Congratulations BEN, God bless you. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the compliments paid me today by my colleagues on my 25 years in the House as a servant of the people.

You have all been most kind to me, as have the people of the Seventh Iowa District, whom I have had the honor to serve in Congress for a quarter of a century, and in return I can only pledge to do my very best, by acting and voting the way I conscientiously believe is best for all the law-abiding American people, living today and for generations yet unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I must call to your attention the fact that another Republican Member of this House was elected to the House the same day as was I, that gentleman is your friend and mine, the Honorable CLARENCE BROWN of Ohio. During those 25 years CLARENCE and I have enjoyed a wonderful friendship, and may I say that all the kind words expressed here today in my behalf, could be multiplied twofold in behalf of the Honorable CLARENCE BROWN, an able legislator, a true friend, a great and good man.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN] in paying tribute to the dean of the Iowa delegation in the House of Representatives, the Honorable BEN F. JENSEN, on the occasion of his 25th year of service in this body.

It has been my pleasure to serve with him for 15 years of that quarter of a century, and through those years he has been a champion of constitutional government, of freedom, and economy.

It is fitting that his friends throughout the Seventh Congressional District of Iowa should assemble tomorrow evening in Council Bluffs, Iowa, to do him honor and express their appreciation for his good work.

But there can be no recognition of BEN's long and faithful service in Congress that does not include a tribute to his good wife, Lottie, who has been his mainstay of of strength and and comfort through many congressional storms and political campaigns.

With my colleagues, I join in wishing both BEN and Lottie many years of good health and continued service to Iowa and the Nation.

Mr. BEERMANN. Mr. Speaker, I

would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. HOEVEN] and in addition, point up some of the sterling qualities that are personified in Congressman BEN FRANKLIN JENSEN, one of the most outstanding men of this generation to serve this Nation in its House of Representatives.

First, I would like to pay tribute to the gentleman from Iowa's [Mr. JENSEN] resolution since I note that he was born on a farm, yet, despite that plain background, by sheer determination, worked himself up to a position of trust and responsibility in a small town business firm. Later, he repeated the process when he entered the U.S. Army as a private in 1917, to be discharged at the conclusion of hostilities as a lieutenant.

The same circumstances are in evidence again when we find the gentle

man from Iowa, Congressman JENSEN, being elected to Congress November 8, 1938. Today, after 25 years of dedication and resolution, he is the senior Republican member of one of the most powerful committees in the House of Representatives-the Committee on Appropriations.

Second, I would like to pay tribute to the gentleman from Iowa, Congressman JENSEN's awareness of a serious problem in the United States, the depletion of our soil resources. I do not think any Member of Congress has a better knowledge or appreciation of the seriousness of our soil loss nor is any more familiar with the approaches and solutions to this problem. In witness of this fact is the present status of his Seventh Iowa District which I understand contains more watershed districts than any other similar district in the United States. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. JENSEN] and I agree that the place to control rainfall the greatest cause of our soil erosion, is where it falls. And I emphatically back up as being extremely wise his position of emphasis on the watershed type of conservancy.

The gentleman from the Seventh District of Iowa has another outstanding characteristic that endears him to his home constituency and that has resulted in his 12th reelection to Congress. That characteristic is his dedication to see that the American taxpayer gets 100 cents in value for every dollar spent. This dedication has won him the affecof the tionate title, "The Watchdog

Treasury.'

In short, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. JENSEN] constitutes embodiment of all the qualities He is saa Congressman should have. gacious, wise, prudent, responsible, and probably represents, as nearly as it can be humanly achieved, the personification of a Jeffersonian principle that goes something like this:

I am for a government that is rigorously frugal and simple, and not for one that multiplies offices to make partisans, that is, to get votes, and by every device increases the public debt under the guise of being a public benefit.

I conclude my remarks by saying a groundswell of change is noted throughout the United States. This change well represents the gentleman from Exira, Iowa's philosophy. May that groundswell grow to the extent that, when taken at full tide, it provides an opportunity for him to be of further great service to his country. I know he will meet this challenge forthrightly and discharge every responsibility of it with distinction and integrity.

SUBCOMMITEE NO. 2, SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSI

NESS

Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee No. 2 of House Select Committee on Small Business may be permitted to sit during general debate on November 12, 13, and 14.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN

COMMERCE

Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce may be permitted to sit during general debate today. The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

MISSION TO MOSCOW Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my

remarks.

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

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the foolish fascination is which prompts American businessmen to make pilgrimages to the Kremlin for the privilege of hearing the United States, capitalism, and themselves insulted by the bully Khrushchev.

The latest "Mission to Moscow" consisting of 20 businessmen on a Time magazine-sponsored tour, subjected its members to this humiliating experience yesterday.

I wonder if they will ever learn that their attempts to debate Khrushchev serve only to provide a sounding board for the Communists' disgraceful insults to the United States.

One wonders whether American business leaders have learned anything since the days of the original "Mission to Moscow" of President Roosevelt's Ambas

sador Davies.

Incidentally, Mr. Khrushchev's threat of possible nuclear war over access to Berlin-delivered during his interview with the American businessmen-unless the United States knuckles under to Soviet-imposed rules, is one more evidence that he does not share the concern of some timid American leaders that we must avoid "tensions" at any cost.

Nuclear blackmail is no different than any other variety of blackmail.

If we continue to bow to it, we either

make inevitable ultimate capitulation or a nuclear holocaust.

Some years ago the eminent columnist, Roscoe Drummond, stated the case with unerring accuracy:

lyzed Western policy (since the end of World

Fear of war has almost constantly para

War II) but fear of war has not paralyzed Communist policy *** if we continue to be afraid of nuclear war while the Soviets are not afraid of nuclear war, we are going to end up losing diplomatically what we fear to lose in a nuclear war.

We are not going to defeat the bully Khrushchev merely by crossing the street to avoid facing up to him.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. VAN PELT. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

LANDS WITHIN JURISDICTION OF GUAM, VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2073), to place certain submerged lands within the jurisdiction of the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

sixty calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain) from the date on which the Secretary of the Interior submits to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate an explanatory statement indicating the tract proposed to be conveyed and the need therefor, unless prior to the expiration of such sixty calendar days both committees inform the Secretary that they wish to take no action with respect to the proposed conveyance.

"(d) Conveyances pursuant to this section shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may deem appropriate, and shall be made without reimbursement or with such reimbursement as he may deem appropriate.

"(e) The governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa shall have proprietary rights of ownership and the rights of management, administration, leasing, use, and the development of the lands conveyed pursuant to this section, but the Secretary of the Interior and such territorial governments shall not have the power or right to convey title to such lands unless the Secretary of the Interior (1) determines that such right to convey is necessary and (2) advises the committee of such determination in the manner described in subsection (c) of this section, and (3) unless the Secretary of the Interior, in proposing to convey such lands to such territorial governments, and such territorial governments in proposing to convey such lands to a third party or third parties pursuant to this section, shall

publish notice of such proposed conveyance

at least once a week for three weeks in a daily newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the territory affected by the proposed conveyance. Such published notice shall include the names of all parties to the proposed contract of conveyance, the purchase price, and a general summary of the boundaries of the tract or tracts proposed to be included in the conveyance.

"(f) There shall be excepted from conveyances made pursuant to this section all

gable waters overlying such lands, for the purposes of navigation or flood control or the production of power, or shall be construed as the release or relinquishment of any rights of the United States arising under the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate or improve navigation, or to provide for flood control, or the production of power.

"(c) The United States retains all of its navigational servitude and rights in and powers of regulation and control of the lands conveyed pursuant to section 1 of this Act and the navigable waters overlying such lands, for the constitutional purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs, all of which shall be paramount to, but shall not be deemed to include, proprietary rights of ownership, or the rights of management, administration, leasing, use, and development of the lands and natural resources not in derogation of United States navigational servitude and rights which are specifically conveyed to the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa, as the case may be, pursuant to section 1 of this Act.

"SEC. 4. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, as the case may be, shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over parties found, acts performed, and offenses committed on property owned, reserved, or controlled by the United States in Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa shall be a bar to any prosecution under the criminal laws of the United States for the same act or acts, and a judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of the United States shall be a bar to any prosecution under the laws of Guam, the Virgin Islands, or American Samoa for the same act or acts.

"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the President may from time to time exclude from the concurrent jurisdiction of the government of Guam persons found, acts performed, and offenses committed on the property of the United States which is under the control of

the term 'minerals' shall not include sand, gravel, or coral.

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: "That (a) upon the request of the Governor of Guam, the Governor of the Virgin Islands, or the Governor of American Samoa, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to convey to the government of the territory concerned whatever right, title, or interest the United States has in particular tracts of tidelands, submerged lands, or filled lands in or adjacent to the territory, subject to the limitations contained in this section. The term 'tidelands, submerged lands, or filled lands' means for the purposes of this Act all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide and seaward to a line three geographical miles distance from the coastlines of the territory, as heretofore or hereafter modified by accretion, erosion, and reliction, including artificially made, filled-in, or reclaimed lands which were formerly permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters.

"(b) No conveyance shall be made pursuant to this section unless the land proposed to be conveyed is clearly required for specific economic development purposes or to satisfy a compelling public need.

"(c) No conveyance shall be made pursuant to this section until the expiration of

and American Samoa, except (1) lands conveyed pursuant to section 1 of this Act, (2) lands that are not owned by the United States on the date of enactment of this Act, and (3) lands that are within the administrative responsibility of any other department or agency of the United States on the date of enactment of this Act, for so long as such condition continues. In exercising such authority, the Secretary may grant revocable permits, subject to such terms and conditions as he may deem appropriate, for the use, occupancy, and filling of such lands, and for the removal of sand, gravel, and coral therefrom.

"(b) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the authority heretofore conferred upon any department, agency, or officer of the United States with respect to the lands referred to in this section.

"SEC. 3. (a) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of the President to establish naval defensive sea areas and naval airspace reservations around and over the islands of Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands which he deems necessary for national defense.

"(b) Nothing in this Act shall affect the use, development, improvement, or control by or under the constitutional authority of the United States of the lands conveyed pursuant to section 1 of this Act and the navi

in such circumstances as he finds required in the interest of the national defense."

Amend the title so as to read: "An Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain submerged lands to the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and for other purposes."

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 direct a question to the chairman of the full committee and ask whether or not the amendment which has been proposed in the Senate has been cleared by the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Interior.

Mr. ASPINALL. Will my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, yield? Mr. SAYLOR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. May I say in the first instance the amendment of the Senate is germane to the bill. May I state also that the Senate has placed some restrictions on the procedures that the House did not consider during its hearings and consideration.

The legislation as it passed the House would have turned over the submerged areas to the three territories which would have had the responsibility of seeing that they were properly used. Rather

with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

For the Secretary of the Navy:
Sincerely yours,

C. R. KEAR, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Navy,
Deputy Chief.

than transferring the areas intact, the Senate amendment provides that the territorial governments should select areas in a piecemeal fashion. Under the Senate version when the Governors, through the Secretary of the Interior, show a clear use for the land, the surveyors will stipulate the metes and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, bounds, the tracts will be advertised in the newspapers, and the House and Senate Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs will be notified of the request. Upon the expiration of a 60-day calendar period, the conveyance can be finalized under procedures set forth in the bill.

The responsibility for justifying the need for the submerged tracts will rest with the Governors, who will seek authorization from the Secretary for the transfer. Notices of acceptance of the Senate language from Governors Lee, Guerrero, and Paiwonsky have been received.

Originally, Navy questioned the acceptance and so stated in a letter to the committee. However, upon receipt of a letter from Secretary Udall to Secretary Nitze, Navy has agreed to voice no objection to the amended version.

Mr. SAYLOR. Will the gentleman place in the RECORD the letters from the Department of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. ASPINALL. As soon as the action is taken on the bill, I will ask the Speaker for unanimous consent to do that very thing.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., November 6, 1963.
Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs, House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 2073, 88th Congress, a bill "To place certain submerged lands within the jurisdiction of the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and for other purposes," as passed by the Senate is acknowledged.

H.R. 2073 as passed by the House authorized the President to convey the Government's interest in submerged lands "adjacent to property owned by the United States above the line of mean high tide." The Senate amendments authorize conveyance by the Secretary of Interior of any property interest other than "deposits of oil, gas, and other There is the further provision that the Secretary of Interior may only convey to the territorial government upon certain conditions precedent, and the land may

be conveyed further to third parties only after certain other statutory prerequisites are satisfied. There is no requirement, however, that the Secretary of Interior obtain approval by the Department of Defense for the transfer of submerged lands.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., November 6, 1963. Hon. PAUL H. NITZE, Acting Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. NITZE: H.R. 2073, a bill "To place certain submerged lands within the jurisdiction of the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, and for other purposes," has been passed by the Senate with amendments and returned to the House for consideration of the Senate amendments.

Although we prefer the House version of the bill, we would like to see the bill enacted quickly without the need for a conference. We have advised the chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee to that effect, and suggested that the House accept the Senate amendments.

I am writing to assure you that if the bill is enacted in its present form this Department will not, without the concurrence of the Navy Department, transfer to a territorial government any tidelands, submerged lands, or filled lands that are within the administrative responsibility of the Navy Department, or that are adjacent to lands administered by the Navy Department above the line of mean high tide.

A copy of this letter is being sent to the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs with the suggestion that it be made a part of the legislative record of the bill. Sincerely yours,

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

There was no objection.

The Senate amendments were concurred in.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks during the discussion of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2073 and include copies of the letters from the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

There was no objection.

VISIT OF THE FRENCH NAVAL SHIP "DUPETIT-THOUARS"

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following communication, which was read:

Since there are defense facilities (e.g., wharves and piers) which lie in part below mean high tide, and because there are installations above mean high tide which depend for their full utilization on continued Government control of contiguous areas below that point, military considerations warrant participation by the Department of Defense in the determination of whether to effect a The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA

transfer in those areas where the Department of Defense has a vital interest.

Accordingly, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, objects to the Senate version of H.R. 2073 for the reasons set forth above.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance

AMBASSADE DE FRANCE, AUX ETATS UNIS, Washington, D.C., October 25, 1963.

The Dupetit-Thouars is equipped with Tartar missiles provided by the U.S. Navy, and she has just completed her first training campaign with a success the American naval authorities have been pleased to acknowledge.

I am writing to advise you that the captain and officers of the Dupetit-Thouars would feel very honored if Members of the House were interested to visit their vessel, which will be accommodated at the Navy Yard.

The most convenient time would be Friday, the 8th of November, between 2 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.

With my best regards, I am,

Yours sincerely,

HERVÉ ALPHAND,

French Ambassador to the United States.

PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 564 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that 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 offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Amendments offered by 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.

Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio

[Mr. BROWN].

Mr. Speaker, this is the usual rule, as far as I know, the rule that has always been adopted for the consideration of

such a matter under all administrations and in every Congress. It is a closed rule, with 4 hours of general debate. The only amendments that will be permitted are amendments offered by the Committee on Ways and Means. Also it waives points of order.

I am well aware that there is controversy on the bill. My own impression is that the members of the Committee on Ways and Means in the overwhelming majority supported this particular rule. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I

yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee, my very good personal friend, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BOLLING], very briefly explained this rule

and very honestly stated that this is the usual rule which comes out of the Committee on Rules in connection with legislation from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is the usual rule, one that we call usual, on legislation of this type to raise again, for the third time this calendar year, the national debt limit, and to lift the ceiling so the Government of the United States can go out and borrow more money to meet budget deficits, and to provide more funds for big and unnecessary spending programs to be paid off, of course, by our children's children yet unborn.

Mr. Speaker, this is another gag rule. How often I have taken the floor of this House to oppose these gag rules, I do not recall, because I have not taken the time to count the occasions. However, I do not want to be repetitious and repeat the arguments and the statements which I have made against closed rules so often before. But I do, Mr. Speaker, want to say to the membership of this House that perhaps I have more confidence in my colleagues than some of my colleagues have in themselves. I am firmly and fully convinced in my own mind that the average Member of the House of Representatives is just as able and just as capable of legislating on this matter, or on any tax legislation, as are the Members of any other legislative body in this Capitol or elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to see my colleagues and fellow Members of this House downgrade themselves, humiliate themselves, if you please, by saying, "Oh, yes, we do not trust ourselves to legislate properly. So we will vote for a gag rule to permit ourselves to be gagged and controlled so that we cannot offer any amendments to certain legislation which comes to the floor of the House, regardless of how important such amendments may be, or how desirable they may be, so no amendments except those offered by the Committee on Ways and Means itself.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means is made up of fine gentlemen and fine Members of this House, able Members. No one can question that. They are good Americans; yes. But in my judgment, as a whole, they are not too much above the level of other Members of this body, as far as brilliance, intellect, ability, and wisdom might be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I have always resented the idea that only a chosen few are capable of deciding what sort of tax legislation, what sort of debt management legislation, may be considered by the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, this is another closed or another gag rule to have us do what we are told; vote for the legislative package that is brought to us. Do not try to make any changes in the bill because that is not according to Hoyle. That is not the way the game is played here on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we will have a vote, and I expect to ask for it. I hope we will have a rollcall vote on this rule, to see whether or not the Members of the House of Representatives want to gag

themselves and to surrender their right to exercise their own judgment and their to exercise their own judgment and their own wisdom in connection with the consideration of this legislation, or instead to go along with the majority of those who happen to serve on the great Comwho happen to serve on the great Committee on Ways and Means. I understand the bill now before us, which this stand the bill now before us, which this rule makes in order, provides for 4 hours' general debate under a closed or gag rule, if the rule is adopted, because gag rule, if the rule is adopted, because a majority of the membership votes for a majority of the membership votes for it.

This measure was reported out of the great Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 15 to 10. In my legislative experience which goes back 45 years I have seen a great many pieces of legishave seen a great many pieces of legislation drawn and brought before legislative bodies. In my opinion-and this is tive bodies. In my opinion-and this is not a criticism of any individual because I am not sure who really wrote this billH.R. 8969 is a perfect example of what we might call legislative legerdemain because it is not what it appears to be. Oh, it is true testimony was given before the Rules Committee that the average the Rules Committee that the average well-informed Member of Congress, who is more or less used to dealing with variis more or less used to dealing with various legislative matters and interpreting ous legislative matters and interpreting bills, laws, provisos, and provisions, can figure out what this bill really means. But I am not so sure the average taxpayer, or the average American citizen, payer, or the average American citizen, understands, or will understand, this bill. If you will read it the bill provides that the temporary ceiling shall be increased to $309 billion between December 1, 1963, to $309 billion between December 1, 1963, and June 29, 1964, or to the end of the present fiscal year.

Then the bill has a little stinger on the end of it, another sentence, which says it does not really mean $309 billion at all. In fact, it says that is not to be the debt ceiling. That is to be a temporary ceiling. In addition to that, and I want to read the sentence, it states "because of variations in the time of revenue receipts the public debt limit as increased by the preceding sentence is further increased through June 29 by $6 billion."

If you follow the simple rules of arithmetic and add $6 billion to $309 billion you come up with $315 billion. But try to find that figure in this bill. It is not there. It is hidden in this peculiar It is hidden in this peculiar verbiage that has been written, verbiage verbiage that has been written, verbiage that is not quite as frank to the average mind as it might be, and I am not charging bad faith on the part of anyone. I just do not like this kind of legislation. Why not be completely honest? Why not Why not be completely honest? Why not be frank and say you are going to increase the national debt limit, if you pass this bill, to $315 billion up until June 29, 1964, the end of the present fiscal year, by which time you will have to come in here for a further increase, and you will be here, do not worry about that. I predicted before, you would be back this predicted before, you would be back this fall. I also predicted that last spring when we had this legislation up for consideration. This is the third time this year, in this calendar year, bills have been here increasing the national debt limit. They will be back increasing it again, before long. Why? Because the administration is continuing, of course, deficit financing, despite all the pious deficit financing, despite all the pious

pledges and promises which were made when the House passed the great piece of legislation called the tax reduction bill which was going to make everybody prosperous, and that if it was not enacted promptly the Nation would go into a deep depression. deep depression. Of course, that has not happened and will not happen.

What will happen to that piece of tax reduction legislation which was finally brought out and rushed through this body rather rapidly, but seems to be having somewhat of a slower pace in the other body and probably will not be brought up for a vote in that body before some time this coming winter, by which time perhaps it may even be known to a few people, at least, as to what our budget for fiscal 1965 will be, and what the Federal spending program will be.

Let me make a prediction. We have heard all of these statements that have been made by supporters of this legislation about all the terrible tragedies that will happen in case legislation of this type is defeated, in case the House of Representatives spoke out and said, "Now, we are tired of increasing this debt limit all the time so you can go out and borrow more and more money to spend. We think perhaps such action will help, although it may not accomplish everything we desire, but it will help at least to hold down Federal spending."

If you put a stop to this thing, what would happen? I will tell you what would happen. It would not be all these dire, tragic things that have been painted so vividly to scare you and worry you. There would be a lot of people downtown who would start living within their income.

We have seen a rather peculiar situation arise in this Congress. Most of the appropriation bills for fiscal 1964 have not yet been enacted. We have voted a continuing resolution to permit the various departments and agencies for which the appropriation bills for fiscal 1964 have not been enacted to continue their spending at the same rate as provided in the 1963 appropriation acts under that year's budget. Of course, the budget for 1964 was much higher, billions of dollars higher, and the appropriations would be higher. So as a result, while a lot of people complain about the slowness of Congress in passing appropriation bills, as an actual result of the delay in the passage of these appropriation bills, the departments or agencies of the Government have been forced to conduct their activities on the 1963 level and are spending something like $3 billion less than they would if the 1964 appropriation bills had been enacted, according to the President's budget.

What would happen? What would happen if this legislation were defeated? Within 72 hours, or perhaps even 48 or only 24 hours, you would see somebody from downtown, from the Treasury Department, yes, and I notice that the White House takes quite a lot of interest anymore in any legislative activity that goes on on Capitol Hill, whether it be on the floor of this body, the floor of the other body, or in some committee or sub

committee of Congress, coming up here and saying, "Let us bring out a bill with a lower debt ceiling. Let us see what we can do to appease the Congress," to appease those, if you please, who believe in a bit of economy in the conduct of our public business, who want to eliminate waste and extravagance. "Let us sit down and see what can be eliminated in the spending program, how we can live, not under a $285 billion debt ceiling, which would otherwise be the permanent debt ceiling, but under a reasonable debt ceiling, certainly one no higher than it is at the present time, and perhaps even much lower."

I think a great many good answers could be given here on Capitol Hill to those questions by the action of this House, by the refusal of this House to go along with this piece of legislation, by not adopting the rule, and by opening this bill so amendments can be offered to cut down the total amount that could be spent. That is the money that could otherwise be first borrowed and added to the national debt, and then later spent. If this rule were defeated and the bill were opened up for amendment, that might be the first step. That would be helpful. The second step would be for the House to adopt an amendment to this bill to hold down the ceiling on the national debt, the amount that can be borrowed by the Federal Government, to a reasonable level, in some direction toward reducing the national debt in the future, in some direction toward cutting present Federal spending. We will permit and encourage that if we defeat this

bill.

How much has Federal spending been

cut and where? How much has it been reduced and where? This is a situation that calls for action and for courage. It calls, if you please, for some political independence from those who want to spend, from those who believe in big spending, and in the old story of tax and tax and tax, spend and spend and spend, and elect and elect and elect. We have several billion dollars' worth of new legislation pending before the House now that will mean an increase in National and Federal expenditures far above the increases ever predicted by the President and by his advisers-and they all predict we will have further deficits next year, and, of course, we will, and we will have them the year after, and continue to have them, until the people's representatives in Congress assembled somehow or other gain the courage and the fortitude to stand up and face this issue because if we do not do it ourselves, sooner or later, the natural laws of economics will compel us to face these issues, perhaps, in a way that may bring dangerous and drastic changes in the future of this Republic.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I commend the gentleman from Ohio for another fine statement on this issue. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GROSS. When the tax reduction bill was before the House, we heard extended discourse on the subject of

What road are you going to travel? gentleman remembers that, I trust. gentleman remembers that, I trust. I wonder if we will hear the same discourse today with respect to increasing the debt ceiling and if we will see those who vote for it continue to take the road to more profligate spending?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is the same old story-mañana-tomorrow we are going to do it tomorrow, or we are going to do it the next day. But we never get around to doing it now. They say, "We are going to do it at some time in the future-we are going to meet our responsibilities, of course, but not this year and not the next year, but just a little later on."

I believe the American people are getting fed up with the big spending programs and the waste and extravagance and with the ever-increasing national debt limit, and the continuous lifting of that ceiling. Three times in the year 1963 alone. How long-how long can this go on? It is up to you. I hope the previous question will be voted down and that we will have an opportunity to amend this rule to make it an open rule, so that amendments can be offered to this bill which will be more practical, more sensible, and more reasonable, and so that we will keep our fiscal condition sound. So that we will put a brake on Federal spending and serve notice that we no longer will put up with what has been happening. I hope that can be done and, if not, I hope the House will vote, and have a rollcall vote, on whether or not the Members want to gag themselves instead by adopting a closed rule.

Finally, of course, as the only recourse

we have, if these other efforts fail, will be a motion to recommit the bill back to the committee so it may rework the bill, and rewrite its language in line with the temper and thought and judgment of this House.

But if not, and if the motion to recommit should fail, I for one, and I hope every other Member of the House who believes in fiscal responsibility, will vote against this measure so that we will have an opportunity to later pass on a new less costly measure. I can assure you, and I predict with confidence, that it will be brought to the House within a few short hours after we reject this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

advertent error. But I am not proud of any vote for a gag rule.

MEMBERS CANNOT DO THEIR DUTIES UNDER GAG RULE

I do not consider a gag rule very democratic. That is an instance of a few denying the many an opportunity to participate in the legislation. Each one of us represents his constituents. Each owes the same obligation to his constituents as any other Member of this House. So why should we be denied the right of offering amendments for consideration and debate? In other words, why should we be stopped from offering any amendment? Judge Sabath, who came from Chicago, was one of the greatest men I ever knew. He was chairman of the Committee on Rules of the House for a number of years. Judge Sabath was not really in favor of gag rules, but he was chairman of that committee and he was a good soldier. I remember some of the occasions when he was compelled to bring in a rule like this one here today. He would present the rule and say, "This is a very fair rule. Plenty of debate and no amendments."

here today-plenty of debate, no amendments. It makes no difference how much you talk, it will be ineffective.

That is the kind of a rule we have

I went before the Committee on Rules

yesterday and asked the committee to grant an open rule so that Members could offer amendments. This is not a why should anyone want to gag their complicated bill. It is very simple. colleagues on a bill like this? see why anyone should want to gag another Member of this House. But the rule, of course, is a gag rule.

I do not

INCREASING THE DEBT CEILING IS UNNECESSARY

Now, I have an amendment which, if adopted, would make this bill unnecessary. You know, the way the national debt is now counted, it contains more than $33 billions of debt obligations which are owned by the Government itself and is not actually outstanding debt. That amount should not be in the national debt at all. Therefore, if my amendment is adopted, we will not need this bill. We will not need to increase the ceiling on the national debt. If you do not count Government obligations that have already been paid once, the present debt ceiling is all that is needed. How many times do you want the people to pay their debts? Do you want them to pay them twice, 3 times, 10 times? How many Members of Congress will feel proud of the fact that when they go back to their constituents they will tell them, "Yes, I voted for the national debt increase bill of $315 billion. It would not have been necessary to pass that bill, if amendment has been allowed, but the 'gag rule' was invoked, and we could not amend the bill so we just had to vote for the whole amount"

We have plenty of time here in Congress to consider these things. We are not rushed. There is no reason why we should have a closed rule.

I want to tell you about the amendment I have.