat communism will become, until
men can fix their attention not merely on
security but on richer goals of human liv-
ing. That will give a worldwide meaning to
self-help.
[From the Boston.Herald of
?
February 21, 19581
WE CAN AFFORD MUTUAL SECURITY
There may be good arguments against the
President's mutual-security program. But
the one Congress is paying most attent n
to at the momen_t??makes"-riense at all.
That is that foreign aid is too expensive
a luxury so long as we face economic prob-=
lems at, home; in short, that we are tdo
poor.
If,, as the President says, mutual security
is essential- both to our military defense/and
to our success in 'the cold. .war,
afford not to spend the money.
"No one would 6riously argue," 11toisI_
Congress Wednesday'-'that- fun-dr-for our
Own military forces should be denied! until
desirable civilian projects had been provided
' for. Yet our expenditures for mutual se-
curity are fully as important to our national
defense as expenditures for our own 'forces,
and dollar for dollar buy us more in security."
In fact, we can afford the $3.9 !billion
the President has asked for and much more
The United States produces 523 million
tons of coal a year to the U. S. S. R.'s 509
million. It pumps 2.5 billion barrels of oil
to the Soviet's 685 million. Its steel produc-
tion is 113 million 'eons to the Reds' 66 mil-
lion. Its electric power 'production is 725
billion kilowatt-hours to their 210 billion.
We should not be complacent about our
relative wealth, because the Communist
countries are catching up fast. But we
should be realistic. If the Reds can afford
sputniks and missiles, and foreign aid, too,
we can afford them. We have the resources
to sustain whatever defense and foreign-
__ parison with the Russian exhibit due to
policy measures 'our situation demands.
The President's foreign-aid -program may ,the Congress' failure to provide adequate
be overgenerous-raiough this paper doesn't
think so). The money might be spent more
profitably somewhere else?on new roads or
new schools or new flood-control projects
(though the President's allocation makes
sense to us). But the money is available.
We scan raiselt-if-we. Let no one say
*2697
American exhibits at this important in-
ternational event.
The only sour note in the crticle is
mention of the fact that the United
States exhibits will have to shut down
3 hours earlier each evening than the
nearby Russian exposition unless Con-
gress appropriates additional money for
our country's fair budget. I hope my
colleagues will agree with me that we
should all endeavor to see to it that the
American exhibit will not suffer in corn-
funds.
The fair is to run from April to Octo-
ber, and is expected to attract 35 million
visitors from all over the world, many
millions of whom it can be expected do
not have the opportunity to visit in this
we can't. country.
It would be a clear example
pennyzwise pound-foolish economy
(From-the-1355toaveler of February 21, lor-the American exhibits to be outdone
19581 by the Russian in the eyes of people who
attend the?fair.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NEW ENGLAND IN MAJOR ROLE IN WORLD FAIR
AT BRUSSELS
(By Juan Cameron)
From ? pavilion site to rooftop, United
States exhibits at the Brussels World Fair,
opening this spring, will bear Yankee
stamp.
A New Hampshire company, Kalwall Corp.,
built the plastic roof, 341 feet in diameter,
that will crown the $5 million United States
pavilion. Built in Manchester, the roof was
flown in sections to Belgium._
EXPECT 25 MILLION
amounts of money and effort into a fore n- The entire theme of the United States
aid program of theirexhibit was plotted by a 15-man group drawn
We-muSt meet that challenge or accep ',mainly from the Massachusetts Institute of
the ugly alternatives mentioned by the Technology.
PresIdent. These would include the dislo- And United States grand hostess to the
Cation of free-world power, the crumbling 25, million visitors expected to visit this
of our overseas positions, a new and massive country's exhibit will be Mrs. Charles P.
boost in our defense Midget, a big increase Howtvd, of Reading. Mrs. Howard, wife of
in draft calls, and eventually an island the former Massachusetts bank commission-
America in a sea of international commu- er, left\here recently to take up her duties
in Brusiels as United States deputy con',-
INVESTING IN SECTJRITY
There's certain to be' a fight in Congress
when debate gets going on President Eisen-
hower's $3.9-billiOn foreign-aid program.
Fortunately, though, some of the mosein-
fluential leaders in both parties are behind
the President on/this\ one and are ready 'to
battle for its sitivival.
They see the' programfor what it is?our
most effective` way of replying to the Soviet
challenge inithe'overall cold war.
The Soviets would rather win world
domination through economic\ warfare than
through,inilitary combat. Economic warfare
is less/Costly, less cumbersome, less apt to
create international enmities, and hiss trou-
ble to clean up after victory is won. "Know-
ing/this, the Soviets are pouring treme dous
. .
It would cost us a lot more than $3.9 bil- missioner"general to the international ex-
ilOnlTOing"under such handicaps. It position.
would. cost-ns also. many of our cherished The Brussi universal and international
if the situatiOn demands it.
The Soviet Union awoke to the impOrcrice-
of "foreign aid in the shakeup following
Stalin's death. Since mid-1955 Russia and
her satellites have spent an estimated $1.9
billion on aid to less developed countries,
of which only $400 million was in arins aid.
During this same period United States aid
to the same group of countries totaled only
$1 billion, including $100 million for arms
aid.
Is the Soviet 'bloc so rich it can afford
to rush in where we hold back? The figures
do not support such a view.
The Soviet bloc has a combined national
product of $235 billion, increasing at a rate
of 5 percent a year. But the United States
alone, not counting its allies, has a national
product of the order of $400 billion, increas-
ing at the rate of $12 billion a year (3 per-
cent).
No. 32-3
freedom's. ------...., exposition in ich more than 50 nations
On the other hand, by accepting the fact, ,will participate i the first of its kind since
that foreign aid means mutual security for) the New York W d Fair in 1939.
our own and other free nations we would,be Staged on '600 acrel, of Heysel Park, near
placing the problem in its correct perspec-tive. Brussels, the!world ilritr, Will bring together
.Foreign aid is not a giveaway carnival, the best of 'material ahd culture that na-
It is a carefully planned cooperative pro- tions -from Chile to China have evolved in
gram whereby we work with other nations---2,000 years of civilization.
to strengthen our military and ? economic
defenses. ?
? It-has- Worked suoCessfuily for 10 years.
It has greatly diminished the Soviet threat.
It's.the best investment we can make toward
free-world security.
NEW ENGLAND IN MAJOR ROLE IN
WORLD FAIR AT BRUSSELS
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD an article by Juan Cam-
eron, entitled "New England in Major
Role in World Fair at Brussels," which
appeared in the Boston Sunday Herald
on February 23, 1958. It makes me very
proud to realize that Massachusetts and
her sister States in New England will be
making a significant contribution to the
Declassified and Approved For Rele
An estimated 35 million visitors will visit
the Brussels fairgrounds between April and
October to hear and.watch the world's lead-
ing orchestras, opera singers, ballet dancers',
and dramatic players.
MANY CULTURES
In addition the 50 nations will put on
film festivals, folklore processions, plus ex-
hibits of autos, hi-fi's, and clothes designed
by the world's leading fashion designers.
Although planned to show the develop-
ment of American, European, African, and
Asiatic cultures, the fair will inevitably be
a propaganda battleground Vetween East and
West.
Heightening this battle is the location of
the 61/2-acre United States exhibit site sit-
uated between that of the Soviet Union and
the Holy See. This site was chosen by Roy
F. Williams, Associated Industries of Massa-
chusetts executive head, while he was head
2013/12/16 CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1 ?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. President, I think this provision
should be stricken from the bill. ?As I
believe I have demonstrated many times,
I am willing to make such progress as I
can by way of a reasonable compromise.
If we can remove from the bill the par-
ticular language on page 26, which starts
on line 15 and runs through line 25, I
shall be satisfied. I shall accept that, at
least, because those lines contain the
really dangerous language.
I agree with the Senator from Ohio
[Mr. LAUSCHE) that on page 30 of the bill,
starting on line 16 and running through
line 18, involves a question which ought
to call for an independent amendment.
I do not think that matter should be
handled in connection with the question
I raise by presenting my amendment.
The Senator from Ohio brought out
very clearly in the colloquy Wednesday
the need for some modification of that
language. I do not take the position that
in the so-called star route system and
rural free delivery the Post Office Depart-
ment should be making deliveries of the
second- and third-class material for the
benefit of magazines such as Life, News
Week and similiar publications, without
the publishers making a contribution to
the operation of the star routes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Oregon yield to the
Senator from Ohio?
Mr. MORSE. ? I yield to the Senator
from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It strikes me that if
the section is allowed to remain in the
bill, it will fix as a policy certain con-
cessions which are now being made,
and which even now are doubtful, but
which in the future, when the conditions
may change, would perhaps be of inde-
fensible validity.
I subscribe to the thoughts expressed
by the Senator from Oregon, that it is
a dangerous practice for the present
Congress to declare a policy which will
have to be followed in .the future?not
mandatorily, of course, but the very fact
that we declare a policy will have a
strong influence against the making of
changes which in the future may be
thoroughly justified.
The Senator from Oregon has prob-
ably given this matter more study than
I, because it was developed a few days
ago, and the Senator has since had a
chance to consider it.
Referring to subsection (2) on page
26, the one the Senator from Oregon
asks be stricken, I find that the Sen-
ate version of the bill has added specifi-
cally this language in the sentence be-
ginning online 22:
The costs of other classes of mail and
special services (except the fourth-class
mail) shall be computed on an incremental
or "out-of-pocket" cost basis.
On the day before yesterday we had
difficulty in ascertaining the meaning
of that provision.
As I understand, the Senator from
Oregon_ [Mr. MORSE] and the Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON]
are familiar with the fact that in the
report on House bill 5386, page 4, this
?
language appears in the second full para-
graph:
The committee believes that the.subsidiary
classes should be priced on an incremental
or "out-of-pocket" cost basis. ("Out-of-
pocket" costs are those expenses incurred
directly in handling a certain class of mail,
and which would not be incurred if the
additional service were not rendered.)
I think the last clause is loaded with
dynamite. In the future the Post Office
Department would have to prove, in
assessing costs against other classes of
mail, that the costs which were sought
to be assessed were incurred newly and
completely separate from those services
which had to be generally rendered.
May I ask the Senator if I am correct
in the understanding that the only time
the Post Office Department would be
able to assess out-of-pocket costs would-
be when it could prove that added serv-
ices had to be provided for a specific
type of mail?
Mr. MORSE. That is my interpreta-
tion. However, let me say to my friend
from Ohio that if the committee denies
it, that proves our case. That is, if the
members of the committee deny such in-
terpretation, then they have to admit
that they are including language in the
bill which is going to be the source of
serious altercation and trouble in the fu-
ture, because-we can be pretty sure that
under this language the magazines are
going to take exactly the position which
the Senator from Ohio is 'stating. The
result will be that they will be entrenched
in a right to continue to maintain the
kind of subsidy they desire to retain.
Who among us can say what our posi-
tion should be 1 year, 10 years, or 20 years
from now, as to what the rates ought to
be in respect ta second-class mail?
I do not think the language is fair to
the magazine publishers. Let me point
out that this language works both ways.
I do not think it is fair to the publishers
of magazines to use language of policy
in a bill which tends to give the pub-
lishers the impression they can count on
costs based upon a particular interpreta-
tion of out-of-pocket costs, and 5, 10, or
15 years later, change the policy. They
will say, "Listen, we built up our busi-
nesses on the basis that we thought this
was the policy. We have made invest-
ments on that basis. Now you change
the rules of the game on us."
I repeat, provision in the bill is not
needed anyway; so why include it?
Mr. LAUSCHE. Let me ask a fdrther
question concerning the correctness of
my understanding. Again referring to
the language in the bill, on page 26, the
last sentence of subsection (2) reads:
The costs of other classes of' mail and
special services?
Which would mean second- and third-
class mail?
shall be computed on an incremental or out-
of -pocket cost basis.
,If instead of using the words "shall be
computed on an incremental or out-of -
pocket-- cost basis" the definition which
the committee gave of the out-of -
pocket cost basis were used, the sen-
tence would then read that-
2699
The costs of other classes of mail and spe-
cial services shall be borne by first-class mail
users except in those instances when services
are rendered which would not be incurred
if the additional mail were not carried.
A close study of this declaration of pol-
icy will indicate that we would forever
freeze any privileges granted, and forever
freeze any disadvantage which may
exist, unleas some future Congress should
decide to change the policy.
Mr. MORSE. I am glad the Senator
from Ohio used the term "freeze." I
intended to use it myself in my analysis.
I now wish to emphasize it. If the lan-
guage has any purpose at all in fixing a
policy, it must have the purpose of icing
the policy. It must have the purpose of
freezing the policy. It must have the
purpose of fixing the policy. It must
have the purpose of setting the policy.
I do not care what word is used to de-
scribe it. If this language means any-
thing at all, what the committee is saying
to the people of the United States is that
"from now on this shall be the policy
with regard to the adjustment of costs as
between first-class and second-class
mail, so far as the Post Office is con-
cerned." I wish to say something about
the first sentence to this policy statement
in a moment. For the present I shall
hear the Senator from Ohio through.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Let us look at page 30,
to the paragraph identified by the
numeral "(2) ." In order to understand
that paragrhph we must read the first
entence of section 104?
The following shall be considered to be
public services for the purposes of this
title.
Then certain losses which are to be
ascribed to public services are identified.
Paragraph No. 2 on page 30 reads as
follows:
The loss resulting from the operation of
such public welfare postal services as the
star route system, rural free delivery, third-
and fourth-class post offices.
I should likes to know whether I am
correct in the understanding that the
magazines to which reference was made
last night are carried under those serv-
ices.
Mr. MORSE. Yes; they are carried.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That would mean
that when such magazines are carried by
either the star route system or rural free
delivery, or when they are handled in
third- or fourth-class post offices, they
are to be considered as public services,
and the losses sustained will have to be
borne by the taxpayers as a whole.
Mr. MORSE. That is my interpreta-
tion; and that will be the contention, if
we leave this statement of policy in the
bill. We can be pretty sure of that. .The
result will be to increase the subsidies
which the taxpayers as a whole are al-
ready paying to Life, Look: Time, News-
week, and the others of them. They
ought to pay a larger share of their cost
than they would ever pay under this kind
of arrangement.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I thank the Senator
very much.
Mr. MORSE.... President, I am al-
most through. I return now to the first
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
sentence of the language which I propose
to strike:
The collection, transportation, and de-
livery of first-class mail is the primary func-
tion_of the Postal Establishment.
Why do we say that? We do not need
to say that. It is not necessary to say
that. Certainly that was almost the only
function in the beginning of the history
of the postal service. In the early
decades there was relatively little second-
class mail, and such as there was was not
very bulky. But* when we come to con-
sider the tons and tons of second- and
third-class mail handled each year by the
post office, we must take a look at certain
other criteria when we deal with the
phrase "primary function." Consider
the workload. Consider what goes
through the post office. Although we
might all agree that it is necessary to see
to it that first-class mail receives prefer-
ential treatment, I am not ready to say
that I will accept a policy statement
which gives the impression that the pri-
mary function of serving the American
people, postalwise, is first-class mail, and
then move from that interesting premise
of the syllogism into the next premise:
The cost of first-class mail shall be (a) the
entire amount of the expenses allocated to
first-class mail in the manner provided by
this title?
And so forth. Therefore anything
that is carried over and above that?to
come to the conclusion "shall be com-
puted on an incremental or out-of -
pocket basis."
I think the danger is in the first prem-
ise of the policy statement, in paragraph
(2). So I stress the point that we Must
consider the postal service as a totality.
It is a mistake to seek to break it up,
as this policy statement seeks to do, so
that we can get ourselves into a position
to "soak" first-class mail users with the
overwhelming part of the cost of serving
the postal needs of the people of the
United States.
I happen to believe that in due course
of time the Senate will adopt an amend-
ment which I offered yesterday, and
which was then rejected. I am con-
vinced that in due course of time the
American taxpayers will say to Members
of Congress, "We are not going to pay
such a large subsidy to magazines and
newspapers. We are not greatly moved
by all the plaintive pleas to the effect
that some of them may go out of busi-
ness if we do not subsidize them."
The American people will eventually
say to the Congress of the United States,
"In 1958 you did not raise second- and
third-class rates high eneugh." My
amendment was rejected, but I shall wait
for the reaction of the American people
in the years immediately ahead. I am
convinced that it will be in support of
the principle which I defended on the
floor of the Senate yesterday. However,
I will not sit here without raising my
voice in protest against language which
is subject to the interpretation?as the
Senator from Ohio has pointed out?
that, to all intents and purposes, we are
freezing the rates of second- and third-
class users so that in the future it will be
more difficult for Congress to raise such
rates.
I wish to stress the fact that I do not
accept a so-called out-of-pocket formula,
because if the Post Office did not carry
this huge bulk of mail, and if we were
to limit mail service to first-class service,
Senators can see what would happen.
There would be a great shrinkage in the
postal facilities themselves.
Let me say to the postal workers of
America, that they have a tremendous
stake in the argument which the senior
Senator from Oregon is making on the
floor of the Senate today. Let me say to
the postal workers, whose legislative
representatives are seated in the gal-
leries, and with whom I disagree ve-
hemently with respect to some of the
positions they have taken on this bill,
that I am raising my voice in protection
of the postal employees here today when
I protest this language. If we leave this
language in the bill, I say to the postal
'workers that they will find it more dif-
ficult in the future to obtain the wage
increases which they will need if we ?
allow magazines and newspapers to have
their rates frozen, not by way of specific
rates, but by way of a legislative policy
approach. It will rise to plague the
postal workers of the country.
I am moving to strike out this language
because I think the postal workers ought
to be protected?sometimes against
themselves. They have needed such pro-
tection in connection with this bill.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from
Oregon says that he is convinced that
in due course of time the people of Amer-
ica will rise up and recognize that the
subsidy which is being paid to the very
prosperous publishers is unfair, improper,
un-American, and in contradiction of the
principles of our free enterprise system.
I agree with him. I have talked with
other Senators on both sides of the aisle
who also agree with him.
I point out to the Senator from Oregon
that in due course of time this will not
take place if the statement of pOlicy re-
ferred to remains in the bill. As the
Senator from Oregon and the Senator
from Ohio have pointed out, this lan-
guage would freeze the policy of applying
to second- and third-class mail only in-
cremental costs.
I should like to ask any Member of
the Senate who is on the floor this Morn-
ing, on either Side of the question, if he
can give me any example of a business
which would say to one customer, "we
will load all of our overhead, as well as
our cost of production, on what we sell
to you on the product which we sell to
you, but fo another customer we will sell
on the basis of our out-of-pocket cost."
A business that did that would not stay
in business very long. I do not believe
that any business administration expert
in the country would approve of that
kind of allocation. That certainly is not
a good business practice. ?
I should also like to say to the senior
Senator from Oregon that I could not
agree with him more coMpletely with
regard to the long term tragedy the ,
adoption of this section of the bill would
cause to the postal workers. I say that
February 28
because it is no secret that there will be
an attempt made to tie in with the bill
a postal pay increase provision. We
heard it on the radio this morning and
have read about it in the newspapers for
a long time.
Of course I approve of an increase in.
salary for the postal workers, and we
should do everything in our power to give
it to them. ? It is something that they
have needed for a long time; they should
have received it during the last session
of Congress.'
If the section of the bill under dis-
cussion is left in the bill it will mean
that in the future if postal workers want
an increase in salary, the request will
likely be tied in with a 7-cent stamp or
a 10-cent stamp, or something of -.that
kind. ..That will make it much more diffi-
cult for the Congress to enact a pay in-
crease bill.
Two precedents would be established
by the proposed language. In the first
place, as the Senator from Oregon has
pointed out, it would be the third or
fourth precedent of a salary increase
being tied in with a rate pill.
Furthermore, there is also contained
in the bill the statement that in the fu-
ture only out-of-pocket costs will be
related to second- and third-class mail.
That leaves only first-class mail to carry
the full burden. I should like to under-
line what the distinguished Senator from
Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] pointed out so well,
that the committee has added to the
House bill a sentence which has power-
ful dynamite in it. It is that "the costs
of other classes of mail and special serv-
ices?except fourth-class mail?shall be
computed on an incremental or out-of-
pocket cost basis."
That language was not contained in
the bill as it passed the House. That is
the most dange]ous provision of the bill.
It contradicts completely good business
experience and sound accounting prac-
tices.
Mr. LAUSCHE. ? Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I should like to have
it. pointed out to me if my understand-
ing is correct or incorrect on this point.
As I understand, to the second 'and other
class users of mail other than first class,
by the proposed policy, the Federal. Gov-
ernment in the future would say: "The
only charges we will impose against you
are those which are inescapable in the
handling of your mail. If at the end of
4 hours our employees complete the car-
rying of first-class mail and have 4 hours
of leisure, and during that time carry
your mail, we have no new costs. There-
fore, it costs you nothing: You will only
pay those costs which we add to our gen-
eral operating expenses in the delivery
of first-class mail."
Mr. PROXMIRE. Absolutely. I
should like to point out to the Senator
from Ohio and to the Senator from Ore-
gon that the costs of the postal service
are tremendous. They include the cost
of maintaining the post offices, the cost
of constructing post offices, the cost of
transportation, the cost of equipment,
and the salaries of the employees, who
must be in the offices to deliver the first-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
?
1958
, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2701
class mail anyway. All those costs will
be chargeable only to first-class mail and
not to second- or third-class mail.
To draw an analogy, it would be as if
a person were to travel on the railroad?
because the Post Office operates vir-
tually as a railroad operates?and the
railroad were to say to him, "We will
charge you only the out-of-pocket cost."
In that case the charge would be prac-
tically nothing.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Unless the railroad
had to attach a special car to the train.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes; and if he took
all his friends along.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Then he would have
to pay for the special car.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Exactly.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should
like to have the attention of the chair-
man of the committee and the attention
of the ranking minority member of the
committee, and the attention of the other
members of the committee, including the
Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator
from Kentucky. I wish to make a plea
this morning when, to use a military
term, we are trying to reform our lines.
There is no doubt that there have been
honest and sincere differences among
us on the bill. We still have a great ob-
jective to accomplish after we pass the
rate bill; and that is to do what we can to
protect the salary interests of the postal
workers. I say very frankly to the
chairman of the committee that there
are those of us who find ourselves in a
very difficult position from the stand-
point of legislative policy, because we
do not like combining the two things in
one bill. At the same time, if we could
get a rate bill?and I say this good-
naturedly?with respect to which we
would have to hold our noses but still
could vote for, in the hope that some
corrections will be made in conference
which we believe ought to be made, then
we could go along.
I believe that is what the eventual fate
of the bill will be, because I am confident
that Senators will go into conference and
walk out with all the bacon. I believe
there will be a little compromising
among the conferees. If we could at
least come to some reasonable agreement
on some of these items that disturb those
of us who heretofore have been in the
minority on some of the issues, we might
have a more united front on the other
problems which confront us in connec-
tion with the postal pay matter.
The Senator from South Carolina
cannot question the sincerity of the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] , the
Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAuscnEl, or the
senior Senator from Oregon in our deep
concern about the dangerous potentiali-
ties of the language which we seek to
strike. So I say, with my arms open, and
in a plaintive plea, What is offered me, if
anything, by way of conference?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
If the Senator from Oregon will modify
his amendment, and move to stike out
what he has been discussing all along,
namely, the last sentence of paragraph
(2) on page 26, that would get rid of the
out-of-pocket costs.
Out-of-pocket costs, as we understood
them when the discussions took place
during the hearings, are the costs of some
of the functions which are necessary for
the handling of first-class mail, but
which are not necesary for any other
class. For instance, it is necessary for
the mail trucks to stop at the boxes
placed throfighout the city and to pick
up the letters deposited there. That is
a part of the first-class service.
Second-class mail is not usually de-
posited in the mailboxes. I say that the
out-of-pocket charges should not be as-
sessed against first-class mail. That is
our reason for including these provisions
in the bill.
But if the Senator from Oregon be-
comes excited over it, we are willing to
try to accommodate him.
Mr. MORSE. I assure the Senator
from South Carolina that I am very
much excited over it, with my eyes wide
open to the future. That is why I am
concerned.
The present Presiding Officer of the
Senate, the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
TALMADGE] , and I are enjoying in the
cloakrooms a reputation among our col-
leagues for being David Harums, at
times, in fields other than-the legislative
process.
I thank my colleague from South Car-
olina. I should be very happy to modify
my amendment to conform with the sug-
gestion the Senator from South Carolina
has just made, and I now do so.
Mr. President, I modify my amend-
ment by moving to strike out, on page' 26,
line 22, beginning with the words, "The
costs," through line 25, with the under-
standing that the Senator from South
Carolina will take the amendment to
conference.
If this opinion is shared by the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] , the rank-
ing Republican member of the commit-
tee, I want him to know that I deeply
appreciate his cooperation. This is not
the first time he has been willing to co-
operate with the senior Senator from
Oregon.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I have conferred with all the members
of the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service who are on the floor, and
they all agree to the proposal.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I deeply
appreciate the action which has just
been taken by the senior Senator from
Oregon in striking, out the last sentence
of paragraph (2) on page 26.
I have been listening to the debate.
I myself was trying to think of some lan-
guage which might be inserted in this
particular section so as to preserve what
the committee wanted to do. We are
trying to find some basis for setting aside
a certain percentage or a certain dollar
sum of money for the public service of
the Post Office Department.
I will have to admit?and I say this
for the benefit of the chairman and the
other members of the committee?that
we were forced, so to speak, by pressure
from the Senate to report the bill in
order that the pay-raise bill might be
considered, before we really had a thor-
ough opportunity to study these sections.
I say this in fairness to the chairman.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I may say that I had a speaking engage-
ment at home, and I had to have the re-
port read to me over the telephone. I
approved it over the telephone. That is
how rushed we were in submitting the
report.
Mr. CARLSON. I thought the RECORD
should be clear on that point. We sub-
mitted the report without having made
the study which should have been made.
. The language of the section contains
an important policy statement, as the
Senator from Oregon has so well stressed.
If the agreement is satisfactory to him,
I shall certainly be happy to work on
that problem.
Mr. MORSE. It is a satisfactory com-
promise. As the Senator knows, I pre-
ferred to have the whole section stricken;
but this is a- satisfactory compromise.
Mr. President, I yield the floor by ask-
ing that action be taken on my amend-
ment as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Moan], as modified.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
express my acquiescence in and support
of the amendment, as modified, offered
by my senior colleague.
If I may have the attention of the
ranking minority member of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
I may say that I have only commenda-
tion for the chairman of the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service and the
ranking minority member for their ac-
ceptance of the amendment, as modified.
In fairness to the chairman, I think
the RECORD should show that not one
member of the committee, on either side
of the table, to my knowledge, protested
the so-called policy statement at the
time. If I am not mistaken, every mem-
ber of the committee, on both sides of
the table, acquiesced in the policy state-
ment, at least by silence. This may have
been due to the fact that the committee
was under heavy pressure, from both
sides of the aisle, to report a rate bill, ?
so that it could accompany the postal
pay bill, and therefore assure a greater
opportunity of acceptance at the White
House when the pay bill finally arrives
there, as we trust it will do.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield? ?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am delighted to
acknowledge that I was in error, not
having had the opportunity to peruse
carefully the 49-page bill. I know I
should have done so. I am not a member
of the subcommittee which is principally
responsible for the bill. However, I rec-
ognize my mistake and acknowledge the
fact that I did not speak up in commit-
tee, because I had not had an oppor-
tunity to read the bill in its entirety.
I am extremely grateful to the Senator
from Oregon [Mr. NEUBERGER] and the
Senator from Ohio [Mr. LauscHn] for
having called this matter to my attention.
Mr. NEUBERGER. It seems to me to
be very helpful that a somewhat confus-
ing and ambiguous policy statement has
been eliminated from a substantive rate
bill. I think this is helpful. I believe
every Senator regards it as such. -
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE -
However, I desire to emrhasize one
thing, and in this I particularly wish
the attention, of the Senator from Ohio,
because I know he has been concerned
about the so-galled pOlicy statement.
The basic fact still remains that we must
not depart heedlessly or cavalierly from
the fundamental, underlying policy
which has governed the United States
postal system throughout its history.
That policy is that first-class mail has
paid more than its shar'e of the so-called
assigned costs. If that be wrong, then
there should be extensive hearings, dis-
cussion, debate, and analysis before
changing the policy. But it should not
be changed in the heat of debate, be-
cause it might seem somewhat politically
helpful or opportunistic to say to the
people who mail first-class letters, that
they are being charged more than their
assigned share of the cost.
I again wish to state for the RECORD,
because I think the facts are irrefutable
and pertinent, that during the entire his-
tory of the post office system, first-class
mail has carried more than its share of
the assigned costs. I have made a cur-
sory study of the Senate debates, and I
can find no very important evidence, if
any, that any distinguished Members of
this body have challenged that long, his-
toric precedent.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The Senator now is arguing for out-of-
pocket costs. He is arguing that some
costs should be assigned to first class
which are assigned to second and third
class, because more than 100 percent of
the cost is being charged to first-class
mail.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I am arguing that
we should not, in the heat of a Senate
debate, completely upset the whole pat-
tern of operation of the post-office sys-
tem. If we do, we shall be disrupting
the mail service and shall be endanger-
ing the pay and welfare of the postal
employees. We shall be endangering all
the communications which pass through
the mails.
I call this to the attention of the dis-
tinguished Senator from Ohio, who first
mentioned to me his very real and jus-
tified fear about some of the inclusionst
in the policy statement.
This morning I received from the
Post Office Department a statement
which I should like to read. A few days
ago I presented to the Senate the figure
for the portion of cost assigned to first-
class mail from 1926 to the present time.
On that particular day the Post Office
Department did not have available for
me the figures for the periods prior to
1926. I now have a statement on that
matter; it was sent to me by the office
of the Postmaster General. The state-
ment is very brief, and I shall read it,
as follows:
FIRST-CLASS MAIL COSTS PRIOR TO 1926
While no detailed cost figures are available
for the Post Office Department prior to 1926
(the date of installation of cost-ascertain-
ment reports) an analysis of the annual re-
ports of the Postmasters General for the
years prior to 1926 indicates conclusively
that first-class mail consistently paid an
average of at least 140 percent of its allo-
cated costs exclusive of the charges for the
many costly preferential services given first-
class mail.
In addition, I repeat that in 1945, when
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Tru-
man, respectively, occupied* the White
House?because that was the year of the
unfortunate and tragic death of Presi-
dent Roosevelt?the share of the costs
sustained by first-class mail reached
164.7 percent. I believe that was the
high-water mark in our history. There
is no evidence that Senators, either in
committee or on the floor, challenged
that or questioned it.
I shall be willing to have the Senate
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice hold extensive hearings to determine
whether the historic pattern which has
governed the postal system since its
establishment should be continued.
I do not believe postal policy which has
existed for nearly two centuries should
be changed in a few hours on the floor of
the Senate.
Furthermore, I wish to call the atten-
tion of my colledgues to the situation in
residential neighborhoods. Probably
most of us live in residential neighbor-
hoods. . I do, and I assume that the dis-
tinguished Senator from Ohio does. It
has been pointed out to me by career ap-
pointees and officials of the Post Office
Department that the very costly and
expensive mail collections in residential
neighborhoods are, virtually entirely and
exclusively, for first-class mail. Second-
class and third-class mail and nearly all
the parcel post are delivered to the post
offices. The postal trucks which we see
moving by day and by night, in good
weather and in bad, are often primarily
for the purpose of picking up the first-
class mail. We do not want to change
the cost-ascartainment structures, so
that the people will have to deliver their
first-class mail to the post offices.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I con-
cur completely in the elimination of this
vague, ambiguous, and dangerous portion
of the policy statement. I think the
senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]
and the junior Senator from Ohio ..[Mr.
LAUSCHE] have rendered a great service in
pointing out to us its potential hazards.
have been pleased to join them in Vot-
ing today on the floor of the Senate in
effort to delete it from the bill.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mn'. President, will the
Senator from Oregon yield to me?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I am happy to
yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. On yesterday, I stated
to the Senator from Oregon that I deeply
appreciated his sincerity and good pur-
pose in approaching the solution of the
problem which now confronts the Sen-
ate. At that time I said that in his
presentation he emphasized the bad as
much as he did the good. No better
tribute can I pay to him for his
objectivity. %
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, as
always, the Senator from Ohio is very
kind.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield to me?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I desire to say that
I agree with the Senator from Ohio that
FebrAry 28
the Senator from Oregon is a great man,
a true liberal, a great asset to the United
States, and a great credit to his State.
But, Mr. President, I wish to say to him
that I could not disagree with him more
on the issue he has just discussed.
I believe it would be a very good thing
to have the committee reconsider ,the
statement relating to the primary func-
tion of the Post Office Department. I
shall not repeat the statements which
have been made here in the last few days.
I believe my position has been made
clear.
Mr. President, I believe it is ridiculous
for us to continue something simply be-
cause it has been in existence in the past
and has been supported by great men
such as Franklin D. Roosevelt or Bob
La Follette.
Nevertheless, I agree that the Senator
from Oregon is completely sincere in the
statement he has made. This disagree-
ment is one between two Senators who
respect each other, I am sure.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
am sure the Senator from Wisconsin
would never take the position that those
who have been here in the past have
been derelict in not changing the system
of the allocation of costs in the Post
Office Department.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
shall not attack George Washington,
Abraham Lincoln, and other prominent
men in our history, of course; but I be-
lieve it is ridiculous to have a postal
system in which more than 100 percent
of the cost of carrying letters is imposed
on those who write them. That makes no
sense whatever. I do not care who favors
it; I believe it is wrong.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will my
colleague yield to me
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. I desire to thank my
colleague for his support of this amend-
ment.
I wish to repeat that whatever may
be the differaces he and I have regard-
igg other matters in connection with the
bill, certainly they are sincere and honest
differences, not personal ones.
He has demonstrated again that when
we are of one mind on a particular mat-
ter, we join forces. I wish him to know
that I appreciate very much his sup-
port of the amendment.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
thank my colleague for his generous re-
marks and for his courtesy in connec-
tion with this debate.
Mr. President, I have been told by
career officials of the Post Office Depart-
ment that, unless first-class mail is as-
signed these cost ascertainment amounts,
which it has traditionally borne, there
simply will not be the type of mail col-
lection, the type of mail delivery, and
the type of postal personnel we have al-
ways had in this country. They have
told me that this is not only the practice
in the United States, but it is also the
practice in virtually all civilized coun-
tries which have m6dern postal systems.
I am sure that the Senator from Wis-
consin and I agree that before the pres-
ent system?whatever may be its mer-
its?is drastically changed, there should
be extensive and exhaustive hearings
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032:1
1958 ? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
by the appropriate committees of the
? Senate and the House of Representatives.
I know he will agree as to that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
certainly agree wholeheartedly. I agree
that we should go into this matter very
thoroughly. I do not think any policy
should be established on the floor of the
Senate, or on the floor of the House of
Representatives. That is one reason,
among many others, why I supported
the position taken by the Senator from
Oregon, because he objected to the in-
clusion in the postal rate bill of a state-
ment of policy.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I thank the Seh-
ator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I wish
to pay tribute to the Senator from Ore-
gon for bringing up this matter in con-
nection with section 103, and particularly
in connection with the subsection on
incremental costs.
The phrase "incremegtal costs" is
very mouth filling and very ear filling.
I looked up, in Webster's dictionary, the
meaning of the word "incremental." I
am not sure that even Noah Webster
knew just what "incremental" might
mean, because in Webster's dictionary we
find that word defined, as follows:
Incremental?Of, pertaining to, or result-
ing from increments, increase, or growth.
Then we find the following definition
of the word "increment":
Increment?An increasing, growth in
bulk, quantity, number, value, etc.; enlarge-
ment, increase.
After that part of the definition, we
find the following rather interesting and
qualifying statement in that huge, 15-
pound book, a copy of which I have in
my office:
A slight or imperceptible augmentation.
Mr. President, that is a wonderful defi-
nition. If we relate that definition to the
language contained in section 103, and
particularly to the part of the section
relating to first-class mail and the other
classes of mail which show out-of-pocket
costs "on an incremental basis," we
find that that could mean a slight or
an imperceptible augmentation in the
future. Mr. President, in the days that
lie ahead, that language would probably
be found to be the greatest plague ever tc,
confront the Post Office Department.
What is "an imperceptible augmenta-
tion"? What is "an imperceptible en-
largement or an increase"? I do not
know.
This whole problem is certainly not
new to me. I had my first experience
with postal-rate problems in the House
of Representatives. I had plenty of it
as a member of the Subcommittee on
Post Office Appropriations in the House,
where I' served for a good many years.
There came before the committee first
one Postmaster General and then an-
other. I remember Jim Farley very well,
whom I esteem as a friend. I remember
Bob Hannegan, of St. Louis: I remem-
ber Jesse Donaldson, of Shelby, Ill., who
was in the service 40 years before he
became Postmaster General. But al-
ways the questions arose whether it was
a business enterprise and what the cost
ascertainment figures showed.
I care not how many experts one may
consult, he will still come to the conclu-
sion that the Post Office operation is a
rather indivisible thing. I doubt very
much whether we can obtain th3 most
precise figures to allocate costs to one
class of mail or another, in an operation
which encompasses $3 billion, 500,000
workers, 85,000 vehicles, 33,000 post of-
fices, 8,200 branches, and 32,000 rural
free delivery routes. It is an operation
that really makes General Motors and
General Electric and other large com-
panies pale by comparison, even though
employeewise they seem to be pretty
large. In the Post Office there is a di-
versity of operations. I do not know quite
how its operations can be divided.
I desire to be pretty careful about any
expression of postal policy. In 1951 I
served on the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service of the Senate. I be-
lieve the distinguished chairman of the
committee will agree I had some small
part in raising the question concerning
the definition of policy by the Congress.
Where are we to draw the line? What
are we to-allocate against.the taxpayers?
all, or none, or some item in between?
If duck stamps are sold by the postoffices,
how much does that service cost?
Frankly, I do not think it costs nearly
so much as some of the "eager beavers,"
who have been testifying on the bill, have
stated. How much does it cost to count
deer in the Michigan peninsula? Per-
haps twenty or thirty or forty thousand
dollars; but it certainly does not run into
the figure, the Advisory Council em-
balmed in the very 'fancy brochure it is-
sued. I read it from start to finish.
Then I read the answer by the Post Office
Department. Then I read the most re-
cent brochure. Three times I read the
article written by the distinguished
chairman of the committee, which has
published recently. Then I sat down
and looked off at the wall. I thought
perhaps we had better be a little careful,
when we encounter a bit of fancy
semanticism like incremental, and we
should look out.
My colleagues know that words are
amazing things. We know of a book en-
titled "Words That Won the War," which
was written of World War I by George
Creel.
There was also one written about words
that won the war in World War II. We
are constantly operating in the field of
etymology, semantics, and words. We
are not going to interpret those words.
If someone takes exception to their
meaning he can go into a court and say
to the distinguished gentlemen in black
robes, "This is what we think it means."
The intent of Congress is one of those
fictional things we hear of. I read a
decision by one of the circuit courts of
appeals not so very long ago, reported in
the Harvard Law Review, in which it was
stated there is no such thing as intent
of Congress. It is a fiction; the words
used by Congress mean what they think
they mean.
The only reason why I take the floor
today, for only a little while, is to make
2703
sure that when learned men in the law
refer to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and
say, "This is what we think Congress
meant," we may be extremely certain
that they know what the junior Senator
from Illinois meant when he voted for
:the amendment offered by the senior
Senator from Oregon.
I am delighted that the phrase is to be-
deleted from the bill. I do not want a
judge to say, "Well, this is what I think
Congress meant when they talked about -
incremental costs," because those costs
may start from the day the President
affixes his signature to the act. They
will be only the little things in the whole
load, wAlich in the first instance was as-
sessed as a primary responsibility upon
first-class mail. When that is done, I
think a disservice is perpetrated upon
the people of this country.
So the junior Senator from Illinois
wants only to be sure that if learned jus-
tices probe congressional intent, there
will be no doubt what the junior Senator
from Illinois had in mind when he cast
his vote of approval for the Morse
amendment.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator
from Illinois for the very fine' argument
he has made in support of my amend-
ment. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I leave it as I started,
and return to the text.
When I encounter a word like "incre-
mental"?and, frankly, this is the first
time that word has ever given me trouble
in 25 years of legislative experience?if
I had no other reason to want its dele-
tion from the bill, it would be simply be-
cause my feeble capacity does not
encompass all of the juridical implica-
tions it might have.
I earnestly hope the amendment of the
senior Senator from Oregon will ' be
adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HOBLITZELL in the chair) . The question
is on agreeing to the amendment, as
modified, of the Senator from Oregon.
The amendment, as modified, was
agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I have listened to the Sen-
ator from Illinois with a great deal of
amusemeht. I have sent to the com-
mittee for a copy of the report which the
committee, during the 83d Congress,
paid almost $100,000 to have prepared,
in which the out-of-pocket theory is the
major recommendation. I now have the
report in my hand, and I shall read from
it. Probably the Senator from Illinois
forgot about it when he was speaking a
few moments ago, but I find contained in
the report the following language:
In order to ascertain a fair cost of second-
ary products the Nation's top accountants
have devised ways of charging to the pri-
mary products all the costs necessary to pro-
duce and distribute such primary products.
It is therefore considered in many cases that
the fairest cost of the secondary products
should include only the direct or incre-
mental?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2704
The same words---
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -7- SENATE
(sometimes referred to as out-of-pocket)
costs necessary to produce and distribute
such products.
In all fairness, I think it should be said
that was the recommendation of the com-
mittee.
Then for the past 2 years the commit-
tee worked on the question.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
' Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. CARLSON. That was in the 84th
Congress.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
That is correct. Reference to the cost
will be found in the report. That is
where the out-of-pocket cost provision
comes from. It was put in the bill by the
committee, and the committee passed on
it and reported the bill to the Senate.
So reference was only to things which
were not necessary to be done except for
second- and third-class mail matter.
As I mentioned a few moments ago,
there are many boxes along the street
which the mailman must visit. The Post
Office Department sends trucks around at
various hours to pick up the first-class
mail, in order to attempt to get the mail
out on the next train. The Post Office
Department doe' not provide that service
for second- and third-class mail. There-
fore, the out-of-pocket costs should be
charged, in that particular instance, to
the first-class mail and not the second-
and third-class mail. That duty is per-
formed by trucks, and the costs should be
charged against first-class mail.
Those are things the two committees
found to be true. There were other in-
/ stances where it was found that certain
service was performed for the first-class
mail and the first-class mail only. That
being so, first-class mail should be
charged for it, when the costs for the
various classes of mail are allocated
ambng the first, second, third, and fourth
classes.
I desired to have clarified the ques-
tion how it came to be in the bill, and why
the language was used by the commit-
tee. This was not something thought
up overnight, and we have been think-
ing about it for many, many years.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I call
up an amendment which I have proposed
to H. R. 5836.
I should like to have the attention of
the chairman of the committee, the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
JOHNSTON]. I have discussed this
amendment with the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service, and I should like to have
it considered.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The Senator may proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 43,
between lines 2 and 3, it is proposed to
insert the following new section:
BOOKS FOR THE BLIND
SEC. 206. The act entitled "An act to fur-
ther amend the acts for promoting the circu-
- lation of reading matter among the blind,"
approved October 14, 1941 (55 Stat. 737), is
amended by inserting immediately after "for
which no subscription fee is charged" a semi-
colon and the following: "books, or pages
thereof, in raised characters, whether pre-
pared by hand or printed, which contain no
advertisements, when furnished by any per-
son to a blind person without cost to such
blind person?!
On page 43, line 4, strike out "206" and
insert "207." ,
On page 48-, line 14, strike out "207"
and insert "208."
On page 44, line 10, strike out "208"
and insert "209."
On page 45, line 4, strike out "209"
and insert "210."
On page 45, line 10, strike out "210"
and insert "211."
On page 45, line 24, strike out "211"
and insert "212."
On page 46, line 24, strike out "212"
and insert "213."
On page 47, line 1, strike out "and 209"
and insert "208, and 210."
On page 47, line 13, strike out "211"
and insert "212."
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I should
like to give a short explanation of the
amendment for the RECORD.
If adopted, the amendment would add
a new section, on page 43 of the printed
bill, between lines 2 and 3, which would
be numbered section 206. The sections
now in the bill, which- would follow my
amendment, would be renumbered ac-
cordingly.
The new section 206, established by
my amendment, would amend Public
Law 270, 77th Congress, approved Octo-
ber 14, 1941, which is an act dealing with
postal rates, for promoting the circula-
tion of reading matter among the blind.
Public Law 270, among other things,
permits books, pamphlets, and other
reading matter, or sound reproduction
records, published in raised print, by
hand or printed-for the use of the
blind-when sent to blind readers by
public institutions for the blind, or pub-
lic libraries, when returned by blind
readers, to be transmitted by United
States mail free of postage.
The amendment also provides that
magazines, periodicals, and other regu-
larly issued publications or volumes of
the Holy Scriptures in raised print can
likewise be transmitted to the blind with-
out cost in the mails.
I emphasize that these are nonprofit
transactions, where material is furnished
without cost to the blind, and under
regulations as to weight and other mat-
ters prescribed by the Postmaster Gen-
eral.
JJ will be noted that these exemptions
from postal charge-and they are worthy
exemptions-apply to literature regu-
larly published, or the stocks in libraries
or public institutions.
It has come to my attention that there
is another important source of literature
for the blind which does not enjoy the
exemption. Many volunteer workers
print by hand, by means of special type-
writers and other mechanisms, books for
the blind. I am informed that in many
cases, it is through such books that blind
persons are able to secure an education-
by means of the books, transcribed
laboriously into braille, ' by volunteer
workers who unselfishly devote their abil-
ities and time to helping the blind. But
when these volunteer workers have pre-
Februciry 28
Pared the books and send the books
through the mail to the blind, they must
pay postage. And the postage ,can be
very heavy.
I have one letter which I should like
to place in the RECORD. It is from a
volunteer worker in my State engaged in
transcribing books for a blind person in
South Carolina without cost. But the
cost of mailing the heavy books to the
blind person would approximate $36. I
am sure there are many other illustra-
tions. My amendment would correct this
situation, since it provides that "books,
or pages thereof, in raised characters,
whether prepared by hand or printed,
which contains no advertisements, when
furnished by any person to a blind per-
son without cost to such blind person,"
shall be transmitted in the United States
mails free of postage. .
I know this matter was not considered
In the committee. Nevertheless, I hope
the amendment will be taken to con-
ference, for I believe it is a comparatively
simple matter for the consideration of
conferees.
Most important, I feel sure this
amendment would stimulate volunteer
work for the blind, and its effect would
be to bring to the blind additional litera-
ture which they want and need for edu-
cation and for their enjoyment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the letter to which I have re-
ferred be printed in the RECORD at this
point. J
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PEWEE VALLEY, KY., October 22, 1957.
Hon. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR SENATOR COOPER: As a volunteer
braille transcriber, I ,have found that there
seems to be no provisions made for volunteer
workers to send loose braille pages to the
blind at a reduced postal rate. Blind people
and various institutions have franking privi-
leges and can mail appliances, books, maga-
zines, etc., at a rate of 1 cent per pound or
for nothing, according to the contents.
I am, at present, transcribing a college
literature book of 1,066 pages for a student
in South Carolina. This book will consist
of more than 40 braille volumes and the
estimated postage will be over $36, figured at
the regular rate of 16 cents per pound. The
braille volume itself weighs approximately
3 pounds and must be carefully packed in
a heavy corrugated carton so as to avoid
?
crushing or creasing the manuscript pages
and indentations. I have found that these ?
packages run upward from 4 pounds per
volume.
I am happy to do this Volunteer work, but
I am wondering if you are aware of the fact
that volunteer workers are penalized and, in
many instances, the blind recipient is with-
out the necessary desired transcriptions be-
cause the volunteer worker lacks the finances,
after paying for paper and typewriter, to pay
the high rate of postage.
Will you kindly let me hear from you.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. ANN K. BROECKER.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, it is true that the commit-
tee did not consider the matter covered
by the amendment. The committee had
no hearings with regard thereto, and did
not discuss the matter whatsoever. I can
see, however, some justification for some
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP.61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
such amendment as the Senator from
Kentucky has offered.
I invite the attention of Senators to
the fact that such an amendment is an
expansion, involving a little more of the
'free ride," but I am willing to take the
amendment to conference and consider
it, to see what should be done in regard
to it.
Mr. COOPER. I appreciate the state-
ment of the distinguished Senator very
much.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MORTON. Speaking for the Re-
publican side of the committee, Mr. Pres-
ident, we are happy to accept the sugges-
tion of the senior Senator from Kentucky
to take this amendment to conference.
It so happens that the American Printing
House for the Blind is located in our
State, in Louisville, Ky. I have had a
degree of familiarity with many pieces
of legislation which have dealt with that
organization over the past years.
I appreciate the objectives which the
senior Senator from Kentucky is seeking.
So far as I can see, his amendment is
practical and feasible and in keeping
with our past actions on this matter.
Speaking for the Republican side of
the committee again, I am happy to ac-
cept the amendment offered by the senior
Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Ken-
tucky [Mr. COOPER].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, I call
up for consideration the two amend-
ments to H. R. 5836 designated "2-27-
58-C" and "2-27-58-D," which, by
unanimous consent previously granted,
are to be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendments.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 36,
it is proposed to strike out lines 1
through 17, inclusive.
On page 46, line 24, to strike out "(e) "
and insert "(d) ."
One page 47-, line 7, *to strike out "(c)"
and insert "(b) ."
One page 47, line 8, to.strike out "(c) "
and insert "(b) ."
On page 36, line 25, before the quota-
tion marks insert the following:
And except that the minimum postage on
each individually addressed copy of news
papers or periodicals maintained by and in
the interests of religious, educational, scien-
tific, philanthropic, agricultural, labor, vet-
erans', or fraternal organizations or associa-
tions, not organized for profit and none of
the net income of which inures to the bene-
fit of any private stockholder or individual,
shall be one-eighth of 1 cent.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the names Of
the distinguished senior Senator from
New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], the dis-
tinguished senior Senator from Tennes-
see [Mr. KEFAUVER], and the distin-
guished junior Senator from Wiscon-
sin [Mr. PROXMIRE] be added as addi-
tional cosponsors of these amendments,
which are to be considered en bloc.
No. 32-4
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Colorado? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for the purpose of sug-
gesting the absence of a quorum?
Mr. CARROLL. I yield for that pur-
pose with the understanding that I shall
retain my right to the floor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
- The question is on agreeing en bloc to
the amendments offered by the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. Ciuutou.] for him-
self and other Senators.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
(At this point Mr. CARROI.L yielded to
Mr. GOLDWATER for the insertion of cer-
tain matters in the Appendix, which ap-
pear under appropriate headings.)
The PRESIDING OtoteiCER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ments, en bloc, offered by the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. CARROLL] on behalf
of himself and other Senators.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.'"
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
am opposing the amendment, but I also
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr KUCHEL. Mr. President, the per-
sistence of the Senator from Colorado
has paid off handsomely, and we shall be
able to register our votes on his amend-
ment.
Mr. CARROLL. I appreciate the re-
marks of the.distinguished Senator from
California. We shall see whether per-
sistence pays off.
Mr. President, this amendment has
been thoroughly debated on at least two
separate occasions, with the distin-
guished junior Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. MONRONEY], who opposes it.
The purpose of the amendment is very
..simple. What I seek to do is to restore
to the pending bill certain provisions
contained in the House bill. The pur-
pose of the amendment is to restore the
law and the postal rules and regulations
which have been in existence with re-
spect to religious, scientific, educational,
philanthropic, farm, labor,"and veterans'
groups second-class publications, as well
as the publications of fraternal associa-
tions. ,
The law and the rate have applied to
them since 1925. Now it is sought in the
2705
Senate to change the rate. The House
bill made no change. No hearing in the
Senate committee was accorded to those
groups, although it is now sought to in-
crease their rate 100 percent.
The RECORD for the past 2 days reveals
the comments of the junior Senator from
Colorado on this amendment, and the
comments of the distinguished junior
Senator from Oklahoma. At this time
I digress to commend the junior Sen-
ator from Oklahoma for his brilliant pre-.
sentation and his remarks on the bill.
They show the results of a great deal
of work.
I think he will agree with me, and I
believe other members of the committee
will agree with me, that this part of the
bill has not been extensively considered.
The committee has failed to do its home-
work on this section of the bill. That
is evidenced by the colloquies in the REC-
ORD on this subject. There is no need to
labor the point.
'Phe purport of the nonprofit publi-
cation provisions of the bill has suddenly
become known throughout the country.
The groups which I have named have
within the coast 48 hours learned of the
effect on them of the new rates. Now
they are descending upon Congress and
asking why the rates are being changed
without providing them a hearing.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CARROLL. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. First I want to
compliment and commend the Senator
from Colorado for his initiative in this
connection. I am very much pleased to
be included as one of the cosponsors of
the amendment.
It seems to me that the situation which
pertains to the subject matter under dis-
cussion at this moment is similar to that
which pertained to the provisions relat-
ing to limitations on parcel-post weights
and sizes. It will be recalled that the
limitations on weights and sizes of par-
cel-post packages were modified in the
bill. There were those who said that in-
adequate testimony had been taken, and
that the subject was a separate item,
under a separate public law, namely,
Public Law 199.
Mr. CARROLL. That is correct.
Mr. HUMPHREY. And that, there-
fore, the Senate should consider tat sub-
ject in connection with the provisions of
that public law at a later date.
Therefore, the original limitations on
weights and sizes of parcel-post pack-
ages, as prescribed in Public Law 199,
were left intact. This does not neces-
sarily mean that some changes will not
be made later, but it means that in this
bill, so far as the Senate is concerned,
there will be no change in the law.
I recognize that parcel-post service is
a subject which relates primarily to
commercial transactions, or to shipments
of goods and materials which are rarely
shipped in connection with charitable
activites.
In the present instance the situation
relates to publications of civic, veterans,
religious, and educational organizations.
There are publications which are non-
profit and publications which are dis-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
seminated for the betterment of a com-
munity, without regard to any merce-
nary or profit motive. It appears to me
that if we are to alter the rate structure
and substantially increase it, such pub-
lications should be entitled to a hearing.
Such an alteration should be made only
after the parties concerned and the in-
stitutions involved and the publication
affected have had an opportunity to be
heard. That opportunity has been
denied.
I saw the telegrams which came to my
office from veterans groups and church
groups and many organizations of a civic
nature, to the effect that in connection
with the bill under consideration they
have never had an opportunity to make
their case, relating to the rate structure
for publications of a non-profit, educa-
tional, philonthropic, and charitable
nature.
I say to the Senator from Colorado
that we would be doing a distinct dis-
service to the groups and the individeals
affected by a change in the rate structure
if we did not at least give them an oppor-
tunity to be heard. Furthermore, I can-
not believe that Congress wants literally
to threaten the very existence of some of
these publications by an increase in the
rate structure without at least giving the
right of free speech and the right of peti-
tion to the interested parties.
Therefore I join with the Senator from
Colorado in offering the amendment. I
add, in conclusion, that the postal service
is not merely a business of the Govern-
ment. The postal service is a public serv-
ice institution. The postal service does
not have as one of its standards the mak-
ing of a profit.
There is an honest difference of opin-
ion in the Senate, now as in years past,
as to whether the postal service ought to
be put on a pay-as-you-go basis. When
we think of the many community serv-
ices which are performed by the post of-
fices, and the many public services which
are performed by the post offices, such as
the rural free delivery, and the aid that is
given to publications, so that there may
be a dissemination of educational and in-
formative material, I believe it is very
doubtful that the postal service ought to
be put oh a pay-as-you-go or balanced-
budget, type of operation, in which the
revenues taken in from the users are
equivalent to the expenses for the opera-
tion of the Department. Frankly, the
users of the postal service should not be
required to subsidize particular services
of the postal service. It seems to me that
the community as a whole?the whole
Nation?if there is to' be any subsidy,
should assume the responsibility of pay-
ing such a subsidy or such a service cost.
On the two principles?first, that no
hearings were provided to the affected
groups and, second, that the Post Office
Department has an obligation to utilize
its facilities for the welfare of the Amer-
ican people and the American institu-
tions?I support the amendment which
the Senator from Colorado advances. I
hope that our colleagues will not vote a
postal-rate structure upon publications
of churches, veterans, unions, civic
? clubs, and philantropic and charitable
organizations, which will literally
threaten the very economic existence of
those publications. That is what we are
%about to do unless we are very careful.
Mr. CARROLL. I thank the distin-
guished junior Senator from Minne-
sota for his very clear and concise state-
ment of the issues-involved in the amend-
ment. As the distinguished Senator from
Minnesota has said, we are dealing with
a historic pattern. This rate structure
has been in existence since 1925. Scien-
tific, philanthropic, religious, and edu-
cational institutions are affected; and
the rate increase, I am informed, threat-
ens the ' existence of those groups.
Whether or not that is true, at least one
point is clear, they are entitled to a
hearing. They have not been given that
opportunity.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. CARROLL. I am very happy to
yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Is it not correct
to say that the amount of money involved
is about $2 million?
Mr. CARROLL. About $2 million;
yes. That would be the amount of the
increase if the provisions I seek to strike
remain in the bill.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yet the increase,
if it goes into effect, might very well
threaten the existence of certain impor-
tant scientific, educational, philanthrop-
ic, and church publications. We are not
dealing with a subsidy of $250 million
or $600 million. We are dealing with
a small amount of money. Yet we are
dealing with the very basic principle of
American life, the right to be heard by
the Government. Secondly, there is in-
volved the principle of utilization of the
services and facilities of the Govern-
ment to promote .the industry and the
enlightenment, and the scientific prog-
ress and the splritual improvement of
the American people.
Mr. -CARROLL. I thank the distin-
guished junior Senator from Minnesota
with all fairness to the distinguished
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Moisr-
RONEY] , I should like to say that the com-
mittee itself did not fully comprehend the
effect of the formula. I du not believe
the committee itself understood what was
involved with reference to these particu-
lar groups who have not been afforded
the opportunity of, a hearing.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CARROLL. I yield to the dis-
tinguished and able junior Senator from
Oregon.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I thank the Sen-
ator from Colorado. Many issues are
before us today, and I shall be very brief.
With his characteristic thoroughness, ence to my amendments.
the Senator from Colorado has revealed Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator from
February 28
educational, labor, church, eleemosynary,
and charitable organizations is at stake,
particularly with reference to their
ability to reach their members and other
people upon whom they depend for
financial support.
If I am not mistaken, I believe that
the proposed increases concerning the
publications of these charitable organ-
izations is one reason that Senators such
as the Senator from Colorado and my-
self voted against the amendment yester-
day which would have increased the
second-class mail rates. If I am not mis-
taken?and I do not like to speak for
him?some of us feared, knowing of the
existence of this clause in the bill, that by
increasing the second-class rates we
would have imposed still further in-
creases on some of the charitable, church,
and school organizations that issue pub-
lications which contain some advertising,
albeit at extremely low rates.
Mr. CARROLL. The Senator's esti-
mate of yesterday's situation is abso-
lutely correct. Yesterday's amendment
to raise second-clvs rates would have
increased the rates to nonprofit publica-
tions to an even greater extend than they
are now increased by the committee's
action.
Mr. NEUBERGER. It would have im-
posed a further injustice on the reli-
gious, charitable, and educational or-
ganizations the Senator from Colorado
seeks to assist and rescue from this fur-
ther imposition. I wish to assure the
Senator from Colorado of my support
and of my hope that a majority of the
Senate will see fit to support his thor-
oughly merited amendments.
Mr. CARROLL. I think the Senator
for his helpful explanation. This is a
very involved matter. The application
of the rates becomes a highly technical
matter. The amendments I have pre-
sented have been carefully drafted and
drawn to do only one thing, and that is
to make the Senate bill conform to the
provisions as passed by the House. I do
not intend to open any new loopholes. I
merely wish to have this section of the
bill conform with the objectives of the
House. It does net mean-that the mat-
ter will be frozen. It can be changed
next year or any time in the future if it
is deemed necessary and just. However,
the people affected are entitled to a hear-
ing. That is the real issue here. We are
? legislating without providing the parties
concerned a chance to furnish evidence
of the effect on them. I thank the junior
Senator from Oregon not only for the
fine work he has done on the bill, but
for his very helpful remarks with refer-
injustices that would be perpetrated un-
less the amendments which he has of-
fered for a group of Senators are
adopted. As a member of the Commit-
tee on Post Office and Civil Service, I
trust that my colleagues on the commit-
tee will join in accepting the amendments
of the Senator from Colorado.
As the Senator from Minnesota has so
vividly pointed out, there is only a small
sum of money involved. At the same
time, the very future of certain religious,
Colorado is very kind, as usual.
Mr. CARROLL. The distinguished
Senator from Oklahoma and I have dis-
cussed this subject at length, even as
recently as last night. The debate ap-
pears in the RECORD. I think our views
are sufficiently known. I yield the floor.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
must very reluctantly oppose my good
friend from our time together as Mem-
bers of the House, who is now my friend
in the Senate, and whose meritorious
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
measures I have so often been happy to
support.
I do not ask any other Member of the
Senate to join with me in this fight, be-
cause I think that if he does he will be
a target of most of the groups which
have been enjoying preferential treat-
ment in postal rates for about 50 years.
The Post Office has been carrying as
second-class matter the publications of
various charitable and other nonprofit
organizations. These are "periodicals"
published by "religious, educational, sci-
entific, philanthropic, agricultural, labor,
veterans' or fraternal organizations or
associations, not organized for profit and
none of the net income of which inures
to the benefit of any private stockholder
or individual."
At first blush, one would think that
this section covers only some poor little
church, a scientific society, or other
similar organization.
At this time I wish to correct a state-
ment I made last night. I apologize to
my distinguished friend from Coloradir
for having accused him of also provid-
ing the reduced rate to publications of
the National Association of Manufac-
turers, the Rotary Clubs, the United
States Chamber of Commerce, and other
chambers of commerce. I was not aware
that, because of language in a House
committee report a few years ago, the
low rates are not- extended to publica-
tions of this type.
But in following up the question, I find
that the small organizations, for which
my distinguished friend always has very
sincere concern, are not the only ones
which are included.
The Post Office is carrying such mail
for a minium rate of one-eighth of
a cent. The Post Office must pick up
such mail, take it to the post 'afices., and
route it to the 48 States of the Union.
It is first handled by clerks, who must
put it into the sacks for dispatch. Then
it is taken to the railroad station and
put on the train. On the train, it is re-
routed by the railway mail clerks. It
is forwarded to a distant city. It might
be sent to Hawaii, Alaska, or California.
When it is received at the post office of
destination, it is placed on a sorting
table. Then it is routed for delivery by
either the city carrier or the rural
carrier.
Then the heavily burdened postman,
whose interests we hope to take care of
later in a salary increase, puts it into his
sack and carries it up the long walk to
Mrs. Jones' house. There he deposits ?
the leaflet.
For all the work which has been done
for that organization, the _Post Office
collects one-eighth of a cent under the
minimum rate.
It is true that the bill imposes a 100-
percent increase on this mail. A 100-
percent increase has been imposed on my
church, on the Senator's church, on our
charitable organizations, on our educa-
tional associations. But the sum total
rate after that 100-percent increase
comes to one-fourth of a cent. So the
Post Office will now deliver these leaflets
at the staggering charge of one-fourth
of a cent. That is what all the bleeding
is about in the Senate today.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. Would the Senator from
Oklahoma wish to comment on the sug-
gestion of our good friend from Colorado
that there were no hearings on this pro-
posal, and that, therefore, it is a little
unfair to increase this rate?
Mr. MONRONEY. The bill affects
every single postage rate, in every cate-
gory of mail the Post Office handles.
The Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, over the years, has heard almost
every argument that could be made about
every one of these classes. It has con-
tinued to review the proposition.
Consequently, as we tried to meet the
deadline desired by the leadership of
both parties because of the deficit of
the Post Office Department, and the
urgency of the need for a wage increase
for the underpaid postal workers, we
did rush a little in reporting the bill.
If we agree to the amendment of the
Senator from Colorado, we will continue
the present one-eighth rate. It will not
go to the one-fourth rate. Those of us
who have served on the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service, and have
sat through many long days of hear-
ings, maintain that the postal service
cannot begin to deliver any piece of mail
anywhere in the United States for one-
eighth of a cent.
Let us consider the cases cited by my
distinguished friend from Colorado.
Certainly the increase will hit labor pub-
lications. The labor publications will
have to pay more for publications mailed
at a minimum rate. If a publication were
heavy enough to go by the bulk rate, the
rate would be reduced, under the bill.
Under the bill there is one second-
class rate, which is reduced by a speci-
fied percentage for religious and educa-
tional publications. It will not be diffi-
cult to figure out what the rate is, and
we believe that this is a businesslike ap-
proach.
?For charitable organizations and non-
profit organizations there will be a 50-
percent discount from the rate for com-
mercial mail. But the minimum rate
will still be raised 100 percent, bringing
it up from one-eighth to one-fourth of
a gent.
I am sure that some organizations may
be hurt, and I know some Senators are
concerned about this. The Senator from
Oregon, the Senator from Minnesota,
and other Senators are sincere in this
concern. But let me read the names
of a few organizations that are enjoying
this free ride. I apologize for having
incorrectly included the United States
Chamber ef Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate the
problem which is confronting the Senate
at this time. I was hoping we could take
this matter to conference and solve it
there. I am not certain we thoroughly
understand what we are doing; 'at least,
I have been concerned about it. I real-
ize that there is a 300-percent increase,
from one-eighth cent to one-half cent.
2707-
I think we might be able to work that
out in conference. Therefore, I do not
say at this time that I will support the
amendment of the Senator from Colo-
rado, because I think it freezes the sit-
uation. But I want to be in a position,
in conference, to do something about
the amendment. If the Senator from
Oklahoma will permit me to do so, I
wish to read a few paragraphs from a
letter I received from ' Mr. Charles E.
Sweet, who is the rate expert for Capper
Publications, Inc., Topeka, Kans.. He
has testified before Senate and House
committees for many years. In my
opinion, he is one of the best rate ex-
perts in the United States. Here are
some of the things which disturb me,
and about which I am really concerned.
He says:
I am writing you in regard to one clause
in the postal rate bill which has been re-
ported out by the Senate Post Office and
Civil Service Committee.
I should like to have the views of the
Senator from Oklahoma on this. I con-
tinue:
I refer to the clause which would raise the
minimum price per piece to one-half cent
on second-class matter. As you know, the
minimum is now one-eighth cent; and in
the bill passed by the House last year it was
raised to one-quarter cent.
Now I must admit that one-half-cent per
piece sounds mighty low and reasonable,
especially When the main arguments are con-
cerning 3-cent postcards, 5-cent letters, and
other increases of 50 percent and 60 percent.
But let's examine exactly what it does-mean
to small-in-size per issue publications.
Then Mr. Sweet mentions Capper pub-
lications and other farm newspapers in
our section, including those published in
Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Colo-
rado, and Oklahoma. He says:
This number makes it sound "big and pros-
perous," but, actually, it is 12 or 16 pages per
issue, tabloid newspaper size, and printed
on newsprint.. But the readers love it.
I am referring to the Capper publica-
tions?for instance, to Capper's Farmer.
We might just as well have the benefit of
their figures.
I read further from the letter:
For the year of 195'7 its second-class post-
age was 50 percent above the minimum per
piece. If this bill is passed with a one-half-
cent minimum, the increase will not be ap-
proximately 45 percent to 50 percent, as ap-
parently intended by the pound-rate in-
crease, but will be 170 percent, and that im-
mediately the bill goes into effect.
I wonder whether the Senator from
Oklahoma will help me on this point.
Mr. MONRONEY. Capper's Weekly is
not published by a nonprofit organiza-
tion, is it? It is a commercial enterprise.
Mr. CARLSON. That is true.
Mr. MONRONEY. So it is not affected
by the amendment of the Senator from
Colorado [Mr. CARROLL). That amend-
ment affects only the so!called nonprofit
organizations.
There has also been misinformation
regarding the application of the commer-
cial rates. A publication of 5, 6, or 8
pages will be charged, on the advertising
matter it carries, according to the sched-
ule included in the bill. I do not believe
Capper's Weekly would weigh less than
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2708 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
1 ounce; but, if it did, it would be han-
dled as second-class matter at the one-
half -cent rate. Certainly I do not believe
any second-class publication should be
delivered for les than one-half a cent.
We discussed this point yesterday.
Mr. CARLSON. That is true.
Mr. MONRONEY. The proposal we
supported was to raise the rate to one-
half a cent on commercial publications
and one-half of that for nonpfofit pub-
lications. The Senate can increase the
rate on nonprofit publications from one-
eighth cent to one-fourth cent by re-
jecting the Carroll amendment, which
would reestablish the free ride voted by
the House of Representatives for the
publications of charitable, religious,
scientific, agricultural, labor, fraternal,
and other organizations not organized
for profit. The list includes practically
all groups except the Rotary Clubs, the
United States Chamber of Commerce,
and the National Association of Manu-
facturers, which have been excluded be-
cause they were definitely mentioned in
a House report.
But the American Bar Association is
still receiving a free ride; and so is the
American Medical Association?the as-
sociation of the poor, poor doctors. We
are still forcing on them a 1/8-cent rate.
The teamsters union, which seems to
have money enough to do almost every-
thing, would still have the benefit of the
Y8-cent rate. So would the following:
American Rife Association.
The Daughters of the American Revo-
lution.
The Alabama Pythian.
The Athenian.
The Masonic Monthly.
The Alabama Farmer.
The Alabama Business Woman.
The Alabama Sheriffs and Police
Journal.
The Insurance Council Journal.
The Southern Medical Journal.
The Alabama Club Woman.
Bulletin of the Albertus Magnus
Guild.
Alabama Retail Trade.
Alabama Review.
Land of Cotton.
Air Force Historian.
Alabama Brass.
Bama Postmaster.
Keystone Post Office Clerk.
Alabama Social Welfare.
Alabama White Ribbon.
The Contender.
The Herald.
News & Views.
Anniston Star.
Plainsman.
The Builder.
Bulletin.
Huntress.
Newsletter.
Your News Letter.
Alabama Messenger.
The Southern Union News.
Mountain Messenger.
McCoy Weekly-Bulletin.
Royal Service.
Sunbeam Activities.
Childhaven News.
Dauphin Way News.
The Gothic Tower.
Abintonian,
The Canary.
Sweet Charity.
The Sanctuary News.
We simply went through most of those
listed under the letter "A"; we did not go
further. There are 6,000 in the list.
So we are going to bleed and suffer
for these publications; and we are going
to say that it would be vicious to charge
them a 100 percent increase in their
rate, by raising it from one-eighth of a
cent to one-quarter of a cent!
Mr. President, the Senate has voted
to have a 5-cent rate charged for the
users of first-class mail. But this
amendment would allow any of this very
large group of publications and about
5,950 more to mail 40 copies, to be de-
livered by the same postman, up the
same front walk-40 copies of this sort
of stuff?for the rate a housewife would
be charged to mail one letter to her son.
Mr. President, I do not think further
hearings are needed; I believe the Senate
has sufficient intelligence to know what
to do in this matter.
If I had my way, I would have raised
the rate to 1 cent. But if we adopt this
amendment we are bound by the old rate;
the rate is frozen at one-eighth of a
cent for the publications of all these
groups.
We believe the rate should be in-
creased to one-quarter of a cent for the
publications of all these groups. When
the conference is held, the conferees will
have to consider the one-eighth cent rate
versus the one-fourth cent rate. Per-
haps they will arrive at a compromise
of three-sixteenths of a cent. Even so,
no doubt we would still hear loud cries
by the representatives of the same
groups.
No wonder the American Bar Associa-
tion and the American Medical Associa-
tion seem to doubt the capacity of Con-
gress to conduct the business of the
country, when we have been allowing
their publications to be mailed at these
ridiculous rates.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President
will the Senator from Oklahoma yield
to me?
The .PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
LAUSCHE in the chair). Does the Sena-
tor from Oklahoma yield to the Senator
from Texas?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Does the Sen-
ator from Oklahoma think the resolu-
tions adopted by the American Bar-As-
sociation are more intelligible and repre-
sent a greater degree of intelligence than
do the resolutions adopted by the Sen-
ate?
Mr. MONRONEY. Unfortunately, I
am one of the few Members of the Sen-
ate who is not a lawyer. Therefore,
I could be considered antilawyer on this
particular point.
Mr. President, I have nothing further
to say. If the Senate is ready to vote,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President?
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, if
the Senator from Colorado wishes me
to do so, I shall wffhdraw my suggestion
of the absence of a quorum.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, I
shall be very happy to speak to the same
February 28
audience the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma has had.
Mr. MONRONEY. I thank my dis-
tinguished friend and colleague.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, does
the Senator from Oklahoma desire to
suggest the absence of a quorum at this
time, in order to expedite the action of
the Senate on the amendment?
Mr. MONRONEY. That was my pur-
pose. But if the Senator from Colorado
desires it, I shall be glad to ask for a
quorum call at this time, so as to enlarge
the audience. I very rarely draw a large
audience in the Senate, but I shall be
very glad to have a larger audience to
hear the distinguished Senator from
Colorado.
Mr. CARROLL. I thank my colleague,
but that will not be necessary.
Mr. President, I do not think it will
take long to respond to the Senator from
Oklahoma. Today, he has taken an-
other path. Yesterday, I was charged
with being the chamipon of the National
Association of Manufacturers, the
United States Chamber of Commerce,
and 'similar groups. However, I have
pointed out that they will not be covered
by this law. ?
But today I am charged with being
the champion of all the Alabama non-
profit pUblications; and now the Sena-
tor from Oklahoma has even charged
me with being the spokesman for the
Canary publication. [Laughter.]
Mr. President, speaking seriously, the
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma
has put his finger on what I conceive to
be a very glaring problem. We have not
previously discussed it. The distin-
guished Senator from Oklahoma is cor-
rect in this instance.
Mr. President, do you realize what it
costs the Government, what it costs the
taxpayers, to have the fiublications of
these religious, scientific, philanthropic,
and educational groups handled at such
low mailing rates? This subsidy costs
the taxpayers $55 million.
However, Mr. President, do you know
what this very eminent committee has
voted to do in the case of these publica-
tions? It has voted to increase by $2
million the amount they have been pay-
ing. Although it could be argued that
they should have been hit with a meat
ax, they actually have been hit with
a powder puff. [Laughter.]
The bill as it stands actually places an
oppressive rate burden on certain small
groups of nonprofit publications and
might drive them out of existence. The
rate increase proposed in the Senate bill
would amount in additional revenue to
$2 million, and that is the subject of our
debate. That $2 million increase, when
applied to the religious, labor, fraternal,
and farm groups?not necessarily the
American Bar Association or the medical
or dental associations?might drive the
publications of those small groups out
of existence.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, on that
point, will the Senator from Colorado
yield?
Mr. CARROLL. I shall yield after I
complete this statement.
On Wednesday the position of the dis-
tinguished junior Senator from Okla-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
homa [Mr. MONRONEY] was that, aside
from the publications of religious and
similar groups, he was opposed to having
other publications delivered for one-
eighth of a cent. If so, it is proper to
infer from his statement that he was
in favor of the lower, or present, rate for
the publications of the religious, scien-
tific, charitable, and educational groups.
I read now from the statement made
by the junior Senator from Oklahoma,
as it appears on page 2488 of the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD Of February 26:
I cannot reconcile the continued attempt
to shift to the general taxpayer the cost of
handling publications, aside from religious,
scientific, and educational ones.
The junior Senator from Oklahoma
has to be consistent in his concept. It is
the religious, scientific, and educational
publications that we are talking about.
We are not talking about any other
groups, but the groups that come in a
category which has been recognized,
under law and under regulation; since
1925.
I thoroughly agree with the distin-
guished Senator from Oklahoma when
he says there has been a lot of free load-
ing.
Furthermore, I gather from the re-
marks of the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma there is nothing static about
the proposal under consideration. The
Senator from Oklahoma has said in de-
bate, "We will examine this from year
to year." All we ask, in this examina-
tion, is that some of the persons who
are being affected today by the change
in second-class nonprofit rates be given
an opportunity to be heard. We have no
more information than does the Senator
from Oklahoma. I may say the com-
mittee has insufficient information on
the effect of this section of the bill. I
think the distinguished Senator from
Kansas- put his finger on the problem
when he stated that the committee is
confused. It is confused because its
members do not know the true effect of
this section of the bill. They do not knoiv
because there were no hearings. I am
sure the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma will admit the truth of that
statement because this question has
never been fully and comprehensively
considered by the committee itself.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, if
the distinguished Senator from Colorado
will yield, I wish to say he has quoted me
correctly in what I said in the original
debate. I was speaking of the minimum
rate per piece. In informal discussions
with my friend, I think I have shown him
that most of these publications, if they
consist of nonadvertising material?
which is true of 80 or 90 percent of the
magazines?would enjoy rates less than
those they are now paying. If the Sena-
tor will examine the schedule, he will see
that to be so.
As I pointed out yesterday, one of the
wealthiest churches in Washington sends
out over 60,000 pieces of mail, over a 40-
week period a year, and pays only $5
for that service. I am in favor of in-
creased rates for that kind of service.
If we adopt the Senator's proposal, we
shall kill the application of the bulk
rate provision. The larger publications
of churches, labor organizations, agri-
cultural organizations, and educational
fields would have their rates raised to a
cent and a half a pound, instead of the
rate now paid of a cent and a quarter a
pound.
The magazine which is sent to the rail-
road brotherhood members is the only
specific example which has been men-
tioned which would be affected by the
increase in the minimum per piece rate.
However, I think we can increase the
rate from one-eighth of a cent to one-
quarter of a cent, which is an increase
of 100 percent, on the basis of the gen-
.eral knowledge we all have that we are
now allowing freeloading, even though
for charitable purposes when we allow to
be delivered 60,000 pieces of Mail, in a
40-week period, for $5, when at the same
time the Senate has voted to charge 5
cents for a letter a mother may write to
her son in college. f I do not think we
ought to raise the rate on letter mail to
5 cents and then allow an organization
to deliver large quantities of mail with-
out an increased charge.
Mr. CARROLL. Not only have I been
placed in the lap of the Alabama canary
bulletins, but now it is said I am placed
in the position of being against a moth-
er's sending a letter to her son, as a re-
sult of my amendment. I think the facts
are simple, and it seems to me everyone
should understand how simple the issue
is. Two million dollars is involved.
I appreciate the gentle solicitude which
the Senator from Oklahoma has for
mothers who wish to send letters to their
sons in college, but that is not the issue
before the Senate. The issue is this:
before we drive out of existence non-
profit publications which disseminate
scientific, educational, labor, and vet-
erans' publications, they are entitled to be
heard.
Whether the bill goes back to the House
with a freezing of the provisions of the
bill, I suggest-that my amendment is suf-
ficiently flexible to enable the Senate to
have an opportunity to negotiate with
the other body.
I should like to make one further com-
ment in closing, and then I shall be ready
for a vote on the amendment. The bill
is very involved. The formula is so com-
plicated that the committee and the staff
did not clearly understand its implica-
tions. They did not know the bill would
impose a severe increase upon certain
nonprofit publications, associations to
which I have previously referred.
Mr. ? BARRETT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CARROLL. I yield.
Mr. BARRETT. Does the amendment
of the Senator propose to change subsec-
tipii (b) on page 36 to conform to the
House provision?
Mr. CAAROLL. That is the sole pur-
pose of the amendment.
Mr. BARRETT. I commend the Sen-
ator. I spoke on this matter yesterday.
I believe his amendment should be
adopted.
I also should like to ask the Senator
if his amendment covers subsection (c) ,
near the bottom of 'page 36 of the bill?
Mr. CARROLL. It is difficult for me
to hear what ,the Senator is saying.
2709
Mr. BARRETT. I was asking the Serf-
ator if his amendment also included the
provision relating to subsection (c) at
the bottom of page 36.
Mr. CARROLL. My two amendments,
considered en bloc, do take care of the
situation to which the Senator has re-
ferred.
Mr. BARRETT. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, .this
has been for me a very enlightening ex-
perience. I have had the counsel and
guidance of the Senator from Oklahoma,
who has done excellent work in the de-
bate and on the bill. I think the RECORD
ought to show that if the Senate should
adopt the amendment it could be said to
be the consensus of the Senate that,
rather than resort to the old system,
under the old law, the conferees should
give consideration to the percentage
rate formula as contained in the bill.
Evidently the Post Office Department
and the committee itself seek to estab-
lish a percentage base for computing
the rate. There is no objection to that,
if it will provide uniformity, so long as
there is an adherence to the basic con-
cept of the law and regulations as now
written which give a historic privileged
treatment to nonprofit publications.
However, that formula could be substi-
tuted in the future, I may say to the
committee members and the staff, if we
will permit some of these people to have
a hearing, so that they will know what
to expect and so that they can present
their arguments and evidence to the
Senate for consideration. We can make
a change in 3 months, 6 months, or a
year, as the distinguished junior Senator
from Oklahoma said in the debate.
What is wrong with a fair hearing?
That is due process. We are perhaps
driving some nonprofit publications out
of existence. We should give them a
hearing. That is the answer.
Again I repeat, as a final statement,
there is $2 million involved, out of a
deficit of $55 million. We are presented
with a piecemeal raise, while the impres-
sion is given that considerable progress
is being made.
Mr. President, if there is no further
discussion on this matter, I suggest the
?absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The.
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendments, en bloc, to the committee
amendment offered by the Senator from
Colorado [Mr. CARROLL), on behalf of
himself and other Senators. On this
question the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce 'that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Bvita]
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
CHAVEZ], the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
HENNINGS], the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. ?MAHONEY], and the Senator from
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
?
Missouri [Mr.' SyMINGTON] are absent on
official business.
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
ANDERSON] is absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Nell Mexico
[Mr. CHAVEZ], the Senator from Missouri
[Mr. HERRINGS], the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] , and the
Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON]
would each vote "yea."
Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART] ,
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CuRTisl,
the Senator from New York [Mr. IVES],
the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MARTIN],
and the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
SCHOEPPEL ] are absent on official busi-
ness.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART] would vote
"yea."
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKEN-
LOOPER is detained on official business.
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
Cums] is paired with the Senator from
New York [Mr. IVES]. If present and vot-
ing, the Senator from Nebraska would
vote "nay," and the Senator from New
York would vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 35,
nays 49, as follows:
YEAS-35
Aiken Humphrey Mundt
Barrett Jackson Murray
Beau Javits Neuberger
Bricker Kefauver Pastore
Bridges Kennedy Potter
Butler Kuchel Proxmire
Carroll Langer Revercomb
Case, N. J. Magnuson Talmadge
Clark Malone Thurmond
Cotton Mansfield Wiley
Douglas McNamara Yarborough
Green Morse
Allott
Bennett
Bible
Bush
Carlson
Case, S. Dak.
Church
Cooper -
Dirksen
Dworshak
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Flanders
Frear
Fulbright
Goldwater
Anderson
Byrd
Capehart
Chavez
NAYS-49
'Gore Payne
Hayden Purtell
Hill Robertson
Hoblitzell Russell
Holland Saltonstall
Hruska Scott
Jenner Smathers
Johnson, Tex. Smith, Maine
Johnston, S. C. Smith, N. J.
Kerr Sparkman
Knowland Stennis
Lausche Thye
Long ? Watkins
Martin, Pa. Williams
McClellan Young
Monroney
Morton
NOT VOTING-12
Curtis Martin, Iowa
Hennings O'Mahoney
Hickenlooper Schoeppel
Dies Symington
So Mr. CARROLL'S amendments to the
committee amendment-were rejected.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate reconsider the vote
by which the amendments were re-
jected.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PROXMIRE in the chair). The question is
on agreeing to the motion of the Senator
from California.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Yesterday the
Senate adopted an amendment offered
by the distinguished junior Senator from
New York [Mr. JAvirs] which, to describe
it briefly, provides a special local mail-
ing rate for third-class mail. At the
time the able Senator from New York
was sponsoring his amendment I asked
him certain questions, because I had
some doubt about the amendment. I
asked him if it could be subject to doubt
and that it could be used by large cor-
porations or firms which engage in cir-
cularizing through the mails. With his
customary candor, the Senator from
New York said he was not fully familiar
with all the implications of the amend-
ment, but hoped that it would not be
subject to abuse.
I have since taken the matter up with--
the Post Office Department, and I have
learned from the Department that it can
be susceptible to very extensive abuse.
This involves a basic question affecting
the postal rate bill, and it seems to me
that all Senators should have the op-
portunity to hear what the issues are and
what is involved at this time.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. I wish to compli-
ment my distinguished colleague from
Oregon for catching the implications
which, I am sure, the Senate did not
understand.at the time it voted to adopt
the amendment. It would effectively
negate the Senate's action, through its
committee, in providing a 21/2-cent rate,
in 2 stages, on the direct mail advertis-
ing, or, as some have unkindly referred
to it, junk mail.
The amendment was adopted with the
understanding that it would apply only
in a limited way. The Senator from
Oregon asked these questions when the
amendment was under debate:
Mr. NEUBERGER. Is his amendment drafted
in such a way that it will apply only to firms
which send out a limited number of pieces
of, third-class mail?
Mr. JAvrrs. That is riir understanding of
the study the staff of the committee made?
that it was directed to that kind of mail.
After we studied it, we found it will be
of greatest advantage to mailers, who
send out huge volumes of mail. They will,
be the only ones who will package and
sort such mail. That is the effect of the
amendment. During the discussion of
the amendment on the floor, my distin-
guished colleague from New York ap-
parently was not fully advised of the
effect of the amendment, and thought it
was limited. However, we find now that
it opens wide the doors to such users as
Sears Roebuck, Montgomery Ward, and
others:
Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator from
Oklahoma is absolutely correct. What I
was afraid of at the time I questioned the
distinguished Senator from New York
yesterday has now developed to be the
fact.
Very early this morning I got in touch
with the officials of the Post Office De-
partment about this matter, and they
have communicated to me a series of five
reasons which they have headlined "Ar-
guments Against LOcal Third-Class
Mail." I shall read the statement in a
moment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?-
, -
February 28
Mr. NEUBERGER. I shall be glad fo
yield in a moment. The able Senator
from New York will agree with me that
in courtesy to him, as soon as I studied
the matter, I communicated with his
office. I believe he will concur in the
statement that he has been fully in-
formed in advance of my, intention.
Mr. JAVITS. ,Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield.
Mr: JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, notwithstand-
ing any request I may make, the Senator
from Oregon may not lose his right to
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. I believe it would be un-
fair to the proposal we have before us,
which is a very important one, to debate
It under the guise under which it has
been presented. I am more than willing
to debate it on its merits. The presenta-
tion of the facts as I have heard them
are not in accord with the facts as I un-
derstand them. No Senator in the
Chamber will ever say that any colleague
has not been fully advised or does not
understand entirely a proposal?and that
includes me?and I therefore ask unani-
mous consent that the action taken yes-
terday.in approving my amendment may
be reconsidered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, for my-
self and on behalf of the Senator from
Maryland [Mr. BEALL], I offer a modified
amendment. I ask that the amendment
be read; then we can have a discussion
of it on the merits.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated for the infor-
mation of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 38,
line -20, it is proposed to strike out the
word "and."
On page 38, in line 24, after the semi-
colon, it is proposed to insert the word
"and."
On page 38, after line 24, it is proposed
to add the following:
(C) by inserting before the colon at the
end of such proviso a comma and the fol-
lowing: "and except that any such minimum
charge per piece when mailed at the princi-
pal address of the mailer for delivery by the
post office at which it is mailed on or after
July 1, 1959, shall be 2 cents if the pieces
are sorted, faced, and tied into packages
labeled to postal delivery zones."
, Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask my
colleague from Oregon, in the same spirit
in which we have both approached this
little problem, if he will now allow me
to present the amendment and the argu-
ments for it, so that we may have an
orderly presentation, rather than to
have the arguments against it, or what-
ever arguments there may be against it,
first?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield for that
purpose, which is certainly justifiable.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
Bear in mind, in the first place, that
in this Chamber we are always working
against deadlines. The bill was to have
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
been finished day before yesterday, then
yesterday, and now, I assume, today. I
had intended to make four speeches this
week. This has been a banner week for
me. I have had to cancel all 4, 1 after
an abortive airplane effort to make it.
So a Senator always feels, when he ar-
rives in the morning, that unless he does
something right away, it will not be done.
Therefore, under some pressure, I un-
dertbok to do something which my tre-
mendous constituent mail?and that, I
think, of many other Senators?dictated
should deserve the attention of the Sen-
ate.
What can we do, not for the big
mailer; not everybody in the 'world is
a big mailer; not everybody in the world
is a Montgomery Ward or a Sears Roe-
buck. There happen to be 4,300,000 busi-
nesses in the United States, of which
roughly 4 million are small businesses.
What can we do for the grocer, the up-
holsterer, the laundry man, and all the
other merchants in a community, such
as mine in New York, who cannot ad-
vertise in the New York Times, the Her-
ald Tribune, the Mirror, or the News,
without going broke, but who can de-
pend only on direct mail? To some per-
sons, this may be junk mail; however,
to those merchants it is their very life
blood. They cannot remain in business
than by resort to advertising in that way.
So I asked myself, how can we take
care of the situation for those people
consistent with the traditions of the Post
Office rate-making structure? That
brings me to the reason for the specific
freeze of the rate for that kind of mail
at 2 cents, instead of letting it go up
to 2'/2 cents.
What we are doing in passing upon
this bill is to say that the rate on local
mail shall be 4 cents and out-of-town
mail shall be 5 cents. Heretofore the
rate on that mail has been 3 cents.
The third-class rate for the small peo-
ple whom I am describing, of whom there
are millions throughout the Nation, was
one-half the first-class rate.
Is it not logical, therefore, to say to
these desirable beneficiaries of our equit-
able interest, "You now have a 4-cent
local rate. So we will keep the relation-
ship and make the rate for you 2 cents
instead of 21/2 cents. That is not out of
line."
So I made an effort, so far as one could
who is not a member of the committee,
who is not aware of all the ins and outs
of postal rate, making, by consulting
with the committee staff. That was ap-
parently inadequate, as seemed to be
indicated when the matter was consid-
ered here yesterday.
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. NEU-
BERGER] suggested to me that I ought to
talk to the Post Office authorities. I
did so. They suggested some additional
language?three additional words?
which would make it crystal clear that
the proposal was intended to apply to
local mail.
So by unanimous consent I inserted
the provision in the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, _will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
When the Senator offered his amend-
ment yesterday, it was accepted, because
I talked with the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. CARLSON], and he recommended
that it be accepted. Something had to
be done.
After the mail is brought into the post-
offices and sorted, it will be found that its
handling has cost a great deal of money,
far more than one-half cent. The bill
under consideration increases the rate to
1 cent?to a half cent the first year and
another half cent the second year.
When the 1-cent rate goes into effect?
not the one-half cent rate, but the 1-cent
rate?we say to the mailer, "If you will
do the work of bundling for the Post
Office, you will not be charged the second
half cent."
I thought, as did the other Members
with whom I talked, that the Post Office
would save a great deal of money by not
having to do the additional work.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator
from South Carolina for his contribu-
tion to the discussion. What he has said
bears out exactly what I have in mind.
This morning, when the question arose
again, I went to the experts of the Post
Office Department, and I asked, "Can you
cut this down to the barest limit in
which you possibly can write it in order
to make crystal clear what we are trying
to do?" Hence this modification.
I told the Senator from Oregon I
would never wish any Senator to feel un-
happy about an amendment he had con-
sented to, and that I would be glad to
have the action on my original amend-
ment reconsidered, so as to have the
matter considered de novo.
That brings me to the amendment
which is now at the desk and upon which
the Senate will be asked to act. As I
understand, it now makes the matter
crystal clear. It provides that when mail
by a mailer is sorted, faced, and tied into
packages and is labeled with postal deliv-
ery zones, and delivered to a particular
post office, if that post office makes the
distribution of the mail which is so deliv-
ered to it, then the rate shall be frozen
at 2 cents instead of 21/2 cents.
Let me illustrate that, so that it will
be clear. A merchant sorts and faces his
mail. That is, it is all faced the same
way. Then he ties it into bundles and
puts tags on it for such and such a deliv-
ery zone for the particular package. He
takes it to the post office.
If. the same post office distributes the
_mail, it goes at the 2-cent rate instead of
at the 21/2-cent rate.
So my proposal endeavors to take care
of the small people?and we all have
them as constituents, and we have all
heard from them.
What is the objection to this? The
objection on the part of the Post Office
Department is that they want the maxi-
mum revenue. The bill provides 21/2
cents as the maximum. If the post office
can get agreement to a 2?-cent rate
in the Senate, this provision will not be in
conference; that will be the end of it.
The post office will be home free. I do
not think we can lose too much sleep over
their position.. Certainly they want 21/2
2711
cents. They want everything they can
get to help reduce the deficit. But we are
concerned with individual equities.
The second argument against my pro-
posal is that Montgomery Ward, Sears,
Roebuck, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.?
I do not use these names invidiously?can
give a bunch of circulars to a small mer-
chant who can mail them at the 2-cent
rate. I should like to know what is
wrong with that. How can the small
merchants remain in business if they are
not given some opportunity to fight the
battle competitively for themselves?
Finally, it is said that the big mailer
might go to the trouble of trucking mail
to a particular post office and letting the
post office distribute it. If, economi-
cally, it is cheaper for the mailer to do
the trucking than to have the Post Office
Department do it, what is wrong with
that? In short, one cannot guarantee,
when he is trying to do something funda-
mentally equitable, against every con-
tingency in life.
,That, as I see it, is what the opposition
to the amendment is based on. But,
again, I point out that the traditional
equity of this position is that the mailer
of third-class matter has always paid
half the rate of first-class mail. This is
what I am trying to do for one small part
of the total amount of third-class mail
involved.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. COTTON. I should like to have
one point made plain in my mind. Un-
der the Senator's amendment, does the
sender have to have his office in the town
or in the post office region from which his
mail is sent? In other words, can one
bundle his mail and go from town to town
or post office to post office to have it sent
off?
Mr. JAVITS. The Post Office Depart-
ment has drawn this amendment exactly
to the contrary, for it provides that?
When mailed at the principal address of
the mailer for delivery by the post office at
which it is mailed.
In short, the answer to the question is
"No." It has to be mailed at the prin-
cipal address of the mailer.
I have pointed out that in the case of
individual merchants, such merchants
will paste little labels with their ad-
dresses on the pieces of mail, and will
send them in that way.
I believe the Senate should decide,
advisedly, that that is not bad; that, in-
stead, it is good, in terms of changing
from mass distribution to small distribu-
tion.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President--
Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the Senator
from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I appre-
ciate the concern of the Senator from
New York for the small-business men in
the cities. But I should like to point out
that many small-business men do not
live in the cities where their customers
live. I am thinking particularly of many
small-business men in small towns in
New England, who depend upon custom-
ers in New York City for their business.
They often sell the same things that both
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the small-business men and the big-busi-
ness men in the cities sell.
It seems to me that under this amend-
ment the city brethren would have the
advantage in appealing to their cus-
tomers.
Undoubtedly, the Senator from New
York is aware of the innumerable num-
ber of small mail-order business which
have developed in the rural areas. In the
areas where they are located, they do not
have enough customers to be able to have
their business amount to anything.
Those businesses must deal with custo-
mers in the large cities?for instance, in
New York City.
This amendment would give a business-
man who remained in a city?instead of
moving to Putney, Vt., to conduct his
business?a considerable advantage.
Mr. JAVITS. Of course, in connec-
tion with these matters we proceed on
the basis of the doctrine of de minimis,
as we lawyers say.
Mr. AIKEN. Yes.
Mr. JAVITS. Just as I have pointed
out that we cannot base the bill on the
mailing of material on which the sender
places his imprimatur. Yet, I recognize
that these are aspects of a fringe situa-
tion which, fundamentally, is a small-
business problem.
I am not offering the amendment as
being 100 percent perfect. I am offering
it as being perhaps only 85 or 90 percent
a reasonable answer. That is the best
I can say.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I com-
mend the Senator from New York for
looking after hi own constituents.
However, I should like to have my con-
stituents have an opportunity to do as
much business as possible with persons
living in New York City and the sur-
rounding suburbs.
Mr. JAVITS, Mr. President, let me
point out that I am not attempting to
look out for-only my own constituents.
Mr. AIKEN. I realize that.
Mr. JAVITS. This measure affects
the people living in cities of even moder-
ate size; it is not confined to the problem
facing my constituents.
Mr. AIKEN. But if the rate is to be
based on the willingness of the sender of
the mail to sort it into parcels of 10 or
more pieces which are going to a single
post office, I believe it should apply to
those who live outside the cities, as well
as to those who live in the cities.
I have some idea of what I am talking
about, because for many, many years I
mailed from 20,000 to 30,000 pieces of
mail. I always sorted them, because I
thought I had to.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I believe
the amendment should be brought to a
vote. On the question of agreeing to my
amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PROXMIRE in the chair). Is there a suf-
ficient second?
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from New York yield to me?
Mr. JAVITS. First, Mr. President, I
withdraw my request for the yeas and
nays. I shall renew it after I have
yielded to the Senator from Kentucky
and after he has finished the question he
wishes to ask.
Mr. COOPER. Has the Senator from
New York been able to obtain an esti-
mate of the cost of the bill without his
amendment and of the cost of the bill
with his amendment?
Mr. JAVITS. I am glad the Senator
from Kentucky has asked that question.
Mr. President, may there be order in
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let there
be order in the Senate.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President,
those of us who sit on this side of the
Chamber were unable to hear whether
the yeas and nays were ordered, follow-
ing the request for the yeas and nays.
There is so much disorder in the Cham-
ber that I do not think even an explosion
of Mount Vesuvius could be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New York withdrew his
request for the yeas and nays. When-
ever the yeas and nays are requested the
Chair will put the question.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, there is
now a moment of quiet; so on the ques-
tion of agreeing to my amendment, I
now request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
pending question is on agreeing to the
the amendment of the Senator from
New York. On this question the yeas
and nays have been requested. Is there
a sufficient second?
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator from New
York yield to me?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I thought
the able Senator from New York was
asked about the comparative amounts of
revenues to be obtained, first, under the
bill as it now stands and, second, under
the bill with the inclusion of his amend-
ment. I refer to the comparative
amounts of revenue coming to the Gov-
ernment.
Mr. JAVITS. As I understand, these
increases will aggregate $43 million.
The best answer I can get from the rep-
resentative of the Post Office Department
is that this amendment would affect
one-fourth of that total.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. In what
way?
Mr. JAVITS. In other words, if the
rate is ,frozen at 2 cents, the maximum
diminution in the return would be 25
percent.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. In other
words, the bill proposes a revenue in-
crease in the amount of $43 million, from
this source; is that correct?
Mr. JAVITS. Yes.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Under
the amendment of the Senator from
New York, approximately $10 million
would be lost; is that correct?
Mr. JAVITS. Yes, $10 million. That
is my understanding from the 'figures
the Post Office Department representa-
tives have given me.
Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, will the
Senator from New York yield to me?
Mr. JAVITS. I yield.
Air. BUSH. This amendment has to do
with the so-called junk mail; does it not?
Mr. JAVITS. Yes; or advertising cir-
culars.
February 28
Mr. BUSH. Circulars addressed to
boxholders; is that correct?
Mr. JAVITS. Under the amendment,
such mail would -have to be sorted and
directed to particular post-office areas.
. Mr. BUSH. But it could be addressed
to boxholders, could it?
Mr. JAVITS. Yes.
Mr. BUSH. In my State there are
many small weekly newspapers which
are dependent upon serving the people
of the areas in which they are pub-
lished. Unless such newspapers can
carry some advertising, they cannot
exist.
Among the people in my area there
has been much objection to the so-called
junk mail. If the amendment is agreed
to, I understand the bill will be more
favorable to junk mail than otherwise.
In other words, the bill is designed to
increase the rate on junk mail. But is
not the amendment of the Senator from
New York designed to reduce the rate?
Mr. JAVITS. My amendment is de-
signed to cut the rate back ih the case
of a particular kind of mailer who needs
such help. In other words, the bill
would not eliminate what the Senator
from Connecticut calls junk mail. The
only question is what shall be paid for
handling it; and even the maximum pro-
posed will not be so prohibitive, in terms
of those who mail very large quantities,
that they would cut down materially
their volume of mail. I do not think we
are dealing with the situation in such
a way as to put a stop to such mail.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
understand that I have the floor. I
yielded to the Senator from New York, to
permit him to make a statement. It is
my hope that prompt action will be
taken on the postal rate bill, and that
then the postal pay bill will be brought
before the Senate. If that is to be done,
we must terminate this discussion, and
must come to a vote.
I should like to have an opportunity to
comment on the amendment which has
been offered by the distinguished Sena-
tor from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall be
glad to take my seat until the Senator
from Oregon shall have finished, if he
prefers that I do so.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
should like to say, briefly, that although
the amendment of the Senator from New
York may have been drafted by the Post
Office Department, I am authorized to
inform the Sehate?I aril authorized by
the Postmaster General himself?that
he would prefer that this amendment
not be included in the bill.
In my opinion the amendment would
provide a loophole so big that a 4-unit
diesel locomotive could pass through it.
Let us see what the effect of the
amendment would be. Is the amend-
ment designed to be of help to a small
upholsterer? If such a businessman
sends out a thousand pieces of mail, the
amendment would reduce his mailing bill
by $5. But under the amendment, R. H.
Macy & Co. could send out 6 million or
7 million pieces of mail and could also
enjoy the reduced rate.
Similarly, if a Buick dealer in Boise,
Idaho?let us say the Church Buick Co.,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
although we know that our distinguished
colleague, the junior Senator from
Idaho, is not in the automobile busi-
ness?wished to send out a large amount
of mail, General Motors Corp. would be
able to ship to that company innumer-
able circulars; and so long as they were
stamped with the name of Church Buick
Agency, for instance, they could, be
mailed at the reduced rate, from Boise,
under this amendment.
Mr. President, the Senate has voted
that the rate on first-class mail going
out of town shall be 5 cents, and that the
rate on first-class mail sent locally shall
be 4 cents.
It seems to me that the Senate ought
not to open up such a vast loophole in
the third-class rate. That is why I
raised some questions yesterday. That is
why in my opinion the amendment of the
able Senator from New York should be
rejected. In view of the substantial in-
creases voted on first-class mail rates,
I doubt if we should open a loophole to
weaken the committee position on third-
class mail rates.
Mr. LAUSCHE. We have been dis-
cussing today an overabundance of
junk mail being delivered to homes.
Would this type of amendment permit
the delivery of junk mail?
Mr. NEUBERGER. This amendment,
If adopted, would permit so-called junk
mail, if the Senator from Ohio wishes
to apply that label to it, to be sent to
homes in the United States at the re-
duced rate of 2 cents.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD the
reasons sent to me by the Post Office De-
partment for their opposition to local
third-class mail.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
ARGUMENTS AGAINST LOCAL THIRD-CLASS MAIL
1. Large mailers would simply haul their
circular material to the local post office and
pay only the 2-cent rate.
2. Would complicate the third-class rate
structure which already has piece rates,
pound rates, and special rates for nonprofit
organizations.
3. The Javits amendment establishes a
local rate only for bulk mailings. If this
principle were applied with consistency, it
would then be necessary to establish a local
rate for piece mailings. This woUld further
reduce the revenues the Department would
receive from the third-class rate adjustments
at a very time when Congress is attempting
to establish more equitable cost relationships
in this class of mail.
4. At the present date bulk mailings of
certain nonprofit organizations are subject
to a 1-cent minimum per piece. Pressures
would mount from these organizations, and
perhaps rightly so if we are to be consistent
in our ratemaking, for the establishment
of an even lower local rate for their mailings.
This, too, would reduce revenues from the
proposals now before us.
5. Third-class mail is already receiving a
substantial discount from the first-class mail
rates. In the past Congress has never made
a rate differential on third-class mail based
on local and nonlocal mailings, and for good
reason. The uniform rates have always been
low enough without giving further conces-
sions to large third-class mail users in the
form of a still lower rate for local matter.
No. 32-5
THE PRESIDING ar ICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from New
York [Mr. JAviTs] for himself and the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BEALL].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the amend-
ment.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS. 'Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I hope the Senator will withdraw
his request. The Senate will vote on
the matter, if Senators will give us a
chance to do so.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I withdraw my sug-
gestion .of the absence of a quorum, and
renew my request for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
- Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I
thought there was certainly a showing
of a sufficient number of hands.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is informed that it takes a show-
ing of 17 hands. Only 16 hands were
counted.
Mr. SMATHERS. Here is the 17th.
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. BUTLER. It takes only one-
fifth of Senators present to have the
yeas and nays ordered, does it not?
The PRESIDING OlerteiCER. The
Chair is informed that it is not in order
to keep repeating requests for the yeas
and nays without business intervening
between the requests.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I dislike to see the Senate function-
ing in this way. We know there is a sub-
stantial number of Senators on the floor.
The Senator from New York indicated
he was going to speak for a few mo-
ments. I urged the Senator from Oregon
to let us vote. He has spoken and has
provoked the Senator from New York to
speak now. When the Senator from
New York completes his statement, an-
other Senator- will speak. We can have
quorum calls, and take a great deal of
time this evening, and stay here tonight,
and come back tomorrow. I think most
Senators know what the sentiment is on
the amendment. I think the Senator
from Delaware well realizes that, but if
the Senator is determined to have a yea-
and-nay vote on this amendment, I shall
be glad to accede to his request for a call
of the roll on this and every other little
amendment, but we shall be here until
all hours.
I think the result of the vote on the
amendment will show, when Senators
come to the Chamber from their offices,
and when the roll is called, that a yea-
and-nay vote was not necessary to get
the action the Senator from Delaware
desires; but i it will please him to have a
rollcall, and if the Senator is going to in-
sist upon having a quorum call, we can
have one.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays. Let us have the yeas and nays or-
dered, so we can then look at the result.
2713
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, this
is an amendment which would obviously
cut back the proposed increase on so-
called junk mail; I am very much op-
posed to this amendment. Having au-
thorized an increase in first-class post-
age, I think it would be inexcusable to
adopt the amen,dment and thereby re-
duce the rate on the "junk" mail.
I appreciate the fact that the Senator
from New York asked for a reconsidera-
tion of the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to last night. I think that
was very fair of him, but I want to be
sure the Senate is on record on the
amendment this time. I hope it will be
def eated.
Certainly the time is long past due
when rates on "junk" mail should be
increased.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I send to the desk a proposed
unanimous-consent agreement, which I
shall ask to have considered later. I
want Senators to be thinking about it.
I hope we can agree to it. ?
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a
point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Florida will state it.
Mr. HOLLAND. Were the yeas and
nays ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
yeas and nays were not ordered on the
amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I
thought they were.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I renew the request for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING 010FiCER. I ask
Senators to please hold their hands up
long enough so they can be accurately
counted.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
PROPOSED UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST
The PRESIDING OleviCER. The
clerk will read the proposed order which
has been sent to-the desk.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Ordered, That debate on the postal pay
amendment, and all amendments or mo-
tions thereto, to H. R. 5836, an act to re-
adjust postal rates and to establish a con-
gressional policy for the determination of
postal rates, and for other purposes, be
limited to 1 hour of debate to be equally
divided and controlled by the mover of the
amendment and the majority leader: Pro-
vided further, That no amendment that is
not germane to the provisions of the said
amendment shall be received.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I should like to say, by way of ex-
planation, that I have discussed this
matter with the chairman of the com-
mittee and the ranking minority member
of the committee. They informed me
they do not think any more than 1 hour
will be required on the postal pay amend-
ment or any amendment thereto. The
order provides for 1 hour on any amend-
ment, or any motion, or amendment
thereto. Since we are going to have sev-
eral rollcalls; since this is Friday, since
we would like to avoid a Saturday session
if possible, and since we expect this to be
the last amendment to the rate part of
the bill, if Senators are agreeable, I
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA:RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
should like them to consider having this
order entered, so all Senators may be on
notice we are going to have reasonable"
debate, but that we also expect to have
several rollcalls. I hope we can complete
action on the bill, so we will not have to
consider having a session on Saturday.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. CARLSON. I am willing that
there be a limited debate, but I wonder
if we should not first have a quorum call,
because a Senator may complain later
that he was not advised of the limited-
debate proposal.
\ Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I think that
would be appropriate.
Mr. POTTER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to
the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. POTTER. Can the Senator in-
form me how late the Senate is going to
stay in session tonight?
.Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I should like
to have the Senate conclude as early as
possible. How long Senators will take,
I have long ago given up trying to guess.
I am-not going to repeat the mistake I
made last night and the night before, by
saying we do not expect a rollcall after
6:30, because at about 5:30 Senators in-
form me they are going to speak and
expect a rollcall. -
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. Presidert,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to
the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Is the proposed
order limited to the proposed postal rate
bill, or does it include proposals to in-
crease the pay or salaries of postal
workers?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. 'The pro-
posed order pertains to proposed amend-
ments to the rate bill, involving postal
pay increases, or any amendments, or
any motions.
I will say to the Senator I wanted the
Senate to be given a chance to consider
the proposed order. Before we have the
yeas and nays on the amendment in
which the Senator from New York is in-
terested, we shall have a quorum call,
and then, either before or after the vote,
we can have the clerk read the proposed
order and the Senate can then consider
it.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Yes.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Doe's the Senator
mean that if salary increases are pro-
posed in an amendment to the pending
bill, debate on that proposal will be
limited to 1 hour?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is cor-
rect. Does my friend have any sugges-
tions?
Mr. REVERCOMB. The only sugges-
tion I have is that I shall object to the
unanimous-consent agreement.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The Sena-
tor from Texas does not propose it at
this time, but if the Senator from West
Virginia thinks the time is too limited,
or has any suggestions that will be help-
ful, I shall be glad to consider incorpo-
rating them in the order.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I think the limit
of debate that might arise on the salary
increase proposal is too short.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The ranking
minority member of the committee and
the chairman of the committee thought
the time proposed would be ample.
Does the Senator think the time ought
to be increased by another 30 minutes?
Mr. REVERCOMB. I do not propose
any time, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Would it be
agreeable to the Senator if the time were
increased by 30 minutes'?
Mr. REVERCOMB. Not at this time.
When the matter comes up I shall exer-
cise my rights.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. If the Sen-
ator will give thought to it and make
suggestions, I shall be glad to work out
an agreement with him.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I certainly will
give it some thought.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk calledthe roll, and the
following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Allott
Barrett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Bricker
Bridges
Bush
Butler
Carlson
Carroll
Case, N. J.
Case, S. Dak.
Church
Green
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hill
Hoblitzell
Holland
Hruska
Humphrey
Jackson
Javits
Jenner
Johnson, Tex.
Johnston, S. C.
Kefauver
Kennedy
Clark Kerr
Cooper Knowland
Cotton Kuchel
Dirksen Langer
Douglas Lausche
Dworshak Long
Eastland. Magnuson
Ellender Malone
Ervin Mansfield
Flanders Martin, Pa.
Frear McClellan
Fulbright McNamara
Goldwater Monroney
Gore Morse
Morton
Mundt
Murray
Neuberger
Pastore
Payne
Potter
Proxmire
Purtell
Revercomb
Robertson
Russell
Saltonstall
Scott
Smathers
Smith, Maine
Smith, N. J.
Sparkman
Stennis
Talmadge
Thurmond
Thye
Watkins
Wiley
Williams
Yarborough
Young
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
CHAVEZ ] , the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
HENNINGS], the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O'MAHONEY], and the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] are absent on
official business.
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
ANDERSON] is absent because of illness.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART],
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Cure's],
the Senator from New York [Mr. Ivzsl,
the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MARTIN] and
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEP-
FEL] are absent on official business.
The PRESIDING 0]01,10ER. A quo-
rum is present.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the Senator from
New York [Mr. JAvrrsl .
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. May we
have order in the Chamber, Mr. Presi-
dent?
The PRESIDING OletoiCER. The
Senate will be in order.
February 28
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall
not detain the Senate long. My only
purpose in offering the amendment is
to draw attention to a particular situa-
tion which has been called to the notice
of all of us by the small-business men,
who will, if the amendment is defeated,
be placed in a pcisition contrary to rather
than for their interest with relation to
the first-claSs mail rate. -
The first-class mail rate of 5 cents is'
to be Provided for only 3 years, yet the
small-business man is being asked to
accept a 50 percent proportion of that
on a permanent basis and not for only
3 years.
We shall have a 4-cent rate for local
mail, but we are not giving the small-
business man the same relationship to
local mail which he has traditionally
had.
Senators may talk about junk mail,
but I should like to see them discuss
of such mail in terms of "junk" mail
with their small business constituents.
I do not think their constituents would
take very kindly to that description,
since many of them are men to whom
it represents the staff of life.
I am very proud to be a Member of
this body. It is a determined body. It
is thorough. I think that is all to the
good. I hope in perhaps my own small
way I have made my contribution to-
ward making it a thorough body today.
There is only one point of fact which
I should like to emphasize in connection
with the amendment I have proposed.
The amendment does not range all the
way, but it applies to the particular post
office at which the mailer has his prin-
cipal address, and to the mail distrib-
uted_ only through that post office. It
seems to me that confines the applica-
tion very closely, even confining it more
closely than the 4-cent first-class mail.
We shall have a 4-cent first-class mail
rate for all 5 boroughs of New York
City, but if the amendment I have pro-
posed is adopted there will be a 2-cent
rate on the third-class mail in only the
Boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx,
which happen to have 1 post office. That
rate is confined even beyond the 4-cent
first-class rate.
I deeply feel the amendment deserves
the support of Senators. The question
can then be taken to conference and
considered and discussed in connection
with what was done by the House of
Representatives.
I repeat, unless the Senate adopts the
amendment, the rate will be fixed at
21/2 cents, because the House bill pro-
vides 21/2 cents, and without the amend-
ment that would be the end of it. This
is the last chance Senators will have to
take this matter to conference. That is
exactly the reason why the chairman
of the committee and the ranking mi-
nority member yesterday accepted this
proposal. They knew what they were
doing. They were not confused. They
felt they ought to take the proposal to
conference in order to determine what
finally ought to be done with respect to
the House bill.
- If we do not adopt the amendment
there will be no latitude whatever, and
the bill will be absolutely tied down to
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
21/2 cents. Senators are now called upon
to vote "yea" or "nay" on whether the
rate shall be fixed at 21/2 cents.
SEVEliAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote! Vote!
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from New
York [Mr. JAviT51. On this question
the yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD: I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. CHA-
vEz], the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
HENNINGS], the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O'MAHcavEy], and the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON] are absent
on official business.
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
ANDERSON] is absent because of illness.
I further announce that if present and
voting, the Senator from New Mexico
[Mr. CHAVEZ] and the Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. HENNINGS] would each vote
"nay."
Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART],
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CUR-
TIS], the Senator from New York [Mr.
IvEs], Senator from Iowa [Mr. MARTIN]
and the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
SCHOEPPEL] are absent on official busi-
ness.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART , the Sen-
ator from Nebraska [Mr. CuEris], and
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEP-
PEL] would each vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 6,
nays 79, as follows:
YEAS-6
Beall Case, N. J. Kuchel
Butler Javits Morton
NAYS-79
Aiken
Allott
Barrett
Bennett
Bible
Bricker
Bridges
Bush
Carlson
Carroll
Case, S. Dak.
Church
Clark
Cooper
Cotton
Dirksen
Douglas
Dworshak
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Flanders
Frear
Fulbright
Goldwater
Gore
Green
Anderson
Byrd
Capehart
Chavez
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hill
Hoblitzell
Holland
Hruska
Humphrey
Jackson
Jenner
Johnson, Tex.
Johnston, S. C.
Kefauver
Kennedy
Kerr
Knowland
Langer
Lausche
Long
Magnuson
Malone
Mansfield
Martin, Pa.
McClellan
McNamara
Monroney
Morse
Mundt
NOT VOTING-11
Murray
Neuberger
Pastore
Payne
Potter
Proxmire
Purtell
Revercomb
Robertson
Russell
Saltonstall
Scott
Smathers
Smith, Maine
Smith, N. J.
Sparkman
Stennis
Talmadge
Thurmond
Thye
Watkins
Wiley
Williams
Yarborough
Young
Curtis
Hennings
Ives
Martin, Iowa
O'Mahoney
Schoeppel
Symington
So Mr. JAVITS' amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, in order that this question may not
be reopened, I move to reconsider the
vote by which the Javits amendment was
rejected.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I move
to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment which I send to the desk
and ask to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 48, line 16,
it is proposed to strike out the period,
insert a colon, and the following:
Provided, That funds for the purposes of
this subsection shall be transferred to the
General Services Administration to effec;tu-
, ate such purposes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I am
not disposed to labor the amendment,
but I think it is necessary. We created
the General Services Administration 9
years ago. It has authority over Federal
supply, procurement, real estate, design
of buildings, construction, and so forth.
This amendment very properly belongs
in the bill. The Administrator of the
General Services Administration fully
concurs in that viewpoint. That is the
reason for offering the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, this matter did not come
before the committee during our discus-
sion; neither has any committee member
talked to me about it. I have no au-
thority whatever to take any action on
it. However, I suggest that we could
possibly take the amendment to confer-
ence and consider it there, and deter-
mine what should be done about it.
There are a great many ramifications
connected with it.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate the fact
that the Senator, will take it to confer-
ence. I, too, would like to look into it.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. I am definitely op-
posed to taking the amendment to con-
ference. I sincerely question its wisdom.
If the distinguished Senator wishes to
take it to conference; we should have a
full-dress debate on it. I should like to
state my reasons for opposing the
amendment, and to urge that the pro-
vision for the $175 million be stricken
from the bill. I am associating myself
in that view with the views of many
members of the Committee on Public
Works. The establishment of the fund
is a violation of the jurisdiciton of the
Public Works Committee. Therefore, if
Senators wish to spend all afternoon in
debating the subject, I suggest that the
amendment be taken to conference after
it has been fully debated.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
In offering to take it to conference, I
am not agreeing to the amendment.
However, there are a great many things
in the bill that I did not agree to.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
2715
Mr. DIRKSEN. I do not intend for one
moment to labor the subject. I believe
it is the right course to follow. Under
the proposal of the first Hoover Com-
mission we consolidated all the procure-
ment of supplies and construction of
agencies in the GSA. That agency is
,carrying on that function today. If it is
the desire of the Senate to thwart that
activity and nullify it with respect to the
$175 million fund, that is perfectly all
right with me. I merely do not want the
opportunity to escape without raising my
voice on the subject, because I shall be
the last Member of the Senate to deviate
from action the Senate took and which
has had the concurrence of Congress and
the country for the past 9 years.
If we examine the figures of GSA, it
will be found that that agency is charged
with procurement and design and acqui-
sition of realty. The office in charge of
the construction of public buildings is
located there. That agency has su-
pervision. Therefore the amendment
should properly be in the bill. I am not
asking for a show fo hands, and I will
not ask for a yea-and-nay vote; I mere-
ly wish to make my own position clear.
If the House Members in conference
should undertake to change it, that would
be quite satisfactory to me.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Although I am willing to take the amend-
ment to conference, I must say that per-
sonally I am not in favor of it. There
is nothing in the bill relating to it.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I with-
draw the amendment.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, has the amendment been with-
drawn?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
sponsor of the amendment has with-
drawn it.
Mr. KERR. What is the purpose?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
committee amendment is open to further
amendment.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I believe
the Senator from South Carolina has
yielded to me for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair was announcing that the amend-
ment had been withdrawn. The Senator
from South Carolina has the floor.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. KERR. I refer the Senator to sec-
tion 303 on page 48 of the bill, which
reads:
EXPENDITURE FROM FUND ,
SEC. 303. Moneys paid into the fund, to-
gether with any income thereof under section
304 (b), shall be available until expended for
obligation by the Postmaster General for the
purpose of?
* e ? ?
(2) constructing or otherwise acquiring
buildings and other related property which
Will more efficiently serve the needs of the
postal service, and for improving existing
facilities.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2716 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
If that does not do two things, first,
collect money and turn it over to the
Postmaster General, and, second, make
it available until expended for construct-
ing or otherwise acquiring buildings and
other related property, then what is the
meaning of the language?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
All the 'testimony will bear out my
statement -that that was intended for
the leasing of buildings and for the re-
modeling of present post offices in order
to install modern equipment. It may be
necessary, for example, to remove a par-
tition, or to do something like that.
Mr. KERR. In view of the testimony_
of the Postmaster General which was
read yesterday by the Senator from
Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE), does the
Senator from South Carolina take the
responsibility for telling us that when
the words of an act give one authority
and the testimony of the Postmaster
General indicated a different purpose,
the testimony of the Postmaster General
is binding or that the language in the
act is binding?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I will take the language in the act as
binding.
Mr. KERR. Will the Senator look at
the second paragraph in section 303 of
the-bill and tell the Senate that the bill
does not provide for the collecting of
the money and putting it into a fund
which is made available to the Post-
master General for constructing or
otherwise acquiring buildings and other
related property which will more effi-
ciently serve the needs of the postal
service?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I want the Senator to know that I am
not defending the provision.
Mr. KERR. I am asking the Senator
what it means.
Mr. -JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The only thing I know is what the testi-
mony before the committee brought out.
Mr. KERR. I ask the Senator what the
language in the bill means.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. , I
suggest that the Senator ask the Sen-
atcir from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON). I did
not sponsor that provision at all. That
was put in by amendment offered by the
Senator from Kansas.
Mr. KERR. Will the Senator tell me
what it means?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
was against all of it. I suggest the Sen-
ator from Oklahoma ask the Senator
from Kansas the question.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may ask the
Senator from Kansas what the language
_ means.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that paragraph (2)
of section 303, shown at lines 13 to 16,
on page 48 of the bill, be stricken.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I join in
the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Kansas offer such an
amendment?
Mr. KERR. The Senator from Kansas
asks unanimous consent that the lan-
guage be stricken.
Mr. CARLSON. I am asking unani-
mous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Kansas? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered. -
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING One.I.CER. Does
the Senator desire to have the amend-
February 28
ment read or to have it printed in the
RECORD?
? Mr. JOHNSTON'of South Carolina. I
do not believe it is necessary to have it
read. It has been on the desks of the
Senators for many days. It is a 'com-
mittee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the amendment will be
printed in the RECORD.
The amendment offered by Mr. JOHN-
STON of South Carolina is as follows:
On page 49, after line 9, insert the fol-
lowing:
That the act entitled "Postal Field Service
Compensation Act of 1955," approved June
10, 1955 (Public Law 68, 84th Congress), is
hereby amended as follows:
(a) In section 301 (a) strike out the Pos-
tal Field Service Schedule, and insert the
following schedule:
"Postal field service schedule
Level
Per annum rates and steps
'
1
$3, 095
$3, 205
$3, 315
$3, 425
$3, 535
$3, 615
$3, 755
Temporary rate
3, 335
3,445
3, 555
3, 665
3, 7M
3, 885
3, 995
2
3,320
3,435
3, 550
3, 665
3, 780
3,895
4, 010
Temporary rate
3, 560
3, 675
3, 790
3, 905
4,020
4, 135
4, 250
3 ,,
3, 580
3, 705
3, 830
3, 955
4, 080
4,205
4,330
Temporary rate
3,820
3,945
4, 070
4, 195
4, 320
4, 445
4, 570
4
3,935
4,070
4, 205
4, 340
4, 475,
4, 610
4, 745
Temporary rate
4,175
4,310
4,445
4,580
4,715
, 4,850
: 4,982
5
4, 170
4, 305
4, 440 -
4, 575
4, 710
4, 845
4, 980
Temporary rate
4,410
4,545
4,680
4,815
4,950
5,085
5,220
6
- 4, 505
4, 655
4, 805
4, 955
5, 105
5, 255
5, 405
Temporary rate
4,665
4,815
4,965
5,115
5,265
1,415
0,565
7
4, 870
0,035
5, 200
5, 365
5, 530
5, 695
6, 860
Temporary rate
4, 950
5, 115
5,280
5, 445
5, 610
1, 757
6, 940
8
0,255
0,440
5,625
5,810.5,995
6,380
6,365
a
5, 675
5,875
6, 075
6, 275
- 6, 475
6,675
6, 875
10
6, 235
6,460
6, 665
6. 880
7,095
7,310
7, 525
11
i
6,860
7,095
7, 330
7, 565
7,600
8,035
8, 270
12
7, 545
7, 805
8, 065
8,325
8, 585
8, 845
9, 105
13
8,310
8, 590
8, 870
9, 150
9, 430
9, 710
9, 990
14
9, 140
9, 440
9, 740
10, 040
10, 340
10, 640
10,940
15
'
10,050
30,350
10,650
10,950
11,250
11,560
11,850
16
11,075
11, 375
11,675
11,975
12, 275
12,575
12,872
17
12, 255
12,855
12,855
13, 155
13,455
13, 755
14,015
18
13,760
14, 060
14,360
14.660
14,960
15,260
15,560
19
15,000
15,300
15, 600
45, 900
20
10,000"
,(b) In section 302 (a) strike out the Rural Carrier Schedule, and insert the following
schedule:
"Rural carrier schedule
Per annum rates and steps
2
3
4
5
6
Carriers in rural delivery service:
Fixed compensation per annum
Temporary rate
Compensation per mile per annum for each mile
?
up to 30 miles of route
For each mile of route over 30 miles
Temporary carriers in rural delivery service on routes
to which no regular carrier is assigned:
Fixed compensation per annum
Temporary rate
Compensation per mile per annum for each mile
up to 30 miles of route
For each mile of route over 30 miles
Temporary carriers in rural delivery service on routes
having regular carriers absent without pay or on
military leave
Substitute carriers in rural delivery service on routes
having carriers absent with pay
$1, 841
2, 081
61
22
1, 841
2, 081
65
22
$1, 896
2, 136
67
22
$1, 051
2, 191
69
22
$2, 006
2, 246
71
22
$2, 061
2, 301
73
22
$2,116
2,356
75
22
$2,171
2,411
77
22
(1)
(0"
Basic compensation authorized for the regular carrier.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
(c) In section 302 (c) ? strike out "$4,700"
and insert "$5,275 during the period referred
to in section 304 (c) or $5,035 thereafter."
(d) In section 303 (a) strike out the
fourth-class office schedule and insert the
following schedule:
"Fourth-class office schedule
Gross receipt5
Per annum rates and steps
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$1,300 to $1,499.99
$2,703
$2, 793
$2, 883
$2, 973
$3, 064
$3,154
$3, 244
Temporary rate
2,829
2, 923
3,017
3, 111
3, 207
3, 301
3, 395
$900 to $1,299.99
2,477
2, 560
2,642
2, 725
2,808
2,891
2, 973
Temporary rate
2,592
2,679
2,765
2,852
2,939
3,025
3,111
$600 to $899.99
2,027
2,095
2, 163
2, 231
2, 298
2,366
2,434
Temporary rate
2, 121
2, 192
2, 264
2,335
2,405
2, 476
2,547
$350 to $599.$9
1,577
3,630
1,682
1,735
1,788
1,840
1,893
Temporary rate
1,650
1,706
1,760
1,816,
1,871
1,926
1,981
$250 to $349.99
5,127
1,164
1,202
1,239
1,277
1,315
1,312
Temporary rate
1,179
1,218
1, 258
1,297
0,336
1,376
1, 414
$200 to $249.99
Temporary rate
901
943
931
974
961
1,006
991
1,037
1,021
1,069
1,051
1,100
1,081
1, 131
$lato $199.99
676
699
721
744
766
789
812
Temporary rate
Under $100
707
450
' 732
465
755
481
779
496
802
511
826
526
850
$41
Temporary rate
471
487
503
519
535
550
566"
(e) In section 304 insert the following
new subsection:
"(c) Wherever a temporary per annum
rate is provided by a basic salary schedule
contained in this title, such temporary rate
shall be in effect, in lieu of the regular sched-
uled rate, for the period beginning on the
effective date of this amendment and ending
3 years after such date."
SEC. 2. (a) The annual rate of basic salary
of any officer or employee whose basie salary
by reason of the provisions of section 504 of
the Postal Field Service Compensation Act
of 1955 is at a rate between two scheduled
rates, or above the highest scheduled rate, in
the postal field service schedule, the rural
carrier schedule, or the fourth-class office
schedule, whichever may be applicable, is
hereby increased by an amount equal to the
amount of the increase made by this act in
the next lower rate in such schedule.
(b) As used in this section, the term "basic
salary" has the same meaning as when used
In the Postal Field Service Compensation Act
of 1955.
SEC. 3. No increase under the provisions of
this act shall be construed to be an equiva-
lent increase within the meaning of section
401 (a) of the Postal Field Service Compen-
sation Act.
SEC. 4. The Governor of the Canal Zone is
authorized and directed to grant, effective as
of October 1, 1957, increases in the compen-
sation of postal employees of the Canal Zone
Government comparable to those provided by'
this act for similar employees.
SEC. 5. This act shall have the same force
and effect within Guam as within other
possessions of the United States.
SEC. 6. (a) Retroactiye compensation or
salary shall be paid by reason of this act only
in the case of an individual in the service of
the United States (including service in the
Armed Forces of the United States) or the
municipal government of the District of Co-
lumbia on the date of enactment of this act,
except that such retroactive compensation or
salary shall be paid (1) to a postmaster, offi-
cer, or employee who retired during the pe-
riod beginning on the first day of the first
pay period which began on or after October
1, 1957, and ending on the date of enactment
of this act for services rendered during such
period and (2) in accordance with the provi-
sions of the act of August 3, 1950 (Public Law
636, 81st Cong.), as amended, for services
rendered during the period...beginning on the
first day of the first pay period which began
on or after October 1, 1957, and ending on
the date of enactment of this act by a post-
master, officer, or ;employee who died during
such period.
(b) For the purposes of this section, serv-
ice in the Armed Forces of the United States,
in the case of an individual relieved from
training and service in the Armed Forces of
the United States or discharged from hos-
pitalization following such training and
service, shall include the period provided by
law for the mandatory restoration of such
individual to a position in or under the
Federal Government or the municipal gov-
ernment of the District of Columbia.
SEC. 7. (a) This act shall take effect as of
the first day of the first pay period which
began oh or after October 1, 1957.
(b) For the purpose of determining the
amount of instirance for which an individual
is eligible under the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, all changes
in rates of compensation or salary which re-
sult from the enactment of this act shall be
held and considered to be effective as of the
date of such enactment.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, may
we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, S. 27, the postal-pay bill,
and S. 734, the classified-pay bill, were.
reported by. the Senate Post Office and
Civil Service Committee last spring.
They have been pending on the Senate
Calendar since that time.
Each of these bills has been recon-
sidered by the committee in the light of
current conditons. The committee has
adopted a committee amendment which
is not offered to H. R. 5836. In neither
case does the committee amendment
change materially the increases that will
be provided by each bill. In due course
the changes made by the .committee
amendirieht will be fully explained.
Mr. President, I think the Senate and
our Federal employees should be aware
of what a tremendous job it is to put
together pay bills for such a large work
force as we have in the Federal service.
The subcommittee, under the chairman-
ship of the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
NEMARCEltl, held long and exhaustive
hearings last spring. The? held many
meetings and finally reported my bills
to the full committee. The full com-
mittee spent many sessions going over
the bills; and finally they were reported
to the Senate. Unfortunately, the legis-
lative situation that existed last year did
not permit their being considered on the
floor of the Senate.
Immediately upon the convening of
Congress this year the subcommittee as-
2717
sembled, and during the course of a series
of meetings reconsidered the bills. The
current thinking of the subcommittee
was then presented to the full commit-
tee in the form of suggested committee
amendments to the bills. The full com-
mittee promptly met and considered each
amendment carefully.
Thus, I am in a position to state, with-
out fear of contradiction, that the bills
as proposed to be amended reflect the
considered judgment of the committee
as to what is equitable, what is fair, what
is needed, and what is proper, if we are
to do justice to our Federal employees.
Mr. President, it is difficult for me to
understand how any fairminded person,
in possession of all the facts, could pos-
sibly justify a position in opposition to
the pending bills. I have been closely
associated with matters of this kind for
a good many years. Never, during that
period of time, have I believed a pay in-
crease more justified than at the present
moment. As evidenced by the vote on
the pay bills last year, the majority of
Congress felt that the employees should
have been given an increase at that time.
An increase is even more justified today.
Both S. 27, the postal pay bill, and
S. 734, the classified bill, provide a basic
71/2-percent increase. In my opinion,
this is completely inadequate. Certainly,
the increase in the cost of living, which
has occurred during recent years, justi-
fies a greater increase. I personally
would not be frightened or intimidated
by the threat of another veto. Presi-
dential vetoes have become "old hat" to
those of us who have tried to deal fairly
with our Federal employees. That be-
ing the case, I would be willing to vote
for the kind of bill that I think is justi-
fied, and if it was vetoed, I would vote
to override the veto. That is how I per-
sonally feel.
We passed a more liberal bill last year
and sent it to the President. So far as
I am concerned, I would again vote for
the same kind of bill and send it back
to him.
However, there are many who think
the situation so desperate that it would
be best to act on less liberal bills than
are justified in order to assure their being
approved by the President. That is the
situation confronting us today as we are
about to take up the pay bill.
The President recommended a 6-per-
cent increase. It has been reported in
the press that he will accept a 71/2-per-
cent increase, but that he will not accept
anything- above that figure. The classi-
fied bill certainly should be completely
acceptable because it comes within that
limit. The postal bill, while providing a
71/2-percent increase to all employees,
gives, in addition thereto, a small pit-
tance to the lower paid employees. It
gives $240 a year to employees in the
lower 5 levels, $160 a year to employees
in level 6, and $80 a year to employees
in level 7. These extra amounts were
added because the employees in these
levels serve in their jobs on a career
basis. They enter the service as a clerk
or carrier, and they retire 30 years later
from the same job.
They do not have opportunity to ad-
vance. They are neighbors of yours and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16:
2718 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is open to further amend-
ment. ?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. NEUBERGER] held all the hearings on
the pay bill. He was the chairman of the
subcommittee and was present at all the
hearings. He will handle the amend-
ment on the floor.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I thank the able
chairman of the Committee on Post Of-
fice and Civil Service.
Mr. President, I shall be brief, because
I believe the amendment is quite well
understood by every Senator.
The amendment under consideration
has been on the Senate Calendar since
early last year. For that reason, and
further because it is not particularly
complex, I am confident it is rather well
understood. On that premise, I shall at
this point merely summarize briefly the
amendment and then explain in some-
what greater detail the changes that will
result by its adoption.
S. 27?the postal pay bill, which is the
pending amendment?provides a perma-
nent increase of 71/2 percent to all em-
ployees in the postal service, except 'a
handful in the top pay level who are now
receiving the ceiling salary of $16,000.
In addition to the permanent increase of
71/2 percent, a temporary cost-of-living
adjustment is made in the lower 7 levels.
Employees in the bottom 5 levels would
be given an additional $240 a year, em-
ployees in level 6 would receive an addi-
tional $160 a year, and employees in level
7 an additional $80 a year. The bill, as
reported, would make the cost-of-living
adjustments in the lower 7 levels con-
tinue for 2 years after the effective date
of the increase. Also, the effective date
,would be "the first day of the first pay
period which begins after the date of en-
actment."
As chairman of the subcommittee
which drafted this bill, I am confident it
is merited legislation.
The committee amendment makes but
two substantive changes: First, it would
continue the cost-of-living adjustments
for 3 years instead of 2; second, with the
amendment of the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] which has just
been adopted, it would make the in-
creases effective with the first pay period
commencing on or after January 1, in-
stead of after the date of enactment.
All other changes made by the amend-
ment are of a technical nature necessary
and customary in bills having a past
rather than a future effective date.
Mr. President, I desire now to-talk to
three points. First, Why 'a pay raise?
Second, Why the additional cost-of-liv-
ing adjustrrient in the lower seven levels?
Third, Why. January 1 of this year has
been made the effective date.
WHY A PAY RAISE?
During the course of long and search-
ing public hearings held early last spring,
an irrefutable case was made for an im-
mediate increase in the pay of postal
workers and other Federal employees. It
was established clearly and convincingly
that the pay of Federal employees has
neighbors of mine. They are substantial
citizens of every community. They have
families. Their children go to school
with your children and with my children.
They are deserving of a decent wage.
The salary they are presently receiving
is not decent, to my way of thinking.
It is not sufficient for them to support
their families. The 71/2-percent basic
increase, plus the small cost-of-living
allowance, is all too little. I would like
to see it much greater.
I do not understand how anyone can
call it unreasonable or can claim that
it will distort or throw out of line the
pay schedule. Charges of that kind have
no basis in fact. They are simple devices
used to cloud the issue.
The real objection on the part of those
who protest is that it will cost money.
Certainly it will cost money. We cannot
give $1 to our postal employees without
its costing one-half million dollars, be-
cause that is the number of employees
in the postal service. When $240 a year
is added to the pay of 500,000 postal
clerks and carriers, the bill cannot help
being 240 times 500,000, but I am unwill-
ing to let that sway me in my judgment
of the merits of the case.
Mr. President, I think it only simple
justice, long past due, that the amend-
ments be adopted without modification.
I understand the junior Senator from
Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] will offer an
amendment to eliminate the cost-of -
living increase in the lower grades.
I appeal to the Senate to adopt the
proposed amendment with one change,
as follows:
Strike out "October 1, 1957," wherever
It appears, and insert in lieu thereof
"January 1, 1958."
The amendment to the amendment is
offered on behalf of the Senator from
Oregon [Mr. NEUBERGER], the Senator
from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY], the
Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Sam], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.
CHURCH], and myself.
The original amendment provides that
it shall become effective October 1, 1957.
The amendment to the amendment pro-
vides that the effective date shall be
January 1, 1958.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment to the amendment will be
stated for the information of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In the amend-
ment of Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina
it is proposed to strike out "October 1,
1957," wherever it appears, and insert in
lieu thereof "January 1, 1958."
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield.
Mr. CARLSON. Do I understand cor-
rectly that the Senator from South Caro-
lina has asked unanimous consent that
the original amendment be modified by
the amendment he has just offered?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
want that understood.
'The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the, amend-
ment offered by the Senator from South
Carolina, for himself and other Sena-
tors, to the original amendment proposed
by him.
CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
? SENATE February 28
not kept pace with the pay of their
counterparts in private -industry. Even
more shocking was the evidence that the
Government is, in many instances, pay-
ing its employees well below the mini-
mum necessary to maintain themselves
and their families in decency. This has
caused many of our best employees to
leave the Federal service and a large per-
centage of those who have stuck it out
to obtain second and even third jobs on
the outside in order to supplement their
family rent and grocery funds. Every
Member who sat through those hearings
was convinced that such a situation is
not fair; that it is a sorry reflection on
Uncle Sam as an employer, and that it
is not conducive of either efficiency or
economy in the conduct of essential pub-
lic services.
WHY THE ADDITIONAL COST-OF-LIVING ADJUST-
MENT IN THE LOWER PAY LEVELS OF THE
POSTAL SERVICE?
First, let us get one fact straight. The
pay schedule for the postal field service is
man-made.The schedule is not exactly
what the administration and the Post
Office Department first recommended to
Congress. It is not precisely the same
as approved in the House. Neither does
it jibe fully with the schedule approved
in the Senate. Certain changes were
made here and there in the schedule at
each step along the way before its enact-
ment into law several years ago. I doubt
that anyone was satisfied at the time of
its enactment that it was completely
equitable and satisfactory in every detail.
I strongly suspect there was complete
agreement on two points only. First,
that it was a progressive piece of legis-
lation, and, secondly, that from time to
time as weaknesses in the schedule be-
came apparent, they would be repaired
by appropriate changes.
So let us put to rest the false myth?
some opponents of -the bill would have
US believe?that the existing schedule is
something sacred not to be touched or
changed by human hands.
Second, let us see what changes in the
schedule are proposed and at the same
time look at the reasons why they are
proposed.
The bill increases every pay rate in
the schedule by 71/2 percent. That action
gives an employee at the bottom of the
pay schedule an increase of $215 a year.
It gives the employees at the top, that
is, level 19, an increase of $1,000 a year.
Worded another way, the employee at the
entrance rate of level 19 today receives
$11,120 more per annum than the em-
ployee at the entrance rate of level 1.
After an across-the-board increase of
71/2 percent, the spread between these
two employees would be expanded to
$11,905. In other words the difference
between the two would be increased by
$785.
Besides the 71/2 percent across-the-
board increase, the amendment would
add $240 in the lower 5 pay levels, $160
in level 6, and $80 in level 7. How would
that affect the relationship between
rates. As indicated earlier, the present
difference between the salary of the em-
ploye at the entrance rate of level 19 and
the employee at the entrance rate of level
1 is $11,120. After the '71/2 percent in-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1 ?
1958
CONGRESSIONAL
crease across-the-board and the addition
of the $240 ? cost-of-living adjustment,
the spread would be $11;665 or $545
greater than it now is. So, let not Sena-
tors be deceived by talk that the pay
schedule will be distorted or that the
action will further compressethe sched-
ule or that the adjustment is unfair to
employees in the higher pay brackets.
Charges of that kind are simply not so.
What is the justification for the cost-
of-living adjustment in the lower pay
levels and not in the higher levels of the
postal schedule? Why was it done only
in the postal schedule and not in the
general schedule\ of the Classification
Act?
The explanation is very simple. The
committee discovered a special situation
literally crying for special attention.
When the family dentist discovers that a
pain in a patient's jaw stems from a
cavity in one tooth, he promptly fills it.
He does not cap every tooth in his mouth.
That is exactly what the committee dis-
covered and exactly what the amendment
does. It fills a cavity in our Federal pay
structure.
Let me explain briefly the nature and
extent of the cavity and how it deve-
loped.
The pay of approximately 1 million
of our Federal employees is fixed under
the Classification Act. The typical em-
ployee under ,that act is described as one
who enters the service when he is single,
and at a young age, at grade GS-2 or
GS-3. By the time he becomes engaged,
he has moved up a grade. When he gets
married, he has advanced another grade.
With the birth of his first child, he has
advanced still another grade. When the
child is ready for school, he is in yet a
higher grade. And so-it goes, through-
out his full career. He climbs the pay
ladder, step by step, in consonance with
increased expenses and family obliga-
tions.
A similar situation- does not prevail in
the postal service. The typical employee
who enters the service as a clerk or letter
carrier at a young age, retires some 30
or 35 years later still as a clerk or
carrier.
I wish to emphasize that point ftry
strongly to the Senate. The postal struc-
ture is not susceptible of the same type of
analysis as the classified structure gen-
erally.
I repeat that the typical employee who
enters the postal service as a clerk or
letter carrier at a young age, retires some
30 or 35 years later, and very probably
still is a letter carrier or a mail clerk
when he retires. That is not because he
has less ability or less initiative than
does the employee who is subject to the
Classification Act. No, indeed, it is not.
It is because in the postal service the op-
portunity for advancement ioes not exist
to the same degree as it does elsewhere in
the Government.
Again I wish to stress the fact that the
postal service has a high type of person-
nel, composed of dedicated men and
women of high ability and faithfulness.
To bring the point home a bit more
forcefully, I should like to call attention
to the fact that of the 519,000 postal em-
ployees, more than 120,000 are paid at
RECORD? SENATE
level 4 rates or below. The top rate of
level 4 is $4,410. In other words, we are
operating a $3 billion a year business
with employees, 4 out of 5 of whom
receive less than $4,500 a year.
Who are these employees? They are
the carriers who trudge daily to our door-
steps or places of business. They are
the men who work from dark to dawn,
sorting our mail, so it will be ready for
delivery as each carrier starts his early
? morning rounds at an hour before most
of us are out of bed. They are the rural
carriers who help unite and bring closer
together the farms of our Nation. They
are our neighbors. They are members
of our communities. Their children run
and play and go to school with our
children.
Thus, the committee was confronted
with a plain question of human values
and a problem that strikes at the very
heart of our postal system.
The solution 'lies in paying these em-
ployees?at least during periods of ex-
cessive inflation?a family wage, rather
than a job wage. To argue otherwise
would be to contend that these positions
which, traditionally, have been filled by
responsible heads of families in- every
city, town, and hamlet of the Nation, are
no longer suitable for that purpose. The
effect of following a course that could not
but lead to that result-would be reflected
in the integrity, quality, and eventual
cost of our postal service. That, in my
opinion, would be much too high a price
? to pay for false and unwise economy.
The third point to which I wish to
speak is "Why January 1 has been made
the effective date?"
The Subcommittee on Federal Em-
ployees Compensation, of which I have
the honor to be chairman, acted favor-
ably on the pay bill on July 11, 1957.
The full committee, under the leadership
of the distinguished senior Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], report-
ed the bills on July 22, 1957. On August
27, 1957, this body, by an -overwhelming
vote of 69 to 17, approved a House bill
In lieu of S. 27, and sent the House bill to
the President.
If we were right at that time in be-
lieving that a pay increase was then
justified, we would be wrong now if we
ignored completely the inequity which
has been endured by these loyal em-
ployees during some of the time that has
elapsed.
I wish to stress the point that the cost
of living has risen substantially for these
people and their families since the?Presi-
dent vetoed the bill last summer. All of
us know that, and the figures of the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics bear it out very
conclusively.
I should like to make one more point,
and then I shall conclude: This year the
President has recognized the need for a
pay increase. I think in this instance,
as in many other instances, he is much
behind the times. I think the need for
an increase should have been apparent
to him last year, as it was to the ma-
jority of the Members of both branches
of Congress. Be that is it may, the cost
of the bill recommended by the adminis-
tration is-estimated at $165 million. The
2719
annual cost of the amendment will be
$188 million for the permanent increases,
and $121 million for the temporray cost-
of-living adjustments. Together, these
amount to $3b9 million annually, or $144
million in excess of what the President
reccvmmended. The difference amounts
to $5 a week per employee. The differ-
ence is a small amount indeed?perhaps
too small.
Mr. President, I suggest that the adop-
tion of this amendment is long overdue.
It is a good ainendment. It is *fair.
It is needed. It will do much to
raise the morale of our postal employees.
It will not cost money in the long run.
It will savemoney. I am confident that
the employees will respond with their
usual diligence and devotion to duty to
such a degree that their increased pro-
ductivity and efficiency will go far
towards offsetting the immediate in-
crease in payroll figures.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, at this
point will the Senator from Oregon yield
for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BIBLE in the chair). Does the Senator
from Oregon yield to the Senator from
North Dakota?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield for a ques-
tion to the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. LANGER. Was it not developed,
in the course of the testimony, that the
-wives of a great many of the letter car-
riers have to take jobs, too, in order to
make a living for their families?
Mr. NEUBERGER. Not only that, but
the men themselves have to engage in
so-called "moonlighting," which means
that after they end a long, hard day of
work at their post-office jobs, a long day
of pounding the pavement, while carry-
ing a 35-pound mail sack, they have to
drive a taxicab or pump gasoline at
night, in order to be able to take care of
the financial needs of their families.
The Senator from North Dakota is quite
correct in his suggestion.
Mr. LANGER. Is it not also true that
the cost of living has steadily risen, so
that it is most imperative that the retro-
active feature be included?
Mr. NEUBERGER. Again the Senator
from North Dakota is correct. Our sub-
committee received testimony?as I
know the able chairman of the full com-
mittee will agree?that many of these
families are actually ' in dire financial
straits and distress, bordering on pov-
erty. We received testimony that many
of them cannot pay even small medical
bills of $5, $6, $7, or-$8 a month, and are
unable to buy proper, nutritious food for
their children or to buy the clothing they
need. All of us are aware of what has
happened.
When we see the mail clerks paid
$4,000 or $4,400 a year, and when we re-
alize that virtually all of them are the
heads of families, we know that the ex-
isting salaries are inadequate.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Oregon yield for a further
question?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I am happy to
yield.
Mr. LANGER. Is it not true that the
testimony showed that sometimes when
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the heads of such families buy milk, all
the milk they can afford to buy has to
be consumed by the children; the parents
cannot afford to drink any of it?
Mr. NEUBERGER. We received all
sorts of testimony bearing out what the
Senator from North Dakota has stated.
Mr. LANGER. Did not the testimony
also show that a similar situation often
existed in the case of meat? I remem-
ber that the committee received testi-
mony showing that the situation in the
case of milk was similar to that in the
case of meat, and that many of the fam-
ilies of the postal workers have been try-
ing to live on hamburger sandwiches.
Mr. NEUBERGER. And some of them
cannot even afford to buy hamburger.
Mr. LANGER. Yes. Furthermore, if
they are able to buy hamburger, what
they buy is not good; it is entirely dif-
ferent from the good meat available in
North/ Dakota. We understand that
many of these families are so short of
funds that the hamburger they buy,
when they can afford to, practically dis-
solves between their teeth. Such food is
far different from the meat available to
the people of North Dakota, who, when
they wish to make a meat sandwich, are
able to obtain good, wholesome meat for
that purpose.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, the
Senator from North Dakota is a member
of the committee, and he heard all the
testimony in favor of the making of the
pay increase here proposed. -
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, does
not the distinguished Senator from Ore-
gon believe that the effective date should
be the date when the other bill was
vetoed by the President?
Mr. NEUBERGER. Perhaps, in equity
and fairness, it should be the date when
the President vetoed the other bill.
However, I am anxious to have the Sen-
ate pass the best possible bill which can
be passed for the benefit of the postal
employees. Delay will mean further
hardship for them. Therefore, it
seemed to me best to join the distin-
guished chairman of the committee in
the compromise which was suggested;
namely, to have January 1 established
as the effective date.
In other words, it seemed to me pref-
erable that we agree on a compromise
which would have an opportunity of early
enactment. In that connection, I em-
phasize the word -"early."
Mr. LANGER. Does the Senator from
Oregon agree with me that the annual
cost would be less than the amount of
money our country 'has given to Yugo-
slavia and other Communist countries?
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
do not think there is a direct relation-
ship between this measure and foreign
aid. I believe we should live up to both
our foreign-aid responsibility and our
responsibilities to the postal workers.
Mr. LANGER. That is true. How-
ever, is it not a fact that the amount
proposed for the benefit of the postal
workers would be less than the amount
the Congress has voted to have sent by
the United States to such foreign coun-
tries?
Mr. NEUBERGER. lam not prepared
to comment on that point. My concern
is to have the fairest possible amount
provided for postal employees.
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield to me?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield.
Mr. McNAMARA. I desire to congra-
tulate the Senator from Oregon. I real-
ize his keen interest in the postal pay
bill.
Does not he reluctantly go along with
the idea of tying the postal pay increase
to the postal rate bill?
Mr. NEUBERGER. Yes, I have con-
siderable reluctance about that. I have
felt in my heart and soul that they were
separate issues.
I felt they were separate for one basic
reason. I do not want to risk establish-
ing a precedent that we are going to
grant a wage increase to all our postal
employees only when we increase postal
rates. That would be especially perilous
because, for example, first-class mail
rates have not been increased for 26
years. First-class mail rates comprise
the vast bulk of the income of the Post
Office Department. During the 26 years
that have elapsed, the cost of living has
repeatedly soared, and dire personal fi-
nancial needs have affected all postal
employees and their families.
For these reasons, I have some doubt
and trepidation in establishing a prece-
dent which might haunt us and the
postal employees and all concerned.
Mr. McNAMARA. It is my greatest
fear that, from the long-range stand-
point, we shall be doing violence to the
employees of the Post Office Department
by following this procedure. I hope the
RECORD will spell out that that is not the
intent of the committee, and it is not the
recommendation of the committee that
any such interpretation should be placed
on our action.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Let us be candid
about the situation we face. All of us
know that the President of the United
States, the present occupant of the White
House, has certainly been indifferent to a
postal pay increase. I think he has
vetoed several bills looking toward such
a goal in recent years. Many of us who
are as fervently interested in the welfare
of postal employees,, as are the Senator
from Michigan and I, have felt that a pay
raise would be more acceptable if it were
attached to the postal rate bill. Those
of us who have taken that position have
done so conscientiously and sincerely.
I have felt that if we sent to the White
House simultaneously, or almost simul-
taneously, an adequate rate-increase bill,
the President of the United States, even
though he was not of our party, would
certainly search his own soul and heart
very, very painstakingly before he would
veto a bill to grant more equitable treat-
ment to the postal employees. That has
been my own position.
Mr. McNAMARA. I have' noticed from
a reading of the newspapers this week
that, because of the increase in the cost
of living, employees who have a cost-of-
living section in negotiated contracts
with their employers, have been granted
a 3-cent-an-hour increase. My under-
standing is that is the tenth such allow-
ance received by them in the 'past 12
months.
February 28
Our postal employees are so far behind,
in comparison with any other workers,
that I do not-know how anyone can be
worried about a bill being vetoed. At
least, anybody who knows ivhat is going
on at all would certainly have to go along
with mucheore of an increase than is
being proposed at this time.
Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator from
Michigan has certainly brought out a
very cogent point. To me this proposal
is the absolute minimum which the postal
employees should receive. The Senator
from Michigan has pointed out to us?
and he always makes very valuable sug-
gestions in debate?the substantial in-
creases repeatedly received by the wage-
board employee of the Government. One
can wonder what inducement there is for
an ambitious and intellectual person to
go into the postal service when he can
be a wage-board employee, working at
carpentry or some other trade, and re-
ceive proper wage increases, without hav-
ing to wait out a long, slow, laborious,
tedious legislative process.
Mr. McNAMARA. I conclude by say-
ing that I am opposed to tying the two
together. I shall vote for the bill re-
luctantly, becguse it might set a very
bad precedent.
Mr. LANGER, Mr. JOHNSTON of
South Carolina, and Mr. PROXMIRE ad-
dressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator yield; and if so, to whom?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield first to the
Senator from North Dakota. Then I
shall' yield to the Senator from South
Carolina and to the Senator from Wis-
consin, in sequence.
Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I sim-
ply wish to say that I think the increase
is deplorably low. I wish to comment
on the question of the precedent which
might be set. The Monroney-La Fol-
lette bill provided that there would never
be another special committee created.
Yet during all the years since the Mon-
roney-La Follette bill was enacted, the
Senate has time and again avoiaed that
precedent and that law and has created
special committees, as the Senator from
Oregon very well knows. I do not think
weashall be establishing any precedent
at all today by tying the two bills to-
gether. The bill certainly will go a long
way toward avoiding a veto, in my
opinion.
Mr, NEUBERGER. I now yield to the
Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I believe the Senator from Oregon will
agree with me that no member of
the committee said he was in favor of
tying the two propositions together be-
cause he thought the Federal employees
of the Post Office Department should not
get an increase if a rate bill was not
passed. Is that not also a fact?
Mr. NEUBERGER. That is exactly
correct.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
We did not want this action to be taken
as a precedent that there must be an
increase in postal rates before Federal
employees in the Post Office Department
can get a raise in the future. We want
that clearly understood. Is that not
true?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. NEUBERGER. It not only is true,
but I think it is extremely essential that
we build the legislative history here on
the floor of the Senate today, so that
when the matter comes up in the future,
as undoubtedly it will, it will be explic-
itly understood that the Members of the
Senate who took this positon did not re-
gard any coupling together of these bills
as a precedent which had to be followed
on similar future occasions.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Is it not also true that the matter is
being handled in this way in order to
expedite action? A bill to increase
postal rates has passed the House and
is now in process of passing the Senate.
Also, last year a bill providing increased
pay for postal workers was passed. The
appropriate committee of the House had
hearings on the bill.
Mr. NEUBERGER. That is correct.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The House bill was sent to the Senate
last year. We used the House bill last
year. Now we are coupling the two
measures?in the bill presently before the
Senate in order to expedite matters, both
respecting postal rates and pay and
classified pay.
Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator is
quite correct.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
So it cannot be said that hearings have
not been held in the House of Repre-
sentatives, that it has not passed upon
the facts, or that a similar bill has not
been reported in the House.
Mr. NEUBERGER. The House has
had ample hearings and ample debate
and full discussion. I thank the chair-
man of the committee for his helpful
comments on this issue.
I now yield to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, as a
member of the compensation subcom-
mittee, along with the Senator from
Oregon?
Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator from
Wisconsin is a very valued member.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I should like to con-
gratulate the Senator from Oregon as a
real champion of postal workers. I do
not mean a champion only in Oregon,
but a champion in Wisconsin, and all
over the country. I think he has done
an extremely good job under the cir-
cumstances.
I should like to emphasize one point.
I have found in traveling through the
State of Wisconsin, and in the last 5
years I have been in every county at
least 12 times, in every village and city
throughout the State it is the rule?not
the exception, but the rule?for postal
workers to have two jobs, or that their
wives work, even though they have *nail
children. Such a situation is not excep-
tional, but is usual among postal em-
ployees in the first 4 or 5 classes, the
ones most affected by the increase in the
cost of living. They are required to have
two jobs or have their wives work.
I earnestly hope the $240, proposal of
the Senator from Oregon will prevail.
Finally, I should like to say that I, too,
greatly deplore the necessity, if it is a
No. 32-6
necessity, for tying in the postal pay bill,
which I enthusiastically support and
which is so urgently needed, with the in-
crease in the letter rate to 5 cents rather
than an increase to 4 cents.
I know some of my distinguished col-
leagues may not have that conflict, but I
have it, and I hope they will believe me
when I state it is going to be an extremely
difficult vote for me to cast, because I
feel very deep sympathy for the postal
employees, but I think it is a great mis-
take to increase the rate for first-class
mail to 5 cents.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I thank the able
Senator from Wisconsin, who is one of
the most outstanding and helpful mem-
bers of the Federal Compensation Sub-
committee, which reported the pay bill.
The conditions the Senator has observed
in Wisconsin parallel those I have found
to exist in my State of Oregon.
In the testimony which was presented
before our committee, it was stated that
from 60 to 70 percent of the postal em-
ployees in the lower grades have other
jobs, and about 40 percent of the families
are in such situations that the wives
additionally have to work. We some-
times wonder what this condition does
to family life and what contribution it
makes toward juvenile delinquency and
the other conditions which all of us de-
plore so much.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield to the able
Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CARROLL. Mr. President, I de-
sire-to\ associate myself with the remarks
of the distinguished junior Senator from
- Wisconsin as to the very able presenta-
tion made by the junior Senator from
Oregon. The conditions which have been
explained and outlined by both able
Senators are identical with the conditions
as they exist in Colorado. I know how
difficult it will be for some of us to vote
for the bill under the existing circum-
stances, but I feel we must consider the
dire need, the desperate need, of the
working people of the Post Office Depart-
ment. We will have to march, I should
say, in the face of our real misgivings
about the bill as it will be passed, in my
opinion, and the postal rate which will
be imposed upon those who really should
not pay as much as will be imposed upon
them.
I desire to add one further comment.
The excellent and superb work done by
the distinguished junior Senator from
Oregon, not only in this debate, but
through the months and through the
years, fighting for these people, is ap-
preciated not only in Oregon and in
Wisconsin but also in Colorado. I know
the postal workers of Colorado join with
me in commending the able junior Sen-
ator from Oregon for what he has done
and will do in their behalf.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I thank the Sena-
tor from Colorado for his very great,
though slightly exaggerated, kindness to
me.
Mr. LAUSCHE and Mr. SPARKMAN
addressed the chair.
2721
Mr.- NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
yield first to the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
LAUSCHE], and then I shall yield to the
Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN].
Mr. LAUSCHE. I thank the Senator
very much.
The PRESIDING 01...PiCER. The Sen-
ate will be in order. It is impossible for
the Senator to be heard.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Can the Senator tell
me what the percentage of the pay in-
crease will be in the event the recom-
mended bill is passed? I understand the
President recommends a 6 percent pay
increase, which would cost $165 million.
The measure which has been recom-
mended by the committee with the 71/2-
percent pay increase would cost $188
million, and an additional $121 million to
reflect the cost of living increase, or a
total of $309 million. My question is,
what will be the percentage of the pay
increase if the recommended proposal is
adopted?
Mr. NEUBERGER. It is my under-
standing that it is an average across-the-
board increase of approximately 12 per-
cent. The explanation is that most of
the postal employees are in the lower
five grades.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The President recom-
mended a 6-percent pay increase. Can
the Senator tell me what the percentage
of increase would be if the provisions of
the House bill of last year were to be
adopted?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I believe the House
bill of last year provided approximately
11 percent, if I am not mistaken. It was
an across-the-board increase of some-
thing like $545. I am trying to compute
that in percentages in my mind, without
papers. I think the increase was around
11 percent.
Mr. LAUSCHE. To summarize, then,
the President has recommended a 6-per-
cent pay increase, which would cost $165
million; and the committee, in effect,
has recommended an approximately 12-
percent pay increase.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Approximately 12
percent is provided in the amendment
now under consideration.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The 12-percent pay
increase would cost $309 million. The
bill as passed by the House last year in-
volved an increase per employee of $545?
Mr. NEUBERGER. Five hundred and
forty-five dollars across the board.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That provided ap-
proximately an 11-percent increase?
Mr. NEUBERGER. About 11 percent.
I cannot vouch precisely for that figure,
but I believe it was approximately 11
percent.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Alabama.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I desire to ask two
brief questions of the Senator.
In conference, so far as the postal em-
ployees' salaries are 'concerned, under
the bill as it will be considered, the mat-
ter will be in conference from zero up
to approximately 12 percent, since there
is no House bill?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator is
correct. There is no House bill which
has been passed as to this particular
issue, because the House bill which we
accepted last year was subsequently
vetoed by the President of the United
States.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The same thing
will be true with respect to the classified
employees, provided such provisions are
added to the bill presently under con-
sideration?
Mr. NEUBERGER. If we adopt the
classified pay bill, S. 734, I presume the
same situation will be true. I cannot say
whether the provisions of that bill will
be added to the postal rate-pay package
or not.
Mr. SPARKMAN. So far as the postal
rate bill is concerned, the bill before
the Senate is a House bill, so there will
be a wide-open conference on all rates
between the rates passed by the House
and the rates passed by the Senate.
Mr. NEUBERGER. There will be a?
wide-open conference between the Senate
and the House. The Senator from Ala-
bama is correct in that statement. There
are considerable differences, as the Sen-
ator knows, in the various classifications
and rates in the postal rate bill.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
wish to commend the able Senator from
Oregon for the tremendous job he has
done in managing the bill on the floor
and through the committee.
Mr. NEUBERGER. As always, the
Senator from Alabama is very kind.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Oregon yield the floor?
Mr. NEUBERGER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] is
recognized.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment which I offer
as a substitute for the pending amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator desire to have the amend-
ment to the amendment read, or does he
desire to have it printed in the RECORD.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment
may be printed in the RECORD. I wish
to discuss the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Kansas?
There being no objection, Mr. CARL-
SON'S amendment to the arnendment of
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina was or-
dered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
At the end of the bill add the following
, new title:
"TITLE IV. INCREASES IN COMPENSATION OF
POSTAL EMPLOYEES
"SEc. 401. The act entitled 'Postal Field
Service Compensation Act of 1955,' approved
June 10, 1955 (Public Law 68, 84th Cong.),
is hereby amended as follows:
"(a) In section 301 (a) strike out the
postal field service schedule, and insert the
following schedule:
Postal field service schedule
February 28
Level
Per annum rates and steps '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
$3, 128
$3, 236
$3, 344
$3, 452
$3, 560
$3, 668
$3, 776
2
3,352
3,466
3, 580
3, 694
3, 808
3, 922
4,036
3
3,612
3,737
3,862
3,987
4,112
4,237
4,362
4
3, 969
4, 105
4, 241
4, 377
4, 513
4,649
4,785
5
4,210
4,346
4,482
4,1118
4,754
4,890
5,026
6
4, 546
4, 698
4, 850
5. 002
5, 154
8,3(16
5, 458
7
4, 917
5,085
5, 253
5, 421
5, 589
5, 757
5, 925
8
5,308
5, 492
5, 676
5, 860
6, 044
6, 228
6, 412
9
5, 733
5, 933
6, 133
6, 333
6, 533
6, 733
6, 933
JO -,-
6,293
6,510
0,727
6,944
7,161
7,378
7,591
11
6,921
7, 160
7, 399
7, 638
7, 877
8,116
8,351
12
7, 619
7,879
8. 139
8. 399
8, 659
8, 919
9, 179
13
8388
, '8,670
8,952
9,234
9,116
9,798
10, 080
14
9,221
' 9,525
9,829
10,133
10, 437
10,741
? 11,045
15
10,142
10,468
10,794
11, 120
11,446
11.772
12,098
16
11,174'
11,500
11,826
12,152
12,478
12,804
13,130
17
12,366
12,692
13,018
33,344
13,670
13,996
14,322
18
13,885
14,211
14, 537
14, 863
15,189
15, 515
15, 841
19
15, 188
15, 514
15, 840
16,166
16, 492
20
17,360k.
"(b) In section 302 (a) strike out the rural-carrier schedule, and insert the following
schedule:
" 'Rural carrier schedule
Per annum rates and steps
?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Carriers in rural delivery service:
Fixed compensation per annum
$1,
700. 00
$1, 749.00
$1,798.00
$1,
847. 00
$1,896.00
$1,945.00
$1,994.00
Compensation per mile per annum
for each mile up to 30 miles of route.
70.65
72.80
74.1)5
77.10
79.25
81.40
83.55
For each mile of route over 30 miles_
23. 87
23. 87
23. 87
23. 87
23. 87
23. 87
21.87
Temporary carriers in rural delivery
service on routes to which no regular
carrier is assigned:
Fixed compensation per annum
1,
700. 00
Compensation per mile per annum
for each mile. up to 30 miles of route..
70. 65
For each mile of route over 30 miles_
22.87
Temporary carriers in rural delivery
service on routes having regular car-
riers absent without pay or on mili-
tary leave
(1)
(I)
(1)
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
Substitute carriers in rural delivery
service on routes having carriers absent
with pay
(I)
(I)
(1)
(1)
(I)
(I)
(I)
" ? Basic compensation authorized for the regular carrier.'
"(c) In section 302 (c) strike out '84,700' fourth-class ?office schedule and insert the
and insert '$5,100.' following schedule:
"(d) In section 303 (a) strike out the
" 'Fourth-class office schedule
Gross receipts
Per annum rates and steps
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$1.300 to $1,490.99
$2, 729
$2,820
$2911
$3, 002
$3,093
$3, 184
$3, 275
$900 to $1,299.99 -
2, 503
2, 586
2, 669
2, 752
2, 835
2, 918
3,001
,$600 to $899.99
2, 048
2,116
2,184
2, 252
2, 320
2, 388
2,45)3
$350 to $599.99
1, 593
1,646
1, 699
1, 752
1,805
1; 858
1,911
$250 to $349.09
1, 137
1, 175
1,21:1
1.251
1,289
1, 327
1,365
$200 to $249.99
912
942
972
1, 002
1, 032
1, 062
1, 092
$10010 $199.99
681
704
727
750
773
796
819
Under $100
456
471
486
501
516
531
546'
"Szc. 402. (a) The annual rate of basic
salary of any officer or employee whose basic
salary by reason of the provisions of section
504 of the Postal Field Service Compensa-
tion Act of 1955 is 'at a rate between two
scheduled rates, or above the highest sched-
uled rate,-in the postal field service schedule,
the rural carrier schedule, or the fourth-
class office schedule, whichever may be ap-
plicable, is hereby increased by an amount
equal to the amount of the increase made by
this title in the next lower rate in such
schedule,
?????..
'(b) As used in this sestion', the term
"basic salary" has the same meaning as
when used in the Postal Field Service Com-
pensation Act of 1955.
"SEc. 403. No increase under the provi-
sions of this title shall be construed to be
an equivalent increase within the meaning
of section 401 (a) of the Postal Field Service
Compensation Act.
"SEc. 404. The Governor of the Canal cone
Is authorized and directed to grant, effective
as of October 1, 1957, increases in the com-
pensation of \postal employees of the Canal
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
on this amendment, there will be a vote
on the Carlson amendment. The Senate
will remain in session this evening to
complete action upon the pending bill
and the classified-pay bill. If we are
unable to do so, there will be a session
tomorrow for that purpose.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, the
subcommittee of the Senate Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service held ex-
tended hearings on various committee
proposals, and spent much time and
labor in preparing a bill. Members of
the committee were sincere. They held
deep convictions on the question. When
our committee reported the bill, I stated
that I would vote to report it, with the
understanding that I would offer some
amendments when it was considered on
the floor of the Senate. Evidently, my
views were shared by other Senators, be-
cause the-bill was reported unanimously.
The pending bill contains some pro-
visions which, I believe, if adopted by
the Congress, would prevent it from be-
coming law.
If that should happen, then our postal
employees would not receive pay in-
creases that are fair and justified and
needed. President Eisenhower, in his
budget message to Congress, recom-
mended pay increases for postal workers,
for classified workers, and for military
personnel. They total $1,052 million,
which is a substantial sum of money. I
should like to discuss the amendment I
have offered as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the Senator from
South Carolina.
My substitute amendment would give
all postal employees a flat?and I wish
to emphasize that?a flat 81/2 percent in-
crease in salary, instead of the 71/2-per-
cent increase recommended by the com-
mittee, and it would eliminate the unfair
and unrealistic "temporary cost-of-
living" increases of up to $240 in the
first 7 pay levels of the postal field
, schedules and in all pay levels of the
rural carrier and fourth-class office
schedules. It would also eliminate the
retroactive features included in the com-
mittee amendment.
There are several obvious advantages
to the substitute I am proposing which
should recommend themserves
ately to the Members of this body.
In the first place, a flat 81/2-percent
increase_ ,will give postal employees a
badly needed raise in their salaries
now?and I want to emphasize the word
"now"?and not merely dangle a possi-
ble increase before their hungry eyes,
Which may or may not be granted to them
at some future date.
Second, Mr. President, if I may 'ex-
press a purely personal opinion, I feel
confident that an 81/2-percent increase,
without the added impediments pro-
posed in the committee amendment, can
get approval from the House conferees
and from the President. ?
Time after time the President has
demonstrated that he will not sign any
bill which would disrupt the principles
and the differentials embodied in Public
Law 68. The so-called temporary cost-
of -living increases not only would
destroy the differentials established in
Public Law 68, but they would be highly
Zone Governs lent comparable to those pro-
vided by this title for similar employees.
'SEC. 405. This act shall have the same
force and effect within Guam as within other
possessions of the United States.
"SEC. 406. ( a) This title shall take effect
on the first day of the first pay period which
bagins after the date of enactment of this
act.' "
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield so that I may
suggest the absence of a quorum?
Mr. CARLSON. I shall be happy to
yield for that purpose, provided I do not
lost my right to the floor.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
Aiken Gore Monroney
Allott Green Morse
Hayden Morton
Hickenlooper Mundt
Hill Murray
Hoblitzell Neuberger
Holland Pastore
Hruska Payne
Humphrey Potter
Jackson Proxmire
Javits Purtell
Jenner ' Revercomb
Johnson, Tex. Russell
Johnston, S. C. Saltonstall
Kefauver Scott
Kennedy Smathers
Kerr Smith, Maine
Knowland Smith, N. J.
Kuchel Sparkman
Langer - Stennis
Lausche Thurmond
Long Thye
Magnuson Watkins
Malone Wiley
' Mansfield Williams
Yarborough
Young
Anderson
Barrett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Bricker
Bridges
Bush
Butler
Carlson
Carroll
Case, N. J.
Case, S. Dak.
Church
Clark
Cooper
Cotton
Dirksen
Douglas
Dworshak
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Flanders -Martin, Pa.
Freer McClellan
Goldwater McNamara
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum is present.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I re-
gret that I am unable to support the
amendment offered by the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Post Office and
Civil Service Committee. I regret it first
because I am in favor of a pay increase
to our deserving and dedicated postal
employees.
Second, I regret it because I must disa-
agree with the recommendations of the
subcommittee and the full Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service of the
Senate.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield to me for
the purpose of making an announce-
ment?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. First, Mr.
President, I desire to ask for the yeas
and nays on the Carlson amendment, so
that all Senators may know that we are
to have a yea-and-nay vote on the sub-
stitute.
Mr. CARLSON. I am very happy to
join in that request.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Carlson amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I want all
Senators to know that at the conclusion
of the address of the Senator from Kan-
sas, or at the conclusion of the addresses
of other Senators who may wish to speak
2723
discriminatory against postal super-
visors and postmasters in the field.
They would also be unfair to em-
ployees who receive them in that they
would be summarily withdrawn from
them after 3 years?and who of us can
say that in 3 years time the cost of
living, which these temporary increases
are supposed to meet, will not be even
higher than it is today?
Mr. President, judging from past ex-
perience I am absolutely confident that
if those temporary cost-of-living in-
creases are allowed to remain in the bill,
they will be the direct cause of a presi-
dential veto.
I am certain we all share the feeling
of urgency to give the postal workers an
increase in salary now. It would be, in
my -opinion, foolish, and inhuman if we
were to enact legislation which could not
get Presidential approval and which
would cause an interminable delay in
achieving a pay increase for the 500,000
dedicated human beings who make up
our postal employee force.
Having had some experience with con-
.-ferences I wish to mention the fact that
if the committee amendment is adopted,
and the bill goes to conference?which it
will do?we will be very weak on the bill,
to say the least, if it contains too many
controversial features?and there are
enough in the bill already?and that we
will be months in reaching agreement on
the postal rate-postal pay bill, if it em-
bodies too many such features in it. I am
trying to work out a proposal that can
be considered in conference, with the as-
surance that we will get a bill out of con-
ference.
My proposal would cost approximately
$221 million a year, as contrasted with
the $320 million cost of the committee
proposed.
My substitute amendment would give
regular postal clerks and letter carriers
an immediate average wage increase of
18 cents an hour and would bring their
average hourly salary up to $2.29 and the
maximum rate, including longevity up
to $2.44 an hour.
But, best of all, Mr. President, my sub-
stitute proposal would insure the postal
employees of that increase now. The
$221 million provided for by my proposal
would start pouring into the pockets of
our postal employees immediately.
There is, in my opinion, no possibility
that it would suffer the agonizing delays
which would surely be the fate of any
postal pay legislation containing objec-
tionable flat cost-of-living increases for
some employees, and not for others, or
any legislation containing retroactive
features which would cost as much as
26 million for every month included.
Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CARLSON. I should like to finish
my statement first. However, I Yield to
the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. THYE. What would be the effec-
tive date of the amendment offered by
the distinguished Senator from Kansas?
Mr. CARLSON. I was about to discuss
the retroactive features of the bill. My
amendment proposes that the increases
shall become effective on the first pay
period after its enactment into law. I
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
should like to take a few minutes now to
say why the retroactive feature would
prove objectionable.
It would impose an intolerable admin-
istrative burden' on the Post Office De-
partment. I notice that the chairman
has amended his proposal which was sub-
mitted originally and which carried an
October date, and now carries a January
1 date.
Therefore, my figures are not quite
accurate on that basis. However, I wish
to state some figures and some of the
problems which would arise if we enact
retroactive legislation. Let us think of
all the people on the payroll. Let us
thinks of the people who were on the
payroll last October 1 and who were on
the payroll on January 1. Let us think
of all the people who have retired or
died or gone into the military service, or
have left for any other reason. Those
people would be entitled to retroactive
pay. I should like to give some figures
as to how many that might be.
The number of employees subject to
the provisions of the bill who have died
during that period is estimated at 1,900.
That is from October 1 to February 1.
Furthermore, the States are involved.
The-total in the categories of retirements
in the postal service and deaths is 9,400.
I assume that if we are going to do this
for the postal service, we will do it also
for the classified service. We must\ give
some consideration to that fact.
It is estimated, based upon the same
period of time that was used for the
postal employees, October 1, 1957,' to
February 1, 1958, the total number of
retirements and deaths in the classified
field has been 4,000. Broken down the
figure is 3,200 for retirements, and 800
deaths.
I mention that because it is one of the
problems which must be considered. I
am told that administratively the cost
would be a million dollars.
There is no budget provision for the
06 million a month cost of retroactive
payments. This would necessitate huge
supplemental appropriations.
In the postal establishment there are
at least 100,000 employees on irregular
tours of duty. The administrative cost
in recomputing the pay of every em-
?ployee would be intolerably complicated
by this factor and would come to at
least an additional and unnecessary mil-
lion dollars a year.
Let us bear in mind the fact that if a
man was in grade 5 in October and in.
grade '7 in January, he would be entitled
to retroactive pay. Furthermore, there
will be some changes within grades also.
That will take a great deal of administra-
tive work. The administrative cost
would be complicated by this factor, and
would amount at least, as I said earlier,,
to a million dollars a year, and the prob-
lems ahd complications involved would
be tremendous.
Think for a moment of all the thou-
sands of employees who leave the De-
partment, or Government service itself,
each month. Think of the thousands
upon thousands of employees who trans-
fer to other agencies of Government.
Payment of these employees would be
extremely complex. Thousands of
claims would have to be adjudicated in
the departments and in the General
Accounting Office if this bill were to be
made retroactive.
And it wou.id all be so unnecessary.
Mr. President, I say we should forget
about these complicating factors.
Let us give the postal employees a sal-
Ary increase now. Let us give it to them
in the simplest, fairest, most direct
way?in the form of a straight 81/2 per-
cent increase for everyone.
I should like to remind my Colleagues
that the Committee on Past Office and
Civil Service for the other body has al-
ready approved a straight percentage
increase, without retroactive features,
for all postal employees. If we approve
a straight percentage increase, such as I
am proposing, we shall be establishing a
basis for negotiation with the conferees
and we shall be avoiding unnecessary
and time-consuming complications
which could only result in postponing
even further the badly needed pay in-
crease which every postal employee
should get as soon as possible.
Mr. President, in proposing a straight
81/2-Percent increase for every employee,
I am being practical. This is no time
for a visionary contemplation of what
might be possible at some future 'date,
nor is this the time for partisan political
consideration. "
The postal employees need the money.
They need it now.
If we approve the 81/2-percent in-
crease which I propose, I feel certain we
can give the postal employees the money
they need and should have as quickly as
our accelerated parliamentary proce-
dures will allow.
This is the simple way, the practical
way, the fair way.
It is the way, Mr. President, which we
should take.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I wish to reply,
with extreme brevity, to the Senator
from Kansas. I know he has submitted
this alternative with his usual high pur-
poses and good motives.
To begin with, the administrative dif-
ficulties which he has mentioned are
valid. Still, only yesterday and the day
before he himself took the position that
the administrative difficulties involved
in separate rates for local mail and out
of town mail were not a valid point. I
supported him in his position: But cer-
tainly the point of administrative diffi-
culties was raised, and the Senator from
Kansas took a somewhat different posi-
tion then.
Mr. CARLSON. I admitted it, how-
ever.
Mr. NEUBERGER. There are always
administrative difficulties when we are
dealing with six, seven, or eight hundred
thousand able, faithful Federal em-
ployees. , The real difficulty in the pro-
pcAal offered by the Senator from
Kansas is that it does not go to the heart
of the extraordinary problem involved
in the postal service, the problem of the
vast bulk of postal employees, virtually
every one of them a man with a family.
They are rooted during their entire
February 28
working careers in grades up to the fifth
level?in other words, in the lower
grades.
Let me show the Senator what the dif-
ference between his proposal and the
proposal of the Senate committee would
mean to a letter carrier getting about
$4,000 a year?and there are hundreds
of thousands of them. An increase of
81/2 percent would mean $340 a year.
But the proposal of the committee, 71/2
percent plus the $240 cost-of-living
bonus would mean $540 ,a year. That
is a difference of $200 a year to a man in
the low-income levels in the postal serv-
ice, who today is having to work part
time outside his regular work in order
to support his family.
When we add to the $200 difference
the retroactivity difference between the
proposal of the Senator from Kansas
and that in the bill before the commit-
tee, the amount- becomes quite substan-
tial.
The Senator from Kansas has made
an alternative proposal in good faith,
but I regret to say that it does not go to
the heart of the matter, namely, the
problem of the letter carriers and the
mail clerks who constitute the bulk of
the postal workers, and whose income is
in the lower levels.
Mr. CARLSON. The Senator from
Oregon conducted the hearings on the
proposed legislation which is before the
Senate today. He did outstanding work
in the holding of the hearings. I read
some of the testimony, and I heard some
of it myself. As I haVe said before, he
is entitled to much credit for bringing
the bill before the Senate.
I stated that I would vote to report it,
but that I did not favor some of the items
in the bill. I have today kept my word
by submitting amendments to the bill
which would secure its approval.
-I want to get a pay increase for the
postal employees. I have been around
the Capitol for many years, on one side
or the other. The chairman of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service
and I know something about conferences.
We shall be going into a conference with
a pay bill attached to a rate bill. The
chairman may remember that in li951 we
went to the House with a 4-cent 6ostage
bill. A postage bill was passed in 1951.
We fought for the Senate's position.
Had it been approved, the Post Office
Department would not be in the position
of having a $2-billion deficit which has
been growing since 1951.
Now we shall be going into conference
with a 5-cent postage bill. I can visual-
ize that some problems will arise. We
are going into conference with proposed
"pay legislation. The bill will be contro-
versial, to say the least. When we con-
sider the Action taken by the House Com-
mittee orikPost Office and Civil Service, it
does not seem to me that we shall find an
adjustment easy. , ?
I dislike to do so, but I predict that we
will be in conference for weeks, possibly
months. If it takes months, and the bill
comes back to the Senate the last of June
or July, I doubt very much that we shall
have either rate or pay legislation this
year. I am sincere in what I say.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16 : CIA-_RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2725
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I have listened
with-much attention to the very clear
and earnest presentation made by the
Senator from Kansas. I know how sin-
cere he is in his proposal. The Sena-
tor well knows, as do m3ftolleaues, that
I have strongly favored an increase in
pay for the postal workers. I supported
the bill when it was before the Senate
previously and was passed by Congress.
I support it again.
Do I correctly understand that in the
proposed amendment of the Senator
from Kansas the increase in pay is 81/2
percent instead of 71/2 percent?
Mr. CARLSON. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. REVERCOMB. But also Ahat
there will be eliminated, if the amend-
ment shall be adopted, the payment of
$240 under the cost-of-living provision.
Is that correct?
Mr. CARLSON. That is correct.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Also, do I cor-
rectly understand that the raise would
go into effect as of the date of the pas-
sage of the bill, instead of January 1,
1958, as S. 27, or the amendment of the
Senator from South Carolina, now pro-
vides?
Mr. CARLSON. That is correct.
Mr. REVERCOMB. I think that
clearly presents the situation and sums
it up, certainly to my mind.
Has the able Senator given thought
to, or would he consider now or at a later
time in the course of the discussion, re-
storing to his own amendment that part
of S. 27 which would make the increase
of 81/2 percent to begin as of January 1,
1958? Therein, it appears to me, is a
compromise which may well be consid-
ered by the Senate. We might well take,
first, the 81/2 percent, which is 1 percent
more in pay, and then add to it the pro-
vision that the bill shall become effec-
tive from the first day of January, 1958.
I do not call upon the Senator to an-
swer that question now; I simply ask and
propose that he give consideration to it
in offering his amendment.
Mr. CARLSON. I appreciate the sug-
gestion made by the Senator from West
Virginia. The January 1, 1958, date has
much merit; but again I am afaid the
conditions will be such that the bill will
not pass for months. I do not want to
.put so much retroactivity into a bill that
we know it cannot be approved.
There are two things which must be
kept in mind. First, the President
recommended a, 6-percent increase. I
have never discussed my proposal with
the White House or anyone else. The
81/2 percent proposal is my own. I doubt
very much that the committee will take
81/2 percent, but I am willing to start the
battle for it.
Second, the President, in his budget
message to Congress, asked that the
postal pay increase ?be made effective
July 1. If the retroactivity is to be made
effective as of January I, 1958, and the
bill is not passed until some time later, I
have concern about its being approved.
But I will give consideration to the
proposal; and if my amendment is
adopted, we will go into that later.
Mr. LAUSCHE.
the Senator yield?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator, from
Kansas made a comment about the pay
increase as related to the action of the
House. Would he mind repeating that
statement?
Mr. CARLSON. I believe the House
committee?not the House itself?has
already approved an across-the-board
increase, with no retroactivity. If the
Senate bill with retroactivity is passed,
the entire matter will be in conference.
Mr. LAUSCHE. What was the per-
centage of increase?
Mr. CARLSON. I was in error about
the retroactivity. The House bill goes
back to August 25, 1957.
Mr. LAUSCHE. What was the per-
centage of increase?
Mr. CARLSON. Eight percent.
I desire to make a correction, because
I want my statement to be right. The
House bill provides for from 12 to 15 per-
cent, as I understand.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Will the 12 to 15 per-
cent eventually apply to the 2,500,000
employees in the civil service, or is it
likely to apply to them?
? Mr. CARLSON. While we are on that
point, I may say that we are dealing now
only with the postal employees-500,000
of them.
But there are 1,500,000 other Govern-
ment employees who, so far as I am con-
cerned, will be treated in the same way.
I do not like the idea of setting one salary
schedule for one class of employees and
another schedule for another class of
employees. I simply cannot do that.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
shall take only 2 minutes.
The argument of my distinguished and
beloved friend, the Senator from lansas
[Mr. CARLSON], that the Senate dare not
legislate that which today is ft-1,ns heart
and in its mind, leaves me unmoved.
The Senate is supposed to be a legisla-
tive body. The threat of a veto by the
White House, by way of Postmaster Gen-
eral Summerfield, does not move me; and
I do not believe it moves any other Mem-
ber of the Senate.
Our duty is to do what is necessary?
to past?the bill and send it to the White
House; and then, if the President cares to
veto it, and does veto it, to override the
veto by a two-thirds vote.
Senators are not sent to this body to
be puppets of the Postmaster General.
Second, with the cost of living at an
allttime high, we can do no less than
move to make up for a part?it will be
only apart?of the increase this adminis-
tration has created.
Therefore, Mr. President, for the Sen-
ate to vote for less than the proposed 71/2-
percent increase for the 4 lowest grades,
with a $240 cost-of-living bonus, would
be improper. The proposed increase will
be only common justice.
Mr. President, if it is proper for the
postal rates charged to the housewives
to be increased 66% percent?as the Sen-
ate has voted?then the Senate should
vote for more than a 71/2-percent pay in-
crease for the men whose backs will bear
the great volume of mail.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BIBLE
in the chair). The question is on agree-
Mr. President, will
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] to the
amendment of the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON].
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, on this question, I ask for the yeas
and nays. ?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas
and nays have already been ordered.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
shall support the substitute offered by
the distinguished Senator from Kansas,
the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service.
No other Member of this body has
given more attention than has he, over
a long period of years, to the postal
service. No Member has been more in-
terested than has he in the efficiency
of the Post Office Department and?of
even greater importance?the interests
of the postal employees.
The distinguished Senator from Kan-
sas has submitted the amendment in
complete good faith, not only in the
belief that it provides for an equitable
wage increase of 8 percent, but also
in the belief that the amendment has
a fair chance of ultimately becoming
law.
I believe that each Member of the
Senate must, of course, in connection
with every piece of proposed legislation,
act on his own responsibility, as a part
of the legislative arm of the Government
of the United States. But Senators are
not unmindful of the fact that, as Sen-
ators of the United States, they also
have some responsibilities relative to the
fiscal condition of the Government and
the Post Office deficit. The-Senate has
been attempting to end that deficit, not
in toto but in part, by means of making
adjustments in the postal rates.
There is no 4uestion that a case has
been made for making an increase in
the wages of the postal workers, just as
a case will be made for making an in-
crease in the wages of the employees in
the classified service and, ultimately,
for an increase in the wages of those
in the armed services as well. All these
are important. However, the pattern
we establish here is bound to have its
repercussions on the subsequent legis-
lative measures, both in the case of the
wage rates which are set and also in
the case of the impact on the Federal
Treasury.
It seems to me that the proposal of
the Senator from Kansas for an 81/2-
percent straight across-the-board in-
crease in the pay of the postal workers
not only will provde them with an
.equitable increase but also carries with
it at least a fair assurance that it will
become law.
Therefore, Mr. President, I hope that
the substitute amendment of the Senator
from Kansas will be agreed to by the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
CARLSON] to the amendment of the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
JOHNSTON] as amended.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, I
submit to the Senator from Kansas the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16 : CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1'
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2726 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
idea of having the bill become effective
on January 1, 1958.
Previously I stated I would not insist
on such a provision. However, at this
time I ask the Senator from Kansas
whether he will agree to an amendment
to his amendment, so as to have it pro-
vide that the bill will become effective
on January 1, 1958, instead of on the date
of passage. Is the Senator from Kansas
willing to amend his amendment in that
way?
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I be-
lieve such an amendment would be in the
third degree.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Will the Senator
from Kansas accept such a change at this
time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is advised that the Senator from
Kansas cannot modify his' amendment at
this time, except by unanimous consent,
in view of the fact that the yeas and nays
have already been ordered on the ques-
tion of agreeing to his amendment.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr, President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from West Virginia will state it.
Mr. REVERCOMB. Is it in order for a
Member of the Senate other than the
Senator from Kansas to offer an amend-
ment to the amendment of the Senator
from Kansas?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Kansas
is in the second degree; therefore, it is
not subject to amendment.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I make
the definite statement that if my amend-
ment is approved, I will, after its ap-
proval, make the date January 1.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Kansas may modify his
amendment in accordance with the sug-
gestion which has been made by the
Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING Or FICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Texas for unanimous consent that
the Senator from Kansas may modify
his amendment in accordance with the
request which has been made by the
Senator from West Virginia?
The Chair hears none, and it is so
ordered.
The question now is on agreeing to the
modified amendment of the Senator from
Kansas.
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk wil call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Ryan],
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuL-,
BRIGHT], the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
RENNINGS], the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O'MAnoNEY] , the Senator from
Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], the Senator
from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON], and the
Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE]
are absent on official business.
On this vote, the Senator from Virginia
[Mr. BYRD] is paired with the Senator
from Missouri [MT. SYMINGTON]. If
present and voting, the Senator from
Virginia would vote "yea" and the Sena-
tor from Missouri would vote "nay."
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. HEN-
NINGS] is paired with the. Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. Cusris] . If present and
voting, the Senator from Missouri would
vote "nay" and the Senator from Ne-
braska would vote "yea."
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
O'MAHONEY] is paired with the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL]. If pres-
ent and voting, the Senator from Wyo-
ming would vote "nay" and the Senator
from Kansas would vote "yea."
I further announce that if present and
voting, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
FULBRIGHT] would vote "nay."
Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the
Senator from Indiana. [Mr. CAPEHART],
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CUR-
TIS], the Senator from New York [Mt.
IvEs] , the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MAR-
TIN], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
SCHOEPPEL] are absent on official busi-
iness.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is paired with the Senator from
New York [Mr. IvEs] . If present and
voting, the Senator from Nebraska would
vote "yea," and the Senator from New
York would vote "nay."
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CUR-
TIS] is paired with the Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. HENNINGS]. If present and
voting, the Senator from Nebraska would
vote "yea," and the Senator from Mis-
souri would vote "nay."
The Senator from Kansas [Mr.
SCHOEPPEL] is paired with the Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. UMAHONEY]. If
present and voting, the Senator from
Kansas would vote "yea," and the Sen-
ator from Wyoming would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 29,
nays 54, as follows:
? YEAS-29
Allott Cooper
Barrett Dirksen
Bennett Dworshak
Bricker Flanders
Bridges Goldwater
Bush Hickenlooper
Butler Hoblitzell
Carlson Hruska
Case, S. Dalt, Jenner
Clark Knowland
Aiken
Anderson
Beall
Bible
Carroll
Case, N. J.
Church
Cotton ?
Douglas
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Frear
Gore
Green
Hayden
Hill
Holland
Byrd
Capehart
Chavez
Curtis
Fulbright
Lausche
Martin, Pa.
Morton
Mundt
Revercomb
Saltonstall
Smith, N. J.
Watkins
Williams
NAYS-54
Humphrey Murray
Jackson Neuber:Ler
Javits Pastor
Johnson, Tex. Payne
Johnston, S. C. Potter
Kefauver Proxmire
Kennedy Purtell
Kerr Russell
Kuchel Scott
Langer Smathers
Long Smith, Mairte
Magnuson Sparkman -
Malone Stennis
Mansfield Thurmond
McClellan Thye
McNamara Wiley
Monroney Yarborough
Morse Young .
NOT VOTING-13
Hennings
Ives
Martin, Iowa
0 'Mahoney
Robertson
Schoeppel
Symington
Talmadge
So Mr. CrunsoN's amendment, as mod-
ified, to the amendment of Mr. JOHNSTON
of South Carolina, as amended, was re-
jected.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the
February 28
vote by which the amendment of the
Senator from Kansas to my amendment
was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move to lay that motion on the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senatortfrom Texas to lay on the
table the motion of the Senator from
South Carolina to reconsider.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is open to further amend-
ment.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I send to the desk another
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
que.ktion is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from South Caro-
lina.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, we
did not hear the amendment read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk has previously read the amend-
ment. After the amendment was of-
fered, there was an amendment offered
to the amendment by the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. CARLSON]. The amend-
ment of the Senator from South Caro-
lina [Mr. JOHNSTON], the original
amendment, has not been disposed of.
The Chair is now asking what disposi-
.tion the Senate wishes to make of the
amendment of the Senator from South
Carolina.
. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, what
is the amendment?.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from California will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KNOWLAND. The parliamen-
tary situation is that we now revert to
consideration of the original amend-
ment, which Was offered by the Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON],
and which attaches the provisions of the
postal pay bill to the postal rate bill.
Is that not the question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from California is correct.
Mr. KNOWLAND. As reported from
the committee with a modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct in his understanding.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President,
may I make a further parliamentary in-
quiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. KNOWLAND. If the vote should
be "no" on the amendment there would
still be pending before the Senate the
postal rate bill as separate from the
postal pay amendment to the bill. Is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
postal rate bill as distinct from the postal
pay amendment; that is correct.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Texas will state his parlia-
mentary inquiry.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 .
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I have an
amendment to S. 27 printed and lying
on the desk. May I ask whether adop-
tion of the postal pay amendment of-
fered by the Senator from South Caro-
lina will cut off further amendment to
the provisions of S. 27 which have been
offered in the form of an amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. ?The
pending amendment is the amendment
offered by the Senator from South Caro-
lina [Mr. JOHNSTON] .
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield to the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH].
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is attempting to straighten out the
situation. The original amendment of-
fered by the Senator from South Caro-
lina is the amendment 'which is now
pending before the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the clerk state that amend-
ment?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President-
The PRESIDING . OFFICER. The
-Senator from South Carolina is recog-
nized. -
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Will the
Chair hand the original amendment to
the clerk and have the clerk read it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair does not have the original amend-
ment, but the Chair will get it.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. CARLSON] offered an amendment
to the pending amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
To the amendment which had been of-
fered by the committee. Since that
amendment was rejected, the Senate in
its consideration will revert now to the
committee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That
is the amendment which the Chair is
now asking be stated.
Mr. KNOWLAND. The Chair refers
to the postal pay increase amendment,
and not the classified pay increase pro-
posal?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The postal pay raise bill.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
, I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the
information of the Senate, the Chair
will state that the amendment now pend-
ing before the Senate is the postal pay
amendment, the amendment offered by
the Senator from South Carolina. That
amendment is now open to further
amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
That is correct.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. Presi-
dent-
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Presi-
dent, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from South Dakota will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Is an
amendment which would raise the pay
of Federal employees generally germane
to an amendment which proposes only
an increase in the pay of the field serv-
ice of the Post Office Department?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair will seek the advice of the Parlia-
mentarian to give the Senator the cor-
rect answer.
Will the Senator from South Dakota
state his parliamentary inquiry again, so
that we can be clear on the parliamen-
tary situation?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Presi-
dent, my understanding is that the
amendment now pending, offered by the
Senator ?from South Carolina [Mr.
JOHNSTON], is an amendment to increase
the rates of basic compensation of offi-
cers and employees in the field service
of the Post Office Department only. My
questioni is, Is it germane, under the
unanimous-consent agreement, to offer
an amendment to increase pay gen-
erally?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. We have no
unanimous-consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair will state that there is no unani-
mous-consent agreement at the present
time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, if the Senator will yield I think ?I
can clarify the situation.
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
JOHNSTON] proposed an amendment,
known as the postal: payamendment. It
contained provisions of a bill which had
been reported by the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service. To that amend-
ment was offered a substitute by the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kansas [Mr.
CAusbi,T]. That substitute having been
rejected, the question recurs on the origi-
nal proposal of the chairman of the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee;
namely, the postal pay amendment.
That is now the question for the Senate
to act upon.
The Senator from Texas [Mr. YAR-
BOROUGH] has an amendment, which is
in order, and he desires to call up his
amendment, so that the Senate can act
on that.
2727
The amendment which is before the
Senate is the amendment offered by the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHN-
STON] on postal pay; and the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] desires to
offer an amendment to that amendment.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Yes. Mr.
President, a further parliamentary in-
quiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will
the Senate be in order? We can clari-
fy the parliamentary situation very
quickly.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state his parliamentary in-
quiry.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Some
time ago I heard the distinguished ma-
jority leader propose a unanimous-con-
sent agreement which embraced the re-
quirement that amendments be ger-
mane. Apparently that agreement was
not entered into.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. First, the
agreement did not require that amend-
ments be germane; second, it was not
proposed, it was simply read; and third,
it was never called up, because the Sen-
ator from Texas was informed it would
be objected to if called up.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. So
we are not operating under an agree-
ment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate is not operating under a unani-
mous-consent agreement.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I thank my
friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
parliamentary situation is this: There is
an .amendment pending before the Sen-
ate, which has been offered by the Sen-
ator from South Carolina, as to the post-
al pay increase, which is title IV.
The junior Senatbr from Texas [Mr-.
YARBOROUGH] is now recognized for the
purpose of offering an amendment to
that amendment. The clerk will state
the amendment to the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2,
in lieu of the schedule appearing between
lines 2 and 3 it is proposed to insert the
following:
"Postal field service schedule
Level
Per annum rates and steps ,
1
Temporary rate
2
Temporary rate
3
Temporary rate
4
Temporary rate
5
Temporary rate
$3, 095
3, 335
3, 320
3, 560
3,580
3, 820
3, 935
4, 175
. 4, 170
4, 410
$3, 205
3,445
3, 435
3,675
3, 705
3,945
4,070
4,310
4,305
4,545
,-awcow.R4w8853mo,tpowa,t8Eioo,..w
8to-Og6i00'0.0'0s0.0'E00'00g8
$3, 425
3, 665
3,665
3,905
3,955
4,195
4, 340
4,580
4, 575
4, 815
$3, 535
3,775
3.780
4,020
4,080
4, 320
4,475
4,715
4,710
4, 950
$3, 645
3, 885
3, 895
4, 135
4, 205
4,445
4,610
4,850
4, 845
5,085
$3, 755
3, 995
4, 010
4, 250
4, 330
4, 570
4, 745
4,985
4, 980
5,220
6
4, 505
4,655
4,955
5, 105
5. 255
5, 405
Temporary rate
4, 745
4, 895
5, 195
5,345
5, 495
5,645
7
4, 870
5,035
5, 365
5, 630
5,695
5, 860
Temporary rate
5, 110
5,275
5, 605
5,770
5,935
6, 100
8
5,255
5,440
6,810
5,995
6, 180
6, 365
Temporary rate
5, 495
5,680
6,050
6, 235
6, 420
6, 605
9
5,675
5,875
6,275
6, 475
6, 675
6, 875
Temporary rate
5,915
6,115
6,515
6,715
6,915
7,111
106,
235
6,450
6,800
7,095
7, 310
7, 525
Temporary rate
6,475
6,690
7, 120
7,335
7, 550
7,76.5
11
6,860
7,095
7,565
7, 800
8,035
8,270
Temporary rate
7, 100
7,335
7,805
8,040
8. 275
8, 510
12
7,545
7, 805
8,325
8, 585
8, 845
9, 105
Temporary rate
7, 785
8,040
8, 565
'8, 825
9,085
9, 395
13
8, 310
8, 590
9, 150
9,430
9. 710
9, 990
Temporary rate
8, 550
8, 830
9,390
. 9,670
9,950
10, 230
14 '
9, 140
9,440
10, 040
10, 349
10. 640
10, 40
Temporary rate
9,380
9.680
10, 280
20.580
10,880
11, 13.0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
"Postal field service schedule-Continued
Level
Per annum rates and steps
15
16
Temporary rate
Temporary rate
$10, 050
10, 290
11,075
11, 315
$10, 350
10, 590
11, 375
11,615
$10, 650
10, 890
11, 675
11, 015
$10, 950
11, 190
11,975
12, 215
$11, 250
11, 490
12, 275
12, 515
$11, 550
11,790
12, 575
12, 815
$11, 850
12,090
12, 875
13, 115
17
12,255
12, 555
12, 855
13, 155
13, 455
13, 755
14, 055
Temporary rate ?
12, 495
12, 795
15,095
13, 395
13, 695
13, 995
14, 295
58
13, 760
14,060
14, 360
14, 660
14, 960
15, 260
15,550
19
,
15, 000
15,300
15, 600
15, 900
20
16,050"
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
through inadvertence in the printing of
the amendment on page 1, line 1, there
is a reference to "page 2" of the pending
amendment. I believe that reference
should be page 4 of the pending amend-
ment. I ask unanimous consent, Mr.
President, that that reference be cor-
rected to read "page 4" of the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Texas? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the purpose of this amendment is to
increase the emergency pay of postal
supervisors. They fall in levels 6
through 9, immediately above the postal
carriers and clerks.
Roughly, this amendment, if adopted,
would cost approximately $7,400,000 a
year. There are 326,000 postal em-
ployees under the Postal Field Service
table. Of that number, more than
300,000 are included in levels 1 through
5. Under the Johnston amendment
they would receive an emergency cost of
living increase of $240 a year. Under
the Johnston amendment, level 6 of
supervisors would receive an increase of
$160 a year as a cost of -living increase.
Level 7 would receive $80; and levels 8
and 9, nothing.
It is my understanding that the Chair-
man will accept the amendment if I
delete from it the temporary increase
provided for levels 10 through 17. I ask
unanimous consent that in the amend-
ment I offered, the temporary rate fig-
ures opposite lines 10 through 17 be
deleted, so that the temporary cost of
living increases which this amendment
proposes will be limited to levels 6, 7, 8,
and,9 in the amendment as printed.
The PRESIDINb OFFICER. The
Senator from Texas has the right to
modify his amendment to the amend-
ment.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
? Senator yield?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. I should like to ask my
friend from Texas what his justification
is for eliminating the temporary pay in-
creases in the five grades to which he has
referred?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. My information
is that the chairman of the subcommit-
tee would accept the amendment if those
levels-were deleted. Inasmuch as they
embrace higher pay brackets, the cost of
living emergency is not so great as it is
in the case of the lower grades.
Will the chairman accept the amend-
ment?
*Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?,
? Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield to -the
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG. About 8 years ago the
junior Senator from Louisiana had the
opportunity of serving as chairman of
the subcommittee dealing with postal
pay. The thing that impressed me most
was the failure, time and time again, of
the Senate committee to provide for the
supervisors. There were situations in
which supervisors were receiving less pay
than those they were supposed to super-
vise.
Sometimes it seemed to me that it was
planned that way. However, it was more
because the carriers-and the clerks had
very able and effective 'representation,
and they had much greater numbers.
they had more votes than did the super-
visors. It did not make much sense to
me to go along year after year raising the
salaries of clerks and carriers, but not
supervisoys. I am for the clerk and car-
riers, but I am also for other Government
employees.
As I understand, the Senator from
Texas proposes to moqify his amendment
so that pay increases for supervisors
would cease after the $5,000 a year
bracket was reached.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
I withdraw the proposed modification, in
the hope that the chairman of the com-
mittee will accept the amendment as
originally offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Texas now remodifies his
amendment.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I withdraw the
suggested modification in the hope that
the chairman of the committee will ac-
cept the amendment as it was originally
offered.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YARBOROUGH.. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. Does the amend-
ment go through level 17?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. , Yes.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. Pr?dent, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, this
proposal is contrary to our effort to com-
pensate for the meager pay Of letter
carriers, who are consigned to be letter
carriers all their lives. They remain lin
the first five grades. There is not one
chance in a thousand that they will ever
be promoted above the top grade of let-
ter carrier.
We tried to make talt6r their low pay
level and lack of promotional opportu-
nity by giving them -a $240 temporary
cost-of-living increase, in addition to the
7 Y2 percent. If we are to apply this in-
crease to employees making $10,000 a
?year, we shall be distorting the pay scale
1
February 28
beyond the point of a cost-of-living in-
crease for the lower grades.
Every one of the employees whom the
distinguished Senator is now seeking to
aid has great opportunities for promo-
tion. That is why we do not have the
same program in the classified pay bill.
A stenographer may start as a GS-2, and
she may become a GS-5 or a GS-7 in a
few years. However, these men carry
the mail day after day. They start as
carriers and they retire as carriers.
Their advancement 'opportunities are
one in a thousand. For that reason we
tried to combine justice with business
and take care of the hardship cases.
If the Senator wishes to advocate
better pay for supervisors, I am for that;
but I am not for putting such a provi-
sion in this bill as a temporary cost-of-
living increase. We should handle that
subject in another piece of legislation to
provide better compensation for other
types of work.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, in 1955 we increased the
salaries of these employees. The Sen-
ator's amendment would include all
postmasters and supervisors. Some of
them would receive increases of as much
as 62 percent. There was a graduated
scale throughout. The situation in re-
gard to increases in pay was taken care
of. When the committee was writing
the bill, we tried to take care of various
situations, looking back at what we had
done in the past.
I believe that the amendment which
the Senator from Texas has offered goes
a little too far.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, I
did not have the privilege of being pres-
ent and participating in the 1955 expe-
rience, as did the distinguished chair-
man of the committee, who has given so
many years of effort and service as chair-
man of the Senate Committee on Post,
Office and Civil Service. He has been
constantly engaged in an effort to im-
prove the Federal service. I pay tribute
to him now.
In the light of the explanation with
respect to the 1955 experience, I reoffer
the modification first offered, ;rid ask
the distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee to accept the proposal for tempo-
rary increases in levels 6, 7, 8, and 9,
which are supervisory grades. Those
employees act in a management capacity.
They must wear better clothes. They
must incur expenses which letter car-
riers do not have to incur normally.
There should be some spread,to take care
of the supervisory or management em-
ployees.
_ I submit the modified amendment, to
increase by $240 a year, or $20 a month,
at the emergency level, the salaries of
supervisors in grades 6, '7, 8, and 9, only.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
modification is becoming more and more
complicated.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I have no authority from
the committee to accept the amendment.
I have not discussed the amendment
with members of the committee. I do
not see how I could accept it.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. Is it not a fact
that this is one of the amendments which
were voted down overwhelmingly in the
committee?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I am not cer-
tain.
Mr. MONRONEY. If the Senator will
further yield, this is a good example of
how not to handle a bill on the floor.
We have been engaged in the considera-
tion of the bill for a week, with amend-
ments coming from everywhere, many
of them misunderstood. Others have
only very narrow application. We are
taking the bill out of the hands of the
committee, which worked on it for 6
months.
Let us vote on the pending amend-
ment, and let it stand or fall on its
merits, if we can determine how many
grades are being affected by the $240
cost-of-living emergency increase.
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
wish to support what the Senator from
Oklahoma has said. If we are going to
take care of the supervisors further, we
should do it in a separate bill after
orderly hearings have been held on the
subject. As chairman of the Subcom-
mittee on Federal Compensation of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice, I wish to tell the Senator from Texas
that I shall be glad to join him in intro-
ducing a bill, and that we shall. hold
hearings on it. I shall be glad to have
him as the first witness.
I wish to say to the Senator from Lou-
isiana [Mr. LONG] that the supervisors
are ably represented here in Washington
by some very outstanding people, who
will be welcomed as witnesses. I join
fully in what the Senator from Okla-
homa [Mr. MONRONEY] has said, that the
most discriminated against group of
employees in the United States Govern-
ment they are the letter carriers and
the mail clerks. That is true so far as
pay is concerned and so far as oppor-
tunity for advancement is concerned.
If we are going to add a cost-of-living
bonus to the pay of all kinds of em-
ployees in the higher grades, we will
merely dilute the bill and, second, im-
peril it. I wish to say to the distin-
guished Senator from Texas that I per-
sonally will promise him that we will
hold separate hearings on the pay, secu-
rity, tenure, and conditions of welfare
of postal supervisors, if he will go along
with the distinguished chairman of the
committee and withdraw the amend-
ment.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I regret
the decision of my distinguished col-
league from Texas to modify his amend-
ment. Had it been pressed, I would have
supported it. I should like to associate
myself with the comments of the distin-
guished Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
? LONG]. I believe that the supervisors
are just as much entitled to a percentage
raise as anyone else. It was for that
reason that I supported the amendment
of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARL-
SON].
Mr. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I yield.
No. 32-7
Mr. NEUBERGER. I wish to ask the
Senator from Pennsylvania a question,
because I know he has had wide experi-
ence in personnel management. Is it
his understanding or his bplief that a
$240 cost-of-living bonus should be given
to everybody in the postal service? ?
Mr. CLARK. It is my belief that the
so-called cost-of-living bonus would de-
stroy a system of differentiation based
upon degree of responsibility, longevity,
and many other sound reasons in the
field of personnel administration. It is
not right, and for that reason I sup-
ported the amendment of the Senator
from Kansas.
Mr. NEUBERGER. I should like to
ask the Senator what he would do about
hundreds of thousands of employees
and their families who get approxi-
mately $4,000 a year.
Mr. CLARK. I would give them an
adequate pay increase, far more than
81/2 pecent. However, two wrongs do not
make a right.
SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!
Mr. NEUBERGER. In order to give
them enough to live on, would the Sen-
ator raise the pay of every employee
in the postal scale, including those who
receive $16,000 or $18,000 a year, so that
the employee at the bottom can have
enough with which to feed his family?
Mr. CLARK. I believe the $16,000
employee is entitled to an increase in
view of the cost of living, and for other
reasons.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order. The Chair will
recognize the Senator from Kansas;
then the Senator from Ohio; then the
Senator from South Carolina. The
Chair will recognize each Senator in turn
in an orderly fashion.
Mr. CARLSON. I wish to make the
observation that some of use on this side
of the aisle get a great deal of delight out
of this discussion. The Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] is trying to
help some of the top-paid employees
in the postal service. We have a Re-
publican Postmaster General for the
first time in many years, and it is now
proposed by the Senator from Texas to
give him a raise.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair now recognizes the Senator from
Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I should like to ask
some questions on the amendment.
Do I correctly understand that if the
amendment of the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] is adopted, the
postal-rate bill will be combined with
the postal-pay bill?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina,
The Senator is correct.
Mr. LAUSCHE. When it is submitted
to a final vote, if a Member of the Senate
is in favor of one and against the other,
he will not be able to choose between
the two, but will have to vote for both
or for neither?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The Senator is correct.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Am I to understand
further that if the bill goes to the Presi-
2729
dent, if he is in favor of one-half of it
and is not in favor of the other half, he
will have to accept it all or nothing at
all?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
That is correct. The Senator from Ohio
has been Governor of his State and I
have been Governor of my State. Prac-
tically every bill that came before me
had something in it that I liked and
something that I did not like, and I had
to make my decision on it.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I always felt deeply
aggrieved that the Legislature deliber-
ately tied together a bad bill and a good
bill and in that way tried to force it
down my throat.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I have had that experience.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It is wrong to tie
them together, if that is the purpose.
I am not saying it is the purpose. Sec-
ondly, how much would it cost the tax-
payers of the United States if the same
treatment were given to all the em-
ployees of the United States Government
who fall in the categories that are being
benefited by the bill? Is the Senator
able to tell us? What will be the total
cost when we get through?
a Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The total cost, when we get through, will
be somewhere around $700 million.
Mr. LAUSCHE. $700 million?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
'Approximately.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is only for the
postal employees?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Some amendments have been eliminated,
and some have been added.
1Vr. LAUSCHE. The pending bill will
cost about $300 million. Is that correct?
Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator from
Ohio is correct. Increases in the bill Will
cost $309 million.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It will cost $309 mil-
lion for 500,000 employees. If there are
2,300,000 employees in all, then it will
cost about 4.3 times $309 million? Is that
correct? That is a figure I arrived at
rather rapidly. I would conclude that
cost will be $1,500,000,000
Mr. NEUBERGER. The Senator is
taking into consideration the employees
who come under the wage board. They
have already been taken care of, and
the increases to them do not fall into this
bill.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It will cost $1,500,-
000,000. I want to know how the taxpay-
ers will?
Mr. NEUBERGER. In the two bills
there are only about a million and a half
employees involved.
The PRESIDING OloVICER. The
question is on agreeing?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I first wish to ask the Sen-
ator from Texas to withdraw his amend-
ment. I assure him we will study the
subject in committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Texas withdraw his
amendment?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. While I regard
the erroneous arguments of the distin-
guished junior Senator from Pennsyl-
vania and the wholly erroneous
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
2730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
arguments of the distinguished junior
Senator from Oregon, my good friends,
as totally inadequate reasons for the
withdrawal of the amendment, since the
postal pay bill will cost $309 million,
and a simple act of justice to 44,000
supervisors, under my proposal, would
cost only $408,000, in the light of the
request of the distinguished chairman of
the committee, who is responsible for the
bill, I will accede to his request and
withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Texas requests that his
amendment, as modified, be withdrawn.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I withdraw it
at the request of the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I
merely wish to make it clear that I in-
tended to support the Senator from
Texas, and I have told some people that
I intended to do so. I wanted that
. statement recorded in the RECORD. I am
sorry to see the amendment withdrawn.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Do I unt
derstand that the pending amendment
is the amendment offered by the Sena-
tor from South Carolina [Mr. JOHN-
STON]?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Texas is correct.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. It is our in-
tention to have a vote as early as we
can. Several Senators intend to leave
town, and if that happens, and if we keep
telling the postal workers how much we
love them instead of voting, we may
wind up by not adopting the amend-
ment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
appreciate the courteous admonition of
the majority leader. I merely wish to
say that I had assured many people
that I would support a reasonable and
justifiable and long overdue adjustment
for postal supervisors, and that if I had
a chance to do so I would do it.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I can ex-
plain my amendment.
It simply provides that we shall do for
the supervisors what is proposed to be
done for everyone else in the bill. Any-
one who tells me that this is a temporary
increase for those in the lower brackets
is not correctly informed. I do not think
there is a Member of the Senate who
actually thinks that the temporary in-
crease will expire, and that we will vote
not to continue it. If anyone thinks he
will not vote to extend the increase when
it expires, I wish he would stand up and
let me get a good look at him. This will
be a permanent increase.
We say to a man, "You are low paid
or underpaid;you cannot get a job some-
where else. You are a veteran. You
were injured, perhaps slightly, during
the war. You are a 10-point veteran.
You will get the Government job if you
make only CO on the exam in preference
to the man who makes a hundred. You
will keep your job when others who have
been here longer cannot keep theirs,
even though they might be better quali-
fied for the job."
If those people are to get a pay raise,
then those who have been around for a
long time as supervisors, working day in
.and day out, the people who are staying
with the post office as a matter of loyalty,
although they could get better jobs else-
where, but because they have certain
seniority rights want to stay with the
Government, should also receive a raise.
Those latter people are not nearly so
numerous in the Post Office.
I am willing to give a pay raise to those
who are numerically the strongest. On
the other hand, I do not wish to leave
out the faithful supervisors who, year
in and year out, are confronted with the
same cost of living increase. Their cost
of living has gone up as much as it has
for anyone else.
Mr. President, the bill without this
amendment does not make sense to 'me,
I had the honor of advocating top pay
for those in the Cabinet. I had the
honor of advocating that the top people
in the Government receive top pay, be-
cause it has been stated time and time
again that if efficiency is desired, we
must get good supervisors just as we get
good day workers. If we can take care
of those at the top and those at the bot-
tom, why not those in the middle?
to leave out the supervisors, year in
and year out, the way I have seen it done
time and again during the past 8 years,
does not make sense. For my part, I
should like to give them a pay raise, if
I am the only Senator who votes for it.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. KNOWLAND. I suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. The
clerk will call the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, on my
amendment I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I have ex-
plained that this amendment is for the
purpose of offering' an opportunity for
the supervisors to have a pay raise at the
same time we undertake to raise the pay
of the postal clerks and carriers.
The amendment was originally offered
by the junior Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH]. It seems fair to me.
I am frank to say that I have seen
provision for the supervisors left out
time and time again when pay-raise bills
were being acted upon.
I have told the clerks and carriers that
I will support the bill to increase their
pay; and I will. But it seems to me it
would not be fair to omit provision for
increasing the pay of the supervisors.
While we raise the pay of those who are
in the lower classes, we should also pro-
vide for an increase in the pay of those
who are the supervisors.
Therefore, Mr. President, I urge that
my amendment to the amendment of the
Senator from South Carolina be agreed
to.
February 28
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BIBLE in the chair). ? The question is on
agreeing to the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Louisiana to the amendment
of the Senator from South Carolina.
[Putting the question.]
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask for
a division.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, on this question, I request
the yeas and nays.
Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I
join in the request for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a sufficient second?
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment proposed by the Senator from
Louisiana [Mr. LONG], for himself and
the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBoa-
oucii], to the amendment of the Sena-
tor from South Carolina [Mr. JOHN-
STON]. On this question the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk ? called the roll.
, Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
CHAVEZ], the Senator. from Arkansas
[Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS], the Senator
from Wyoming [Mr. ?MAHONEY], the
Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON],
the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATH-
Ells], the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
SYMINGTON], and the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. TAL1VIADGE] are absent on
official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] would
vote "nay."
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senators from Missouri
[Mr. HENNINGS and Mr. Symmorois]
would each vote "yea."
Mr. DIRKSKN. I announce that the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART],
the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CUR-
? Tis], the Senator from New York [Mr.
IvEs], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MAR-
TIN], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
ScHoEppEL] are absent on official busi-
ness.
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
SMITH] is detained on official business.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is paired with the Senator, from
Nebraska [Mr. Cuaris]. If present and
voting, the Senator from Indiana would
vote "nay," and the Senator from Ne-
braska would vote "yea."-
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
SMITH] is paired-with the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL]. If present
and voting, the Senator from New Jersey
would vote "yea," and the Senator from
Kansas would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 50,
nays 31, as follows:
Aiken
Allott
Barrett
Bennett
Bricker
Bush
Carlson
Carroll
Case, 8. flak.
YEAS-50
Clark
Dirksen
Douglas
Eastland
Ellender
Flanders
Frear
Hickenlooper
Hill
Hoblitzell
Hruska
Humphrey ?
Jackson
Kefauver
Knowland
Langer
Long
Magnuson
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/12/16: CIA-RDP61-00357R000100320032-1
1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mansfield
McClellan
'McNamara
Morse
Morton
Mundt
Murray
Pastore
Anderson
Bea11
Bible
Bridges
Butler
Case, N. J.
Church -
Cooper
Cotton
Potter
Proxmire
Purtell
Revercomb
Russell
Saltonstall
Smith, Maine
Sparkman
NAYS-31
Dworshak
Ervin
Goldwater
Gore '
Green
Hayden
Holland
Javits
Jenner
Stennis
Thurmond
Thye
Watkins
Wiley
Yarborough
Young
Johnson, Tex.
Johnston, S. C.
Kennedy
Kerr
Kuchel
Lausche
Malone
Martin, Pa,
Monroney
Neuberger Scott Williams
Payne
Byrd
Capehart
Chavez
Curtis
Fulbright
NOT VOTING-15
Hennings Schoeppel
Ives Smathers
Martin, Iowa Smith, N. J.
O'Mahoney Symington
Robertson Talmadge
So the amendment offered by Mr. Lorrc,
for himself and Mr. YARBOROUGH, to the
amendment of the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JonisisToisi] was agreed to,
as follows:
On page 2, in lieu Of the schedule appear-
ing between lines 2 and 3 insert the fol-
lowing: ?
"Postal field service schedule
Level
Per annum rates a
,
id steps
1
$3, 095
$3, 205
$3, 315
$3, 425
?
N N N 0,0 CO 00 t0 0n C.0 C.7 0 c.n
-z,4 ECJ*CJ
?
$3, 645
caaonob
Cn 0 CO 0 CO 1-? 07. co 0, cx< ,