HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - gpo.gov€¦ · Leahey; Allan L. Levine, of Towers Motor Parts; Harry J. Patterson, of the Lowell Gas Co.; Walter B. Reilly, Jr., of the Courier Citizen

5558 ·CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE April3 Walter B. ReUly, Jr., were awarded certifi­cates for their service to the organization and the community.

The next speaker who was introduced was Donald A. Cook, general manager of the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Lowell.

· Cook praised the members and offlcers for their support and participation in the ac­tivities of the chamber which, he said, made progress possible.

Cook named, in special appreciation, the officers who include Edward N. Lamson, vice president, James P. Curran, vice president, Eugene Tellier, treasurer, and Arthur C. Antonopoulos, immediate past president. He also praised the members of the board of directors who include Sheppard Bartlett, of A. G. Pollard Co.; Matthew J. Brown, of

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1963

The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,

D.D., offered the following prayer: Romans 14: 19: Let us therefore fol­

low after the things which make for peace.

Almighty God, as we daily pray and labor for world peace, may we be eager to extend the overtures of friendship and good will to all freedom-loving nations who are now being drawn together by a common peril and common ideals.

Grant that we may see clearly that our thinking and acting in terms of all humanity and right relations between the members of the human family are matters of life and death for our world of today. ,

May we understand that the democ­racy which we are seekiilg to establish, and its freedom which we believe is in­evitable for all mankind, is one that must be coordinated with discipline and a sense of interdependence, but above all one that has spiritual significance and is ruled by love for God and man.

Hear us in the name of the Prince of Peace. Amen.

THE JQURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of yes­

terday was read and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr.

McGown, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed a concurrent resolution, as follows:

S. Con. Res. 36. Concurrent resolution to make correction in the enrollment of S. 1035.

THE CONFUSING WORLDWIDE FOREIGN AID PROGRAM

Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my re­marks, and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?

There was no objection. Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I know

of no program that is any more complex and confusing than the worldwide for­eign aid program.

Scott Jewelry Co.; Donald A. Caswell, of Bon Marche, Inc.; David F. Connors, of Lowell Sun Publishing Co.; James F. Conway, Jr., of the Courier-Citizen Co.; Albert P. Gaumont, of Gaumont Bros., Inc.; J. Russell Havey, of Educator Biscuit Co.; Dr. Brendan D. Leahey; Allan L. Levine, of Towers Motor Parts; Harry J. Patterson, of the Lowell Gas Co.; Walter B. Reilly, Jr., of the Courier­Citizen Co.; Daniel E. Walker, of the Union National Bank; Harold E. Wright, Sr., of Wright Trucking Co., as well a~ the retiring and the new president.

The general manager also singled out for praise Errington A. Brigham and Henry Gau­mont who headed the retail division. He also presented to newly elected board mem­bers, Joseph Alyibrandi and Michael DeMou-

It is estimated that on June 30 there will be on hand, unexpended, but obli­gated, far in excess of $7 billion. This is sufficient to meet every legal obligation that we have outstanding to other na­tions with respect to foreign aid.

If the Congress, in its wisdom, refused to appropriate another dollar for the foreign aid program, remember, every purely legal obligation we have made will have been met, unless it is assumed that the Executive can obligate money without the prior approval of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Gallup poll shows that 58 percent of the people approve foreign aid. The Passman poll shows that 98 percent of the people oppose for­eign aid. What a contrast. Evidently Mr. Gallup had a carefully worded ques­tion that did not deal with the program as it really is. · CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, .

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 1, 1963.

MY DEAR COLLEAGUE: This is the ninth year it has been my privilege to provide you with a recapitulation of foreign aid funds available to the mutual security program. This report covers funds available for fiscal 1963 and covers only the amount of the aid program handled by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations. Other types of foreign assistance are available under eight other statutes.

The amounts listed on the attached sheet have been verified. These funds are available for obligation and expenditure in the pres­ent fiscal year. Funds not disbursed during fiscal 1963 will remain available in either an obligated or reserved status, or as we often say, in the pipeline.

Is it really the desire of Congress to per­mit AID to continue pyramiding funds and fund programs years in advance of the actual expenditure? This practice accounts for the annual increase in unexpended funds. The certified information presented below indicates there is something wrong with the present system of pyramiding aid funds. Certainly the actual annual expenditures do not justify this practice.

The three brackets of figures cover (a) funds available covering 4 fiscal years-­observe the annual increase, (b) actual ex­penditures for 3 years-fiscal 1963 not yet available, and (c) unexpended funds on hand at the end of the last 3 fiscal years--1963 not yet available: (A) Total avallable for expenditure:

1. Fiscal year 1960 ______ $8,111,521,750 2. Fiscal year 1961______ 8,551,215,000 3. Fiscal year 1962------ 10,078,319,114 4. Fiscal year 1963 ______ 11,141,987,000

(B) Actual expenditures: 1. Fiscal year 1960------ 3,265,400,000 2. Fiscal year 1961______ 3,276,600,000 3. Fiscal year 1962______ 3,198,100,000

las, and recognized the services of several committee chairmen who include John F. Gleason, Richard R. Flood, Robert H. Gold­man, Dr. Costas Kokinos, Kenneth Harkins, Vincent P. Morton, Jr., Raymond E. Noiseux and Harold Hirsch who was not able to be present because of illness.

At the conclusion of Senator RANDOLPH's address, Rev. Victor F. Scalise, pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church delivered the bene­diction to conclude the meeting.

Dinner committee chairmen included Ed­ward F. O'Dea, attendance; David F. Con­nors, publicity; Joseph Sullivan, Jr., pro­gram; Hans H. Schliebus, banquet; John H. Gardiner, hall; James C. Shannon, Jr., deco­rations; Joseph M. McDonough and Cort­landt J. Burkinshaw, reception.

(C) Unexpended funds: 1. Unexpended funds

June 30, 1960__________ $4, 830, 549, 000 2. Unexpended funds

June 30, 196L_________ 5, 975, 397, 000 3. Unexpended funds

June 30, 1962--------- 6,889,186,000

I hope the information contained in this letter and the attached sheet will be of some service to you. It is a pleasure to furnish you the information developed by the sub­committee of which I have the privilege to be chairman. Personally, I am concerned about the ever-increasing cost of this pro­gram.

Sincerely yours, OTTo E. PASSMAN,

Chairman, Foreign Operations Subcom­mittee on Appropriations.

(Enclosure.)

FOREIGN . OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

OTTO E. PASSMAN, chairman Foreign aid funds by program and amount

(available for expenditure in fi~ca:Z i963)

1. Military assistance: Unexpended, June 30, 1962 _______ $2, 784, 637, 000 New funds, fiscal1963____________ 1, 325.000,000 New funds, other________________ 39; 985,000

SubtotaL--------------------- 4, 149,622,000

2. Development loans: Unexpended, June 30, 1962_______ 2,127, 005,000 New funds, fiscal1963____________ 'il75, 000,000 New funds, other---------------- 920,000

Subtotal.---------------------- 3, 102, 925,000

3. Development grants:

~~~~g~li:~t:a_~~~~======= SubtotaL _____________________ _

4. Development grants, special pro-grams: New funds, fiscal1963 _____ _

5. Surveys of investment opportunities: Unexpended, June 30, 1962 ______ _

430, 252, 000 225, 000, 000

655, 252, 000

2, 800,000

1, 500,000 ====

6. Investment guarantees: Unexpended, June 30, 1962 ____ __ _ New funds, fiscal1963 ___________ _

SubtotaL ___ -------------------

7. International organization and pro­grams:

Unexpended, June 30, 1962 ______ _ New funds, fiscal1963 ___________ _

Subtotal ______________________ _

8. Supporting assistance: Unexpended, June 30, 1962 ______ _ New funds, fiscal1963 ___________ _

Subtotal ______________________ _

9. Contingency fund: Unexpended, June 30, 1962 ______ _ New funds, fiscal1963 ___________ _

Subtotal ______________________ _

10 . .Alliance for Progress:

235, 659, 000 30,000,000

265, 659, 000

79,009,000 148,900,000

227, 909, 000

452,374,000 395, 000, 000

847, 374,000

223, 438, 000 250,000,000

----473,438, ()()()

Unexpended, June .?2.,~ 1962_______ 519, 445, 000 New funds, fiscallOOi! ••• _________ 525, 000,000

Subtotal·---------------------- 1, 044,445,000

1963 . CONGRESSIONAL. RE<i:ORD -·- HOUSE 5559 Foreign aid funds by program and amount

(available for expenditure in fiscal 1963)-Continued ·

11. Administrative expenses, AID: Unexpended, June 30, 1962....... $11,233,000 New funds, fiscal1963............ 49, 500,000 New funds, other ----------------___ 8,_383_,_000_

Subtotal_______________________ 69,116,000

12. Administrative expenses, State: Unexpended!. June 30, 1962....... 87,000 New funds, nscal1963____________ 2, 700, 000 -----

SubtotaL______________________ 2, 787,000 13. Other: Unexpended, June 30, 1962 •. :. 5, 500,000

==== Subtotal, funds available for ex­

penditure for foreign assist-ance program ________________ 10,848,327,000

14. Peace Corps: Unexpended!. June 30, 1962 .•••••• New funds, nscal1963 ________ ___ _

SubtotaL_---------------------

10,815,000 59,000,000

69,815,000

15. Ryukyu Islands: Unexpended!. June 30, 1962....... 3, 04·1, 000 New funds, n~cal1963____________ 8, 900,000

-----SubtotaL__________ __________ _ 11,944,000

16. Cuban refugee program: Unexpended!. Iune 30, 1962 .•••..• New funds, nscal1963 ___________ _

SubtotaL __ ·--------·-----------

17. Migrants and refugees: Unexpended, June 30, 1962 •...••• New funds, fiscal1963 ___________ •

SuhtotaL ---------------------.

18, Inter-American Development Bank: Unexpended!. June 30, 1962 ••••••• _ New funds, nscal1963 ___ ________ _

SubtotaL __ --------------------

19. International Development Associa-tion:

Unexpended!. June 30, 1962 ••• ..•• New funds, nscal1963 ___________ _

~ubtotaL ________________ •• ---.

Subtotal, funds available for other foreign assistance ______ _

2, 687,000 70,110,000

72,797,000

2,501, 000 14,947,000

17,4.48, 000

(1) 60,000,000

60.000,000

(1) 61,656,000

61. 65_6.000

293, 660, 000

Grand total, funds available for expenditure in fiscal year 1963 __________________________ 11, 141,987,000

RECAPITULATION 1. Unexpended funds (from prior fiscal

years), June 30, 1962. __ --- ---------- $6,889, 186, 000 2. New funds (appropriated), fiscal 1963. 4, 203, 513,000 3. New funds (reimbursements, sales re-

ceipts, etc.), fiscal 1963______________ 49, 288, 000

Total funds available for expend-iture __________________________ 11, 141,987,000

1 $513,1l00,000 unexpended funds for IDB and IDA not included in above totals.

CoNGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April5, 1963.

To Whom It May-Concern:

Gold holdings (free world countries): U.S. gold holdings on Dec. 31, 1952. $23,252,000,000 U.S. gold outflow to foreign coun-

tries, 1952 through 1962_________ _ -7,195,000,000

U.S. gold holdings on D ec. 31, 1962, reduced to.---- --- ----- 16,057,000,000

Gold holdings, other countries,! D ec. 31, 1952.----- -------------- 13,028,000,000

Gold holdings, increase, other countries, 1952 through 1962 .••.• +11,630,000,000

Gold holdings, other countries, Dec. 31, 1962, increased to... 24,658,000.000

U.S. dollars owned by foreign coun-tries (free world):

Foreign dollar holdings on Dec. 31, 1952--------------- - ---- --------- 10, 546, 100, 000

Increase In foreign dollar holdings, 1952 through 1962------------- --- +14,437, 900,000

Foreign dollar holdings on Dec. 31, 1962, Increased to... 24,984,000,000

1 Does not Include Sino-Soviet bloc.

U.s. balance of payments position: 1950 net deficit ••• ----------------· -$1, 912,000,000 1951 net deficit..................... -578,000, 000 1952 net deficit..................... -1, 100, 000,000 1953 net deficit-------------------- -2, 100,000, 000 1954 net deficit..................... -1,500,000,000 1955 net deficit..................... -1,100,000,000 1956 net deficit____________________ -1,000,000,000 1957 (only credit in 13 years)....... +500, 000,000 1958 net deficit_____________________ -3, 400, 000, 000 1959 net deficit_____________________ -3,700,000, 000 1960 net deficit_____________________ -3,800,000,000 1961 net deficit.____________________ -2,400,000,000 1962 net deficit •••• ----------------- -2,200,000,000

U.S. deficit, 1950 through 1962, inclusive.--------------------- -24,290,000,000

Gross public debts: U.S. public debt on Dec. 31, 1962.. 303,470,080,489 Other free world countries (latest

available figures)________________ 201,500,000,000

U.S. debt exceeds debts of other free world countries by______ 101,970,080,489

U.S. debt exceeds all other countries of world by_______ 24,000,500,000

The above indicates clearly what the for­eign aid program is doing to our gold re­serves and our balance of payments position (trade).

Sincerely yours, OTTO E. PASSMAN,

Chairman, Foreign Operations Sub­committee on Appropriations.

SUNDAY TELEPHONE RATES SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO SAT­URDAYS AS WELL Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West Virginia?

There was no objection? Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Speaker, at mid­

night tonight anyone will be able to place a telephone call to any part of the coun­try, station to station, for the sum of $1 for the first 3 minutes. This is a very fine move. I would, however, suggest an additional step which should be taken. Now would be a good time to extend the evening and Sunday rates on telephone calls to Saturdays as well as Sundays. A great many businesses are closed on Saturdays and millions of people all over the country would benefit by this reduc­tion of rates and the extension of the Sunday and evening rates to Saturdays.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that I may be able to generate some sentiment on Capitol Hill and throughout the country for this move.

ALLIANCE FOR VIOLENCE Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?

There was no objection. Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Speaker, recently

the House Subcommittee on Inter­American Affairs, of which I am chair­man, issued a report on "Castro Com­munist Subversion in the Western Hemisphere."

In the March 30, 1963, edition of the Washington Evening Star there ap-

peared the following editorial on the sub­committee's hearings a~d report:

ALLIANCE FOR VIOLENCE In its excellent report on Fidel Castro's

captive Cuba, the House Subcommitee on Inter-American Affairs has made a number of somber points about how Moscow and Havana are organizing an alliance for vio­lence against the free Americas. One of the most significant of the report's observations is the following:

"Coininunist Cuba's dependence on the Soviet Union is complete. The Castro Com­munist movement, although claiming to represent indigenous Latin American inter­ests and aspirations, is in fact controlled and operated by trained professional agents from the Soviet bloc. The Soviet Union must be held accountable for • • • subversive ag­gression in the Americas. • • •

"Castro communism is the instrument of Soviet aspirations for the Americas. Thus subversive aggression emanating from Cuba Is Soviet directed and represents (in the words of CIA Director McCone) a 'far more sophisticated, more covert, and more deadly' effort than the hastily organized and 111-con­ceived raids conducted by the Castroites during the early months of the regime.

"International Soviet agents, experts in the field of revolutionary propaganda, terrorist tactics, and guerrilla warfare, are operating schools for violence in Cuba, training and indoctrinating Latin American subversives. The Soviet Union as well as its Cuban puppet regime must bear the responsibility and consequences for subversive attacks on na­tions of the Western Hemisphere."

This is but one of the many sobering findings of the House subcommittee. The report of the group-a unanimous one, which is relatively rare--is greatly over­simplified in these paragraphs. The full text well deserves the attention and study not only of the Kremlin but of every American, including the President, interested in hemi­spheric security and the alliance for violence against it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. David Lawrence, in his syndicated column of March 19, 1963, also commented on the subcommittee's report.

Mr. Lawrence's column follows: [From the Washington, (D.C.) Evening Star,

Mar. 19, 1963] CONGRESSIONAL PLAN To STALL REDs-REAL­

ISTIC VIEW OF HEMISPHERIC THREAT SEEN IN HOUSE GROUP'S ACTION PROPOSAL

(By David Lawrence) Members of Congress of both parties have

for months expressed serious concern over the possibility of open military aggression by Communist forces against the nations of this hemisphere. A realistic appraisal of the present situation and a recommendation as to what should be done have just come in a unanimous report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Repre­sentatives. All nine members of the Sub­committee on Inter-American Affairs-both Republicans and Democrats-signed the re­port.

The committee findings are that, even though the Castro Communist forces in Cuba are incapable without outside assist­ance of successfully mounting an offensive blow, this "does not minimize the Com­munist threat to inter-American security." The committee then says bluntly that "no plan for collective action against Com­munist subversive aggression has been put into effect" by the countries of the hemi­sphere.

The report points out that, because no clear and unified hemispheric policy dealing with the Castro Communist subversive ag­gression has been developed, some of the

5560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- I-IOUSE April 3 members of the Organization of Amer-ican States "have not devised effective internal methods of controlUng subversive traffic in and through their territories."

It is asserted emphatically that · Cuba's dependence on the Soviet Union is complete and that the regime "is in fact controlled and operated by trained professional agents from the Soviet bloc." The House subcom­mittee report states flatly that "the Soviet Union must be held accountable for such subversive aggression in the Americas:•

It adds that the "violent overthrow of existing governments remains the unified aim of Communist forces in Latin America",'' which include both the "Soviet and Chinese branches of international communism."

But what to do about it? The subcom­mittee makes four principal recommenda­tions, as follows:

"1. In accord with the joint resolution of Congress, October 3, 1962, section (A), im­mediate steps should be taken by the United States 'to prevent by whatever means may be necessary, including the use of arms, the Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba from extending, by force or the threat of force, its aggressive or subversive activities to any part of the hemisphere.'

"2. The United States should be prepared to act with m111tary force, if needed, in re­sponse to the request for help and assistance of any nation of the hemisphere in danger of being overthrown by Castro Communist subversive aggression. This recommenda­tion is in no way tQ be considered as a sub­stitute for or a bar to unilateral action by the United States in defense of its own security.

"3. Every effort must be made by the United States to assure collective action by the Organization of American States, and by OAS member states individually, toward the curbing of Castro Communist subversive activities and traffic in the hemisphere.

"4. The United States should seek the com­plete diplomatic and economic quarantine of Communist Cuba by other nations of the hemisphere."

Recommendations of a House committee are influential but do not necessarily mean concurrence by the executive branch of the Government. But it is significant that Mem­bers of Congress are setting forth explicity what they think should be done in Latin America. They have, in fact, stated in much more vigorous terms what American policy should be than has either the White House or the State Department.

The report shows a sympathetic attitude by the committee's members toward eco­nomic aid for Latin America, but it is clear they feel that this will not solve the prob­lems of the hemisphere unless stern meas­ures are taken to eliminate the threat of Cuban-based subversive aggression.

There are indications that the Latin­American governments themselves are under heavy internal pressure from radical groups, some of which are not unsympathetic to the Communists, and that this is complicating the whole problem of collective action in the hemisphere. The Soviets have spent hun­dreds of millions of dollars not only to sup­ply funds, guidance, and technical assistance to train guerrillas and terrorists brought into Cuba from throughout Latin America, but to infiltrate organizations in various countries. They are leaving no stone un­turned to gain a political following inside the countries of the hemisphere. Many or­ganizations are infiltrated by Communists, and the majority of the members are not aware of this underground activity.

The whole Latin-American problem ls becoming more and more complicated, largely because the United States has not acted decisively and forcefully in dealing with the Communist base established under the Castro regime in Cuba.

POLICY OF INACTION AGAINST CUBA

Mr. STINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the REcORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection. Mr. STINSON. Mr. Speaker I am

pleased, indeed, to note that 'one of America's most respected journalists Mr. David Lawrence, has come to th~ defense of the Cuban exiles, who are at­tempting to regain their homeland and rid that island, just 90 miles from our shores, of the Communist menace. As you all know, these efforts are now being thwarted by the latest action of the ad­ministration and Great Britain by the enforcement of a blockade around that Communist-infested island, and, which for all practical purposes, would seem to be a protective measure for the welfare of Castro.

I want all of my colleagues to have the benefit of Mr. Lawrence's sound judg­ment in this matter, and for this reason I am inserting into the CONGRESSl.ONA~ RECORD his article entitled "Policy of In­action Against Cuba," which appeared in the April2 edition of the Evening Star: [From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,

Apr. 2, 1963] POLICY OF INACTION AGAINST CUBA-U.S. EF•

FORTS AGAINST ANTI-CASTRO ATTACKS DE· SCRmED AS RESULT OF CONFUSION

(By David Lawrence) Confusion, if not frustration, today cha~­

acterizes the policy of the administration to­ward Cuba.

Nearly 2 weeks have passed since Presi­dent Kennedy told a news conference that the Soviet GQvernment had withdrawn only 3,000 troops out of the 17,000 stationed on Cuban soil. He then added:

"We are waiting to see whether more will be withdrawn, as we would hope they would be. The month of March is not flnish~d yet, and we should have a clearer idea as to what the total numbers should be in the coming days."

The month of March has passed but the "clearer idea" has still not materialized. The only action that has been taken by the administration is a sharp warning-not di­rected to the Russian Government--but to the poor Cubans who have bravely attempted to raid ports and start guerrilla action such as Fidel Castro hiinself employed when he fought his way into power.

It seems to be regarded as legitimate for the United States to encourage and assist in guerrilla-type warfare in South Vietnam against Communists there, but somehow the effort by the Cuban patriots to rescue their own country by similar tactics is frowned upon officially in formal announcements from the Department of State and the De­partment of Justice. Neutrality laws are cited as standing in the way. It is an­nounced that such laws will be enforced by the arrest of those Cuban patriots who attempt to launch from American territory any expeditions to wrest their homeland from Mr. Castro and the Soviet troops.

Contradiction after contradiction, more­over, has emerged to becloud the statements issued by the U.S. Government. To take ref­uge in the neutritlity laws seems to be in conflict with the following declaration on March 12 by Secretary of State Dean Rusk:

"Then we have felt, along with many othe>;s of our allies, that the kind of Cuban

regime that we have today not only is not :fl:t to participate as .a regime in the activities of the inter-American system, but that with its declaration of suJ:?versive and other types of war upon the hemisphere, it is not en­titled to normal economic or other relations with the free world."

The neutrality laws were plainly designed to apply to expeditions started on U.S. ter­ritory against . countries with which the United States maintains friendly and nor­mal relations. But a state of war now exists, for all practical purposes, between Cuba and the United States. Also, a block­ade was undertaken last autumn and for­eign ships were intercepted by the U.S. Navy. In recent weeks Soviet-built Mig's, flying from Cuba, have attacked unarmed American ships.

In the last several months, moreover a hostile military operation, involving the er~c­tion of bases equipped with missiles as well as bomber planes, had been carried on inside the territory of Cuba. This was aimed at the United States. One wonders what more proof the Government here needs that any steps taken by this country to protect itself are proper under international law and that so-called neutrality laws do not apply in the present circumstances to Cuba.

Actually, the constant use of air surveil­lance by the United States over Cuba terri­tory is not really in line with the customary interpretation of the concept of neutrality. The continuous presure by the Government here upon other governments to boycott all trade with Cuba is also hardly neutral.

Secretary Rusk, in his March 12 speech, said: _

"Now, we are discovering with regard to Cuba that, having failed to take the steps that might have prevented in years past the establishment of a Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba, that the problem of finding a cure is more difficult."

The foregoing might well be paraphrased and applied today as the administration, in­stead of finding a cure, permits the Soviets to strengthen their hold inside Cuba. It has even enlisted the help of Great Britain's Navy to keep Cuban patriots from attempt~ ing to regain their homeland.

Mr. Rusk also said in his speech that "the presence of Soviet forces in this hemisphere cannot be accepted as a part of the normal situation in this hemisphere."

But the Soviets not only have been lnftl­trating Guatemala and Brazil, but they are still maintaining a military force in Cuba, less than a hundred miles away from the coast of this country.

Senator STENNIS, Democrat, of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Subcommitee on Military Affairs, said in a speech the other day that, "without positive action on our part, our neighbors to the south may fall one by one until the entire hemisphere is lost to us." He added that he was convinced that "the Cuban situation is the most im­mediate, pressing, and important problem facing our Nation today."

Yet the administration is using its influ­ence to discourage a counterrevolutionary movement against the Castro regime, which deliberately invited the Soviet government to send troops and build missile bases in Cuba. How can the United States justify a policy of inaction against the Havana regime and invoke neutrality laws against the only individuals who wish to risk their lives their fortunes, and their sacred honor t~ overthrow a tyrannical dictatorship?

BACK-DOOR FINANCING Mr. HARVEY of Michigan. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ad­dress the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 5561 The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?

There was no objection. Mr. HARVEY of Michigan. Mr.

Speaker, about a week ago we learned the Democratic leadership was conduct­ing a secret poll to see if its majority membership would support the action of the House Banking and Currency Com­mittee in reporting out a bill authorizing a $2 billion increase in lending authori­zation for the Export-Import Bank with such increase to be financed on a back­door financing basis.

I commend to the attention of the Democratic leadership another poll, an open poll, taken yesterday on the floor of the Senate on the question of back­door financing. The newspaper report in the April 2 Evening Star, over a three­column headline, reports "Transit Bill Is Stripped of Back-Door Financing." The article reports the Senate yesterday, by unanimous action, struck out the back-door financing provision in there­ported mass transit bill and substituted therefor the financing of the program under the regular appropriation process. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this should make clear to the Democratic leadership on this side that back-door financing is a "dead duck" in programs to be consid­ered by this Congress.

When the Export-Import Bank bill was considered by our committee in ex­ecutive session I o1fered an amendment to place the additional $2 billion of lend­ing auth01ity under an appropriation process similar to that adopted by the House last year with respect to the $2 billion increase in authorization for the International Monetary Fund. This amendment was defeated on a straight party vote and the bill was reported with the financing on a back-door basis.

When the Export-Import Bank bill is brought to the floor o! the House I shall again offer my amendment to knock out the back-door financing for the in­creased authorization and subject it to the regular appropriation process. I full well realize, Mr. Speaker, that I may be denied the opportunity of offering this amendment purely because under parliamentary procedure a member of the majority may be recognized to offer the amendment. However that may be, I predict that when the House acts on the Export-Import Bank bill an over­whelming majority of this body will vote to strike the back-door financing pro­vision from the bill and substitute in lieu thereof the language of my amendment, which is the Republican position, to place the financing of the increased lending authorization under the regular appropriation process.

DEMOCRATIC BUGABOOS Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? ·

There was no objection. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, Mort­

day was April Fools' Day, but to read the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD· this morning, one might think Halloween somehow had already anived on April 2.

Certainly the Democrat leader on the other side of the aisle paraded the weird­est assortment of ghosts, goblins, and horror stories within my memory.

The purpose was obvious: to scare the daylights out of the country with trumped-up threats of what will happen if we in the Congress are successful in bringing some semblance of sanity into the Kennedy administration's spending proposals.

Fortunately, there was no more sub­stance to this witch's brew of specula­tion on what we have in mind in the way of budget cuts than there is in a spook.

And I might add that the timing for this presentation was just about as far off as Halloween itself.

This body had just demonstrated that our position on budget cutting is sound and responsible by chopping something in the neighborhood of $100 m1111on from the budget of the Department of Interior and related agencies. This figure sub­stantially vindicated the Republican task force projection of this bill, the first we have considered in the current session.

Moreover, President Kennedy had just sent the Congress a message on foreign assistance in which he backed down $400 million from his original proposal.

I cannot help but wonder what terri­fying results our friends on the other side imagine the President's reduction in this program may have on our economy and our foreign relations.

Or does it make 'l. difference just who suggests economy?

Let me again assure my colleagues from the other side of the aisle: We are not going to be frightened o1f by buga­boos-and I do not think the American people are going to panic, either.

Quite obviously, the administration has been getting a taste of unfavorable public reaction to the idea of planned deficit spending and is responding with some moves of its own in the direction of economy.

This we applaud as at least a steP­however reluctantly it may be taken­in the right direction.

As Republicans we do not care who cuts down on excessive spending, just so it is cut.

Meanwhile, we intend to stick by our guns and fight, item by item, for appro­priations levels that meet the needs of our economy and our military security and against appropriations levels for which no real justification can be estab­lished.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAlLECK. I yield to the gentle­man from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALBERT. May I ask my friend if he will not please take the Members of the House and the American people into his confidence and tell them just where these $15 billion in cuts can be made?

Mr. HALLECK. In due time you will :find out. Our projection on the :first proposals we had for reduction in the Interior Department appropriation was a little over $100 million. That projec-

tion was proved substantially correct. and I hope it will be proved correct as we go along.

I cannot quite understand the concern of my very beloved friend, the majority leader, who, with a 3-to-2 majority, is so concerned about what we in the minority are going to do in respect to saving money, but we have kept this on a bipartisan basis and we want it kept that way. I must say that, from reading the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this morning, the folks downtown must have been working nights conjuring up some of those hair-raising yams.

Mr. ALBERT. Does not the gentle­man think the American people ought to know and want to know what kind of operation my friends are going to try to perform on the budget?

Mr. HALLECK. We have said we are going to do our best to cut this budget. We obviously cannot do it unless we get some help from the gentleman's side of the aisle, but I am inclined to believe that a lot of people around here, including some folks downtown, are hearing from the country. Beyond that, as I say, we will be responsible in our e1forts. I just hope that the people of the country reading the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this morning, where you have listed the proj­ects that will be gone and the jobs that will be lost and the contractors who will be thus affected-! trust these readers realize that you have already projected these things to come, so we will just go along and prove that projection was far wide of the mark.

Mr. LAffiD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HALLECK. I yield to the gentle­man from Wisconsin.

Mr. LAIRD. May I say to the gentle­man from Indiana that the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Mis­souri [Mr. CANNON], has estimated that our committee has reduced the new ob­ligational authority by some $10 billion. Our committee is not putting out the exact figures on the House Appropria­tion bills in advance. Those committee reports will be released after action by the House Appropriations Committee. I think it would not be wise even for the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON] to release item by item his breakdown before the committee actually takes ac­tion. I would hope that the gentleman from Indiana would not release any in­formation until the House Appropria­tions Committee has had an opportunity to act on each individual bill in execu­tive session.

Mr. HALLECK. Of course, that was indicated by the chairman of the task force sometime ago.

Mr. ALBERT. May I ask the gentle­man one more question: Does not the gentleman feel that the American people are entitled to have the gentleman take them into his confidence?

Mr. HALLECK. I happen to believe that the American people have a little confidence in their Representatives. The people out in the Second District of Indiana have indicated they have. I would certainly hope the people have some confidence in the Congress of the

5562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE April 3

United States as holder of the purse strings · of the Nation as to how we go about achieving the end that I think is desirable, the consideration of our busi­ness. I do not think there is any lack of confidence on the part of the Ameri­can people. I know why hearings of the Appropriations Committee are held in executive session, and they do not have people in there to hear the testimony. They do not have them in there as they are marking up the bills. The gentleman from Oklahoma knows as well as I do why that is, and I do not need to draw any blueprint.

COURTBOUILLON A LA U.N. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani­

mous consent to addres..; the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri?

There was no objection. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned

to the House at its last meeting that U.S. officials are anxious to pay the U.N. again this summer-for more aid from that Chinese "piscatorial-paddy" expert.

I am glad to report there are some Americans who do not think that will be necessary, and I invite your attention to an editorial in the Shreveport, La., Times of March 25, 1963.

Now, these good folk of Caddo Pari&h consider that they know a little some­thing about fish in their ricefields­they have had fish there for years. They seem to doubt that the U.N.'s Chinese expert can make their fish any happier than they already are.

But, they do suggest that they can teach the U.N. a thing or two about get­ting some good edible use out of the fish.

I commend this witty but pithy edi­torial to my colleagues attention; and under unanimous consent, I include it at this point in the RECORD.

OUR OWN U.N. PROJECT

There's a story going around that a Con­gressman, angered by U.N. grants to Cuba, wanted to know why the United States was never eligible for aid. He was told very gravely by the U.N. that we are and that there's an actual U.N. project underway in this country.

It turned out to be a lone Chinese (this is no joke) who somewhere in this broad land is teaching someone how to grow fish in rice paddies. The search has been narrowed down to Louisiana, and the Congressman is asking mystery lovers please to spot this (pre­sumably non-Red) Chinese and find out where his project is and how it's coming.

Whether or not this U.N. emissary really has got to Louisiana or does intend ulti­mately to come, we have news for him: We already know how to grow fish in our rice fields. We don't call them paddies, though­probably because Irish are scarce in the rice­growing areas-but come to think of it they aren't called pierres either; so maybe race hasn't anything to do with it.

But, anyway, about those fish: Louisiana rice fields are full of carp and buffalo after the fields are flooded. It happens in this wise: The fields are flooded from canals which are equipped with floodgates. The canals themselves draw their water from the bayous. The bayous abound in fish. When the flood-

gates are opened, the canal water comes into the fields bringing the fish with it.

In the shallow water, the scales of the buf­falo and carp sometimes turn red. It's a pretty sight, but carp and buffalo are coarse fish and are good only for a Cajun delicacy called courtbouillon (meaning short soup, probably because it's short on meat).

We are willing to admit that carp came originally from China, which they did, and we suppose they came here via England which used to have a rhyme saying, "Carp, turkeys, and beer came into England all in a year." That was sometime in the 17th cen­tury.

Since we already know how to grow fish in our rice fields , we think it only fair that some sort of grant be made to enable a Cajun or two to show this Chinese when he shows up how to make courtbouillon. Even 1f we sold the recipe for $5, we'd be getting some­thing back for all those U.N. grants that other countries are getting out of U.S. money.

FOREIGN AID AND THE CLAY REPORT

Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina?

There was no objection. Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, foreign aid, the huge tem­porary program which has ballooned in­to a tremendous and seemingly perma­nent burden for the American people, is in the center of the Washington stage with the publication of the Clay Com­mittee report. The unbiased look at the huge program, requested by the Presi­dent, will be discussed for some time. Its conclusions that the $100 billion pro­gram has been wasteful and often lack­ing in focus and direction confirms what, I believe, a vast majority of the Amer­ican people have thought for some years.

Clearly, a program geared to real ob­jectives of mutual security for the free world is not the root of the argument. Spendthrift schemes sprawling all over the world costing billions are the issue. There is a limit to pure generosity which adds little or nothing to our national interests or to the fight against Com­munist penetration, and there have been too many instances of this kind of oper­ations. The Clay report is not binding upon the aid program. However, its conclusions that "we are indeed attempt­ing too much for too many"; that "a higher quality and reduced quantity of our diffuse aid effort in certain coun­tries could accomplish more"; and we cannot believe "that our national in­terest is served by indefinitely continu­ing commitments at the present rate to the 95 countries which are now receiving our economic and/or military aid" have long needed to be said forcefully in our high councils of government. Congress will surely take its most stern look in many years at this program, and this look will be overdue and by popular de­mand.

The Clay Committee report reserves special comment for Indonesia, saying:

We do not see how external assistance can be granted to this nation by free world

countries unless it puts its internal house in order, provides fair treatment to foreign creditors and enterprises, and refrains !"rom international adventures.

This is a good example of a situation where we have poured in scores of mil­lions of dollars with very questionable results. Following a zigzag course promising little stability in the battle against Communist expansion in south­east Asia, Indonesia's leadership takes on the look of an international trouble­maker. In 1958, when Western nations refused to provide military equipment, the Indonesians wandered off to Moscow, which set up a crash program to furnish naval equipment, jet fighters, and the most modern arms. The obvious pur­pose was to build a war machine so that Indonesia could bully its way into Dutch New Guinea. By last summer, a thou­sand Soviet military technicians were on hand to instruct in the use of the billion dollars worth of military equipment. With the New Guinea campaign over and essentially won, Indonesia seems to find territory in Borneo intended to be part of the new country of Malaysia very attractive. For several months it has been threatening to send "volunteers" into this territory to keep it from becom­ing part of Malaysia.

In view of these events, and the official support our Government has given to the formation of Malaysia, it was a shock to read an Army press release that Indo­nesian officers had been invited to ob­serve "Operation Water Moccasin," our big military maneuver in Georgia several weeks ago testing the latest in guerrilla warfare tactics and operations. Why the Indonesians were invited in the first place I am now trying to find out, but there is no doubt that this instruction in advan~ed jungle warfare could add up to real trouble if the Indonesians decide on new military adventures to put their Soviet-made weapons to work against their neighbors.

The activities of the Indonesian Gov­ernment are receiving well-deserved at­tention for its efforts to obtain aid from both sides in the cold war. The Daily Independent of Kannapolis, N.C., com­mented on this situation recently and I wish to recommend to the Congress the following thoughtful editorial which ap­peared in the newspaper on March 13, 1963:

BEGGARS DoN' T RATE CADILLACS

Do you know of any banks or loan agencies that would lend $5,000 to an individual for the purchase of an automobile if that indi­vidual's family were short of food and cloth­ing and he was already in debt up to his ears?

If there is such a bank or loan company, it is a pretty safe bet that it will not be in business long. Yet, one of the nations to which the United States is lending money is in a condition comparable to a tattered beggar buying a Cadillac.

Indonesia, short of food and clothing, is buying three luxury jet airliners for its profitless passenger service. The cost will be $3 million more than the $17 million it is borrowing from the United States to shore up its crippled economy. At the same time it is threatening American oil companies with confiscation of their properties. And Indonesians in this country are discussing with the International Monetary Fund a

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 5563 stabilization program to ease their nation's staggering foreign debt.

Under President Sukarno, Indonesia ls showing a remarkable knack for living in the best of two worlds. She has managed to become a client of both the Soviet Union and the United States. A cold war neutral, Indo­nesia has built up an army of 400,000 men. After much muscleflexing, Indonesia, with U.S. aid negotiated a United Nations agree­ment last year to gain control of West New Guinea. Sukarno now is threatening the British scheme for a Malaysia Federation, but it is not believed that he's about to risk a military showdown with a major power.

Bung Karno, as he likes to be called­the "Bung" is for brother-has used the army to distract popular attention from gnawing poverty and, in west Java, actual starvation. In his flight from fiscal reality the Indonesian President' has indulged in other costly toys, including a $40 million stadium for the Asian games in Jakarta last August.

Indonesia is in nock to the Soviet Union for about $1 billion, of which more than half was spent for military equipment. Aside from the new loan agreement, U.S. aid since 1949 comes to about $773 million, about $402 million of this in loans.

The Indonesian economy has deteriorated steadily since the Dutch left in 1949, as the Dutch and almost everybody else except the featherbrained striped pants wearers in the U.S. State Department predicted it would. Exports last year were off about 15 percent from 1961. Of the $570 million total, $90 million came from three Western oil com­panies that Indonesia is now threatening to confiscate.

If she does, the United States might treat her pretty rough-by our State Department standards. Section 620 of last year's For­eign Assistance Act says that recipients of U.S. foreign aid have only 6 months after expropriating American private property to take "appropriate steps" to compensate the owners or face loss of aid funds.

Real tough, isn't it?

This seems like another example of the cross-purposes that are so familiar in Washington-the kind we have also seen in the two-price cotton program-where one policy contradicts another. The contradictions abound often in details. Another could be seen in our allowing top officers of the Yugoslav Army to attend the Army's crack Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kans. Still another is the permission we have granted for several millions of dollars worth of heavy industrial equipment to go to Yugoslavia at the same time the Yugoslavians are furnishing strategic goods to Russia. As in the case of for­eign aid, there is much tightening of projects and policies to be done in this colossus on the Potomac.

KATYN FOREST ATROCITY Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection. Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, it is at this

time of the year that we remember with great sorrow the infamous blood bath of Katyn Forest. As I have on numerous occasions, I again remind this House that this is one of the most atrocious examples of Communist bestiality. I am re­volted, Mr. Speaker, whenever I think

about this tragic occurrence to the Polish people. You will remember that 10,000 Polish officers were murdered · at Katyn Forest, and I repeat that this ranks with some of the world's worst atrocities. It was a frightening example of "man's in­humanity to man.'' I think it is fitting at this time that we pause and pay tribute to tl!ese Polish officers. We should keep before us at all times the memory of these men and remember how vicious the Com­munist cancer can be. Let us also never forget that we cannot, indeed must not, ever allow a similar occurrence.

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT APPRO­PRIATION SHOULD NOT BE CUT Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Speak­

er, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Montana?

There was no objection. Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Speak­

er, on yesterday I first learned of the proposed appropriation for the Post Office Department. I must say I am gravely concerned. The appropriation was cut some $91 million from the De­partment budget, and $69 million of that cut is in operations. I think all of my colleagues should know that this is a really grave problem for every one of us. It is not the Post Office Department that determines the program of the Post Office and it is not the Congress that determines the program. The program is determined by the citizens of the United States-the people who use the mails. The business people and the housewives and all others who use the mails are the ones who determine the program of the Post Office Department. They determine the volume of the mail. The entire population of the country and the business of the country determine the program of the Post Office Depart­ment.

Sixty-nine million dollars in opera­tions applies to personnel-to postal clerks, to letter carriers, letter carriers who by law are not to carry more than 35 pounds of mail at any one time. Therefore, there will not be enough postal clerks · and letter carriers to go around, to handle and to deliver the mail in the manner, and to give the service that the people have come to enjoy and to expect of our Post Office Establishment. I want to give notice now, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow there are several of us who are going to spon­sor amendments to the proposed appro­priation of the Post Office Department and we are going to attempt in every way that we can to bring to you the facts so that you, too, will join with us and restore these cuts.

NEW YORK-THE NATION'S NO. 2 DAIRY STATE-AGREES ON A 1963 DAffiY LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE PROGRAM Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House

for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection. Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, Con­

gress probably will enact dairy legisla­tion this year. The President has re­quested it in his farm message, and the Agriculture Committees of both the House and the Senate have begun hear­ings on several bills pending before them.

As a Congressman from New York, in fact as the one member of our delega­tion who, so I have been advised, has the honor to represent more New York dairy farmers than anyone else, I have been deeply concerned that any dairy legisla­tion we enact here this year should cer­tainly be tailored to the needs and wishes of our New York State dairymen.

After all, Mr. Speaker, New York State is the second largest dairy State in the entire Nation, and our delegation in Congress-41 Representatives and 2 Sen­ators-is the largest single bloc in the Congress.

Surely we New Yorkers have every right to be heard. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we have not always had an impact in the shaping of Federal dairy legislation commensurate with our posi­tion. Perhaps part of this is because New York is not usually regarded as an agricultural center, but rather as an urban and an industrial area. And per­haps it is also partly because our dairy farmers and our dairy farm organiza­tions in New York State have all too rarely agreed on their own approach to national legislation. When New York's dairy voice was divided the trumpet gave forth an uncertain sound, and hence New York's impact on Federal dairy legislation was correspondingly dimin­ished.

Why only the other day, Mr. Speaker, when I was testifying before the Com­mittee on Agriculture of the other body, the distinguished chairman of that com­mittee reasserted his conviction that New York State farmers could not get together on Federal dairy legislation and he in­dicated that the committee would there­fore have to go ahead with its delibera­tions without much regard for New York State.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to ad­vise the House today that this kind of division and disagreement on Federal dairy legislation among New York State dairy farmers is no longer the order of the day. Last Friday afternoon in Syra­cuse I met with leaders of seven major dairy cooperatives and farm organiza­tions in New York State in an effort to see whether we could in fact work out some area of real agreement on dairy legislation. And I am happy to advise this House that as a result of that meet­ing five of these seven organizations-in­cluding three of the four major dairy cooperatives in New York-reached a very substantial measure of agreement on a dairy package legislative program.

This package-which can now expect support as legislation reflecting the wishes and interests of New York State dairy farmers-includes, first, legislation

5564 CONGRESSlONAL RECORI)- HOUSE April 3

to create a so-called · two-price plan for milk, such as is contained in H.R. 3552, introduced by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PoAGEJ, ·H.R. 963, by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. WESTLAND], and in the other body," S. 900, by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE], and S. 953, by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HARTL

The second part of this package is H.R. 4745, which I had the honor to in­troduce in this House the other day, an emergency milk surplus reduction bill under which dairy farmers would receive incentive payments for reducing their milk production below their 1962 figures. This bill would be a purely temporary measure, lasting for a year, and, as en­visioned by the Syracuse agreement, would provide a transition from the pres­ent situation _to the actual operation of the new two-price plan arrangement.

Together these two bills, therefore, do meet the needs and wishes of an over­whelming majority of our New York State dairy farmers. So if our great delegation in this Congress is to serve these farmers it would seem to be our job to support this package program ac­tively in both the House and the Senate.

After all, we in New York are still the largest single bloc in Congress. If we vote and work together we can certainly guarantee that New York interests will no longer be ignored when a 1963 dairy bill is considered. For years it has been generally assumed here in Washington that New York State's interests in con­nection with farm legislation could be safely ignored simply because of the popular myth that New York State farmers and farm groups could never agree on any specific legislative pro­i>osals. Accordingly, when it came to dairy legislation, New York State, al­though the Nation's second greatest dairy State, has let the leadership go elsewhere simply by default.

Now as a result of the remarkable measure of agreement we achieved in Syracuse last Friday, this particular myth has been knocked into a cocked :hat. When their interests and indeed their very survival is at stake New York dairymen can and will pull together. Now it is up to us who have the honor to represent these dairymen in the House and the Senate to see that their wishes are vigorously and effectively pushed in this Congress.

Within the near future, Mr. Speaker, I propose to invite these New York State farm leaders to come to Washington to meet with our full delegation. In this way the agreement which we reached last Friday in Syracuse can be passed along to each Member of the House and Senate from New York.

And to this meeting, Mr. Speaker, I also propose to invite Members of this body and of the other body who repre­sent States or districts which include dairy farmers who regularly sell their milk in the New York milkshed area­which would mean chiefty New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Their interests, \yithin this common milkshed, would seem to parallel ours in New York State.

Mr. Speaker, this Syracuse dairy agreement represents, in my judgment, a significant milestone in our New York State dairy history. The myth that New York State dairy farmers can never get together on Federal dairy legislation has now been effectively shattered. Our great State of New York, as the Nation's second greatest dairy State, will from here out most certainly be heard and listened to in the development of any future national dairy legislation.

Enactment of this New York State package dairy program by this Congress this year will ease the plight of our New York dairy farmers and will open up the opportunity for a stable and more equitable income for them. This must be our goal, and in its pursuit New York­ers can no longer lag behind or let the leadership slip by default into other hands. We must lead the fight ourselves in these legislative halls, working effec­tively together without regard for parti­san lines.

THE COLD WAR AND CHILDREN Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Speaker,

I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection. Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Speak­

er, I am happy to report that Dr. Benja­min Spock, upon whose advice many of our Nation's children have been raised, has written a vitally important article entitled "The Cold War and Children." The article incisively discusses the ef­fects of nuclear testing on the physical health of our children and the effect of the cold war on the mental health of our children. Dr. Spock, professor of child development at Western Reserve Uni­versity in Cleveland, Ohio, has devoted a great deal of study to the impact of our military situation on child development. It is encouraging to see such an illustri­ous member of the medical profession actively concerned with the pressing problems of peace. It is hoped that his example will be followed by many oth­ers in the medical and other professions. I highly recommend the following arti­cle to all my colleagues:

THE COLD WAR AND CHILDREN

(By Benjamin Spack, M.D.)

Two aspects of the cold war are having a harmful effect on our children, one physi­cal, the other emotional.

The testing of nuclear weapons creates about two dozen radioactive substances which fall from the air, contaminating the foods we eat and subjecting us-particularly our children-to what is called low level radiation. No one knows for sure how dan­gerous it is. We know definitely that high level radiation such as was produced by ex­cessive X-raying in former times has fairly frequently produced cancer of the skin and thyroid, for instance, and has caused babies to be born with physical abnormalities or mental -deficiency. At these high levels there is a direct relationship between the dosage of radiation and the percentage of those people exposed to it who will be harmed. So we have to assume that. low levels Will

cause damage . to at least small percentages of those exposed. But all the estimates of danger from low level radiation are derived by arithmetic from the results of high level radiation. Three substances often discussed are . strontium 90, carbon 14, iodine 131.

Strontium 90 is deposited in the actively growing areas in bones, just as calcium is, so it will be much more concentrated in these particular areas in babies and children than it would be in adults. Here the radia­tion will persist actively for life. In mice high level radiation causes bone cancer and also leukemia, a disease which starts in the bone marrow. So there is the danger that a sufficient accumulation of low level radia­tion will cause these diseases in some sus­ceptible children.

Carbon 14 is one of the radioactive ma­terials that is distributed evenly through the body. So it mat, in sufficient concentra­tion, cause harmful mutations (changes) in germ cells in the testicles and ovaries. When a sperm and an ovum with similar mutations combine, an abnormality is pro­duced. It may be an insignificant one or it may be a serious physical or mental defect. It may be sufficient to cause the death of the embryo or the newborn baby. So we must go on the assumption that abnormalities will appear in some of the children of the chil­dren who are being exposed to fallout.

Iodine 131 is concentrated in the thyroid gland, particularly in babies and children. High level radiation of the thyroid may cause cancer so it is believed that low levels can be dangerous to at least a small percentage of those sufficiently exposed. Iodine 131 loses its radioactivity in a few weeks. But in periods of frequent nuclear testing such as 1961-62 it reached concentration in cows' milk-for several months at a tinie in parts of the Midwest-which the Federal Radia­tion Council had previously designated as calling for control measures. Unfortunately the Council had established no national sys­tem of countermeasures, and quibbled about the need for them in 1961-62.

What kind of estimates have been made about the damage from fallout? A United Nations Scientific Committee in 1958 cal­culated, for example, that if tests were con­tinued for a prolonged period they would eventually be producing somewhere between 5,000 ~nd 60,000 cases of leukemia per year around the world. A U.S. Atomic Energy Commission report estimated the total future effects from carbon 14 from the tests carried out before 1958 as 100,000 serious birth de­fects and the death of a million embryos and newborn babies. Those·who believe that continued testing is justified for national de­fense can point out that these figures are not large compared to worldwide deaths from other diseases. But these cases will be tragedies in the families in which they occur. A test ban treaty would prevent a further increase in these numbers.

Several recent studies have shown that many of our children have become anxious about the cold war-between a quarter and a half of them, depending on age and other factors. The younger ones worry about potsoning by fallout, about being separated from their parents in a disaster, about the death or injury of members of their families. Adolescents speak with some bitterness about the possibility there will be no future for them or that they may give birth to deformed children. Some of them ask what is the use of studying hard. Perhaps more unhealthy in the long run is the develop­ment of exaggerated suspiciousness. A group of fifth graders, for instance, were looking at pictures of the Russian countryside, one of which showed a tree-lined road. A child ask what the trees were for and two other children immediately suggested, "So that people won't know what's going on beyond the road" and· "It's to make work for the prisoners."

1963 CQNGRESSIONAL RE;CORD- HOUSE 5565 In the past we Americans have thought

of ourselves as indomitable. With the help of great natural resources and a population drawn from all over the globe we built the strongest and more resourceful nation. Our. influence on the rest of the world steadily increased up through World War II and the

It's my belief that if there is to be a better future for our children-or perhaps ariy fu­ture at all-it must come somehow through decreasing the hostility and increasing the good will in the world.

rehabilitation of Western Europe with the THE CONTINUING AND UNSOLVED Marshall plan. But in recent years we have PROBLEMS OF THE TEXTILE IN-run into a series of conflicts with the Soviet DUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES Union in which ·we had to be satisfied with stalemates. We have reacted in an unhealthy OF AMERICA way to these setbacks. Instead of calmly The SPEAKER. Under the previous pursuing a course that would advance our order of the House, the gentleman from own long-term interests many of us have become obsessed with the fear of what the South Carolina [Mr. HEMPHILL] is recog-Communists would do to us. nized for 60 minutes.

In past generations we have imbued our · Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask children with optimism. We have brought unanimous consent to revise and extend them up with the conviction that they could my remarks and include extraneous cope with almost any problem that con- matter. fronted them; consequently they have The SPEAKER. Is there objection to usually been able to do so. We have en-couraged them to t :ust people and to trust the request of the gentleman from South their ability to deal with people; as a re- Carolina? suit, they've imp· essed the world with their There was no objection. self-assurance and their friendliness. Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise

But to the degree that we adults succumb again to speak on a subject of which I to passive attitudes of fearfulness and sus- have spoken on many occasions here, picion we pass these on to our children, in whom they become accentuated in the the continuing and unsolved problems of process of growing up. When children learn the textile industry of the United States to be af ·aid of other people it impairs their of America. own personalities. This is why intelligent on yesterday my distinguished and parents no longer try to control a child beloved colleague from North carolina with a fear of bogeymen or policemen. If an older youth is taught that members· of [Mr. WHITENER] and his dedicated as-another ethnic or religious group might get sociate, the gentleman from North Caro­the better of him-scholastically or occupa- lina [Mr. KoRNEGAY]~ placed in the tionally or physically-it will impair his RECORD verbally what I consider to be ability to make his own way, even if he significant statements concerning the thinks he's supe: ior to_ the other group. continuing problems of the textile in-

If we bring up our children half convinced dustry, arising from the two-price cot­that the Communists are going to outwit · them, or outstrip~them, or bomb them, this ton system as presently practiced by the will seriously impair their future resource- United States of America: They evi­·fulness and self-confidence as adults. Fur- denced the growing 09ncern not only the:-more, an unstable future leader will be of the wonking people of their ar~as able to push them into war or to arouse - which are predominantly · textile-not · in them a wholesale suspicion of fellow only this segment--but of all of the peo­Americans far more disastrous t~an what pie in the industry manufacturers in-occurred during the McCarthy per1od. . ' . . '

In order to raise our children with a vestors, and the people whose bvehhood healthy attitude toward the world r think is dependent upon that industry, we must offer them at least the hope of I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as I something beyond an endless balance of speak today there is concern throughout terror. One solution would be progressive every textile area of this country. What nuclear disarmament, starting with a test is going to happen to the cotton textile ban. We see how difficult it is for East and manufacturing institutions the people West to overcome their mutual suspicion ' . enough to make even the first small step who work there, and to the related busi-and what resistance there is in the armed nesses which are dependent upon the services, the Atomic Energy Commission, and prosperity of that industry for their live­certain Members of the Senate t..nd the House lihood? We have been talking about this to putting the slightest limitation on the problem for many years, but there has armament spiral. It will probably be the been no relief as yet. Every month we ordinary citizens who ~ill decide this issue, have some new hope, every year we seem if they express their_opmions abo~t the rela- to have some new promises that some-tive risks of proceed1ng with or Wlthout con- th' . . t b d · I' t' trol of weapons. Ing lS g_01ng _o . e one 1n a rea 1_s 1c

But even disarmament would be somewhat way and In a sigruflcant way to relleve lacking as a total program because it is only the textile industry of the horrors and negative. More effective in changing the inequities of the two-price cotton system. spi~it of this country would be a vigorous On yesterday, in the Washington Eve­positive campaign to solve on the one hand ning star-and I want to compliment our own problems of _unemployment, poor that newspaper for its treatment of the housing, the demorallzation of the slum . . population, and, on the other hand, the ever- news-! read With a gr_eat dea:l of ~?ter­deepening poverty of the underdeveloped est on page A-23 an article entitled Cot­world. We could tackle these challenges by ton Mills Seek Equality in Subsidy." At utilizing our idle productive capacity and the top of that particular article in a the savings from a cut in our $50 billion subheadline I found this to be written: arms budget. . "Congress Due To Act."

If we could find the way to lead in a bold Congress is due to act, and I think movement for worl~ betterment we would Congress is going to have to act As I force the Communist countries to follow . · . suit, just as they had to follow in developing S~ld h~re on _the floor of t~e House In nuclear arms. And competition in aid, .un- dlscussmg this . problem With 11?-Y col­like competition 'in arms, could be accom- leagues, I have mtroduced two pieces of panied by a gradual building of mutual legislation, one to do away with the two­trust. · price cotton system. Someone said that

is not going to be .acted on. I do not know whether it is or not. · I have also introduced legislation to pr~vide an import fee, such as was re­fused us by the . Tari:ff Commission de­cision, which decision has been discussed heretofore . .

What is the condition today? Un­fortunately I must tell you that the con­dition has not only not improved but the prosperity of the textile producing areas of the country, as well as the pro­ducers of synthetics, is being dissipated. There has been a rise in imports; there

. has been .a slump in the use of cotton; there has been a loss of confidence in the people of the Government of this country to do something for the textile industry of the United States. Syn­thetics have· been - affected. Mill after mill has announced either it is going to cut its production or it has changed its operation to include synthetic produc­tion in part, or that in its long-range look at the future it finds it not only necessary but profitable to turn to syn­thetics, thereby reducing costs, to go to the manufacture of synthetics.

I have no quarrel with synthetics. Certainly they have a great and useful place in the textile picture, certainly they are to be commended for the fine American fibers that they have produced and which go into the garments of the finest people in the world, the Amer­ican people. But when we are talking about textiles, we are talking not only

__ about the people who work in the tex­tile mills, management and investors, but we are talkmg about the farmers who are getting ready now to suffer, if they have not al:r.eady su11ered, from the two-price system. -

Mr. WIDTENER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEMPffiLL. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from North Caro­lina, and I want to compliment him on his continued and dedicated interest in these problems.

Mr. WHITENER. I commend the gentleman for again bringing this im­portant problem to the attention of our colleagues, particularly those of our col­leagues who are interested in the welfare of the farmer.

Yesterday afternoon, during a col­loquy here between Members of the House with reference to the course we are taking in our Government, a great deal was said about the budget and its relationship to the welfare of the farm people of the country. What the gen­tleman is saying about the situation of the cotton farmer is accurate. I think it is so accurate that some of the con­tention about the budget and its rela­tionship to the welfare of the farmer may become of less importance as time goes on.

Certainly, we are all interested in pre­serving the economic stability of our agricultural economy, but as the gentle­man from South Carolina has suggested, we may well be entering into an era in which money will not solve the problem of the cotton farmer of this country.

I jo~n the gentleman in saying that the remarks which he and I have made from time to time have not been made

5566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE April 3

for the purpose of criticizing that great segment of the textile industry and its suppliers who are producing and proc­essing synthetic .fibers. Many of the mills in the textile areas can produce textile products out of synthetic fibers and stay in business in the future. The farmer, however, cannot stay in busi­ness unless the textile plants are running cotton on their machines. This, I think, is the thing that so many people are overlooking. The :figures which are available to anyone in the hearings be­fore the Cotton Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture given by experts from the National Cotton Council shows clearly that the per capita use of cotton in America is falling very rapidly. This, to me, is a red flag or should be a red flag to all of us who represent not only textile-producing areas but cotton-producing areas.

The gentleman from South Carolina, in his district, has many splendid cotton farmers. I have in my district the sec­ond largest cotton-producing county in North Carolina. So, it cannot be said that we do not have an abiding interest in the welfare of the farmer.

Now, if the gentleman will permit me to suggest this to him, I believe that it would be well for us to again today, as we did yesterday, discuss this recent sales-for-export program announced by the Secretary of Agriculture.

On yesterday, when I was discussing this matter, I put into the RECORD a very splendid article written by Mr. Bill Workman, a staff reporter for the Kan­napolis, N.C., Independent. A few mo­ments ago I read in the Charlotte, N.C., News of Tuesday, April 2, a splendid article on the same subject Written by Lamar Gunter, staff writer for the Charlotte News, which I ask be made a part of the RECORD at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina?

There was no objection. The article is as follows:

TEXTILE PICTURE DARKENED BY COTTON DUMPING ACTION

(By Lamar Gunter) Textile leaders who had hoped that the

industry was at least moving in the direction of a one-price cotton system, now feel that recent action by the Agriculture Department has brought about a reversal that m ay be disastrous for the industry.

Members of the cotton policy .committee of the American Textile Manufacturers Insti­tute will be in Washington tomorrow to dis­cuss the bleak industry picture which has been further darkened by Agriculture Secre­tary Orville Freeman's action designed to sell Government-owned cotton on a bid basis.

Industry spokesmen have said vehemently 1n private that the secretary's action amounts to dumping American cotton on the world market since the present export of 24 cents a pound is not low enough to sell all the ex­port supplies.

The spokesman said that selling the cotton on a bid basis means it will most certainly go for less than 24 cents a pound and this price is already BY2 cents less than American mn:s can purchase American cotton.

Industry leaders have charged in private since Freeman's action Friday that the Ag­riculture Department has pani.cked, ·but · are reluctant to talk publicly before the Cotton Policy Committee ha~ a chance tomorr-ow to see what c:1n be done about the situation.

One industry leader said that the .State Department would probably be tossed into turmoil since foreign -countries wm protest the action as dumping. He said that Free­man's action looked like another case of poor coordination between Government agencies concerned with the problem and that this situation already has plagued the industry's efforts to obta in a one-price cotton system.

He explained that President Kennedy h ad asked publicly that the inequity of the two-price system be corrected, but that the Agriculture Department had taken the posi­tion that partial solut ions such as equaliza ­tion payments of 5 cents a pound were the solution.

Industry leaders speculate that the depart­ment's latest action wm have the effect of increasing the spread between what the for­eign m111s pay and what American mills pay to 10 or more cents a pound.

The industry has contended all along that it wants nothing more than to achieve Mr. Kennedy's stated objective-elimination of the inequity of the two-price cotton system.

Mr. WHITENER. Now I call to the attention of my friend that this article points out that today, in Washington, the Cotton Policy Committee of the American Textile Manufacturers Insti­tute is meeting to discuss this recent order. This news article says that they are here for the purpose of discussing this new program as it affects the indus­try. Now, in the article it is referred to in this manner:

Members of the Cotton Policy Committee of the American Textile Manufacturers In­stitute will be in Washington tomorrow to discuss the bleak industry picture which has been further darkened by Agriculture Secre­tary Orville Freeman's action designed to sell Government-owned cotton.on a bid ,basis. ,

Madam Speaker, the program an­nounced by the Secretary may be con­strued by some as a dumping operation and many of us are apprehensive that this new program comes about by reason of panic on the part of some in the De­partment of Agriculture. Certainly, we see that what happened with last year's crop has shocked the country with the cost to the Government. As I re­member the :figure, there is $1,079 million being spent in the stabilization program or in the Commodity Credit Corporation program on cotton alone. This would indicate that perhaps one can pardon them for their panic.

I beli-eve all of us who have been faced with this 8.5-cent-per-pound di:iieren­tial which the foreign manufacturer en­joys on the price of his cotton as com­pared to the price paid by American textile people for American cotton, would agree that this new program can bring about a wider differential. If the indus­try people are correct in their prediction that, as a result of this unloading opera­tion, the world price on cotton may fall to such an extent that in order to com­pete on the world market we will have to sell our American cotton at as much as 11 to 12 cents per pound cheaper to the for­eign manufacturer, it would seem to me that rather than solving our problem the Department of Agriculture is taking us down the other side of the hill.

Madam Speaker, this is a serious mat­ter to many, many thousands of people who work in the industry which fur­nishes employment to tpe second largest

number of people in any industry in America.

Madam Speaker, I commend the gen­tleman. I apologize for having taken so much of the gentleman's time. However, this subject is so important to the gentle­man and to his district and to the dis­trict which I am privileg-ed to represent, as well as to the people of America, I feel we cannot overspeak ourselves on the subject.

Mr . HEMPHILL. I want to say to the gentleman that I welcome the gentle­man's colloquy and I want to thank the gentleman for his significant analysis of what is happening and what is going to take place. I also want to tell the gentleman again that I had hoped to be with him on yesterday when he gave the Congress and thus to the Nation signifi­cant :figures on imports, and other sig­nificant statistics in connection with the cotton textile program. I say to the gentleman that I agree with him and I hope he will continue to participate from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, because it is significant, I would like to put into the RECORD an article from the State news­paper of Thursday, March 14, 1963, which is entitled "Two-Price Cotton Program Seen Detriment to Farmers."

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?

There was no objection. The article referred to follows:

Two-PRICE COTTON PROGRAM SEEN DETRIMENT TO FARMERS

NEw ORLEANs.-America•s present two­price cotton system may be more detrimental to farmers than to the textile industry, the president of a major textile chain's cotton buying operation said here at the annual meeting of personnel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's cotton division.

Robe:r;t W. Smith, of Anderson, S.C., presi­dent of Lowenstein Cotton and Storage Corp., pointed out that the Government's two-price policy requires U.S. mills to pay $42.50 more per bale than foreign buyers pay for American-grown cotton.

"It is inconceivable to me that the textile industry will continue to try to operate in the face of such a staggering inequity as two-price cotton," he said. "The end effect, I believe, will not be so much of a question of what the textile industry will do, as what the farmers will do," Mr. Smith added.

Textile mills. Mr. Smith said are "switch­ing to manmade fibers on an increasingly broad basis, and the effect has been dynamic for some of tbe manmade fibers. Rayon has been revived in the past 5 years and is booming along at record levels-and at prices from 8 to 11 cents cheaper than cotton. Nylon h as been similarly revived and is in the midst of a striking boom, with its low­waste characteristic offsetting a slightly higher price. Other manmade fibers are prospering."

On the other hand, he added, cotton's domestic market is deteriorating and its ex-port market is disappearing. ·

"The Commodity Credit Corporation is be­coming more and more the real 'market' for U.S. cotton," he said. "A distressingly large proportion of our crop is going into Govern­ment warehouses, where it is of absolutely no value to anyone. Cotton is good for only one thing, and that ls to be processed into a textile product."

Mr. Smith also called for stricter classing ·-of cotton to conform more closely with the fiber's spinning characteristics. He said in­consistent classing practices affect the price

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 5567 of cotton by failing to reflect spinning values and, also, by varying basic loan values.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yielg further?

Mr. HEMPHILL. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from North Caro­lina.

Mr. WHITENER. I would like to point out to the gentleman th~t o~ l!15t Saturday at Raleigh, N.C., the distin­guished Vice President of this Nation at a meeting with people from all segments of industry from over the State of North Carolina very graciously and generously suggested to the group that they submit to him questions and at this luncheon gathering he would undertake to answer those questions. As we had our meal, the various guests were writing questions. As the Vice President read those ques­tions and answered them very fairly and very frankly, about 80 percent of them I would estimate related to this question of the two-price cotton.

Madam Speaker, the President of the United States has on numerous occasions expressed an understanding of this prob­lem and has expressed the intention of bringing corrective action to it.

I know all of us in the textile area are appreciative of_ those splendid things which have been done both by the Presi­dent and by the Congress.

My apprehension now is that there are those subordinate to the President who have not gotten the message; there are those who are making decisions which they feel are to the best interests of the farmer which in my judgment are going to ruin the cotton farmer. That was the thing that concerned me about this recent decision.

Now we have recently had another decision by the Department of Agricul­ture, and that was to support the price of cotton at the level at which it was supported during the past year, 32.47 cents per pound. This, of course, looks good for the farmer, and I am sure that those who made that decision were con­scientious in trying to make a decision which they thought was in the best in­terests of the farmer. But we know from experience that at that price sup­port level we cannot compete in the for­eign market if we cannot furnish our people in this country American cotton at the same price that we furnish it to the foreigner.

And so this web we are in is one which I think is not understood by some of those who are conscientious about the matter. They are just lacking in under­standing of the net effect of the action which they take. I hope that through the efforts of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. HEMPHILL] and others, in the executive department, in the leg­islative department and in industry at all levels, we can bring some ray of un­derstanding to these people who have authority to make these decisions.

Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina again and assure him that ex­cept for the fact that I had some people from my district to whom I was extend­ing hospitality on yesterday, I would have joined him_ then ..

- Mr. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from the Second District of South Carolina. I welcome him to the battle lines of the textile industry on this vital matter.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend my senior colleague from South Carolina for his continuing effort in behalf of the cotton farmer and the cotton manu­facturer.

Perhaps there are some Members of Congress, as is evidenced by the lack of attendance at this moment, who are not sufficiently aware of the vital im­portance of the textile industry. I want to associate myself with the gentleman from South Carolina in his effort, be­cause I am sure that not only the people of South Carolina, one of the leading textile States, but the people, indeed, of the South and of the Nation are grate­ful to him and to others who have been leading the fight in this particular mat­ter.

I notice the gentleman said just a mo­ment ago that there is a tremendous in­crease in the use or in the development of synthetic products which, indeed, im­pairs the use of cotton fiber. · May I ask the gentleman whether it is his judg­ment that the elimination of the two­price cotton system in accordance with the bill which he has introduced, and which I wholeheartedly support, would make cotton more competitive-that is,

. natural fiber cotton-and would en­courage the mills actually to decrease their research, which they are presently carrying on, in the use of synthetics?

Mr. HEMPHILL. I certainly do. Also I want to say to the gentleman that not only will the consumer be able to get our goods cheaper and the mills keep run­ning in competition, but that we could tum as we are going to have to turn, to the problem of the import of syn­thetics, because this is what we find.

As our mills turn· to synthetics more and more to ·try to compete, the Japa­nese and others turn to synthetics. The imports of synthetics into this country have risen just as the imports of cotton textiles have risen. Correspondingly, there has been a decline in the export of synthetics and a decline in the export of cotton textiles. So it is the picture of a. whole industry. We are concentrat­ing today on the two-price cotton system only because that is the most significant problem which we think can be solved by legislation or could have been solved by the Tariff Commission. This does give us a better chance to keep our mills and our cottons and our synthetics and our combinations running and our people working.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. WATSON. Did I correctly under­

stand ea1:.1ier that instead of there being a reduction in the volume of textile imports from foreign countries there has actually been an increase in the vol-

'ume of imports? Mr. ~IEMPHILL. There has been a.

constant increase not only of cotton im­ports, · but of other textiles, both cotton and sy_nthetic textiles.

Mr. WATSON. I find it difficult to reconcile in my mind where we are going to allow the increase of exports from these various countries, many of them former enemy countries. As a result of the increase in the volume of these cheap imports we are having men in South Carolina and other places ·losing their jobs. I suggest to this House that it is inconceivable to me that those in positions of responsibility do not place equal, if not more importance, on our situation; that many of our textile workers in South Carolina who actually faced the enemy in battle now are threatened with loss of their jobs in the textile industry because this Nation re­fuses to do anything in curtailment of the cheap imports from former enemies such as Japan and other countries. Again I want to underscore my support of the continuing efforts of my distin­guished senior colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. HEMPHILL. I thank the gentle­man.

I might say to the gentleman and to the Congress that someone said to me on one occasion, "Aren't you textile people crying 'Wolf'? Aren't you tex­tile people crying 'Wolf' when the wolf is not at the door?" I wish that were so. I wish that the truth of the matter were that they were not suffering. But I have seen mill after mill go out of business. We have statistics on the bankruptcies. Just recently, in the 28th of March issue of the Charlotte, N.C., Observer, in the "Business World" sec­tion there appeared an article which explains in detail just the kind of prob­lem we are faced with constantly. This article ·is as follows: WHY Is TEXTILE INDUSTRY CRYING WOLF?­

THESE ITEMS MAY EXPLAIN

(By Harry Snook) If anyone still thinks the textile industry

is crying "wolf" without reason over two­price cotton and import competition, here are two items that help translate the fight into terms of dollars and jobs:

Kimberly Yarn Mills, Inc., of Mount Holly, which went into operation in 1960 as one of the most modern in the world, has prov~n less than a success despite special efforts by more than 100 employes.

We learned Wednesday that the mill had been sold to a big textile concern, un­identified as yet, that makes and uses its own yarn in a consumer product enjoying some tariff protection against imports in the domestic market.

President P. J. Baugh, in a letter of grati­tude to employees, explained why the mill was sold.

During the past 2 years, he said, govern­ment-regulated cotton prices had gone up as much as 5 cents per pound, "which repre­sented a weekly cost increase of $5,000 for us."

"Foreign mills, buying U.S. cotton for about o:1.e-fourth less than the price paid by domestic mills, increased shipments into this country to the point that the average sales price of our ya":n has dropped from 66 to 61 cents, and in some cases to 60 cents," Baugh said. "This is a drop of $5,000 to $6,000 per week for our product.

"This decision in the market price of our product plus. the increase of our cotton cost has made us labor under a $10,000 to $11,000 per week differential since 1960," he added. "This is a total of $500,000 to $550,000 .per year."

5568 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE April 3 The other item: An announcement by

Cone Mills o! Greensboro that certain "un­pron table activities" probably will be liquidated this year.

In the annual report for 1962, Cone Mills showed an increase in net sales from $214.4 to $219.7 million, and an increase in earn­ings per share from 73 to 81 cents,

But, said President Ceasar Cone and Chairman Benjamin Cone, elimination of unprofitable operations for the year would have increased earnings 25 percent while reducing sales 25 percent.

Cone Mills is known as a big producer of coarse gr.ay goods, such as denims, which have a high cotton content. The higher the cotton content, the greater the effect of the 8% -cent-a-pound advantage enjoyed by for­eign mills selling in the American market.

The proposed liquidations will be made "as it becomes evident that these particular products will be unable to show a profit un­der the legislation... and governmental policies (particularly in cotton) now in effect," the Cones said.

They decli ned to predict what the liquida­tions would mean in number of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I never like to turn back the clock. I like to look forward. But unless you look back to see where you have been, sometimes you do not have the capacity to see where you are going.

Now, turn back to October of 1960, at which time I was engaged in campaign­ing for the Democratic Party and ac­tively interested in the textile industry.

During that time I found in the Lan­caster News of Lancaster, S.C., of Thursday, October 27, 1960, some signif­icant statements. The first statement that I will refer to is a statement on page 2 which I include in the RECORD at this point under consent previously granted.

The article is as follows: FOREIGN TEXTILES MADE UNDER CONDITIONS

WHICH WoULD BE ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY The 26th annual meeting of the southern

Governors, held last September at Hot Springs, Ark., adopted a resolution asking that quotas be .established promptly by the United States to control imports of textiles, apparel and other products now damaging the domestic economy.

The action of the Governors' conference followed a statem-ent on the effect of imports by W. C. Daniel, vice chairman of the Na­tional Affairs Committee of the American Cotton Manufacturers Institute and assistant to the president of Dan River Mills.

"For our part.'' said Mr. Daniel in the course of his statement, "we are perfectly willing to compete with off-shore manufac­turers on a basis of production efficiency, on quality, durability, style, design or any other criteria of manufacturing and management performance.

"But 1f basic textile fabrics and garments made from these fabrics are imported and sold on the U.S. market only because they are cheaper and cheaper only because they are manufactured under conditions that are illegal in this country, our position is that we are being subjected to unfair treatment under unwise foreign trade policies."

Mr. Daniel cited trends in the textile in­dustry pointing up the need for a drastic revision of U.S. trade policies. These in­cluded:

"The United States is no longer a large net exporter of textiles but a large net im­porter.

"Cotton yarn imports are currently running at an annual rate of about 15 times greater than they did in 1959.

"Wool woven fabric imports also are run­ning at levels far above 1959 and 1958 marks.

"Manmade fiber fabric imports are cur­rently behind the 1959 mark but almost double the 1958 level.

"Cotton cloth imports presently are run­ning at a rate more than double the ~959 figure which was up sharply from 1958.

"And apparel items are coming into this country at a rate estimated at $198.4 .million.

"It is our conclusion that the present struc­ture of U.S. laws, policies, and programs dealing with world commerce is in dire need of being remodeled and brought up to date."

Mr. HEMPHILL. The reason I have referred to the above article is that the two-price cotton system is not the only problem. The fact is that we are allow­ing to be imported into this country cot­ton textiles, synthetic textiles, woolen textiles or other combinations which are made by people whose wages are insig­nificant when compared to our wages and whose wages are totally insufficient to keep an American man, woman, or child alive to say nothing of keeping a family alive.

On the front page of the October 27, 1960, issue of the Lancaster News is an article entitled "Let's Face the Facts: We Need the United States on Our Side." LET'S FACE THE FACTS: WE NEED THE UNITED

STATES ON OUR SIDE Continuing its policy of growth in spite

of unsettled market conditions and a ·cloudy international picture, the Springs Cotton Mills is in. the midst of another $5 million expansion. White Plant's $2 million addi­tion will be completed in January. We hope for a similar addition to follow shortly in Chester.

We have just spent $400,000 for new Rob­erts Arrow spinning frames for White Plant and we are .about to take delivery on 115 Wide Draper XP-2 looms costing in excess of $300,000.

These new buildings and their machinery will mean more jobs and larger payrolls. They should bring more prosperity to the hometowns in which Spring-s plants are located. They will mean more taxes for local, State, and Federal Governments.

These are the benefits of growth. We wlll continue to grow unless the trade conces­sions granted foreign nations by the United States make lt impossible for the Springs organization to earn enough profits to pay its bills.

Much has been said and written on this subject. It is discussed again in this spe­cial issue of the Springs Bulletin because we must plan for improvements in our jobs and in our communities. We are compelled to recognize the dangers of tomorrow and to find some way of meeting them.

Of immediate importance is our national presidential election. On pages 4 and 5 of this section appear the statements and prom­ises of the two candidates on the sub­ject of textile imports as they affect the American textile industry. Take your pick.

In the meantime and without letup after the election, all of us must constantly remind our Senators and Represen ta ti ves in Washington of the perils facing the textile industry from uncontrolled imports. We must use our best efforts to persuade them to actlon.

In the American tradition of free enter­prise, we must be allowed to compete fairly for our share of the textile markets.

The Springs Cotton Mills has grown steadily for more than 60 years. Today we stand at the top o! the industry in quality and efficiency o! operations. We have worked hard as a team to create profits which could be put back into more build­ings, machinery, and jobs.

This reinvestment of profits has built pros­perous .communities and has helped all of

. us. to healthier, happier lives. It has bene­fited South Carolina and, in some measure, the whole United States.

Profits are necessary under a free enter­prise system; they are the muscles of growth. But nothing will take away profits faster than uncontrolled competition with low­wage foreign manufacturers. When our leaders 1n Government forget thls, we are ln trouble.

The Springs Cotton Mills can m~t any challenge from within the industry. But we can't compete with giveaway programs. We can't lick the U.S. Government.

Wha t we need for healthy, competitive operation s is the United States on the side of the American te.xtile industry.

Is it not a terrible thing when people have such a lack of confidence and such a loss of hope that they have to blazen in headlines in a southern paper, in a community where so many people volun­teered that they hardly had any draft call, where tombstones in the graveyards bear the names of heroes from the Revo­lution down to the present day cold war; in a place whose people are de­scendents of the people who formed some of the original colonies; in a place where generation after generation has worked in the textile plants and generation after generation has sent their sons and daughters to war to save this country and to save the industries and homes of the entire countt·y? Is it not a horrify­ing thing that they have to say "We need the United States on our side"? This ar­ticle is written by the president of the Springs Cotton Mills, a plant that em­ploys 15,000 people in my district and which has the best profit sharing sys­tem in the Nation, and which I do not think is second to any, and an industry which has recently built in the garment district of New York a magnificent building as evidence of its hope and its confidence in the America of the future.

The article is as follows, and I include it at this point in the RECORD:

SENATE GROUP RECOMMENDS LIMIT ON TExTILE IMPORTS

The report and recommendations of the Pastore committee to the U.S. Senate in Feb­ruary 1959, represent the most important effort made in the postwar years to save the American textile industry from being sacri­ficed to political expediency.

In their discussion of textile industry problems, both Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon have referred to this report and quoted from the recommendations. The next administration may be guided by it in tariff and trade nego­tiations.

What was the Pastore committee and what, actually, did it recommend?

In an effort to find out what was ailing the American textile industry, the U.S. Senate in 1958 authorized a subcommittee of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce CommtttE:e to make an investigation.

Senator JOHN 0. PASTORE, of Rhode Island, was chairman. Members included Senators ALAN BIBLE, Of Nevada, STROM THUJI.MOND, of South Carolina, WILLIAM PURT-ELL, of Con­necticut, FREDERICK G. PAYNE, Of Maine, and NoRRIS COTTON, of New Hampshire.

More than 200 textilists, union representa­tives, Government officials, and trade experts were called before the committee in a series of hearings lasting from July 8 to December 2, 1958. The committee report was made to the Senate in February 1959.

1963 :CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 5569 The important points of the 16,000-word

report were these: Textile employment in the 10 years from 1947 to 1957 declined from 1,325,000 to 1 million workers, an overall de­cline of 24 percent. In the yarn and thread mills this decline was 34 percent, and in broadwoven fabrics this decline was 30 per­cent. From February 1951 to April 1958, there was a loss of 438,000 textile jobs 1n the United States.

During this same period the average price of cotton cloth, based on 17 constructions, declined 31 percent while the price of raw cotton rose more than one-quarter of a cent per pound.

From 1946 to 1957 exports of cotton cloth declined 29 percent while imports went up 175 percent. Since 1957 this import figure has doubled and redoubled.

Between 1947 and 1958 expenditures for new textile plant and equipment declined from $510 to $252 million, a drop of 50.6 per­cent, creating, in the words of the report, "a serious problem of obsolescence in the textile industry."

This was taking place in an industry which had been ranked second only to steel in terms of military essentiality during World War II.

The effect of the decline in textiles has spread to other sectors of American economy. The cumulative effects are greater than the statistics relating to textile production and employment alone would suggest.

The efficiency of American mills Is not questioned. They can outproduce foreign competitors but they cannot undersell prod­ucts from countries where wages are one-half to one-tenth those paid in American mills.

"It Is our view," said the committee re­port, "that the impact of the decline of textiles upon the domestic economy is a suf­ficient reason for the Congress and the ad­ministration to carefully review all public policies which have contributed to this de­cline ...

The policy which our Government expects to follow has been spelled out in the Trade Agreements Act. But we urge that Govern­ment agencies administering this policy rec­ognize that the problem of declining em­ployment in the domestic textile industry has been aggravated by rising imports and the loss of export markets.

"We recognize that tariff adjustments can­not be used to regulate the flow of textile products into this country. Therefore, we recommend that quotas be established which will permit foreign producers of textile prod­ucts to sell in our markets within limits which will not further endanger our existing textile capacity."

Other recommendations included inter­agency and watchdog committees to keep close check on textile affairs; improved re­ports and statistical data; a study of world textile capacity; more realistic interpreta­tion of peril-point provisions of tariff and trade agreements; an expanded research pro­gram for the textile industry; more realistic depreciation of textile machinery for tax purposes; and the elimination of the two­price cotton subsidy program.

In that particular issue, they gave cer­tain tariff facts and figures which caused them to say that, and I want to quote them:

(1) Since 1934 American tariffs have been reduced 75 percent.

(2) U.S. tariffs average 5 percent. (3) Average British tariffs are six times

those of the United States. (4) The United States admits more than

50 percent of all imports duty free. ( 5) Among the 36 leading trading na­

tions of the world, 28 have higher tariffs than the United States.

(6) On the basis of the first 6 months, value of Japanese imports admitted into the United States in 1960 woUld exceed $1 billion.

CIX--351

(7.) The U.S. ta;rilf on ·foreign cars sold in this country is only 8Y2 percent.

(8) The British tariff on American cars admitted to this country is SO percent.

(9) Approximately 75 percent of all watches sold in the United States are im­ported.

(10) Average hourly wages in manufac­tures in the United States exceed average hourly European wages by 400 percent.

If we are going to compete and we must compete if we are going to survive, then either the Congress or the Execu­tive is going to have to give some relief.

I want to include at this point th3 statements by the leading candidates for the President of the United States, at that time Senator Kennedy and then Vice President Nixon. These articles show that this is not a partisan problem. They show that this is a national prob­lem.

The articles are as follows: TEXTILE IMPORTS SHOULD BE LIMITED, SAYS

SENATOR KENNEDY CoLUMBIA.-In a letter to Gov. Ernest F.

Hollings, of South Carolina, on August 31, 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy, the presi­dential nominee of the Democratic Party, recognized the danger of foreign imports to the American textile and apparel industries.

"Imports of textile products, including ap­parel," he wrote, "should be held within limits which will not endanger our own existing textile capacity and employment and which will permit the growth of the industry in reasonable relationship to the expansion of our overall economy.

"There are now 400,000 less jobs in the industry than there were 10 years ago," he continued. "It is no longer possible to de­pend on makeshift policies and piecemeal remedies to solve the problems which the industry faces."

The presidential nominee pointed out that he had supported the Pastore Special Senate Subcommittee for the Textile Industry and felt the report of this group outlined a remedy for the ills of the industry.

"The Office of the Presidency carries with it the authority and the influence to explore and work out solutions within the frame­work of our foreign trade policies for the problems peculiar to our textile and apparel industry. Because of the broad ramifications of any action and because of the necessity of approaching a solution in terms of the total needs of the textile industry, this is a responsibility which only the President can adequately discharge.

"I can assure you that the next Demo­cratic administration will regard this as a high priority objective.

"Additionally, we shall make vigorous use of the procedures provided by Congress, such as section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the escape clause in accordance with the intention of Congress in enacting these laws.

"Lastly, I assure you that should further authority be necessary to enable the Presi­dent to carry out these objectives, I shall request such authorization from Congress."

AMERICAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY NOT EXPENDABLE, SAYS NIXON

CHARLOTTE.-Vice President Richard M. Nixon conferred with a group of American textile leaders in this city on October 3, 1960, and told them unrestricted imports of textile products into this country had ere- . ated a situation requiring "high priority attention" in Washington.

The nominee of the Republican Party for the Presidency said, "This pressure from competing textile industries in countries where wage scales and other economic stand­ards are far below ours is a matter of con-

cern, not only to an important industry, but to the health of our economy as a whole."

The Vice President pointed out that Amer­ica was the world's largest exporter and im­porter and must have strong trade relations with the rest of the free world.

"But I emphatically do not believe," he continued, "that this national trade policy means marking certain industries, such as the textile and garment industries, as ex­pendable. It doesn't make sense to me to require one or a few industries to bear the whole burden that foreign policy decisions may require. Nor does it make sense to me that an industry like cotton textiles bear an inequitable burden as a result of efforts to adjust wartime agricultural policies to peacetime needs.

"To the end of assisting the textile and garment industries and their workers to meet the problems ahead, I am determined to explore every constructive line of action.

"I strongly support the platform of my party which calls for 'effective administra­tion' of the escape clause and the peril point provisions of our trade legislation 'to safe­guard American jobs and domestic industries against serious injury.'

"I favor more vigorous and imaginative efforts through diplomatic channels to make greater and more effective use of voluntary limitation of shipments by other countries whose penetration of the American market is proceeding at a pace which threatens the orderly development of those markets by domestic producers.

"I regard the plight of these industries as a special situation requiring high priority attention," he concluded.

We have had some discouraging days in our effort to do away with the two­price cotton system, and the industry has reflected that. I include here an arti­cle-with which I do not agree-from the Textile Reporter of March 17, 1963, saying it is time for the textile industry to abandon its efforts in behalf of a one­price cotton system. I do not believe that, for some of us will still be on the frontlines struggling for many months, and if we do no more than sound our voices to let the world know our problem, certainly we will at ·least keep the coun­try aware of what is happening to our textile industry.

The article referred to follows: It's time for the textile industry to aban­

don its efforts in behalf of a "one-price cotton" bill and to concentrate instead on legislation imposing an "equalization fee" on cotton textile imports.

Even among those who believe that "one­price cotton" legislation is the salvation of the industry, it should be obvious by now that the administration has no intention of meeting demands for an 8.5-cent-a-pound subsidy. It should be equally clear it sees no need to compromise above its 5-cent-a­pound offer.

At the risk of being wrong, we interpret House Agriculture Committee Chairman HAROLD CooLEY's, Democrat, of North Caro­lina, statement that he is pessimistic about prospects for new cotton legislation this year as meaning there will be no "one-price cotton" legislation this session.

After discussing the cotton situation with Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman for 2 hours, Mr. CooLEY told newsmen: "At the moment, it looks as if there will be no cotton legislation at this session.''

The North Carolina Democrat said the cotton industry and the Kennedy adminis­tration are as far ·apart as ever on the size of the payment the Government should offer to make cotton available to domestic mills as cheaply as foreign mills are able to buy it. He said the administration refuses to

5570 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD- ·HOUSE April 3

offer a payment of more than 5 cents a pound. The cotton industry, he said, in• sists on 8.5 cents a pound.

Obviously, the North Carolina Democrat did. not say there is absolutely no hope for a compromise this session. He qualified his "pessimism" with the phrase, "at this mo­ment."

But we believe it is time for the industry to abandon its "hopes" and face the political reality that there is no compromise. Any­thing less than a full 8.5-cent-a-pound sub­sidy would be cheating American mills. It matters not that foreign buyers must pay shipping and other additional charges. American mllls should have the right to buy American cotton at the same price as for­eign competitors. On a free market, this would be accepted as a "fact of life."

But cotton is a political rather than a free market, and this should be accepted as a fact of life. As a politica~ commodity, its value must be judged in political terms. Right now, it has very little political worth.

Last year, when the President's Trade Ex­pansion Act was pending in Congress, cotton had political value. Then, the two-price cotton problem was being studied by the Tariff Commission and hopes were high that it would recommend an import fee to offset the raw cotton export subsidy. But when it was clear the bill would pass anyway, the Commission vetoed the appeal for help.

It would be a simple thing to criticize the Commission for its decision. But the basic fault lies with the law which it is asked to enforce. A clear fiiscrimination against Americans, such as exist under the two­price cotton system, should easily be rem­edied under whatever trade law-liberal or protectionist--is in force.

Aside from complete elimination of the cotton price support program, which obvi­ously is impractical or, at least, impolitical, the only right solution to the two-price cotton problem is an import fee which would require foreign manufacturers to compete fairly in the U.S. market. This, at a mini­mum, would have the virtue of equalizing the cotton costs of all competitors.

It wm be argued forcefully that an equal­ization fee bill has little chance of passing Congress. Undoubtedly, it would be a strug­gle to get such a bill past the many liberal trade hurdles in the House and the Senate. But would it be any more d111lcult than en­acting the two-price cotton blll which so far is stuck on dead-center in the House?

The price of a political commodity is political coin. In this case, it is a demand by the industry for redemption of the pledge made early in the Kennedy administration for elimlnation of the two-price cotton bur­den. If it cannot be redeemed by a subsidy, there should be no objection to a money­raising tariff increase.

However, it would be a fatal mistake to use this as a strategy ploy to win the 8.5 cents subsidy. Even if offered as a compromise, the industry should insist on the equaliza­tion fee. Actually, the offsetting fee is the only equitable solution to the problem since it would affect all mar..ufacturers-domestic and foreign-alike.

I have previously included in remarks made here the first of a three-part arti­cle in the Textile Reporter entitled "Cotton Textiles-A Square Industry in a Round Economy?". I do not believe that to be the fact, but I believe that the advocates of any interest should be fair and present all sides of an issue. There­fore I include part 2 and part 3 of this article in my remarks: COTTON TEXTILEs--A SQUARE INDUSTRY IN A

ROUND ECONOMY?

(This is pt. 2 of a three-part article by Peter M. Strang. The first part appeared in

last week's issue of the Reporter, Feb. 28, 1963.)

LESSONS FROM WORLD WAR II

When the United States entered World War ll the Norden bombsight, developed by the Navy, · was this country's most cherished secret weapon and its production in quan­tities of great national concern. The orig­inal bombsights were equipped with ball bearings from an American subsidiary whose parent company in a neutral nation also had factories in Germany. As some of the bear­ings for this delicate mechanism were of in­tricate design, the Navy was disturbed to find that the parent company required cop­ies of the drawings and specifications of all special bearings made by a subsidiary to be filed in the home office. (Ultimately a member of the War Production Board was appointed managing trustee of the Ameri­can branch which thus became an independ­ent bearing producer for the duration of the war.)

Under a high priority rating the Navy then organized its own bombsight bearing facility, the Barden Corp., to reduce the possibility of espionage and to assure a constant sup­ply. The Nation's large bearing manufac­turers hesitated to tie up equipment for the extended time necessary to obtain the preci­sion required in the sight. At that time Danbury, Conn., was a depressed industrial area. This town, the center for hatmaking, was in the doldrums, because many men in civllian life had begun to go hatless and many others had entered the Armed Services. Since the War Production Board had re­stricted new factory construction, the Bar­den Corp., converted a hatband factory into a precision ball-bearing facllity. Before pro­duction could commence, unskilled workers were trained at Government expense to staff this company which within 18 months was supplying the major part of the specialty bearings for the sight.

The Barden Corp. has continued in busi­ness since the war but a recent article in the New York Times magazine (May 27, 1962) shows that the officials of this company and the citizens of Danbury are worried about the future for the same reasons that plague the textile industry. If the GATT agree­ments should cause the demise of the Bar­den Corp., as it has already caused the liqui­dation of several cotton mills, for what trade are the displaced workers to be trained? It would be just as ridiculous to teach dis­placed Barden workers to become spinners and weavers as it would be to teach displaced textile workers in a mill town how to make precision ball bearings or to become hatters. However, as a practical matter this Nation needs factories which manufacture precision ball bearings as well as mills which protmce cotton textiles.

Programs relating to the production and supply of ball bearings revealed both posi­tive and negative results when appraised after the war. Some findings are mentioned which may have significance today. The Navy and the War Production Board, ap­proaching their problem in a businesslike manner, had successfully established a new industry in a depressed area of the country, an industry which became an asset to the community after the war. An attempt to curtail the supply of ball-bearings to the Nazis by the preemptive purchase of the pro­duction of companies in neutral countries, although good in theory, was unsuccessful. These foreign manufacturers proved more interested in making money than in aiding the allied cause and extended their plant capacity sufiiciently to supply both contest­ants. The mass bombing attacks upon enemy ball bearing factories were discovered to have been far less destructive than had been estimated. It was found that men and machines were unable to function in combat with the precision demanded by statistical theory.

ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

These findings warrant careful study to­day because statistics are termed the "life­blood" of economics and economists appear to hold influence in the Government. Be­cause young men have· made great advances in the physical sciences by means of modern mathematics and rigorous statistical anal­yses, others in the same age group assume they can achieve similar advances in a social science by using the same techniques. For­gotten are the vast differences between the two types of science; namely, that the phys­ical sciences deal with inanimate objects and forces whereas the social sciences deal with living people.

On the one hand, the statistics used in the physical sciences are accumulated f rom observations or measurements made under controlled conditions upon material objects which are without life and behave accord­ingly. On the other hand, the statistics available to economists summarize accom­plishments or conditions involving the be­liefs, surroundings, and actions of people at a time in the past. Since living people can, may, and do change their minds, alter their su.roundings, and modify their customs, un­measurable factors are always present which cast doubts upon the value of rigorous statistical analyses of these data. Bias be­tween scientists who perform similar ex­periments on similar apparatus may be de­termined f rom statistical comparisons of their data but no valid judgment of this type may be made about economists who may draw differing conclusions by mathe­matically juggling the same data.

Statistics is a science of more recent origin than economics, and statistical mechanics has become a valuable tool for physical scientists and engineers. However, statis­ticians who have applied their techniques indiscriminately to forecast the outcome of questions dealing with the public have rec­ords for being wrong which equal those of economists. No man over 40 will ever forget the Literary Digest's prediction of the elec­tion of Landon to the Presidency in 1936 or the defeat fo:::-ecast by pollsters for Tru­man when he ran against Dewey in 1948. Consequently, when young economists and young statisticians join forces to solve the Nation's llls, older conservatives have forebodings.

MEASURING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

Gross national product, national income, and economic growth are concepts which have been developed to indicate the status of the Nation's economy by economists and statisticians through the clever adaptation of accounting and double entry bookkeeping to the country's overall business and have become fetishes which politicians and com­mentators discuss glibly in diagnosing the ailments of business and in prescribing rem­edies for its improvement. Gross national product, by definition,t represents the value of all goods and services produced in the Nation in a year. National income repre­sents the amounts which pass through the hands of the Government, business firms, and individuals after deductions have been made for such items as deficits, indirect taxes, depreciation, etc. To eliminate fluc­tuations in the value of the dollar, the De­partment of Commerce now presents the gross national product and national income in "current dollars" and in "constant 1954 dollars." Economic growth is considered as the yearly increase in gross national product and is frequently expressed as a percentage of the gross national product for the pre­ceding year. Economic growth is a mystical agglomerate which supposedly includes the development of new industries, technolog­ical improvements in manufacture, new products, added production required to meet

1 "Statistical Abstract of the United States-1962," p. 310.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 5571 the demands of the growing population, the value of more and better services, etc . .

In theory the gross national product and the national income are obtained by . pro­cedures which parallel those of large corpo­rations in making annual statements. How­ever, corporate statements are audited and cost accounting systems afford many cross­checks. Auditing and cross-checking are not possible in compiling the gross national product or national income because of the magnitude of the task and because in addi­tion to the Government. unrelated inde­pendent sources furnish data. The data from each independent source have been col­lected to meet the needs of a specific group. It is evident that the current indicators of national economy have limitations.

Kuznets,2 one of the pioneers in national accounting, realized the limitations by stat­ing:

"The treatment of margins of error is most difficult for the national income and product statistics. The totals are the composite of a great variety of data, which differ in reli­ability from sector to sector of the economy, and within any one sector from year to year. The margin of error in the composite totals is thus an amalgam of errors in the parts whose magnitude is not easily determined."

Realization that there are numerous un­determined errors of statistical nature in the basic compilation creates suspicion as to the validity of the concept that an annual 2.5 percent increase in the gross national product signifies economic growth. While a statistical error plus or minus 2.5 percent would not be large in this huge computation, such an error if negative could nullify the desired growth or if positive could indicate excessive growth especially since the statisti­cal error may vary from year to year.

There are other factors which make a . small annual percentage increase in the gross national product a dubious measure of economic growth. In official reports · the classification, . "services," has comprised about one-fourth of the gross national product in "current dollars'' and about one­third in "consent 1954 dollars" for the last decade. Receipts from "barbershops" con­stitute a small part of total "services." Estimates indicate that haircutting for men produces around 90 percent of the income of barbers. Today in Boston, the same barber, using the same tools with the same skill in the same length of time-approxi­mately 15 minutes-receives $2 for cutting a man's hair, a service which cost 50 cents in 1940. A tabulation shows how the price changes for this service have been included in the gross national product in both "cur­rent and constant dollars" and also what the price would have been to accord with Con­sumer Price Index of the Department of Labor.

TABLE !.-Relationship of cost of a man's haircu:t in Boston to the GNP and to the cost of living

Year

194.D ______ _____ _

1947------ -- -- - -1948_ ---- ---- ---1950_- ----------1952_- ----------1955_--- - - - - -- - -1959_ -----------1962_- ----------

Price 1 (current dollars)

$0.50 .85

1.00 1.15 1. 25 1. 50 1. 75 2.00

Price (constant

1954 dollars)

$1.02 1.02 1.13 1.29 1.28 1.49 1. 97

1940 price 2 (adjusted to cost of living

in current dollars)

$0.50 .80 .86 .86 .95 .95

1.04 1.07

'Price data furnished by E. Moscsrdelli, proprietor, Parker House Barber Shop, Boston, Mass. ·

2 Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Indexes.

:: Kuznets, S., "National Income, a New Version,'' The Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1948, p. 176.

Since there has been · no change in tech­nology or in output per man-hour it is dif­ficult to rationalize that quadrupling the price of a haircut has aided the Nation's economic growth although each increase has added to the gross national product. Due to the present high price fewer cus­tomers have a weekly haircut and in addi­tion do-it-yourself kits used at home have greatly reduced the patronage, especially of chlldren. In spite of the exploding popula­tion business has dwindled. Of course high­er rents, more expensive supplies, higher wages, shorter working hours, and difficulty in obtaining help have made increases in price inevitable, but there seems to be a large amount of inflation included in the present price. This industry is in the pre­carious position of gradually pricing itself out of business. As wages and fringe bene­fits rise at regular intervals to keep abreast of those in other trades, prices must con­tinue to rise. As prices increase, business will decrease further, and simultaneously in­novators will find it profitable to produce better do-it-yourself kits.

Since "services" measured in "constant dollars," were 23.2 percent of the gross na­tional product in 1955 and 26.8 percent in 1961, the question arises. "Does similar in­flation exist in other trades and profes­sions?" It is evident that the trend for annual price or wage increases in the service industries may add to the gross national products although no technological change or improvement in quality may have oc­curred in a service.

The gross national product can grow in other devious ways. The Federal Govern­ment is able to add $500 million to the gross national product merely by raising the salary of each of its employees $200 a year. A re­cent congressional investigation exposed conspiracy and corruption in the Federal aid highway program. Parcels of land on a new right-of-way rocketed in value through ficti­tious appraisals and members of the com­mittee stated that irregularities in land taking did not scratch the surface of the total fraud and dishonesty. This program operates with an annual budget of $3,500 million so that if its costs have been inflated only 10 percent, through fraudulent manip­ulation, the gross national product will con­tain an unwarranted increment of $350 mil­lion. Inefficient, spendthrift government is encouraged if economic growth iP. to be gained merely because higher salaries and greater costs in Federal, State, and local gov­ernments have increased the gross national product.

According to old-fashioned ideas, economic growth may take place without adding to the gross national product. Manufacturers and engineers believe they strengthen the Na­tion's economy when they make a better product to sell profitably at the same or lower price. The attempts of the railroads to eliminate featherbedding practices exem­plifies this point. Although better service should accrue to the public at no increase in price and the financial status of the roads should improve, the gross national product Will decrease by an amount equal to the sal­aries and wages of the superfluous employees.

Since national accounting theoretically copies the procedures of huge corporations, it may be advantageous to apply other cor­porate practices to national accounting. Corporations use accounting to weed out in­efficient branches, to find unprofitable prod­ucts, and to determine policies which will best serve the interests of the whole orga­nization. Therefore it should be possible for the Government to weigh its policies and the relative merits of industries by means of national accounting.

To 1llustrate this possibility, national in­come statements are given for "Cotton manufacturers and oottongrowers for the year 1959" in table 2. Admittedly there were

difficulties in obtaining suitable data for this rough-comparison which has been made from statistics gleaned from various Gov­ernment publications and in some cases ad­justed on a reasonable but arbitrary basis. However, it is doubtful that more precise data would materially alter the situation depicted.

TABLE 2.-NationaZ income statement for cotton manufacturers and cotton growers, 1959

(Showing value of product with deductions for direct subsidies)

[In millions] Cotton manufacturers:

Value of product 1--------------- $4,406

Total value ________________ 4,406

Less direct subsidies: Export payments made on cotton

grown and processed in the United States _______________ _

Total of subsidies listed ___ _

Net gain to Nation__________ 4, 405

Cotton growers: Value of cotton __________________ 2,120 Value of cottonseed______________ 222

Total value ________________ 2,842

Less direct subsidies: Price support CCC loss_________ 169 Export 7.39 m1llion bales at 6

cents per pound-------------- 222 Conservation •------------------ 43 Rural electrifications___________ 28 Marketing service and research a_ 4

Total of subsidies listed______ 466

Net gain to Nation___________ 1, 876 1 Estimated from 1958 Census of Manu-

facture. ·· 2 Estimated 1959 Censu~ of Agriculture

which showed cotton growerS; to be 13.5 per­cent of all farmers.

Indications are that policies of the Gov­ernment threaten the existence of cotton manufacturing, which added $4,406 million to the economy in 1959 at a cost of $1 million in direct subsidies, in order to salvage another industry, cotton growing, which added $2,342 mill1on to the economy at a cost of $466 mil­lion in direct subsidies. Each group also has an indirect subsidy from tariff protec­tion and although that of the manufacturers may be the greater, allowances for tariffs will not radically change the relationship shown. Paradoxically without the manufacturers, the Nation would have had to find new consum­ers for $1,358 m1llion worth of cotton or would have had to increase the subsidy to growers by that amount for them to have received the same income. The combined output of the manufacturers and the growers is a very small part of a 520,000 million gross national product, but when the present un­employment rolls may be increased by 343,-000 directly employed plus many others in­directly employed by cotton manufacturers, the problem warrants national attention.

All manufacturers, including cotton man­ufacturers, in the United States contribute 30 percent of the gross national product, em­ploy 16 million workers, and are supervised by the Department of Commerce which op­erates with an annual budget of $511 million and a staff of 32,224; whereas the agricultural interests contribute only 4 percent of the gross national product, furnish employment to about 5, million, including both owners and hired men, and are supervised by the Department of Agriculture which operates with an annual budget of $5,739 million and

'5572 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE April 3 a staff of 97,920. Would a successful cor­poration allow policies to continue which create such disparities?

Textile men engaged in research and de­velopment soon find that rarely are they able tO organiZe a test to completely satisfy the requirements of a theoretical statisti­cian. They also learn that judgment tem­pered by textile experience is of great im­portance in drawing conclusions even when elaborate statistical analyses are available.

Without doubt limitations in the use of statistics have been found in other indus­tries. A practical background gained in this manner makes men skeptical when they see mathematics and statistics applied willy­niUy to economic problems and places them in complete agreement with the statement of John Kenneth Galbraith,3 U.S. Ambassa­dor to India and an economist with inter­national repute.

"The recent discussion of development has also differed from the earlier in being re­markably more sophisticated. We now have growth models-hypotheses as to the na­ture of economic growth-some of consider­able mathematical refinement and a few that are wholly incomprehensible. • • • Yet it would be a mistake to identify com­plexity with completeness and sophistication with wisdom. There are some serious short­comings in the modern discussion."

Due to the advances in mathematics and the ease with which modern machines make complicated computations, there seems to be a vogue of constructing models to demon­strate economic growth. A model may con­sist of a group of equations which depict development according to the hypotheses and assumptions of the builders. Nevertheless there have been no radical changes in the characteristics of the human race, which is the main component in all social sciences, in spite of the great advances in the physi-cal sciences. ·

·In a recent text, W. J. Baumol,4 a professor of economics at Princeton, points. out the difficulties and shortcomings of model build-ing. .

"Any situation in the business world is compounded of a be_wilderilig variety of ma­jor and minor elements, and unless, impor­tant features are erased, rigorous analysis becomes hopelessly complicated or impos­sible. The decision to omit an element from a model must therefore be a matter of bal­ancing off the loss of realism against the gain in reduced computation difficulty. · In any event, the model builder must be aware that what is left out is often as important as what is put in. Moreover, he must re­member that there is no magic in mathe­matics. The results of the mathematical computations cannot be expected to be any better than the model on which they are based.

"He should therefore never allow himself to be misled by the aura of mathematical rigor which surrounds the calculations of operations analysis."

NEW CONCEPTS ARE NEEDED When ranking economists question cur­

rent discussions of development and indicate limitations both in the construction of math­ematical models and in the interpretation of the calculations derived from models, the Nation should begin to examine economic growth with wider perspective from several different angles. Just as the democracies, during World War I, reaffirmed Talleyrand's opinion, "War is too serious a thing to be left to military men," they may discover to­day that economic development is too seri-

8 Gailbraith, J. K., "Economic Develop­ment," Harvard University Press, 1962, pp. 2, 3.

4 Baumol, W. J., "Economic Theory and Operations Analysis," Prentice Hall, Inc., 1961, p. 413.

· ous a thing to be left to ·economists and statisticians. Just as nations have had to broaden their concepts of war to include studies of their own capabilities and limita­tions in planning campaigns with the small­est expenditure of men and material, this Nation must attack the problem of economic growth with practical as well as theoretical concepts. Some ideas about development which have popular acceptance m ay have to be revised to accord with facts. Ingredi­ents for growth can be observed from the prodigious development of the United States in the past while factors now can be seen which hamper growth.

This country has been developed by men with pioneering traits who had the will to work and who gained satisfaction in their abillty to produce tangible objects for the benefit of themselves and their communi­ties. Personal aggrandizement and secu­rity were not the prime motivating influ­ences for men such as Bell, the Wright brothers, Edison, Henry Ford, and many others who have made major contributions to this NE.~ion's growth.

When economic growth is measured as the yearly increment of the gross national product, the need for a will to work is com­pletely overlooked. The phenomenal in­crease in the gross national product of West Germany in spite of its devastation during World War II has received no explanation which meets general acceptance among the­orists. Other countries obtained as much aid as Germany under the Marshall plan without achieving equal progress. Accord­ing to one explanation, which seems very reasonable, the Germans possessed little of value after the war except the will to work and consequently they made full use of each assistance dollar. Evidently the will to work to produce things of value to the . community, things in which the workers and the community take pride, is an im­por_tant ingredient of growth.

COTTON TEXTILES-A SQUARE INDUSTRY IN A' ROUND ECONOMY?

(This is the third and final part of a three­part article by Peter M. Strang. The first part appeared in the February 28 issue, and the second part was published last week, March 7. Reprints are available upon re­quest.)

BACKWASH FROM GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING The large annual expenditures for defense

and space projects may be partially respon­sible for the constant demand for higher wages throughout the country. In matters of defense the Government is the sole pur­chaser and developer of new weapons and there are no market criteria by which to gage production costs. Similar conditions ·exist for the space program.

A Senate Investigating Committee 1 found that strikes had been arranged to delay the progress of missile installations so that over­time at double and even triple rates became necessary. In one instance an apprentice electrician was paid $748 for a week's work which consisted of 4 hours straight time and 80 hours overtime. Even though competition may impose restrictions upon the amount ·which can be paid for their work, experienced mechanics in other trades quite naturally conclude that they are being underpaid when they hear that an apprentice has drawn these wages on a Government contract.

Most workers in the United States have the will to work but many are having this _will blunted partly from faulty indoctrina­tion and partly from the belief that annual wage increases and additional fringe bene­fits should be gained with~ut compensating improvements in the quantity or quality of

1 Mc.CLELLAN, Senator J. L., "Crime Without Punishment," Duell, Sloan, and Pierce, 1961, p. 261.

· their own production or the need to keep manufacturing costs at a competitive level. Of course higher wages each year wlll add

· to the gross national product as long as the volume of production does not decrease.

Government spending is causing a like · situation to develop among the Nation's scientists and engineers. Contractors en­gaged in defense and space projects, in their quest for qualified men, offer enticing in­ducements. As a result, commonplace man­ufacturers must increase their costs by giving higher salaries and other benefits to retain employees in these categories.

These conditions have side effects which hamper growth. When wage rates increase at regular intervals without a corresponding increment in either the quantity or quality of production, costs reach the point at which manufacturers are compelled to reduce their payrolls in order to remain in business. Automation is their one solution. The cre­ative efforts of these manufacturers and their suppliers are then concentrated on the de'vel­opment of laborsaving machines.

Dr. James Killian, chairman of the Cor­poration of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that between 60 and 70 percent of the Nation's scientists and engineers are engaged directly or indirectly on Government projects. Many of the re­maining 30 to 40 percent must be striving to reduce manufacturing costs by means of labor-saving devices. Although automation does create some new jobs, the overall em­ployment opportunities will never meet the needs of an exploding population if indus­tries, in order to survive, are forced to de­vote their research and development activi­ties to labor-saving devices rather than to new processes and new produ~ts. While new processes and new products may lead to ex­panded trade both at home and abroad, the chief market for labor-saving machines will be in the United States. Wpen wage rates and fringe benefits are about 40 percent of those in this country, a forei(ln manufac­turer has lesS incentive to adopt automa­tion, and labor-saving machines would require a much longer time to pay for themselves. In addition foreign producers may be able to lower their costs without automation merely by adopting other Amer­ican management techniques.

It should be emphasized that, when the termination of a defense or space project frees engineers and scientists for other re­search, these men may have to spend several years acquiring knowledge and experi~nce in an unfamiliar industry before they can contribute much toward its advancement. They may find that industrial research de­mands less specialization and greater ap­plication of cross field engineering . than in their previous assignments. Futher com­plications also arise when American con­cerns parcel research abroad because of the growing costs and ·the scarcity of qualified men here.

INGREDIENTS FOR GROWTH Study of economic growth in the United

States during the last century reveals that industries such as the telephone, automotive, aviation, radio, and television, to mention a few, grew gradually and in the course of time gave employment to more and more people. These industries did not materialize over­night but took from 10 to 20 years to reach maturity. They usually germinated from the efforts of one man or a small group of men , original thinkers with creative minds, in whom an urge to explore the unknown and to produce something of value for the com­munity, kindled persistent, unfiinching drudgery to complete a self-assigned task in ·spite of difficulties and discouragements. They were dedicated industrial pioneers who would risk everything-even thelr lives-to attain their goal. The acquisition of wealth was not their chief objective in life, but, be­ing human, they fully appreciated the ad van-

1963 <::ONGRESSIONAL- RECORD---. HOUSE 5573 tages that money could ; provid~. These innov~tors often lacked resources and teamed up with other adventUrous . spirits who were pioneers with capital. Frequently the man who furnished the money :tor. a project also supplied the business ·acumen to carry the . enterprise. to a profitable ~onclusion. ,

The entrepreneurs who sparked the early progress of this country possessed charac­teristics and training rarely found in a single person. Original thinkers with creative minds, they were courageous, independent, diligent craftsmen often with attributes of the virtuoso. They had little patience with bluffers, pettyfoggers, or offic_iousness. An incident in the career of the electrical wizard Steinmetz is typical.

When a newiy appointed official .pre­emptorily issued a "No smoking or else" order, Steinmetz reportedly picked up his hat and went home with the comment, "No cigar, no Steinmetz." Needless to say the order was changed with alacrity. The men with capital who financed the new venture's also had unusual characteristics. They had the vision to see great opportunities rn a nebu­lous mist and they had the courage to risk funds, for which they could have received a ·regular income from a safe investment, for the dual purpose of producing something new of value to the community and of gain­ing a sizable profit at a future date. The risk involved may be judged from the state­ment of an elderly financial pioneer in the 1920's to the effect that only 4 percent of the good projects he had handled were very successful. It must be admitted that there were times when the capitalist took every­thing and froze · out the inventor.

Do conditions in the United States foster the characteristics found in the older indus­trial pioneers? Educators teach children the blessings of adaptability and conformity. In business many ~odern managers lay empha­sis on these traits in making promotions. Labor unions keep their members in turmoil with demands for annual increases in wage rates and · fringe benefits without considera­tion of production costs. To many in all walks of life, security and the acquisition of a "fast buck" appear primary goals.

Sir Oliver Franks,2 when retiring from Lloyd's Bank in 1961, made this challenging observation:

"Distributive justice is a vital part of social morality. But to ensure the life of the community it is equally important to recog­nize that world trade is not a handicap event: in export markets, payment is strictly by results.

"When we separate ethics from economics and desire to do the decent thing without at the same time thinking what is the efficient thing, this produces static policies designed to impede change when only by change and adaptation can we hope to live. There has been too general an acceptance of the idea that the economic system exists to produce jobs rather than goods."

GROWTH FACTORS

A reappraisal of the factors necessary for growth is imperative. What advantage will be gained by cotton manufacturers in mod­ernizing their buildings and machinery even with the aid of larger depreciation allow­ances, when foreign competitors can acquire equal facilities to produce the same goods at wage rates less than 50 percent of those in the United States and from cotton 25-percent cheaper in price?

However new construction at a fairly con­stant rate is essential to maintain the build­ing trades and the suppliers of construction materials at full employment. New con­s~ruction adds to the gross national product and every project creates jobs. In each case the number of jobs and_ their dur?-tion de-

2 Franks, Sir Oliver, "Lloyd's Bank, Ltd., 1961 Report and Accounts." p. 16.

pend upon the size of the project and the required completion date. Again there .is the .old bugaboo of costs. · The adage, attx:ibuted tO Henry Ford, "Buiidirlgs alone do not _make .nioney:'' is applicabl~ today. The manufac­·turers and the 'producers of serv.ices, who oc­·cupy the buildings, furnish the jobs which are permanent. When an old concern builds a new plant, the move is usually made to re­duce costs by streamlining operations, by eliminating excess labor, and by lowering up­keep charges.

In new buildings high construction costs mean high rents so that new enterprises, which have to watch every penny closely, are apt to locate in older low-rent buildings. Because of the high wage rates in the build­ing trades, many home owners are making their own home improvements and repairs, thus drying up a secondary source of jobs for construction workers. If the Nation should start a crash program to ·build fall­out shelters, unemployment would decrease, especially in the building trades, and the gross national product would grow btit upon completion of the program, unemployment would increase with a vengeance and few new permanent jobs would have been created. Those interested in the economy of the fu­ture could profitably study the experience of the textile industry in the 1930's when the operating time was restricted by the NRA in order to give jobs .to more workers.

Research is often considered to be the salvation of the Nation. Although huge ex­penditures for defense are necessary and it may be imperative to be the first to land on the moon, the priorities assigned to these programs already are affecting this country's present and future research. Not only have research costs climbed because of competi­tion for _personnel and facilities but many engaged in the profession appear to have lost their perspective. With the Govern­ment· footing the bills, costs are forgotten. As a result contact with reality is lost. In industry projects must be selected with care, having in mind the costs, the money available, ·the · men and facilities re­quired, and the prospects of ultimate suc­cess. The· prevalent idea that anyone with an advanced degree is qualified for research should be modified. · Just as medical men must serve a long internship before they begin medical practice, research men, re­gardless of their previous formal education, must gain experience and knowledge in an industry before they can contribute much of value to that industry.

Future industrial research is also being handicapped by the manner in which the faculties and facilities of educational in­stitutions have become absorbed with Fed­eral projects and the tendency for native students to enroll in courses leading to the more lucrative positions offered by defense and space programs in government and in­dustry. In some courses oriented to the l~ss spectacular industries foreign students predominate. Professor Backer of the Textile Division of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has found that during the last 5 years 77 percent of his graduate students working for advanced degrees have come from abroad. As a result, unspectacular but necessary home industries may find them­selves plodding along in the same gait 10 years from now while their foreign competi­tors may have made great progress on the basis of the present advanced American know-how. At a textile exhibition last fall, some machines from Japan attracted more attention than did competing equipment made in the United States. After World War II, Japanese scientists and engineers devoted themselves to rebuilding their textile indus­try with noticeable results. Is it not pos­sible to gain a Pyrrhic victory if the United States reaches the moon first but fails to develop new industries and sacrifices old in­dustries through neglect and too much altru­ism both at ~orne and abroad?

There are many reasons why research con­d~cted by the Government fails to aid in­dustry. Civil service regulations tend to dampen the enthusiasm of creative thinkers. Although the Department of Agriculture has been successful 1n research concerned with farm production, thus benefiting the farmers, some of its programs have added to the diffi-culties of the cotton manufacturers. -

Is a small percentage of inflation needed each year to obtain growth? There are economists who advocate this course. The question may be important when compari­sons are made concerning growth in Russia and in the United States. It is doubtful that the gross national product in Russia is augmented each year by inflation or spiral­ing wages. When comparisons are made of the gross national product in various coun­tries or plans are devised to assist the growth of an undeveloped nation, di~erences in na­tional characteristics present obstacles which are difficult to evaluate. The fact that there are people who do not want the advantages of Western industrial civilization thrust upon them suddenly, is being cur­rently illustrated. By an overwhelming majority, the people rescued from the vol­canic island, Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic, voted to return to their devastated island rather than to remain in England.

THE FUTURE

While careful attention should be paid to the thoughtful opinions of men who have dedicated their lives to the sicence of eco­nomics, contemporary history should teach Americans that too great credence should not be placed on the plans and precepts of young theorists with reference to the imme­diate economic future. The rulers of Russia, where .individual freedom is greatly cur­tailed, claim to adhere to the doctrines of Marx and Lenin. Yet Djilas,a a former Com­munist leader in Yugoslavia who now lan­guishes in jail because of his revisionism, has written:

"The Communist leaders really believe · that they know economic laws and that they can administer production with scientific accuracy. The truth is that the only thing they know how to do is to seize control of the economy. Their ability to do this, just like their victory in the revolution, has cre­ated the illusion in their minds that they succeeded because of their exceptional ability.

"Convinced of the accuracy of their theories, they administer the economy largely according to these theories. It is a stand­ard joke that the Communists first equate an economic measure to a Marxist idea and then proceed to. carry out the measure."

Will the United States avoid the examples set by the doctrinaire economists of Russia? Can the United States profit from the experi­ences of its cotton manufacturers and cot­tongrowers? Is it too late to establish prac­tical goals for industrial development in the United States without too great a sacrifice in the present in order to attain an anticipated ideal situation sometimes in the indefinite future?

SAYS JAPANESE USE "ECONOMIC BLACKMAIL"

Japan's bid for international support of its stand against U.S. import restrictions con­stitutes "economic blackmail," South Caro­lina Textj.le Manufacturers Association Presi­dent Robert S. Small declares. Mr. Small, president of Dan River Mills' Woodside unit, Greenville, S.C., cites reports that Japanese manufacturers have asked, in a "confidential .. memorandum, for backing from participants

· in the international cotton textile agree­ment when that country asks the GATT Textile Comm~ttee to investigate so-called "unilateral and arbitrary" restraint actions proposed by the United States. He asserts

1 Djilas, ·M., "The New Class," Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1956, pp. 103, 104.

5574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE: April 3 the Japanese were caught offguard by the fact that the United States "has made them live up to an agreement for the first time." Japan is "simply not satisfied with her quotas and this move is just political pressure designed to blow up the long-term agree­ments," Mr. Small charges. He sees Japan's move as an effort to force the United States to increase that country's imports quota.

Now we have here an article in which a very wonderful friend of mine in my home town of Chester made a significant statement. He is dean of textiles in Clemson College, and he is a leader in the education of young men for the textile industry, and throughout this Nation men trained at that marvelous institute, and in that department, are dependent on the textile industry for their livelihood. They give their time and their talent to the upbuilding of the industry.

I include here an article written by this gentleman entitled "Clemson Dean Says Textile Industry in South Carolina Is Very Much Alive."

The article referred to follows: CLEMSON DEAN SAYS TEXTILE INDUSTRY IN

SOUTH CAROLINA VERY MUCH ALIVE CLEMSON.-The textile industry in South

Carolina is far from dying. So says Dean Gaston Gage of Clemson

College's School of Industrial Management and Textile Science.

Dean Gage cites these facts: The Stevens Co. is doubling the capacity

of Delta Finishing and expanding Utica Mohawk to more than 20 acres of floor space; Chemstrand is building and expend­ing at Greenwood.

Also, Woodside Mill is starting to build a $12 million plant at Fountain Inn; Granite­ville Manufacturing, a $7¥:! million plant at Graniteville; Inman Mills is completing a new plant at Inman; Greenwood, two new plants at Ninety Six; Allied Chemical, a nylon plant at Irmo.

Springs is building two plants and a tre­mendous warehouse at Fort Lawn. "And," adds the Cleinson dean, "everybody was buy­ing new equipment."

Pacolet Industries, Inc., a group of Milli­ken Mills, incorporated recently. Of the seven officers, four-including the presi­dent-are Clemson graduates.

South Carolina has nearly 40 percent of the spindles in the United States and about half the finishing capacity. Often over­looked is the production of manmade fiber. Its crop, in the raw state alone, is valued at about 5 times the cotton crop and about 80 percent of the sale value of all agricul­tural crops-peaches, cotton, tobacco, lum­ber, livestock.

The textile industry, Gage says these facts show, is alive, in good health, and still grow­ing. Textile schools can, but don't, turn out enough graduates. They have the means-but not the students.

"What the textile industry needs today," says one top drawer representative, "is a new generation of young men with enough vision to realize that it takes more than cutting a price or underbidding a competitor to gain stability and profitability for tex­tiles.

Ralph J. Bachenheimer, chairman, textile section, New York Board of Trade, is a guest contributor to the winter edition of "Bobbin and Beeker," student publication of the Clemson School of Industrial Management and Textile Science. He writes:

"Few industries as large and as basic as ours have consistently shown returns on an investment as poor as the textile industry. Textiles today are selling at levels below those of 10 years ago, while the rest of our

economy has undergone a continued period of inflationary price increases.

"What we need, and need badly and quickly, is a new approach-stop apologiz­ing for our products; go out and promote forcibly the many new fabrics produced in our mills. Bold and imaginative selling, and a willingness to attract a larger share of the consumer dollar from other industries," invites Bachenheimer "can easily change the mistakes of the past."

Last spring, the time when young men were choosing college careers, however, headlines heralded the two-price cotton and import problems.

Enrollment in textile curriculums of the Clemson school this fall increased nervously, by 11. The recruiting season is here again and Dean Gage has a crisp message for both mill executives and high school seniors, es­pecially those interested in staying in South Carolina among the home folks: "Help your­self by helping us."

We have had difficulties but we are very much alive. I do not know that our health is as good as we would like to have it in the textile industry, but I do know that we are still alive.

What do we want? We want an in­crease in the production and consump­tion of cottons, synthetics, wool, and combination textiles in this country. What will that mean? It will mean lower prices for the consumer, and cer­tainly every Congressman who has prob­lems of employment and other industrial problems as unemployment and his re­sponsibility knows that one of the prob­lems of the industrial consumer is the problem of getting the best possible prod­uct for the lowest possible price. If legislation is the avenue of approach, let us have the necessary legislation.

We want also to help the cotton producer. The American people are gathered here in representation. The American people can voice their wishes at the ballot boxes of this Nation. We are going to have to stop the stockpiling of cotton and the sale of cotton in the manner in which it is being done now. These problems will continue as we con­tinue into the mechanization of agricul­ture. These problems will grow. The producing farmer must be able to make long-range plans, must be able to get credit. Markets must be open to him to save the present and insure the future.

I could talk about cotton and what it means to people who are dependent upon it in the various phases of its production, processing, and sale. I could talk about the decline in exports and the rise in imports, for we recognize all the facets we must face. But what we want to do is to revitalize the textile part of the industry of this Nation. The textile industry is a great industry. Its prob­lems continue, their gravity continues to grow; but we intend to survive and we invite the help of the administration in solving these problems, the worst of which is the two-price cotton system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

UNFAIR PENALTIES FOR ACCIDENTS WHILE ON OFFICIAL DUTY

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 10 minutes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman f1·om New Jersey?

There was no objection. Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I take

this opportunity to inform the Members of the House of a bill which I have in­troduced that will remedy, 1n my opinion, a most unfortunate and shocking situa­tion.

At the present time the Department of Defense including the Army, and I believe the Air Force also, have a system whereby they dock the pay of a service­man for damages to property that hap­pens to be in his possession. If a serv­iceman gets involved in an accident with a jeep, for instance, without any trial or without counsel, his salary can be docked for the damage.

I had called to my attention the fol­lowing set of facts: A serviceman was a passenger in a truck in Germany. He was on official business for the U.S. Army. Due to an accident, this truck overturned and the young man sutrered a fractured skull and a laceration of the brain. As the result of this accident, he has practically no vision in his right eye, he has a plate in his skull, and a very severe neurological condition. He was awarded a 70-percent disability rate by the VA. He went back home, and much to his chagrin, he subsequently received a letter telling him that he was responsible to the U.S. Government to the tune of $1,600 for damage to this truck in the accident.

Very frankly, I thought this was an error, an administrative mistake. · I wrote to the Department of Defense and asked how possibly could this young man be held pecuniarily liable for damage to the truck when he was only a passenger.

I received a letter back from the Gen­eral Counsel of the Department of De­fense saying that this was not a mistake. This was a policy of the Government.

I was informed that if a passenger in a vehicle was senior to the driver it was his duty to see that the driver exer­cised due care.

Therefore, $1,600 was charged to this young man.

I know that we have to economize, but I can think of dozens and dozens, I may say hundreds, of places in the $50 billion that the Department of Defense got in fiscal 1963 where better economy could be practiced than in the case of these young people who are least able to af­ford it.

Of course it is ridiculous to charge · a passenger for lack of care on the part of the driver. I will say it is very wrong for us to charge the driver, even, unless his negligence was willful or wanton.

My bill provides that if the damage to the vehicle was caused by the willful or wanton negligence of the serviceman, he can then be held pecuniarily liable, but even in that case I would insist on a hearing or trial and the assignment of counsel to the serviceman.

Servicemen have no control over their assignments. They must work on equip­ment as directed. Why then should they be charged for damage which is not will­fully or recklessly caused. Most employ-

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 5575 ees in private ·industry a.re not so charged. Why take it out on the service­man?

ON NOT RAISING HOGS Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. CLEVELAND] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wyoming?

There was no objection. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, the

distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. FOREMAN] very kindly sent me a copy of a letter from one of his constitu­ents, Mr. J. B. Lee, Jr.

I think this letter will interest anum­ber of my colleagues. It is a devastating commentary on our present system of farm subsidies. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his courtesy, and I in­clude Mr. Lee's letter in the RECORD at this point:

MARCH 20, 1963. The Honorable ED FoREMAN, House of Representatives Congressional District No. 16, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Sm: My friend over in Terrebonne Parish received a $1,000 check from the Gov­ernment this year for not raising hogs. So I am going into the not-raising-hogs business next year.

What I want to know is, in your opinion, What is the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on and the best kind of hogs not to raise? I would prefer not to raise razorbacks, but if that is not a good breed not to raise, I will just as gladly not raise any Berkshires or Durocs.

The hardest work in this business is going to be in keeping an inventory of how many hogs I haven't raised.

My friend is very joyful about the future of his business. He has been raising hogs for more than 20 years and the best he ever made was $400, until this year, when he got $1,000 for not raising hogs.

If I can get $1,000 for not raising 50 hogs, then will I get $2,000 for not raising 100 hogs? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to 4,000 hogs which means I will have $80,000 coming from the Government.

Now, another thing: these hogs I will not raise will not eat 100,000 bushels of corn. I understand that you also pay farmers for not raising corn. So will you pay me anything for not raising 100,000 bushels of corn not to feed the hogs I am not raising?

I want to get started as soon as possible as this seems to be a good time of the year for not raising hogs.

One thing more, can I raise 10 or 12 hogs on the side while I am in the not-raising­hog business just enough to get a few sides of bacon to eat? ·

Very truly yours, J. B. LEE, Jr.,

Potential Hog Raiser.

PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OF DE­PARTMENT OF THE ARMY AS­SIST CONTRACTORS IN PADDING COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York [Mr. PILLION] may ex­tend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

. The SPEAKER. Is. there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wyoming?

There was no objection. Mr. PILLION. Mr. Speaker, in 1959

and 1960 the Department of the Army awarded three fixed-price contracts to Burroughs Corp., Detroit, Mich., for spare electronic parts.

In its review of these contracts, the General Accounting Office disclosed that the Government incurred unnecessary costs of about $556,000.

The Comptroller General, in his report to the Congress, cited the Burroughs Corp. for charging the Government for labor costs far in excess of those which would have been justified under the cir­cumstances. In addition, the GAO dis­closed that the U.S. Army Procurement Office, Fort Meade, Md., failed to ade­quately review Burroughs' proposed labor cost estimates before accepting them.

In such fixed-price contracts, the con­tractor charges the Government for anticipated labor costs, which are esti­mated on the basis of the number of hours each specific job should require according to engineering studies.

On the three contracts in question, Burroughs charged the Government for 111,789 hours. Based on available in­formation and performance data re­viewed by the GAO, proper chargeable labor hours would have been 53,818. Burroughs charged the Government, then, a total of 57,791 excess labor hours.

The excess cost to the Government, including overhead and profit, was $556,150.

On the most recent of the three con­tracts, the contractor wrongfully certi­fied to the Government that it had considered and made known to the con­tracting officer all available cost data in preparing its proposal. Despite this cer­tification, however, Burroughs neither disclosed to the Government the exist­ence of lower and more current labor cost data nor justified to the Govern­ment its failure to use this data in its estimate of labor costs.

The Comptroller General repeatedly discovered items upon which the Bur­roughs Corp. had padded its labor costs.

The Comptroller General pointed out that the failure of the U.S. Army Pro­curement Office to adequately review the contractors' labor cost estimates contrib­uted materially to these deficits. The GAO further disclosed that:

First. The U.S. Army Procurement Office personnel, in evaluating total esti­mated labor hours for spare electronic parts, failed to consider the higher labor efficiencies in similar contracts.

Second. The U.S. Army Procurement Office failed to request the services of an available audit agency to review the con­tractors' charges.

The Comptroller General made the following recommendations:

1. It is recommended that the Department of the Army, if it is unable to recover sub­stantiaUy all the overstated costs identified in this report, refer the case to the Depart­ment of Justice for appropriate action to as­sure maximum recovery by the Government.

2. The Department of the Army should bring to the attention of its contracting of-

fleers the need to obtain pricing certifica­tions from contractors on all contracts.

Mr. Speaker, this contract was an un­conscionable extraction of Federal funds by the contractor. It was a willful, fraudulent misrepresentation by the contractor.

I trust that the Department of the Army and the Department of Justice will thoroughly examine into and investigate this transaction for possible criminal violations.

The U.S. Army should fix responsibil­ity for this loss and for this disgraceful betrayal of trust. Appropriate discipli­nary action should be taken immediately against the responsible procurement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this oppor­tunity to highly commend the Honorable Joseph Campbell, Comptroller General of the United States, and his staff for their outstanding public service in un­covering the wastages and quasi-criminal malfeasance that exist in many areas of our Federal Government.

REELECTION OF MAYOR RICHARD J. DALEY OF CHICAGO

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?

There was no objection. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, yes­

terday we had our mayoralty election in the city of Chicago. It was a beautiful day with a record temperature of 83; clear skies. We registered a 73-percent turnout of voters, which is certainly a very large vote for an off-year municipal election. And, I am very happy to ad­vise my colleagues in the House on both sides that under these ideal weather conditions, Mayor Richard J. Daley was reelected yesterday to a third term by an impressive majority of 150,000 votes. Mayor Daley has certainly written an outstanding record in the last 8 years of his administration. He is today hailed not only throughout the United States but throughout the world as one of the outstanding administrators of a large city government. Mayor Daley has brought to the people of Chicago a new dimension of leadership which yesterday was certainly rewarded by this spec­tacular reelection. I daresay that the overwhelming victory experienced by Mayor Daley in Chicago yesterday, carrying with him his running mates, John C. Marcin, city clerk, and William Milota, city treasurer, reflects the high regard that the people of our community had for the record that the mayor has written and, I think, also reflects t~e high regard our people have for Presi­dent Kennedy who was a visitor on an official visit to Chicago a week earlier when he participated in the dedication of the terminal facilities at O'Hare Field. President Kennedy could not help but take advantage of the opportunity to say some very inspiring words about Mayor Daley's impressive record. In reelecting Mayor Daley yesterday by this

5576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE April 3 very sizable majority of 150,000 votes, I believe the people of Chicago at the same time registered what bigh respect they have for President Kennedy who sup­ported the mayor.

Mr. O'BRIEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am delighted to yield to my distinguished dean of the Dlinois delegation.

Mr. O'BRIEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as the dean of the Illinois delegation, it gives me great pride to be able to join today in this tribute to Mayor Richard J. Daley.

I have known Mayor Daley since he was a very young man, and have watched him rise to the very important position which he now holds as chief executive of America's second largest city. Through all of his years in public office, Richard J. Daley has always maintained the highest respect of the community for his dedication to public service, his devotion to Chicago, and his profound integrity.

During the last 8 years, he has given Chicago a completely new look, and I am not surprised that municipal ad­ministrators all over the world are pointing to Mayor Daley and his admin­istration as a model of good govern­ment.

I am proud of the people of Chicago in this exciting demonstration of good judgment which they registered yester­day when they elected Mayor Daley to a third term. His reelection is the best assurance that the people of my city could have of continued growth and progress.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the gentle­man from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALBERT. I am happy that the gentleman has taken this time on this subject. I want to personally join him in extending congratulations to the dis­tinguished mayor and other officials of the city of Chicago and to congratulate the city of Chicago on the type of leader­ship it has had.

Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the gentle­man from New York.

Mr. KEOGH. I am delighted to join our colleagues in commending the people of the great city of Chicago for their wisdom as displayed yesterday. It has been my good fortune over the years to have had the pleasure to meet with and talk to the great mayor of that city, Richard J. Daley. Anyone visiting Chi­cago can readily see the great improve­ments and changes that have taken place during his administration. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished mayor of Chicago is indeed a real political leader of America, and that is a tribute that I am proud to attach to one, for I become increasingly impatient with people who think you can take politics out of politics, that you can take government out of government. The tribute that was paid to the mayor of the city of Chicago is well deserved, well merited, and justified, and the peo­ple are to be congratulated.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

- Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the dis­tinguished Speaker.

Mr. McCORMACK. I am very happy to join my colleagues in conveying to Mayor Daley my hearty congratulations on his reelection and on the splendid vote that he received, showing the confi­dence that the people of Chicago have in him. Mayor Daley is one of the out­standing Americans of this era. He is one of the great students of the art and science of government. He is a man whose leadership has made a profound impression not only on the people of Chicago but upon the people throughout the country. Chicago is a great city. I like Chicago. I think it is one of the great cities of our country. I also think that the problems of city government are very challenging.

It is my opinion that no one in public life has more challenging problems, ex­cept the President of the United States, on the domestic level than the mayor of a city, particularly the mayor of a great metropolitan city.

Mayor Daley has given to the people of Chicago outstanding leadership, evi­dencing not only great ability and vision but extraordinary courage.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the people of Chicago on the election of Mayor Da­ley, and I wish for him every success and happiness during his next administra­tion.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK], and others who have joined in this trib­ute to Mayor Daley, including our ma­jority leader, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT], and the gentle­man from New York [Mr. KEoGH], and the dean of the Illinois delegation [Mr. O'BRIEN].

I would make this observation. The Speaker has certainly touched upon one very important aspect in his remarks. In yesterday's tremendous victory for Mayor Daley there was, of course, an af­flrmation of the splendid record he has made in his 8 years as mayor of Chicago, and there was an expression of confi­dence that under his leadership in the next 4 years we will resolve some of the problems that have been besetting the large cities. However, in this election one cannot help but detect the fact that the people of a large urban community such as Chicago are becoming increas­ingly aware of these problems and par­ticularly of the cost to local governments to meet these problems.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we shall be able in this Congress to pass some of the legislation which has been proposed by Presidel).t Kennedy to help the large cities of America meet their mounting problems. Our great problem in America today is the tremendous in­migration of American citizens from the rural communities of the Nation into large cities. Today 78 percent of the population of this entire Nation resides in metropolitan areas of America. The problems of these areas are mounting. It is my opinion that many of the pro­grams which have been proposed by the President would reflect the deep concern that the President has for the problems

that are being created in these large cities.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope that this Congress, certainly before we adjourn in this first session, will be able to marshal enough support to help the large cities. I have been one who has supported agricultural legisla­tion. However, I think the time has come when our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have to recognize that we have some deep-rooted problems in our urban areas. Mayor Daley during his campaign has spoken out frankly in sup­port of legislation which is designed to assist in the correction of some of these problems facing large cities. It is my opinion that one reason why he won the election so handily yesterday, besides the great record he has made, is the fact that he has come out for the legislative program proposed by President Kennedy, a program designed not only to help the large cities but to help America. Cer­tainly, as we have said many times on the floor of the House, when we approve farm legislation to help the farmers of America, we are helping the entire coun­try. We are not only helping the scant 22 percent of the rural communities but the entire American population. The same argument applies to our large cities. ·

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that in this Congress we will receive sympathy and understanding from our colleagues, par­ticularly those of our colleagues who come from the rural areas. Today the pendulum has almost swung and today we have some real serious problems in the large cities of America which cannot be resolved with their own resources. We must have some assistance from the Central Government. · Mr. Speaker, in paying tribute today

to a greater mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley, on his reelection, we have had an opportunity to discuss the problems of the large cities. With guidance from men such as Mayor Daley, I am con­fident we can find solutions to many of these problems.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the distin­guished majority leader.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like again to compliment the gentleman from Illinois on his presentation and to add that I see on the floor of the House at the present time one of the most in­fiuential, one of the most beloved men ever to sit in this Congress. The man who has been at the side of Mayor Daley during his great rise in Chicago politics and government, our distinguished friend, the gentleman from illinois [ToM O'BRIEN], is one of the greatest men this Nation has ever produced. We love him and are happy to have him back with us.

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I share the high sentiments of the gentleman from Oklahoma about the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'BRIEN].

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PAT-

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 5577 MAN], I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Banking and Currency have until midnight tonight to file a re­port on the bill H.R. 5389.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Okla­homa?

There was no objection.

DUAL RATE CONTRACTS Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 36.

The Clerk read the concurrent resolu­tion, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Sec­retary of the Senate is authorized and di­rected, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1035) to extend the provisions of section 3 of Pub­lic Law 87-346, relating to dual rate con­tracts, to make the following correction, viz: On line 4, change "76 Stat." to "75 Stat."

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Okla­homa?

There was no objection. The concurrent resolution was agreed

to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE AND TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that notwithstand­ing the adjournment of the House until tomorrow, the Clerk be authorized tore­ceive messages from the Senate and that the Speaker be authorized to sign any enrolled bills and j~int resolutions duly passed by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Okla­homa?

There was no objection.

ATTACK ON REPUBLICAN OBJEC­TIVE OF BALANCED BUDGET

The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. WYMAN] is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, after the vote yesterday on the Interior appro­priations bill, when almost all of the Members of this House from this side of the aisle had returned to their omces, a few Members from the other side of the aisle, quite evidently by prearrangement, engaged in an attack on the Republican objective of a balanced budget.

Their proposition was, to quote the majority leader, that "the only way a $15-billion cut could be made is to cut into the real muscle of indispensable func­tions of Government."

The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT] then proceeded to take up some 20 pages Of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to propagandize against a balanced budget by describing in detail just what would be the impact of a $15 billion cut

in the overall budget on the functions of each department and each agency.

Everything calculated to arouse public interest, State by State, to fan the fires of personal prejudice and individual greed was set forth in depth, with the usual dire predictions of disaster to :flow from such cuts. State by State, com­munity by community, function by func­tion, it was suggested by the gentleman from the other side of the aisle that pet projects would be lost if the budget was to be balanced. Ranging from the abandonment of Weather Bureau sta­tions to discontinuance of air safety measures, to wholesale job reductions and rising unemployment, the adminis­tration's propagandists continued to dis­tort and misrepresent.

Mr. Speaker, what has been done here by the administration spokesmen is a gross and palpable disservice to the pub­lic interest. BY· creating a bogeyman of a mythical meat-ax they have then pro­ceeded to attempt to agitate our people in favor of further deficit spending by picking out of the departments the most controversial popular projects and the impact of appropriations reductions. Yet, all the time they must do this with tongue in cheek, for they know that it is within the power of the Appropria­tions Committee itself to specify where the cuts shall be made. If this is done by the Appropriations Committee all of the propaganda figures of yesterday's harangues disappear into the vacuum ·of hot air that they belong in to start with.

But beyond the slyness of the propa­ganda is the suggestion that to balance the budget would be to shift the coun­try into reverse gear at a time when it needs to rush forward with-to use the President's pet phrase-"vigor." Our people should realize that the Democrat administration seeks to rush us forward into bankruptcy.

The majority leader has also implied that the cuts that must be made in de­fense to keep the budget in balance will ruin our defense posture. He seeks to charge those who would do this with re­sponsibility for letting the Russians get ahead of us.

This is the' same old bucket of tripe that we have heard for years.

Mr. Speaker, the worst thing that can happen to this country is to undermine its currency to a point where we cannot meet our obligations. As a favorite of the President, the famous economist, Keynes, has so well stated, the surest way to ruin a country is to debauch its currency. ·

I am convinced that the welfare and strength of this Nation and its people require that in the coming fiscal year Government spending be ·confined to Qovernment receipts. To do this is go­ing to mean that there will have to be cuts in defense and cuts in space. I am satisfied that both of these agencies, were they to be completely candid in the backroom, would admit that they can absorb the necessary cut to produce budgetary balance without wrecking the defense or space posture.

Because of the extremity of the re­marks and the positions taken by the gentlemen from the other side of the

aisle yesterday in my absence, I am anxious that the record should show that this is one member of the Appro­priations Committee who will not vote further deficit financing . for this coun­try, even if it means substantial reduc­tions in defense and space spending. I am particularly anxious in view of the somewhat hysterical propaganda of yes­terday's administration spokesmen that it be very clear upon this record that the reason that I shall so vote is because I am convinced that in the long run the surest way to wreck the United States is to destroy confidence in its currency, to undermine the savings, earnings and incentive of its citizens, and to weaken its capacity for any sustained retaliatory effort in the event of a national emer­gency.

The siren song of the false appeal of the materialist pork barrel which this administration sang loud and clear yes­terday is still the road to ruin for Amer­ica because, if followed, it is the road to bankruptcy.

We cannot have everything now, leaving nothing for tomorrow in the bank. Just because the shadows of the horrors of atomic destruction lurk in the background of an uneasy and unsettled future is no reason for us to allow the executive branch to recklessly squander America's inheritance by profligacy and waste.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have courage. They have strength. They have determination. When they are challenged they have got it. We are challenged now and we know it. The sop offered in the name of a continua­tion of critical governmental functions is in fact and theory further evidence of weakness and dry rot within Ameri­ca's leadership. This Nation deserves better than such a diet. The country will rally behind a Congress that, not niggardly but reasonably and firmly, cuts out the frills, puts our fiscal house in order, holds this budget in balance and makes a token payment on the national debt.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last thing the Communists want because if this is done it is evidence of thf' resurgence of American character and determination that spells the beginning of the end for communism throughout the world.

I hope and trust that Americans every­where will understand the truth of what I have said here today. I hope that as they understand it their youngsters will be looking over their shoulder realizing as they do that it is their legacy and their future that the gentlemen from the other side of the aisle would fritter away just to stay in office a little while longer.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman is not suggesting that the Committee on Appropriations is the final word on cuts in the budget?

Mr. WYMAN. Not at all. Mr. EDMONDSON. The House itself

will work its will on these items just as it did yesterday in cutting below the

5578 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE April 3

Appropriations Committee report on sev­eral items. ·

Mr. WYMAN. Ihopeso. Mr. EDMONDSON. So the gentleman

is misleading and distorting rather than the gentleman who spoke yesterday.

Mr. WYMAN. The gentleman is not misleading and distorting. The Appro­priations Committee makes selected cuts. Thus the harangues made yesterday were absolutely inaccurate because it is then up to the House to decide whether the cuts are applicable or not. The gen­tleman's party is in control, so he and they are then in a position to vote for or against exactly the ·same things his party leaders objected to yesterday on this floor.

Being in control both of the executive branch and of this House it becomes obvious that the list of projects and Fed­eral services to be cut out if appropria­tions are reduced is in reality at the discretion first of this House and sec­ond of the Departments themselves if Congress does not select. So it is the barest of flim-flam to list these as the majority leader did yesterday.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentle­man.

Mr. HARRISON. I congratulate the gentleman on his remarks. I join with him in his thoughts as far as expenditure of public money is concerned and the necessity of making reductions in the proposed expenditures. In checking over this list, and I might say I left the floor before the colloquy took place yesterday, I am a little surprised by the number of so-called projects included in that list, which is in the RECORD following the statement that if a budget cut was made these projects would either be put off or eliminated. Under insert No.5, on page 5507 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, it says that these are Interior projects that would be blocked by the proposed budget reduction of $153 million. The Interior Department and related agencies ap­propriation bill was passed by the House yesterday. The original request of the Department was $1,028 million, which was a 14%-percent increase over the 1963 budget. This was cut $99 million through the action on a bipartisan basis of the committee and by the House of Representatives. At no time was it ever suggested nor was any attempt made to cut $153 million from the Department of the Interior budget either by the com­mittee or here on the floor of the House. I might say these projects listed by States cover practically two pages of the CoN­GRESSIONAL RECORD and give no indication of the status of the projects listed­whether they have been authorized or whether any money has been appropri­ated for them or what their present status is as far as completion is con­cerned. Nor does the list of projects say whether they have been authorized or if any money was asked in the budget this year for that particular project.

I think if it is checked out very care­fully, you will find that many .of these projects and when I say many I mean by far the greater proportion of them, were not even mentioned in the budget re­quest of the Department of the Interior

for the 1964 budget. Therefore, to have these projects in the record, leaving the impression that our committee deliber­ately cut money out of these listed proj­ects, is completely tin:fair and completely erroneous. I think the record shall be cleared up to show exactly what projects would be hurt if any are hurt and what projects the committee actually turned down and what money has been elimi­nated for the use of any particular proj­ect. I think to have a record such as this without pinpointing the details is completely unfair and certainly does not present a true picture of the situation at the present time without doubt is in­tended to mislead the general public as to what the House of Representatives is doing.

Mr. WYMAN. I am glad the gentle­man from Wyoming, who is also a mem­ber of the Appropriations Committee, has pointed out that, as far as Interior is concerned, and I might say that the projects to which he has referred are extended all the way through to page 5520 of the RECORD in which the very blatant attempt has been made to in­fluence and mislead the American people by telling them they would lose their jobs or projects will be withheld if there is a balanced budget.

What has been done here is the same old propaganda trick, a snow job, to justify the spending of our money at continued deficit levels, something that has been going on for too many years now. It is high time that some of us in this House stood on our feet and pointed out to the American people some of the savings that need to be and can safely be made so that we can continue to have a strong country and a future for our children.'

Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYMAN. I yield. Mr. MAcGREGOR. Am I correct, may

I ask my friend from New Hampshire, that several weeks ago · the President of the United States characterized his 1964 budget as an austere budget?

Mr. WYMAN. The gentleman is cor­rect.

Mr. MAcGREGOR. And did not the President of the United States make recommendations to us yesterday in the field of foreign aid which would cut $400 million from the original budget esti­mate for fiscal year 1964?

Mr. WYMAN. I think the President has seen economic light to that extent.

Mr. MAcGREGOR. And may I ask further of my friend from New Hamp­shire if it is not true that since the budget was submitted to the Congress in Janu­ary the President of the United States has cut almost $200 million, in areas other than foreign aid, from what was described as an austere or uncuttable budget?

Mr. WYMAN. I agree with the gentleman. I am not aware of the exact amounts, but what has been done is further evidence of the need for reex­amination. The people of the United states are lqoking to this Congress to do this for them. This is what we are here to do-and the . gentlemen from across the aisle are putting up smoke­screens.

Mr. MAcGREGOR. One ·concluding question, if the gentleman will permit. The gentleman is correct, that the people of the United States of America must look to the Congress of the United States, not to the executive branch, for such cuts as can be reasonably made in this budget before we finish our work this year.

Mr. WYMAN. I agree with the gentle­man. I resent the implications from the other side of the aisle that Congress .is injuring the economy by an examina­tion into Democrat policies, suggesting that we Republicans are taking the country back to an ·1892 economy by standing firm for a strong currency. As a matter of fact, the truth is that the present administration is taking us on the road to bankruptcy by piling up defi­cits and at the same time proposing reduced tax revenues by a tax reduction without a corresponding reduction of Government expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. -------

THE BUDGET Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and ex­tend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There was no objection. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker,

there are just two points I think should be mentioned by way of refutation of the remarks just made on the floor. In the first place, the suggestion that the administration has been irresponsible in its budgeting may be supported in the mind of the gentleman, but I do not think it can be supported by the record. A single illustration, of course, is what happened in terms of the military au­thorization in which this Congress, at least the House, voted to increase very substantially the recommendations of the administration in the field of mili­tary authorization.

The second point is the big snow job, the big propaganda job the gentleman says has been done, was certainly not done by our majority leader on the floor of the House yesterday. The real snow job has been done over a period of some weeks on the other side of the aisle and by the spokesmen of the members of the party who sit on the other side of the aisle when they talk in terms of $10, $12, or $15 billion in budget cuts, without being specific as to where it can be ac­complished. The effort yesterday to smoke them out and to get them to be specific about some area where they would actually advocate cuts was, I think, a bona fide effort and an entirely justifiable effort by the majority leader.

If there was someone who did not know about that, someone who did not respond, it is the responsibility of every Member to be on the floor of the House when it is in session. It is not the obli­gation of any Member to send individual notes to other Members to be on the floor because "I am going to make a speech tomorrow." This falls on very empty ears, as far as the general practices of

· the House are concerned.

1963 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD-. HOUSE 5579 Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Spe~ker, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the gen­

tleman from Minnesota. Mr. MAcGREGOR. In connection with

the vote in the U.S. House of Repre­sentatives-this body-on the military authorization bill, I should like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma whether it is not true that of the 33 votes which sustained the President's position and that of the Defense Department, all of those votes except 1 were Republican votes?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think the gen­tleman may be accurate about that. I think the Republicans got 15 percent of their membership to stand up for econ­omy when it came to an actual show­down, but so far as the great majority of the other side were concerned, you did not have any more of a consistent economy position on that than had the folks on this side. It is proper for us to exercise our judgment on what should be done. I do not yield to anyone in an honest desire to get the best defenses we can get. I am just saying it is one thing to talk about a $15 billion cut, it is another thing to vote for specific cuts. Certainly the other side has a very sad record on that score when we talk about military authorizations.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wyoming? ·

There was no objection. Mr. HARRISON. ~r. Speaker, I

would like to point out to the gentleman from Oklahoma that he, being a Mem­ber of the majority party, certainly should be in a very excellent position, in fact even more so than the minority party, in finding spots in governmental operations and in the budget where spe­cific cuts can be made and where they should be made. It would seem to me that rather than criticize the minority party for its efforts, which I believe are very fair, very fine, and follow the desires of the people of this country, it would be far better for the gentlemen on the other side to make an effort themselves to find where these budgets can be cut, be­cause surely they can come up with spe­cific instances. If they cannot and we do, they should not criticize us for our efforts.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARRISON. I yield to the gen­tleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman was here yesterday when the Interior Department Subcommittee of the Appro­priations Committee brought in a bill which was approximately 9 percent below the budgetary recommendations of the administration. Those cuts were brought in by a committee which was dominated by Democrats, as the gentle­man well knows. This is an example of responsible legislation in an area where the committee found that cuts could be made without getting into the muscle field and without· getting into the meat­ax approach. They have recommended

these cuts. I think the House acted wise­ly· in followmg their lead in this regard. But if you are going to talk about a $15 billion cut, let us see where it is going to be. Let us see some facts, let us see some particulars.

Mr. HARRISON. I think the gentle­man is in a far better position than I t;tm to pick out these spots. I am a mem­ber of that subcommittee, and I want to say it was a nonpartisan effort on the part of our committee in making those reductions, an effort supported by the minority members of the subcommit­tee, because if we had not made the cuts, and I am happy that the majority mem­bers of the committee went along, you would have had a minority report on that bill, because I would have filed one my­self. But, because they were openminded and very :fine people and believed that there should be cuts and they were justi­fied, we came in with a unanimous report. And, that is the way it should be. I hope that in the days to come Members on both sides of the aisle will join in a program to try to get this country of ours back on a sound financial basis and quit deficit spending, because we cannot go on forever improverishing the American people. And, it is your responsibility just as much as it is on this side of the aisle to pick out spots in the recom­mended budgets of the departments to see where they can be reduced, because it is, after all, the responsibility of this Congress to see how much money shall be spent and how much money shall be appropriated, and we have no right to put that responsibility on anybody else's shoulder but our own.

Mr. STINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 2 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Washington?

There was no objection. Mr. STINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have

before me a line-by-line proposal for budget cuts by a member of the Demo­crat Party. This was issued as recently as Friday, March 29, 1963.

To break this down in broad cate­gories: Foreign aid, $3.3 billion; Federal­civilian payroll cost, $1.9 billion; pro­posed new construction, $2.2 billion; waste, extravagance, inefficiency, and so forth, $5.1 billion. So, there are in­dividuals on both sides of the aisle that are interested in cutting this fantastic budget that has been proposed, so I would suggest to the gentleman from Oklahoma that he check with members of his own party that have made suggestions for cutting the budget. Also, here in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of March 7 is an­other budget-cutting proposal by another member from the gentleman from Okla­homa's party. So, there are people on both sides of the aisle in the Congress that are still responsible individuals and would be very interested in seeing that the budget is brought down to a reason­able level.

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle­man from New Hampshire.

Mr. WYMAN. When the gentleman from Oklahoma referred to the B-70 program the other day it had to do with increasing the authorization bill, and he raised the same false picture that is characteristic of what I just referred to. This is just what was done in this House yesterday by the majority leader and others on his side. There is all the dif­ference in the world between authoriza­tion bills and appropriation bills. It is the practice of many people to vote for authorizations and then, in turn, vote for appropriation bills that are con­siderably less than the authorization. Is the gentleman familiar with that prac­tice?

Mr. STINSON. Yes. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle­

man from Oklahoma. Mr. EDMONDSON. When the gen­

tleman who just took his seat will be around here a little longer, he will dis­cover that appropriation bills follow au­thorization bills, and when you want to stop expenditures, the place to stop them is in authorizations, and if you do not put a stop on authorizations, you are not going to put brakes on appro­priations. Furthermore, I have never made the statement on this floor that the effort to cut is a partisan effort. I do not know who picked that language up over there. I think that there are sincere people on both sides who put in an awful lot of time in committees, both authorizing and appropriating, working to keep down ·expenditures, and when that ceases to be a bipartisan effort, I think we .have a very bad state of affairs. ·

Mr. STINSON. I would like to say to the gentleman from Oklahoma that my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire has been around Capitol Hill here for a good many years, even though he has not been a Member of the Con­gress. He has had a good deal of expe­rience working around Congress-, and with appropriations, and I believe that he is very well acquainted with what is going on around Capitol Hill. I might also point out that he was so highly re­garded by the Republican Party that he was the only freshman appointed to the Appropriations Committee this year.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Washington has expired.

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Washington [Mr. STINSON] may proceed for 2 additional minutes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection. Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle­

man from New Jersey. Mr. JOELSON. I happen to be a

member of the Committee on Appropri­ations. About a week ago I offered my services. I ' said that each Member knows his own district the best, and I suggested that that Member advise me where we could cut in his district: Those

5580 :CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- HOUSE April f! of you who feel you are getting too exces­sive defense contracts, flood control projects you want discontinued, hospital grants, if the gentlemen will let me know, I will be glad to pass them on to the chairman.

I would like to get an answer. Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle-

man from Minnesota. . Mr. MAcGREGOR. If I may say to

the gentleman from New Jersey, you will have tQ look on your own side of the aisle rather than over here. With the pro­pensity for the political distribution of public funds which has been shown by this administration in te1ms of these Federal programs, as was demonstrated in the food-stamp program, I think that on the other side of the aisle lies the opportunity for the saving of substantial amounts of money.

Mr. JOELSON. If the gentleman will yield further, i am looking at both sides of the aisle, and I have not gotten any answers from anyone on either side of the aisle.

Mr. STINSON. Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make is this: Reference was made yesterday to the effect that cuts proposed by Members on this side of the aisle were going to wreck the econ­omy, throw people out of work, and put the country in a bad situation. The point I was trying to make is that here we have Members from the other side of the aisle who have proposed very sub­stahtial cuts in the Federal budget.

Would the g.entleman suggest that per­haps the Members of his own party ·are . irresponsible · and are trying to' throw the country into a state of chaos and cause unemployment as a result of these proposals to cut the budget?

Mr. JOELSON. No; I do not suggest that to those on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle­man from Illinois.

Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentle­man for yielding. I just want to con­tribute this: It seems to me that there is a popular misconception, especially on the other side of the aisle, with re­gard to the respective functions of the legislative and executive branches with regard to this subject of the budget. We know that the Bureau of the Budget is in the executive department and that the budget is prepared by the executive de­partment, a department which has 450 employees.

I think the function of the legislative branch is not to write the budget and not rewrite the budget, but to maintain con­trol of the purse strings, to determine how much money shall be appropriated, how much in taxes shall be raised. Those are the things which we must inform the Executive about. Then the function becomes that of the Executive to determine in what manner in the con­duct of the executive branch he wants to expend the money.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not the legislative branch's responsibility to de­termine the number of employees in

<The f-ollowing Member (at the re­quest of Mr. ALBERT) and to include ex­traneous matter:)

Mr. ZABLOCKI.

each executive department of the Gov­ernment. It is my opinion that we must and shou.Id specify the amqunt of money which the Government shall spend and then determine the amount of revenue which shall be provided in order to take

·care of those expenditures. If we do not ENROLLED BILL A:t'U) .JOINT RESO-now have the machinery for perform- LUTION · SIGNED ing this necessary legislative function, Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee and I do not believe we now have it, on House Administration, reported that we should proceed at once to provide the that committee had examined and found machinery. truly enrolled a bill and a joint resolu-

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the tion of the House .of the following titles, gentleman yield? which were thereupon signed by the

Mr. STINSON. I yield to the gentle- Speaker: man from New Hampshire. H.R. 4374. An act to proclaim Sir Winston

Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have Churchill an honorary citizen of the United asked the gentleman to yield for the pur- States of America; and pose of making one final observation. H.J. Res. 282. Joint resolution designating The gentleman from Illinois has just the 6-day period beginning April · 15, 1963, as pointed out so well the entire thesis of "National Harmony Week.' and for other my remarks of a few moments ago in purposes. regard to what the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle have said in the way of dire predictions of what will hap­pen in these various governmental de­partments and what will happen all around the country with respect to the loss of jobs and facilities if we confine Government expenditures to receipts. This is crying wolf with a vengeance. It is a blatant propaganda gesture in an effort to increase these appropriation bills. That is all it is. It is a misrep­resentation to scare the Members of this

ADJOURNMENT Mr. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House do now adjourn. · The motion was agreed to; accordingly

<at 1 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thurs­day,' April 4,· 1963, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

House to put appropriations back into 640. Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, a these bills. It is important that not only · letter from the Chairman, Securities Republicans be concerned about this but and Exchange Commission, transmitting responsible Members · on the other, side the first s~gment of the report of the of the aisle also in order to alert our peo- special study of securities markets, re­ple to just what ,is going· on. This has , lating to the adeqU;acy of investor, pro­happened before ,and it wHI happen again . tection. in the securities ,markets, pur­unless we alert our people to the- greater suant to section 19(d) <Public Law 87-danger that exists today from these . 196) (H. Doc. No. 95> was taken from years of overspending. the Speaker's table, referred to the Com-

Mr. STINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com­unanimous consent that the gentleman merce and ordered to be printed with from Illinois [Mr. McCLORY] and the illustrations. gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. WYMAN] be permitted to revise and ex- REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUB­tend their remarks.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle­man from Washington?

There was no objection.

LIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of

committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED Mr. TEAGUE of Texas: Committee .on · Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 4549. A bill to amend

By unanimous consent, permission to · section 4103 of title 38, United states Code, address the House, following the legis- with respect to.the appointment of the Chief lative program and any special orders Medical Director of the Department of Medi­heretofore entered, was granted to: cine and Surgery of the Veterans' Admin-

Mr. ALGER, for 1 hour, on April 10, istration; without amendment (Rept. No. 1963. 182) . Referred to the Committee of the

Mr. WYMAN, for 15 minutes, on Who1e House on the State of the U~ion. April 3 1963 Mr. PATMAN: Committee on Bankmg and

' · Currency. H.R. 5389. A bill to repeal certain

EXTENSION OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, or to revise and extend re­marks, was granted to:

Mr. BURKHALTER and to include ex­traneOUS material.

(The following Members (at the re­quest of Mr. HARRISON) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. SHORT. Mr. MORSE.

legislation relating to the purchase of sil­ver, and for other purposes; without amend­ment (Rept. No. 183). Referred to the Com­mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRI­VATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of

committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: ·

Mr. EDMONDSON: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. H.R. 1492. A bill to

1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 5581 provide for the sale of certain reserved min­eral interests of the United States in certain real property owned by Jack D. -Wi.shart and Juanita H. Wishart; with amendment (Rept. No. 181) . Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills · and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. ANDERSON: H.R. 5429. A bill to amend section 104(s)

of Public Law 480, S3d Congress, as amended, to require that 5 percent of the foreign cur­rencies hereafter acquired by the sale of U.S. surplus agricultural commodities be set aside for the sale of dollars . to American tourists abroad; to the Committee on Agriculture. .

By Mr. ASHLEY: H.R. 5430. A bill to provide for the hu­

mane treatment of vertebrate animals used in experiments and tests by recipients of grants from the United States and by agencies and instrumentalities of the U.S. Government and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. BENNETT of Florida: H.R. 5431.- A bill to amend title II of the

Social Security Act to provide that the re­marriage of a widow, or widower, or parent shall not prevent the payment of benefits if such remarriage is annulled; to the Commit­tee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. CELLER: H.R. 5432. A bill relating to the retirement

of judges o{ the territorial district courts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 5433. A bill to extend the provisions of the act of October 11, 1949, 63 Stat. 759, ch. 672 (32 D.C.C. 417) to autnorize the com­mitment of persons of unsound mind found on Federal reservll,tions in Loudoun County, Va., to St. Elizabeths Hospital in the District of Columbia; to the Coriunittee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 5434. A bill to consolidate the two judicial districts of the State of South Car­olina into a single judicial district and to make suitable transitional provisions with respect thereto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FINDLEY: . H.R. 5435. A bill to amend the Rural

Electrification Act of 1936; to the Committee on Agriculture.

By Mr. FULTON of Tennessee: H.R. 5436. A bill changing Memorial Day to

the last Monday of May; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 5437. A bill to amend the Adminis­trative Procedure Act with respect to the compensation of hearing examiners and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 5438. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to permit for 1 year, the grant­ing of national service life insurance to cer­tain veterans heretofore eligible for such in­surance; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. McDOWELL: H .R. 5439. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to replace the existing retailers excise taxes on jewelry, furs, toilet preparations, and luggage, etc., with equiva­lent manufacturers excise taxes; to the Com­mit tee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. MORGAN: H .R. 5440. A bill to amend title 38, United

St ates Code, to provide for the payment of pensions to veterans of World War I and t heir widows and dependents; to the Com­mittee on Veterans' Affairs.

By Mr. MULTER: H.R. 5441. A bill to require an annual audit

of each bank insured by the Federal De-

posit Insurance Corporation; to the Com­mittee-on Banking al).d Currency.

H ;R. 5442. A bill to amend section 5155 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to branches of national banks; to the Committee on Banking and Currency. ·

H.R. 5443. A bill to require that 90 percent of the net earnings of Federal Re.serve banks be paid into the Treasury, and that the financial transactions of the Board of Gov­ernors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks be audited by the General Accounting Office; to the Com­mittee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. MURPHY of New York: H.R. 5444. A bill to authorize the Secre­

tary of Commerce to conduct research and development of precision equipment and sys­tems ~or utilizing radio signals from space satellites to improve navigation of nonmili­tary vessels at sea; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. WILLIAMS: H.R. 5445. A bill to amend the Interstate

Commerce Act to permit freight forwarders to acquire other carriers subject to such act, to place such transactions under the provi­sions of section 5 of such act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. ANDREWS: H .J. Res. 370. Joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the establishment of a Court of the Union, which shall review the exercise of power or jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in certain cases upon de­mand of the legislatures of five noncontigu­ous States; to the Committee on the Judi­ciary.

By Mr. SELDEN: H.J. Res. 371. Joint resolution proposing

an amendment to the Constitution of the Unit~d States relating to the establishment of a Court of the Union, which shall review the exercise of power or jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in certain cases upon demand of the legislatures of five noncontiguous States; -to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BURKE: H. Con. Res. 128. Concurrent resolution

requesting the President to present before the United Nations the question of the en­slavement of Lithua.nia, Latvia, and Estonia with a view to obtaining their independence and the return of their peoples; to the Com­mittee on Foreign Affairs.

MEMORIALS Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memo­

rials were presented and referred as follows:

By Mr. HARRISON: Joint memorial of the House of Representatives, 37th State Legis­lature of the State of Wyoming, memorial­izing the U.S. Congress to oppose Federal legislation which would encroach on State­administered workmen's compensation pro­grams; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. JONES of Alabama: Senate Resolu­tion No. 3, of the Legislature of the State of Alabama, commending Secretary of Agri­culture Orville L. Freeman and all members of the Alabama congressional delegation for their concern for the cotton economy of Ala­bama by endorsing the 1963 cotton price support program and making recom·menda­tions toward endin.g the inequities of the two-price structure on cotton; to the Com­mittee on Agriculture.

Also, House Joint Resolut ion No. 13, of the State of Alabama House of Representatives, petitioning the Congress of the United States to call a convention to consider an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to estab­lish a Court of the Union, which would sit upon demand of five States, not having any common boundary, the proposed court's sole

function being "the determination of whether power exercised by the United States is granted to it under the Constitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private

bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. BELL: H.R. 5446. A bill for the relief of Brian

Richard Davis; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BURKHALTER: H.R. 5447. A bill for the relief of Robert L.

Wiswell, E . G. Haberman, WillardS. Bacon, and Robert L. Geisler; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FARBSTEIN: H.R. 5448. A bill for the relief of Maria

Josefa Pariente; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 5449. A bill for the relief of Halina J . Admaska; to the Committee on the Judi­ciary.

H.R. 5450. A bill for the relif of Evadna Lai; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HARRISON: H.R. 5451. A bill for the relief of the

E .L.K. Oil Co.; to the Committee on In-terior and Insular Affairs. -

By Mr. RIEHLMAN: H.R. 5452. A bill for the relief of Vittoria

Italia William and Mario Alfanso Felice Wil­liam; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RYAN of New York: H .R. 5453. A bill for the relief of Mrs.

Denise Jeanne Escobar (nee Arnoux); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts: H.J. Res. 372. Joint resolution to author­

ize the appointment of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur as General of the Armies of the United States; to the Committee on Armed Services.

PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions

and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows:

80. By the SPEAKER: Petition of R. E. Bream and others, Pittsburgh, Pa. Peti­tioning consideration of their resolution with reference to taking whatever steps are necessary to withdraw from the United Na­tions for 24 important reasons set forth in their petition; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

81. Also, petition of Fred Chiles and oth­ers, St. Louis, Mo., petitioning consideration of their resolution with reference to request­ing the impeachment of Chief Justice War­ren and others in the Supreme Court for a recent decision in outlawing the n ame of " God" in public institutions; to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

SENATE WEDN E S DAY, APRIL 3, 1963

The Senate met at 10 o'clock a.m., and was called to order by the Vice President.

The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Eternal Father, _in these awakening days of leaf and bud and ftower, thrilling and throbbing with the vernal love­liness of April, we thank. Thee for every sacrament of '!J~auty of which our en­raptured senses drink as we bend in