and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON] each to have 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. MCKEOWN. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that we are going a little fast here in this appropriation for this reason: It is admitted by the gentleman from New Jersey that the reclassification act does not affect the employees outside of the District of Columbia. Why make appropriations then for the people in the District of Columbia before we extend the act to the other parts of the country? Why make a special case out of the employees of the District of Columbia? What answer have you to make to the employees of the other large cities of the United States who are just as much interested in salary increases and who need them just as much as do the people in the District of Columbia? Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MCKEOWN. Yes. Mr. CRAMTON. First, for the reason given by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LEHLBACH], that the data was largely assembled as to the District, but that nothing had been done in respect to the field. Second, it takes not very long to get an answer from the District, but when you get to the field and cover the entire world, practically, getting your information back from employees, it takes a much longer time. The information is not yet available for Congress on which we could fix the salaries. I am advised that it is the purpose of the Committee on Appropriations, if the information be available before the 1st of July, to make it applicable, and in that connection I will make this observation. If the committee now should sustain the Roach amendment, which means to nullify the classification act, that, of course, puts an end to any classification in the field as well as in the District. Mr. McKEOWN. It occurs to me that when we come to make an appropriation and classification in the District of Columbia before we extend it to the other parts of the country it is not a reasonable answer to say to the men in the other parts of the country that we had the information first. Why not let the District of Columbia wait on the same proposition on which you are making the men in the field wait? Why not take care of the people here by proper legislation and the men in the field at the same time? The men in the field are afraid that after it begins to work in the District it will not be extended to the men in the field. Mr. CRAMTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MCKEOWN. Yes, sir; I would be glad to yield. Mr. CRAMTON. We do not need to worry about that. Would it be any better for the men in the field being paid an unfairly low salary to know that we were withholding for a year a proper adjustment of salaries in the District of Columbia? Mr. MCKEOWN. I will say in regard to the field man who might not get the proper adjustment that he might expect, how does the gentleman take care of the men in the field so as to put them on a parity with the men in the District of Columbia? Mr. CRAMTON. I will say this: It is expected that the $240 bonus will be continued to the field employees unless we are able to make the classification effective as to them. Mr. CARTER. If the gentleman will yield just a moment, I think I can relieve the gentleman's fears about these employees in the field. The gentleman is going to have ample opportunity to increase every one of the salaries to the full extent he wishes before we get through and put the taxes on the people. Mr. MCKEOWN. I will say that I am not only interested in the men in the field and am trying to see that they get fair treatment in the District of Columbia, but I am also interested in the fact that we are spending more money and increasing the expenditures of the Government and making these taxes higher, and what is going to result from this reclassification is that the men who get the small salaries will be discharged and dispensed with and those getting the higher, the large salaries, will be increased, and then they will come back to Congress and say they have not got enough employees to carry on the work of the Government. Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HASTINGS. If the gentleman will permit me another suggestion; if we withhold it from the employees here in the District of Columbia, they are so well organized they will get on the backs of these committees and of these departments to make them hurry up these reports from the field so as to give relief to the employees in the field sooner than otherwise. Mr. MCKEOWN. I think we had better move the Capitol, and then they would not get on their backs so easily. Mr. CARTER. If the gentleman will allow me to add this in his time, I will say that this committee is not responsible for these salaries, as the gentleman well knows. We simply comply with the requirements of the reclassification act in our report on this bill. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, first of all let me say I am opposed to the Roach amendment because what we have sought to accomplish by the passage of the reclassification act would be nullified if it should prevail. It seems to me there is a good deal of misapprehension as to just what may be the effect of the reclassification act. Also there seems to be much divergence of opinion as to how the committee should have met the matter of reclassification in fixing the amount for the different grades and classes of employees. In the first place, let us assume that we have a grade and that a definite amount of money-say $250,000-may be expended in one bureau that has one grade of employees made up of six classes. We may think of the matter being handled in one of three ways most commonly discussed. First, we may think of a lump sum of, say, $250,000, which is about the amount carried in the first paragraph of this bill, and we may think of six classes within the grade. We may think of, say, 150 employees on July 1 next when the law will go into effect. What might be the effect if you appropriate a lump sum and leave it to the administration of the officer in charge of a particular group of employees? If employees resign, if vacancies occur and the responsible head would promote as fast as vacancies occur from the lower to the higher positions or classes during the year, you might well find yourself in this position, that when the year would have rolled around a very substantial part of the employees would have been advanced from the lower classes into the upper classes at the sacrifice of the quantity of work produced. In other words, the work of a particular bureau might be badly behind. You might have 100 employees by the end of a year drawing high salaries instead of 150 employees variously paid, and the Congress would be asked to reconcile an appropriation in another year to a bureau where the employees had been advanced to the upper classes without a proper regard for the lower classes from the standpoint of the actual service performed and the merits of the employees. Mr. ROACH. Will the gentleman yield right there? Mr. ROACH. Take the Secretary's office as an illustration. There are 84 employees in the Secretary's office. Do I understand the gentleman there is likely to be any change in the Secretary's office or any particular branch of the Interior Department or in any other department of the Government, that there are likely to be enough persons die or resign or refuse to continue in the employment to such an extent they could not operate efficiently? Mr. FRENCH. I refer to no particular office or bureau, but I will tell the gentleman that in one bureau or office that during the past month I have had occasion to make inquiry into there is an annual turnover of 30 per cent of employees. Mr. ROACH. The gentleman is speaking of a turnover, a transfer from one bureau or department to another. I am speaking of resigning. They sometimes die, of course, but did you ever hear of any of them resigning? Mr. FRENCH. Vacancies occur. How they occur is not material. Let that be a final answer to the question. In this particular bureau to which I refer there is an annual turn over of 30 per cent. Now, let me get to the next plan. Here you have a grade of six classes, and for a given bureau you appropriate $250,000, and you arbitrarily say in the law that you appropriate for a specific number of employees for each class. Here you have tied the hands of the administrative officer, and you have taken away reasonable hope of promotion from the minds of employees of the several classes. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. ROACH] a moment ago asked why you can not designate six inspectors. You could. You can go through each of the bureaus and designate so many clerks in class 6, say 15, and 30 in class 5, and 40 in class 4, and 30 in class 3, and 30 in class 2, and 15 in class 1. Then what have you done? You have tied the hands of the responsible officer in charge of those employees. A vacancy may occur, but by the operation of the law the responsible officer can not promote where service may demand. He can not rearrange his employees. He may promote only to the vacancy which may be in a class where no additional clerk may be needed. In other words, under the first plan the lump-sum plan-you would extend the opportunity for tremendous and grave abuse to the responsible head of a bureau who might desire to be a good fellow with all his help. Under the second plan you would impose an injury upon the employees themselves by denying to the responsible authority the right to promote as promotion might be deserved. Mr. RUBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for just a question? Mr. FRENCH. Yes. Mr. RUBEY. Is the gentleman in favor of lump-sum appropriations in toto all through the service as the only way in which you could allow the Secretary to carry out that plan? Mr. FRENCH. No; I am not in favor of lump-sum appropriations without qualification. The plan which the Committee on Appropriations has adopted for all the departments seems to do justice both by the administering authority and by the employees. Assume we appropriate $250,000 for a grade made up of six classes. We base our estimate for the appropriation on the best estimates that can be furnished as to the number of employees for each class. Then we propose that for the year the salaries for all employees of the grade shall be based on the average of salaries for all the classes. As vacancies occur promotions may be made to higher grades, but at the same time lower-paid employees would need to enter the lower classes. Under this plan there would be elasticity, but there would not be abuse. The CHAIRMAN. The time is already fixed by the committee. Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana rose. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for five minutes. Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am against the pending amendment because I am satisfied it would impair, if not nullify, the reclassification act and the extension of that act to the Government employees in the field. I want to see reclassification extended to the field just as quickly as possible. It is true that I did not vote for the reclassification act, simply for the reason that I was hopeful that it would be extended expeditiously to the field, because that hope was never held out in so many words, although in a way we had a right to believe that outside of the city of Washington some of the benefits of the reclassification act might inure to the people, to the people in the field, within a reasonably quick time after its passage and operation. I believe that everyone in this House who has observed me during the time I have been a Member of it knows very well that for the reasons I have endeavored to set forth on many occasions I am always with the wage earner. I have stood by him in season and out of season, day in and day out. His song has been my song, and in all probability I will go the balance of the journey of life with him. When it was stated on the floor of this House by men competent to speak that there were too many employees in the city of Washington I ignored the assertion and stood by the wage earner. That may not appear as the most patriotic attitude in the world, considering the demand for the retrenchment of expenses, but in that posi tion I yielded rather to sentiment than to cold-blooded judgment, feeling and believing that a gradual curtailment would meet all the requirements of economy and promote the general wel fare more advantageously than drastic action which might resemble arbitrariness. But, gentlemen, I want to submit one observation for your consideration and thoughtful attention. Mr. BLACK of Texas. I do not know, that I understand the gentleman's logic. As to this bill, considering the particular item we have under consideration, if Congress should pursue the same method that we have heretofore pursued and designate 40 clerks in grade 4, as the gentleman has it on his chart there; assuming that we followed the old method, during the fiscal yearing through its mouthpieces, which speak more powerfully than there might be, by reason of death or resignation occurring, a vacancy in grade 4. I know of no reason why the department head could not advance some clerk to take the position under the old system if a vacancy occurs. I have listened carefully to the gentleman's statement and also to the statement of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MADDEN], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; and it seems to me that the danger the whole danger-in the new system that we are about to start upon is that if you do not designate 8 inspectors and the department should have enough money available I do not know of anything that would prevent it from having 10 or 15 inspectors, as the case may be, if it has enough money to pay them. I would like to have that made clear. Mr. FRENCH. Where you fix arbitrarily the number in each class I will grant that the responsible head might advance from class 3 to class 4 if a vacancy occur, or from any class to a higher class in case of vacancy. But suppose a vacancy would occur in class 4. Suppose also that the greatest necessity for help would be in class 3. Then suppose there is no vacancy in class 3. Under a plan that fixes the number arbitrarily for each class no rellef could be extended to class 3, even though there was money in the bureau, since the vacancy had occurred in class 4. On the other hand, if the plan of the committee is adopted, it would be possible for the responsible head to utilize all the latitude allowed by reason of vacancies and resignations for the greatest efficiency in the service by promoting to the class where the greatest necessity might exist for service. Suppose great need for extra help existed in class 3. A vacancy in any upper class would make possible additional help for class 3. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Idaho has expired. Mr. STENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's time be extended for five minutes. that the city of Washington should be the greatest Capital of There is a demand, apparently by the people of the Capital, the world largely at the expense of all the balance of the country. I hope I am not overcritical in making this statement. It is a laudable desire to build up the greatest and most beautiful Capital in all the world, and perhaps the people may be excused for manifesting some selfishness in accomplishing that purpose. The fact that the Government pay rolls are a tremendous asset from every imaginable standpoint is too obvious to require comment, although it might prompt one to think that Washington looks for economy in all other directions, demandthe congressional representation of any State, a retrenchment in expenditures in governmental activities everywhere except in those that function in Washington. Washingtonians are for Washington first, last, and always, and the official force and the citizenry generally inclined to be self-centered and not mindful of their associates in the Government service in the "field." I want to suggest the application of a beautiful story, not so much by way of warning, for I am not a monitor, but for whatever value the story may have--the Biblical story of Joseph and his coat of many colors. You know that the gift of it by his affectionate father as a mark of favor immediately incurred for him the enmity of his brethren. Wage earners all over the United States and every part of the country were hopeful of receiving the benefits of reclassification shortly after their bestowal upon Washington employees, hoping that its benefits would be extended to them, if not immediately, at least not so far away in the indefinite future as to create the bitter thought that they were less fortunate than their favored brethren in the city of Washington. "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick" and very bitter, too. I voted for the reclassification bill and accepted the statement made by Mr. LEHLBACH and others that it would mean an increase. I honestly thought that increase would be applied as expeditiously and as quickly as possible to the field, and that was one of the ruling motives which prompted me to vote for classification, although in all probability I would have been with them if it only applied to Washington. But, I submit, we can not go along all the time legislating in the interest of the employees in Washington, forgetful of the fact that there are others who are rendering as competent and as patriotic service to the National Government as is being rendered by the em ployees in Washington, because it will arouse that envy which I tried to indicate was the result of conferring the coat of many colors upon Joseph by his affectionate and loving father. Washington might as well sit up and take notice, those who are interested, those who are the moving force behind reclassification, and bestow its benefits upon the other portions of this country. Mr. ROACH. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. As the gentleman knows, I have only five minutes. Mr. ROACH. I simply wanted to say that I am in accord with the gentleman to help the wage earner and to call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that since I served notice on the House last Saturday that I would offer this amendment I have received a number of letters from employees; I, too, favor the wage earner, particularly the "real worker " receiving the smaller salaries; I am trying to help them, and agree with the gentleman that help should be extended to them, and I know that the gentleman from Louisiana is sincere in his own efforts. I now wish to quote from one of the letters received by me from a Government employee of the "lower salary class," so you may get his view point of how things are going. now read from the letter as follows: I The Personnel Board adjudicated the salaries of the "higher ups' to suit their wishes by adding several hundred dollars to their own annual stipend regardless of merit; the $1,000 and $1,200 clerk is yet and will under this wholly unjust raise in wage be sitting by his fellow worker doing the same grade of work who is receiving from $1,800 to $2,000 annually, and many of them young women, old maids, and widows that are "official' puppets, yet some of these favored pets have been placed in the administrative and professional classes, while the $1,000 and $1,200 clerks are efficient, meritorious, and will do double the work of the other higher-paid class. I have a high regard for the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. O'CONNOR], although we are of different political faith. I am glad to help him in his efforts to assist the wage earner. know he is earnest and loyal. I Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for the encomiums he has bestowed upon me and my humble efforts to speak out in behalf of the "hewer of wood and drawer of water," and it gives me pleasure to say that I reciprocate his friendly remarks and am glad that I have won his approval, for I look upon him as one who while mindful of the rights of all, the rich and poor, is particularly solicitous about the poor. Of course any policy which favors those in relatively exalted positions as against those at the bottom of the ladder is to be reprobated. There are men and women in the lower steps, as I have heard them called. I suppose that is a correct description. If these poor folks are being ignored or discharged from their jobs in order to make for an increase in the salary of the "higher ups," it is absolutely unfair and indefensible. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. May I have one minute more? The CHAIRMAN. The time has been fixed by the committee and is limited. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RUBEY]. Mr. RUBEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, I simply want to call your attention to the fact that if we are to go into the lump-sum appropriation business and give the head of a department absolute and free charge of the affairs of his department and let him spend the money in accordance with his own desires we can do it. If you do not want to do that now is the time to act. We have here in the very first part of this bill an appropriation, to be expended under the classification act, of $267.640. That money will be expended and the Members of Congress will not know, and can not know by an examination of this bill, how it is to be expended, except that it is to be expended under this classification act, and it is to be expended as set forth here in the several grades, but it does not say how many employees are to be employed in the several grades. A little further on in the bill you will find there is an expenditure of $885,920 in the General Land Office, under the head of salaries, and that money is to be expended in the same way; and so under the Indian Bureau, $388,640 is to be spent In the same manner, and so on throughout the bill. Now is the time to speak or forever afterwards hold your peace, so far as this bill is concerned. I believe the Roach amendment will give Congress the information it desires and the information which it has heretofore had in the consideration of appropriation bills. In other Congresses, when appropriation bills have been brought before this body, they have set forth in detail, according to classes, the number of clerks to be employed in each one of the bureaus of every department. I believe that policy should be continued. I am not opposing the reclassification act. I was not here when it was passed; I do not know anything about it, and, therefore, I do not want to say anything about it. But it does seem to me that the Committee on Appropriations ought to find some method by which, in bringing in an appropriation bill, it can set forth, as it has heretofore done, the number of people and the number of clerks that are to be employed in each one of these grades, so that Congress will have information similar to the information it has had heretofore. I want to say I am bitterly opposed to lump-sum appropriations. Mr. MCKEOWN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. RUBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma. Mr. MCKEOWN. Does the gentleman know whether or not the appropriation under the classification act will cost the people of the United States more money this next appropriating year than it would cost to continue to appropriate under the bonus system, as we have heretofore appropriated? Mr. RUBEY. I can not answer that question definitely, but I am of the opinion it will. I do not think there is any doubt but that the appropriations will be much more, as called for in this bill, than the appropriations made heretofore. Everything in the bill indicates that there will be an increase, and it has been shown in the speeches made here that there will be an increase of several hundred thousand dollars, if not millions of dollars, in this appropriation bill. Mr. HUDSPETH. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDSPETH. This will be very brief. I did not follow the gentleman's statements, but I want to ask the gentleman whether under the classification act he thinks it is possible for an appropriation bill to designate the number of clerks? Mr. RUBEY. I do not know, but it does seem to me there ought to be some way. I believe we ought to have some method by which we can look at an appropriation bill and see what is to be done with the money we are appropriating. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. BLANTON. If the Roach amendment would do away with lump-sum appropriations, I would vote for it; but it will not do it. You settled that lump-sum question awhile ago. Mr. ROACH. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLANTON. In just a moment. You settled that question. I put the specific proposition up to the committee to do away with lump-sum appropriations and could not get more than 11 votes for it. I want to say to my colleagues right now that under the present system there is no way under God's sun to reduce a bill which is brought in from the Appropriations Committee. The Members of the House who are not on that committee are not organized. The Appropriations Committee has 35 men organized to the teeth, and they are going to carry out the will of the committee so far as preventing a reduction in any of the items. You may come in here and increase it, but whenever you make an attempt to reduce it they send out immediately for our friend from Illinois, MARTIN B. MADDEN, and I do not care what he is doing-he could be entertaining the President-he would leave his work and come in here on the floor and fight you to keep you from reducing that bill or from changing his policy. Just try to change it any way you want and you will see them send out immediately for him and he will come in here and make a 15 minutes' speech without knowing what on earth is up before the House, but on general principles, and beat you on your amendment. That is the modus operandi. You will find our friend BYRNS, you will find our friend CARTER, and you will find even our friend HASTINGS, who used to serve on that committee, backing each other up, and you can not get around them. You have not enough strength to resist them. But the committee does permit increases. Now, you bunch of fellows who are going to have your land offices taken away from you, you are organized, and the committee knows it. The committee has already about capitulated and is ready to lay down on the proposition, but I am trying to organize some reinforcements for the committee to help them resist the attack you are going to make against them on that proposition. I am for retrenchment. We must effect it. Do you remember three years ago when our friend from Tennessee [Mr. BYRNS] got on the floor here and told us about the floor leader, Mr. Mondell, coming before the committee and telling the committee that they had to apply the snickersnee. He said, "You have got to do it; the people are demanding economy, and you must apply the snickersnee," and the committee did apply it. They applied the snickersnee and they cut off 13 surveyors general offices, taking them from 13 different States, and concentrating the business here in Washington; and when he found out they had cut off a land office out in Wyoming he came running in here on the floor and fought to put it back, and he did put it back, although the Land Commissioner, Mr. Tallman, had recommended that we do away with those offices in the interest of economy and in the interest of efficiency in government. Mr. ROACH. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLANTON. In a moment. You land-office men will probably be able to run it over the committee. Our friend CRAMTON, When you go to offer those amendments, will get up and make a kind of straw fight. He will make a little smokescreen opposition and then he will sit down and somebody else will throw out a barrage, but when it comes to a vote you can get your tellers and vote the land offices back into the bill, but you can not reduce the bill. You can not reduce one item in this bill except in one way, and that is by point of order. The point of order is the only means left to us of taking an item out of that bill, and that is the reason I do the work that I have been doing in studying these bills and in trying to find a way to reach them with a point of order; and I believe I am going to reach a few of them even in this bill before we get through with it. I yield to the gentleman now. Mr. ROACH. The gentleman stated a moment ago he would be inclined to vote for my amendment Mr. BLANTON. If I thought it would do what you think it would, I would vote for it. Mr. ROACH. Let me show the gentleman it will do that. If this amendment is adopted, I frankly stated to the House, it strikes down the reclassification act so far as it relates to salaries, and we have got to go back then- Mr. BLANTON. Why do you not bring in a specific hill then to keep that act from going into effect, by repealing it? Mr. ROACH. They would then have to appropriate under existing law, which would bring back into this House a bill exactly like the 1924 bill, so far as it relates to the Secretary's office and its personnel, and you know it. Mr. BLANTON. I am sorry I can not yield further, but if the gentleman wants to repeal that act he ought to go about it in the right way. I do not believe he could do it. It is an act that seems to be displeasing everybody. The Congress had not met before our friend from New Jersey was on the floor here seeking to bring in what? A report from that classification board, and I understand that the report alone may cost $10.000 before we get through with it. That is what I understand. Mr. LEHLBACH. Will the gentleman yield? I asked for the minutes, and they packed the minutes up and shipped them to me, and it did not cost a nickel. Mr. BLANTON. You have not begun on it yet. Mr. LEHLBACH. I am not going to make any report. Mr. BLANTON. What are you going to do with them after you look at them? Mr. LEHLBACH. When I get through studying them I will make up my mind about that. Mr. BLANTON. I am afraid they will likely cost quite a large sum before you get through with them. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON] is recognized. Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, there is a strong temptation to follow the gentleman from Texas in some of his recollections. Suffice it to say I have never been on the Committee on Appropriations since Tallman left the Land Office, and the only abolishment of land offices has been since I have been on the committee, so there is a little lapse there some way. Mr. BLANTON. It followed Tallman's recommendation. Mr. CRAMTON. No; the Tallman recommendation had to do with surveyors general and not with land offices. Mr. BLANTON. Yes; I meant surveyors general. I was mixed up on that. Mr. CRAMTON. Let me call the attention of the committee to the fact that the Roach amendment proposes to strike out all reference to the classification act. It proposes to nullify and ignore the classification act absolutely. It provides a lump sum just the same as the committee proposes a lump sum, except that the committee proposes that that lump sum shall be administered under the terms of the law, the classification act. Under the Rouch amendment it is under a limitation that there shall be no increases over what they are now receiving. In other words, it is a nullification of the classification act. It does not provide for the additional employees transferred from other parts of the bill, but it does continue probably the two that are transferred from this paragraph to another. Mr. ROACH. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMTON. Yes. Mr. ROACH. Does it change the personnel in the Secretary's office this year from what it was last? Mr. CRAMTON. There is a change. There are two transferred from the Secretary's office to other bureaus. Mr. ROACH. What two are they-messengers? Mr. CRAMTON. I will try to give the gentleman the information as near as I can. There is a clerk taken over by the National Parks, and there is an assistant messenger taken over by the Pension Office. There are eight transferred from other bureaus to the Secretary's office. But this is to be considered: The gentleman from Missouri not only proposes to ignore the classification act but he proposes to deny to these people the $240 bonus. In other words, he is going to cut the salaries $240. That may be the thing to do, but the Appropriations Committee would have had no business in bringing that item into the House. We are appropriating salaries provided for in the classification act. This year the $222,000 is supplemented by $35,280 carried as a bonus, and that he ignores, and it is not taken care of. Mr. ROACH. No; my amendment contemplates the same means. Mr. CRAMTON. That would depend on what the gentleman It That goes into the question of reclassification. depends upon what the gentleman means. There is an increase of $200,000 in the bill because of the classification act, but it is possible in many places where technical training is required, better men being secured and a better administration resulting, that we might save the Government money. Mr. MCKEOWN. What I want to know is would it not save the country quite a sum of money by not putting into effect the reclassification act until it is ready to be extended over the field? I think that would be a fair thing to do. Mr. CRAMTON. I do not agree with the gentleman. It is already provided for by law, and there is no use of waiting six months. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. ROACH]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. ROACH) there were 10 ayes and 34 noes. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. LEHLBACH. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment. Mr. STENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I wish to offer. Mr. CRAMTON. I think the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will not require any debate. Mr. STENGLE. I want to offer my amendment and let it be pending, for I would rather you slept on it. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. The Clerk read as follows: Page 2. lines 5 and 6, after the word "any," strike out the word on Appropriations have gone over at some length, and I have no objection to it. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. The question was taken, and the amendment was agreed to. Page 1, line 11, after the word "Columbia," strike out "in accordance with the classification act of 1923." Mr. STENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an understanding with the chairman of the subcommittee that this may go over until the next sitting. I have since heard that that could not be done. The CHAIRMAN. It can be done by unanimous consent. Mr. CRAMTON. The amendment has been offered, and it is the desire of the subcommittee to rise, except that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. UPSHAW] has some patriotic remarks to which I have no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from New York has been read and will be pending. Mr. UPSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, and ask unanimous consent to proceed for seven minutes out of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia asks unanimous consent to proceed for seven minutes out of order. Is there objection? There was no objection. By unanimous consent Mr. UPSHAW was granted leave to extend his remarks in the RECORD. LEE'S BIRTHDAY AND THE STONE MOUNTAIN CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL. and the coronation of that principle before the eyes of the world. [Applause.] Such a hero can be trusted in battle, trusted in victory, and trusted in defeat. And from the ashes of that defeat the chivalric form of Robert E. Lee arose spotless in his Christian character and gloriously inspiring in the dedication of life's beautiful evening to the building of citizenshp among the students of Washington and Lee University and teaching them and their children to be forever loyal to the Constitution and the flag of our reunited country. It is to such a marvelous combination of towering genius and yet more towering character-a Christian character reaching to the skies, because that character from the skies had come― that the eloquent Benjamin Harvey Hill paid that incomparable tribute: When the future historian shall come to survey the character of Leo he will find it rising like a high mountain above the undulating plain of humanity, and he must lift his eyes high toward heaven to catch its shining summit. He possessed every virtue of other great commanders without their vices. He was a foe without hate, a friend without treachery, a soldier without cruelty, a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices, a private citizen without wrong, a neighbor without reproach, a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile. He was Cesar, without his ambition; Frederick, without his tyranny; Napoleon, without his selfishness; and Washington, without his reward. He was obedient to authority as a servant and royal in authority as a true king. He was gentle as a woman in life, modest and pure as a virgin in thought, watchful as a Roman vestal in duty, submissive to law as Socrates, and grand in battle as Achilles. The reverent contemplation of such a lofty character, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, will make us daily better men and women as the years go by; and the pilgrimage of millions from this land and all other lands to this Mecca of memories-this supreme memorial in the history of mankind-will send the purest streams of patriotic and God-fearing inspiration to all parts of the civilized world. [Applause.] I am proud to represent a district in Congress whose farvisioned enterprise and regnant sentiment have made possible this imperishable memorial of deathless valor. If it is objected by some callous soul that such a stupendous memorial is the acme of expensive sentiment, I answer in the brilliant words of my fellow townsman, Hon. Walter McElreath, one of the most scholarly members of the Atlanta bar, when he declared years ago in introducing my literary firstling to the public: I am uneasy about the man who inveighs against sentiment. sentiment that bathed Marathon and Platea in blood; it was sentiment that gave Sparta her living walls; it was sentiment that moved Luther to preach and Wyckliffe to die; it was sentiment that rang the Liberty Bell and fired the first shot at Lexington; it has been sentiment-pure, noble, self-immolating sentiment-that has given to the world its freedom and its religion. It was Mr. UPSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is the birthday of Robert E. Lee. Down in my district-the fifth district of Georgiathis anniversary of the natal day of Virginia's immortal son is being celebrated in unique and indescribable grandeur. High up on the side of Stone Mountain, the largest granite rock in the world, the sculptured head of the great military strategist and stainless Christian patriot is being unveiled with imposing ceremonies. It is the first inspiring step in the gigantic plan to give "history's supreme monument " to the world. The colossal statue of Robert E. Lee which will be the central figure of the central group in the great Confederate Memorial being carved by the famous sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, will be as high as a 15-story building--the other figures in proportion. The whole imposing panorama will sweep across the awe-inspiring precipice to the length of 1,350 feet, making forever vocal to the millions who will visit that shrine of unexampled splendor the heroism of southern chieftains and the deathless love of their loyal followers in that tragic "strife of brothers" [applause]-a strife that was born of a worthy concept of loyalty to the Constitution on both sides and that eventuated, in the providence of the God of nations, in a clarified Constitution and one common flag for Americans-Americans everywhere! [Applause.] For more than half a hundred years the hungry heart of the misunderstood.South had waited for those honest, beautiful words of President Warren G. Harding, when, speaking at the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial, he frankly said: "There were ambiguities in the Constitution that could only be wiped out by a baptism of blood." How the hearts of South-born patriots leaped to the music of those tardy but timely--those wondrously welcome words from the Chief Executive of our common country! And what a triumph of our Christian civ-Daughters of the Confederacy, into the everlasting message of ilization and our cherished national fellowship that every citizen of the one-time North, who likewise rejoiced at that great honest confession, is willing, yea, eager, now to admit that if President Harding was right in that worthy, brave declaration, then the "fast-thinning lines of Gray "who gather with their children at Stone Mountain's base to-day were heroes indeed for furnishing, with their fallen comrades, their part of that baptism of blood" which was accounted necessary to "wipe out the ambiguities" of our Constitution and make possible an 'indissoluble union of indestructible States." [Applause.] Benedict Arnold secretly and surreptitiously sought to sell his country's honor for foreign preferment or sordid gold. That was the act of a traitor. But a gulf of darkness a million miles across and deeper yet with miasmatic shame separates such a traitorous deed from the sacrificial act of the hero-patriot who intelligently espouses a sacred principle and walks out in the open, offering his lifeblood, if necessary, for the vindication Yea, my colleagues, and it was sentiment-sentiment sacred as life and stronger than death-that carried your fathers and mine, whether clad in the Blue or wearing the Gray, to dedicate their all to the redemption of their sacred concept of that constitutional compact by which our Revolutionary fathers gave to America its birth of enduring freedom. [Applause.] EVERLASTING MESSAGE FROM GRANITE LIPS. In keeping with the far-famed "Atlanta spirit" which has always made the highest enthusiasms of that great city gather about the things that are noblest and best, a notable committee of outstanding citizens was organized to help crystalize the lofty dream of those patriotic handmaidens, the United granite lips until the end of time. The chairman of this committee, the Hon. Hollins Randolph, with the blood of Thomas Jefferson and other stalwart builders of this Republic coursing through his veins, has rallied the finer fidelities of the entire Southland-with many eager volunteers from the North and East and West, rejoicing all in the beautiful comradeship of that knightly loyalty which has "crowned the worthies" of all nations in all ages-a priceless comradeship which only the brave and the true can understand. One of the unique and thoroughly practical plans for financing this great enterprise has been the carving of some hero's name on Stone Mountain, the donor or some family group paying $1,000 toward completing the mighty task. Many greathearted patriots have thus graven there the name of some beloved owner of "The faded gray jacket" to live in the gray granite's titanic embrace. "And yet there is room!" They call this |