been sufficient, and that chiefly moral and logistic, for even then there was no need of direct participation by American Armed Forces.

Late as it is, there is still time to salvage the situation. The following steps, in my opinion, must be taken by the United States with all seriousness and speed:

We should not be downhearted, much less feel isolated.

A NEW ALLIANCE NEEDED

confronted by Communist power-the ReQuestion. Is it possible for the countries public of China, for example, and South Korea and South Vietnam-to be close allies and fight side by side when one is attacked? Answer. For years I have been advocating this kind of alliance. So far, the greatest

of them should be attacked, the rest would be dutybound to aid it. The United States, being the arsenal of democracy, should contribute weapons and logistic support, but American ground forces need not take part in any fighting in East Asia.

Second, provide logistic support to the Government of the Republic of China in its action to recover the mainland and restore her territorial sovereignty.

Third, destroy the Chinese Communists' nuclear installations before they can amass a stockpile of atomic weapons and develop a system of delivery.

Fourth, pay serious attention to Mao Tsetung's program for world revolution after World War II, a document read into the U.S. Senate records on April 29, 1954. The timetable has been delayed, but the program is otherwise being carried out.

UNITED STATES IN ASIA'S HOT SPOTS Question. Do you see any possibility the United States will be driven out of Asia and the western Pacific?

Answer. No, I do not see such a possibility. The temptation for the United States to quit Asia is understandable, for, with the best of intentions and at tremendous self-sacrifice, American efforts to retrieve Asia from the clutches of Communist enslavement,

"no-win" policy of the United States as demonstrated in her not supporting such an alliance. For, in order to be really effective, the alliance needs American participation.

As of now, the United States has bilateral defense agreements with each of these nations and is actually providing them individually with political and military assistance.

This assistance has indeed enabled them to carry on resistance separately, but not enough to insure security and victory. Of course, some of these nations, by making use of the popular hatred for the Communist tyranny, by relying on their own wealth of experience in combating communism and by drawing upon the vast potential of their age-old national culture and traditional ethical concept, can successfully muster their own armed forces and civilian population against the Communists in their own countries without the participation of any foreign troops, provided they are given adequate weapons and logistic supplies.

But, in the absence of such an alliance, none of them can do much to immunize itself from the threat to its own security so long as Communist forces remain entrenched in adjacent countries, because it has no treaty obligations to help its neighbors to solve their Communist problems.

To date, America's most active anti-Com

But the world is now so closely knit that

the United States is no more able to disengage herself from Asia than from Europe. Forces that breached the ramparts of the Monroe Doctrine and propelled the United States into the hottest spots in two world

wars remain as active as ever.

As it was then, so it is now-the continued existence of the United States as a free and sovereign nation is contingent upon the maintenance of world peace. For her to disengage herself from Europe and Asia would be to allow her enemies to prepare, in safety, ways and means for her eventual burial.

The United States may wish to leave the rest of the world alone, but the Communists

will not leave her alone.

Unless she subscribes to the belief that a leopard can change its spots, she cannot disengaged herself from Asia as long as the Peiping regimes continues to exist.

The United States must not allow herself to be driven out of Asia. I remember Gen. Douglas MacArthur telling me during a visit in 1950 that "the pivot of the world for the next few centuries will be in the Pacific, not in the Atlantic." And the United States cannot quit the Pacific.

Question. Can any single country, even one with the enormous military powers of the United States, keep the peace in Asia?

Answer. My answer is "No." The day of Pax Romana is gone. And even Rome failed to keep real peace for long.

But no one is calling upon the United States to shoulder alone the responsibility of keeping the peace in Asia. There are at least a billion Asians ready and anxious to share this burden with her. One thing is certain, Asian nationalism cannot survive where Red imperialism flourishes.

In our struggle for survival, we are confident that Asian manpower coordinated with American technology and supplies will result in the greatest politicomilitary power in history for the maintenance of peace.

but partition-and at the whim of others.

The Republic of Korea is now broken into

two, the Republic of Vietnam is likewise partitioned, and the Republic of China has been only maintaining the status quo here.

America they can obtain encouragement and These nations eagerly hope that from help to form an alliance so that their respective sovereignty and territorial integrity may be regained.

The role America needs to take in this alliance is principally that of providing moral and material support.

Thus, at most, her military participation would be limited to only a small portion of her naval and air forces. Her ground forces will not be involved. The Chinese Communists being weak both in the air and on the sea, are certainly in no position to challenge, the U.S. Naval and Air Force.

Question. Will there ever be peace in Asia as long as the Communists control China? Answer. Communism, not nationalism, is the cause of turmoil in Asia today.

In the case of the newly independent Asian nations, most of them realize that they need economic development and political stability, but they lack experience and sophistication. Neither do they have foundations for political and social organizations comparable to those that exist in better-developed nations.

Most of them are, therefore, highly vulnerable to Communist infiltration, seduction, and agitation, and their people can be easily incited to create disturbances.

If their governments should decide to proceed with plans for political and economic reconstruction, the Communists will sabotage them by all wicked means at their disposal.

These will include rumor-mongering, malicious fabrication, and distortion of facts, and so on, until the people can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood, right from

wrong.

In the end, the governments will lose prestige in the people's eyes and find themselves unable to carry out the various reconstruction plans. The Communists will take advantage of the situation to move a step closer to attaining their goal, which will be nothing less than seizure of political power.

The Communists instituted strikes in factories and in schools, organized demonstrations, riots, revolts, and bloodshed on the China mainland some 16 years ago, and today they are resorting to the same tactics in other Asian nations.

Communism is, therefore, the source of trouble in all Asia.

In some of the newly independent nations in Asia, as in some of the newly emerging nations in Africa and other parts of the world, the Communists have skillfully camouflaged themselves as nationalists in carrying out infiltration and subversion, in fostering revolts and in supplanting real nationalism.

Their final aim is the complete domination and control of these nations. Once they succeed, they discard their mask of nationalism and reveal their true identity.

I am convinced that there can be neither peace nor security in Asia and in other parts of the world as long as the China mainland remains in the Communist grasp.

PRESSURES FOR WAR

Question. Is there any chance that China under the Communists could develop along the lines of the Soviet Union, so that "competition" with the West would be relatively peaceful?

Answer. This is a kind of wishful thinking completely contrary to facts.

Mao Tse-tung and his cohorts are all Stalinists. They have occupied the China exploded two nuclear devices since last Octomainland for 16 years. Though they have

ber, their economy is worsening, while the

people are destitute, downtrodden, and have no freedom to speak of.

Therefore, unless the Communists continue their external aggression and expansion, and force the people into wars, they will find it difficult to control the people's antiCommunist movements.

Furthermore, indisputably, the Chinese Communists are much more aggressiveminded than the Bolsheviks in the initial period of the Soviet Revolution.

Even if one should concede that the Chinese Communists might in due course become more moderate along the lines of the Soviet Union, how long does the free world have to wait for this miracle?

We Asians believe that the Peiping regime is totally irresponsible, and that if it can produce in the next year or two a very small number of, say, 10 atomic bombs, however crude they may be, it will not hesitate to use them on its anti-Communist Asia neighbors.

There is even the possibility that within the coming 5 or, at most 10 years, Peiping may be able to develop a long-range delivery system.

What if the so-called miracle does not happen?

Is the free world to stand still and thus condone the fall of Asia into Communist hands?

Must we wait for Peiping's atomic weapons to upset the world's nuclear balance and plunge mankind into a global nuclear holocaust?

RACE HATRED: A RED WEAPON

Question. Is there any possibility of the world's dividing into two contending blocs: the heavily populated, underdeveloped countries against the less populated, more advanced countries-or, as some call it, the colored world against the white world?

Answer. In my opinion, this is a problem which deserves the serious study of people with foresight.

Following the rise of nationalism and the fall of old colonialism, the problem of population has assumed greater importance in world politics with particular reference to international wars in the future.

Owing to the general concept prevalent in the twentieth century, it is no longer possible to deny any people their human rights. As Asia is the home of the majority of the world's population, its weight on the scale of world events is increasing daily.

But this has nothing to do with the question of races. It is due more to differences in cultural levels, stages of economic development, and standards of living, rather than the amount of melanin produced in the epidermis.

Had it not been for the exaggeration of the Communists, who for nefarious reasons of their own are deliberately exploiting racial differences into controversies, it would be obvious that whatever differences exist between nations and races stem from cultural

levels, stages of economic development, and standards of living.

These will gradually vanish as the more advanced nations give the less fortunate emerging nations economic aid and technological assistance.

Thus, in due course, any animosities felt by peoples in underdeveloped countries toward those of the better developed countries will lend themselves to reasonable solutions.

Therefore, it is not inevitable that the world should be divided into two hostile

blocs.

Moreover, in the context of current world developments, the question of freedom versus slavery is much more important than

that of ethnic origins.

We should, therefore, recognize that multiple races exist as a fact of life, and live together in harmony.

The international Communists, especially those in Peiping, however, are utilizing every means to stir up racial hatred in some of the newly independent nations in Asia and Africa.

The Chinese Communists are wasting no

time in using this as a powerful weapon in carrying out their studied schemes for aggression and agitation and as a means to wrest leadership of the Communist world from the Soviet Union.

Developments in Africa and in southeast Asia show that the Chinese Communists are trying to foment war among the races as a further step toward dominating the world and enslaving mankind. I wonder if the Western nations are aware of this Communist conspiracy and, if so, what precautionary measures are they taking?

How to prevent the Chinese Communists from further fostering and exploiting racial differences and how to remove racial hatred and avert catastrophe are problems demanding the collective wisdom of free nations.

Question. Do you see a possibility of future good relations and a strengthening of the alliance between the Soviet Union and Communist China?

Answer. I do not see any possibility of a rapproachment between Soviet Russia and the Chinese Communists in the foreseeable future. This is so because their conflicts, clashes, contradictions, and power interests are too deep to leave room for a fundamental readjustment.

A case in point, the war in Vietnam, has not served to mend the rift between Moscow and Peiping.

However, to suppose that the two are

headed for a quick military conflict is in

correct.

As to the question about Soviet Russia's policy in the event of a war between the United States and Peiping, this will depend on developments within the Communist bloc as well as in the world situation at the time. In the Vietnam war, Russia started to give Hanoi assistance only after the Chinese Com

munists had vociferously accused her of total lack of concern for the "life and death struggle" of a brother "socialist nation." In the face of this accusation, had Russia done nothing, it would have threatened her leadership of the Communist bloc, while bolstering Mao's prestige and strengthening his claim to leadership of the international Communist movement.

When our troops land on the mainland, it is highly improbable that the Chinese Communists would turn to the Soviet Union for assistance or ask for the participation of Soviet troops.

It is equally improbable that the Kremlin would send troops to China and become involved in a purely Chinese war. At any rate,

Soviet Russia would scarcely help a regime that is already a formidable contender for the leadership of the Communist world.

This warning is offered because leftist propaganda in Japan is loudly voicing the view that sooner or later there will be a coming together of Japan and the China mainland in answer to economic pressure.

Moreover, there is in Japan a latent antiAmericanism that tempts Communist exploitation.

Fortunately, by weaving Japanese trade interests into some pattern of Asian-Pacific Common Market, it should be possible to detach Japan from Peiping. There is also latent anti-Russianism in Japan to offset the antiAmericanism.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moss in the chair). Is there further morning business? If not, morning

business is closed.

AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL GS-16, GS-17, AND GS-18 POSITIONS IN CERTAIN AGENCIES

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 634, S. 2393.

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

The bill (S. 2393) to authorize additional GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18 positions for use in agencies for functions created as substantially expanded after June 30, 1965.

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

There being no objection, the bill was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows:

S. 2393

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (b) of section 505 of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105 (b)), relating to the maximum number of positions authorized at any one time for grades 16, 17, and 18 of the General Schedule of such Act and the authority of the President to provide a limited number of such positions for new agencies and func

tions, is amended by striking out "twentyfour hundred" and inserting in lieu thereof "twenty-five hundred", and by adding after "subparagraph" in paragraph (2) a comma and the following: "and one hundred of such positions shall be available only for allocation, with the approval of the President, for agencies or functions created or substantially expanded after June 30, 1965".

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report (No. 652), explaining the purposes of the bill.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Although the need for these additional supergrade positions emanated from congressional discussions of the necessity for highly qualified persons and high-level positions to man the greatly expanded operations of the Social Security Administration under the Social Security Amendments of 1965, it is felt that a number of other agencies or functions either created or substantially expanded by congressional action since June 30, 1965, will request allotment of additional GS-16, GS17, and GS-18 positions.

Among recent legislation which either created or substantially expanded agencies or functions are the Water Resources Planning Act; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965; and the Older Americans Act of 1965. There is also a substantial amount of legislation presently receiving congressional consideration which, if enacted, will either create or substantially expand agencies or functions.

Congress made provision for a similar reserve of 50 such positions available only for allocation with approval of the President in 1961, but that allocation has now been ex

hausted.

within the Classification Act presently are The 2,400 supergrade positions allotted subject to percentage limitation, with no more than 12 percent of the total being allotted as GS-18 positions, a maximum of 25 percent to GS-17 positions, and with the remaining percentage of the total allotted as GS-16 positions. The 100 additional superwill likewise be subjected to these percentage grade positions provided for under this bill limitations.

AMENDMENT OF RAILROAD RE

TIREMENT ACT OF 1937 AND RAILROAD RETIREMENT TAX ACT ask unanimous consent that the Chair Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I lay before the Senate the unfinished business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which is H.R. 3157.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3157) amending the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 and the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. Mr. PELL. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield without losing his right to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

OFFICER. The

Mr. PELL. I yield. The PRESIDING clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I feel it necessary to make the point of order that the pending Senate amendment is a tax amendment on a nonrevenue bill. Since the Constitution requires that all revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives, and since Senators by their oaths are sworn to uphold the Constitution, the Senate is clearly forbidden to originate a tax

measure.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Then, Mr. President, I wish to make the point of order that the bill came to the Senate as a bill which was not a tax bill. The pending Senate amendment to the bill is a major tax amendment, and it is

clearly unconstitutional for the Senate to attach a tax provision to a bill which is not a tax bill. To do so would be in violation of our oaths.

Mr. President, this question has been considered before in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. From my study of the precedents, it is clear and I have discussed the question with

the Parliamentarians of both the House of Representatives and the Senate that inasmuch as revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, a bill providing for a tax must be a revenue bill when it comes to the Senate, and the Senate cannot convert a nonrevenue bill to a revenue bill. For the Senate to attach a tax provision to simple legislation that has nothing to do with revenue when it comes from the House of Representatives is not condoned.

Therefore, I am constrained to make the point of order that this amendment is unconstitutional.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon will state it.

Mr. MORSE. Is the point of order subject to discussion?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the uniform practices of the Senate for more than 100 years, the Chair has no authority to pass upon points of order as to the constitutionality of a proposal. Those are questions for the Senate to determine. Therefore, the Chair submits to the Senate the question whether or not, under the Constitution, the Senate has a right to consider this amendment, or whether the point of order is well taken. The question, of course, is debatable.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of H.R. 3157, Mr. David Schrieber and Mr. Charles McLaughlin, of the office of the General Counsel of the Railroad Retirement Board, be granted the privilege of the floor, as has been the custom in previous years.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I recognize, as the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG] has pointed out, that article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the United States provides:

in the House of Representatives; but the All bills for raising revenue shall originate

Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

First, I submit that the amendment to H.R. 3157, which would raise the taxable wage base under the Railroad Retirement Act from $450 to $550 a month, is incidental to the main purpose of the bill, which is to grant benefits to the spouses of railroad retirees.

In fact, in the annotated copy of the Constitution, which all Senators have, and which was prepared by the legislative reference service, I note the statement that only bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the word are comprehended by the phrase "all bills raising hended by the phrase "all bills raising revenue." Bills for other

purposes

which incidentally create revenues are not included. As an example, a case is cited wherein a bill which provided that the District of Columbia should raise by taxation and pay to designated railroad companies a specific sum for the elimination of grade crossings and the construction of the union railroad station did not have to originate in the House of Representatives.

Other cases decided by the Supreme Court are in point: In Twin City Bank against Nebeker, a case dealing with a tax on bonds used to secure the national currency, the Court held that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.

The purpose of this amendment is corollary to the purpose of the bill, and my principle objective is to provide some method for maintaining the deficit in the Railroad Retirement Fund at a tolerable level. Without this amendment, the

deficit will rise to approximately $62 million per year; with it, we can reduce the deficit to about $24 million.

Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a brief concerning the case I have already cited, Twin City Bank against Nebeker. Another case, too, is cited; that of Millard against Roberts.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

EXCERPT FROM THE DECISION OF THE U.S.

SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TWIN CITY BANK V. NEBEKER, 167 U.S. 196

The contention in this case is that the

section of the act of June 3, 1864, providing U.S. bonds, and for the circulation and rea national currency secured by a pledge of

demption thereof, so far as it imposed a tax upon the average amount of the notes of a national banking association in circulation, was a revenue bill within the clause of the Constitution declaring that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House pose or concur with amendments as on other bills" (art. 1, sec. 7); that it appeared from

the official Journals of the two Houses of Congress that while the act of 1864 originated in the House of Representatives, the

provision imposing this tax was not in the bill as it passed that body, but originated in the Senate by amendment, and, being accepted by the House, became a part of the statute; that such tax was, therefore, unconstitutional and void, and that, consequently,

the statute did not justify the action of the defendant.

The case is not one that requires either an extended examination of precedents, or a full discussion as to the meaning of the words in the Constitution, "bills for raising revenue." What bills belong to that class is a question of such magnitude and importance that it is the part of wisdom not to attempt, by any general statement, to cover every possible phase of the subject. It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of Congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which, in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute, is clearly not a revenue bill which the Constitution declares must originate in the House of Representatives. Mr. Justice Story has well said that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question proves that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue. (P. 202.)

EXCERPT FROM THE DECISION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MILLARD v. ROBERTS, 202 U.S. 429

The first contention of appellant is that the acts of Congress are revenue measures, and therefore, should have originated in the House of Representatives and not in the Senate, and to sustain the contention appellant submits an elaborate argument. In answer to the contention the case of Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196, need only be cited. It was observed there that it was a part of wisdom not to attempt to cover by a general statement what bill shall be said to be "bills for raising revenue" within the meaning of those words in the Constitution, but it was said, quoting Mr. Justice Story, "that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question proves that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not

bills for other purposes, which may incidentally create revenue." (1 Story on Constitution, sec. 880.) And the act of Congress which was there passed on illustrates the meaning of the language used. The act involved was one providing a national currency, and imposed a tax upon the average amount of notes of a national banking association in circulation. The provision was assailed for unconstitutionality because it originated in the Senate. The provision was sustained, this Court saying:

"The tax was a means of effectually ac

complishing the great object of giving to the people a currency that would rest, primarily, upon the honor of the United States and be available in every part of the country. There was no purpose, by the act or by any of its provisions, to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations

of the Government."

This language is applicable to the acts of Congress in the case at bar. Whatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act (pp. 436-437).

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, a further point I wish to raise is that any money raised by this amendment does not go into the General Treasury, but rather goes to a special railroad retirement fund. Revenue is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary as:

The annual or periodical yield of taxes, excise, customs, duties, rents, etc., which a nation, State, or municipality collects and receives into the treasury for public use; public income of whatever kind.

Insofar as the funds that would be raised by this amendment are for a private pension fund, I do not see any constitutional prohibition against its origination in the Senate.

Finally, I submit that from the viewpoint of precedent, we have already passed legislation similar to this; that in 1959 the Senate originated a raise in the base of the taxable income, passed it, and sent it to the House, which changed it to a House number but passed a bill in identical form, including a misplaced comma, and sent it back to the Senate.

At that point, various Senators rose to deplore the action of the House, and to defend the constitutionality of the original action of the Senate, including the then majority leader, Senator Johnson, of Texas, and including the present majority whip, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], and other Senators.

For these reasons, Mr. President, I submit that we are within our rights in passing this amendment as a method to keep the system fiscally sound, which it certainly is not at this time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JORDAN of Idaho in the chair). The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in view of the fact that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroad Retirement-on which I am privileged to be a memberhas made reference to the action in this body of May 5, 1959, in regard to the railroad retirement bill of that year, S. 226, I wish to discuss that precedent

briefly.

Enactment by the Senate on May 5, 1959, of S. 226, provided for increases in tax rates under the Railroad Retirement

Tax Act to cover the additional benefits provided by the bill. A House companion bill had been reported to, but not enacted by the House. The House reported bill was approved by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, but was unacceptable to railroad labor because the House approved bill failed to provide sufficient revenue and contained other unacceptable provisions. When the satisfactory Senate bill S. 226 reached the House floor, it was adopted by the House in substitution for the House reported bill. No constitutional question was raised by the House, at that time.

It was known, however, that President Eisenhower would veto the bill; and it was also known that if the bill were vetoed on its merits, the veto would be overridden by both Houses of Congressat least, that was the belief.

1937, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, so as to provide increases in benefits, and for

other purposes, which was read the first time by title and the second time at length.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], let me say that the House passed, on May 4, H.R. 5610, which amends the Railroad Retirement Act. H.R. 5610 is identical with Senate bill 226, which was passed by the Senate on April 29, and

which had been reported by the Senator from

Oregon [Mr. MORSE].

The House adopted every line, every word, every punctuation mark in the Senate billincluding a misplaced quotation mark.

I am informed that the House took that action because the bill contained a revenue feature, inasmuch as the bill increases the rate of tax on employers and employees under the railroad retirement system. However, the tax-increase provision is only one of many changes effected by the bill in the railroad retirement law.

Senate bill 226, as passed by the Senate, is not primarily a tax measure. The increase in tax is only part of a bill which is designed to provide much-needed increases in the benefits under the act. In my mind, there is no doubt about the constitutional

It was feared, however, that if the President were to veto the bill because it had a Senate number, some Members of the House might be inclined into following the position of accepting the veto. To avoid this, a Member of the House power of the Senate to initiate such a measmoved, a few days later, to vacate the previous House action, and then moved to strike from the House-reported bill all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the Senate provision. This was done, and the enacted bill with a House number was reenacted by the Senate on May 5, 1959.

At that time I was chairman of the subcommittee of the Senate on railroad retirement, occupying the same position which the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] occupies today.

The majority leader was the Senator from Texas, Mr. Johnson. The majority leader and I thought that the whole procedure was unnecessary from the standpoint of parliamentary requirement. Nevertheless, we agreed to go along with it, because our objective was to get the bill passed.

I believe it is important that there be read into the record at this time-because I believe it is of controlling and precedential value-the discussion which took place at that time, because in my judgment, if S. 226 on May 5, 1959, was not unconstitutional, the bill before us today is not unconstitutional.

ure. The Supreme Court has long held that the Senate can initiate and can pass general legislation which contains, as an incidental feature, a revenue provision. The case of Millard v. Roberts, decided in 1906, is specific on this point. The annotated constitains numerous citations in support of this tution, compiled by Professor Corwin, con

view.

I have conferred with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who handled the bill, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE]. It is our conclusion that we do not wish to quibble over the matter; we are primarily concerned with sending this prodate. In our judgment, the power of the posed legislation to the President at an early Senate to initiate and to dispose of proposed legislation such as Senate bill 226 is clear and beyond any doubt; and we do not intend to delay the taking of final action on this matter by arguing the procedural question. It is far more important to the railroad workers that such a bill be passed and go law, rather than that there be long arguto the President and be signed by him into ment over the question of whether the bill bear a House bill number or a Senate bill number.

So, Mr. President, after conferring with the Senator from Oregon and other members of the committee, I urge immediate Senate consideration of House bill 5610, which is

For all intents and purposes, the sub- identical in every respect with Senate bill stantive objectives are the same.

I read from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 105, part 6, p. 7472: AMENDMENT OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT

226, which was passed by the Senate on April 29, I believe, by unanimous vote.

Mr. President, I yield now to the Senator from Oregon, so that he may make whatever comments he desires to make, and that then the Senate may perhaps take action on the bill.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the majority leader has explained the reason why there has been some confusion in regard to railroad retirement legislation. In my judgment, he has stated the law accurately. There is no question about the fact that it was within the province of the Senate to initiate such proposed legislation and to pass it. I quite agree with the Senator from Texas that we should proceed to repass the bill, this time in the form of House bill 5610.

In making legislative history on the bill, our obligation is to make sure that no question at all in regard to the legislative process can be raised successfully by anyone in any future litigation.

Mr. President, until yesterday we had thought a conference would be necessary in