basin growth continues. In other words, on the basis of our joint memorandum, sufficient water will not be available to provide 1.2 million acre-feet per annum to the central Arizona project together with other mainstream commitments in the lower basin after upper basin depletions reach 5.5 million acre-feet.

We have reached this conclusion on the basis of the studies reported in our joint water supply memorandum dated August 13, 1965. Before responding to questions, I will read the memorandum into the record: AUGUST 13, 1965.

COLORADO RIVER WATER SUPPLY

This memorandum regarding the probable future water supply of the Colorado River is prepared at the request of our Governors for the guidance of legislators and administrators in passing judgment on pending legislation to authorize a Lower Colorado River Basin project, which would include urgently needed facilities in the lower basin, principally the central Arizona project, and investigations leading to a regional plan to supplement the water supply of the river at an early date.

Summary and conclusions

The water supply of the future cannot be predicted with absolute confidence, particularly in a stream of such widely fluctuating annual runoff as the Colorado River. We can only estimate future possibilities within reasonable limits, based upon what has happened in the past. Risks are inherent in all such projections.

We are unanimous in the opinion that the supply of the river will be insufficient to meet future demands, estimated to reach about 18 million acre-feet per annum by year 2000, or to meet apportionments of use of water made by the Colorado River Compact to the upper and lower basins, and the Mexican Treaty burden. It is simply a question as to how long it will take the demands to surpass the water available. Both basins are ultimately dependent upon substantial importations which should be made available by the last decade of the present century.

We have concluded, however, that there is a 50-50 chance that the supply in the mainstream will equal or exceed the amount needed to provide: (1) 4.4 million acre-feet a year for California; (2) water for decreed rights and existing mainstream projects in

Arizona and Nevada and the southern Nevada water supply project; (3) water for increasing demands of the upper basin; and (4) a full supply of 1.2 million acre-feet per annum for the proposed central Arizona project until about the turn of the century, gradually reducing thereafter.

Present mainstream uses and commitments in the Colorado River Basin, with California uses limited to 4.4 million acrefeet per annum,1 are:

est to develop a portion of the remaining est to develop a portion of the remaining unused water resources by enactment and implementation of H.R. 4671, 89th Congress (this and 36 other House bills are identical counterparts of S. 1019 in the Senate).

Discussion

In considering water projects in a single river basin such as the Colorado, absent special circumstances or a program of augmenting its water supply by importation menting its water supply by importation or otherwise, most estimates of future water production have been based upon so-called safe yield studies. These consist of hypothetical reservoir operation studies in which the estimated or recorded stream flows of the past are routed through existing or proposed reservoirs in exactly the same sequence in which they occurred historically, deducting losses in storage and calculating by successive trials the uniform annual release from the downstream reservoir which could have been maintained under various assumptions. Thus the results of safe yield studies are circumscribed by the somewhat rigid assumption that historical runoffs, including those during the critical low-flow period of record, will be repeated in the future in exactly the same sequence.

The Colorado River has been the subject of numerous safe yield studies. The most recent studies of the virgin flow of the mainstream at Lee Ferry indicate a dependable yield over the least favorable runoff period (1931-64) of about 13.7 million to 14 million acre-feet year, varying a little according to judgment factors although obviously not enough to supply future demands. However, the more favorable historic sequence of flows at Lee Ferry beginning in 1921 would have furnished by 1930 enough water to fill all storage reservoirs presently in existence

or under construction within the Colorado River Basin.

Mainstream supply available for use in the lower basin equals the dependable yield the lower basin equals the dependable yield at Lee Ferry minus (1) estimated upper basin depletions and future increases thereof, (2) estimated net channel and regulator losses in the lower basin, and (3) the quantity required for Mexico under the 1944 Water Treaty. Any variation in these deductions stems from judgment factors. Judgment may be tempered according to whether the prime objective is to protect existing rights or to optimize the utilization

of the water supply.

Depending upon a variety of such factors, water available for the proposed central Arizona project has been estimated to range initial operation of the project to quantities from an inadequate quantity even under adequate to supply the project with 1.2 million acre-feet a year throughout the entire payout period.

Safe yield studies which span the critical drought period minimize the risk of overcommitment of the water supply of the river basin but by the same token may result in underdevelopment and a consequent waste of water to the ocean or unnecessary evaporation from reservoirs during sustained periods. The risk of overdevelopment must be given greater weight if consideration is being given independently to a self-contained water supply system than if consideration is being given concurrently to two or more systems that may be conjunctively regulated and developed to mutual advantage.

There are several reasons why decisions in the regional program should be based on technical information on water supply beyond that provided by the foregoing approach. We have adopted an approach which recognizes that the future will not mirror the past and applies the theory of probabilities to the occurrence of natural phenomena in order to determine what future flows will probably be.

The probability approach to projecting future events is a commonly accepted tech

nique in the appraisal of risks. Probability techniques have been used for years in the assessment of flood frequencies, in weather forecasts, in actuarial procedures, etc. Many scientists and educators have encouraged the use of the probability technique in planning for water conservation. The Corps of Engineers uses probability methods to evaluate and justify flood control projects. The U.S. Geological Survey also uses probability methods of water supply analysis.

Wide variation may be expected in the future runoff of the Colorado River not only in annual flows but also in 10-year and even 50-year averages, as demonstrated by nearly 70 years of streamflow data, about 110 years of lake level measurements and roughly 700 years of tree-ring data. For example, in the 70-year period of estimated and measured flow at Lee Ferry, the average virgin flow for the first 35 years was about 17 million acre-feet annually, but the average for the last 35 years was only about 13 million acre-feet.

Probability analyses of the annual virgin flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry, using streamflow estimates for the 69-year period 1896-1964 show a 90-percent chance that the virgin flow will average between 13.3 million and 16.5 million acre-feet per annum over the next 69 years and between 12.8 million and 17 million acre-feet over the next 35 years. The midpoint in each case is 14.9 million acre-feet. Therefore, the chances are equal that the future average will be above or below that quantity. There are 19 chances in 20 that the future 69-year mean flow will equal or exceed 13.3 million acre-feet. There is 1 chance in 20 that it will exceed 16.5 million. Since there is a total of more than 60 million acre-feet of

storage capacity in major reservoirs in the basin the possibility of unusable spills need not be weighed for the present purpose.

A lower basin mainstream supply of 7.1 million acre-feet a year is required to satisfy 4.4 million acre-feet of use in California, existing uses in Arizona and Nevada, and the central Arizona and southern Nevada projects. Opinions differ as to such matters as net channel and evaporation losses and the rate of future increase of upper basin depletions. Such differences affect only the estimate of the date when augmentation of the Colorado River must be accomplished. Deducting from the midvalue of 14.9 million acre-feet a year the Mexican treaty deliveries and midvalues of current estimates of upper basin depletions and net channel and evaporation losses, indicates that a residue of at least 7.1 million acre-feet a year of the mainstream supply would be available to Arizona, California, and Nevada until about the turn of the century, and would reduce gradually thereafter.

water available for Arizona, California, and When upper basin depletions reach 5.5, Nevada would be reduced to 7.1.

For comparison, if the 1-in-20 chance of a mean virgin flow as large as 16.5 million acre-feet should materialize, the residual mainstream supply available to Arizona, California, and Nevada would be of the general order of 8.7 million, and, at the other extreme, if the 1-in-20 chance of a mean virgin flow as low as 13.3 million should prevail, the corresponding residual supply would be as little as 5.5 million, which would make the early augmentation of the Colorado even more imperative. We believe that the midpoint value is sensible.

The average annual water supply available to the three lower basin States would gradually decrease to the 7.1 billion acre-feet shown above by about the turn of the century, the rate of decrease depending on salvage operations in the lower basin and future depletions by upper basin projects.

Of course, more than 7.1 million acrefeet will be needed to meet all the projected needs of the lower basin, including the needs of California in excess of 4.4 million acre-feet and the present needs of central Arizona beyond an additional 1.2 million acre-feet.

The interval between the completion of the central Arizona project and completion of import works will constitute the period during which there is the greatest risk of water shortage. The probability studies indicate, however, a favorable chance of having a substantial reserve of water in mainstream storage when the central Arizona project goes into operation. They show a 54-percent chance that in 1975 Lakes Mead and Powell together will contain more than 40 million acre-feet (about 75 percent of their total capacity) and a 78-percent chance that both will be at least at rated power head (about 30 million acre-feet).

Additional development of the utilization of the Colorado River system water supply can and should proceed as part of a regional program to augment the supply, carefully phased with inbasin development, to minimize the risk of overcommitment within the basin itself. Enactment of legislation to authorize a Lower Colorado River Basin

project keyed to timely supplementation of the Colorado River will render pointless further argument about the future supply of the river.

We agree that each of us will transmit the foregoing synthesis of views to our respective Governors with the recommendation that it be forwarded to Chairman WAYNE N. ASPINALL as the position of our respective States regarding the availability of water in the Colorado River.

W. S. GOOKIN,
State Water Engineer, Arizona Interstate
Stream Commission, State of Arizona.

I. P. HEAD,
Administrator, Colorado River Commis-
sion of Nevada, State of Nevada.
W. E. STEINER,
Assistant Chief Engineer, Department of
Water Resources, State of California.
D. E. COLE,

Chief Engineer, Colorado River Board
of California, State of California.
W. D. MAUGHAN,
Regional Planning Staff Specialist, De-
partment of Water Resources, State of
California.

STATEMENT OF DALLAS E. COLE, CHIEF ENGINEER, COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALI

FORNIA, ON H.R. 4671 AND S. 1019, 89TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT, AUGUST 1965

The Colorado River Board of California favors prompt passage of the pending legislation, because of the urgent need of more water in the great Pacific Southwest and the imperative need to implement quickly the necessary investigations and plans to augment the water supply naturally available in the region. Parts of the region, for example central Arizona, are in dire need of more water now. The region as a whole will need a supplemental water supply of 4- or 5-million acre-feet a year within a few decades, and as much as 15 million acrefeet a year in the long-range future. The search for supplemental water for the Pacific Southwest must begin immediately.

The Colorado River Board is a State agency created by act of the legislature in 1937, and given the statutory responsibility of protecting the interests of California, its agencies and citizens in the waters of the Colorado River system. The board is com

posed of six members appointed by the Governor, each nominated by and representing one of the public agencies of California having contracts for the use of water or power from the Colorado River. These agencies are: Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority, and City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

These six agencies own, in behalf of more than 10 million people, the major water rights in California on the Colorado River. The agencies cover an area of more than 9,800 square miles and contain more than half the population and assessed valuation of the entire State (more than $19 billion).

Southern California homes, farms, and industries rely greatly on the water and power resources of the Colorado River. Eighty percent of the water now used in southern California and 25 percent of all the water now used in the entire State comes from the Colorado River by means of facilities representing a total investment of $800 million-and a replacement value more than twice that much at present-day prices. About 4 billion kilowatt-hours of electrical energy are delivered each year to southern California from hydroelectric plants on the Colorado-small in percentage of total use but large in necessity and value, because most of it is used to meet high peak demands

of short duration that could not otherwise

be met except by large additional capital

investment.

THE REGION OF WATER DEFICIENCY The bill before the committee deals with the water needs of large and important segments of the Nation's population and economy. The region covers the entire Colorado River drainage area plus part of the seven basin States outside the natural basin which are or may be served with Colorado River water, in all some 350,000 square miles or about 11 percent of the area of the 48 contiguous States. It includes such important population and industrial centers as Salt Lake City, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, and San Diego, which are dependent upon the Colorado River system for all or major portions of their water supplies.

More than 80 percent of the Colorado River Basin receives on the average less than 15 inches of rain a year. Thus, despite the large area of the basin, the runoff per square mile is relatively small. The Ohio River Basin, the Columbia River Basin, and the Colorado River Basin are almost equal in size but each of the first two produces more than 10 times as much water on the average as the Colorado. To achieve full development of all the resources of the Colorado River service area will require more water than can be produced in the basin. Even at the present state of development, water deficiencies are acute in some parts of the region.

The Pacific Southwest is the fastest growing region of the United States. Its population has increased about 85 percent in the 15 years since 1950 and now numbers about 15 million people. There is no sign of any letup in the rate of increase. Accompanying the population growth is a similar growth in the region's economy. According to projections in the report of January 1964, by the Secretary of the Interior on the Pacific Southwest water plan, the population of the region may be expected to triple in the next half century.

This is a region rich in resources, except water. The vitality of the area's economy can be gaged by a number of indicators, as in chart 1 (not printed in the RECORD).

A wide variety of mineral deposits is scattered through the region, including some

materials which are surging rapidly into national importance as the atomic and space programs demand. For example, the region accounts for 99 percent of the Nation's domestic uranium production. More than half the Nation's copper production comes from the area, with Arizona leading in this regard. Vast coal deposits are being developed for generation of electricity at large mine-mouth steamplants. Many trillions of barrels of oil in extensive shale deposits in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado will be exploited as the market for fuels and petrochemical grows and many of the conventional sources of oil are depleted. Industrial development in the States of the Colorado River Basin has proceeded at a rapid rate since the end of World War II and is expected to continue far into the future. Food processing in connection with the extensive agricultural development was one of the first industries to be established and is still one of the largest in the basin.

Manufacturing has grown continuously and now includes many thousands of items large and small: shipbuilding, aircraft, electronics, space support equipment, refining of petroleum products, clothing, movies, television production, rubber products, and plastic products. Value added by manufacture in the seven-State area is 10 percent of the national total.

The seven Colorado River Basin States contain about 12 percent of the Nation's population. People in those seven States account for 13 percent of national retail sales, 14 percent of the telephones, 35 percent of the pleasure boats and camping trailers, and 15 percent of the motor vehicles. They drive more miles per capita than the national average. Tourism and outdoor recreation attract millions of visitors to the area from all over the world.

Irrigated agriculture and livestock raising are major elements of the area's economy. More than 15 million acres of land are devoted to irrigated agriculture in the Colorado River Basin States, of which more than 4 million acres are irrigated with Colorado River water. The seven States produce more than $5 billion worth of crops and livestock annually, or about one-sixth of the U.S. total. Annual production from areas irrigated by the Colorado River system is $921 million, and would be much greater if water were available to irrigate all suitable lands. Practically all the agriculture in the basin is dependent on irrigation.

Because of warm climate and long-growing season, the southern half of the region ships enormous quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables to eastern markets during much of the winter. For example, at the height of the winter lettuce harvest, as many as 2,800 carloads of this perishable crop are sent to market from the Imperial Valley, California

each month.

of the fish, wildlife, and recreation resources along the lower Colorado and those whose primary interest is in maintaining an adequate water supply for the agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users in an area threatened with water shortage. Sincere efforts are being made to compromise such differences but they cannot be fully resolved as long as the water supply is inadequate for all reasonable demands. Competition will intensify as demands increase.

Taken as a whole the region is presently short 1,500,000 acre-feet of water a year. Chart 2 (not printed in the RECORD) illustrates the present and anticipated future shortage, considering the needs of existing and identifiable future developments. Eventually the equivalent of another Colorado River will be required to overcome the projected deficiency. The plotting on the chart allows for the transfer of 21⁄2 million acrefeet a year of water from northern to southern California through facilities now under construction as part of the State water plan. Shortages in some segments of the region are now and will be in the future more severe relatively than may be inferred from the regionwide figures. The central Arizona area must now pump from its wells 2 million acre-feet more water a year than the ground water basins can permanently sustain. Current use of water from groundwater basins in southern California aggregates about 2 million acre-feet a year, of which about 500,000 acre-feet represents overdraft.

The decree of the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. California et al. deals essentially with an assumed basic water supply sufficient for the consumptive use in the United States of 7,500,000 acre-feet a year from the lower mainstream of the Colorado River and divides that quantity 2,800,000 to Arizona, 4,400,000 to California and 300,000 to Nevada.

The decree provides no guide to the sharing of a supply less than 7,500,000 acre-feet a year, a condition which may prevail fairly soon. Accordingly, Arizona and California congressional representatives have agreed upon language in section 304 of the bills which would provide that diversions for the central Arizona unit be so limited as to assure the availability of enough water to permit 4.4 million acre-feet of consumptive use of mainstream water a year in California and certain other uses in Arizona and Nevada, until works are constructed to deliver not less than 2.5 million acre-feet of water a year from outside sources into the Colorado River below Lee Ferry.

Apparently the decree and the agreement in section 304 of the bill have induced the misconception by some persons that the horizon of the proposed regional planning is to be established and limited by the quantities just cited. That is decidedly not the case. The numbers 2.5 million, 7.5 million, etc., are of legal import only and are by no means to be construed as physical, engineering, or economic limitations. The 2.5 million acre-feet a year is only the legal minimum of the initial phase of an importation program; the practical physical minimum likely would be higher for the initial phase, which would have to be followed by later additions as the real water needs grow.

A total annual supply of 7.5 million acrefeet in the lower mainstream is not enough to meet the full needs of the three lower basin States. The supply of the entire Colorado River system, plus an importation no greater than 2.5 million acre-feet a year would not be enough to meet all the requirements of the upper and lower basins.

Arizona needs substantially more than 2.8 million acre-feet a year from the mainstream to provide water for her existing mainstream projects, provide for anticipated growth in her population and economy, and overcome the present ground water overdraft in the central part of the State. Nevada says her

California's Colorado River projects are already using more than 5 million acre-feet a year, and have contracts and designed capacity for at least 5.4 million, including 1,212,000 acre-feet for the metropolitan water district. To supply all the irrigable land within the agricultural projects' service areas in addition to the full metropolitan water district entitlement would require a total considerably in excess of 5.4 million.

The Secretary in his 1964 report estimated that in order to maintain at their present levels the economies of California's agricultural areas dependent on the Colorado River, a net diversion of about 4.2 million acrefeet a year would be needed. Current research and studies of consumptive use and leaching requirements indicates that the total needs may be substantially greater than 4.2 million acre-feet. Similar conclusions would apply to similar areas in the other States.

Even to provide 5.4 million acre-feet a year to California and the corresponding shares of the total supply to Arizona and Nevada would require an average annual flow of about 12 million acre-feet in the river at Lee

Ferry, leaving 9.5 million for consumptive use after deducting losses and the required delivery to Mexico. To maintain that much flow in the lower main stream would require an importation of 4.5 million acre-feet a year, or 2 million more than the 2.5 million legal minimum specified in the bill. Still more would be required if the Upper Colorado River Basin States are to share in the benefits of an importation of water.

The water needs of the upper basin States are increasing rapidly and will some day exceed the upper basin's legal share of the supply naturally available. Mexico would like

to acquire more Colorado River water than the present treaty provides. Factors like these emphasize the need for long-range

plans to add large quantities of water to the supply in the southwest region.

NEED FOR REGIONAL PLAN

The only effective solution to problems such as those mentioned is a comprehensive approach to the water problems of the region as a whole. A regional plan to meet the most urgent needs and to anticipate the long-range needs, as the Secretary of the Interior has proposed, is in the best interest of the Nation. The need to get started is urgent. Even if planning starts at once, years will pass before additional water can be brought to the Colorado.

A plan that will coordinate the augmentation of the water supply of the Colorado River with the growing needs will do much to minimize conflicts of interest and lessen controversies. A region so rich in natural and manmade resources should be provided plenty of water, sufficient for all practical and reasonable purposes.

Considering the West as a whole, the water supply is ample for extensive additional development but the water must be redistributed geographically to achieve maximum use. River basins in the Northwest waste to the sea annually millions of acre-feet of water in excess of foreseeable future needs within those basins. Numerous suggestions that have been made to transport some of this excess to the Colorado River Basin must be examined in detail, to select the best. First, however, the future needs of the areas that have surplus water must be determined in order to assure those areas proper protection and assistance in their own development. Other possibilities such as salt water conver

sion must be studied also. All this takes time, money, and cooperation. The regional plan should spread benefits to the maximum practicable, and minimize detriments. When fact and logic displace emotionalism and

The bill before you has widespread support throughout California. Arizona, California, and the other Colorado River Basin States are at last working together toward the same end, the implementation of a regional plan and framework that will take care of the water requirements of all segments of the regional economy as the needs arise.

AUGUST 20, 1965.

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SEVEN-STATE
CONSENSUS

There is a general recognition in the West that Arizona's water situation is only a part of a larger problem which confronts all of the States of the Colorado Basin. During the past week informed and experienced representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States-Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyomingmet for several lengthy and fruitful sessions exploring the basin's water situation as it is affected by the legislation before the committee. We are gratified by the broad consensus of views on many fundamental factors.

This consensus, without affecting the accord heretofore arrived at among the lower basin States, as set forth in H.R. 4671, 89th Congress, expresses certain principles with respect to the rights, obligations and requirements of each basin as against the other. These principles are:

1. The upper basin's right to the use of water of the Colorado River, pursuant to the Colorado River Compact, shall not be jeopardized by the temporary use of unused upper basin water by any lower basin projects.

2. The importation of substantial quantities of water into the Colorado River Basin is essential to the adequate development of both the Upper and Lower Colorado Basins. It is recognized that this importation must be accomplished under terms which are fair to the areas of origin of the water so imported. The pending legislation should authorize the Secretary to construct importation works which will deliver not less than 2,500,000 acre-feet annually, upon the President's approval of the Secretary's finding of feasibility.

3. Such importation works should be planned and built so as to make the imported water available, if possible, not later than 1980. Water supply prospects on the Colorado River, based in part upon the temporary use of water allocated to the upper basin, appear adequate to furnish a full supply to the central Arizona project accompanied by the safeguards for existing projects agreed to by Arizona and California, until sometime during the last decade of the present century. Thereafter, the central Arizona project supply would diminish unless supplemented by importation.

4. Satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty burden should be the first priority to be served by the imported water. The costs of importation allocable to the satisfaction of that burden, which is a national obligation, should be nonreimbursable.

AMENDMENT OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937 AND THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT TAX ACT Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 627, H.R. 3157.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R. 3157) to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, to eliminate the provisions which reduce the annuities of the spouses of retired employees by which the amount of certain monthly benefits, to amend the railroad retirement tax, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare with an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

TITLE I-AMENDMENTS TO THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937

SEC. 1. Subsection (e) of section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 (45 U.S.C. 228b (e)) is amended by changing the colon before the last proviso to a period and by striking out all that follows down through the period at the end of such subsection.

SEC. 2. (a) Subsection (a) of section 3 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 is amended by striking out "the next $300" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "the remainder up to a total of (i) $450, or (ii) an amount equal to one-twelfth of the current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as defined in section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever is greater".

(b) The second sentence of subsection (c) of such section 3 is amended by inserting before", shall be recognized" the following: "and before the calendar month next following the calendar month in which this Act was amended in 1965, or in excess of (1) $450, or (ii) an amount equal to one-twelfth of the current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as defined in section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever is greater, for any calendar month after the month in which this Act was so amended".

SEC. 3. (a) Subsection (f) (2) of section 5 of such Act is amended by inserting after "so amended" where it appears the second time in the first parenthetical phrase after clause (vi) the following: "and before the calendar month next following the month in which this Act was amended in 1965, and in excess of (1) $450, or (ii) an amount equal to one-twelfth of the current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as defined in section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever is greater, for any month after the month in which this Act was so amended".

Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever Ronald A. Walrod is greater,".

(c) Subsection (1) (10) of section 5 of
such Act is amended by striking out "$450"
and inserting in lieu thereof "(i) $450, or
(ii) an amount equal to one-twelfth of the
current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as
defined in section 3121 of the Internal Rev-
enue Code of 1954, whichever is greater".
SEC. 4. The provisions of sections 1, 2, and
3 of this Act shall take effect with respect
to annuities accruing and deaths occurring
in months after the month in which this
Act was enacted, and shall apply also to
annuities paid in lump sums equal to their
commuted value because of a reduction in
such annuities under section 2(e) of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as in effect
before the amendments made by this Act,
as if such annuities had not been paid in
such lump sums: Provided, however, That
the amounts of such annuities which were
paid in lump sums equal to their commuted
value shall not be included in the amount
of annuities which become payable by reason
of section 1 of this Act.

TITLE II-AMENDMENTS TO THE RAILROAD
RETIREMENT TAX ACT

SEC. 201. Sections 3201, 3202, 3211, and 3221 of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act are each amended by inserting after the phrase "or $450 for any calendar month after the month in which this provision was SO amended", wherever such phrase appears in such sections, the following: "and before the calendar month next following the calendar month in which this provision was amended in 1965, or (i) $450, or (ii) an amount equal to one-twelfth of the current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as defined in section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever is greater, for any month after the month in which this provision was so amended".

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate adjourn until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 1, 1965, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate August 31 (legislative day of Au

Act is amended

(1) by striking out "and" where it appears the fourth time and inserting in lieu thereof

a comma;

(2) by inserting after "so amended" where it appears the second time the following: "and before the calendar month next following the calendar month in which this Act was amended in 1965, and any excess over (i) $450, or (ii) an amount equal to one-twelfth of the current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as defined in section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever is greater, for any calendar month after the month in which this Act was so amended";

(3) by striking out "$6,600" both times it appears in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof "an amount equal to the current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as defined in section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1954"; and

(4) by striking out "$450" where it appears the second time and inserting in lieu thereof "(1) $450, or (ii) an amount equal to onetwelfth of the current maximum annual taxable 'wages' as defined in section 3121 of the

IN THE NAVY

Steven C. Martin

Paul T. Potter
Frank R. Long
Paul W. Needham, Jr.
Earl J. Meiers, Jr.

Richard C. Waterman
William G. MacDonald
Burton F. Folce, Jr.
Thomas H. Galligan
Jerry C. Bacon
Martin L. Lindahl
Charles W. Murray
Richard V. Butchka
Donald G. Campbell
William R. Ladd
Walter F. Bodner, Jr.
Gary C. Nelson
Kenneth W. Bates
Ronald J. Davies
Joseph J. Wehmeyer
Grant W. Risinger
James A. Monahan
Larry H. Hyde
Gilbert T George
Lee J. Black, Jr.
Ralph C. Yetka
Stephen R.

Edmondson

Thomas Nunas
David L. Priddy
F. Michael Kien
William W. Furrer
Robert R. Dudley
Stephen H. Davis
James W. Kunkle
William H. Thompson
Andrew F. Hobson
Dennis M. Fairbrother
James M. Sharpe, Jr.
Delbert L. Hemphill
Galen B. Siddall

Steven A. Pope

Wayne I. Smith
Sperry C. Storm
James T. Fenner
Walter B. Perm
David R. Van Dreumel
Richard G. Evans
John R. Carlile, Jr.
Thomas L. Osborne
Gerald J. Pounds
Richard G. Johns
David F. Orszak
Robert L. Zeller
Gary A. Rogers
James E. Cornell
Lawrence R. Rodgers
Gerald W. Schwab
James D. Crisp, Jr.
William H. Rollins, Jr.
Charles C. Williams
Richard H. King

Larry P. Searborough