CQ House Votes 93 Through 98

Document: CQ House Votes 93 through 98, September 15, 1961 (thermofax

CQ House Votes 93 Through 98

Document: CQ House Votes 93 through 98, September 15, 1961 (thermofax), page 1Sept 15, 1961 CQ House Votes 93 through 98. Corresponding to Congressional Record Roll-Coll Vote Nos. 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203.) House Kills Hanford Project, Upholds Colorado Power Lines, Accepts Rights Group Extension, Limits Airport Grants 93. HR 8302. Military Construction Appropriation bill. Sheppard (D Calif.) motion to disagree to a Senate amendment denying $3,812,000 for transferring the Army's Food and Container institute from Chicago, III. to Natick, Mass. Agreed to 212-185 (D 170-68; R 42-117), Sept. 13, 1961. The President did not take a position on the motion. (See story p. 1572) 94. HR 7371. Appropriation bill for the State and Justice Departments. Rooney (D N.Y.) motion to agree to a Senate amendment extending the Civil Rights Commission for two years. Agreed to 300-106 (D 161-82; R 139-24), Sept. 13, 1961. A "yea" was a vote supporting the President's position. (See story p. 1573) 95. HR 9706. Public works appropriation bill for fiscal 1962. Jensen (R Iowa) motion to recommit the bill to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to reduce by$4,225,000 the appropriation for construction of transmission lines in connection with the Upper Colorado River Basin project and prohibit construction by the Federal Government of grid lines interconnecting the three major hydroelectric power plants in the project. Rejected 182-225 (D 41-202; R 141-23), Sept. 13, 1961. A "nay" was a vote supporting the President's position. (See story p. 1570) 96. HR 9706. Passage of the bill. Passed 378-31 (D 243-1; R 135-30), Sept. 13, 1961. The President did not take a position on the bill. 97. HR 7576. Authorize $328,440,000 for construction by the Atomic Energy Commission. Adoption of the conference report, which authorized$58 million to add electric generating facilities to a plutonium production reactor at Hanford, Wash. Report rejected 156-252 (D 144-97; R 12-155), Sept. 13, 1961. A "yea" was a vote supporting the President's position. (See story p. 1578) 98. HR 8102. Extend the Federal Airport Act. Harris (D Ark.) motion to amend the Senate version of the bill by limiting extension of the Act to three years, and authorized appropriations, without contract authority, to $225 million. Agreed to 397-4 (D 232-4; R 165-0), Sept. 13, 1961. A "nay" was a vote supporting the President's position. (See story p. 1571) TOTAL DIMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN Vote No. 93 94 95 96 97 98 Vote No. 93 94 95 96 97 98 Vote No. 93 94 95 96 97 98 Yes 212 300 182 378 156 397 Yes 170 161 41 243 144 232 Yes 42 139 141 135 12 165 Nay 185 106 225 31 252 4 Nay 68 82 202 1 97 4 Nay 117 24 23 30 155 0 93 94 95 96 97 98 93 94 95 96 97 98 93 94 95 96 97 98 ALABAMA 19 Holifield Y Y N Y Y Y HAWAII 3 Andrews N N N Y Y Y 17 King Y Y N Y Y Y AL Inouye Y Y N Y Y Y 1 Boykin Y N Y Y ? Y 26 Roosevelt Y Y N Y Y Y IDAHO 7 Elliott Y N N Y Y Y 16 Bell N Y Y Y N Y 2 Harding Y Y N Y Y Y 2 Grant Y N N Y N Y 21 Hiestand N Y Y N N Y 1Pfost Y Y N Y Y Y 9 Huddleston N N N Y N Y 18 Hosmer N Y Y Y N Y ILLINOIS 8 Jones Y N N Y Y Y 24 Lipscomb N Y Y Y N Y 25 Gray Y Y N Y N Y 5 Rains Y N N Y Y Y 15 McDonougb N Y Y Y N Y 21 Mack Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Roberts Y N N Y Y Y 25 Rousselot N Y Y N N Y 24 Price Y Y N Y Y Y 6 Selden Y N N Y N Y 20 Smitb N Y Y N N Y 23 Shipley Y Y N Y Y Y ALASKA COLORADO 16 Anderson Y Y Y N N Y AL Rivers Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Aspinoll Y Y N Y Y Y 17 Arends Y Y Y Y N Y ARIZONA 1 Rogers Y Y N Y Y Y 19 Cbiperfield Y Y Y Y N Y 2 Udall M. Y Y N Y Y Y 3 Cbenowetb Y Y N Y N Y 20 Findley Y Y Y Y N Y 1 Rbodes N Y Y Y N Y 2 Dominich N Y N Y N Y 14 Hoffman Y Y Y N N Y ARKANSAS CONNECTICUT 15 Mason Y N Y N N Y 5 Atford Y N N Y N Y 1 Daddorio N Y Y Y N Y 18 Micbel Y N Y N N Y 1 Gathings Y N N Y N Y 3 Giaimo N Y N Y N Y 22 Springer Y Y Y Y N Y 4 Harris Y N N Y N Y AL Kowalski Y Y N Y Y Y Chicago Cook County 2 Mills Y N N Y N ? 5 Monogon N Y Y Y N Y 1 Dewson Y Y N Y (??) Y 6 Norrell C. Y N N Y N Y 2 Seely-Brown N Y Y Y N Y 12 Finnegon Y Y N Y Y Y 3 Trimble Y N N Y Y Y 4 Sibal N Y Y Y N Y 5 Kluczynski Y Y N Y Y Y CALIFORNIA DELAWARE 7 Libonati Y Y N Y N Y 7 Cohelon N Y N Y Y Y AL McDowell N Y N Y Y Y 3 Murphy Y Y N Y Y Y 14 Hogen Y Y N Y Y Y FLORIDA 6 O'Brien Y Y N Y Y Y 2 Johnson Y Y N Y Y ? 2 Bennett N N N Y Y Y 2 O'Hare Y Y N Y Y Y 11 McFall Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Fascell N N N Y N Y 11 Pucinski Y Y N Y Y Y 1 Miller C. Y Y N Y Y Y 7 Haley N N Y Y N Y 8 Rostenkowski Y Y N Y Y Y 8 Miller C.P. Y Y N Y Y Y 5 Herlong Y N Y Y N Y 9 Yates Y Y N Y Y Y 3 Moss Y Y N Y Y Y 8 Matthews N N N Y N Y 13 Cburch Y Y Y Y N Y 29 Saund Y Y N Y Y Y 6 Rogers N N Y Y N Y 10 Collier Y Y Y N N Y 5 Shelley ? Y N Y Y Y 3 Sikes N N N Y N Y 4 Derwinski Y Y Y N N Y 27 Sheppard N Y N Y Y Y 1 Cramer N N Y Y N Y INDIANA 12 Sisk Y Y N Y Y N GEORGIA 3 Brodemes Y Y N Y Y Y 6 Baldwin Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 Blitch N N Y Y N Y 8 Denton Y Y N Y N Y 10 Gubser N Y Y Y N Y 5 Davis J.C. N N Y Y N Y 1 Madden Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Mailliard N Y Y Y Y Y 7 Davis J.W. Y N N Y Y Y 5 Roush Y Y N Y Y Y 13 Teague N Y Y Y N Y 4 Flynt N N Y Y N Y 4 Adair N Y Y Y N Y 28 Utt Y N Y N N Y 3 Forrester Y N Y Y N Y 7 Brey N Y Y Y N Y 30 Wilson N Y Y Y N ? 1 Hogan Y N N ? N Y 11 Bruce Y Y Y Y N Y 9 Younger N Y Y Y N Y 9 Landrum N N N Y N Y 2 Halleck Y Y Y Y N Y Los Angeles Co. 2 Pilcher N N N Y Y Y 10 Harvey N Y Y Y N Y 22 Corman Y Y N Y Y N 10 Stephens Y N N Y N Y 6 Roudebusb N Y Y Y N Y 23 Doyle N Y N Y N Y 6 Vinson ? X (??) ? X ? 9 Wilson N Y Y Y N Y -KEY- Y Record Vote For (yea). (??) Paired For.$ Announced For, CQ Poll For. N Record Vote Against (nay). X Paired Against. - Announced Against, CQ Poll Against. ? Absent, General Pair, "Present," Did not announce or answer Poil. 93 94 95 96 97 98 IOWA 6 Coad Y Y N Y Y Y 5 Smith Y Y N Y Y ? 2 Bromwell (??) Y Y N N Y 3 Gross Y N Y N N Y 8 Hoeven Y Y Y Y N Y 7 Jensen N N Y Y N Y 4 Kyl N Y Y Y N Y 1 Scbwengel N Y Y Y N Y KANSAS 5 Breeding Y Y N Y Y Y 1 Avery N Y Y Y N Y 6 Dole Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 Ellswortb Y Y N Y N Y 3 McVey Y Y N Y N Y 4 Sbriver Y Y N Y N Y KENTUCKY 3 Burke Y Y Y Y Y Y 4 Chelf N Y N Y N Y 2 Natcher N Y N Y N Y 7 Perkins N Y N Y N Y 5 Spence Y N N Y N Y 1 Stubblefield Y Y N Y Y Y 6 Watts Y Y Y Y N Y 8 Siler (??) ? ? ? ? ? LOUISIANA 2 Boggs Y N N Y ? Y 4 Brooks ? X X ? X ? 1 Hebert X X X ? X ? 8 McSween Y N Y Y N Y Democrats in this type; Republicans in Italics PAGE 1604 -- Week ending Sept. 15, 1961 Democrats in this type; Republicans in Italics COPYRIGHT 1961 COWGRESSIONAL QUARTEREY INC. Reproduction prohibited in whole or in part accept by effectial cliantsEpson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,912,617 byte

85-Year-Old Senate Dean Hopes to Fulfill Billion-Dollar Dream

Document: Congressional Quarterly news release, "85-Year-Old Senate Dean Hopes to Fulfill Billion-Dollar Dream," June 5, 196

CQ House Votes 93 Through 99

Document: CQ House Votes 93 through 98, September 15, 1961 (thermofax), page 2CQ House Votes 93 through 98. (Corresponding to Congressional Record Roll-Coll Vote Nos. 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203.) 93 94 95 96 97 98 93 94 95 96 97 98 93 94 95 96 97 98 93 94 95 96 97 98 6 Morrison (??) X ? ? (??) ? NEBRASKA 5 Scott N N Y Y N Y 6 McMillan X N Y Y N Y 5 Passman N N N Y Y Y 3 Beerman Y N Y Y N Y 12 Taylor N N Y Y N Y 2 Riley Y N Y Y N Y 7 Thompson ? X ? ? (??) Y 2 Cunningbam Y Y N Y N Y 11 Whitener N N Y Y N Y 1 Rivers N N Y Y N Y 3 Willis Y N N ? Y Y 4 Martin N Y N Y N Y 10 Jonas N N Y N N Y SOUTH DAKOTA MAINE 1 Weaver X Y N Y N Y NORTH DAKOTA 2 Berry Y N Y Y N Y 1 Garland N Y Y Y N ? NEVADA AL Nygaard Y Y N Y N Y 1 Reifel Y Y N Y N Y 3 Mclntire N Y Y Y N Y AL Baring Y Y N Y Y Y AL Sbort N Y Y Y N Y TENNESSEE 2 Tupper N Y Y Y N Y NEW HAMPSHIRE OHIO 6 Bass Y Y N Y Y Y MARYLAND 2 Bass N Y Y Y N Y 9 Ashley ? (??) ? ? (??) ? 9 Davis Y N N Y Y Y 2 Brewster N Y N Y Y Y 1 Merrow N Y N Y N Y 11 Cook Y Y N Y N Y 8 Everett Y N N Y Y Y 4 Fallon Y Y N Y N Y NEW JERSEY 20 Feighan N Y N Y Y Y 4 Evins Y N N Y Y ? 7 Friedel Y Y N Y Y Y 11 Addonizio Y Y N Y Y Y 18 Hays Y Y N Y N Y 3 Frazier Y N N Y Y Y 3 Garmatz Y Y N Y Y Y 14 Doniels Y Y N Y Y Y 19 Kirwan ? Y N Y Y Y 5 Loser Y N N Y Y Y 1 Johnson Y Y N Y Y Y 13 Gallogher N Y N Y Y Y 10 Moeller N Y N Y N Y 7 Marray Y N N Y Y Y Y 5 Lankford N Y N Y (??) ? 8 Joelson Y Y N Y Y Y 21 Vanik Y Y N Y Y Y 2 Baker N Y N Y N Y 6 Matbias N Y Y Y N Y 10 Rodino Y Y N Y Y Y 17 Asbbrook Y N Y Y N Y 1 Reace L. N Y N Y N Y MASSACHUSETTS 4 Thompson Y Y N Y Y Y 14 Ayres N Y Y Y N Y TEXAS 2 Boland N Y N Y Y Y 3 Auchincloss N Y Y Y N Y 8 Betts X (??) (??) Y N Y 3 Beckworth Y N N Y Y Y 13 Burke N Y N Y Y Y 1 Cabill N Y Y Y N Y 22 Bolton N Y Y Y N Y 2 Brooks Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Donohue N Y N Y Y Y 6 Dwyer N Y Y Y N Y 16 Bow N Y Y Y N Y 17 Burleson Y N Y Y N Y 7 Lone N Y N Y Y Y 5 Frelingbuysen N Y Y Y N Y 7 Brown (??) (??) (??) ? X ? 22 Cosey N N Y Y N Y 8 Macdonald N Y N Y N Y 2 Glenn X Y Y Y N Y 2 Clancy N Y Y Y N Y 7 Dowdy Y N Y Y N Y 12 McCormack N Y N Y Y ? 9 Osmers N Y Y Y N Y 12 Devine N N Y N N Y 21 Fisher Y N Y Y N Y 11 O'Neill N Y N Y N Y 12 Wallbauser N Y Y Y N Y 6 Harsba (??) ? (??) ? N Y 13 Ikard Y N N Y N Y 3 Philbin N Y N Y Y Y 7 Widnall N Y Y Y N Y 5 Latta Y Y Y Y N Y 20 Kilday N Y N Y Y Y 6 Bates N Y Y Y N Y NEW MEXICO 4 McCullocb N N Y Y N Y 15 Kilgore Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Conte N Y Y Y N Y AL Montoya Y Y N Y Y Y 23 Minsball Y Y Y Y N Y 19 Mahon N N N Y N Y 10 Curtis N Y Y Y N Y AL Morris Y Y N Y Y Y 15 Moorebead N Y Y Y N Y 1 Patman Y N Y Y Y Y 9 Kettb N Y Y Y N Y NEW YORK 13 Mosber N Y N Y N Y 11 Poage Y N N Y Y Y 14 Martin N Y Y N N Y 41 Dulski Y Y N Y N Y 3 Scbenck (??) ? (??) ? N Y 4 Rayburn 5 Morse N Y Y Y N Y 30 O'Brien Y Y N Y N Y 1 Scberer N Y Y Y N Y 18 Rogers (??) X X ? X ? MICHIGAN 1 Pike N Y Y Y N Y OKLAHOMA 16 Rutherford Y Y N Y Y Y 7 O'Hara N Y N Y Y Y 32 Stratton N Y N Y Y Y 3 Albert Y Y N Y Y Y 6 Teogue Y N N Y Y Y 12 Bennett N N N Y N Y 27 Barry X ? Y Y N Y 2 Edmondson Y Y N Y Y Y 8 Thomas ? ? N Y Y Y 18 Broomfield N Y Y Y N Y 3 Becker N Y Y Y N Y 5 Jarman Y Y N Y N Y 9 Thoompson Y Y N Y Y Y 10 Cederberg N Y Y Y N Y 2 Derounian N Y Y Y N Y 4 Steed Y Y N Y N Y 10 Thornberry Y Y N Y Y Y 6 Cbamberian N Y Y Y N Y 26 Dooley ? ? ? ? X ? 6 Wickersham Y Y N Y Y Y 12 Wright Y Y N Y N Y 5 Ford N Y Y Y N Y 43 Goodell N Y Y N N Y 1 Belcber Y Y Y Y N Y 14 Young ? ? ? ? ? ? 9 Grilfin Y Y Y Y N Y 33 Kilburn N N Y N N Y OREGON 5 Alger N N Y N N Y 8 Harvey N Y Y Y N Y 31 King N Y Y Y N Y 3 Green Y Y N Y Y N UTAH 4 Hoffman N N Y N N Y 40 Miller N Y Y Y N Y 2 Ullman (??) (??) - Y Y Y 2 King Y Y N Y Y Y 3 Jobansen Y N Y N N Y 39 Ostertag N Y Y Y N Y 4 Durno Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Peterson Y Y N Y N Y 11 Knox N Y Y Y N Y 42 Pillion N Y Y Y N Y 1 Norblad N Y Y Y Y Y VERMONT 2 Meader N N Y Y N Y 34 Pirnie N Y Y Y N Y PENNSYLVANIA AL Stafford N Y N Y Y Y Detroit - Wayne County 35 Rieblman N Y Y Y N Y 25 Clark Y Y Y Y N Y VIRGINIA 13 Diggs ? (??) ? Y Y Y 37 Robison X ? X ? ? ? 21 Dent Y Y Y Y N Y 4 Abbitt Y N Y Y N Y 15 Dingell N Y N Y Y Y 28 St. George N Y Y N N Y 11 Flood N Y N Y N Y 1 Downing N N Y Y N Y 17 Griffiths Y Y N Y Y Y 36 Taber N Y Y N N Y 30 Holland Y Y N Y N Y 3 Gary N N Y Y N Y 16 Lesinski Y Y N Y N Y 38 Weis N Y Y Y N Y 28 Moorhead Y Y N Y N Y 2 Hardy N N N Y N Y 1 Machrowicz Y Y N Y Y ? 29 Wbarton N Y Y N N Y 26 Morgan Y Y N Y N Y 7 Harrison ? ? (??) ? X Y 14 Rabaut ? (??) ? ? (??) ? New York City 14 Rhodes Y Y N Y N Y 9 Jennings Y N N Y N Y MINNESOTA 5 Addabbo Y Y N Y Y Y 15 Walter N Y Y Y N Y 8 Smith Y N Y Y N Y 8 Blatnik Y Y N Y Y Y 8 Anfuso N Y N Y Y Y 29 Corbett N Y N Y N Y 5 Tuck Y N Y Y N Y 4 Karth Y Y N Y Y Y 24 Buckley (??) (??) X ? (??) ? 8 Curtin N Y Y Y N Y 10 Broybill Y N Y Y N Y 6 Marshall Y N N N Y Y 12 Carey N Y N Y Y Y 9 Dague ? ? ? ? ? ? 6 Poff N N Y N N Y 7 Andersen Y N N Y Y Y 11 Celler Y Y N Y Y Y 12 Fenton N Y Y Y N Y WASHINGTON 5 Judd N Y Y Y N Y 7 Delaney Y Y N Y Y Y 27 Fulton N Y Y Y N Y 3 Hansen Y Y N Y Y Y 9 Langen Y Y Y Y N Y 19 Farbstein ? Y N Y Y Y 23 Gavin N Y Y Y N Y 7 Magnuson Y Y N Y Y Y 3 MacGregor Y Y Y Y N Y 23 Gilbert Y Y N Y Y Y 19 Goodling N Y Y N N Y 5 Horan N Y N Y Y Y 2 Nelsen N Y Y Y N Y 22 Heoley ? (??) ? ? Y Y 24 Kearns N Y Y Y N Y 4 May N Y N Y Y Y 1 Quie Y Y Y Y N Y 6 Holtzman Y Y N Y Y Y 7 Milliken N Y Y Y N Y 1 Pelly N Y Y Y Y Y MISSISSIPPI 10 Kelly N Y N Y Y Y 16 Kunkel N Y Y Y N Y 6 Tollelson N Y N Y Y Y 1 Abernethy Y N N Y X Y 9 Keogh Y Y N Y Y Y 22 Saylor N Y Y N N Y 2 Westland X ? X ? (??) ? 6 Colmer N N ? Y N Y 13 Multer Y Y N Y Y Y 17 Scbneebeli Y Y Y Y N Y WEST VIRGINIA 3 Smith Y N N Y Y Y 16 Powell Y Y N ? (??) ? 13 Scbweiker N Y Y N N Y 3 Bailey Y Y N Y N Y 2 Whitten N N N Y N Y 14 Rooney N Y N Y Y Y 10 Scranton N Y Y N N Y 4 Hechler Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Williams Y N Y Y N Y 20 Ryan Y Y N Y Y Y 20 Van Zandt N Y Y Y N Y 5 Kee Y Y N Y N Y 5 Winstead X N N Y N ? 18 Santangelo Y Y N Y Y Y 18 Wballey N Y Y Y N Y 6 Slack ? ? ? ? X ? MISSOURI 21 Zelenko Y Y N Y Y Y Philadelphia City 2 Staggers N Y N Y N ? 5 Bolling Y Y N Y Y N 25 Fino (??) Y Y Y N Y 1 Barrett Y Y N Y N Y 1 Moore Y Y Y Y N Y 9 Cannon Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Halpern N Y Y Y N Y 3 Byrne Y Y N Y N Y WISCONSIN 6 Hull Y Y N Y N Y 17 Lindsay N Y Y Y N Y 2 Granahan Y Y N Y N Y 9 Johnson Y Y N Y Y Y 8 Ichord ? ? ? Y Y Y 15 Ray N N Y N N Y 5 Green Y Y N Y (??) ? 2 Kastenmeier Y Y N Y Y Y 10 Jones ? ? ? ? ? ? NORTH CAROLINA 4 Nix Y Y N Y N Y 5 Reuss Y Y N Y Y Y 1 Karsten Y Y N Y N Y 9 Alexander N N Y Y N Y 6 Toll Y Y N Y N Y 4 Zablocki Y Y N Y Y Y 11 Moulder Y Y N Y Y ? 1 Bonner Y N N Y N Y RHODE ISLAND 8 Byrnes N Y Y N N Y 4 Randall Y Y N Y Y Y 4 Cooley (??) X X ? X ? 2 Fogarty N Y N Y Y ? 7 Laird N N Y Y N Y 3 Sullivan Y Y N Y Y Y 2 Fountain N N N Y N Y 1 St. Germain N Y N Y Y ? 10 O'Konski N Y N Y Y Y 2 Curtis N N Y Y N Y 3 Henderson N N N Y Y Y SOUTH CAROLINA 1 Scbadeberg N Y Y Y N Y 7 Hall X ? (??) ? X ? 8 Kitchin N N Y Y N Y 4 Ashmore Y N Y Y N Y 3 Tbomson N Y Y Y N Y MONTANA 6 Kornegay N N N Y N Y 3 Dorn Y N Y Y N Y 6 Van Pelt N Y Y Y N Y 1 Olsen Y Y N Y Y Y 7 Lennon N N Y Y N Y 5 Hemphill Y N Y Y Y Y WYOMING 2 Battin Y Y Y Y N Y AL Harrison N Y N Y N Y Democrats in this type; Republicans in Italics COMPIEGN 1961 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY DHC Reproduction prohibited in whole or in part accept by effecial cliants Week ending Sept. 15, 1961 -- PAGE 1605Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 24 bit, 1,990,588 byte

Arizona Seeks Billion-Dollar Water Project

Document: Congressional Quarterly Fact Sheet, "On Central Arizona Project," June 5, 196

Global defense; U.S. military commitments abroad. -

"A publication of Congressional Quarterly Service."Bibliography: p. 92.Mode of access: Internet

Arizona Seeks Billion-Dollar Water Project

Document: Congressional Quarterly Fact Sheet, "On Central Arizona Project," June 5, 1963On Central Arizona Project ARIZONA SEEKS BILLION-DOLLAR WATER PROJECT Arizona Sens. Carl Hayden (D) and BarryGoldwater (R) and the three House Members of the Arizona delegation June 4 introduced legislation (S 1658; HR 6796, 6797, 6798) to authorize the billion-dollar Central Arizona project, one of the largest water project proposals ever to come before Congress. During his campaign for re-election to the Senate last year, Hayden made Central Arizona one of the issues in his campaign. If reelected, he promised to work for the project's authorization. Toward that end this year the 85-year-old dean of the Senate sought and won a seat on the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee as a very "junior" member. Project supporters are relying heavily on Hayden to get the bill through Congress. The Bureau of Reclamation first reported that the Central Arizona project was feasible (i.e., benefits outweighed costs) in 1947. Under Hayden's sponsorship bills authorizing the project passed the Senate in 1950 and in 1951, but they failed to clear the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee because of a legal cloud on Arizona's entitlement to Colorado river water. The Committee on April 18, 1951 agreed to a motion by Rep. John P. Saylor (R Pa.) postponing action on the legislation "until such time as use of water in the lower Colorado River Basin is either adjudicated or binding or mutual agreement as to the use of the water is reached by the states of the lower Colorado River Basin." (1950 Almanac, p. 659-660; 1951 Almanac, p. 482-3) In 1952 Arizona filed a suit (Arizona v. California) in the Supreme Court to establish its entitlement to Colorado river water. A court-appointed special master, Simon H. Rifkind, recommended to the Supreme Court May 5, 1960 that Arizona's allotment of water from the mainstream of the Colorado river be 2,800,000 acre-feet annually, not including the flow of the tributary Gila river. The Supreme Court on June 3 substantially upheld the Rifkind recommendation in the Arizona v. California water suit. Court Decision Prompts Bill Hayden introduced his bill immediately after the Supreme Court decision. The bill authorizes a diversion of 1,200,000 acre-feet of water annually out of the Colorado river to provide supplemental irrigation water and municipal water to central and Southern Arizona. It authorizes the construction of five dams and reservoirs, two power plants, transmission and distribution facilities on the Colorado river and its tributaries in Arizona and Western New Mexico. The key unit to the project is a 740-foot high dam at Bridge Canyon on the Colorado river at the headwaters of Lake Mead. It would be the highest dam in the Western Hemisphere. The Bridge Canyon power-plant would have an installed capacity of 1,500,000 kilowatts, and one-third of its capacity would be transmitted south to pump water over a backbone canal and aqueduct system from the existing Parker Dam on the Colorado river 219 miles to the Phoenix area and 341 miles to Tucson. A supplemental report on the project released by the Bureau of Reclamation to the state of Arizona in January, 1962, estimated that the Central Arizona project would provide supplemental water to irrigate 880,000 acres of land in Arizona and would provide 303,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial water for 1,100,000 people, primarily in the Phoenix-Tucson areas. In the 15-year period that elapsed between the two Bureau reports on the project, Arizona has grown from a population of about 700,000 to 1,400,000, and lands under irrigation in Central Arizona from about 566,000 acres to more than a million acres. U.S. Geological Survey data indicates that Arizona is "mining" its underground water supply at an alarming rate. The ground water level is presently dropping at the rate of 10 feet a year in the Phoenix area and at the rate of 20 feet a year in adjoining Pinal county. In some areas wells are going dry or saline water is seeping into them, making them unusable, and the ground is subsiding from over-pumping. C.A. Pugh, area engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation at Phoenix, estimates that the overdraft of ground-water basins in the state now totals 2,200,000 acre-feet annually. The net delivery of water from the Central Arizona project would be only 1,070,000 acre-feet of water annually, so it could not possibly make up more than half of the water deficit in the state at the present rate of use. Arizona appears to be heading into a water crisis, which could be only partially solved by authorization of the Central Arizona project. Despite Arizona's need for an additional water supply, particularly in populous central and southern parts of the state, the Central Arizona project was one of the most controversial water proposals presented to Congress in the 1950s, and it remains so today. Congress historically has delayed final action on reclamation projects until leaders and all sections of a state are unified. Arizonans are not unified about the Central Arizona project. As the project can make up only half of the present rate of deficiency, various areas and communities of the state will be competing for the water, either from the project itself or by exchange, as the division of water has not yet been determined. And Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall, a former Member of the House from Arizona (1955-61), is dedicated to a comprehensive plan to develop the water and power resources of the Lower Basin states of California, Arizona and Nevada from a Lower Basin fund of pooled revenues from the power plants of Davis, Parker and Hoover Dams on the lower Colorado after Hoover dam is paid for, beginning in 1987, at the earliest. Central Arizona supporters are fearful that the Udall plan will delay action on their proposal. Central Arizona may get snarled in still another legal battle, over the actual amount of unappropriated water still available in the Colorado river to the Upper and Lower Basin states. Some water experts in California and in the Upper Basin states question whether there actually is 1,200,000 acre-feet of unappropriated water available in the Colorado river for the proposed Central Arizona diversion. COPYRIGHT 1963 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC. Reproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients June 5, 1963--PAGE 1Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,945,828 byte

85-Year-Old Senate Dean Hopes to Fulfill Billion-Dollar Dream

Document: Congressional Quarterly news release, "85-Year-Old Senate Dean Hopes to Fulfill Billion-Dollar Dream," June 5, 1963, page 1FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Copyright Congressional Quarterly, Inc. June 5, 1963 About 450 words 85-YEAR-OLD SENATE DEAN HOPES TO FULFILL BILLION-DOLLAR DREAM By Congressional Quarterly Washington -- Sen. Carl Hayden, (D Ariz.), 85-year-old dean of the Senate, has taken his first legislative step in this Congress to fulfill his billion-dollar, lifetime dream. He introduced legislation to divert 1,200,000 acre-feet of water out of the Colorado river annually and bring it more than 200 miles across the desert to Phoenix and some 340 miles to Tucson via a backbone canal and aqueduct system. Known as the Central Arizona project, the scheme would cost over $1 billion and is one of the largest water project proposals ever to come before Congress. "Main Thing Left To Do" Hayden has been a Member of Congress ever since Arizona became a state in 1912. When he ran for a seventh six-year term in the Senate in 1962, Hayden made the Central Arizona project one of his prime campaign issues. He said he had "always figured to be around" when the Central Arizona project was authorized by Congress. "That's the main thing I have left to do," Hayden stated. As the sheriff of Maricopa County, Hayden recalls when the first dam ever built by the Bureau of Reclamation under the 1902 Reclamation Act was completed on Arizona's Salt River in 1911. The dam was named for former President Theodore Roosevelt, and it is still the key dam in a series of six dams on the Salt and Verde rivers built by the Salt River project to serve the Phoenix area. Were it not for the Salt River project, "Our Arizona would certainly not be the dynamic state it is today," said Gov. Paul Fannin (R Ariz.) recently. The Salt River project has provided an assured water supply for 242,000 acres of land in the Phoenix area, and at least half of the municipal water supply of the city of Phoenix in recent years. The Salt River project was the first and perhaps the most successful federal multiple-purpose reclamation project to be built. Hayden wants to complete the water development of his native Arizona with the authorization of the Central Arizona project. Central Arizona is designed to provide an assured water supply to most of the heavily populated and already irrigated areas of the state not within the boundaries of the Salt River Project. First Proposed in 1922 A project similar to the Central Arizona proposal was first mapped out in 1922. The Bureau of Reclamation found the Central Arizona project feasible in 1947. (MORE)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,125,048 byte

85-Year-Old Senate Dean Hopes to Fulfill Billion-Dollar Dream

Document: Congressional Quarterly news release, "85-Year-Old Senate Dean Hopes to Fulfill Billion-Dollar Dream," June 5, 1963, page 2- 2 6/5/63 Central Arizona Hayden successfully put through the Senate in 1950 and again in 1951 legislation to authorize the big Colorado river diversion project. But the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee shelved it indefinitely in 1951 pending a legal determination of Arizona's allotment of Colorado river water. The Supreme Court June 3 ruled to uphold a special master's recommendation made in 1960 that Arizona's allotment of water from the main stream of the Colorado river is 2,800,000 acre feet annually. Hayden and the other four Members of the Arizona delegation thereupon introduced bills authorizing the Central Arizona project. Supporters of the project believe that its chances for Congressional authorization depend almost entirely on Hayden. Arizona appears to be heading into a water crisis. Because of over-use of the underground water supply, the ground water level is dropping at the rate of 10 feet a year in the Phoenix area and 20 feet a year in adjoining Pinal county, at the present rate of use. In parts of northwestern Pinal county the ground-water level declined more than 160 feet from 1952-59, according to U.S. Geological Survey. The overdraft of ground water basins in the state totals 2,200,000 acrefeet annually, at the present rate of use. Central Arizona cannot make up this deficit. The net delivery of water from the project would be only 1,070,000 acre-feet of water annually, even if the Central Arizona project were in full operation. Formidable Obstacles Despite Arizona's need for an additional water supply, the Central Arizona project faces almost insurmountable obstacles. An Arizonan himself, Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall Jan. 21 announced his support for a comprehensive long-range program to develop the water and power resources of the Lower Colorado River Basin states, notably California, Arizona and Nevada. Central Arizona has no priority under this program which is still in the study stage. Within Arizona itself no determination has been made as to how the water from the project would be divided. Some experts predict a battle royal as communities compete against each other for water. Arizona may find herself in still another lawsuit as one or more of the other six states in the Colorado river question whether there actually is 1,200,000 acre feet of unappropriated water in the Colorado river still available for the Central Arizona diversion. The Hayden bill provides for the construction of a 740-foot dam -- highest in the Western Hemisphere -- at Bridge Canyon on the Colorado river at the headwaters (MORE)Epson Perfection 4870 Photo, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 2,263,876 byte