ent, but strong enough to share with us the responsibilities and initiatives of the free world.

The Communist bloc, largely self-contained and isolated, represents an economic power already by some standards larger than that of Western Europe and hoping someday to overtake the United States. But the combined output and purchasing power of the United States and Western Europe-nearly a trillion dollars a year-is more than twice as great as that of the entire Sino-Soviet world. Though we have only half the population, and far less than half the territory, we can pool our resources and resourcefulness in an open-trade partnership strong enough to outstrip any challenge, and strong enough to undertake all the many enterprises around the world which the maintenance and progress of freedom require. If we can take this step. Marxist predictions of capitalist empires warring over markets and stifling competition would be shattered for all time Communist hopes for a trade war between these two great economic giants would be frustrated-and Communist efforts to split the West would be doomed to failure.

As members of the Atlantic Community we have concerted our military objectives through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We are concerting our monetary and economic policies through the Organization for Economic Corporation and Development. It is time now to write a new chapter in the evolution of the Atlantic Community. The success of our foreign policy depends in large measure upon the success of our foreign trade, and our maintenance of Western political unity depends in equally large measure upon the degree of Western economic unity. An integated Western Europe, joined in trading partnership with the United States. will further shift the world balance of power to the side of freedom.

Our efforts to prove the superiority of free choice will thus be advanced immeasurably. We will prove to the world that we believe in peacefully tearing down walls instead of arbitrarily building them. We will be opening new vistas of choice and opportunity to the producers and consumers of the free world. In answer to those who say to the world's poorer countries that economic progress and freedom are no longer compatible, we-who have long boasted about the virtues of the marketplace and of free competitive enterprise, about our ability to compete and sell in any market and about our willingness to keep abreast of the times will have our greatest opportunity since the Marshall plan to demonstrate the vitality of free choice.

Communist bloc nations have negotiated more than 200 trade agreements in recent years. Inevitably the recipient nation finds its economy increasingly dependent upon Soviet goods, services, and technicians. But many of these nations have also observed that the economics of free choice provide far greater benefits than the economics of coer

cion-and the wider we can make the area of economic freedom, the easier we make it for all free peoples to receive the benefits of our innovations and put them into practice.

Our efforts to aid the developing nations of the world and other friends, however, depend upon more than a demonstration of freedom's vitality and benefits. If their economies are to expand, if their new industries are to be successful, if they are to acquire the foreign exchange funds they will need to replace our aid efforts, these nations must find new outlets for their raw materials and new manufactures. We must make certain that any arrangements which we make with the European Economic Community are worked out in such a fashion as to insure nondiscriminatory application to all third countries. Even more important, however, the United States and Europe together have a joint responsibility to all of the less developed countries of the world-and in this sense we must work together to insure that their legitimate aspirations and requirements are fulfilled. The "open partnership" which this bill proposes will enable all free nations to share together the rewards of a wider economic choice for all.

Our efforts to maintain the leadership of the free world thus rest, in the final analysis, on our success in this undertaking. Economic isolation and political leadership are wholly incompatible. In the next few years, the nations of Western Europe will be fixing basic economic and trading patterns vitally affecting the future of our economy and the hopes of our less developed friends. Basic political and military decisions of vital interest to our security will be negotiate and have it this year-if we made. Unless we have this authority to are separated from the Common Market by high tariff barriers on either side of the Atlantic-then we cannot hope to play an effective part in those basic decisions.

If we are to retain our leadership, the initiative is up to us. The revolutionary changes which are occurring will not wait for us to make up our minds. The United States has encouraged sweeping changes in free world economic patterns in order to strengthen the forces of freedom. But we cannot ourselves stand still. If we are to lead, we must act. We must adapt our own economy to the imperatives of a changing world, and once more assert our leadership.

The American businessman, once the authority granted by this bill is exercised, will have a unique opportunity to compete on a more equal basis in a rich and rapidly expanding market abroad which possesses potentially a purchasing power as large and as varied as our own. He knows that, once artificial restraints are removed, a vast array of American goods, produced by American know-how with American efficiency, can compete with any goods in any spot in the world. And almost all members of the business community, in every State, now partic!community, in every State, now partici

pate or could participate in the production, processing, transporting, or distribution of either exports or imports.

Already we sell to Western Europe alone more machinery, transportation equipment, chemicals, and coal than our total imports of these commodities from all regions of the world combined. Western Europe is our best customer today— and should be an even better one tomorrow. But as the new external tariff surrounding the Common Market replaces the internal tariff structure, a German producer-who once competed in the markets of France on the same terms with our own producers—will achieve free access to French markets while our own producers face a tariff. In short, in the absence of authority to bargain down that external tariff, as the economy of the Common Market expands, our exports will not expand with it. They may even decline.

The American farmer has a tremendous stake in expanded trade. One out of every seven farmworkers produces for export. The average farmer depends on foreign markets to sell the crops grown on 1 out of every 6 acres he plants. Sixty percent of our rice, 49 percent of our cotton. 49 percent of our wheat, and 42 percent of our soybean production is exported. Agriculture is one of our best sources of foreign exchange.

Our farmers are particularly dependent upon the markets of Western Europe. Our agricultural trade with that area is 4 to 1 in our favor. The agreements recently reached at Brussels both exhausted our existing authority to obtash further European concessions. and laid the groundwork for future negotiations on American farm exports to be conducted once new authority is granted. But new and flexible authority is required if we are to keep the door of the Common Market open to American agriculture, and open it wider still. If the output of our astounding productivity is not to pile up increasingly in our warehouses, our negotiators will need both the special EEC authority and the general 50-percent authority requested in the bill described later in this message. The American worker will benefit from the expansion of our exports. One out of every three workers engaged in manufacturing is employed in establishments that export. Several hundred times as many workers owe their jobs directly or indirectly to exports as are in the small group-estimated to be less than one-half of 1 percent of all workers—who might be adversely affected by a sharp increase in imports. As the number of jobseekers in our labor force expands in the years ahead, increasing our job opportunities will require expanding our markets and economy, and making certain that new U.S. plants built to serve Common Market consumers are built here, to employ American workers, and not there.

The American consumer benefits most of all from an increase in foreign trade. Imports give him a wider choice of prod

ucts at competitive prices. They introduce new ideas and new tastes, which often lead to new demands for American production.

Increased imports stimulate our own efforts to increase efficiency, and supplement antitrust and other efforts to assure competition. Many industries of importance to the American consumer and economy are dependent upon imports for raw materials and other supplies. Thus American-made goods can also be made much less expensively for the American consumers if we lower the tariff on the materials that are necessary to their production.

American imports, in short, have generally strengthened rather than weakened our economy. Their competitive benefits have already been mentioned. But about 60 percent of the goods we import do not compete with the goods we produce-either because they are not produced in this country, or are not produced in any significant quantity. They provide us with products we need but cannot efficiently make or grow (such as bananas or coffee), supplement our own steadily depleting natural resources with items not available here in quantity (such as manganese or chrome ore, 90 percent or more of which must be imported if our steel mills are to operate), and contribute to our industrial efficiency, our economic growth, and our high level of consumption. Those imports that do compete are equal to only 1 or 12 percent of our total national production; and even these imports create jobs directly for those engaged in their processing, distribution, or transportation, and indirectly for those employed in both export industries and in those industries dependent upon reasonably priced imported supplies for their own ability to compete.

Moreover, we must reduce our own tariffs if we hope to reduce tariffs abroad and thereby increase our exports and export surplus. There are many more American jobs dependent upon exports than could possibly be adversely affected by increased imports. And those export industries are our strongest, most efficient, highest paying growth industries.

It is obvious, therefore, that the warnings against increased imports based upon the lower level of wages paid in other countries are not telling the whole story. For this fear is refuted by the fact that American industry in generaland America's highest paid industries in particular-export more goods to other markets than any other nation; sell far more abroad to other countries than they sell to us; and command the vast preponderance of our own market here in the United States. There are three reasons for this:

(a) The skill and efficiency of American workers, with the help of our machinery and technology, can produce more units per man-hour than any other workers in the world-thus making the competitive cost of our labor for many products far less than it is in countries with lower wage rates. For

example, while a U.S. coal miner is paid 8 times as much per hour as the Japanese miner, he produces 14 times as much coal-our real cost per ton of coal is thus far smaller-and we sell the Japanese tens of millions of dollars' worth of coal each year.

(b) Our best industries also possess other advantages-the adequacy of low-cost raw materials or electrical power, for example. Neither wages nor total labor costs is an adequate standard of comparison if used alone.

(c) American products can frequently compete successfully even where foreign prices are somewhat lower-by virtue of their superior quality, style, packaging, servicing, or assurance of delivery.

Given this strength, accompanied by increasing productivity and wages in the rest of the world, there is less need to be concerned over the level of wages in the low-wage countries. These levels, moreover, are already on the rise, and, we would hope, will continue to narrow the current wage gap, encouraged by appropriate consultations on an international basis.

This philosophy of the free marketthe wider economic choice for men and nations-is as old as freedom itself. It is not a partisan philosophy. For many years our trade legislation has enjoyed bipartisan backing from those members of both parties who recognized how essential trade is to our basic security abroad and our economic health at home. This is even more true today. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is designed as the expression of a nation, not of any single faction, not of any single faction or section. It is in that spirit that I recommend it to the Congress for prompt and favorable action.

II. PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

New negotiating authority: To achieve all of the goals and gains set forth above to empower our negotiators with sufficient authority to induce the EEC to grant wider access to our goods and crops and fair treatment to those of Latin America, Japan, and other countries and to be ready to talk trade with the Common Market in practical terms-it is essential that our bargaining authority be increased in both flexibility and extent. I am therefore requesting two basic kinds of authority to be exercised over the next 5 years:

First, a general authority to reduce existing tariffs by 50 percent in reciprocal negotiations. It would be our intention to employ a variety of techniques in exercising this authority, including negotiations on broad categories or subcategories of products.

Second, a special authority, to be used in negotiating with the EEC, to reduce or eliminate all tariffs on those groups of products where the United States and the EEC together account for 80 percent or more of world trade in a representative period. The fact that these groups of products fall within this special or "dominant supplier" authority is proof that they can

be produced here or in Europe more efficiently than anywhere else in the world. They include most of the products which the members of the Common Market are especially interested in trading with us, and most of the products for which we want freer access to the Common Market; and to a considerable extent they are items in which our own ability to compete is demonstrated by the fact that our exports of these items are substantially greater than our imports. They account for nearly $2 billion of our total industrial exports to present and prospective Common Market members in 1960, and for about $1.4 billion of our imports from these countries. In short, this special authority will enable us to negotiate for a dramatic agreement with the Common Market that will pool our economic strength for the advancement of freedom.

To be effective in achieving a breakthrough agreement with the EEC so that our farmers, manufacturers, and other free world trading partners can participate we will need to use both the dominant supplier authority and the general authority in combination. Reductions would be put into effect gradually in stages over 5 years or more. But the traditional technique of trading one brick at a time off our respective tariff walls will not suffice to assure American farm and factory exports the kind of access to the European market which they must have if trade between the two Atlantic markets is to expand. We must talk instead in terms of trading whcle layers at a time in exchange for other layers, as the Europeans have been doing in reducing their internal tariffs, permitting the forces of competition to set new trade patterns. Trading in such an enlarged basis is not possible, the EEC has found, if traditional item-by-item economic histories are to dominate. But let me emphasize that we mean to see to it that all reductions and concessions are reciprocal, and that the access we gain is not limited by the use of quotas or other restrictive devices.

Safeguarding interests of other trading partners: In our negotiations with the Common Market, we will preserve our traditional most-favored-nation principle under which any tariff concessions negotiated will be generalized to our other trading partners. Obviously, in special authority agreements where the United States and the EEC are the dominant suppliers, the participation of other nations often would not be significant. On other items, where justified, compensating concessions from other interested countries should be obtained as part of the negotiations. But in essence we must strive for a nondiscriminatory trade partnership with the EEC. EEC. If it succeeds only in splintering the free world, or increasing the disparity between rich and poor nations, it will have failed to achieve one of its major purposes. The negotiating authority under this bill will thus be used to strengthen the ties of both "common markets" with, and expand our own

trade in, the Latin American Republics, Canada, Japan, and other non-European nations, as well as helping them maximize their opportunities to trade with the Common Market.

The bill also requests special authority to reduce or eliminate all duties and other restrictions on the importation of tropical agricultural and forestry products supplied by friendly less developed countries and not produced here in any significant quantity, if our action is taken in concert with similar action by the Common Market. These tropical products are the staple exports of many less developed countries. Their efforts for economic development and diversification must be advanced out of earnings from these products. By assuring them as large a market as possible, we are bringing closer the day when they will be able to finance their own development needs on a self-sustaining basis.

Safeguards to American industry: If the authority requested in this act is used, imports as well as exports will increase; and this increase will, in the overwhelming number of cases, be beneficial for the reasons outlined above. Nevertheless ample safeguards against injury to American industry and agriculture will be retained. Escape-clause relief will continue to be available with more up to date definitions. Temporary tariff relief will be granted where essential. The power to impose duties or suspend concessions to protect the national security will be retained. Articles will be reserved from negotiations whenever such action is deemed to be in the best interest of the Nation and the economy. And the four basic stages of the traditional peril-point procedures and safeguards will be retained and improved:

The President will refer to the Tariff Commission the list of proposed items for negotiations:

The Tariff Commission will conduct hearings to determine the effect of concessions on these products;

The Commission will make a report to the President, specifically based, as such reports are based now. upon its findings of how new imports might lead to the idling of productive facilities, the inability of domestic producers to operate at a profit and the unemployment of workers as the result of anticipated reductions in duties; and

The President will report to the Congress on his action after completion of the negotiations. The present arrangements will be substantially improved, however, since both the Tariff Commission recommendation and the President's report would be broader than a bare determination of specific peril points; and this should enable us to make much more informed use of these recommendations than has been true in the past.

Trade adjustment assistance: I am also recommending as an essential part of the new trade program that companies, farmers, and workers who suffer damage from increased foreign import competition be assisted in their efforts

to adjust to that competition. to adjust to that competition. When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government.

Under existing law, the only alternatives available to the President are the imposition or refusal of tariff relief. These alternatives should continue to be available.

The legislation I am proposing, however, provides an additional alternative called trade adjustment assistance. This alternative will permit the executive branch to make extensive use of its facilities, programs, and resources to provide special assistance to farmers. firms, and their employees in making the economic readjustments necessitated by the imports resulting from tariff concessions.

Any worker or group of workers, unemployed or underemployed, as a result of increased imports would, under this bill, be eligible for the following forms of assistance:

1. Readjustment allowances providing as much as 65 percent of the individual's average weekly wage for up to 52 weeks for all workers, and for as many as 13 additional weeks for workers over 60, with unemployment insurance benefits deducted from such allowances to the extent available;

2. Vocational education and training assistance to develop higher and different skills;

3. Financial assistance for those who cannot find work in their present community to relocate to a different place in the United States where suitable employment is available. For a businessman or farmer adversely affected by imports, there should be available:

1. Technical information, advice. and consultation to help plan and implement an attack on the problem; 2. Tax benefits to encourage modernization and diversification:

3. Loan guarantees and loans otherwise not commercially available to aid modernization and diversification.

Just as the Federal Government has assisted in personal readjustments made necessary by military service, just as the Federal Government met its obligation to assist industry in adjusting to war production and again to return to peacetime production, so there is an obligation to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy. Such a program will supplement and work in coordination with, not duplicate, what we are already doing or proposing to do for depressed areas, for small business, for investment incentives, and for the retraining and compensation of our unemployed workers.

This cannot be and will not be a subsidy program of Government paternalism. It is instead a program to afford time for American initiative, American adaptability and American resiliency to assert themselves. It is consistent with

that part of the proposed law which would stage tariff reductions over a 5year period. Accordingly, trade adjustment assistance, like the other provisions of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, is designed to strengthen the efficiency of our economy, not to protect inefficiencies.

Authority to grant temporary tariff relief will remain available to assist those industries injured by a sudden influx of goods under revised tariffs. But the accent is on "adjustment" more than "assistance." Through trade adjustment prompt and effective help can be given to those suffering genuine hardship in adjusting to import competition, moving men and resources out of uneconomic production into efficient production and competitive positions, and in the process preserving the employment relationships between firms and workers wherever possible. Unlike tariff relief, this assistance can be tailored to their individual needs without disrupting other policies. Experience with a similar kind of program in the Common Market, and in the face of more extensive tariff reductions than we propose here, testifies to the effective but relatively inexpensive nature of this approach. For most affected firms will and that the adjustment involved is no more than the adjustment they face every year or few years as the result of changes in the economy, consumer taste, or domestic competition.

The purpose of this message has been to describe the challenge we face and the tools we need. The decision rests with the Congress. That decision will either mark the beginning of a new chapter in the alliance of free nations or a threat to the growth of Western unity. The two great Atlantic markets will either grow together or they will grow apart. The meaning and range of free economic choice will either be widened for the benefit of freemen everywhere or confused and constricted by new barriers and delays.

Last year, in enacting a long-term foreign aid program, the Congress made possible a fundamental change in our relations with the developing nations. This bill will make possible a fundamental, far-reaching and unique change in our relations with the other industrialized nations-particularly with the other members of the Atlantic Community. As NATO was unprecedented in military history, this measure is unprecedented in economic history. But its passage will be long-remembered and its benefits widely distributed among those who work for freedom.

At rare moments in the life of this Nation an opportunity comes along to fashion out of the confusion of current events a clear and bold action to show the world what it is we stand for. Such an opportunity is before us now. This bill, by enabling us to strike a bargain with the Common Market, will "strike a blow" for freedom.

JOHN F. KENNEDY. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 25, 1962.

GREAT BASIN NATIONAL PARK IN NEVADA

On motion by Mr. BIBLE, and by unanimous consent,

The Senate resumed the consideration of its unfinished business, viz, the bill (S. 1760) to establish the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, and for other purposes.

On motion by Mr. BIBLE, and by unanimous consent,

The reported amendments were agreed to en bloc.

Pending debate,

No further amendment being made, Ordered, That the bill be engrossed and read a third time.

The said bill was read the third time. Resolved, That it pass and that the title thereof be as aforesaid.

Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives therein.

On motion by Mr. BIBLE to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill,

On motion by Mr. KUCHEL, The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

CLAIM OF GEORGE EDWARD BARNHART
On motion by Mr. BIBLE,

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 6025) to confer jurisdiction on the U.S. Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment on the claim of George Edward Barnhart against the United States; and the reported amendment having been agreed to,

Ordered, That the amendment be engrossed and the bill read a third time.

The bill, as amended, was read the third time.

Resolved, That it pass. Ordered, That the Secretary request the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the amendment.

On motion by Mr. KUCHEL to reconsider the vote on the passage of the bill,

On motion by Mr. BIBLE, The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

CHANGE OF NAME OF THE PLAYA DEL REY INLET AND HARBOR, VENICE, CALIF.

On motion by Mr. MANSFIELD, The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 157) to change the name of the Playa del Rey Inlet and Harbor, Venice, Calif., to the "Marina del Rey, Los Angeles, Calif."

Pending debate,

LINCOLN BOYHOOD NATIONAL MEMORIAL,

IND.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HICKEY in the chair) laid before the Senate the message this day received from the House of Representatives announcing its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2470) to provide for the establishment of the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial in the State of Indiana, and for other purposes, and asking a conference with the Senate thereon.

On motion by Mr. BIBLE, Resolved, That the Senate insist upon its amendments to the said bill, dis

agreed to by the House of Representatives, and agree to the conference asked by the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the Presiding Officer; and

The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mr. BIBLE, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. GRUENING, Mr. HRUSKA, and Mr. ALLOTT.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives thereof. CHANGE OF NAME OF THE PLAYA DEL REY INLET AND HARBOR, VENICE, CALIF. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 157) to change the name of the Playa del Rey Inlet and Harbor, Venice, Calif., to the "Marina del Rey, Los Angeles, Calif."; and no amendment being made,

Ordered, That it pass to a third reading.

The said bill was read the third time.
Resolved, That it pass.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives thereof. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE STATE OF WYOMING

On motion of Mr. MANSFIELD, The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (H.R. 3879) to authorize and direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the State of Wyoming for agricultural purposes certain real property in Sweetwater County, Wyo.

Pending debate,

ADJOURNMENT

On motion by Mr. KUCHEL, at 4 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.,

The Senate, under its order of Tuesday last, adjourned until Monday next.

MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1962

The VICE PRESIDENT called the Senate to order, and the Chaplain offered prayer.

THE JOURNAL

On motion by Mr. MANSFIELD, and by unanimous consent,

The reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, January 25, 1962, was dispensed with.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

On motion by Mr. MANSFIELD, The Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; pending which,

LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

The following proceedings were held as in legislative session, by unanimous consent:

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its clerks:

Mr. President: The Speaker of the House of Representatives having signed an enrolled bill, viz, H.R. 157, I am directed to bring it to the Senate for the signature of its President.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

The Secretary reported that he had examined and found truly enrolled the bill (H.R. 157) to change the name of the Playa del Rey Inlet and Harbor, Venice, Calif., to the Marina del Rey, Los Angeles, Calif.

The VICE PRESIDENT thereupon signed the same.

OFFICERS OF AIR FORCE ASSIGNED TO PERMANENT DUTY AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Air Force, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the number of officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the executive element of the Air Force at the seat of government for the quarter ended December 31, 1961; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

REPORT OF BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Board of Visitors to the U.S. Naval Academy, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Board for the calendar year 1961; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. REPORT OF FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY ON FEDERAL-AID AIRPORT PROGRAM

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the fiscal year 1962 Federalaid airport program and the program for the establishment of the air navigation facilities; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on Commerce.

REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the vice president of the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., transmitting, pursuant to law, a statement of the receipts and expenditures of the company for the calendar year 1961; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949 The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Administrator of General Services Administration, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 so as to make title III thereof directly applicable to procurement of property and nonpersonal services by executive agencies; which, with the accompanying paper, was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

REPORT OF AUDIT OF ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law. the audit report of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation for the period July 1, 1959, through December 31, 1960; which, with the accompanying report, was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

AUDIT REPORT OF FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law. an audit report of the Federal National Mortgage Association. Housing and Home Finance Agency, for fiscal year 1961; which, with the accompanying report, was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

REPORT OF REVIEW OF UTILIZATION OF EXCESS AIRCRAFT ENGINES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the review of the utilization of excess R3350-26WA aircraft engines as a source for spare parts by the Department of the Navy; which, with the accompanying report, was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF ANNUAL MEETING OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Chief Justice of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a copy of the report of the proceedings of the annual meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States, held in Washington, D.C., September 20-21, 1961; which, with the accompanying report, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

AUDIT REPORT OF FOUNDATION OF FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the audit of the association for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1961; which, with the accompanying paper, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

REPORT OF STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, OR ACQUISITION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Acting Administrator of General Services Administration, transmitting. pursuant to law, a report of the status of construction, alteration, or acquisition of public buildings in the several States for the calendar year 1961; which, with the accompanying paper, was referred to the Committee on Public Works.

USELESS PAPERS IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communication from the Acting Administrator of General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Acting Archivist of the United States on lists of papers in various departments and agencies of the Government, recommended for disposition, which appear to have no permanent value or historical interest; which, with the accompanying papers, was referred to a Joint Select Committee on the Disposition of Papers in the Executive Departments; and

The VICE PRESIDENT appointed Mr. JOHNSTON and Mr. CARLSON as members of the committee on the part of the Senate.

Ordered. That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives thereof.

PETITIONS

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a resolution of the Federal Communications Commission expressing the respect and sorrow of the Commissioners on the untimely death of Senator Andrew F. Schoeppel; which was ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. JOHNSTON) presented a concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of South Carolina favoring the enactment of Senate bill 1795, relative to authorizing Duke Power Co. to construct a dam

across the Savannah River; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

Mr. BURDICK, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, to whom was referred the resolution (S. Res. 273) to provide additional funds for the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. reported it without amendment; and

Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. REPORT ON DISPOSITION OF USELESS PAPERS

Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Joint Select Committee on the Disposition of Papers in the Executive Departments. to whom were referred lists of papers in various departments and agencies of the Government, recommended for disposition. transmitted to the Senate by the Archivist of the United States, dated January 1, 1962, submitted a report thereon. AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS TO EXTEND TIME FOR REPORT ON CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS

On motion by Mr. MCCLELLAN, and by unanimous consent,

Ordered, That the Committee on Government Operations may file reports on certain investigations up to March 1. 1962, and a report on investigation of the Teamsters Union up to June 1, 1962.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND A JOINT
RESOLUTION

Bills and a joint resolution were introduced, severally read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as follows:

By Mr. DOUGLAS:

S. 2751. A bill for the relief of Susan Guedera, Heinz Hugo Gudera, and Catherine Gudera; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BYRD of West Virginia (for himself and Mr. RANDOLPH):

S. 2752. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Coast and Geodetic Survey, to assist the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia to reestablish their common boundaries, and for other purposes: to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FONG:

S. 2753. A bill for the relief of Duk Man Lee and Mal Soon Lee: to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WILEY (by request):

S. 2754. A bill to establish a uniform national policy concerning rights to inventions under contracts with the U.S. Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SMATHERS:

8. 2755. A bill to repeal the tax on transportation of persons; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. KERR:

S. 2756. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide increases in rates of disability compensation, and for other purposes; and

S 2757. A bill to amend the Tariff Act

of 1930 to provide for the free entry of records and diagrams of engineering and exploration data not imported for sale or general distribution; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. LONG of Hawaii:

S. 2758. A bill for the relief of Mesepa (Naesepa) and Tuileau, both of Aloau Village. American Samoa; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself and Mr. HUMPHREY):

S. 2759. A bill to provide for further research relating to new and improved uses for farm and forest products and for development of new crops, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

By Mr. PROXMIRE:

S. 2760. A bill for the relief of YukKan Cheuk; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ERVIN:

S. 2761. A bill for the relief of Lily Jinghua Pan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. DIRKSEN:

S.J. Res. 149. Joint resolution authorizing the President of the United States to designate the week of May 6, 1962, as "International Castings Week"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ADDED COAUTHOR OF S. 2643

On motion by Mr. CHURCH, and by unanimous consent.

Ordered, That his name be added as coauthor of the bill (S. 2643) to authorize the construction, operation, and maintenance of the lower Teton reclamation project in the upper Snake River Valley, Idaho, and for related purposes.