printed below from the 1960 issue of the Labor Law Journal, written by Jonathan Matthew Purver, which deals with Supreme Court decisions leading up to the 1959 amendments to the Taft-Hartley Act, and feel that the scholarly manner in which the background material is presented will be of interest to my colleagues. It is my hope that Congress will see fit to scrutinize this entire matter carefully.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FEDERAL-STATE NO MAN'S LAND

(By Jonathan Matthew Purver) (This article examines the constitutional sources from which the doctrine of preemption developed and the Supreme Court's decisions pointing the way for Congress to correct flaws in the legislative structure. The publication of this article was recommended by Paul Prasow, a lecturer in personnel management and industrial relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. Mr. Purver is a senior honor student at UCLA.)

Mr. Justice Frankfurter has maintained that one function of the Supreme Court is to study the balance between the respective spheres of Federal and State power. Indeed, not only has the Court studied this balance, but it has in great part determined the respective spheres of Federal and State jurisdiction through its decisions which have established Federal supercession with respect to congressional labor legislation .

The principle of supersession, as discussed by the Court, is that once Congress has legislated within a particular field, State legislation within this field will be inoperative. It thus happens that, upon occasion, State legislation will be considered invalid-or "preempted "—because of the existence of Federal legislation in that area, even though such Federal legislation may appear too general to apply in that instance. In such cases a no man's land is created within the legal system in that the State is not permitted to act because of Federal legislation , although, at the same time, the Federal Government does not act because its legislation is too general in nature and does not provide for action in the specific case at hand.

The effect of Supreme Court decisions with respect to Federal preemption in relation to labor legislation has been to place this "no man's land" of labor law generally within Federal hands, and to allow congressional labor legislation of a general nature

of labor organizations or their agents. Thus, it remained primarly within the jurisdiction of the States to deal with such union activities as strikes, picketing and boycotts. The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, which amended the Wagner Act, left intact that part of the Wagner Act specifying unfair labor practices of employers, but added a section delineating unfair labor practices by labor organizations as well. It placed boycotts and other unlawful combinations within the jurisdiction of both State and Federal courts.

Supreme Court decisions (hereinafter discussed) relating to Federal labor legislation more specifically, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947-permitted the Federal Government to preempt jurisdiction with respect to certain sections of these acts in areas formerly considered within the limits of State authorities.

As the following cases are studied it will be seen that "it is not [always] easy for a State court to decide *** whether the subject matter [of a labor case] is the concern exclusively of the Federal Board and withdrawn from the State." The Supreme Court has in some instances set those boundaries, while in other cases it has refused to act in this regard , thus requiring congressional legislation to clarify the scope of the functioning of the National Labor These cases shall in turn Relations Board. be discussed.

The remainder of this article shall be devoted to an analysis and examination of the effects of several specific Supreme Court decisions upon jurisdictional problems created by Federal labor legislation and upon the creation and administration of Federal labor law with respect to the "no man's land," culminating in the passage of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.

During the period from 1946 to 1955, the Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of Federal preemption of State legislation in the field of labor law through four leading decisions. Each of the last three of these decisions relied heavily upon the precedent established in the case immediately preceding it. The first of the group, however, the Bethlehem case, looked to the Shreveport doctrine of 1914 for precedent.

BETHLEHEM CASE

The first of these cases, Bethlehem Steel Company v. New York State Labor Relations Board (12 L.C. par. 51,245, 330 U.S. 767 (1947)), was brought before the U.S. Su

cases arising thereunder. Before we discuss and analyze these Court decisions, we shall examine the constitutional sources from which the doctrine of preemption developed in the United States and the legislation which interjected this doctrine into

the area of Federal labor law.

The constitutional basis for supersession is found in section 2, article VI, of the Constitution-the "supremacy clause"-which states that "[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the United States shall be the

supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The more specific legislative basis of Federal supersession in the labor field is found in the Labor-Management Relations Act of

1947.

Whereas the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act) had set down specific actions which the Government would consider to be unfair labor practices on the part of employers, it did not attempt to de

termine unfair labor practices on the part

Footnotes at end of speech.

of Appeals of New York in 1946. The issue in question arose from the fact that the National Labor Relations Board had asserted

general jurisdiction over unions of foremen employed by industries subject to the Na

tional Labor Relations Act. The NLRB had lective bargaining representatives on the then refused to certify such unions as colgrounds that it would obstruct the purposes of the act. The Board also maintained that the New York State Labor Relations Board could not certify such unions, because for it to do so would conflict with the National Labor Relations Act and, consequently,

with the commerce clause of the Constitu

tion. The Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had, nonetheless, upheld the State labor relations board in such certifications, and the Bethlehem Steel Co. brought the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that "[t]heir [New York's] labor relations are primarily of interest to the State. [But] the sub

ject matter is one reachable ・・・ under

Congress can reach admittedly local and intrastate activities. **

In support of this position, the Court cited Houston, East and West Texas Railway Company v. U.S. (234 U.S. 342 (1914))—the Shreveport Rate Case of 1914-in which Mr. Justice Hughes handed down the classic doctrine that Congress may, upon occasion, regulate local and intrastate commerce "to foster and protect interstate commerce."

With respect to the "no man's land" in labor law, under which prosecution is difficult because jurisdiction is uncertain, Jackson held that "the mere fact of delegation of Congressional] power to deal with the general matter, without agency action, might preclude any State action if it is clear that Congress has intended no regulation except its own."

The Court made clear that Congress may intentionally reserve to itself specific powers without creating agencies to exercise these powers; and that, in such case, jurisdiction is removed from the respective States. But in the instant case. Congress was even more specific, and the certification of a union as a bargaining representative was clearly within the hands of the NLRB. The opinion of the lower court was reversed.

The Bethlehem case was consolidated with

Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation v. Kelley

(12 L.C., par. 51,245, 330 U.S. 767 (1947), decided on the same day (April 7). The Bethlehem doctrine was an affirmation of Packard Motor Car Company v. NLRB (12 L.C., par. 51,240, 330 U.S. 485 (1947), decided a month earlier, in which Mr. Justice Jackson expressed the opinion of the Court that foremen were "employees" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act of

1935.

LA CROSSE DECISION

The second case in the series, La Crosse Telephone Corporation v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board 16 L.C., par. 64,913, 336 U.S. 18 (1949), was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court upon appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin in 1949. The issue herein arose from the fact that the NLRB has assumed jurisdiction over the industry in question, but the NLRB's standards were different from those applied by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, the State agency.

Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court. He looked to the Bethlehem case for precedent in determining whether, in the present case, the Wisconsin board's certification of a certain union-as the bargaining agent of the employees of La Crosse Telephone Co. was in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act. The Court held that "certification by a State board under a different or conflicting theory of representation may be as readily disruptive of the practice under the Federal act as if the orders of the two boards made a headon collision," and that the State board had in this case presented such conflict.

Equally important, the Court maintained that the National Labor Relations Act would have been controlling even if it had not been applied in any formal way to the particular employees. In its decision, reversing the held the Wisconsin board's certification, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which had upU.S. Supreme Court brought congressional labor legislation within the realm of the supremacy clause to a still greater extent than it had in the Bethlehem case-in that now not only was the Federal labor law clearly supreme, but is was supreme even employee in question. when it did not specify the particular type of

GARNER VERSUS TEAMSTERS UNION The third case in the series, Garner v. Teamsters Union (24 L.C., par. 68,020, 346

Court upon writ of certiorari to the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania in 1953, and it established the importance of determining the correct tribunal before which a labor case arising under the Taft-Hartley Act can be tried. The issue in question here resulted from a Pennsylvania attempt to assume jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful and orderly picketing for the purpose of forcing an employer to coerce his employees to join a labor organization.

Mr. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court held that where a labor dispute affects interstate commerce, a State-in this case, Pennsylvania-lacks jurisdiction to enjoin "peaceful and orderly picketing." The reasoning of the Court was that the enforcement of "public right," a Federal function, supersedes the enforcement of "private right," generally a State function. Here the Court looked for preccdent in Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Company (2 L.C., par. 17,055, 309 U.S. 261 (1940), which held. that the NLRB is "a public agency acting in the public interest."

Secondly, the Court examined the congressional debates over passage of the TaftHartley Act and, noting the importance of correctly interpreting the "congressional will," held that "[t]he National Labor-Management Relations Act *** leaves much to the States, though Congress has refrained from telling us how much. We must spell out from conflicting indications of congressional will the area in which State action is still permissible."

While the Court maintained that the present case concerned a labor area in which State action was not permitted, it established the more important concept that henceforth it would be the Supreme Court which would, when possible, interpret this "congressional will" with respect to the labor field, as expressed through labor legislation coming before the Court.

Third, and finally, the Court held that part of "[f]ederal law * consists of substituting Federal statute law applied by administrative procedures in the public interest in the place of individual suits in courts to enforce common law doctrines of private right."

The Court thus clearly enunciated the doctrine that labor law was to be interpreted in such manner as to place it "within the realm of public interest," and that this was

to be done by encouraging such litigation

within the framework of Federal tribunals.

The decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which had deprived petititioners the injunction sought, was affirmed.

WEBER V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. The fourth and final case discussed, Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (cited at footnote 2), was brought before the Supreme Court in 1955. The Weber case, in addition to reaffirming the decisions of the earlier three cases by citing them as precedent, established several additional doctrines with respect to supersession of State labor legislation.

The issue here in question grew out of the issuance of an injunction by the State circuit court, enjoining the International Association of Machinists Union, an AFL affiliate, from striking the St. Louis Anheuser plant. The injunction was upheld by the State supreme court, and from there it went to the U.S. Supreme Court by certiorari.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court, first holding that "the principal question that the case raises * [is] whether the State court had jurisdiction to enjoin the IAM's conduct or whether its jurisdiction had been preempted by the National Labor Relations Board.

To this question the Court cited the Garner case, and held that "[a] State may not enjoin under its own labor statute conduct which has been made an ‘unfair labor practice' under the Federal statutes."

Thus far the Court followed the lines of precedent of the earlier three preemptory cases. At this point, however, the Court enunciated a new doctrine, holding that Congress did not intend by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to deprive State courts of jurisdiction in all labor disputes affecting interstate commerce, but merely in those situations covered by the Federal law; and that "by the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress did not exhaust the full sweep of legislative power over industrial relations given by the commerce clause."

The Court made clear that, in the instant case, the decision of the State court would be reversed not because Congress had full sweep of power over labor legislation , but because the particular Missouri antitrust laws here at issue conflicted with those unfair labor practices covered under the National Labor Relations Act. Moreover, Justice Frankfurter cited United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corporation (26 L.C., par. 68,460, 347 U.S. 656 (1954)) to show that State courts can grant relief against conduct violating both the National Labor Relations Act and State statutes or common law, where such relief is not available under the National Labor Relations Act and where it does not conflict with remedies available through National Labor Relations Board proceedings.

The Court also cited Allen-Bradley Local 1111 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (5 L.C., par. 51,135, 315 U.S. 740 (1942)) as an example of how State courts could enjoin mass picketing, which was a breach of the peace, by the use of State "police power," so as to avert local violence.

The importance of the Anheuser case is that, although reversing and remanding the Missouri Supreme Court, it made it clear that the State courts still retain a great measure of power to deal with labor problems, and that Federal labor legislation , while superior to State labor legislation , leaves much in the field of labor legislation to the discretion of the several State legislatures."

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, the Supreme Court, beginning with the Bethlehem case, clearly established the supremacy of Federal labor legislation with respect to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935; in the LaCrosse case, with respect to conflicting State labor legislation ; and, finally, with respect to the Taft-Hartley Act

in the Garner and Anheuser cases.

Passage of section 701, title 7 of the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which substantially removes the "no man's land" in labor law, was in part influenced by various Supreme Court decisions-notably with respect to the Bethlehem, LaCrosse, Garner, and Weber decisions.

As has been discussed, the effect of these decisions was to preclude State labor boards from asserting jurisdiction over matters covered by Federal legislation , even though a gap may have existed in the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction. By 1957, the States finally began to accept this "doctrine." The Court, thus, would not take the position of construing inadequate congressional labor legislation to fill gaps in the law. Rather, the Court interpreted such legislation as literally as possible, sometimes denying State labor boards' jurisdiction even though the preemptory Federal labor legislation created a "no man's land."

A recent example of the above-mentioned situation is Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America v. Fairlawn Meats (32 L.C. par. 70,564, 353 U.S. 20 (1957)), in which the Court maintained it was never the intention of Congress to have the Supreme Court decide "how consistent with Federal policy a State [labor] law must be," but that such decision was in the first instance given to the Board —although existing Federal legislation did not make this entirely clear.

Another example is Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board (32 L.C., par. 70,563, 353 U.S. 1 (1957)), in which the Court held that a State is not free to exercise authority to regulate activities covered by the National Labor Relations Act even when the National Labor Relations Board declines jurisdiction of the specific case over which the State board wishes to assert jurisdiction.

The Amalgamated and Guss decisions thus answered the one question left unsettled in the Garner case: Could the State law apply if the National Labor Relations Board declined to exercise its jurisdiction? In the above cases, the Court answered in the negative.

For this reason, I disagree with a 1957 opinion of the American Bar Association that "the Supreme Court opinion is, in a sense, merely a rationalization of the artlessly drawn legislative command. * * *";

The Court has constantly maintained that "Congress is free to change the [no man's land] situation at will," and that the Court indeed will not rationalize inadequate legislation but rather will indicate the need for better legislation to take its place. Prior to 1953, the Watkins-Smith and the Ives labor bills,' both of which aimed at allowing the Board to cede jurisdiction to State boards when a case had an "insubstantial" effect upon interstate commerce, failed Senate passage.

Beginning with the Garner case in 1953, the Supreme Court decided no less than 16 cases with respect to jurisdictional problems created by Federal labor legislation ; and in nearly all cases the Court suggested more adequate congressional legislation to cover this void.

In September of 1959, Congress passed the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Title 7, section 701(a), reads:

"(c) (1) The Board, in its discretion, may

* decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or category of employers, where, in the opinion of the Board, the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not sufficiently substantial to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction. *

"(2) Nothing in this act shall be deemed to prevent or bar any agency or the courts of any State *** from asuming and asserting jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the Board declines to assert jurisdiction."

The Supreme Court thus played a vital role not simply in affecting existing labor legislation , but also in creating Federal labor legislation with respect to the "no man's land" of American labor law. The Court in so many instances had refrained from being placed in the position of having to decide at what point a labor dispute substantially involves interstate commerce that Congress was finally compelled to clarify that henceforth it would be the National Labor Relations Board which could rightfully determine that point, and could, if it wished, delegate certain phases of its jurisdiction to the respective State labor boards.

Thus, the Supreme Court, acting its part in the Federal trilogy of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, has, by determining the relation between Federal and State labor legislative action, pointed the way for Congress to correct flaws in the legislative structure and thus, in turn, implement executive action called for in the public interest.

1 Frankfurter, 98 Proceedings of Amer. Phil. Soc. 233 (1954).

Weber v Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 27 L.C., par. 69,064, 348 U.S. 468, 481 (1955).

3 Justices Frankfurter, Murphy, and Rutledge filed separate opinions to the effect that New York should have been able to act, following pragmatic, rather than strict constitutional, reasoning.

When the picketing disrupts the peace and order, the State, in that case, may be allowed to move in under its police power even though Federal law be involved.

The most recent decision involving Federal preemption legislation is Youngdahl v. Rainfair, Inc., 33 L.C., par. 71.120, 355 U.S. 131 (1957), which enunciates the doctrines of the latter four cases while adding no new concepts to the field of labor legislation .

⚫ States refused their jurisdiction in many cases; most notable are Gallub Motors v. Local 259, UAW, 20 S.L.R.B.. No. 36 (N.Y., 1957) and Aaron Bring Bay Ridge, Inc., v. Local 917, IBT, 21 S.L.R.B. No. 28 (N.Y., 1958).

* 1957 Proceedings of the ABA Labor Relations Law Section (Chicago 37. Ill.), p. 67. s Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, cited in text; Chief Justice Warren speaking. S.B. 1723 and S.B. 1772.

Members of Congress have competent staffs, but in the final analysis each legislator must make his own decisions. When does the Member of Congress do his meditating? That is a question which many Members of Congress ask themselves.

The Bewildering Issue of Capital Punishment

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. THOMAS J. LANE

OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 16, 1961

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I

To Think

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 15, 1961

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, the following editorial comment appeared in the Saturday Evening Post of April 22, 1961. It touches a problem which is with all of us.

OUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE TOO LITTLE TIME TO THINK

I

"It was all very disillusioning. I went to Washington to see Congress at work. viewed the House and Senate debates, but where were all the Members? Each Chamber was practically empty. Oh, yes; we went to one or two hearings, but neither hearing had a quorum. Is this the way our laws are made?"

These are the comments of a high-school student who is interested in public affairs after a visit to the U.S. Capitol. Adult questions or statements are similar, but frequently in a cynical vein.

Despite outward appearances. Congress works hard and conscientiously at its tremendous task.

During the last Congress more than 20,000 bills were introduced-15,506 in the House and 4,658 in the Senate. Of course, this number of bills includes some duplications and various bills which were not under active review. However, a considerable number of them were analyzed and considered. And 800 of them were passed by both Houses and were added to the law of the land in their original or amended form.

However, the detailed study of all of these bills cannot be accomplished on the House floor or on the Senate floor. Therefore, preliminary and careful evaluation of all of these bills is distributed by subject matter among 16 Senate committees and 20 committees of the House, plus additional select and joint committees. Every Member is on at least one committee; many serve on two or more committees. Each committee is busy with hearings and executive sessions. For example, the House Ways and Means Committee of the last Congress heard 703 witnesses during 62 days of public hearings. Numerous executive sessions followed each of these hearings. More than 2,100 bills were referred to this committee. It reported favorably on 98 bills, and 61 became laws.

orable James V. Bennett, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington:

WANTED: A FAIR DEAL FOR PRISONERS-IVTHE BEWILDERING ISSUE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

(By James V. Bennett) WASHINGTON.-Not long ago I attended the funeral of a friend. As I entered the vestibule I noticed one of the church officials standing by and recognized him as a man who had once been sentenced to death. During the services I sat beside another man, who had once been similarly doomed and who for 20 years has led a spotless life as a hard-working civil servant.

Following his conviction and sentence, questions arose as to his actual guilt. President Roosevelt commuted his term to life imprisonment, and later when a full-fledged investigation established his innocence, released him from prison.

He received full pardon from President Truman.

The man who was now serving his church had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, and following another commutation further reducing his sentence, he was paroled. Since that time he has devoted his life to the assistance of troubled and unfortunate persons.

These cases make me, and no doubt you, question whether we should retain the capital penalty.

But my life's work has been the protection of society and that is a responsibility that carries with it little room for sentiment.

I cannot help but think of two men now serving out their lives in Federal prisons.

One is still in his twenties, as violent and mutinous an individual as ever a prison held. On separate occasions he has killed one fellow inmate and seriously stabbed another. There is no question that unless he is closely guarded he will kill again.

The other is an old man now. Early in his prison career he stabbed one inmate and a few years later killed a guard. For the protection of inmates and guards alike he had to be closely confined for decades.

I have often wondered if any useful purpose can be served by the lifelong imprisonment of these men. If they had paid the supreme penalty for their terrible crimes, would other inmates subsequently killed in prison brawls now be alive, would the lives of other guards killed in their efforts to protect society have been spared?

The capital punishment issue is indeed baffling, particularly in the wake of the

Chessman case.

It is true that although the number of executions has dwindled from two hundred 25 years ago to 50 to 60 in recent years the

volume of homicides has not significantly increased. The number fluctuates between 7,000 and 8,000 from year to year.

However, who can say that the use of capital punishment, regardless of the number actually executed, has not had some effect in keeping the homicide rate down even though other crimes punishable by lesser penalties have increased enormously?

I do not take issue with the abolitionists who point out the grimness of execution. I do contest their charge that it brutalizes those whose job it is to carry out the sentence when a court condemns a man to death.

The strongest and most eloquent abolitionists have been prison wardens like Lewis Lawes of Sing Sing, James Johnston of Alcatraz, and Clinton Duffy of San Quentin. Confronted with the necessity of arranging an execution a prison warden's concern must be with the welfare of society, not the plight of the condemned.

These men and others who know the facts about how the death penalty is actually applied in this country lost faith in it as an effective measure.

I believe that the deterrent effect of the death penalty would be more effectively realized if its use were put on a more equitable and judicious basis, and if some way could be found for minimizing the almost endless litigation that surrounds some of these cases. The Chessman case was kept going in the courts for 12 years.

Unquestionably there are some crimes that are so heinous, so outrageous, that society recoils in such horror that execution is the only means of expressing it.

The death penalty, in my opinion, should be retained for such offenses as murder for hire, murder involving a law enforcement officer engaged in his duties, the kidnaping and injury of a child, treason, bombing of an airplane, and bombing of innocent people in a school building or a church.

For all other capital offenses now on the statute books, I would make the penalty life imprisonment.

For the death penalty even under the circumstances I have mentioned I would require the concurrence of the judge and the jury. I would require a separate jury trial on the issue of sentence, as divorced from conviction. I would provide for an automatic psychiatric examination of the defendant prior to sentence, and I would provide for an automatic appeal.

With these safeguards we could assure ourselves that the death sentence would not, be lightly or indiscriminately used.

Address by Hon. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, at the Tennessee River Tributaries Association and Elk River Development Association, Fayetteville, Tenn., May 12, 1961

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. CLYDE DOYLE

OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 17, 1961

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, by reason of unanimous consent heretofore granted me so to do, I bring to your attention, and the attention of my other distinguished colleagues, the very timely, pertinent, and interesting address made by our former colleague, Hon. Stewart L. Udall, who is now the distinguished Secretary of the Interior:

ADDRESS BY HON. STEWART L. UDALL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AT THE TENNESSEE RIVER TRIBUTARIES ASSOCIATION AND ELK RIVER DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,

TENN., MAY 12, 1961

You do me a unique honor in asking me to talk with you about development of water resources. You were in the front lines of the long battle for water development in this region when I was a schoolboy in a little Arizona ranch town. You were among the first New Frontiersmen because you were pioneers in a coordinated comprehensive river development plan. To all of you residents of the Tennessee Valley, the subject of water and its planned control and use is far from novel.

I understand your valleywide association is only slightly more than a year old. You can accomplish much through joint and coordinated action, and you hold it within your power to be of considerable assistance to the directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. You are holding fast to the original brilliant concept of TVA. You well realize that we can no longer afford to be piecemeal in our development of water resources. We must devise plans which will transcend the interests of individual localities or agencies, and which will conform to a broad plan of integrated development of all the resources of a great watershed. This is no time for standpatters, it is no time for the overly cautious approach to resource development it is a time for broad gaged planning and bold action. President Kennedy has told us, "Failures to act now may be opportunities lost forever."

Years ago you and other farsighted men set the pattern. You saw the opportunities available in harnessing the mighty Tennessee and making it work for mankind. In so doing, you made the three letters TVA synonymous with the idea of overall basin development.

It wasn't a simple matter. I'm sure many of you vividly rememer the slow and often disappointing struggle which you underwent before TVA became a reality. Perhaps by now, though, that stirring story is "old hat" to some of your neighbors in this valley. I know that you here tonight, representing various area development associations, have not forgotten and will not forget.

The world outside this beautiful valley of yours continues to hold up TVA as a shining example of the best that man can accomplish in utilizing nature. Just 6 days ago, the Christian Science Monitor carried a long story about the Cauca Valley Corp., a new river development effort in the South American nation of Colombia. It quoted the English-speaking general manager of the CVC as saying, "We think we are admirably suited for a TVA-type development." It isn't the admittedly great water development works of Russia that these South Americans look to as a guide-it is your own, our own, TVA. And so it goes. everywhere in the free world. Do not, yourselves, become immune to the great accomplishments around you.

Not all of the development of the Tennessee River region is to be spoken of in the past tense. Part of the job still remains to be done. I'm sure you recall the words of the late George Norris who said in his autobiography that:

"This program of controlling the surplus floodwaters of the great Mississippi Valley by storage in natural reservoirs situated on the main stream and along the tributaries is an immense one. It may never be fulfilled. That depends entirely upon the vision of the American people. It will require a vast amount of money to complete it; it will take years of planning and of labor to meet fully all of its factors; and yet it offers the only promise discovered by men for the effective control of floods and efficient conservation of natural resources."

Yes, you have begun to make real use of your river system-but you've only begun, as George Norris foresaw. Now you face the challenge of continuing with his great vision—yes, and that of many others as well. You who continue to hold to the vision, you who still have the evangelist's fervor and the salesman's persistence, must work together with the officials of the TVA to complete this project that is of great importance to all America. One of the dreams that you in the Southeast have long held is that of joining the Tennessee and the Tombigbee to cut off 600 miles of the long water journey from your ports to the gulf. The TVA itself was once such a pipedream-who knows. perhaps your later efforts will be crowned with success. Certainly, this administration favors a stepped-up program of long-range planning now in the resources field.

You leaders realize, too, that river development doesn't necessarily mean great power dams or navigation channels on every watercourse. You realize that some areas of this vast river basin are best suited for recreation development, others are promising for intensive agricultural undertakings, such as your growing poultry industry, or timber production, and some spots are best retained for the benefit of wildlife. There's room on the big Tennessee and its tributaries for all kinds of development. Not every mile of the system can be developed every mile of the system can be developed as a new Pittsburgh-just as not every mile can be drained farmland, a river park or a wildlife refuge. But every mile can be developed in some manner, with due consideration for economics and always with a progressive and farsighted standard of feasibility that holds great faith in the future.

Listen again to George Norris' words: "Every drop of water that falls from the heavens to the earth beneath should perform its proper share of preserving the blessings God intends to bestow upon his people." Every drop of water in this watershed can be made to work, over and over again, and it must be done. The important thing. it seems to me. is to develop this homeland of yours that the natural resources so abundant here are utilized and conserved in the highest and best manner appropriate to the overall concept of basin development.

All of us in the Kennedy administration were enthused and challenged by the precedent-setting special message of the President concerning natural resources. Here was given all of us a blueprint for the construction of an integrated program for the wise conservation and use of our natural resources. If that stirring message could be summarized in only two words, I believe those words would be, “Think big."

We must all think big and act in accord with that thought. Here we can see that even George Norris, who thought some of the biggest thoughts ever to burst forth in the U.S. Senate, didn't think big enough. George Norris almost overlooked one of the primary items in the Tennessee River developmentthe recreation potential of water. Recreation is a latecomer on the list of benefits of comprehensive river development, and certainly we cannot blame the founding fathers of TVA for initially paying it little heed. But now, in a Nation of rising wages and increasing leisure time, recreational use of the TVA facilities is growing at an astonishing rate. Americans have discovered that yours is one of the most diverse and enjoyable outdoor recreation areas in our Nation. I'm told that an average of $812 million worth of new recreation facilities is added each year at the reservoirs of the TVA. In addition to a total governmental recreation investment here of $120 million, there has been nearly an equal amount in private recreation investments such as cottages and resorts. You have close to 50,000

boats on your river system. Think what all this already means to the economy of your valley. Think what more it will mean in the years immediately ahead.

Everywhere in the United States recreation is becoming big business. We're going to have to think and act mighty big if we meet the pent-up recreation demand.

We in the Department of the Interior have taken this recreation boom, and the President's message, to heart. We are embarking on some big planning for recreation development throughout the United States. We feel that this is the moment of decision. What we do, or don't do, in the next 10 years will set the character of this Nation for generations to come. America's open space is disappearing rapidly at a time when all signs point to mounting demands for parks, parkways, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. We need open space in which to find outdoor enjoyment and refreshment of mind, body, and spirit.

To meet this need we are laying plans for a program without parallel in our history. Because much of this recreational development is of national impact, we want the Federal Government to take the lead in a program we're calling "Parks for America." And we want to encourage local areas and States to do more through a cooperative effort. Only a few areas and a few States, notably New York and California, are keeping up or vigorously attempting to keep up with the mounting demand.

This generation, as we see it, has a lastchance opportunity to save perhaps 15 or 20 million acres for national parks, another 21 million acres for national recreation areas, more than a million acres for national parkways and scenic roads such as your Natchez Trace, 41 million acres for wildlife refuge areas. The program will be costly, but every year we delay the costs will rise. Fortunately, much land we propose to retain as open space already is in public ownership. But for 4.6 million acres of privately held land that we foresee as national park lands, the estimated cost has doubled in the past 10 years, and is expected to nearly double again in the next 10. Make no mistake about it, if we do not act now the opportunity will vanish. What we save in the next 10 years may well be all we will ever have the chance to save.

These aren't the only ways in which we are undertaking to implement the natural resources program outlined by President Kennedy. We hold uppermost his warning that "Our Nation has been blessed with a bountiful supply of water; but it is not a blessing we can regard with complacency." In all those areas wherein we have primary responsibility for multiple-purpose water development we are hard at work drawing up plans for a resumption of the effort that shriveled into near nothingness during the past 8 years. In this we have as a shining example the transformation wrought in hydroelectric power production and consumption by your TVA. That transformation brought you from an area of relatively little electric use to one in which electric power consumption is nearly twice the per capita average for the rest of the Nation.

Too, we accept the goal of developing comprehensive river basin plans during the decade of the sixties, so that all parts of our country can follow the steps to progress that you have made.

And we share with others in the Government a concern that a major breakthrough be made, and made soon, on the growing problem of cleaning up our streams. Conserved water will be of little use if it is polluted water. No longer can we rely on the adage that "dilution is the solution to pollution." Something more, something positive, must be done. We face the imninent peril of having our major rivers become thousand-mile sewers.

No longer is water pollution a problem of a few metropolitan areas; it is a problem nationwide in scope. To meet it we must spend twice as much on municipal waste treatment plants as we now do. The administration's program for a grant-in-aid system to help communities meet this problem is the start. With its adoption perhaps

I won't have to inhale the stench of the Potomac when I drive home on a hot day. Perhaps we will close out the business I read about recently in a magazine-the business some private enterpriser started on the Missouri River. He skims and sells the grease from the surface of the broad Missouri.

Already the Secretary of Agriculture and I are working together in another area to which the President directed his attention. Together we are formulating a comprehen

served so well. He was president of the borough of Brooklyn for 21 years. He was often referred to as "Mr. Brooklyn" because of his long years of service in the interests of the borough where he was born, raised, and lived all his life. John Cashmore was born in Brooklyn on June 7, 1895. He attended elementary school, but was forced to go to work at an early age because of the untimely death of his father. He continued his schooling at night, including law courses at New York University. He enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War I and served in France. He was primarily a businessman and a public official who gave a lifetime of service to his commu

PRINTING OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTRACTS

It shall be lawful for the Public Printer to print and deliver upon the order of any Senator, Representative, or Delegate, extracts

working to eliminate conflicts in fish and wildlife programs so that an increased and improved wildlife conservation effort may be made. If this takes some knocking together of a few bureaucratic heads, then Secretary Freeman and I are ready to do it.

I hope it goes without saying that in all these various fields of natural resource

planning and development the Federal Gov

ernment does not desire to move ahead alone. Nor does it expect to. We are heeding President Kennedy's view that only through the fullest participation and cooperation of State and local government and private industry can this task be done wisely and effectively.

It's up to you folks just as much as it is to us. Resource development is a must—a natural, if you'll permit the pun. With our soaring population we are facing what I call the quiet crisis. For all its quietness, this crisis in the field of resource development is just as real as the one we face in world affairs. America has the ability to meet this crisis—we aren't a poor nation. Just a small part of the money we now spend on pointedtoed shoes and overpublicized gimmicks can have a beneficial effect for many generations if we direct the money into public investment. As progressive conservationists concerned with the efficient development of our Nation our job is cut out for us.

I'm sure I could do no better than to end with the closing words of the President's natural resources message: "The task is large but it will be done."

The Late John Cashmore, Borough President of Brooklyn

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF

HON. VICTOR L. ANFUSO

OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, May 17, 1961

Mr. ANFUSO. Mr. Speaker, the people of Brooklyn have recently suffered a most grievous loss in the death of their beloved borough president and my very dear friend John Cashmore. He died unexpectedly after suffering a heart attack while being driven home from a dinner in Manhattan Sunday evening, May 7. I was present at the dinner and spoke with him there. A few hours later I heard the news of his death over the radio and was tremendously shocked.

His passing is a terrible loss for Brooklyn. John Cashmore was a great borough president, whose heart was with the people and with the borough he

color or creed.

Cashmore's political career began in 1922 when he was elected to the State assembly on the Democratic ticket. Two years later he was elected to the New York City Board of Aldermen, and then was reelected to five successive terms. From 1937 until 1940 he served in the city council, where he became majority leader and vice chairman. When Brooklyn Borough President Raymond V. Ingersoll gersoll died in 1940, Cashmore was elected as his successor and he has served in that office since then. He was re

ordering the same paying the cost thereof (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 185, p. 1942).

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTORY

The Public Printer, under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, may print for sale, at a price sufficient to reimburse the expenses of such printing, the current Congressional Directory. No sale shall be made on credit (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 150, p. 1939).

elected in 1941, 1945, 1949, 1953, and 1957. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS FOR SALE He had become so popular and beloved by all segments of Brooklyn's 3 million population that in the last two campaigns the Republicans supported him, too.

Cashmore's only defeat for public office took place in 1952 when he was nominated for the U.S. Senate against the Republican incumbent Senator Irving M. Ives. He often ran far ahead of the party and on one occasion received 33,000 more votes in Brooklyn than the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Additional copies of Government publications are offered for sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C., at cost thereof as determined by the Public Printer plus 50 percent: Provided, That a discount of not to exceed 25 percent may be allowed to authorized bookdealers and quantity purfere with the prompt execution of work for chasers, but such printing shall not interthe Government. The Superintendent of Documents shall prescribe the terms and conditions under which he may authorize the resale of Government publications by bookdealers, and he may designate any Government officer his agent for the sale of Government publications under such regulations ent of Documents and the head of the reas shall be agreed upon by the Superintendspective department or establishment of the Government (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 72a, Supp. 2).

His funeral on Thursday, May 11, was attended by many hundreds of people from all walks of life, including a group of more than 200 honorary pallbearers led by Mayor Wagner of New York. The group also included all Members of Congress from Brooklyn, 22 State assemblymen, 9 State senators, members of the city's board of estimate, and many other city and borough officials. He is survived LAWS RELATIVE TO THE PRINTING OF by his widow Edythe, to whom he was happily married since 1926, and a son James and his family.

John Cashmore's death will be deeply felt in Brooklyn. He was dedicated to our borough and to its betterment. He was a distinguished citizen, an able leader, and a devoted public servant. He was a man who inspired great loyalty in all those who came in contact with him, and he returned the same loyalty. It is often said that Brooklyn is more than just a place-it is a state of mind. John Cashmore had a leading role in creating that state of mind in the 21 years that he served as its borough president. The people of Brooklyn will long remember him.

I extend my condolences to his widow and to his son. May the good name that he leaves behind serve as a consolation to them in this hour of their great bereavement.

DOCUMENTS

Either House may order the printing of a document not already provided for by law, but only when the same shall be accompanied by an estimate from the Public Printer as to the probable cost thereof. Any executive department, bureau, board, or independent office of the Government submitting reports or documents in response to inquiries from Congress shall submit therewith an estimate of the probable cost of printing the usual number. Nothing in this section relating to estimates shall apply to reports or documents not exceeding 50 pages (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 140, p. 1938).

Resolutions for printing extra copies, when presented to either House, shall be referred immediately to the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Admin

istration of the Senate, who, in making their report, shall give the probable cost of the Public Printer, and no extra copies shall be proposed printing upon the estimate of the printed before such committee has reported (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 133, p. 1937).