WSP00628 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..... !.~'-~< '<'tjlM~ ,.4iJJ CONGRESSIONAL Il.ECORD-SENATEi 8445 '."i:::: ':'(: pleB.'le no~ to raIse again this contro~ verslallssue at thIS late hour Wlthout any' opportunIty for any Senate investigation. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. PresIdent, In Ute opinion of the Senator does not the lan8U8ie appearing at.thls point in the bill. B.l1d the provLso which the Senator says was worked out so care- fully, In reality protect the upper basin against calls for water for these mul- tIple-purpose projects? Evidently that proviso was placed in U1e bill for a pur~ pose, and the pW]lOse of the bill was to clarify the demand or the call for water from the Upper basin States by the -Plates In the lower basIn. That evI- dently WlI.8 the purpose of putting It In th.e bUl. The only point on which clarl- 1l.catlon Is needed Ls to make certaln that the provl.so applies t"o all features at these multIple-purpose proJecl!l. 1 be- lIeve It does apply to them, It the Sena- tor from LouWMa would say that that 13 hls. ot/[nlon, it would end the nie.ltel' so far as I am concerned. But It is a. matter of tremepdoU3 Importance to Wi, and we do want to have 1t thoroughly clarl.fl.ed. Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, I could not sIve an offhand opinIon with reference to this prov1.s.l0n. It speaks. :for Itself and It can be.interpreted when the time CODJes' tor Jnterpretatlon. I read the la.ngualJe ot the law: Tbeu.-ofornaY'g!ltloo- ~" r,;:' 4~' . " ;-. ~~ 'c" I'~'" ,...... \ '.'" (~< t. ~. , t:. L '.- I read that again, Mr. PresIdent- The use for navlgaUon. In connection with the operation and mai.llteJl&Dce ot llUCn worQ herein IUthor1zed. for cOD.ltM1~Jl. o! ....ters&rt&l.nrlJlBtatealylJlg...bollforpartly .llIt of Ule Jllnllty-elghtb meridiAn ehell he oolf ,"ueb WI! aa. doe. not con.tl.!ct 'l'lth ROy bene1lclru COD.&umpUYe uee. preeent or fu- ture. IJl State, IJlog wholly or pany we~t 01 the nJnetY_lllgnth mertdlan. That Is the lanauage of the law. The Senator from. Colorado places hi.! own interpretation upon it: What I am &Sk- 10g15 that he not bring up Lh1s very con- troversial Question and try to enhLrge the Bcope or that proY!slon by any amendment at t.h11l time. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Presl.denL. IItnce the Senator l:rom l.J:)u1- mana dOe:! not feel Jwtlfled In clarlrylng the meaning ot this lanllU8ge, I shall ask perm1s.sl0n to Jnsert an amendment, and I want a little time to prepare It. I wonder 1t the blJl can go over a mUe longer until we can work It out? I am .IIorry to have to delay the bill at ~hls late hour, but thIs Is a matter ot sreat Im- portance to my State and to other State.! In slmllar I;;ltuaUons, and we simply clin~ not paas It over. even If the hour Is late. Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, 1t the bl1l goea over I must state that It proba~ bly will mean the death of the blll'ln this' COnsrll33, B..lld that it will ha.ve to be taken up In anot.her Congress. I W&8 hopeful we could get through wIth tbb river and harbor blll by 3 o'cloCk th1s "atternoon and d1spose of the flood-con- trol bUIln probably about an hour there- after. I regre~ that the Senator, after the bill has been - pending tor weeb, should come and ask for a delay of Its consideration by the Senate in order that he mIght prepare an amendmllnt. I do not th1nk It Is fa1r to the countless mil- lions throUihout the United States who [':. ~. f' ~.'~ i~ I' :.:. tl. . ~- . .,' ." ~ ; r, '- ,. :'-. ~;~. are Jnterested Jn the projects conta.1ned in the blU. It would probably mean the death of the bill. . Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President. will m]l colleague yield? Mr. JOHNSON or Colorado. I yield. Mr. Mn.LIKIN. r believe It shoUld be pointed out that when we were dealini wJ~b U1e so-called O'Mahoney-Mtlllk1n amendment a couple ot years ago we then had In mind dams and reservolrs on ,the Missouri. Those daw. were also multiple-purpose dams, IncludIng' the storage of water for IrrIgation, - and therefore, because they had a dennlte Ir- rigation feature, we were protected ll.galnst the point which we are now maidng. The dJstlniULshed senior Senator from Colorado points out that It could he as damaging to the upper States to h(l.ve to let water down during the ItrlgaUon sea- aon to maIntaIn a power level In down-_ stream. Slates as It would be to h..ve to let water down durJnS the Irrigation aea- son to maintaIn a navlgaUon level. The matter mJiht becoma vital to us. In my opinion. offhand. I believe that whatever power stage might be desirable to be maintained 1n these lower lItream projects could be maintained out of local . run-off; tbat It probably wouJd not be necessary to uk: lor any wa.ter from the upper basins. But 1t that were not the ca.se, It we had to let water down when we need It It would be a. deadly blow to relr10ns In the States In tbe upper basLn whIch I1Ye only by 1rrliatlon water and whleh must have it w1t.hout ta.U unless they are to be turned Jnto deserts. I believe that the dlstlnllULshed senior Sena.tor from Colorado and I and per- haps allier Benators :from the e.r:Id and semiar1d Btates. would be derelict If we allowed this to pass In cavaller fashlon. I doubt J! an,. harm would come to the . lower basIn ot this particular stream It . Jt were agreed that by Interpretation we are not requJred to let. water down for power purpose:!. It that cannot be agreed, we have no alternative but to f1ubmlt an amendment. for It Involve3 the ute of great areas In our State. Mr. OVERTON. MI'. Prn1den\.. 'Jim t.he Sena.tor yield? Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I yield. Mr. OVERTON. Let me point out to the Senator frOIn Colorado that what we are dIscussIng deals with na"vlgaUon, and therefore It would apply to the prov1s1on of the bill with reference to the Arkansas River and tr1butaries. There are only two Jtems ot the bill that relate to the Arkansas River: one Is Lhe Eutaula Res-- . ervolr, whJch Ie a multiple-purpose res- ervoir, and which Is east ot the nJnety~ eighth meridian, nat west ot the nInety- eIghth meridian, and whIch project is planned to tiOOd eontrol, power. and to ImpI'ove the lower Arkansas River tor nav1gaLlon purposes. So I see no ne~ " cesslty for C1trerlni ally amendment to thJs bill at all to protect the West. Mr. JOHNSON ot Colorado. The Sen~ ator says that because the reservolr hap- pens to be east of the nInety-eighth me- ridian. that therefore we oUiht not to be concerned wlth 1t? Mr. OVERTON. I did not 8ay that, I WB.! merely SlvtnlJ the location of the reservo1r. They are both east" ot the ninety-eighth merIdian, but they are both concerned with navlgatlon. Mr. JOHNsON. They are both con- cerned with navliat1on. but what we Want to be certain of Is that thIs authorI- zation tor the buJldIng ot power plants does not place a legal call upon the bas- Ins west ot the nlnety.elghth mer1d1an for their wa.ter. TtLalls the whole object.' Mr. OVERTON. I understand tbe ar~ gument. The Senator wants to broaden It. and maintain a stransle hold on the people In the lower valley. Mr. JOHNSON ot Colorado, It Is no~h_ ing at the kInd. Mr. OVERTON. I cannot escape that conclusIon. Otherwise the Senator would not Insist on It. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. It the Senntor dId not wish to take away our water he would not Insist on not PUt.t!ni It In. I do not belIeve there Is any pur- pOse In tak.Jng our water, but we ought to have the q,uestion c.leaTed up, and this Is the time to clear It'up..when the bill is pending. Mr. OVERTON. Let the ELInendme'nt be ofl'ered. and we can vote on It. Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The amendment will be oaered. . EXn:HBIOK OP PRICl!'.: CONTROL- AMENDJmITS Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President. I lIend to lhe desk: a.n amendment intended to be proposed to HoU6e JoInt Resolution 371. On page U, between lines 14 and Ill. It Is proposed to Insert the following: (') No me.:1mum prlC8 and no regulation Clr order under t.b.1.t .ct or the Bt&hlll.l:aUon &:t of 19411. .. Nnllnded, &hall be ll.ppllCllbl1l wtth respect to lIYlllItoclr.. poultry, or ellSll, or food or feed productll ptaOeUed or m&Ilulllc_ tured lD whole or llubatantlel put fnlI1'l 11ve-'- etoek, poultry, ~ egp. The effect of'the proposed amendment Is the same as woUld have been the eJreet of the amendment appearing on PlLlle 20. paragraph (3), section A ot the bill as or1glnally passed by the Senate, which amendment was deleted by the conterees. Under the amendment formerly ac30pted by the Senate, the provision was made that all controIs with respect to IIvesklck. poultry, and eus. and food and feed product.! processed or manUfactured In whole or sub6tantlal part from lIve- stock. poultry, or ens. should be removed not later than June 30, 1946. . The effect of the failure to enact a bUl prior to June 30, lU~6, terminated all cont.rols. Thb amendment now proposed merely provides that 10 any bUl that mJSht now be enacted: livestock, poultry, and eggs. and rood and feed products processed or manufactured In- wb,ole or substantial part from Ilvestock, poultry, or eggs shall be spec1f!.caUy n:cludeti from an~ and all cont.rols. I should Uke to say that several Ben- . ators -have expressed a desire to be co- authors of this amendment. We do not wish 10 torecl08e any Senator. I em submittIng the amendment on behalf of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CAl.VILLEI. who has made a terrrtlc Diht to have meat and lIvestock decontrols made & part of the prIce stabilization act, and also the Benator from Minnesota LMr. BALL), the Senator from New Bampshl.;'.' ..:.)~~~'<,:,,:? .;~, .'; .:" . ....z_ '. . ..' . ~'~'s ...;, ;:', ~~ "~.~;;.r~~:~, ~ )<i~.:~ ~:' ':~ ;" ..::.. :~:} ;,~ :_~.~>~" '~..:- .... " (:" ., .'. "~".. .::':" ;-'....'... . ",' ~ ..', .,:,. ",':". ". . ~.:., . ~', ).~, . ,:}" >~. '. '. ': '. ,~. "'~ ,~ ~/~;i '",./., ,";";~ '.,',--' .. "'.' ~:~&;';r~~~~~{~~?~~~~ i.~"<:,.... "'<:' ':.J: .:.:~ :" , . ;:'.'..; -' ..;, .....:",. ::j'.. . . ;,' . ""'" . ,:. ,.:.' :" :~:~;.!: '~'-;" -""".., . '.,," "?'-'>'>"'" ;:,:<:.;;-"1:.. ".:..':'~...~J':< ":/:"d"':' .;.~.'.>~': ".; ~ ,,.. -'. .' ~ ~~?,y~~~ ..'ii'" ..,-' ,>.,....\. ""'~ ':.~. ;'-. :-,.... .,- " .",' ; :~~:,)::';).. ' ". . . ::':i; f~:::'j'I~~~1~t~~;~;~:~~~::)~.~/ ".~.