Fascell

Feighan

Finnegan

Fisher

McFall

Flood

McDowell

McIntire

McLoskey

Frelinghuysen Marsh

May

Meader

Rooney, Pa. Roosevelt

Rumsfeld

Short

Shriver

Flynt

Fogarty

Macdonald

Ford

Stinson

Gathings

Gibbons

Glenn

Gonzalez

Halleck

Hanna

Hansen

Harding

Harris

Addabbo

O'Hara, Ill.

O'Hara, Mich.

Tuck

Tupper

Weltner

Nelsen

O'Konski

Olsen, Mont.

Ostertag

Patman

NAYS-98

Garmatz

O'Neill

Mr. Wyman for, with Mr. Stephens against. Mr. Findley for, with Mr. Rodino against. Mr. Rhodes of Arizona for, with Mr. Celler against.

Mr. Talcott for, with Mr. St. Onge against.

Until further notice:

Mr. White with Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Lesinski with Mr. Miller of New York.
Mr. Denton with Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Pucinski with Mr. Westland.
Mr. Williams with Mr. Foreman.
Mr. Bass with Mr. Siler.

Mr. O'Brien of Illinois with Mr. Widnall.
Mr. Roberts of Texas with Mr. Dague.
Mr. Hays with Mr. Avery.

Mr. Holifield with Mr. Mailliard.

Mr. Dowdy with Mr. Kilburn.

Mr. Forrester with Mr. McCulloch.

Mr. Shelley with Mr. Gubser.

Mr. Watts with Mr. Berry.

Mr. Landrum with Mr. Laird.

Mr. Long of Louisiana with Mr. Hosmer.
Mr. Colmer with Mr. Bates.

Mr. Winstead with Mr Wharton.

Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Kyl.
Mr. Tuten with Mr. Burton.
Mr. Steed with Mrs. Kee.

Mr. Davis of Tennessee with Mr. Baring.
Mr. Everett with Mr. Carey.

of

Mr. Burkhalter with Mr. St Germain. Mr. Rivers of South Carolina with Mr. Smith of Iowa.

Mr. Passman with Mr. Pilcher.

Messrs. ASHLEY, ROOSEVELT, and THOMPSON of New Jersey changed their votes from "nay" to "yea."

Messrs. ASPINALL and BECKER changed their votes from "yea" to "nay." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The doors were opened.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered within 5 days.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLE

Mr.

ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Aiabama?

There was no objection.

Mr. ROBERTS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 1963, I received word through reliable sources that Justice Department personnel had rented cars for the purpose of driving Martin Luther King and other agitators in Selma and Dallas County.

Upon receipt of this information I immediately sent a telegram to the Attorney General stating that such act was unwarranted, highly inflammatory and was an interference in local administration. I further stated that this was completely unjustified and requested that I be advised as to the legal authority for such expenditures of taxpayer's money and further requested that the Attorney General issue an immediate order stopping this flagrant violation and illegal use of public funds.

On October 22, 1963, Mr. Speaker, I placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a summary of the official report I had received on this subject together with a copy of my telegram to the Attorney General.

On October 30, 1963, in reply to my telegram Mr. Burke Marshall, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Justice Department, categorically denied the allegations and further stated that, "the reports to the contrary are false."

Today, Mr. Speaker, I received another communication from Mr. Marshall enclosing a statement correcting the inaccurate information furnished me under date of October 30, 1963. This statement was as follows:

Reports were published in Alabama last month that automobiles rented by the Department of Justice were used to transport Rev. Martin Luther King from Birmingham to Selma on the evening of October 15.

The Department of Justice issued a statement on October 18, asserting that no automobiles rented by the Department of Justice had been used to drive Reverend King either from Birmingham to Selma or from Selma to Montgomery.

No car rented by the Department was used to drive Reverend King from Selma to Montgomery. However, a car rented by the Department and being used by a Department lawyer was loaned to a private citizen who subsequently drove Reverend King from Birmingham to Selma on October 15.

During that time, the attorney, Thelton Henderson, remained in Birmingham. Nevertheless, the use of the car for unofficial business was contrary to Department of Justice regulations. It was also contrary to a statement which Mr. Henderson originally gave to the Department of Justice. Mr. Henderson came forward last night and

voluntarily gave a correct account of what occurred. He has submitted his resignation to the Department and it has been accepted. The Department regrets very much that its earlier statement as to the use of a car rented by the Department in connection with Reverend King's transportation from Birmingham to Selma was based on misinformation and, therefore, erroneous.

It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that an agency of the Government and particularly a law enforcement agency such as the Justice Department would, prior to rendering a report such as the one submitted to me by Mr. Marshall, and which I ask to be inserted immediately following my remarks, would make a thorough investigation of the facts before writing a Member of Congress. However, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps this is a typical example of the operations of this Department which has used equipment, manpower and resources to aid racial agitators in my native Alabama without legal authority. If there are violations or threatened violations of Federal laws, the Justice Department should be present, but to place equipment and resources at the disposal of agitators is to put the Federal Government in the position of encouraging unlawful and uncalled for rioting, strife and racial unrest.

TO AUTHORIZE THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS TO ISSUE BONDS

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1989) to authorize the government of the Virgin Islands to issue general obligation bonds, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amendment as follows:

Page 2, line 5, strike out "operate" and insert "equip".

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I take this opportunity to ask the chairman of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Af

fairs whether or not the amendment which was placed in the bill by the Senate is what was basically the intention of the House when the bill was reported. Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman is

right.

the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8969) to provide, for the period ending June 30, 1964, temporary increases in the public debt limit set forth in section 21 of the Second

Liberty Bond Act, and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said bill except amendments Ways and Means. Amendments offered by offered by direction of the Committee on direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

HOUR OF MEETING TOMORROW Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, I was at a meeting of that committee at the Congressional Hotel when rollcall No. 191 was had, on H.R. 6143. We did not get word there that the vote was being had. Had I been present I would have voted "yea" on the conference report.

RECREATION ALLOCATION POLICY

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include the text of an executive communication together with the text of a bill introduced by me today.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

There was no objection.

The Senate amendment was concurred

the table.

TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE

PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

Mr. O'NEILL, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 564, Rept. No. 889), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that

of project costs to recreation and fish and wildlife. The committee found that the administration had not adopted a uniform policy with respect to allocations, and that multiple-purpose water resource projects were being submitted to the Congress by the Department of the Interior and the Corps of Engineers with recreation and fish and wildlife allocations determined on a different basis. Feeling strongly that a uniform recreation allocation policy should be estab

lished, the committee, on May 22, 1963, adopted a resolution requesting the administration to submit to Congress its recommendations with respect to legislation to establish policies and procedures relating to cost allocation, reimbursement and cost sharing which would be applicable to all water resource projects. It seemed to the committee that since this was a matter involving several executive departments and the jurisdiction of several committees of the Congress, the recommendations of the administration was a necessary first step toward enactment by the Congress of legislation

establishing a uniform policy. Pending receipt of the administration's recommendation, the committee has not considered any reclamation projects for authorization.

Since last May, in response to my committee's request, the executive departments and the Bureau of the Budget have been working diligently to reach agreement on the policies which should be adopted and develop legislation to implement their recommendations. On Monday, the legislation was submitted to the Congress by the Bureau of the Budget and has been referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. It is my hope that the committee can give early consideration to this legislation and that it can be expeditiously approved by the Congress with whatever changes are found to be necessary in order that we may again be in position to consider the authorization of reclamation projects.

The legislation involves projects of the Corps of Engineers which are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works. Works. Therefore, I am advising the chairman of that committee of the legislation and assuring him that the views and recommendations of the Public Works Committee will be fully considered in any action which my committee takes.

I know that many Members are interested in this legislation and, therefore, I am including as a part of these remarks, the letter from the Bureau of the Budget to the Speaker along with the recommended legislation. It will be noted that the legislation is concurred in by the Department of the Interior and by the Department of the Army.

The letter follows: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., November 2, 1963. Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The demands of the American people for all forms of outdoor recreation opportunities, particularly those which are water related, have increased sharply since the Second World War and are expected to accelerate in the years ahead. This situation has resulted in general recognition that recreation should be fully considered along with other purposes served by Federal multiple-purpose water resources projects as part of a sound conservation program. Uniform policies, including costsharing and reimbursement policies, are

needed for the treatment of recreation and fish and wildlife as part of these projects. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior should have general authority, comparable to that now available to the Department of the

Army, for recreation development of projects under his control. I am transmitting herewith for the consideration of the Congress a draft bill which would establish uniform policies regarding recreation and fish and wildlife and would provide the Secretary of the Interior with appropriate authority.

Subsection 1(a) states congressional policy that (1) full consideration shall be given to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement as part of Federal water resource projects; (2) planning with respect to recreation aspects of a project shall be coordinated with existing and planning recreation developments; and (3) except where Federal administration is authorized, the project construction agency shall encourage non-Federal public bodies to assume responsibility for the management of project areas and facilities provided initially at Federal cost and for the additional development of the area to realize the full recreation and fish and wildlife potential.

sponsibility and non-Federal responsibility. For example, the National Park System has long been recognized as a Federal responsibility. As another example, the Recreation Advisory Council this year established criteria for the establishment and management of national recreation areas with costs generally to be borne by the Federal Government. It is considered that recreation opportunities provided by water resource projects in most cases will be of primary benefit to people living in the locality of the project. In the absence of such a project, there would be little question that the provision of similar recreation opportunities would be a non-Federal responsibility. Thus, it would seem appropriate and equitable generally to require cost sharing by State and local interests for project costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. Such cost sharing would be consistent with the administration's proposed program of grants to States to assist them in pro

Subsection 1(b) provides that the value viding recreation opportunities. However, it

of recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement benefits shall be taken into account in determining the economic value of water resource projects, and that costs shall be allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement in a manner which will insure that all project purposes share equitably in the advantages of multiple-purpose construction.

Subsection 1(c) deals with the subject of reimbursement and cost sharing of those costs of Federal projects that are allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. The two functions are combined for this purpose because of the close relationship between the benefits that flow from

them.

Beginning in 1962, the Army Corps of Engineers recommended Federal assumption of the separable cost of balanced basic recreational development, plus a portion of joint project costs allocated to this function in the order of 25 percent or less of the total project costs. On June 21, 1962, we advised the Secretary of the Army in connection with the first project report containing this recommendation as follows:

"The administration is currently giving consideration to the problems of cost allocation and of reimbursement and cost sharing between the Federal Government and non-Federal bodies-matters not fully dealt with in the policies and standards recently approved by the President. There is also under consideration the development of detailed standards to supplement the new principle for estimating recreation benefits, including those derived from the recreational aspects of fish and wildlife. We would expect that prior to the initiation of construction, the project would be reevaluated in light of the administration's standards and policies applicable at that time."

Similar statements were included in letters of advice on other project reports. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the administration made no commitment regarding the 25percent formula and that the proposed projects would be reevaluated before estimates of appropriations are requested to initiate project construction.

Enactment of the proposed legislation would establish general cost-sharing and reimbursement policy for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. Therefore, this matter was given very careful consideration. We requested and received the views of several agencies on the bill and held discussions with representatives of the agencies including the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army. The enclosed draft bill takes into account the agencies' views. The following explains our views with respect to the bill.

A basic consideration is the need to differentiate appropriately between Federal re

is recognized that to require cost sharing for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement on every project may hinder the development of some much needed and worthwhile water resource projects because of the inability of the State and local people to share the costs. It is also recognized that there will be some sharing of costs through recreation user charges and fees upon enactment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation; however, this will also be true of the National Park System and na

tional recreation areas.

Taking these factors into account, we believe it would be reasonable for the Federal Government to bear (1) the costs incurred specifically for land and basic facilities for recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement, (2) the joint costs allocated to recreation and to fish and wildlife enhancement up to a dollar limit as described in the next paragraph, and (3) certain other Federal costs, such as the cost of increasing the size of a reservoir for recreation, up to a limit of 25 percent of the cost of joint-use land and facilities or $5 million, whichever is the lesser. Joint-use land and facilities are defined as land or facilities serving two or more project purposes, one of which is recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement.

The draft bill provides that the limit on nonreimbursable joint costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement vary according to the size of projects—the limit expressed in percentages would be relatively large for small projects with progressively smaller percentages for larger projects. The effect of this is that the limit on nonreimbursable costs in dollar terms increases gradually for larger projects rather than in direct proportion to the size of projects. The rationale for this approach is that the Federal investment for recreation at water resource projects should not be inordinately large in any area merely because the water resource project happens to be large for other purposes. It would appear reasonable to start the percentage limit at 25 percent of the cost of joint-use land and facilities for small projects with decreasing percentages for larger projects.

Under the draft bill, cost sharing or reimbursement for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement would not be required for the great majority of water resource projects. Even where cost sharing or reimbursement would be required, a large part of the cost allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement would in general be borne by the Federal Government.

Under the provisions of the bill, non-Federal interests would reimburse the Federal Government for costs in excess of the specified limits. The draft bill provides for three methods of payment or reimbursement. One or a combination of the following methods, as determined appropriate by the head

of the agency having jurisdiction over the project, would be used: (1) provision by non-Federal interests of land or interests therein or facilities required for the Federal project; (2) payment or repayment by nonFederal public bodies with interest at a rate comparable to that for other project functions; and (3) repayment by use of project revenues at projects which have revenueproducing functions such as hydroelectric power or water supply. The water and power users will benefit from the recreation opportunities provided by the project and will also benefit from the additional economic activities in the area which can be expected to be generated by the project. Interest comparable to that for other project functions would be charged and repayment of recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement costs would be made during the payout of cost allocations to water and power functions. However, if there were unusual circumstances where deferral of repayment would be in the public interest, the head of the agency could recommend that deferred repayment be authorized.

Enactment of the draft bill would establish general cost-sharing and reimbursement policy for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. The formulation of a policy to fit every circumstance is made difficult by the great variety among water resource projects-in size, purposes served, and problems encountered. It is recognized that the application of the policy which would be established by the bill may not be appropriate in every case. There will be instances when it will be entirely fitting for the water resource agencies to recommend departures from the general policy and we would expect the agencies to do so. For example, there may be a few instances where the strict application of the provisions of the bill could result in rates for electric power and water supply that would be higher than those generally prevailing in the area for obtaining equivalent amounts of power or water. Other examples might include water resource projects that affect a national park or are included within a national recreation area, or where an outstanding opportunity to further the migratory waterfowl conservation program exists.

Subsection 1(d) provides that the views of the Secretary of the Interior, developed in accordance with section 3 of the act of May 28, 1963 (Public Law 88-29; 77 Stat. 49), shall be included in each project report.

Subsection 1(e) confirms the limitations of the first proviso of section 2(d) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (72 Stat. 563, 16 U.S.C. 662 (d)) with respect to measures for the enhancement of fish and wildlife properly includable in a Federal water resource project; it also repeals the second proviso of that section of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, which applies to proj

ects constructed under reclamation law. The effect of repeal of the second proviso is twofold: first, it will result in the costs of mitigation of project-occasioned damage to fish and wildlife being distributed among all project purposes the same as any other project cost; and, second, it will terminate the reimbursement policy for costs allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement now set out in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act so that the reimbursement policy established by this bill may take effect.

Subsection 1(f) is largely self-explanatory; it places a limitation of $28 million on water resource project funds that may be expended for land acquisition to accomplish the Federal Government's obligations to conserve and protect migratory waterfowl. These expenditures are in addition to those made from the migratory bird conservation fund for migratory waterfowl refuges. The $28 million limitation applies only to expenditures for acquisition of lands or interests in lands which would otherwise not be acquired, when they are acquired at a water resource

project for incorporation into a migratory waterfowl refuge located there. The $28 million limitation specifically does not apply to expenditures for the mitigation of damages to migratory waterfowl, since that is properly a project cost to be allocated to project purposes in the same manner as any other project cost.

Subsection 1(g) brings several recently authorized Corps of Engineers projects that may include migratory waterfowl refuges under the provisions of this bill.

Subsection 1(h) provides that the act shall not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority nor to projects constructed under the authority of the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a). We believe that costsharing and reimbursement requirements for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement at small reclamation projects should be considered in relation to such requirements at watershed protection projects constructed under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83d Cong.), as amended.

The Tennessee Valley Authority has informed us that they have adequate authority to plan for, evaluate benefits from, and allocate costs to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement in connection with multiple-purpose projects. They believe that the bill contains language which is inappropriate for TVA, for example, the requirement that the views of the Secretary of the Interior be included in any report concerning a project within the bill's purview. While TVA consults and cooperates with other Federal agencies, TVA believes it must as a unified development agency take full responsibility for all phases of projects which it plans and constructs. This was recognized in TVA's exemption from the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Furthermore, the policy of the Tennessee Valley Authority is not to provide recreation facilities at Federal cost but to transfer lands adjacent to reservoirs to non-Federal bodies for recreation development and management. We agree the TVA has been quite successful in this policy and recommend that the bill not apply to TVA.

The purpose of section 2 of the bill is to provide the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to implement the provisions of section 1. Since 1944 the Department of the Army has had basic statutory authority to provide recreation development at reservoir projects under its control; in 1962 this authority was expanded to embrace water resource development projects generally (sec. 4 of the act of Dec. 22, 1944, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 460 (d)). On the other hand, only piecemeal authority exists for certain individual projects under the control of the Department of the Interior. A notable example of this project-by-project approach is section 8 of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 105; 43 U.S.C. 620g). Enactment of the proposed legislation will fill in the statutory gaps and permit the realization of potential returns on recreation resources created by public investment in the development of water resource projects of the Department of the Interior.

By its terms section 2 of the bill applies to all water resource projects under the control of the Department of the Interior, both heretofore and hereafter constructed. Thus, construction or acquisition of land for recreation purposes at existing projects could be undertaken under the authority of that section if it were to be enacted. In this connection, it is important to note what the section does not do; the first proviso of section 2 specifically provides that the bill shall not be the basis for allocation of water, reservoir capacity, or joint project costs at existing or previously authorized projects. While the Department of the Interior does propose to review existing projects in light

of the general authority contained in the bill, we understand that the Department does not plan to undertake construction of basic facilities or land acquisition activity at existing projects without notification to the Congress.

Because of the contingent nature of the program that may be pursued under the proposed bill, it is not possible at this time to prepare the data required by the act of July 25, 1956 (5 U.S.C. 642a) with respect to this bill.

Because of the increasing use of Federal reservoirs for recreational purposes, water pollution can be expected to become a greater problem. We have discussed this matter with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and understand that adequate authority exists under the Water Pollution Control Act to correct such problems as may occur. We also understand that the Departments of the Army and the Interior have adequate authority to deal with water pollution problems at reservoirs under their jurisdiction and that further steps will be taken where necessary in controlling pollution to protect recreation values.

The Bureau of the Budget, with the concurrence of the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army, recommends enactment of the proposed legislation as consistent with the administration's objectives.

Sincerely,

located to recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement shall not exceed the lesser of the benefits from those functions or of the cost of providing recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement benefits of reasonably equivalent use and location by the least costly alternative means.

(c) For each project or appropriate unit thereof, except local flood control, beach erosion control, small boat harbor, or hurricane protection projects, the Federal costs incurred specifically for land or basic facilities for recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement shall be nonreimbursable; joint costs allocated to recreation and to fish and wildlife enhancement shall in the aggregate be nonreimbursable up to a dollar limit determined in accordance with the following table:

If the cost of joint-use land and facilities is

Not over $10,000,000.

Over $10,000,000 but not over $40,000,000.

Over $40,000,000 but not over $100,000,000.

A bill to provide uniform policies with respect to recreation and fish and wildlife benefits and costs of Federal multiple-purpose water resource projects, and to provide the Secretary of the Interior with authority for recreation development of projects under his control.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That (a) it is the policy of the Congress and the intent of this Act that (1) full consideration shall be given to outdoor recreation opportunities and fish and wildlife enhancement where these can be provided or enhanced in the investigabe provided or enhanced in the investigation, planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of Federal navigation, flood control, reclamation, hydroelectric, and multiple-purpose water resource projects; (2) planning with respect to the development of the recreation potential of any such project shall be based on the coordination of the recreational use of the project area with the use of existing and planned Federal, State, or local public recreation developments; and (3) except in the case of project areas or facilities which heretofore or hereafter are authorized by law for inclusion within national recreation areas or are appropriate for administration by other Federal agencies as part of the national forest system or in connection with other authorized Federal programs, the project construction agency shall encourage non-Federal public bodies to assume responsibility for the administration and additional development of project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement purposes, including operation, maintenance and replacement of basic recreation facilities provided initially at Federal cost.

(b) The benefits of the recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement features of each project or appropriate unit thereof shall be taken into account in determining the economic benefits of the project or unit. Costs shall be allocated to the purposes of recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and other purposes in a manner which will insure that all project purposes share equitably in the advantages of multiple-purpose construction: Provided, That the costs al

$100,000,000

but not over $200,000,000.

Over $200,000,000

other Federal costs allocated to recreation

and to fish and wildlife enhancement shall in the aggregate be nonreimbursable up to a limit of 25 per centum of the cost of jointuse land and facilities or $5 million, whichever is the lesser. Provision shall be made for the reimbursement, or for the contribution by non-Federal interests, of costs in excess of the limits specified above under one or a combination of the following methods, as may be determined appropriate by the head of the agency having jurisdiction over the project: (1) provision by non-Federal interests of land or interests therein or facilities required for the Federal project; (2) payment or repayment, with interest at a rate comparable to that for other project functions, pursuant to agreement with one or more non-Federal public bodies; (3) repayment, with interest from the date of first delivery of water or power from the project for beneficial use at a rate comparable to that for other project functions, by use of project revenues that will be available during payout of cost allocations to water and power functions: Provided, That if the head of the agency having jurisdiction over the project finds there are unusual circumstances when deferral of repayment would be in the public interest, he may recommend that repayment by use of project revenues be deferred until after the payment of costs allocated to water and power functions are completed, and such recommendation shall become effective only when specifically authorized by law. The term "nonreimbursable" as used in this act shall not be construed to prohibit the imposition of entrance, admission, and other recreation user fees or charges. For purposes of this subsection "joint-use land and facilities" shall mean land or facilities serving two or more project purposes one of which is recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement.

(d) The views of the Secretary of the Interior developed in accordance with section 3 of the Act of May 28, 1963 (Public Law 88-29; 77 Stat. 49), with respect to the outdoor recreation aspects shall be set forth in

any report on any project or appropriate unit thereof within the purview of this act.

(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as amending the first proviso of section 2(d) of the Act of August 12, 1958 (72 Stat. 563; 16 U.S.C. 662 (d)), and the second proviso of section 2(d) of that Act is hereby repealed.

(f) Expenditures for lands or interests in lands hereafter acquired by project construction agencies for the establishment of migratory waterfowl refuges recommended by the Secretary of the Interior at Federal water resource projects, when such lands or interests in lands would not have been acquired but for the establishment of a migratory waterfowl refuge at the project, shall not exceed $28 million: Provided, That the aforementioned expenditure limitation in this subsection shall not apply to the costs of mitigating damages to migratory waterfowl caused by such water resource projects.

(g) The provisos with respect to wildlife refuges applicable to the authorizations for the Trinity River, Wallisville Reservoir,

Texas, contained in section 101 of the River

and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1175), and for the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir, Osage

River, Missouri, and the Kaw Reservoir, Arkansas River, Oklahoma, contained in section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1186 and 1187), are hereby amended by adding before the punctuation marks at the end thereof the following, "until

within the exterior boundaries of a national forest unless the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior jointly determine otherwise. Where any project lands are transferred hereunder to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the lands involved shall be come national forest lands: Provided, That the lands and waters within the flow lines of any reservoir or otherwise needed or used for the operation of the project for other purposes shall continue to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior to the extent he determines to be necessary for such operation. Nothing herein shall limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior granted by existing provisions of law relating to recreation development of water resource projects or to disposition of public lands for recreational purposes.

SEC. 3. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Project Recreation Act."

FEDERAL PAY INCREASE

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include several editorials. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?

There was no objection.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to

has approved the establishment of such a refuge."

(h) This Act shall not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority nor to projects constructed under authority of the Small Reclamation Projects Act (43 U.S.C. 422a).

SEC. 2. Subject to the provisions of section 1 of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized as a part of any water resource

development project under his control, except projects or areas within national wildlife refuges, to construct, operate, and maintain or otherwise provide for basic public outdoor recreation facilities, to acquire or to otherwise include within the project area such adjacent lands or interests therein as are necessary for present or future public recreation use, to allocate water and reservoir capacity to recreation, and to provide for the public use and enjoyment of project lands, facilities and water areas in a manner coordinated with the other project purposes: Provided, That this Act shall not provide the Secretary of the Interior with the basis for allocation to recreation of water or reservoir capacity or joint project costs at any existing or heretofore authorized project. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to enter into agreements with Federal agencies or State or local public bodies for the operation, maintenance, and additional development of project lands or facilities, or to dispose of project lands or facilities to Federal agencies or State or local public bodies by lease, transfer, conveyance or exchange, upon such terms and conditions as will best promote the development and operation of such lands or facilities in the public interest for recreation purposes. No lands under the jurisdiction of any other Federal agency may be included for or devoted to recreation purposes under the authority of this Act without the consent of the head of such agency; and the head of any such agency is authorized to transfer any such lands to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for purposes of this section. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to transfer jurisdiction over project lands within or adjacent to the exterior boundaries of national forests and facilities thereon to the Secretary of Agriculture for recreation and other national forest system purposes; and such transfer shall be made in each case in which the project reservoir area is located wholly

those of my colleagues who, while favoring Federal pay legislation, have feared the consequences of advocating pay increases for themselves and other Members of Congress.

Expecting a certain amount of interest in this matter, I recently mailed every newspaper and broadcasting station in my district a copy of my remarks in this Chamber on October 10. Along with the speech I sent a short letter which began like this:

When you read a few days ago that I had introduced a bill to increase my own pay (along with all other Government officials) I can imagine some of you said, “Well, UDALL has done it again." In case this kind of thought did cross your mind, I think it might be well for you to have just a little background on what my Federal pay bill is all about.

As I knew they would be, the editors and broadcasters of Arizona have been very fair. Some have disagreed with me in part, and others have agreed with me, but the whole discussion has been on a rational plane, free from the emotion that often develops on such issues.

I think the response that has warmed my heart the most is an editorial carried some days ago on radio station KTKT, the largest and most prosperous radio station in my district.

Mr. Speaker, without objection, I insert the text of that editorial at this point in my remarks.

EDITORIAL, RADIO STATION KTKT, TUCSON, ARIZ., OCTOBER 28, 1963

Our Congressman, MORRIS K. UDALL, in a speech in the House of Representatives October 10, proposed passage of House of Representatives bill 8716, a bill to adjust the rates of compensation for most of the officers and employees of the Federal Government. In "Mo's" own words, he said, "I am beginning to suspect that one feature of my bill may not go unnoticed. This is the section increasing the salary of Representatives and Senators from $22,500 to $35,000." We admit that this is only one small part of the legislation, which would also increase Cabinet

officers' pay from $25,000 to $40,000 yearly. In his speech Congressman UDALL makes a good and strong argument for the Federal Government to give comparable pay for comparable skill and responsibility to that paid by private enterprise for similar duties. UDALL has sent us a charming letter concerning this bill which we will read to you tomorrow. Our only comment at this time after imparting this information is "A freshman Representative with this much audacity can't be all bad."

Mr. Speaker, I have been paid more effusive compliments on occasion, but I have never had one I appreciated more. "Not all bad" is good enough for me.

Also, I want to report to my colleagues that I am continuing to receive favorable comments, resolutions, letters, telegrams, and newspaper editorials from across the Nation in support of Federal pay legislation.

I particularly want to call the attention of all Members to a column in Monday's Washington Evening Star by William S. White, one of the real authorities on the Congress. Does Mr. White think the proposed pay increases for Congressmen are too great? Far from it; he thinks they are inadequate. Here is his conclusion:

To put congressional pay at the level where

men there could go about their high jobs

free of financial fear-and free of financial

temptation, for they are human, too—would be the best and soundest investment the people of the United States could make, even if it cost double or triple what the present proposal would cost.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to call the attention of my colleagues to editorials on this subject published recently by the Des Moines Register, the Washington Post, and the Daily Local News of West Chester, Pa. Without objection, I insert these items at this point in the RECORD. [From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, Nov. 4, 1963]

PAY RAISE BILL FALLS SHORT

(By William S. White)

A bipartisan congressional committee has at last had the courage to recommend a bill for an increase in the salaries of Members of the Senate and House from $22,500 to $32,500 a year.

It is not an adequate raise: The minimum should be $50,000 a year, which would be, perhaps, a tenth of the annual take of one of the junior glamour girls of Hollywood. But, perhaps understandably, everything be

ing considered, not quite enough guts is to be found in any congressional committee to propose what really ought to be done.

For even the suggestion for this very modest increase in the pay of the men who collectively hold the life and honor of this Nation in their hands is meeting a howling chorus of complaint from two sets of critics.

One set is made up of economizers whose horizons are so pinched and small that they honestly believe a Member of Congress should be content with less pay than can readily be earned by a good wholesale salesman in, say, cosmetics or beer. Of this set, no more will be said in this column, for their opposition is at any rate in good faith, however wrong it may be.

But the second set of critics is made up of people who know perfectly well that in today's world and at today's cost of living it is absurd to maintain so pennypinching an economic ceiling on men chosen to write the laws of this country. These fellows, in short, are not really concerned with saving tax money. Instead, they are tirelessly concerned with cutting down Congress, as an