HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE:S-Tuesday, July 16, 1968

21536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE J_uly 16, 1968 The pool wm serve young people at the

Boys Camp, Girls' Home and Chabot Ranchboys and girls with whom authorities are working to steer back onto the right ti.'ack in their relationship with soCiety-as well as the young people at Snedigar Cottage, who are there as victims of· circumstance and through no fault of their own.

Through Daly's initiative and generosity, the county wm be able to allow these young people the opportunity to learn that recreational and competitive swimming is fun-:more fun than breaking the law-as well as an ideal way to burn-off some of tha-t excess energy.

Daly has, over the years, done a great deal in the interest of youth. This is another outstanding example, and he is to be commended for it.

FLORIDA'S FINEST CITIZEN

HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, July 15, 1968

Mr. BENNE'IT. Mr. Speaker, Florida is honored to have Representative RoBERT SIKES as its dean of the Florida delegation. Recently, we had the pleasure in the House to pay tribute to him for serving longer here than anyone in Florida's long history. Today, I ask permission to have made a part of the RECORD an outstanding editorial from the Panama City News-Herald, and, as laudatory as the editorial is, it does not go halfway in the fine things we know about our beloved colleague.

The editorial reads as follows: FLORIDA'S FINEST CITIZEN

Writing an editorial on a person who has made just about every contribution there Is to make in the way of public service to his community, his state,· his country and his fellow man is an extremely difficult task.

Such a man is U.S. Rep. Robert L. F. Sikes, the distinguished and highly respected dean of the Florida legislative delegation in Washington.

Northwest is fortunate, indeed, to have such an outstanding leader as its representative in the United States Congress.

Bob Sikes set a memorable new record on July 5 when he achieved the distinction of having served longer in Congress than · any other Floridian. He broke the House longevity record in 1963 and surpassed the length of service record previously held by the late Sen. Duncan U. Fletcher in the Senate on July 5.

Mr. Sikes has served the First District of Florida for some 28 years, or longer than any other person from the Sunshine State in the 123 years of its history.

He has served the people of this area so ably and long that many of us take him for granted-and this is unfortunate. There are large numbers of us who also are selfish when it comes to the great "He-Coon" of the tall pine country of the Florida Panhandle.

There was a time-not too many years ago that Bob Sikes could have had the highest political office of this great state, the governorship. This was before the shift of political power to South Florida--when a

· small band of political giants from rural Northwest Florida ruled supreme in Tallahassee. They were called "Pork Choppers" and Bob Sikes was their idol. He started many of them on their political careers and they were his proteges, for Bob Sikes served two terms in the Florida House before going to Washington.

And Bob Sikes wanted to be governorto end his great career of public service by holding the highest office in the state he adopted as his own and holds in such high esteem and loves so much.

But we, his constituents, and most par-· ticularly his close friends, were selfish. "We need you too badly in Washington, Bob," the mighty He-Coon was told from every quarter. '•Northwest Florida will suffer if you leave Congress. You have too much seniority and too much power in Washington."

As he so often -does, the btg man from Crestview put service to his beloved Northwest Florida above self and forgot about the governorship.

Well, Bob Sikes, if you want to know the truth, we, your loyal friends and constitu..: ents, still are selfish-and we're not ashamed of it. On the contrary, we're proud; proud of you, your record of achievement, your tireless record of service to your nation in seeing to it that this country is prepared at all times to meet any aggressor.

We're proudest of all that you remained in Congress to represent the finest district in the land. We think that you made a wise decision-and that you are more important to this state and nation, and are making a greater contribution to both, than you possibly could have as governor.

Being a newspaperman ourselves, we're also proud that Bob Sikes is a member of the Fourth Estate. He did a creditable job of editing his Okaloosa News-Journal, which he founded at Crestview, until being elected to Congress. As proof of the esteem in which he was held by his peers in· the Journalistic profession, Sikes was elected president of the Florida Press Association in 1937.

For the benefit of newcomers, Congressman Sikes is affectionately called the "He-Coon" because of his outstanding leadership qualities. Cracker folks in this part of the country call the' leader of a raccoon pack the "HeCoon."

As to the record of Mr. Sikes, he has made so many invaluable contributions to his district, his state and his nation that it would take an entire newspaper to list them. He

ranks 17th in seniority in the entire House of Representatives and serves on several very important committees.

His powerful voice has been heard for over a quarter of a century for the cause of a strong national defense, improvements of our waterways and forests and the conservation of America's natural resources. He is a. great conservationist and patriot. ·

Mr. Sikes' greatest contributions have been in the field of national defense and military preparedness. He is a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations and chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, whioh means he must pass judgment on every cent spent by his nation on military construction.

In the words of a colleague, Congressman Andrews of Alabama, "there is not a better qualified military expert in tl,lis Congress than Bob Sikes."

Mr. Sikes acquired his military knowledge the hard way, starting as an ROTC cadet at the University of Georgia and rising to the rank of major general in the Army of the United States. He, incidentally, is a native Georgian who came to the Sunshine State to study at the University of Florida, where he acquired a masters degree, and remained.

He retired from the Army Reserve a few months ago after serving his country over a span of more than 40 years which included active duty stints in two world wars. A grateful Army presented him the Legion of Merit upon his retirement.

Perhaps few of Congressman Sikes' constituents realize the awesome power he wields in Washington or the exceptionally high esteem in which he is held by his colleagues in the Congress.

In honor of his having set a longevity record for service in Congress from Florida, members of the House of Representatives by undnimous vote granted five days for which to pay tribute to Robert L. F. Sikes.

Members of that august body, including le~Uiers of both parties, heaped thou&ands of words of lavish praise on Mr. Sikes and hl:s outstanding record of public service.

The long list of tributes and remarks were ' led off by none other than Congressman Don Fuqua of Altha, a protege of Sikes' who was but a boy of seven when the He-Coon first was elected to Oongress in 1940. He spoke for a solid hour on the merits of Congressman Sikes before relinquishing the floor to other House members.

Mr. Sikes is known and recognized as one of the truly great statesmen of all time to serve in the hallowed halls of COngress. He is universally respected by all who know him and very well liked by most of them.

His popularity is attested to by the some 3,000 friends who showed up at a reception in the Rayburn Rouse Office Building on the night of July 8 honoring him and Mrs. Sikes.

In addition to the countless other honors·· bestowed upon Congressman Robert L. F. (Bob-He-Coon) Sikes, we would like to add another: Florida's finest citizen and most outstanding public official.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE:S-Tuesday, July 16, 1968 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Rev. Russell D. Burns, of the Presby

terian Church of the Rock, Key West; Fla., offered the following prayer:

Eternal God, we Your children need individual help now. Pressures and demands ·have come from everywhere. At times we must live with Epicureans and we ourselves even possess the pride of Narcissus.

At this moment we _acknowledge You as the King of kings and we know we are frail and mortal.

Our Father God, we remember Your

promise of the Holy Comforter, the Holy Spirit himself. May He enable the Members of this body to have courage, faith, and wisdom to deal with today's business.

We adore You, the God and Lord of life. Today may our lives express gratefulness for Your self-giving love and patience. These things we ask because we believe in You. In Your name, we pra,y. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of yes

terday was rea~ and approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate. had pa.Ssed without amendment bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 7~81. An act to amend section .620, title 38, United States Code,. to attthorize.·payment of a higher proportion of hospital costs in establishing amounts payable for nursing home care of certain . veterans;

H.R. 14954. An act to amend title 38 of the United States Code to improve vocational'rehabilitation training for service-connected

July i. 6, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21537 veterans by authorizing pursuit . of such training on a part-time basis; and

H.R. 16902. An act to amend title 38 of the United States Code in prder to promote the care and treatment of veterans in State veterans' homes.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested, bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 3593. An act to amend title 38 of the United States Code to eliminate certain requirements for the furnishing of nursing home care in the case of veterans hospitalized by the Veterans' Administration in Alaska or Hawaii; and

H.R. 16025. An act to amend title 38 of the United States OOde With respect to eligibility for, and the period of limitation on, educational assistance available under part Ill of such title, and for other purposes.

The mes·sage also announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendments of the House to the bill <S. 1004) entitled "An act to authorize the construC!tion, operation, and maintenan<;l~ of th~ central Arizona project, Arizona-New Mexico, and for other purposes," requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. JACKSON, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. CHURCH, Mr. GRUENING, Mr. HAYDEN, Mr. KUCHEL, Mr. ALLOTT, and Mr. JORDAN of Idaho to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that the Senate disagrees to the amendments of the House to the bill <S. 3293) entitled "An act to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1969 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, arid tracked combat vehicles, research, devel':" opment, iest, · and· evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the Armed ·Forces, and ·for other puri>oses," requests a conference with the House on . the disagreeing votes Of the two Houses thereon, and' appoints Mr. STENNIS, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. JAcKsoN, Mrs. SMITH, and Mr. THURMOND to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill <S. 2986) entitled "An act to extent Public Law 480, 83d Congress, for 3 years, and for other purposes."

The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 3042. An act for the relief of Dr. Mario E. Comas; ·

S: 3043. An act for the relief of Dr. Juan C. Arrabal;

S. 3051. An act for the relief of Dr. David Alfredo Orta-:Menendez;

S. 3075, An act for the relief of Dr. Rich-ard Francis Power; . .

S. 3076. An act for the relief of Dr. Miguel A. Gomez; s~ 3081. Ali act for the relief of Eduardo

RaUl · Fernandez Sahtalla; · s, 3082. An act ·for the relief of Dr. ·:Narciso

A.:Lores; S. 3085. An act for the relief of Manuel

Hector Mere Hidalgo; S. 3152. An act for the relief of Sein Lin; S. 3166. An act for the relief of Dr. Jagir

Singh Randhawa; and

S. 3769. An act to amend the Higher Education Act · of 1965, the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, and related acts.

REV. RUSSELL D. BURNS Mr. FASCELL. 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 Florida?

There was no objection. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I am very

happy today to welcome to Washington, the Nation's Capital, and to the floor of this House, Rev. RU.ssell D. Burns, of the Presbyterian Church of the Rock, Key West, Fla.

Those of you who saw him and heard him know that he ·is a young man both in spirit and in mind. He has only been in Key West for 6 years. Normally it takes more than 6 years ~ become a part of that community. But I am happy to say that from all the reports I have received, Reverend Burns has done extremely well and has really become a part of that community.

The Presbyterian Church of the Rock in Key West, Fla., is a large church. It ha.s not only a large standing congregation but also a large transient congregation. Reverend Burns is highly regarded and appreciated not only by his congregation but also by the community.

He is dedicated not only to consecrated service of his church 'but his strong leadership and guidance is likewise appreciated in all aspects of the community life of Key West and Monroe County.

I know my colleagues join me in appreciation for the prayerfUl guidance which Reverend Burns has given to us as chaplain of the day for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Reverend Burns and I invite you to the great city of Key West, Fla. If you get the opportunity . to come there, Reverend Burns will minister to your spiritual needs and the chamber of commerce and I will take care of the rest.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS

Mr. DORN. 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 South Carolina?

There was no objection. Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, recently our

esteemed colleague, the Honorable WILBUR MILLS, chairman of the House Committee ·on Ways and Means, introduced legislation, H.R. 18371, -on the subject of industrial development bonds.

Today I am joining Mr. MILLS in introducing his bill which would permit the States to issue industrial development bonds for projects up to $5 million without losing ·tax exempt status. My bill is identical . to the bjll introduced by Mr . . MILLS and I take the floor today to endorse and support this bill. Legislation

in this field is necessary because of the Treasury Department's attempted decree to subject these bonds to taxation.

Mr. Speaker, our bill is a States rights bill as it will permit the Governor of a State to issue industrial development bonds in excess of $5 million if the Governor can certify that the area in which the plant is located is an area of high unemployment. This bill has been approved by a committee of the Governor's Conference and I predict that eventually all Governors will recommend this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there are still many underdeveloped areas of our country. There are still areas of unemployment and underemployment. There are areas where industrial development bonds will encourage industries to locate and, thus, . provide job opportunity, progress and growth for areas heretofore areas of hardcore and chronic unemployment and economic distress.

I urge the Congress to approve this legislation. It is urgent and necessary.

CONGRESS SHOULD PROCEED IN ORDERLY FASHION

Mr. BELL. 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 California?

There was no objection. Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, in a television

interview last night, our . distinguished majority leader stated that this House has "no chance" of meeting the hopedfor adjournment deadline of next month's presidential nominating conventions.

His reason for so predicting is the volume of work remaining in this session.

If such is the case, Mr. Speaker, then why must we engage in the kind of hasty action which characterized yesterday's passage of 28 bills totaling billions of dollars under a procedure which allowed no opportunity for amendment and only a very limited time for debate?

If it is clear that we cannot complete action on the legislative workload in the few weeks remaining before the conventions, and if we therefore can expect to return in September, then I respectfully suggest that we proceed on legislation in an orderly fashion, that we allow. adequate debate on the merits of the bills before us, and that we provide fair opportunity for amendment.

PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, .TO SIT DURING GENERAL DEBATE TODAY

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce _ may be permitted to sit today during . general debate.

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

There was no objection.

21538 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968 GRANTING MINERALS, INCLUDING

Oll.J, GAS, AND OTHER NATURAL DEPOSITS TO CERTAIN INDIANS Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill <H.R. 5704) to grant minerals, including oil, gas, and other natural deposits, on certain lands in the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Mont., to certain Indians, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Renate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Clerk read the Senate amend

ment, as follows: Page 2, strike out all after line 8 over to

and including line 6 on page 3 and insert: "SEc. 2. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe is

authorized to commence in the United States District Court for the District of Montana an action against the allottees who received allotments pursuant to the Act of June 3, 1926, as amended, their heirs or devisees, either individually or as a class, to determine whether under the provisions of the Act of June 3, 1926, as amended, the allottees, their heirs or devisees, have received a vested property right in the minerals which is protected by the fifth amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Montana shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the action and an appeal from its judgment may be taken as provided by law. If the court determines that the allottees, their heirs or devisees, have a vested interest in the minerals which is protected by the fifth amendment, or if the tribe does not commence an action as here authorized within two years from the date of this Act, the first section of this Act shall cease to have any force or effect, and the provisions of section 3 of the Act of June 3 ~ 1926, as amended by the Acts of July 24, 1947, and September 21, 1961, shall thereupon be carried out as fully as if section 3 had not been amended by this Act,"

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

There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concurred

in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

REVISION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BADLANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT IN SOUTH DAKOTAAUTHORIZATION FOR CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE CHANGE IN THE ENROLLMENT OF THE BILL Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a

concurrent resolution <H. Con. Res. 798) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

H. CoN. RES. 798

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 9098) to revise the boundaries of the Badlands National Monument in the State 'of South Dakota, ·to authortze exchanges of land mutually beneficial to the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the United States, and for other purposes, is authorized and directed to make the following change, viz :

In lieu of the language appearing on page 4, lines 9 through 21 of the House engrossed bill and the Senate amendment thereto, insert the following:

"(b) Any former Indian or non-Indian owner of a tract of such land, whether title was held in trust or fee, may purchase such tract from the Secretary of the Interior under the following terms and conditions:

" ( 1) The purchase price to a former Indian owner shall be the total a.mount paid by the United States to acquire such tract ·and all interests therein, plus interest thereon from the ·date of acquisition at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury taking into consideration the average market yield of all outstanding marketable obligations of the United States at the time the tract was acquired by the United States, adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum. The purchase price to a former nonIndian owner shall be the present fair market value of the tract as determined by the Secretary of the Interior."


There was no objection. The concurrent resolution was agreed

to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

REVISING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BADLANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT IN SOUTH DAKOTA, TO AUTHORIZE EXCHANGES OF LAND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE AND THE UNITED STATES Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 9098) an act to revise the boundaries of the Badlands National Monument in the State of South Dakota, to authorize exchanges of land mutually beneficial to the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the United States, ·and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and disagree to the Senate amendment.


ment, as follows: Page 4, line 9, strike out "Indian" .



LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 1969-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama, Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 18038) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for .. other .purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers on the part of the House 'be read in lieu of the report.

The Clerk read· the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Alabama?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I trust that the gentleman will take ample time to explain what transpired and will tell us what the other body has put in this appropriation bill. I have no evidence of what they have put in.

Where might I get something to look at quicklY, to tell me . what the otner body has put int~ this bill?

The other body gets our housekeeping bills and scrutinizes them, and they are available to any Member of the other body, but over here we get little or nothing by way of knowing what the other 'body tacked onto the bill we sent to them.

CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, I make

the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.

A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol

lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

(Roll No. 261] Anderson, Dow Long, La .

Tenn. Evins, Tenn. Rarick Ashley Findley Resnick Blanton Gubser Rhodes, Pa. Brown, Calif. Hansen, Idaho Rivers Conyers Hardy Schweiker Corman Hawkins Skubitz CUlver Herlong Thompson, Ga. de la Garza Karsten Tuck Diggs Kornegay Waggonner

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 404 Members have answered to their names, a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.

GUNS, RIFLES, AND . AMMUNITION

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to -revif?e and e~tend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, my posi

tion on proposed gun registration and licensing of gun owners has been misinterpreted and I want to set the RECORD straight. I support, ·and have so indicated, strong, effective Federal controls over the interstate sale, shipment, and transportation of all firearms-shotguns and ri:tles as well as handguns. I also support effeotive controls over interstate shipment, transportation, and sale of ammunition. In other words, I support the legislation which the House Committee on the Judiciary has reported to the House and which will be deba-ted this week.

As to another measure proposing national regis-tration of all firearms and establishing minimum standards for licensing gun owners, that measure, H.R. 18110, has been introduced and is now pending in our Committee on the Judiciary. No hearings have been held yet on this proposal. I support the President in urging action first on the interS'tate fire·arms and ammunition traffic bill. I believe, as the President has suggested in his message to Congress on June 24, 1968, that it provides a foundation of interstate protection by which States will be able, if they so determine, to control effectively firearms and ammunition ownership ~nd purchase within their borders. I believe that the foundation of inter-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21539 state control is needed immediately. It is a necessary first step to any registration or licensing approach on a Federal level.

PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, TO SIT DURING GENERAL DEBATE TOD:A Y Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that the Select Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor may sit this afternoon during general debate.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS, 1969--CONFERENCE REPORT

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report?

There was no objection. The Clerk read the statement. The conference report and statement

are as follows:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 1718) The Committee of Conference on the dis

agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 18038) "making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes," having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respectives Houses as follows:

That the House reeede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 30, and agree to the same.

The committee of conference report in disagreement amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34.

GEO. W. ANDREWS, TOM STEED, MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, SIDNEY R. YATES, BoB CASEY, GEORGE MAHON, ODIN LANGEN, BEN REIFEL, MARK ANDREWS, LoUIS C. WYMAN,

FRANx T. Bow. Managers on the Part of the House.

WILLIAM PROXMIRE, RALPH YARBOROUGH, CARL HAYDEN, THOMAS H. KUCHEL,

NORRIS CoTTON, MILTON R. YoUNG,

Managers on the Part of the Senate. STATEMENT

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 18038) making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report as to each of such amendments, namely:

SENATE AND HOUSE OF REFRESENTATIVES

Amendments Nos. 1 through 28, under the "Senate" heading; Nos. 31 and 32, under the "Architect of the Capitol" heading; and No. 34, under the "General Provisions" heading, relate solely to expenses of Senate operations

and activities. Amendment No. 30, under the Architect heading, very largely deals with a Senate matter. Amendments Nos. 29 and 33 relate to the Senate and House equally.

Amendments Nos. 1 through 27, and Nos. 31, 32 and 34, relating to Senate operations, are reported in technical disagreement. But in accord with the long and well-founded practice, under which each body determines its own housekeeping requirements and the other concurs therein without intervention, the managers on the part of the House will offer motions to recede and concur in these amendments.

Amendment No. 28, under the Senate heading, is also reported in technical disagreement. It provides for payment of certain emergency overtime to police carried on the Senate payroll, as authorized in H. Con. Res. 785 as finally cleared by both Houses. A motion will be offered to recede and concur with an amendment to similarly provide for payment of such emergency overtime to police carried on the House payroll.

JOINT ITEMS

Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies Amendment No. 29, relating to the appro

priation customary every four years for expenses of the Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, is reported in technical disagreement. A motion will be offered to recede and concur in the amendment.

Architect of the Capitol Amendment No. 30, under the Capitol

building appropriation, would appropriate $230,600, for certain work on the west side (Senate portion) of the building. The House had deleted the item without prejudice, feeling that since the request originated in the Senate, and the space is under assignment control of the Senate, the Senate should initiate introduction of the item in the bill. A motion will be offered to recede and concur in the amendment.

Pay of Capitol Police Amendment No. 33, under the general pro

visions heading, proposing a basic annual pay raise of $564 for all officers and men of the Capitol Police force, is reported in technical disagreement. A motion will be offered to recede and concur with an amendment limiting the pay raise to those on the force who have completed or who do complete the training program approved by the Capitol Police Board and who have qualified or who do qualify to receive a certificate for such training. This is the basic standard of criteria just recently approved by both Houses in H. Con. Res. 785 on the subject of emergency overtime pay, and is· in harmony with the trend in both Houses of building a professionally qualified force. The new rates will still be below the corresponding rates, for example, in the Metropolitan, Park, and White House police forces.

The higher rates of pay specified in the amendment and to be specified in the motion do not of course include the 5.85 percent general raise effective July 1, 1968 with respect to all the police positions under determinations made pursuant to the Federal Salary Act of 1967. This general raise adds to the basic rates specified in the amendment and in the motion to be offered.

GEO. W. ANDREWS, TOM STEED, MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, SIDNEY R. YATES, BOB CASEY, GEORGE MAHON,

ODIN LANGEN,

BEN REIFEL, MARK ANDREWS, LOUIS C. WYMAN,

FRANK T. Bow, Managers on the Part of the House.

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-

mous consent that further reading of the statement be dispensed with.

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

There was no objection. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr.

Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on

this bill is printed in this morning's RECORD and is available in leaflet form at the clerk's desk. You have just heard the Clerk read the statement of the managers explaining the conference disposition of each of the Senate amendments. So I shall be brief.

CONFERENCE SUMMARY

First, Mr. Speaker, I should say that there were 34 amendments of the other body. Only two of the 34 amendments deal with subjects that are of primary ooncern to both Houses equally; the other 32 amendments pertain to expenses of Senatte operations and activities.

As to the total appropriations, the conference agreement would appropriate a grand total of $298,151,396 in what is now more technically called new budgetobligational-authority.

The conference total is within the total of the budget estimates; it is, in fact, $10,746,137 below the President's budget requests considered in connection with this bill.

The conference total is, however, $50,-654,047 above the House bill total, but that is almost entirely the result of omitting from the original House bill all items relating exclusively to housekeeping in the other body. All but $630,600 of the increase above the House bill relates solely and exclusively to Senate housekeeping items.

JOINT INAUGURAL COMMITTEE

There are two items involving the $630,600, which I might just briefly mention. One is $400,000 for the just recently authorized Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies to be held next January. This item was not in the House bill, and I might say that it is customary for the Senate to initiate it.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of $400,000 is somewhat higher than the appropriation of 4 years ago. Construction costs have, of course, increased considerably and some allowances had to be made for that. Another item considerably enlarged over 4 years ago is the matter of provision for color television coverage, involving more extensive facilities in the way of stands for cameras and crews, more elaborate electrical wiring and control features, and so on. The $400,000 is the amount requested by the Inaugural Committee on which the Speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader serve. As was the case 4 years ago, any amount not required by the committee will revert to the Treasury. There was some balance that reverted 4 years ago.

REMODELING ON SENATE SIDE OF CAPITOL

The other item is for $230,600 for certain remodeling work on the west side of the Capitol Building in the Senate por-tion. That is for filling in and making use of the old, obsolete light and air shaft so that the attending physician, Dr: Pearson, can have some additional

21540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968

quarters for X-ray equipment and other uses. There are also some additional rooms involved.

CAPITOL POLICE MATTERS

Amendment No. 33, reported in technical disagreement, proposes to raise the pay of Capitol Police. The Senate initiated this proposal in order to bring the pay of Capitol Hill Police closer to comparability with those in the Metropolitan Police Department wh.J recently were raised. to somewhat higher starting salaries. The increase involved is $564 a year. It falls nearly $500 short of comparability, but it should be helpful m securing and holding professionally qualified police for the Capitol Hill force.

I might say in this connection that this is a legislative rather than appropriation matter, and we have consulted with and secured the views of the leaders of the Committee on House Administration as to the position the conferees should take on this amendment. And we followed their recommendations, which in substance is to provide the raise immediately-that is, effective ·July 1, 1968-to those officers and men on the force who have completed the training program approved by the Capitol Police Board and who have qualified to receive a certificate for such training. This is the basic standard of criteria just recently approved by both Houses in agreeing to House Concurrent Resolution 785, which

dealt with the subject of emergency overtime pay for Capitol Police. And as was noted in the statement of the managers, this is harmonious with the trend and the desire in both Houses toward a professionally qualified police force for the Hill.

The motion to be offered to carry out the conference agreement will further provide that as men on the force complete the prescribed training program and qualify for the certificate, they too will promptly receive the pay raise. We think this is a reasonable and equitable and proper settlement and so far as I am aware, there is full agreement that this is a reasonable way to handle the matter.

One other item is the matter of emergency overtime pay for police which the House recently authorized in House Concurrent Resolution 785. Amendment No. 28 of the Senate provides for the payment of such overtime with respect to police on the rolls of the Senate. We have concurred in that provision but in the motion to be offered, we w111 propose to add suitable language making similar provision with respect to police carried on the rolls of the House.

CONFERENCE BILL OTHERWISE

Mr. Speaker, of course, the other body made no changes whatever in the provisions of the bill dealing with the House of Representatives.

The other body did not change any of the House recommendations with respect to any other items under the Architect of the Capitol.

The other body did not make any changes with respect to House recommendations for the Library of Congress, for the Government Printing Office, for the General Accounting Office, or for the Botanic Garden. They accepted all of the House provisions in these agencies.

By way of summary, the conference total is $298,151,396.

The budget requests were $308,897,533, so the conference action represents a reduction of $10,746,137 below the budget requests for new obligating authority.

The total of the bill as it passed the House was $247,497,349.

The corresponding amounts enacted for fiscal 1968 total $281,725,524.

Thus, the conference bill is $50,654,047 above the House bill; $16,425,872 above last year; and $10,746,137 below the budget requests for 1969.

Mr. Speaker, translating the effect of the budget authority reductions on budgeted 1969 expenditures, our best approximation is that the conference agreement would result in expenditure reductions of about $10.9 million.

Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend, I include the following recapitulation of the figures with appropriate comparisons:

Legislative branch appropr-iation bill, fiscal yea·r 1969 (~.R. 18038) CONFERENCE SUMMARY

Budget estimates

of new (obligational)

authority, fiscal year

1969

N ew budget New budget (obligational) (obligational)

Conferenoe action compared with-New budget -------------------

Item

New budget (obligational)

authority, · fiscal year

19681

authority authority recom- recom-

mended in mended in House bill Senate bill

(obligational) authority

recommended by conference

action

New budget (obligational)

authority, fiscal year

1968

Budget estimates

of new (obligational)

authority, :fiscal year

1969

New budget New budlet (obligational) (obligational) authority

authority, recom-recommended mended in in House bill Senate bill

_________ (_1) ____ ~---------------------------------------------------------------~) __________ (9_) ________ (1~ (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Senate. ___ -------------------- --- -_ $45, 093, 819 2$47,120,802 - - - ---- - ------ - $47,082,247 $47,082,247 +$1, 988, 428 -$38,555 +$47,082,247 -- ---- - ----- --House of Representatives _____ ____ _ 83,448,265 87, 084, 910 $85, 039, 420 85,039,420 85,039,420 +1,591, 155 -2,045,490 - - -- ----- - ----------- ----- - -- --Joint items ____ ------------------ __ _ 11,360,440 13,064,921 12,311,229 12,711,229 12,711,229 +1,350, 789 -353,692 +400,000 ------- ---- ---

15,556,100 19,724,700 12,442,900 15,614,700 15,614,700 +58,600 597,500 568,000 565,000 565,000 565,000 -32,500

Architect of the CapitoL ________ __ _ Botanic Garden __________ __ ___ ____ _ -4,110,000 +3, 171,800 --------- - - - --

-3,000 ----- --- - -------------- - ---- - --Library of Congress _______________ _ 37,141,400 41,780,000 40,638,800 40,638,800 40,638,800 +3,497,400 -1,141,200 ----- -- -- -- - ---------- - - -- - ----Government Printing Office ______ _ 34,169,000 41,812,200 39,000,000 39,000,000 39,000,000 +4,831,000 -2,812, 200 -------------------------------General Accounting Office ______ __ _ 54,359,000 57,742,000 57,500,000 57,500,000 57,500,000 +3,141,000 -242,000 -------- - ----------------------

Total, new budget (obliga-tional) authority __ ________ _ 281, 725, 524 308, 897, 533 247,497, 349 298, 151, 396 298, 151, 396 + 16, 425, 872 -10,746,137 3 +50, 654,047 ----- --- ------

Memoranda-!. Appropriation to liquidate

contract authorization ___ _ _ 2. Grand total, new budget

(obligational) authority and appropriation to liquidate contract authoriza-

(115, 000) (6, 975, 000) (5! 7,000) (5!7,000) (5!7,000) <+41£,000) (-6, 448,000) ------------- - -- -- - -------------

tion.--------------- - - ____ _ (£81, 840, 5£4) (815, 87£, 5SS) (£48, 0£4, 849) (S98, 678, S96) (£98, 678, S96) (+16, 8S7, 87£) 4 ( -17, 194, 187) (+50, 654, 047) _____________ _

1 Includes $5,828,449 contained in the 2d Supplemental Act, 1968. 2 Includes $1,030,305 submitted in Senat e documents.

4 The t entative approximation is that this reduction from budget requests will translat e into reductions of about $10,900,000 below budgeted 1969 e.xpenditmes.

a Includes $50,423,447 not considered by the House.

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

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the g.entleman used a figure of $50 million. To what does that relate?

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. To the housekeeping functions of the Senate, which traditionally have been left to that body.

Mr. GROSS. I understand that. I have heard all about comity. This does not bother me at all, I would say to the gentleman.

It is $50 million for the other body. What is the figure for the House?

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I will supply that. Offhand, I cannot recall the precise amount.

The total amount of our bill, when it left the House, was $247,497,349. That amount included the housekeeping functions of the House, together with a lot of joint items, such as joint committees, Library of Congress, General Accounting Office, Government Printing Office, Botanic Garden, and so forth.

The SPEAKER. The time yielded by the gentleman from Alabama has expired.

Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman take an additional couple of minutes?

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr.

Speaker, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

Mr. GROSS. Is the House figure up $16 million over last year? What is the figure for the House? Does the gentleman have that available? - Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I do not have the exact figure. The gentleman will remember we have had one or two salary increase bills which had to be taken into consideration.

Mr. GROSS. Yes. Those chickens are coming home to roost all the time, in almost every regular appropriation bill and every supplemental appropriation bill.

The gentleman mentioned the inau-

July 16, 1.968 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD- HOUSE 21541 gural. As I understand it; the price tag -know of any funds in this bill for that on that is up $135,000; from. $265,000 to 'purpose? . $400;000. Is that about right? - Mr. ANDREws: I can say "No."

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. That 1S Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. correct. I tried to point ·out that it has Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the been 4 years since the last inaugural gentleman yield? ceremonies were held. We are told that Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to inflation is about at a rate of 6 percent ·the gentleman from California. per year. Mr. TALCOTT. The gentleman sug-

Mr. GROSS. I thought the gentleman gested that there was a figure, in round said some of that cost was attributable numbers, of $50 million of housekeeping to the fact it has been decided to have expenses for the Senate and $247 milthe inaugural in living color. lion for the House. This seems to be con-

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I think _siderably disproportionate. I wonder if the American people should have it in the gentleman's figures are correct.


There was no objection. The Senate amendments are as-follows:

SENATE COMPENSATION OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND

SENATORS, Mn.EAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND SENATORS, AND EXPENSE ALLOWANCES OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND LEADERS OF THE SENATE COMPENSATION OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND

SENATORS For compensation of the Vice President and

Senators of the United States, $3,304,295. living color. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I tried to MILEAGE oF PRESIDENT oF THE sENATE AND oF

Mr. GROSS. Is there any way, at the point out that the $247 million total sENAToRS same time the inaugural is being carried figure in the House bill does not cover For mileage of the President of the Senate out, that we can somehow picture the -just housekeeping figures and is not and of senators, $58,370. Federal debt in living color-the debe, comparable to the $50 million. the deficit, the billions paid in interest The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-on the Federal debt? Is there any · way tleman from Alabama has expired. we· can paint that in living color for the · · Mr. ANDREWS ·of Alabama. Mr. taxpayers of this country, while they ·speaker, I yield myself 2 additional min-

EXPENSE ALLOWANCE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, AND MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS

For expense allowance of the Vice President, $10,000; Majority Leader of the Senate, $3,000; and Minority Leader of the Senate, $3,000; in all $16,000. watch a plus inaugural ceremony? · utes.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would thirik that Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Speaker, will the SALAIUES, OFFICERS, ABD EMPLoYEES whoever is elected President could touch gentleman yield? For compensation of omcers, employees, on that subject in his inaugural speech. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I am glad clerks to Senators, and others as authorized

Mr. GROSS. I fear that would not to yield to the gentleman from Minne- by law, including agency contributions and t longevity compensation as authorized, which

come through in living color. I tho\lght c so a. shall be paid from this appropriation without $265,000 for an inaugural was a fair Mr. LANGEN. I thank the gentleman. regard to the below limitations, as follows: chunk of money, and I regret the ad- I think these figures can be clarified oFFICE oP THE VICE PRESIDENT dition of another $135,000. by saying that the $47 million figure has Flor clerical assistance to the Vice Presi-

The SPEAKER. The time yielded by an equivalent figure in the House of dent, $245,528 . . the gentleman from Alabama has 'again $85,039,420. That applies to the houseexpired. · . -keeping items of the House. The $247

Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman take millfon, also includes the Library of another minute? I have another ques- -Congress, the General Accounting Office, tion? · , Government Printing Office, and several

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. · functions which have nothing to do with Speaker, I yield myself 2 additional the operation of the House at all. minutes. Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- the gentleman for that information. I tleman yield? think it is very important that this clari-

Mr. ANDREWS. o! Alabama. I say to fication be made.

CHAPLAIN Chaplain of the Senate, $16,732.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY For office o.f the Secretary, $1,509,828 in

cluding $162,996 required for the purposes specified and authorized by section 74b of title 2, United States Code.

COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES For professional and clerical assistance to

standing committees and the Select Committee on Small Business, $3,640,996. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to

the gentleman, regardless of the color, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. coNFERENCE col.lrlMITTEEs if the true figures are sent out by tele- LANGEN]. For clerical assistance to the oonference 6f vision they will be black. M LANGEN M S k th h i the Majority, at rates of compensation to be

Mr.GROSS.Theywillbewhat?. r., . r.- pea er, ec ar- . 11 ed b th h 1 man of the committee has adequately x Y e c airman of sa. d committee, Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Black. and very eloquently gone over the provi- *107'912' .

Th illl k d k For clerical assistance to the Conference ey w oo ar · sions of the conference report. I hope

M GROSS Th ht to ·be • · d of the Mi-nority, at rates of compensation to r. · ey oug m re • that the explanation provided a few be fixed by the chairman of said committee,

The true figures ought · t_o 'Qe .-in red. ·. moments ago clarifies the misunder- $107,912. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. What :I standing. Actually, there was little dif- ADMXNISTRATIVE AND cLERicAL ASSISTANTS To

meant was, it would be a dark picture c ference between the House and the Sen- sENAToRs for the American people to ·see. . ate versions of this bill. As your chair- For administrative and clerical assistants

·Mr. GROSS. The gentleman is exactly man explained, these were resolved in and messenger service for senators, $21,279>,-right in that respect. such a manner as to bring about unani- 720.

I note in the bill that the Other body mOUS approval on the part Of -the COn• OFFICE OF SERGEANT AT ARMS AND DOORKEEPER spends $21,279,720 for clerk hire, while . ferees . for the House. I can therefore For omc~ of sergeant at Arms and Doorthe House of Representatives, with four , recommend the conference report for keeper, $4,601,608: Provfaett, That, effective times as many Members, spends $38;- approval by the House. July 1, 1968, the Sergeant at Arms is author-142,500. Is there any accounting for this Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr . . ized to employ the following additional em· huge expenditure for clerk hire on the · Speaker, I move the previous question on ployees: one programmer .a.t $14,100 per part of the other body? the conference rei>ort. · annum; one programmer-operator at $8,460

i t per annum; one color :film technician at Mr. ANDREWS .of Alabama. 1 can The prev ous ques ion was ordered. $9,776 per · annum; one assistant chief cab-

only say to the gentleman that the other J'h,e conference report was ~greed to. inetmaker at $9,024 per annum in lieu of body writes its own provisions on the AMENDMENTS IN DISAGREEMENT one cabinetmaker at $8,084 per annum; matter, as we do over ~ere. . The SPEAKER. The Clerk w1ll report sixty-one additional privates, police force at

Mr. GROSS. I wish that about every_. , the first amendment in disagreement. $7,144 per annum each; four assistant chief telephone operators at $7,896 per annum

other year the other "9ody -wou~d inau- Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr . . each in ueu of five at such rate; twenty-gurate the housekeeping bill and let U.s · Speaker, inasmuch as they pertain solely . seven telephone operators at $6,204 per get on at the other end, instead of the to· housekeeping operations of the other · annum each in lieu of thirty-one at such House always initiating a bill and send- · body and the long practice is that we rate; and the compensation of the shipping ing it over to them. , _ . ~ leav~ those matters to the determination and stock clerk, recording- studio shall be

Is there any money for the acquisition · of the other bo<:lY -to sav·e time I ask $6•768 per ~~mum in lieu of $5·640 per an. f 'rt · b. · th. ' · · · · · · - · - · ' . num: Provtded further, That appointees to o more prope Y· Y _ e othe.r _ 'Qody for : ~anililpus conse_nt ·that Sen~te amend- · the capitol · Police Fo'rce positions author-the purpose o! . erecting ':' ne_:w, ~enate , ments_ -Nos, 1. through ,27; anq Nos. 31, · 1zed herein shall have the eq,uivalent of at office building?- ·Does- ,the · gentleman · 32, and '34 be considered en bloc. · least one year's police experience. -

CXIV--1357-Part 16

21542 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July. 16, 1968 OFPICES OJ' THE SECRE'l'ARIES FOR THE MAJORITY

AND THE :MINORITY For the offices of the ·Secretary for the

Majority and the Secretary for the Minority, $180,480.

OFFICES OF THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY WHIPS

For four clerical assistants, two for the Majority Whip and two for the Minority Whip, at rates of compensation to be fixed by the respective Whips, $19,928 each; in all, $39,856. OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL OF THE

SENATE For salaries and expenses of the Office of

the Legislative Counsel of the Senate, $342,180. ' .

CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE SENATE POLICY COMMITTEES .

For salaries and expenses of the Majority Policy Committee and the Minority Policy Committee, $240,150 for each such committee; in all, $480,300.

AUTOMOBILES AND MAINTENANCE For purchase, exchange, driving, mainte

nance, and operation of four automobiles, one for the Vice President, one for the President Pro Tempore, one for the Majority Leader, and one for the Minority Leader, $48,700.

FURNITURE For service and materials in cleaning and

repairing furniture, and for the purchase of furniture, $31,190: Provided, That the furniture purchased is not available from other agencies of the Government.

INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION For expenses of inquiries and investiga

tions ordered by the Senate, or conducted pursuant to section 134(a) of Public Law 601, Seventy-ninth Congress, including $412,360 for the -Committee on Appropriations, to be available also for the purposes mentioned in Senate Resolution Numbered 193, agreed to OCtober 1~, 1943, $6,221,585.

FOLDING DOCUMENTS For the employment of personnel for fold

ing speeches and . pamphlets at ·a gross rate of not exceeding $2.42 per hour per person, $43,790.

MAIL TRANSPORTATION For maintaining, exchanging, and equip

ping motor vehicles for carrying the mails and for official use of the offices of the Secretary and Sergeant at Arms, $16,560.

:MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS For miscellaneous items, exclusive of labor,

$4,348,335, including $398,000 for payment to the Architect of the Capitol in accordance with section 4 of Public Law 87-82, approved July• 6, 1961.

POSTAGE STAMPS For postage stamps for the offices of the

Secretary for . the ·Majority and Minority, $180; and for airmail and special delivery stamps for the office o! the Secretary, $200; office of the Sergeant at Arms, $160; Senators and the President of the Senate, as authorized by law, $108,480; and the maximum allowance per capita of $800 is increased to $960 for the fiscal year ~969 and thereafter: Provided, That Senators fro~ States partially or wholly west of the Mississippi River s.hall be allowed .an additional $240 each fiscal year; in all, $109,020.

STATIONERY REVOLVING FUND For stationery foJ: ·s .enators and the Presi

dent of the Senate, ·$303,000; and for stationery for committees and officers of the Senate, $13,200; in all, $316,200, to remain available until expended.

COMMUNICATIONS For an amount for communications which

may be expended interchangeably, in accordance with such limitations and restrictions

as may be prescribed by the Committee ·on Rules and Administration, for payment of charges on official ~legrams and long-distance telephone calls made by or on behalf of Senators or ihe President of the Senate, in addition to those otherwise authorized, $15,150.

SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS For maintenance, miscellaneous items and

supplies, including furniture, furnishings, and equipment, and for labor and material incident thereto, and repairs thereof; for purchase of waterproof wearing apparel, and for - personal and other services; including eight attendants at $1,800 each; for the care and operation of the Senate Office Buildings; including the subway and subway transportation systems connecting the Senate Office Buildings with the Capitol; uniforms or allowances . therefor as authorized by law (5 u.s.c. 5901- 5902), to be expended under the control and supervision of the Architect' of the Capitol; in all, $2,878,900.

SENATE GARAGE For maintenance, repairs, alterations, per

sonal and other services, and all other necessary expenses~ $62,300.

SEc. 106. The stationery allowance, as authorized by law, for each Senator shall hereafter be available only for (1) purchases made through the Senate stationery room of stationery and other office supplies for use for official business, and (2) reimbursement upo;n presentation, within thirty days after the close of the fiscal year for which the allowance is provided, of receipted invoices for purchases elsewhere of stationery and other office supplies (excluding items not ordinarily available in the Senate stationery room) for use for official business in an office maintained by a Senator in his home State. Any part of the allowance for stationery which remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal year 1969' or any subsequent fiscal year s'hall be withdrawn from the revolving fund established by the Third Supplemental Appro-

. prlation Act, 1957 (71 Stat. 188; 2 U.S.C. 46a 1), ·and covered into the general fund of the • • •. MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ANDREWS OF ALABAMA

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. SJ>(baker, I o:fier a motion.

The Clerk read as follows: Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama moves that the

House recede from its disagreemen'!; to the amendments of the Senate numbered 1 through 27, and numbers 31, '32, and 34, and concur there~n.

The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the next amendment in disagreement. The Clerk read as follows: Senate amendment No. 28: Page 8, line 18,

insert: · "ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

"Emergency overtime compensation authorized by House Concurrent Resolution 785, Ninetieth Congress shall be paid from the appropriation 'Salaiies,. Officers and Empl,oyees, Office of Sergeant at Arms and Jlo9rkeeper', fiscal years 1968 and 1969." :MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ANDREWS OJ' ALABAMA

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I o:fier a motion.


House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 28 and concur therein with an am~ndment: as follows: Add the following to the amendment:

"HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES .. Emergency overtime compensation au

thorized by House Concurrent Resolution 785, Ninetieth Congress, payable to employees un

. der the House ·of Representatives, shall be

paid from the appropriations 'Salaries, Officers and Employees, Office of the Sergeant at Arms', fiscal years 1968 and 1969, as applicable."


the next amendment in disagreement. The Clerk read as follows: Senate amendment No. 29: On page 15,

line 21, insert: "JOINT COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES

OF 1969

"For construction of platform and seating stands and for salaries and expenses of conducting the inaugural ceremonies of the President and Vice President of the United States, January 20, 1969, in accordance with such program as may be adopted by the joint committee authorized by concurrent resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives, $400,000." MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ANDREWS OF ALABAMA

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I o:fier a motion.

The Clerk read as follow~: Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama moves that the

House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 29 and concur therein.


Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Why is it necessary for the taxpayers' money to be spent for these special inaugural facilities? They have increased substantially the cost of the inaugural ceremony.

Why should not those who receive a commercial benefit-and I have no doubt that there will be plenty of advertising revenue-why should not the broadcasting companies pay for these special installations?

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I will say to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GRoss], we were told that the broadcasting companies would pick up the check for a certain amount of the costs. But these stands will be erected upon Government property. Through the years, only the Government puts those up on Government property. It is for the benefit of the American people and I am sure that most Americans will welcome an opportunity to see the inaugural ceremony of the next President of the United States in living color. regardless of who the Presi-: dent might be.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, surely there is no security involved insofar as the installation of the equipment is concerned. Could we not hire an inspector to see that the equipment is properly installed for a lot less than $135,000, if that is where the extra money is to be spent?

Mr. Speaker, if Congress does not start saving such amounts as $135,000, the Members of the House who voted for a tO-percent increase in the surtax and a cut in the budget of $6 billion, are going to find themselves out in left field. I have not as yet seen the slightest indication of any serious economy around here, especially to the tune of $6 billion • You cannot get $6 billion out of the

· foreign giveaway blll. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see some

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21543 demonstration pretty ·soon as tO where it is proposed to make the $6" pillion cut. I want to see some performance on the part of those who loaded this latest tax burden upon the people, I will say to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. ANDREWS].

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. This is the smallest bill, moneywise, that comes before the House and if the gentleman will look at the :figures, the gentleman will see we have trimmed this smallest bill, appropriation-wise, to come before us by more than $10 million.

Mr. Speaker, going back to the $400,-000 for the inaugural ceremony, I think the gentleman from Iowa will agree that the rate of inflation for construction has risen to the extent of about 6 percent per year and it has been 4 years since we had the last inauguration. In addition, I will say· to the gentleman from Iowa that if this amount of money is not expended, every dollar of it will revert to the Treasury of the United States. There was a balance in the approprfat.ions 4 years ago, which reverted to the Treasury.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I would like to say that I have no criticism of the gentleman from Alabama, none at all. He and I have been voting against most of these spending bills, trying to stop the 1nflation that the gentleman says · contributes to the added cost of inaugurals. We have been trying to do this, but with not much cooperation. ·

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman frOm Alabama.


the next amendment in disagreement. The Clerk read as follows-: Senate amendment No. 33: Page 34, line

13, insert: "SEc. 105. Effective July 1, 1968, the com

pensation of captains, Capitol Pollee Force, shall be $13,348 per annum each, the compensation of-lieutenants- and special officers, Capitol Pollee Force, shall be $11,280 per annum each, the compensation of sergeants, Capitol Police Force, sh~ll be $9,400 p~r annum each, and the compensation of privates, Capitol Police Force, shall be $7,144 per annum each."

- . MOTION OFFERED BY MR. ANDREWS OF ALABAMA

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.


House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33 and concur therein With an amendment, a.s follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment insert the !on-owing:··

"SEc. 105. Effective July 1, 1968, with -respect to those officer-s and members of the United States Capitol Police force who- had prior to such date completed ~he training program approved by _ the Capitol Police Board and had qualified to receive a certificate for such training, the per annum ·rate of compensation of captains shall be $13,348 each, the per annum rate of compensation of lieutenants and special officers .shall . be $11,280 each, the per annum rate of compensation of sergeants shall be $9,40Q each, and the per annum rate of comp_ensa.tion of privates shall be $7,144 each: Provided, That with respect to those . offi.cers ·and members 01' 'such force who on or after sueh date' com-

plete such training program and qualify for such certificate, such rates of compensation shall take effect on· the first day of the first month following the date on which any such officer or member, as certified by the Capitol Police Board, completes such · training and qualifies for such certificate."

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

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to compliment the gentleman from Alabama for the fine job that he has done in blinging -this bill to the floor of the House, and in reaching a fair compromise. However, I would like to ask the gentleman a question on something that I have been interested in for a good many years here at the Congress, and that is th~ police force.

I am wondering whether anything is being done to take the police force of the Capitol out of the patronage system, and place it under civil service? I feel that the U.S. Capitol is entitled to have the :finest police force in the United States, so I would ask the gentleman from Alabama if anything is being done in that direction?

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, in reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I would state that· it is planned to have a police force at the Capitol made up of professional policemen. The move is in that direction at this time. There have been several moves in that direction.

I want to say further that this committee is interested in doing all that is neeessary and has been sympathetic in trying to make the police force at the Capitol a good police force in every sense of that word.

The gentleman will :find that in the bill we provide $113,500 to build a pistol range in the basement of the Rayburn Building because the men on the force have been greatly handicapped in obtaining sumcient target practice. Further, the head of the police force at the Capitol is a professional police omcer, having served many years on the Metropolitan Police force. Chief Powell, I ·believe, is doing a great job. And this pay raise which is provided for is another step in the direction of improving the police force at the Capitol.

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I am pleased to hear that statement from the gentleman from Alabama, and again I want to commend the gentleman for moving in this direction. However, I believe there is another point that should be brought out in line with what the gentleman from Iowa TMr. GRoss] was talking about in cutting our budget, and that is I believe the point should be made here that we hav.e too many police officers around the Capitol at the present time, and yet I understand that automobiles have been stolen in the garage right in the Capitol. I had a stereo set stolen from my automobile right in the garage here, and I believe with this massive force that · we have here this should not have occurred.

·· I wonder if we have· any idea how massive thls·force 1s•r I believe that they are sumcient that they should be· used· to · a

greater extent to provide ·more security to the House Office Buildings, and to the Capitol Grounds. · I would mention further tha"t often, as

one drives up here in the mornings, or in the afternoons, or in the evenings, one will find them bunched together, three or four or five of them on· the street corners. I believe that this is wrong. I believe they should be dispersed at strategic positions in at least the garages; the garages up here should certainly be protected by the police, and I believe we have a sufficient police force to do this, and to protect all the property around the Capitol.

This, I believe, is not being done. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I would

say to the gentleman, at the 'proper time the gentleman should have a conference with Chief Powell of our U.S. Capitol Police and I am very sure he will be glad to have your views. We think Chief Powell is doing a grand job.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama.

The motion was agreed to. _ A motion to reconsider the votes by

which action was taken on the conference report and on the several motions was laid on the table.

Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent torevise and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.



PRIVATE CALENDAR The SPEAKER. This is Private Cal

endar day. The Clerk will call the first individual bill on the Private Calendar.

VISITACION ENRIQUEZ MAYPA The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 4386)

for the relief of Visitacion Enriquez Maypa. ·

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. If there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL]?

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the present consideration of the bill? Mr. HALL and Mr. TALCOTT objected,

and, under the rule, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ARTHUR JEROME OLINGER, ' A MINOR

The Clerk called the bill <S. 155) for the relief of Arthur Jerome Olinger, a minor, by his next fliend, his father, George Henry Olinger, and-George Henry Olinger, individually. · · Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani:...

mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

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

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I object.

21544 CONGRESSIONAL · RECORD-. HOUSE July . 1.6, . 1-968

The SPEAKER: Is there objection to the present consideration of the b111?

Mr. TALCOTT and Mr. HALL objected, and, under the rule, the b111 was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

RESOLUTION TO REFER THE BILL (H.R. 14109) TO CHIEF COMMISSIONER, COURT OF CLAIMS The Clerk called the resolution

<H. Res. 991) to refer the bill <H.R. 14109) entitled "A bill for the relief of Joseph W. Harris," to the Chief Commissioner of the Court of Claims pursuant to sections 1492 ·and 2509 of title 28, United . States Code, as amended. ·

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this. resolution be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. }fALL] ?

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Is there objec-tion to.

the present consideration of the resolution? .

Mr. TALCOTT and Mr. HALL objected, and, under the rule, the resolution was reCommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary. ·

LAURENCE BLOOM The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 1608)

for the relief of Laurence Bloom. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan

imous consent that this '"Qill be passed over without prejudice.'

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the ·request of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS]? .

Mr. H~GATE. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the present consideration of the bill? , Mr. GROSS and Mr. TALCOTT ob

jected, and, under the rule, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

WASSON COAL MINING CORP. The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 12539)

to confer jurisdiction on the U.S. Cou.rt of Claims to hear, deter:rp.ine, and rende~ judgment on the claim of the Was59n Coal Mining Corp. against , the United States.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I a::;k unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. .

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

Mr; HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. ·Is there objection to

the present consideration of the bill? Mr. TALCO'IT _and Mr. GROSS ob

jected, and, under tlie rule, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary. · ------

MRS. RUTH BRUNNER The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 12894)

for the relief of Mrs. Ruth Brunner. · Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice. · _

The SPEAKER. 1s there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL]?


the present consideration of the bill? Mr. TALCOTT and Mr. HALL objected,


RACHEL STIMPSON The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 1527)

for the relief of Rachel Stimpson. Mr. HALL Mr. Speaker, I ask unani


The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. HALL]?


the present consideration of the. bill? Mr. GROSS and Mr. HALL objected,.


HUBERT ASHE .

The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 4404) for the relief of Hubert Ashe.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS]?

. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the present consideration of the bill? Mr. GROSS and ¥r. HALL objected,

and, under th.e rule, the bill was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary . .

CHARLES BERNSTEIN The Clerk called the bill <S. 321) for

the relief of Charles Bernstein. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan

imous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS]?


the present consideration of the bill? Mr. HALL and Mr. GROSS objected,


CUBAN TRUCK & EQUIPMENT CO. The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 6321)

for the relief of . the Cuban Truck & Equipment Co., its heirs and assigns.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask· unanimous consent that this .bill be passed Qver without prejudice. . .

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

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Is there ·objection to.

the pres~nt con_sideration .. of the }>ill? Mr. HALL and:Mr. GROSS, objected,

and; under the rule; the . bill was . recom;.:

mitted to the , Committee on the Judiciary.

REMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 10417)

for the relief of Remco Industries, Inc. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani


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

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to·

the present consideration of the bill? Mr. HALL and Mr. GROSS objected,


FRANK KLEINERMAN The Clerk called the bill <H.R. 2654)

for the relief of Frank Kleinennan. · The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the present consideration of the bill? Mr. mCKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent that the bill be paSsed over without prejudice. .

·The SPEAKER. Is there objeetion to the request of the gentleman . from' Washington? ' l ,

There was no objection. Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous . consent that the further call of the -Private . Calendar be di~ensed with.

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

There was no objection. The SPEAKER. That concludes the

call of the Private Calendar.

FRANK KLEINER1\4AN Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous. consent to return for .immediate consideration to Private Calendar No. 439, the bill <H.R. 2654) for the relief of Frank Kleinerman.

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

There was no objection. The Cle~k read the bill, as follows:

H .R . 2654 Be it enacted by the Senate and "the House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 1s ·authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise a.pproprta ted, the sum of $2,717.50 to Frank Kleinerman of 15 Meadowbrook Road, Longmeadow, Massachusetts, in full settlement of his claims against the United States for damage ca. used to property owned by him at 28 Charles Street, Meriden, Connecticut, due to ·the freezing of plumbing and heating pipes during a pe:r:lod of severe cold weather due to the refusal of_ agents of the Internal Revenue Service to p~r.mit bim to enter tne premises and take steps to protect his property . . No part of the amount appropriated in this Act shall be paid or delivered ·to or received by any agent or. attorney on account of services readered iJ;l connection with this claim, and tlle same shall be ,unlawful, .any contract to the .co.ntrary notwithstanding. Any person violating tlle .. provisions of this Act shall be deemed guilty of_··.a misdemeanor .. and upon

July 16, 1968 · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 21545 conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000.

With the following committee amendment:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

"That notwithstanding the limitations of section 2401 of title 28 CY! the United States Code, or any other statute of limitations, jurisdiction il? hereby conferred on the United States District Court of the District of Connecticut to hear, determine and render judgment on the claims of Frank Kleinerman of 15 Meadowbrook Road, Longmeadow, Massachusetts, against the United States for damage to property owned by him at 28 Charles Street, Meriden, Connecticut, due to the freezing of plumbing and heating pipes during a period of severe cold weather due to the alleged negligence of agents of the Internal Revenue Service in refusing to permit him or his agents to enter the premises and the alleged negligence of the agents of the Internal Revenue Service to take steps to protect his property. fiothing in this Act shall be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the United States. The action authorized herein must be filed within one year of the effective ·date CY! this Act."

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentl~man from Ohio?

There was no objection. The Senate amendment was concur

red in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

THEOFANE SPffiOU KOUKOS

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 4976) for the relief of Theofane Spirou Koukos, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.


ment, as follows: Page 1, line 8, after "Act" insert ": Pro

vided, That no brothers or sisters of the said Theofane Spirou Koukos shall thereafter, by virtue of such relationship, be aocorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act".




table.

AMIRU. KHAN

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask STANISLAW AND JULIANN A unanimous consent to' take from the.

SZYMONIK Speaker's desk the bill <H.R. 11287) for

until his death on August 7, 1Q67, shall be held and considered to have been a citizen of the United States at · the time of his death."




table.

FOR THE RELIEF OF MISS AMALIA SERESLY

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill (S. 1808) for the relief of Miss Amalia Seresly, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.


ment to the House amendment, as follows:

Page 1, line 3, of the House engrossed amendment, strike out "the" where it appears the first time and insert "no".


There was no objection. The Senate amendment to the House

amendment was concurred in. A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table;_

·Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the relief of Amir U. Khan, with a Sen- FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1968 unanimous consent to take from the ate amenqment thereto, and concur in Speaker's desk the b111 (H.R. 1879) for the Senate amendment. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, by direc-the relief of Stanislaw and Julianil;a Szy- The Clerk read the title of the bill. tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up monik, with Senate amendments there- · _ 'I'he Clerk Tead the Senate amendment, ~ ·House ,Resolution 1240 and ask for its· to, and concur in the Senate amend- as follows: ·· immediate consideration. · ments. Strike out all after the enacting clause The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-

The Clerk read the title of the bill. and insert: lows: H. RES. 1240 The Clerk read the Senate amend- "That, for the purposes of the Immigra-

ments, as follows: tion and Nationality Act, Amir u. Khan shall be held and considered to have been lawfully

Page 1, line 4, strike out all after "shall" admitted to the United states for permanent down to and including "313(a)" in line 6 residence on July 9, 1948, and the periods of and insert "not be regarded to be or to have time he has resided in the United states been within the classes of persons whose na- since that date shall be held and considered turalization is prohibited by section 313". to meet the residence and physical presence

Page 1, lines 7-and 8, strike out "as such requirements of -section 316 of the said Act." class is specified in section 313(c) of the said Act,". The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio? There was no objection. .

the request of the gentleman from Ohio? The Senate amendment wfts concurred There was no objection. The Senate amendments were con- in.

curred in. A motion to r~consider was laid on the

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. table.

GIOV ANNA INGUI DALLARA

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr . . Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill <H.R. 4544) for the relief of Giovanna Ingui Dallara, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The Cierk ·read the Senate amend

ment, as follows: Page 1, line a,-after "Act" insert ": Provid_.

ed, That no brother or sisters · of ·the said Giovanna Ingui Dallara shall ' ·thereafter, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or -status ·under the Im• migration and Nationality Act".

CONFERRING U.S. CITIZENSHIP POSTHUMOUSLY UPON PFC. JOHN R. ANELI

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill <H.R. 13301) to confer U.S. Citizenship Posthumously upon Pfc. John R. Aneli, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.


mentl as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and

insert: · · "That, Private First Class John R .- Aneli, a

native of Italy, who served honorably in the Unitec:L States Army frQih Augus~ 29, 1966,

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of tl:le Whole House on the State of the Uniori for the consideration of the blll (H.R. 15263) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the b1ll shall be read for amendment under the :five-minute rule. It

. shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order the amendments recommended by the Comll)ittee on Foreign Affairs now printed in the bill. At the conclusion of the consideration of the b111 for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments-as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the b111 and amendments thereto to ,final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LATTA], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1240 provides an open rule with 3 hours of general debate, waiving points of order against the colllrilittee amendments in. the bill. The bill carries appropriations---

21546 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July .16, .1968 .

page 2, line 16 and page 3, line 25 Communist China, but all who want to Mr. HALL. Was the .opinion of the through page 4, line 8-and without the remain free. Committee on Rules unanimous 1n this waiver of points of order against these Total authorization 1n the bill H.R. respect, could the distinguished gentleamendments would violate clause 4 of 15623 is $2,364.., 725,000 which amount is man advise us? . rule XXI. $596,750,000 less than that requested by Mr. PEPPER. I will say-and I am

It is a little-understood paradox of the Executive. sure that my able friend from Ohio [Mr. foreign aid that virtually all of it is spent Mr. Speaker, I urge the. adoption of LATTA], also a member of the commit-in the United States. House Resolution 1240 in order that H.R. tee, will sa.y, as I do-that this was a

The bulk of this aid is used to purchase 15263 may be considered. unanimous action on the part of the Amerieaneommodities and 'Services. This Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- Committee on Rules. increases our exports, creates jobs for tleman yield? Mr. HALL. Can the gentleman advise American workers and specialists, and Mr. PEPPER. I yield to the gentleman us that there are no other areas in the produces business for American firms. from Missouri. bill subject to points of order exc~pt

Between 1960 and 1966, our commer- Mr. HALL. I appreciate the gentle- these two? cial exports to 53 developing countries man's yieltii:vg. . . Mr. PEPPER. Only those two. receiving foreign aid increased by $1.5 In accordance with the new rules of Mr. HALL. And the specific coverage billion. This .increase came on top of the Committee on Rules, would the gen- for which the waiver of points of order substantial American exports financed tleman again go through the preclusion are included is on these amendments with normal commercial and foreign of the intervention of points of order, only? assistance resources. as set forth on lines 11 and 12 of page 1 Mr. PEPPER. That is correct.

A part of foreign aid is used to ship of the rule, pertaining to committee Mr. HALL. If these amendments are American goods on American ships to amendments of the Committee on For- adopted and no point of order is made foreign destinations. American shipping eign Affairs? or substitutes or amendments to the is more costly than world shipping and Mr. PEPPER. Yes. amendments are niade, in the opinion of has to be subsidized by our Government. Mr. HALL. Why was this necessary? the gentleman, can a separate vote then Foreign aid, therefore, helps to suppGrt Who requested lt? How much does it be demanded on these amendments? our merchant marine. involve? Would the gentleman again cite Mr. PEPPER. I would not want to an-

Another part of foreign aid is spent the references in the bill, please. swer a parliamentary inquiry. It would helping American firms establish going Mr. PEPPER. I will be glad to respond be more appropriate to ask that of the business concerns abroad. Last year to the able gentleman. Chair. But my opinion would be they alone, private overseas Amerlean ven- If the gentleman will look on page 2 are like other amendments in the bill tures returned more than $4.5 blillon to of the bill, lines 14 to 17, he will find but not subject to a point of order if the United States in the form of remitted the first committee amendment. The the House adopts this rule. profits. committee amendment reads: Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman yield for

Still another part of foreign aid is (a) Section 2u(d). which relates to avail- a parliamentary inquiry? used to support and expand the over- ablllty of funds for certain research and Mr. PEPPER. I will be glad to yield seas programs of private, nonprofit educational institutions, ts amended by in- to the gentleman for any inquiry that American organ:izations--church groups, serting '"in any ftscal year" immediately after the gentleman cares to propose to the labor unions, cooperatives, and various "funds made available". Chair. other voluntary agencies. That has to do with the ttansfer of Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamen-

American .education receives its share appropriations. This is one of the two tary inquiry. of foreign aid. Funds authorized by this committee amendments with respect to The SPEAKER. The gentleman will legislation are used, in part, to help which points of order were requested state it. American universities expand their un- to be waived, and this was requested Mr. HALL. In the event that either one derstanding of the processes of economic specifically by the able chairman of the of those amendments referred to by the and social development; to provide di- House Committee on For-eign Affairs be- distinguished gentleman from the comrect support to private, American-spon- fore the Rules committee, because of mittee on Rules on pages 2 and 3 of the sored schools abroad; to enable American the presence of this committee amend- bill are amended in the normal amendaspeciallsts and scholars to enlarge their ment, and another amendment Sit the tory process and are passed, would they knowledge of and foreign areas, peoples. bottom of page 3, beginning on line 24 be subject, on· request · of any individual and problems through programs which . and running through line 8 o! _page 4, Member, to a separate vote after the very likely would not be undertaken which is also an appropriation item ap- Committee rises and we go back into the without assistance from f{)reign aid. pearing in this bill, without the waiver Whole House?

The bulk of American foreign .aid is being used to increase food production of points of order would be subject to Mr. SPEAKER. The Chair understands and to improve food processing and dis- a point -of order. the parliamentary inquiry, but the Chair tribution in the develOPing countries. As 1 told . the able gentleman before, seeks to obtain the facts. The Chair has

A part of it is used tB promote edu- the Committee on Rules requires that examined the bill and notes {a) section cation and to introduce modem eduea- any committee which requests a waiver 211 (d) , for example, is a committee tional technology. of the rules shall submit to the Rules amendment to the bill. That would re-

Another part is used to solve prob- Committee in writing the item or items quire a separate vote in the Committee of lems relating to health-on international' · with respect to which the waiver is re- the Whole and would be entitled to a sepresearch into the causes of cancer, on quested and the reason for it. The able arate vote in the House if it were adopted the eradication of communicable dis- chairman of the House Committee on in the Committee of the Whole, but an eases, and on vari{)US other programs .in Foreign Affairs met that requirement in amendment to the committee amendthis :field. making just these two requests, both of ment adopted in the Committee. of the

Still another, though relatively small, which are committee amendments mak- Whole would not be subject to a .separate part of foreign aid is used to deve1op ing an appropriation on an essential but . vote in the House. transportation and communications; to not a substantial matter. That is the rea- Mr. HALL. I thank the distinguished improve administrative practices in the son why we requested the waiver. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman from public and private sectors; and to pro- Mr. HALL. I appreciate the expanded Florida for yielding. mote the dev-elopment of viable, demo- statement of the gentleman. I take it The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes cratic institutions 1n the receiving coun- the reasons, in the opinion of the Coni.:.· the gentleman from Ohio. tries. mittee on Rules, were adequate, other- Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-

Finally, a substantial part of foreign wise they would not have granted a rule self 10 minutes. aid is used to strengthen the free world's waiving these points of order and that Mr. Speaker, let me .say that this promilitary capacity to resist Communist this is a justifiable transfer of funds in gram has been referred to by the very aggression. This benefits not only such both of the two instances. able chairman of the COmmittee Gn For'-countries as free ChinJl,, South Korea, Mr. PEPPER. The Committee on Rules eign Affairs as ·a subsidy program for · Iran, and Turkey which are located on so ' "felt and so recommended to · the American industry. He maintains· that the periphery of the Soviet Union and . House. · our various industries are entitled-to such :

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL · RECORD- HOUSE · • · I 21547

programs since we have a subsidy pro- country, your constituents and mine, of gram for American agriculture. Frankly, $171,235,000,000 for foreign aid.

Total net foreign assistance to 120 nations and six territories of the world-fiscal years 1946: through 1968-continued I do not look upon this program as a At lunch today a friend of mine in-

subsidy program for American industry quired where our so-called friends are . and I doubt very much whether industry when we need them. Not too many of looks upon it as such. . them have responded in Southeast Asia.

Libya-------------------- $216,600,000 ~alagasy ----------------- 12,500,000 ~alawi ------------------- 14,100,000

I would like to say that this bill calls And when the dollar was in trouble we for an authorization of $2,364,725,000. know what Mr. de Gaulle and France This is $63 million above the 1968 appro- did; yet France, under the foreign aid

~alaysia ______ .:.__________ 91, 400, 000 ~ali --------------------- 21,400,000 ~alta-------------------- 6,200,000 ~aurltanla --------------- 3,400,000

priation for the foreign aid. program, has received $7,021,200,000. ~auritlus ---------------- 500,_000 ~exico ------------------- 517,900,000 Mr. Speaker, I want to stress this fact. Nlr. Speaker, I am going to submit at ~orocco ------------------ 589,100,000 Of course, we are going to hear much this point in the RECORD the total net

during the debate concerning the Com- foreign assistance to 120 nations and mittee's action in reducing the adminis- six territories of the world through the tration's request. But nothing can cover years 1946 to 1968, so that the Members up the fact that this bill is $63 million may have, country by country, the above the 1968 . appropriation for this amount of expenditures that our people

Nepal -------------------- 114,200,000 Netherlands-------------- 2,052,700,000 New Zealand ------------- 24, 400, 000 Nicaragua---------------- 129,500,000 Niger -------------------- 13,000,000 Nigeria ------------------- 204, 100, ooo Norway ------------------ 1, 132, 400, 000 Pakistan ----------------- 3, 126, 500, 000

program. have made to these countries. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Opera

tions Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations on June 14 sent a statement to the Members concerning the operations of this program under the present administration. I know the Members of the House have all read it. However, I want to refer to the fourth paragraph of ~his statement, it reads as follows:

The request for foreign aid funds have been fragmentized. It is scattered throughout the budget and is carried under 2o-

Twenty-different titles, chapter or separate plans. The annual cost is increasing. The total for fiscal 1969 calls for the largest amount requested by any administration since I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations.

This is signed by OTTO E. PASSMAN, chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that this point is worth some consideration by the Members of the House of Representatives. We -passed and the President has recently signed into law a• 10-percent surcharge on the incomes of all Americans. I do not :find many people who are really happy with this income tax in-

.. crease. Likewise, I do not :find too many people who are happy with the deficit . spending which has been going on under -this administration. ,

Mr. Speaker, just this morning I contacted the Department of the Treasury to get the last :figure on the debt of this great land of ours.

On July 11,- 1968, according to the Department of the Treasury,· we were in debt to the extent of $351,610,983,901.58. This debt tells me somthing and I believe, Mr. Speaker, it says this is not the time to borrow money this year of all years in order to give it away.

The very able chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, in the statement to which I have previously refered, indicates the amount of money we have borrowed since the inception of this foreign aid program just to give money away. There are the :figures, Mr. Speaker: the total net interest on the money which we have borrowed to give away from the period of 1946 and 1968 is $52,803,000,000. This is just the interest on the money we have borrowed to give away.

The total net disbursements during this period under the foreign program totals $118,432,000,.000. This represents a total cost to the taxp~yers of this

Total net foreign assistance to 120 nations and six territories of the world-fiscal years Panan1a ------------------ 188,200,000

Paraguay----------------- 95,700,000 1946 through 1968

Afghanistan -------------Albania -----------------Algeria ------------------Argentina ---------------Australia ----------------Austria -----------------Belgium-Luxembourg -----Bolivia -------------------Botswana ----------------Brazil ------------------Burundi ----------------Burma -------------------Cambodia ---------------Cameroon ---------------Canada ------------------Central Africa Repubuc ___ _ Ceylon -------------------Chad --------------------Chile ______________ ..:, ____ _

China, Repub11C----------Colombia -----------------Congo (B) _______________ .;;

(}ongo (lt)----------------Costa Rica _______________ _

Cuba --------------------Cyprus -------.------'------Czechoslovakia ____ .;. _____ _ Dahomey -----------------I>enmark -----------------Dominican Repub11C-------East Germany ____________ _

Ecuador -----------------El Balvador --------------Ethiopia -----------------~nland -----------------FTanee ------------------Gabon ·-------------------GaD1bia ------------------Ghana -------------------Germany and Berlin ______ _

Greece -------------------Guatemala ---------------Guinea -----------------Guyana -----------------llaitl ---------------------Honduras ----------------llungary -----------------

. Iceland ------------------India ------------------~-Indo-China --------------Indonesia ----------------Iran __________________ .:, __

Iraq ---------------------Ireland ------------------

. Israel --------------------Italy ---------------------Ivory Coast ______________ _

Jamaica ------------------. Japan ___________ .:. _______ _

Jordan' -------------------Kenya _,:-________ _. _______ _ Korea ____ : ______________ _ Kuwait ______ ..; __ . _ _: _____ :__ Laos ________________ .;; __ .:,_

Lebanon -----------------Lesothe ------~----------ldberia -------------------

$344, 900, 0~0 Peru--------------------- 449;200,000 20, 400, 000 Ph1llppines --------------- 1, 761, 400, 000

191, 70o,ono Poland------------------- 444,100,000 409 400 000 . Portugal --------~-------- .476,100,000 431• 500• 000 Rwanda ------------------ 6, 100, OQO

1 122• 900• 000 Saudi Arabia ------------- 217,900, ooo 1,757,200,000 Senegal------------------ 30,400,000 ' 476• 200• 000 Sierra Leone -------------- 35, 200, ooo

17· 300• 000 somali ------------------- 68, 200, ooo 2 476• 400· 000 Sou. Rhodesia - --:---------- 2, 300, ooo ' 6•800•000 Spain-------------------- 1,952,7oo,ooo

85• 600• 000 Sudan ------------------- 128, aoo, ooo 342, 3oo' ooo Sweden ------------------ 129, aoo, ooo

28• 400• 000 Swaziland ---------------- 100, ooo 11• 100• OOO Syrian Arab RepubliC------ 62, 600, 000 4 ' 400 ' 000 Tanzania ----------------- · 55~ 800, 000

109, soo' 000 Thailand ----------------- 1, 063, 900, 000 7, 4oo' ooo Togo --------------------- _13, 200, ooo

1 221• 600• 000 ~nidad-Tobago ---------- 51,600,000 4' 873, 5oo' ooo ~ni&a ------------------ 531,400,000

' 747• 100• 000 Turkey ------------------- 5, 126, 400, 000 2' ooo' 000 lJganda ------------------ 27,900,000

393• 500• 000 lJnited Arab ReP---------- 925,400, ooo 142

• 300

• 000

lJnited Kingdom__________ 7, 394, ooo, ooo 43, aoo' ooo lJSSR -------------------- 186, 400, ooo 20

: 300

: 000

lJpper Volta______________ 9, 700, ooo 189 500 000 lJruguay ---------------- . 112, 400, 000 10• 600•000 Venezuela---------------- 318,400,000

877•300• 000 Vietnam ----------------- 5,042,800,000 358·aoa' 000 VVesternSan1oa------------ 2oo,ooo

' 800• 000 Yemen ------------------ 43, 900, ooo 245 500• 000 Yugoslavia --------------- 2, 633, 100, ooo 99 •400•000 Zambia ------------------ 16,200,ooo

323•300•000 Bahaxnas ----------------- 23,30o,ooo 39, 400, 000 Brit. Honduras____________ 4, 700, 000

7 021•200•000 Surinan1 ----------------- 10,100,000 ' 7• ooo' OOO VVest Inqie~--------------- 6,400,000

1• ooo' OOO Hong !tong_______________ 42, 600, 000

204• 200

• 000

Ryukyu Islands___________ 364, 790, ooo

3 668• 700

• 000

Trust Territory Paclflc____ 147, 200, ooo a' 605, 10o' ooo CENTO-Paciftc ---------- 58, ooo, ooo •220•300• 000 VV/VV regional------------- 12,742,100,000

72: 200: 000 VV /VV aid, fiscal year 1968.. 5, 550, 000, 000 34,200,000

101,500,000 91,200,000 14,900,000 67,900,000

6,585,200,000 1,535,200,000

686,400,000

Total net disbursements to foreign nations, 1946-68 ___ 118,432,000, 000

Total net itlterest paid on what we have borrowed to give away, 1946-68. 52, 803, 000, 000

1, 848, 400, 000 Grand total-cost of 98, 800, 000 foreign assist-99•400·000 ance--1946through

5.~~~:~~:~~ f968 ~------------ 171,235,000,000 29,700, ooo Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time for 49, 1oo, ooo us to seriously consider a moratorium

3, 528,300, ooo on foreign aid. It is admitted in the 622, 700, ooo report by this great committee-and it 55• 700· 000 grieves me deeply to have to oppose this 6,986,800;000 itte i 50, 000, 000 · comm e and ts bill, because I know

528, aoo, ooo of no other committee of the Congress 84,100, ooo which works harder than dOes this com-

2, 100. ooo mittee, nor do we have another chair-213, 400, ooo . m(ln of the House for whom I have great-


er respect fha.n I have for the chairman of this great committee, nor the ranking member of thls committee. We have tn the so-called pipeline an unexpended balance of $5;4 billion-$5.4 billion as of June 30, 1968.

We are informed that some 90 percent of this money is already committed, and. therefore, we cannot have a moratorium on it because we might have to release some individuals who are working for AID. It would be a pity to have to send some these employees of AID's to the Post Office Department, for example, so that they could help carry the mail on Saturday. This would be far better than continuing a program which has netted us so few friends.


Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a better suggestion~ and I have not heard of a better one in this House in a long, long time, than the suggestion the gentleman from Ohio just made.

The gentleman from Florida [Mr. PEPpER]. in presenting the report on behalf of the majority, said that this program had achieved startling results, or startling accomplishments, or something of that kind.

Would the gentleman from Ohio know of where, when, and how this program has achieved such startling results?

Take India, for instance-and the Russians are now ~ver there-they are buying their military equipment from Russia, and undermining our position 1n Vietnam at every opportunity. That began under N~hru, and it still goes on under the other Nehru.

Would the gentleman from Obio have any idea as to where these sta.rtllng results occurred? Maybe it was in Nigeria where they are now killing each other by the thousands. We were in there helping them, as the gentleman knows.

I do not know where all of these startling results have taken place.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, ·will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATI'A. I will yield to the gentleman from Florida as soon as I have responded to my friend, the gentleman from Iowa.

Let me say to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe we have "bought" any friends through foreign aid programs: we might ·have saved some countries from going communistic. On the other hand, we do not know whether they wcruld have remained noncommunistic without foreign aid. I do not believe we can buy friends through this program, or through any .other type program. I just do not believe we can do that. And this has .shown up wli'en we have needed friends. And when we need them now over in South Vietnam, they fail to offer any assistance.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. LA"rl'A. I ~ield further to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. They have been conspicuous by their absence, except for . token forces from a very few countries.

'!be only country with any serious intent to help us over there 1s :South XGrea, and of course we .are .financing them 100 percent.

Mr. LATTA . .Mr~ Speaker, I will now yield to my friend from Florida LMr. PEPPER].

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, what I had in mind, I would like to say .to the gentleman from Iowa, are a few instances that have been emphasized in the press lately. One was almost a miracle achievement in the development of a new rice strain.

The SPEAKER pro tempore <Mr. ALBERT) . The time of the gentleman from Ohio has exp1red.

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself '5 additional minutes.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, this is an exCremely productive type of rice which wilJ probably replace to a large degree the availability of food rice in the case of these people in Southeast Asia. ·

Another instance I wou1d point out was the vecy forward-looking development in the production of a better qus.lity of wheat which bas helped the people of India to feed themselves instead of us being ealled upon to supply the wheat.

Those are just two instances that I had in my mind when I made that statement. There are many other remarkable achievements that bave been made possible through the foreign aid program which is helping those people to help themselves. I know that is what the able gentleman wants to see.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, wD1 the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. Are , these free food products in India to toughen them up and to make good strong flghters out of them • so they can come over and help us and keep the Communists o1f their doorstep in Southeast Asia-is that about right?

.Mr. PEPPER. 1 would say this-that they are 1n one of the areas in the world wblch Is on the periphery of communism and communistic aggression. That is the reason we do have a m111tary a1d policy in trying to aid countrles in that distressing situation.

Mr. GROSS. Yes, and they .are so concerned about co1l1Dl.Ullism that they have not sent a living soul over to do eombat duty in Vietnam----and I am talking about the Indians. Is that not rtght?

Mr. PEPPER. The Indian people have followed their own policy. Of course, I am not their spokesman or their representative.

I think that most of us will agree that to .he1p India to stay out from under the yoke of communism is 1n the best interests o! · the tree world and iil. the best interests of the United States of America.

Mr. GROSS. Have they any .interest in freedom, and freedom from commWlism?

Mr. PEPPER. Yes, they do. Mr. GROSS. Then why. do they not

try to do a. little of what is necessary? Mr. PEPPER. They are a weak ooun

try on the border of a very strong eountry and. that is the reason we have indieated we will help them if they are

attacked by this strong Communist aggressor. Because if they were to take over tbat vast popuiatioo. of China, the population of India and put their Communist yoke on those 500 or 600 million people, it would not be in the interest of freedom. We want to try to help them to feed themselves .so we will not have to send wheat to them.

Mr. LATTA. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida and the gentlem-an from Iowa. I just want to sum up what they .have said by saying that for our expendit~res of over $118 billiDn during the past two decades we should have purchased something.

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

Mr. LATTA.· I yield ro the gentleman. Mr. HALEY. The gentleman is bring

ing to the attention of the Congress, I think, and very emphatically in the Congress what many of us who are opposed to this program have said for years and years and years.

This program has not bought a friend. It has not done the job. We have less friends today than we had when we started this program and, yet, we have poured out the wealth of this Nation to the extent of $171 billion. When we need help, we do not get any help from any of these supposed irlends, that we have fed and propped up their government.

.Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for his .comments.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to add that I think we have a very serious fiscal problem in this coWltry and 1 Lhink charity begins at home.

We have to maintain the solvency of the dollar and to maintain the strength of tbe dollar or else we will not be in a position to help these other com1trles in the future,-let alone able to help ourselves.

J: want to call the attention {)f the House to this report from the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on ,Appropria- ~ tions ~nee ag~ to show what bas been happening during the time this program has b,.een in effect.

On December 31. 1950.. we .had gold holdings of .22.8 billion.

on December 31, 196'1, we had gold holdings of $11.9 billion--()r a loss of over $10.9 billion in gold during the period.

Now what has been happening to the gold holdings o1 the other countries o1 the world during thls pertod?

On December 31, 1950, the other nations had holdings of almost $11 billion, but on December 31, 196-'7, these same countries had holdings of $27 billion in goLd. '

This means a difference Qf some $16 billion in gold.

Now what has happened during this period 'Of time in the United States balance-of-payments position?

With the exception of one year-between the years 1950 and 196'7-we have continually shown a deficit in our balance (}f payments. In 196'7 we show a balance-of-payments defl.e.it of $3,650,ooo,ooo.

During the entire period between 1950 and 1967 we show a balance of pay.ments deficit of , $36,989,~00,000. Here are the figures:

July 16, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·- HOUSE 21549 ~ U.S. balance-oj-pu.yments position (r.egular - transaction) Net deficit:

1950 - - ----------~----- · --$1,912,000,000 1951 - ---- - --------· --- --578,000,000

. 1952 ~----------------- -- 1, 100,000,000 1953 ----- - - - - - -------- -2, 100, 000, 000 1954 ----------------- - -1,500,000,000 1955 ---- ----------- - -- - 1, 100, 000, 000 l956 --- -------- ------- . - 1, 000, 000, 000

Only credit in 18 years (1957) ____ __ _____ :_____ + 500, 000, 000

Net deficit: 1958 ------------ - --- - - --3,400, 000,000 1959 ------------------ --3,700,000,000 1960 ------------------ -3, 800, 000, 000 1961 ------------------ --2,400,000,000 1962 ------------------ - 2,200,000,000 1963 ------------------ --2,660,000,000 1964 ------------------ - 3,006, 000, 000 1965 ----------- - ------ --1,306,000,000 1966 -----·------------- -2, 077, 000, 000 1967 ------------------ --3,650, 000,000

U.S. balance-of-pay-· ments deficit, 1950 through 1967---- --36, 989, 000, 000

Gross public debts Public debt, United States,

December 31, 196'7 ______ $345, 947, 345,000 Public debt, all other na-

tions of the world ( 133) , December 31, 1967 _____ 302,128, 345,000

Public debt, United States exceeds com-bined public debt of other nations of the world (by estimate)------------ - 43,819,000,000

It is plain to me what has been happening at home during the years we have been exporting our dollars. As a consequence, I cannot. agree with the argument that foreign aid is a subsidy program for American industry, with some 90 percent of these dollars being spent in the United States.

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

Mr. LATTA. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. KYL. Without becoming involved in any argument, I think we should give some credit to where it is due. The gentleman from Florida has mentioned the development of a new rice strain, which is indeed a wonderful discovery which holds great promise. Butr if my memory serves me correctly, the money for this research project was provided by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. It was not through the foreign aid program. Those great organizations should have credit for that activity.

Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield? Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman

from Illinois. Mr. COLLIER. Adding brie:tly to the

earlier colloquy with regard to aid and its effect in arresting communism, I think it should be noted that the one nation that had the strongest leanings to communism for years was Indonesia, and it was not tmtil after we discontinued all aid to Indonesia that it threw off any association with communism in the world. Mr~ PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I just want

to add one thilig in response to the comment made by. my able friend about the Ford Foundation doing the research on

the· :rice project. He is correct. But I am informed that it was the foreign aid program which assembled the seed that was developed in this research program and put it in the countries involved, distributing it to the· people so that they could take advantage of the excellent research which was done by the Ford Foundation. It was a cooperative program of the finest kind between the foundations, which did a magnificent job, and the foreign aid program.

Does. the able gentleman from Ohio have any further requests for time?

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio _[Mr. TAFT] .

Mr. TAFT. Mr. Speaker, I take this time on the rule, not for the purpose of debating the merits of the bill, which we certainly will have ample time to do when the bill comes on the :floor before the committee, but rather to talk for just a moment about the balance-ofpayments impact that is involved here. I am deeply concerned with this, as I am sure all of the Members are. I think first we ought to recognize that approximately 94 percent of the commodity pur-chases under the program are indeed in this country, and therefore, insofar as commodity purchases are concerned, the impact upon the U.S. economy at home is certainly far greater than any involved abroad and affecting unfavorably the balance of payments.

I had reason to make inquiries earlier in the year as to what the impact on the balance of payments was for other than commodity procurement. I thought it might be well to share with the House at this time the figures that I obtained.

In the fiscal year 1968 the total balance-of-payments impact of the foreign aid program, other than in commodity procurement, was $145 million offshore, or 17 percent of all noncommodity expenditure.

For the fiscal year 1969 it is expected that that will be improved considerably and, indeed, with the committee cuts of over $500 million which have already occurred in the bill it is pretty evident that that is going to be true. But even on the recommended :figures from the administration, noncommodity procurement expenses offshore were down from the estimated figure for 1968 of $145 million to $98 mlllion for fiscal 1969, and that is based on total expenditures other than for commodities of $720 million which is larger than it would be under the committee bill.

So when we see here ·a 14-percent :figure, that has now been reduced, too, insofar as the balance-of-payments impact is concerned.

I agree that this $98 million is not bay. I am not saying all parts of our 'Unfavorable balance-of-payments situation should not be carefully studied with a view toward improving it. However, I would point out this foreign aid program is a very minor factor in it. Some estimates put the net effect of foreign aid under this bill at a favorable balanc&-including loan repayments-but by any reasonable estimate it does not exceed $200 million out of a total deficit of $3.6 billion.

Let me give just one :figure ·that comes to mind in that respect insofar as the unfavorable balance of payments is concerned. We have kept overseas almost 300,000 men in our Armed Forces in Europe, with approximately 240,.000 dependents in that area. Total expenditures, as I received them from the Defense Department earlier this year is this connection, total approximately $2,600 million per year. So when we are talking about doing something about the balance-of-payments situation, I think this program-whieh of necessity, if we are going to have a program, is going to involve some expenditures overseas-is now a minor factor in our unfavorable balance-of-payments situation. In fac~, there are so many others-for instance, the tremendous debt which we have been accumulating in this country, the lack of confidence which has led to an out:flow of investments, and the continued outflow of investments from the United States, because apparently the U.S. investors do not think so much of our investment climate--that I think in talking about this balance-of-payments situation, it is well to recognize these facts and put them into proper context and juxtaposition.

It is specious reasoning to claim that the exports made under our foreign aid program would have occurred in any case and would have been a favorable balance factor. Between 1960 and 1966 U.S. exports tied to AID and Public Law 480 and the Export-Import Bank rose $1.3 billion. On the other hand commercial U.S. exports to developing countries not so financed rose by $2.1 billion and maintained their share of the remaining market at almost 20 percent.

I would also like to take a moment at this time to cite to the gentleman from Iowa and other Members of the House an insert I put into the RECORD a couple of days ago, which appears in the Extensions of Remarks, page 21109, July 12, 1968, setting out a brief extract from an article called, "The Agricultural Revolution in Asia," which appeared in ·the July 1968 issue of Foreign Aifairs, a quarterly. It indicates the tremendous progress that has been made with the agriculture in Asia. It has been done, it is true, with the remarkable development of such things as miracle rice and wonder wheat, which have been developed happily by American ingenuity and enterprise, whether it be public or private.

·But the important thing to recognize is that we ·cannot continue these programs either as to obtaining the rice and wheat seed or in providing fertilizer, which is so necessary for the growth of the crops involved, unless we finance it under this program.

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TAFT] that other programs do harm to our balance of payments. I certainly could not subscribe to the argument that just ·because we have other programs which do harm that we should not do something about this program. We have _ to take these things as they come. The foreign aid bill is before U,le ·House today, and it W<?uld be wise to do something

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 16,. 1968

about our balance of payments whenever and wherever we have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CuRTIS].

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate in considering this rule to relate this particular AID program to the other programs that actually constitute the total of foreign aid of the United States abroad, and particularly to relate it to the question of our deficit in the international balance of payments.

I could not disagree more with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. TAFT] ·when he says that foreign aid does not have a tremendous impact upon our interna- · tiona! balance of payments. As a matter of fact, for a number of year.s I have been trying to point out the figures have been rigged in order to create the impression that foreign aid does not. I use the word "rigged" advisedly.

Let me again go through the syllogism. We may lend, say, or give, $1 billion to India, and then we say to India, "You have to purchase $800 million of your foreign purchases in the United States." An 80-percent tie-in. Then when an Indian businessman goes to get foreign exchange in order to make some purchases, the Indian Government calls to his attention this obligation and says, "We want you to make these purchases in the United States."

Here is where the hooker comes in. But the Indian businessman already was

· dealing with U.S. businessmen and buying in the United States. India already was spending, say, $800 million with the United States, so this tie-in becomes a

· fictitious thing. The impression sought to be created is that the AID programs themselves actually require 'some 80 percent of the money spent for the AID projects with tie-in purchases in the United States.

Of course, if they are doing their job AID money is being spent to a large degree on things like irrigation, dams, roads, buildings, homes, or schools, where the bulk of the materials purchased are native materials and the bulk of the money spent is for labor.

One other point on this international balance of payments is the fact that when we start to figure out our pluses in the international balance of payments we have a great plus in international trade, our exJ)()rts over our imparts.

If we are going to count foreign aid as not being a factor in the international balance of. payments, then we must not count our exports twice in the balance of trade. We cannot count it there , and count it in our commercial exports also .

This has been spelled out time and again before, and it is about time the Congress understood this fully, and certainly the people of the United States . understood the kind of shell game going on here, .when people say that' the AID program has little impact on our · international balance of payments.

There is one other item, in regard to investments abroad. The Ways and Means Committee and the Cong:r:ess were asked several years ago to consider and to pass--and to my regret we did-the interest equalization tax, to ·keep 'private investment from going abroad·. Then this year we had the Executive order which

sought to further impede private invest- America ·Development Bank, the Asiatic ment from going abroad. Development Bank, and the Export-

Within a month after this action was Import. Bank. The Committee on Agritaken in January this year the House of culture has Public Law 480, the agriculRepresentatives, the Congress, was asked tural disposed program or as it is often to increase the amount of subscription to called food, tobacco, and cotton for the Inter-Amelican Bank, by a b1llion peace. The Committee on Armed Servdollars. This same argument of the tie- ices has a bigger part of military aid, in this time between investments and and that which 1s not particularly militrade was advanced. But the same argu- tary aid, but which is called that and ments are applicable, only more fully, which is very much in the economic area. when it comes to the tie-in of exports My own committee, the Committee on and plivate investment abroad. Yet Ways and Means, of course, has to do notably the Johnson administration with trade, private investment abroad, spokesmen were silent on this point. and so forth. The Ways and Means Com-

I can tell something else about private mittee has to grapple realistically with · investment abroad. We average a com- · the question of whether we really mean plete payback from earnings on private "trade not aid." If this House and the investment within about a 4- to 5-year Congress are ever going to get a balperiod, and the amount of money we get anced view of our . foreign economic back on earnings annually from private policies, we have to bring about some investment abroad is much greater than sort of a synthesis between the work the increased amounts of new invest- done by this committee, the Committee ment abroad, and we certainly cannot on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on say the same thing for the so-called 40- Armed Services, the Committee on year loans, when it comes to the Govern- Banking and Currency, the Committee ment investment programs abroad. This on Agriculture, and the Committee on is another point to pin down. Ways and Means.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- Incidentally, the Ways and Means tleman yield? · Committee has just considered a pro-

Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the gentleman posed extension of the International from Ohio. Coffee Agreement. This agreement con-

Mr. TAFT. I should like to ask the tains in it a clear subsidy for the less gentleman if it is not true that the de- developed countries which grow coffee velopment of these countries which has which amounts to probably as much as come about at least in part from foreign $100 million. This kind of foreign aid aid does not result in an investment eli- is probably more effective than most mate which permits American business and yet it should be related to the other to go abroad and to make the earnings. aid programs which are available to .

Mr. CURTIS. I would say that where these same countries. foreign aid has worked-and in a very Clearly if we are going to help less few places it bas-that is true. I would developed ~ountries get on their ecoadd another comment, regretfully. nomic feet and develop we must ration-

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time alize over total programs. of the gentleman from Missouri has ex- The SPEAKER pro tempare <Mr. AL-pired. BERT). All time of the gentleman from

Mr. LaTTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the Ohio has expired. _ gentleman 3 additional minutes. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I have no

Mr. CURTIS. Regretfully, the Govern- further request for time. ment programs have been such they have Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-been putting many of these countries in tion on the resolution. the economic hole, rather than building The previous question was ordered. their economic base. This is why I have The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ques-been arguing against the overfunding of tion is on the resolution. . these programs. The question was taken, and the

Mr. TAFT. Mr. Speaker; will the gen- Speaker pro tempore announced that the tleman yield further? ayes appeared to have i.lt.

Mr. CURTIS. I have only a short time. Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Speaker, I ob-I want to relate my remarks to the ject to the vote ·on the ground that a

rule, which is in context with the other quorum is not present and make the foreign aid programs. point of order that a quorum is not pres-

During the debate on the Inter-Ameri- elllt. . can Development Bank, which came from Mr. PEPPER. Mr .. Speaker, will the the Banking and Currency Committee, able gentlema:n permit me to .make an I pointed out that we had five major .entreaty to hi~? It may w~ll be when . committees all of which had important debate starts m the Committee of the aspects of foreign aid under their juris- Whole House on the State of the Union diction. that Members would wish to be notified,

If the Foreign Affairs committee were b?t would the .able . gentleman withhold doing as it says in its .report, on page 9: his request until we adopt th~ rule?

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, regular or-This committee has consistently endeav

ored to pre~ent the Congress with a balanced, objective view of ,foreign aid.

It would have been relating their program, which is AID, which comes under the Foreign Affairs Committee, with these programs that ate under these other committees' major.jurisdictions.

I mention ·again the · Banking and Currency Committee which has the Development Loan Funds, the Inter-

d~. . The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reg

ular order has been demanded. The gentleman from Indiana objects to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and makes the point of order that a quorum is not present. Evidently a quorum is not present.

The . Doorkee}Jer· will close the doors, the Sergeant of Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.

July 16; 1-968 CONGRESSI0NAL · RECORD-··· HOUSE 21551 The question was taken; and there

were-yeas 283, nays 11-8, not voting 31, as follows: -

[Roll No. 262] YEA8-283

Adams Gettys · Olsen Addabbo Gibbons O'Neill, Mass. Albert Gilbert Ottinger Anderson, Ill. Gonzalez Patman Andrews, Goodell Patten

N. Da.k. Green, Oreg. Pelly Annunzio Green, Pa. Pepper Arends Griffiths Perkins Aspinall Gubser Philbin :Barrett Gude Pickle Bates Halleck Pike Battin Halpern Pirnie Bell Hamilton Poage Bennett Hanley Podell Berry Hanna Potf Biester Hansen, Wash. Pollock Bingham Harvey Price, Dl. Boggs Hathaway Pryor Boland Hawkins Pucinski Bolling Hays Purcell Bolton Hebert Quie Bow Hechler, w. Va. Railsback Brademas Heckler, Mass. Randall . Brasco Helstoski Rees Brooks Hicks Reid, N.Y. Broomfield Holifield Reifel Brotzman Holland Reuss Brown, Mich. Horton Rhodes. Adz. Brown, Ohio Howard Riegle Buchanan Hull Robison Burk'e, Mass. Hungate Rodino Burleson Hutchinson . Rogers, Colo. ~urton, Calif. Irwin Ronan . Bush Jacobs· Rooney, N.Y. :Button Joelson Rooney, Pa. Byrne, Pa.. Johnron, Calif. Rosenthal Byrnes, Wis. Johnson, Pa. Rostenkowski Cabell Jones, Ala. Roth Cahill Jones, Mo. Roybal Carey - Karsten Rumsfeld · Casey Karth Ruppe Cederberg Kastenmeier Ryan Celler Kazen St Germain Chamberlain Kee st. Onge Clark Keith Sandman Clausen, Kelly Scheuer

Don H : Kirwan Schneebeli Cleveland Kluczynski Schwengel Cohelan - Kupferman Selden Conable Kyl Shriver Conte Kyros Sikes Corbett Leggett Sisk Corman Lloyd Skubitz Cowger Long, Md. Slack Cramer McCarthy · Smith, Iowa Curtis McClory Smith, N.Y. Daddario McCloskey Springer Daniels McCulloch Stafford Davis, Ga. McDade Stanton Davis, Wis. McEwen Steed Dawson McPall Steiger, Ariz. de la Garza Macdonald, Steiger, Wis. Delaney Mass. Stratton Dellenbaek MacGregor Stubblefield Dent Machen SUllivan Dole Madden Taft Donohue Mahon Talcott Downing MaUUard · Teague, Calif. Dulski Martin Teague, Tex. Dwyer Mathias, Calif. Tenzer Eckhardt Matsunaga Thompson, N.J. Edmondson May Thomson, Wls. Edwards, Calif. Mayne Tiernan Edwards, La. Meeds Tunney Eilberg Michel Udall Erlenborn Miller, Calif. Ullman Esch Miller, Ohio 'Van Deerlin Eshleman Minish Vander .Jagt Evans, Colo. Mink Vanik Fallon Minshall Vigorito Farbstein Mize Waldie Fa.Scell Monagan Walker Feighan Moorhead Whalen Flood Morgan Whalley Foley Morse, Mass. White Ford, Gerald R . Morton Widnall Ford, Mosher Wiggins

William D. Moss Williams, Pa. Fountain Murphy, Til. . Wolff Fraser Myers Wright Frelinghuysen Natcher Wydler Friedel Nedzi ·Yates . Fulton, Tenn. Nelsen Young Fuqua. · Nix · Zablocki Gallagher O'Hara, ill . Zion · Garmatz O'Hara, Mich. ·

Abbitt Abernethy Adair Andrews, Ala. Ashbrook Ashmore Baring · Belcher Betts Bevill Blackburn Blanton Bray Brinkley Brock. Brawn, Calif. Broyhl:ll, N.C. Broyhlll, Va. Burke, Fla. Burton, Utah Carter · Clancy Clawson, Del Collier Colmer Cunningham Denney Derwinski Devine Dickinson Dorn Dowdy :Ouncan Edwards, Ala. Everett Fino Fisher Flynt Gal1:fianakis Gardner

NAY&--118 Gathings

, Goodling Gritnn Gross Grover Gurney Hagan Haley Hall Hammer-

schmidt Harrison Harsha HenderSon Hosme1· Hunt I chord Jarman Jonas Jones, N.C. · King, N.Y. Kleppe Kuykendall Laird Landrum Langen Latta Lennon Lipscomb Lukens 'McClure McDonald,

Mich. McMillan Marsh Mills Montgomery Moore Morris, N. Mex. Nichols

O'Konsltl O'Nea,l,Ga. · Passman Pettis Price, Tex. Quillen, , Reid; n1. Reinecke Roberts Rogers, Fla. Roudebush Roush Satterfield Saylor Schade berg Scherle Scott Shipley Smith, Calif. Smith, Okla. Snyder Staggers Stephens Stuckey Taylor Thompson, Ga. Tuck Utt Wampler Watkins Watson Whitener Whitten Willts Wilson, Bob Winn Wyatt Wylie Wyman Zwach

NOT VOTING-31 Anderson, Findley Meskill

Tenn. Fulton, Pa. Murphy, N.Y. Ashley Giaimo Rarick Ayres Gray Resnick Blatnik Han-sen, Idaho Rhodes, Pa. Conyers Hardy Rivers Culver Herlong Schweiker Dig.gs King, Calif. Wa.ggonner Dingell Kornegay Watts Dow Long, La. Wilson, Evms. Tenn. Mathias, Md. Charles H.

So the resolution was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following

pairs: Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Fulton

of Pennsylvania. · Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Ayres. Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Findley. Mr. Giaimo With Mr. Meskill. Mr. Asllley with Mr. Mathias of Maryland. Mr~ Rhodes of Pennsylvania with Mr.

Schweiker. Mr • . Anderson of Tennessee with Mr. Han-

sen of Idaho. Mr. Culver with Mr. Dow. Mr. King of California with Mr. Herlong. Mr. ConyerS. with Mr. Diggs.

· Mr. Gray with Mi-. Hardy. Mr. Resnick with Mr. Rarick. Mr. Charles H. Wilson with Mr. Long· of

Louisiana. Mr. Dingell with Mr. Kornegay. Mr. Watts with Mr. Waggonner.

Mr. PETTIS and . Mr. McCLURE .changed their votes from "yea" to "nay."

The resuit ·of the vote was announced as above reoordeci.

The doors were opened. A motion · to reconsider was . laid on

the.table. · Mr, MQRO.A.N. Mr: Spea~er, I move

that the Hou~e . re~olve . itself in. to .. the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for ·the consideration of the bill <H.R. 15263) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of ·1961, as amended; and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER p-ro tempore. The ques-

tion is on -the motion .offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

AcCordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the blll, H.R. 15263, with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PRICE] in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent. the first read

ing of the bill was dispensed with. · The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MoRGAN] will be recognized for 1 Y2 hours, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BoLTON] will be recognized for 1% hours.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 15263, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1968, which authorizes funds to continue the foreign assistance program dW'ing the fiscal year 1969.

The bill is concerned primarily with the authorization of funds. The Executive requested no changes in existing law, and the amendments initiated by the committee consist of a number of directives and restrictions to correct some of the deficiencies of the program and to improve its operation.

The bill authorizes $2,364,725,000 for the fiscal year 1969. This is a reduction of $596,750,000-or 20 percent-below the President's request. The authorization :for fiscal year 1968 was $2,673,900.000 and the appropriation, . $2,298,036,000. This bill authorizes $66;689,000 more than was appropriated for fiscal 1968.

It is easy to justify a big cut in foreign aid if you start with the idea. that it iS primarily international charity. If the basic objective of the :foreign assistance

· program is to help foreigners, there are good arguments why we should curtail or eliminate our contributions this year . .

Everyone would agree that we give more to charity when we are prosperous, and that when tillles are hard, we are less generous. ,

There is no question l;mt that th~ United States is face to face with serious financial problems. ·

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ·am fUlly aware that most Members of this House recog:pize that the foreign assistance program is not and never has been intended to be a charity program. · .

It was begun because we believed that our security was threatened and because we believed that by helping other nations we were helping ourselves. This was the ':Position taken when the foreign aid program bega·n in the Truman administration, and President· Eisenhower, Presi'q_ent. Kennedy, anq President Johnson have continued the program on this basis.

. As fai.· as I personally am concerned, i.f I believed tljat th~ $2,364,725,000 in the bill was primarily for the benefit of the people of foreig,n countries; I would think ·a $2 billion cut might be justified.

In considering this bill this afte~noon·, we ought . first to focus our attention' on the problems which the United States

21552 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE· July 1_6, 1968

faces in various parts of the world and what our prospects are in dealing with them.

Let me point out first that this bill authorizes the funds for economic aid to Vietnam. The military aid to the armed forces of Vietnam is now in the Defense Department cudget and not in this bill.

This bill does provide the money to import rice for the people of Vietnam, tin for the roofs of their houses, and the materials and spare parts to keep their factories in operation. The war has disrupted the economy of Vietnam and the country cannot survive without economic aid.

Now there are those who say that there is no use sending commodities to Vietnam because they are stolen or diverted to the Vietcong. I know that conditions in Vietnam were very bad 3 years ago. Our own Moss subcommittee and the General Accounting 01Jice have reported some improvement in the last year or so.

Nevertheless, I am sure there still is a lot of graft and corruption in Vietnam. I do not believe, however, that the people of Vietnam are fighting and dying just to get money from the United States. I firmly believe that if the United States cuts off the flow of imports to Vietnam, the country will collapse.

In this connection, let me say a word about the Vietnam pipeline. The pipeline for Vietnam as of the end of fiscal year 1968 is estimated to be $488 million. The Executive asked for $480 million for economic aid to Vietnam, much of which is to pay for commodity imports. ·

It is easy to arrive at the conclusion that there is enough in the pipeline to keep Vietnam going for a year.

Does this really make any sense, however?

Do we want to tell the Government arid tlie people of Vietnam that the United States is willing to keep you going until July 1969, b,ut beyond that we do not know?

Do we believe that the people of Vietnam will fight harder, or that the government o1Jicials and the business leaders will be more honest and e11icierit if we tell them to live off the pipeline for a year while the United States decides what its future policy will be? ·

We all hope . that the 'next year will bring an end to the :fighting in Vietnam. If this happens, ·our policy toward Vietnam and · our asSistance program will probably change.

Let us revise the program on the ba.Sis of events as they occur. Let us not create a new crisis in Vietnam by telling them . that they will get nothing but what is in · the pipeline.

We have other problems besides Vietnam.

Our present defense strategy and the deployment of our Arined Forces is based on the cooperation of' friendly nations who have joined us in a common effort to defend against Soviet aggression. These nations have 2 million men under arms and are able to put up a good fight in defense of their own territory. ·

This bill authorizes funds to ·contiime military assistance to these countries. Eighty.:.:five. J)ercent of m111tary assistance for fi~cal 1969 was programed for

five countries-Korea, Turkey, Greece, Iran, and the Republic of China.

If we indicate to these countries that we can no longer afford to assist their armed forces or that we are in doubt as to our future policy, they will undoubtedly have to reconsider their positions.

If we cannot count on the continued cooperation of these nations, we will have to reorganize our defense strategy and relocate some of our units.

The committee has cut the authorization for military assistance from $420,-000,000 to $390,000,000. This cut will make it necessary to reexamine all our military assistance operations and cut out the less essential expenditures.

I believe that our friends and allies sympathize with the problems we face and will do the best they can. If we cut them so drastically that they feel they cannot maintain the effectiveness of their fighting forces or if we tell them they will have to get along with what is in the pipeline while we decide whether we need their cooperation in the future, we will provoke a crisis in every country and weaken our own defenses.

Let us not forget the situation of our neighbors in Latin America. Many of these countries are faced either with Communist inspired and financed subversion or with irresponsible indigenous groups who know how to tear down but not how to build up:

The United States has encouraged these countries to face up to their problems and we have offered our help.

It costs money for us to continue this policy. I believe we should not withdraw our support from our neighbors in this hemisphere . . The authorization for the Alliance for Progress was cut 'by 21 percent-from the $625,000,000 requested to $495,000,000. This cut disturbs our Latin American friends, but I believe that they are aware of the 'problems we face and recogniZe that they will have to adjust their programs.

I do not believe that the majority of this House wants us to abandon our policy of assisting. the governments of Latin America. If we cut the funds too deeply or tell them to live off the pipeline while we decide what course t6 fol.:. low in the future, the people of Latin America may · conclude that our words are not backed up by our action.

Most of us recognize that Russia and Red China are carrying out active campaigns to gain control of the Middle East and Africa. They have not done toO well in Africa, but the. outlook in the Middle East is uncertain.

There are very few here this afternoon who would say that it does not matter to the United States whether the Middle East or Africa fall urider Communist domination. We want to be able to :fly over the countries of . the Middle East. The largest oil reserves in the world are located there, and U.S. companies have substantial investments in that area. The United States has an obligation to Israel.

The· African Continent is too important in terms of its resources and its geography to go 'by default. '

I ain not sure 'that voting money to contin~e foreign aid to th~ more mod-

erate Arab countries and to the African countries will keep the Russians and the Red Chinese from taking over. The situation is difficult and the issues are complex. The United States is making a variety of approaches to the problem.

I do know, however, that foreign aid is an important tool to use in trying to work out some sort of settlement.

Do we want to deprive our negotiators of this tool?

The situation is bad enough now. Let us not take any action that will make it worse.

I have mentioned the pipeline in discussing specific situations. Let me say just a word about the pipeline in general.

The $5 billion in the pipeline is somewhat comparable to the family bank account after the salary check has been deposited but before the bills have been paid.

The funds in the pipeline have been obligated. They are needed to make pay-· ments as they come due.

It would be disastrous to our national security and would cause new problems for us all over the world if we were to suspend the foreign assistance program during the fiscal year 1969. Using up the pipeline is not the best way to tide us over until the new adminstration and the new Congress take over.

I know that there are some who argue that before we spend any more money for foreign aid, we should take a new look at the world situation and reconsider our policies. · 1·

Let us consider some of the basic ' policies which we have been following since World War II and decide whether they should be scrapped.

Of first importance has been a recognition that what happens in other parts of the' world is important to our national security and to the well-being of our people.

We know that a "fortress America" does not assure security, and we kii.ow that we need acc.ess to the world's resources if our people are to :Prosper.

I ·cannot believe that any reappraisal of our foreign policy will lead to the' con.:. elusion that we can ignore what happens elsewhere on the globe and concentrate only on our domestic affairs.

We have invested billions in support of this policy. Now is not the time to abandon it or to raise doubts throughout the world as to our attitude on this fun-damental issue. ·

Ahother basic policy which we have foliowed since the war has been our readiness 'to help friendly nations threatened . by an enemY which also threatens us: · '

This· does not mean that we have set ourselves up as the world policeman, but we have recognized that other nations are threatened by the same aggressor th~t . threatens US, .and we have felt that it was to our mutual advantage to co.:. operate in a common defense effort.

There may be · some· who believe that the threat ·of Communist aggression is no longer important arid that it is no longe:r;- worth,while 'to· spend inoney on a common defense effort.

This is not my belief. I believe that the danger still exists, that it would be wrong

-.. ;1

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21553 to let • down our guard, that · we need friends and allies.

As long as we maintain this policy, we need foreign aid.

It has also been our policy since World War II to try to prevent disputes among nations from becoming armed conflicts and to prevent little wars from becoming big wars.

It is sometimes argued that this policy leads us to stick our nose into afiairs that do not concern us. A .good case could have been made in 1914 that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand at Sarajevo did not concern the United States, but World War I was the result.

So far world war III has been prevented, and I believe that the United States has made a major. contribution to maintaining the peace. We could not have done what has been done without a foreign-aid program. We cannot continue this policy unless we have foreign aid.

It has also been U.S. policy to assist the less-developed countries of the world in their efiorts to g·et on their feet. All of these countries are short of qualified manpower, and many of them have very limited resources.

We have supplied them with technical assistance and with investment capital. Some of them have made spectacular progress as a result of our aid.

While all of us have been irritated and have felt frustrated by _ the criticism of our policies and lack of cooperation from some of the recipients of our aid, I do

'not believe that there are many people in the United States who belie.ve that we should discontinue our policy of assisting the underdeveloped countries;· · ·- The committee recognized that investments in economic development can be postponed in order to lighten our financial burdens and that we can cut down on the number of technicians we send abroad.

With this in mind, we cut the Development Loan Fund by 28 percent from the $765 million requested to $550 million, and cut technical assistance by 15 percent. . In deciding whether this cut is deep enough, I urge that you consider whether or not we should abandon our policy of helping the less-developed countries. We cannot continue such help unless we are willing to provide the funds.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I would rather save money than spend it and I would rather spend money for the benefit of our own people than to help foreigners.

I cannot overlook the fact, however, that the problems that confront us in various parts of the world are real, they are urgent, and they will not go away.

This bill provides tools that are essential to the conduct of our foreign policy. We will not save money by ignoring our problems or handicapping our negotia-tors. ·

As we proceed with the consideration of this bill, I urge that you give as much weight to. the world sit~ation as you do to our budget~ry problem~.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr . . Cliairin~n. will the gentleman yield? - · - · . Mr. ~ORGAN. I Y;ield 'to . t~~ gel).tl~rhan.

Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, as we eonsider the proposed foreign assistance program for fiscal year 1969, let us remember again that foreign aid is no longer an American monopoly-and why. Twenty years ago, at the beginning of the Marshall plan, the United States carried the burden of financial and technical assistance alone. Today, we supply less than half of all aid furnished to the developing nations.

For only too often, people think of foreign aid as some sort of political coinpetition between the United States and the U.S.S.R. It is true, of course, that the U.S.S.R. has a large aid program, as do many other Communist countries. But we are not alone in free world assistance, by any means: every one of the nations of Western Europe has a foreign aid program. Israel does. Canada does. Japan does. -

This is exactly as it should be. The other advanced countries must also help the developing nations toward self-sufficiency. What is more, it is no accident that there are more do~ or nations today. Over the years, the United States has deliberately conditioned its development assistance upon contributions by other countries. Mo~t of the international aid arrangem~nts in which we participate are based on what the Agency for International Development calls burdensharing: the World Bank and its aftiliates, the United Nations development program, the consortia for India, P.akis-· tan, and Turkey-in all these, our contributions depend oil other countries doing their share.

Until recently, we .tised these arrangements to exert leadership: The ~merican example-:.-our aid depending on aid by' others-increased the overall size of the aid kitty; other nations were persuaded to join in and do more. · Lately, however, our leadership has been slipping, The United States now ranks below the average of all advanced countries in the percent of national income which we devote to ofticial aid and private investment in the less-developed countries. Four other countries-France, Portugal, Australia, and the United Kingdomprovide a la-rger share of their national income. This of course, is in spite of domestic financial problems with which we are all familiar. ·

A number of other developed countries are steadily moving up toward the standa'rd of foreign aid by advanced countries recommended by the United Nations-! percent of gross national product. But the United States has been . moving in the opposite direction-down. In the early days of the Marshall plan., we provided 2.8 percent of our GNP in foreign aid; under this year's bili, we propose to invest three-fifths of 1 per:. cent. This is clearly the minimum amount we can contribute and still do our fair share.

We should be reassured and encouraged by the trend towai:d greater worldwide participation · in· the international development effort. It is a sign that other wealthy nations have recognized the need for progress in the poorer countries. B'ut the United State·s must do Its share. The very ; least we can do'; ' to encourage

other advanced nations to continue and increase their efforts, is to vote the full amount of foreign economic assistance recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Any further reductions will have a seriously detrimental effect not only on our program, but on the size of other free world programs as well. The only aid programs which we may be sure will not be a1fected, in fact, are those of the Communist world.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs: BOLTON].

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise now with reluctance but with regret that there seems to be such a current running against continuing our stride· of helping other people.

Back some time ago, because it is years since he was killed, Dag Hammarskjold said something that I would like to read to you. He said:

Wha.t is international aid? . . . It is definitely, as I see it, not the handing out from the haves to the have nots. We live in a world of shared responsibility, in a world with very great unity of fate and destiny, and for that reason I used . . . the term "sharing."

That is Dag Hammarskjold. Now you will have to have a little of me. . There are some who contend that

bureaucrats lack creative talent. I am not inclined to argue the point. But in the area of word image I can attest,

. as many of you can, to their genius. This year they trotted out the word "barebone" tO describe the foreign aid J.;e- · quest. That cadaverous word is supposed to conjure up an image of an emaciated program ready. . to collapse. if - Con~ess d,oes not rush to its support. ·•

I have a suggestion for the executive witnesses. Instead of that macabre term "barebone" why not refer to the foreign aid request as a mini-skirt foreign aid program? It would be more cheerful, draw more attention-and not reveal any more details about its size and shape:

Our committee hearings on this bill have their accustomed bulk. From late February to early May we sat through 30 sessions to receive testimony. Then followed the executive sessions to mark up the bill. Our chairman, Dr. MoRGAN, deserves a special word of praise. In his quiet but persuasive way he kept us at olir task. Speaking for my colleagues on this side, I want to express appreciation for his courtesy and consideration dur-ing our deliberations. ·

Thirty sessions may seem a sufficiEmt period to hear about a program of almost $3 billion. But for the most part the testimony was self -serving. It can best be summed up in the ~bought that "although everything may not be all right, if we get the money everything will be better." I anxio'l\SlY await the day when some executive witness will tell us frank.:. iy: "We didn't do well last year." Would that not be wonderful? It will be refresh.:. ing for tis even· if it marks his swan song.

More than ever I ain convinced . that what this program needs is an examfriation in depth by the Congress, particu- · larly by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am aware that individuat lVJembers, ~om~ suboonunittees, the General Accounting Office, the · Inspector

21554 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968-

General as well as private citizens and writers give us glimpses of the program. The tenor of their remarks ought to be sumcient to stimulate the committee to make its own study. But too often their observations are couched in statistical terms narrowly related to our dollar outlay. They give us little or no insight as to how our aid has been, or can be, used as an instrument of our foreign policy. Nor do we know how our aid affects the many facets of a recipient's foreign and domestic policies.

As the program has been presented to u.s, foreign aid has become an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

Ours is the Committee on Foreign Affairs, using "affairs" in its broadest sense to encompass the sum total of our relations, activities, and programs abroad. It covers a range of interactions that cannot be compressed into an auditor's report. Only this year Secretary Rusk told our committee that a 1-year moratorium on foreign aid "would send a major shock throughout the world." That clear and forthright statement justifies further inquiry by our committee into the program.

I know how many committees have been created by the executive over the years to look into foreign aid. I make my plea for "in-House'' studies, and "H'Ouse" in this case is spelled with a capital "H". I know it will be a time-consuming exercise. It may reveal in some cases little more than we know now, but it will be :r;ewarding to the Members.

If nothing else, it will lift our sights from the dollar sign that characterizes the stylized presentation of the executive.

One of the ironies of our hearings is the little that is learned from them. For some years we have heard how much effort the administrators of foreign aid are putting into agriculture abroad to overcome food shortages. This year we heard dramatic testimony from a representative of the Rockefeller Foundation how that organization-with small amounts of money, and without legions of personnel-had developed a strain of high-yield rice adaptable to most of the rice-producing countries.

In many cases .the food requirements of the country have been met and a surplus is available for export. To me the moral is quite simple--concentration on a basic, critical problem is far more effective than a buckshot approach. Its very simplicity undoubtedly makes it unappealing to the aid administrators.

The committee heard some stimulating testimony from representatives of other private organizations, such as the chamber of commerce, the Cooperative League of the U.S.A., and the International Economic Policy Association. All of us may not accept their proposals in their entirety. But their presentations do point up the fact that among our citizens in all walks of life there is a tremendous reservoir of ideas and of talent that can be tapped to do what the Government believes it alone can do best.

For a change the committee did not accept the full-blown request of the executive branch. It was quite a change. Tiui.t is a step in the right direction, but cerlaihly not far enough. ' . .

The Scriptures give us some guidance for acting as we did after we heard the witnesses plead for the full amount:

The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh to his going.

The way we are going this year we need more prudence than ever before.

In assessing the mounting demands upon our resources, none can deny that our domestic obligations are paramount. In my own appraisal I must give foreign aid a lower priority. I have come to the conclusion that the reductions made by the committee are insumcient. The minority proposed in the committee, and will again on the floor, further reductions that refiect our concern for the responsibilities we face at home.

This "barebone" program is not suffering from a vitamin deficiency of dollars. It is suffering from tired bloodin purpose and in execution-but where shall we find the 'bottle of Geritol?

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman .from New York [Mr. ROSENTHAL].

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 15263, and I again welcome the opportunity for this annual ritual of ours to say kind words about our distinguished chairman [Mr. MORGAN]. He has been, in my judgment, one of the most diligent, patient, and kind chairmen we have in the House. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for the thoughtfulness and persuasiveness he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor. ·

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 15263. One of the tragedies of old age is the isolation one feels from another day's friends. One hears the old stories, shares the old jokes, but the lust of yesterday's battles has faded.

We are not yet an old country but our attitudes toward foreign aid reflect some of this weariness. We still know that development aid is important, that the unspoken choice may be aid for peaceful change now, or other Vietnams in our future, and that we cripple our flexibility in the world by depriving ourselves of a flexible aid program. But somehow it does not seem· to matter much.

America seems to hold a low opinion of itself today. Where confident 10 years ago, we are hesitant today. Where we once felt a missionary zeal in sending our ideals, our production, and our people overseas, today we feel surrounded by suspicion, if not hostility.

I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that we are at the bottom of a trough in self-confidence in our international affairs. Foreign aid was oversold. Military actions were even more disastrously unsuitable to our goals. But if we can learn ·at all from our experiences since World War II, we should learn that a new flush of vigor will come to our still youthful cotintry. · ·

We are about to see a change in administrations.· We await new leadership which must not be denied the tools to meet its destiny. The tide that ·comes in our affairs must not be diverted from its course in restoring our confidence in America's fortune.

The foreign aid bill we now consider seems to fit the same old patterns, hoW-

ever, despite the new era we will start in 1969. We authorize less than ever before, reducing our foreign assistance possibilities even more.

With military ventures now generally excluded, what options have we in foreign affairs? Traditional diplomacy and development aid remain as ways to assist our friends, convert the uncommitted, and thwart our enemies. Without these means to influence events in Africa, in Asia, and especially in Latin America, we ride the tides of change, without rudder or engine, drifting, impotent, and mute.

This is not a worthy role for Ameri({a. We should not abandon hope in our country's future influence on the world. We must not disable that imperfect mechanism:_foreign aid-just because it has not . worked as well as we hoped. Would we deny funds to our Armed Forces because they cannot win a military victory?

Let us instead vote confidence today in our role in the world's future. We are more cautious today, less zealous, and, I hope, wiser. We can make better use of the limited funds recommended by the committee. We can prepare the way for the rebirth of this country's international future by paying the price required to stay in the contest for the peaceful development of the younger, needy nations of the world.

Let us review where we are and where we have been with foreign aid.

In a decade where we count military expenditures. by the billions and war casualties by the tens of thousands, Congress remains intent upon measuring our foreign aid drop by drop. It is almost as if we have become so appalled by our extravagant military deeds, that we seek relief by trying to economize the tiniest part of our foreign affairs program, that devoted to foreign assistance.

We have spent, since 1945, about $100 billion on all kinds of foreign aid, including about $35 billion in military aid. This means we have devoted about 1 percent of our gross national product in these years for helping the newer countries build a new future without revolution or war. We have made a modest irivestment in an enormously important enterprise.

Today we consider a bill to commit only a fraction of 1 percent of our gross national product for foreign aid. The President's proposal, ~odest ·enough itself, amounts to four-tenths of 1 percent of our gross national product. The · Foreign Affairs Committee suggests the President's plan ·is too large, and recommends three-tenths of 1 percent of our gross national product.

Meanwhile, the other developed countries are doing their share while we lag behind, concerned more with our present military misadventures than with encouraging peaceful developments.

The United States still provides more economic assistance than any other country. But our role is shrinking. The U.S. per capita income is twice to three times that of most aid-giving countries.

Among members of the Development Assistance Committe~DAC-of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-oECD-the United States- -

Slipped from fifth to a tie for sev-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21555 enth-with the United Kingdom-in 1967 in offi.cial :flows as percent of national income going to developing countries-behind France, Australia, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Ranked ninth in the amount of soft term aid-percentage of official funds as grants or loans of 3 percent or less.

Ranked second in 1967 in length of maturities-behind Canada.

Ranked 11th in 1966 in percent of aid from budget:

Ranked lOth in 1967 in grant component.

Tied for last in 1966 in percent of untied aid. . Third in number of technicians overseas.

Other nations are moving ahead. But their progress depends on U.S. leader-ship. ·

While we fall farther behind, seven countries are already at or near the target of 1 percent of their income in o~:tlcials and private :flows to developing countries. These seven are Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

Three other countries-Canada, Denmark, Sweden-have adopted plans which would increase their total resource :flows to. 1 percent of national income by the early 1970's. Several others-Belgium, Australia, Italy-are moving steadily to higher levels.

U.S. leadership, example, and pressure have been major factors in these gains and in establishing DAC targets for volume and terms, from which we are moving away. All countries followed our lead with Peace Corps. With U.S. aid leadership slipping; others may be discouraged from further progress toward our common objective of helping less developed countries achieve self-sustaining growth.

As the United States grows richer, it does less. In fiscal year 1949 the United States made total economic aid commitments of $7.2 billion. This was 18.3 percent of the Federal budget. It was 2.78 percent of a gross national product of $260 billion.

In fiscal year 1967 U.S. offi.cial commitments totaled an estimated $4.1 billion-$3.1 billion less than in 1949, even though· the 1967 Federal budget was three times larger than that of 1949. And where foreign aid in 1949 was 2.78 percent of the gross national product, aid in 1967 was just one:..half of 1 percent of GNP--even though GNP, like the budget, had tripled since 1949.

We might agree that our friends in Europe and Asia, who have attained high economic development, should share their resources arid knowledge now instead of allowing the United States to bear the major burden. But our position in world atfairs, including our niany commitments in every continent, means

- that we must continue to share the major burden when things go wrong. We should be willing to invest more to insure that they go right, by peaceful growth and systematic development. • If we want to be a leader in peace, we

must increase our investment in those programs which give the most real hope for peace. ·

In discussing domestic policy, President Kennedy once said that if we cannot help the many who are poor, we will not be able to save the few who are rich.

The United States, by every standard the richest country in the world's history, will be the first to benefit by helping the poor countries to help themselves.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ADAIR] .

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, we are today considering a bill--

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count.

Forty-eight Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.

The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-lowing Members failed to answer to their names:

Anderson, Tenn.

Ashley Conyers Diggs Dow Eckhardt Evins, Tenn.

(Roll No. 263] Hansen, Idaho Hardy Herlong HolLand Kornegay Long, La. Rarick

Resnick Rhodes,Pa . Rivers Schweiker Selden Teague, oa.Iit. Waggonner

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. PRICE of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that tha-t Committee, having had tinder consideration the bill, H.R. 15263, and finding itself without a quorum, he ·had directed the roll to be called, when 410 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal.

The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from

Indiana [Mr. ADAIR] is recognized. Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, as we

begin this annual consideration of the foreign aid bill it is appropriate, I believe, to recognize the work of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MORGAN] and the ranking minority Member, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BoLTON]. Both were patient, tolerant, understanding, and helpful throughout our consideration.

Many of the arguments which could be used here are familiar to us because of the past years in which these matters have been discussed, and thus I think need not be repeated.

However, each year there are certain new matters which present themselves to us.

First, it is worth keeping in mind that we have before us this year a bill which wlll permit economic assistance to 55 nations an.d military assistance to 48 nations. Having in mind that some countries receive both economic and military assistance, a total of 64 nations will be recipients under this year's ·program as proposed by the Executive.

A few moments ago the gentleman from ·New York [Mr. ROSENTHAL] said that in his opinion the AID program since 1945 had cost the U.S. taxpayers $100 billion. I believe that is an understatement. Obviously, the amount ·one finally arrives at wm depend upon the

various items which are put into the determination of that total. Some would use certain items that others would not, but it seems to me that a fair appraisal of the costs of the AID program since 1945 would be about $130 billion to $140 billion.

The Committee on Foreign Atfairs does work diligently in trying to discover facts and to bring before the House and this Committee an improved bill, although we have strong ditferen.ces of opinion about its content ..

There is difficulty in getting information, partially because the manner of presentation through the years has become pretty much stereotyped and lacks originality.

We could point out, as has been done in past years, that there are many horrible examples, with respect to the operation of the foreign aid bill. Many of these are well known, and it is not my purpose to take the time of the Committee here today to discuss them. A few such instances are mentioned again brie:tly this year in the minority views which will be found in the report.

I think it worthwhile mentioning particularly India. Many of us are disappointed at -the attitude of the Indian leaders. Here is a nation with a population approximately equal to the popution of the combined continents of Latin America and Africa, which has been a major bene:tlciary of our aid programs. The estimate is $7.8 billion. However, it is constantly critical of the policies and attitudes of our Government. One would wish that-the leaders of India would bring more understanding to our problems-at least as sympathetic as they are with the problems of the Soviet Union and her associated nations.

The question of military assistance to underdeveloped or developing countries is always before us. How much military assistance is it appropriate to give a nation which ought not to have the potential of an attack of any magnitude upon her neighbors? For the most part there is agreement that if we are to give military assistance to developing countries, it ought to be of that type or of those types which would permit the maintenance of order within the country and protection from guerrilla attacks from without or indeed from within. These are problems which, as I say, have been before us previously and need no further amplification.

This year we are particularly confronted with the problem of the pipeline. There are some who contend that there is enough in the pipeline so that further authorization and appropriation of new money is unnecessary. The amount in the pipeline-and these figures vary slightly-is basically about $5 · billion. This is roughly $1 billion less than it has been in recent years. So the tendency is downward. I have been and am a critic of this bill. I expect to vote against it again this year. But I would say to my colleagues that to try to limit a bill simply ' to money in the pipeline would not, in my opinion, be wise. So many programs would be discontinued, perhaps to be picked up later, or would be so greatly red1,1ced that I think over a period of a

21556 CONGRESSIONAL _ RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968 · very few years we would find our dol

lar expenditures considerably greater. Therefore, for that reason, if there were no others, I would think that we ought not to consider seriously such a limitation at this time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill came before the committee-and I shall •speak in round numbers-as a $2.9 billion bill. The committee reduced it by approximately $600 million, making it a $2.3 billion bill, slightly more than last year's appropriation. As will be discovered by reading the minority views, there are those of us who feel an additional $400 million can be taken from these figures without seriously impairing the program while at the same time taking a step in the direction which many of us seek, that ls, a general reduction in Federal expenditures. We have set forth in our views places specifically where we think these cuts can be made. Since the printing of this report there have been some small adjustments, but I can say to the members of the committee that essentially cuts of this total magnitude will be offered, and members will be provided with an opportunity to vote for them.

Mr. Chairman, something in favor of those of us who oppose the program should be said. I do not at this time advocate a tremendous reduction which would virtually remove all of the money from this bill. I think we take a reasonable attitude but if we are going to cut the bill let us act in a manner that will be meaningful. Therefore, we ought to be seeking a funding level that will enable reductions but without cutting out the useful portions of this program or without cutting it to such a degree that it fails absolutely or largely to have any useful purpose. Admittedly, this is a very difficult thing to do and is a very difficult figure at which to arrive.

However, Mr. Chairman, a great deal of study has been given toward agreement by those of us who are proposing amendments which are designed to cut an additional $400 million in places which we have pointed out and at places in the program where it can well stand these reductions.

Mr. Chairman, if we reduce this btll by an additional $400 mill1on, we would then have a b1ll of $1.9 b11lion, in round figures, compared to the appropriation bill of last year of $2.3 btllion.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. ADAIR. If we accomplish this reduction, we will have achieved a meaningful reduction in the expenditure of Federal taxpayers' dollars, $1 billion below the budget which was submitted.

Mr. Chairman, this would represent an adequate authorization for an appropriation bill.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ADAIR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.. ·

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from Indiana for his very thoughtful remarks .about what a 1-year moratorium on

this program would result in and what unnecessary and deep cuts in the program would produce. I suspect that as time goes on, the gentleman will arrive at the conviction that this 1s a program worthy of his support.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA].

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, life is change, and no tomorrow can ever be a carbon copy of the today. Yet what we do today can frame in sunshine or drape in darkness the advent of the day ahead.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow are all parts of the current of time. On the crest of that current rides our destiny.

If today, in a whim of frustration, we should abandon our foreign aid program, thinking later when times are better to return to it, as surely as midnight follows the noonday, the tide of our destiny would have been carried beyond recall.

Mr. Chairman, I speak to you as the oldest Member of this body and I speak with emotion and conviction.

When the 91st Congress convenes next January, I shall not be here. As I stand now in the well in this historic Chamber, I am filled with the sense that today is the last time my voice will be lifted in the Congress in contribution, small though it may be, to the foreign policy of my country.

I would not wish to fail in my last mission of duty as I see it. My countryyour country-should not and must not abandon even for a day its program of help to the developing coUIJ.tries of the world of the tomorrow.

My colleagues, this is my 12th year on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Only eight of the present committee members were there when I became a member, and only three were Members of the Congress when I came in with the 81st Congress in 1949.

It has been a rich, stimulating, rewarding association. I have been happy in the companionship of my colleagues on the committee. Even though not always in agreement, we constituted a closely · knit family, with the ever-courteous, helpful, and peerless gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MoRGAN], as the chairman, and the equally courteous and helpful ranking minority member, the matchless gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BoLTON] at the ends of the table, and around that table the members of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, with affection I call my colleagues prima donnas, and in a way I picture myself a prima donna, because we worked not on material · things and on formulas of mathematics but with the fabrics of dreams seeking to make a perfect world and looking for a foreign policy that did not exist.

Define ''foreign policy" and you cannot. You are stuck. And so I sat with my fellow prima donnas around that table for 12 delightful and rewarding years trying to find and define a foreign policy that would ·encompass the American dream.

Oh, yes, when I was born we had a foreign policy. We did not try to change the politics of other countries, we did our politics here at home. We did not like

the Czar, but we traded with Russia. We did not like some other governments, but we traded in their countries for, after all, that was our main interest. Yes, we had our own Monroe Doctrine, and it was a great doctrine, and it kept things on our hemisphere in our own hemispheric hands.

But then we were not meddling in the affairs of Europe and of other parts of the world and could command respect for our own Monroe Doctrine because we did not do the meddling in other hemispheres that the Monroe Doctrine forbade on our hemisphere.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to leave the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I am sorry to leave this Congress, because I had hoped to be around when we had found again the path of peace. I would like to have been here when somehow we had returned to the simple things. Happy relationships with other people and other countries thrive more on the simple virtues of honesty, frankness, and square dealings, than on the complexities of diplomacy.

My friends, that committee table with the chairman [Mr. MoRGAN] and the ranking minority member [Mrs. BoLTON] at the ends of it-is a happy but worried family, And it is a worried and a fast-;moving world 1n which we live. It is a world of many new nations, many new and expanding economies, and it is a world that will not wait for us.

Even now Red China is furnishing the money to study the avallabillty of a railroad, an important railroad, in Africa, that only yesterday was ours for the asking. And if tomorrow we decide the railroad should be built and is vital to the economy of Africa and to our_ own interest we may find the door of opportunity closed.

If we rest by the roadside to catch our breath, soothing ourselves with the thought that next yef).r we will be back, the world will have passed us by, and gone forever will be our dream of leader of the band. Leader of the band, when other countries have marched ahead while we loitered and the drums and the horns have been spiked, Heaven forbid.

My friends, I am concerned about the tomorrow. I am not sure that anybody will be here 2 years from now. I am not sure that next year, even next year, there will be a debate in the Hou;;e on foreign aid.

I am not sure-when Red China al. ready has the nuclear bomb and most people are agreed that within 2 years Red China will have nuclear weaponry. That means not only the ability to build and store the nuclear bomb, but to carry it by air the world around and drop it on Washington, Chicago, New York, in America and in Europe.

When I go to my hometown of Chicago and watch the building of a skyscraper 100 stories high, I can only wonder what would happen if nuclear war should come to Chicago, to New York, to Washington.

I think we have to go fast-we have to move faster and we have to think in depth--and may I say, religiously. •

Yes-I have heard some people say we ought to have a moratorium-that we ought to live on that pipeline of $5

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21557 billion· per year. But I 'have not heaPd any businessman say that.

Some years ago it was my pleasure and privilege to be attorney for the city of Chicago when we were building our superhighways and our subways. Occasionally, we would have to cancel a contract. I then found that it is almost as costly to cancel as it is to construct.

Five billion dollars in the pipelinewell I daresay if we undertook to cancel contracts backed by that $5 billion, it would cost us at least $3 billion or $4 billion. If Uncle Sam wants a wild excursion in extravagance all he · has to do is to start canceling $5 billion of contracts. Pretty silly, is it not?

My friends, foreign policy is the oldest institution of our country. I do not like people to say it is unpopular, because I have always disliked inaccurate statements and loose language.

WhY, in my boyhood when we did not have much money, if someone made 25 cents or 30 cents a day for 12 hours' work, it was a lot of money. My father was a circuit judge. He got a salary of $2,500 a year arid the good people would stand around saying, "How in the devil can Judge O'Hara spend $7 a day?" We lived in something of a palace, a theater on the third fioor · and a whole fioor of kitchen on the ground fioor and 10 acres of apples, and the rent was $15 a month.

In those days of poverty, milk was 5 cents a quart, eggs were 8 cents a dozen, the best roast beef cost 10 cents a pound-and they threw in the liver.;_ that you got free.

In those days people would give their pennies and their nickels and their dimes to support our missionaries to foreign lands. It was these missionaries and these pennies and nickels of the American people that started our own foreign ald programs, that built the foundations of education and of hospitals in foreign lands.

They were supported by the nickels and dimes of the American people.

Oh, do not tell me that foreign aid is foreign to our American people.-It is part and parcel of their souls-of their very being.

Where do you find unpopularity in foreign aid? We do not find it among the women in the League of Women Voters. We do not find it -among the churches. We find very little of it in the substantial businessmen of our country.

My friends, all of the great things in life, the real accomplishments, come from the pursuit of dreams. Never do they come from following the status quo of a tired and wornout yesterday.

It is by following the dream that we reach the mountains of heights of human attainment never reached before.

I will take the additional time allotted me by telling a story. When I was a young fellow, the smartest politician in nlinois had just been elected to a short term in the Senate. I was with him at one time and he made a ·talk. He progressed to one sentence. Everybody applauded, and he sat down. -

I said: Why ~d you do that?

' He said: Always remember the rule: If you have the

crowd ·With you and they are applauding, don't go any further.

CXIV--1358-Part 16

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of illinois. I yield to the distinguished chairman of our committee.

Mr. MORGAN. I thank the gentleman from illinois for his contribution to the debate on this important bill. It has been a great pleasure and privilege to have served with him during the past dozen years on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. His wisdom, his parliamentary skill, and his deep and extensive knowledge of foreign policy matters has made him one of the most outstanding and valuable of all our committee members.

I want particularly to express my appreciation and admiration for his great work as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa. He is loved and esteemed by all the leaders of every country in Africa. The African Bureau of the State Department has a great deal of admiration for his ability to help them with their problems:

It has been a real honor and a privilege for me to have served with this tireless worker and my dear personal friend, BARRATT O'HARA. On many, many days in the last 15 years I have had occasion to have dinner with him as frequently as once a week. Outside of and in addition to our committee work I have developed a very deep and fond friendship for the gentleman from lllinois, and I want him to know that he leaves here with my

· greatest admiration, and he will always be a close and valued friend.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I yield to the gentleman from Wiscons_in.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. As the gentleman from nunois knows, I sit to the right of our great chairman, Dr. MoRGAN. As I have done on many occasions in the past, I wish to second what my chairman has said about our distinguished colleague from illinois, BARRATT O'HARA.

I join with him in saluting 11 great American, one who time and again has shown wise ·leadership in this Houseleadership based on a diverse experience of many, many years.

BARRATT O'HARA has always been an eloquent spokesman for what was in our nationalinterest, .an eloquent spokesman for programs designed to bring peace and stability to the world. He will be sorely missed here.

I, for one, hope that we will be able to call on him for his sage advice in the future, so that we may be able to better cope with the problems that confront the world.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I yield to the gentleman froni New Jersey.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I would just like to join my colleagues in saying that we are going to miss you very much. I can think of no one who has served this Congress with greater' conviction, or,with a · deeper dedication to true idealism, than the gentleman from Illinois, or one who had a greater love for his country, and perhaps an even greater love for the

people of this country, than the gentleman from illinois.

Having served 10 years on the same committee with the gentleman, I can truly say to the House that I never heard BARRATT O'HARA say an Unkind word about any man or have an unkind thought on any subject. BARRATT O'HARA lived with charity and hope in his heart and in his every action. He enriched this Congress with his service, and with his career of dedicated service enriched this country. I wish him well. And I hope that we will long have the benefit of his counsel and the pleasure of his friend-ship. ·

The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gen-tleman has expired. '

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Illinois 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gentleman from Illinois, I thank him for what he has done for all of us on the committee. He has come through with an idealism every so often when we needed it. He dreamed dreams and made many of. those dreams come true. He has shown how, as one goes along in life, each year gets better than the last. He has something, too, that young people just do not have, that the world needs.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman ·from the bottom of my heart. ·

Mr. O'H'kRA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I WStnt to congratulate my colleague from Illinois upon his memorable address. I am sure we will never forget it.

The gentleman's reference to the linkage between yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and the relevance of time to our Nation's destiny was magnificently expressed.

I also want to commend our good friend and colleague from Illinois for his enormous contribution to the foreign policy of the United States. His vision was steady, his purpose noble, and ·his stand always firm and courageous. He has made his mark here in the Congress and in the United Nations where he represented our country with great distinction. I know that all of his colleagues will miss him sorely next year.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of nlinois. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, the swansong of the gentleman from illinois was pure poetry today. I was truly privileged to be one of those who listened to the swansong of the gentleman.

The tact that among 39 or more nations in Africa not one is under Communist contr.ol today is a tribute not so much to our foreign aid program as it is to the-chairman of the great Subcommittee on Africa.

Mr. DERWINSKI., Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

21558 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- fiOUSE July 16, 1968

·Mr. · O'HARA of Dlinois. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Dlinois, from Chicago.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, it so happens that the gentleman from Illinois is a neighbor of mine in the sense that our districts are adjoining, and a great deal of the district he now represents was once part of my jurisdiction.

I would like to tell the ladies and gentlemen of the House that, at home, the gentleman is by all yardsticks the most respected political leader in the · great Chicago metropolitan area. He is respected for a great career of public service also to State and local government.

I share with and join in the statements made here this afternoon emphasizing the great leadership displayed by the gentleman in the Committee on Foreign Mairs. He has displayed a great dedica .. tion in the Subcommittee on Mrica.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair .. man, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, my fellow delega;te to the United Nations, our leader.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, wish to join in tribute to our great friend, who I regret is not going to be with us next year. The gentleman has always been a source of inspiration to all of us on the committee.

The gentleman from nlinois referred to a unique experience we had together in serving as delegates to the G~neral Assembly of the United Nations in 1965. I might say that the gentleman from Illinois was a lively, good-natured and valuable addition to that delegation. It was a pleasure and somewhat of a surprise to me to see the gentleman had such. an interest in getting around as vigorously as he did there, and in speaking as eloquently as he always does. He made a very real contribution to the foreign policy of our country.

We shall all of us miss him, I am sure, when we no longer have him with us.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it was a great honor to serve in the United Nations, and I served in the company of Congressman FRELINGHUYSEN whose great ·grandfather was Secretary of State when I was born.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the minority leader, the gentleman from my native State of Michigan.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I was about to say that the many fine attributes and assets the gentleman from Illinois has are based on the fact that he was born in the great State of Michigan. But despitf} the fact that he left us and became a resident of the State of Dlinois, we admire what he has accomplished and his many achievements in public life, and we wish him well. We wish him the very best in the years ahead. I have enjoyed our fine friendship and hope he will always come to see his many admirers who know of his many contributions to the buDding of a better world.

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ' .

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. I would feel remiss in my obligation to the committee and to the gentleman in the well if I did not add my voice to the encomiums which have been paid in connection with the gentleman's service on our committee. I have always found the gentleman a friend, a very able citizen, and one who has always upheld the ideals of our Nation, of our committee, and of the Congress.

I wish the gentleman many, many long years ahead, and I wish him well.

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, anyone who has had the pleasure and indeed the, distinction of serving with the gentleman from Dlinois on the committee and on a subcommittee-! speak particularly now of the Subcommittee on Mrica-knows of the dedication which the gentleman has brought to his office. Anyone so serving would be further aware of the impact that his interest in and love for the continent 'of Africa has had upon the development of the nations of that continent.

So, like so many others who have spoken here today, let me. express my deep affection for the gentleman and ·wish him well in many years ahead.

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. COLLIER. I should like to briefly include in my remarks the accolades paid to my good friend and colleague from Chicago. .

Some many years ago the son of the gentleman standing in the well as a young attorney came to work for my father, who was then working for the Government, and they developed a deep mutual ,- admiration and friendship. I subsequently had the pleasure of meeting his dad, BARRATT O'HARA, for the first time when I was elected to Congress in 1956. We have enjoyed the same fine relationship as your son and my dad did.

Mr. O'HARA of nlinois. We have, HAROLD. Your father was a wonderful, wonderful man.

Thank you all so much. Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from lllinois [Mr. DERWINSKI].


Mr. DERWINSKl. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I should like to make an inquiry, to see whether it would be in order to amend this btll. If we called it the BARRATT O'HARA foreign aid b111 I think it would pass unanimously.

Mt;. DERWINSKI. If I may comment, perhaps if we reduc~d the figure quite a bit it nught ha~e a better chance of passing, but not at the present inflated figure.

In . the spirt~ of good will prevailtng this afternoon, may I remhid those in

the Chamber that Di'. MoRGAN, our distinguished committee chairman, is not only a great · Member of Congress but also one of the finest medical men of this era. If I were suddenly to suffer an ailment here in the well of the House, knowing there are a number of doctors in the House I would hope the first doctor to reach my side would be the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since I hold his medical skill in such high regard.

However, I do not have as great confidence in the AID bill which.. he sponsors. I realize that this is an obligation and a chore. ~

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MONAGAN. The gentleman will have to admit he has demonstrated his surgical skill on this bill, considering it has been reduced by about $600 million.

Mr. DERWINSKI. That is really a minor operation. A more effective surgery I anticipate Thursday, when we will have further amendments under consideration.

The point I would like to make, if I might, is that this report, which we have all studied, is a most unusual report. In fact, it is one of the most unusual I have noted in recent years coming from any major committee. For example, the majority refers to their remarks as "justification." So, in order to be conVinced and hoping to see this justification, I read 'through it. The longer I read through the justification the more convinced I became that we have to make deeper and . more lasting cuts in this btll.

I will give you one example that I consider to be an exaggeration and even contr8idiction in this "justification." I do not quarrel with attempts to exaggerate or to contradict, because that is the game. However, I do feel it is necessary to point out these contradictions to you.

In the opening paragraph they tell us that unless this bill is approved as presented. by the committee, "substantial changes would be necessary not only in the conduct of foreign affairs but also in the basic objectives toward which our foreign policy has been directed." In other words, you do not dare gamble with this program as presented or chaos will creep into an already chaotic foreign affairs situation.

However, other arguments for justification include the point that of 20 countries that could qualify for development loans only 13 will receive the development loans; of 40 countries that might qualify for technical development grants, only 33 will receive those. Later on the committee comments that of the . 40 countries that could qualify for military assistance only 33 will receive such assistance. In other words, they are not fully utilizing the program that they say is essential. To me this represents a major contradiction.

I also note a statement--and here again I quote-"that foreign aid helps American firms establish going concerns abroad." Then it goes on to say in the committee report that $4.5 bi1,1ion was returned to the United States in remitted profits of American firms . overseas. By implication-it 1s the foreign aid bill that

July 16,- 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21559 produced this $4.5 billion in profits. Actually it is not that at all. That is where the great exaggeration comes in. The funds that flow in from remitted profits come from Japan and western European countries, a few thriving Latin American countries, and Australia. It is not from the countries who are the recipients of this aid program. I am pleased to see these profits returning. But I believe it is an exaggeration for the majority to claim that it is because of this program.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chair:nlan, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DERWINSKI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MONAGAN. Would not the gentleman admit that the Marshall plan had something to do with the recovery of Europe?

Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes. Mr. MONAGAN. And that was an aid

program. Mr. DERWINSKI. Would not the gen

tleman from Connecticut admit that after 20 years of using the Marshall plan era to justify this program you ought to come up with a more modern precedent and argument for it?

Mr. MONAGAN. The gentleman referred to Europe, and that is why I selected the Marshall plan.

-Mr. DERWINSKI. But let me point out to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut that the first few years of the Marshall plan were the only period in which the aid program functioned in effective fashion. That is why you have to go back to 1947 to justify the program.

The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DERWINSKI. May I emphasize, this entire commentary of mine is in the spirit of a constructive analysis of the justification of the program.

I know, for example, that the majority makes a great point to say that the AID program is needed-and here I quote again-"to support countries with strong opposition to Peking incursions and Communist activities." I looked at a list of some of the recipients which include such "stalwart" anti-Communist countries as Guinea, Uganda, where they have leftist military dictatorships.

At another point the justification is to expand democracy. I could go on through the list of recipient countries, and you will find a great number that are not qualified by any definition of democracy.

What I am pointing out, Mr. Chairman, is that the justification really gives us justification for a reduction of the program. I note the distinguished gentleman from Indiana referred briefly to the argument over the pipeline.

,Mr. Chairman, I do not advocate the c<)mplete termination of the program. However, by using those funds which are already in the pipeline, I can foresee the move when we will merely authorize administrative expenses, contingency fund, and military as8ista.rice and then draw on the pipeline for the rest of the program in this fiscal year.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from :Florida [Mr. HALEY].

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill as I have opposed every authorization and appropriation bill for the last 16 years for this program since I have been in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, as I have been throughout the years I have been in the Congress, I am opposed to this bill to give away more billions of the taxpayers' dollars in what I think has been proven to be a wasteful and futile effort to buy the friendship of other nations.

I would be less than honest if I did not say that I am delighted that the diligent members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have seen fit to bring before .us the smallest authorization bill in the history of this exercise in dollar diplomacy. And I would also be less than honest if I did not say that I hope, even so, that this bill will be rejected by the House.

But as a realist, I recognize that outright rejection is not likely. I can, nevertheless, hope that the House in its wisdom wm make a still further reduction in the authorization contained in the pending bill-and that our ·Appropriations Committee will make still further reductions in the actual funding made available for the foreign aid program.

-I am encouraged to believe that there is strong sentiment in the House in favor of a sweeping reassessment of the whole question of foreign aid-a reassessment of both its philosophy and its results. I hope this sentiment will prevail, because there can be no question that in this moment when our national fiscal position has become literally desperate, we must find ways to retrench.

We hav-e amassed a public debt that may never be repaid, but on which massive interest charies may go on forever, as we continue to profligate our spending at every whipstitch. We have enormous domestic problems facing us, and are told by our leaders that we must make enormous appropriations to solve them. We have a tremendolliSly costly war going on in Vietnam. And our dollar is threatened in world financial markets as inflation at home becomes a grave menace.

Much of our unfortunate position may be attributed, in-my opinion, to the fact · that in the past quarter ~entury, we have doled out billions and billions of dollars to more than 100 countries in this foreign aid program. I oanriot deny that this demonstration of American generosity and genius to produce may have had some positive benefits abroad. But I do not think that anyOne can deny that because those programs have gone on and on and have been expanded and expanded, their impact on the American people themselves, on our national economy, has approached the catastrophic.

I do not think that we can live, in good conscience, in a world in which there is no charity. But there is an old saying, to which I subscribe, that charity should begin at home. I say in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that in the condition in which we find ourselves today, we must concentrate our charitable efforts toward ' solving our problems at home and stop this lavish distribution of our fUJ;lds to foreign nations in a dismal effort to do the impossible-that is, buy friendship.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yiefd 8 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. KELLY].

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with my distinguished colleagues today in urging the approval of H.R. 15263, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1968.

Befo:ve making some observations about the subject matter and specific contents of this bill, I would like to pay my personal compliments. to the dif.itinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs· Committee,. the Honorable THoMAS E. MORGAN.

For months, the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I have been proud to serve as a member, has painstakingly been considering this legislation. Chairman MORGAN displayed his usual patience and courtesy to all the members of the committee, as well as to the public and private witnesses.

He listened to all of our differences, giving each and every one the opportunity to voice his views, to ask questions that troubled us, and to propose changes and amendments to the bill.

Dr. MoRGAN has been and is a great chairman. I have enjoyed serving with him on the committee on Foreign Affairs and I have the highest respect for him as a conscientious, dedicated public servant. '

I would also like to express our regard and appreciation to the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs-the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BoLTON]. She has provided conscientious and enlightened leadership on issues vital to the security· and foreign policy of our country.

Now I would like to make a few brief comments about the bill before us.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1968, more than any other piece of legislation acted upon by Congress, embodies the vision, the promise, and the performance of this Nation in trying to shape a better world for the succeeding generations.

It is, without question, one of the principal instruments of our foreign policy. Make no mistake, self-defense is the real objective. Trade, military power, Public Law 480 are other instruments.

Through programs initiated under this bill, we endeavor to build a community of nations which will be able to live in freedom and security, and devote their efforts to the fulfillment of their people's aspirations.

We do not seek these goals for selfish reasons--even though nearly all of the money authorized in this bill will be spent in the United States, producing wages, and in'come, and even profits for the American people.

We seek these goals because we know them to be right-and because they provide the only acceptable alternative to a world beset by increasing conflicts, moving slowly but inexorably toward a global disaster.

We seek them because we owe this not only to ourselves but also-and perhaps more importantly-to our children.

There is a price, Mr. Chairman, that we have to pay for principles, and for trying to advance those principles. in a responsible manner.

This applies to each and every one of

21560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - ·HOUSE July 16, 1968

uS as individuals-and it applies also to all of us as a nation.

During the current fiscal year, we will spend more than $100 billion on warspast, present, and those that may yet come. These expenditures-for our national defense budget, the war in Vietnam, the cost of debt interest due to past wars, and veterans benefits--will account for more than three-fourths of our disposable tax revenues.

I am, of course, excluding the various trust funds, such as unemployment compensation and _social security, which are financed through special arrangements.

In comparison, how little will we spend on all other Federal programs.

And how very little do we propose to spend in order to stave off world famine-to promote literacy and basic education-to solve the problems of ill health-and to provide some measure of security, particularly to those five or six countries which are loc-ated on the borders of the Soviet Union and Red China.

The total amount included in this btll for all of these purposes is approximately one-half of 1 percent of .our gross national product.

I wonder what business could buy a decent insurance policy-much less try to accomplish something for the future through their working programs-for so small a share of its income?

Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Foreign Mairs, realizing that this is a time of trial and stress_ in our own country, has chopped off $600 million from the President's request for this vital foreign policy program. This makes it the small·est authorization that has come from otir committee during my many years of service with that group. · -·

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the House will have the wisdom, and foresight, to approve this authorization in its present form.

I believe strongly that the times demand it-and that to do any less would be shortchanging ourselves.

Let me sound this warning. The world in which we live is a very troubled and a very dangerous world. .

Tomorrow or a month from now, or 6 months from now, the break which we

_have been waiting for may come in theVietnam negotiations and a just peace may finally come within the reach of the people of that tragedy-tom country.

No one wants this more than I do. I want peace in Vietnam and our boys coming home. And I think we should continue to do all in our power to bring that about.

At the same time, I try not to deceive myself. Wars and other threats to our national security, will not cease the minute the fighting is over in Vietnam.

Look, for example, at the Middle East. Are the Soviet Union's activities in that area designed to promote peace? No one believes that or in Berlin, Pakistan, India · or Thailand?

And have the Communists' goals changed elsewhere? Are ·they content to let the free countries alone, and stop brewing trouble, and subversion, whereever they can?

I have seen no evidence of such a change of heart on their part. .·

I say again, this bill is vital to our· na-

tional security. And the price tag on it is not unreasonable. It is down $2.3 billion. .

Just a few weeks ago, we voted more than $6 billion dollars for our farm programs-to help our farmers. There was very little argument about that legislation. But what good will all of those farm programs be if there is no security in this world, and if we have to gear up even higher defense expenditures?

I ask all of you: Let us act responsibly on this legislation. I again urge the approval of H.R. 15263 in its present form.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to compliment the gentlewoman for ·her statement. If I may, I would like also to express the regret that she too w111 not be back with us next year. She has been a very valuable member of the committee. We have all especially appreciated her leadership on the Subcommittee on Europe, so for a variety of reasons we shall miss her.

Mrs. KELLY. I thank the gentleman very much, but I say at this point do not count me out at this time.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewomal). yield?

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to my Chairman. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish

to express my appreciation for the helpful contribution just made by the distinguished gentlewoman from New York EMrs. KELLY] and to express my deep

. regret that she will not be with us next year.

I want to say that the gentlewoman has been one of the most valuable members of our committee, and in her long service on the committee she has always been of great help to me in working for the success of the committee's legislative program. As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, she has rendered invaluable service to our Nation and the cause of world peace. In whatever career she may choose to follow next year, I hope that her wise counsel and help will still be available to us and that we may frequently have the pleaJ;ure of seeing her here· in the Capitol.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, wUI the gentlewoman yie~d?

Mrs. KELLY. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, we are glad to hear that the gentlewoman is not counting herself out. We are hopeful that she will be successful in her intentions.

Should. she not be with us next year, however, the loss wUl be ours. .

The gentlewoman has been a strong supporter of mutual security, and of close cooperation with free nations everywhere. ~he has been an advocate of a forward-looking, positive foreign policy.

I may add that the gentl~woman from New York has left her mark on the foreign p_olicy of this Nation by being a~ong ' the initiators and active supporters of such vital measures . as :the Mutual Se-

curity Act, the Peace Corps Act, the Arms Control Act, and the Foreign Assistance Act.

Further, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, she has influenced the course of our country's relations with Europe through her strong support of · NATO, and her espousal of a positive approach to Eastern Europe. .

Mrs. KELLY. I would like to say to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, that it was under his leadership on the committee on which I first served, that I learned the many good features of those bills.

I thank the gentleman. Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentlewoman yield? Mrs. KELLY. I yield to my colleague,

the gentlewoman from Ohio. Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I want

to speak, not entirely, but partly just as a woman, to say that our friend in the well has done something for women in this Congress that needed to be done and which we shall never forget.

No member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs has done his homework the · way EDNA KELLY h~s. She has the reputation abroad of knowing more about foreign politics than any other American who goes over there.

I want to thank you, EDNA, very much, as a woman and a Member of this House of Representatives for what you have · stood for in this House-and for what you always will stand for in our hearts.

Mrs. KELLY. I thank my colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr . . MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, will . the gentlewoman yield? - -

Mrs. KELLY. I am glad to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, without expressing any opinion as to whether the gentlewoman will be here next year-and I may say that I do have an opinion-may I express my appreciation for the services of the gentlewoman to the United States and particularly for the manner in which she has carried on and led the activities of the Subcommittee on Europe.

I have been privileged to serve on that subcommittee for several years. In that time it has been a fascinating experience-because of the problems we have reviewed-because of the subjects we have discussed and because of the people who have appeared · as witnesses before that committee.

This is all due to the thought and foresight of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. KELLY] and I want to express my appreciation to her for that.

Mrs. KELLY. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut.

I want to say to the gentleman and to all my colleagues that it has 'been a pleasure to serve on the committee and· it has been a great experience.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs: KELLY. I yield to the gentleman. Mr~ GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I,

too, want to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the' gentlewoman from · New York. I . am certain that tlie gentle- · .

July . 16, 1 !)68: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21561 woman's service will continue in whatever :field she chooses to continue her good work.

In that context, Mr. Chairman, I wish to join my colleagues in expressing my admiration for the gentlelady's competence and dedication and for the way in which she has enriched the Congress.

As one who has served under her leadership on the Subcommittee on Europe for 10 years, I can say that no one has made a greater contribution· to studying in depth the friendship and the problems that have existed between the European Continent and the United States.

The record is complete of the studies that she has instituted and carried out.

I think no one has been more encouraging to the younger members on the committee, in allowing them to shoulder. responsib111ties and to develop their skills and talents in the interest of our country. Her guidance and leadership has proven invaluable.

Mrs. KELLY. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New -Jersey. I know that my colleague will ca!'ry on the good work.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. MAILLIARD].

Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, may I add my voice to those who have expressed their affection and admiration for our distingufshed friend, the gentleman from Dlinois. W~ shall deeply miss him and I hope

we will have the advantage of his advice and counsel even though he may no longer be a member of the committee.

Mr. G:ROVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. GROVER. May I also express my admiration for the gentleman from nu .. nois, with whom many of us have-spent many entertaining and informative hours listening to the wonderful tales he spins. He is a great man.

Also as a member of. the New York· delegation, let me say that we are very, very proud of the gentlewoman who was just in the well. I think I speak for the entire delegation in that regard.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I do not know precisely what the plans of the gentlewoman from New York might be. Whatever they are, I wish her .the greatest success. If she has not thought of it, I would suggest that she might renew her highly successful activities a.S a delegate to the United Nations. ·

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. Mr ~ Chairman, will the gentleman yield? _

Mr. MAILLIARD. I yield to the gentle· man. from Dlinois.

Mr. O'HARA of Dlinois. I merely wish to say that I would not want to be in Congress _ without a Kelly here, also.

Mr. MAILLIARD. While I am at_ it, while I do not see the gentleman at the moment in the House, I have had the pleasure of serving on the Inter-American Affairs Subcomnuttee under the distinguished chairmanship of the gentleman fro:r.n Alabama, who wUI :Qot be with. us. next year. I wou~d like. the REcoau to show that I have great admiration and affection for lilP?-· ,and have indeed e~-

joyed working with him in this very important area.

Mr. Chairman, while foreign aid legislrution has had my support in the past, I rarely have taken part in the annual debates. And I would not do so today, if I did not believe that the growing misconceptions over foreign aid were threatening the very ])eart of our foreign policy structure.

I believe that the foreign aid bill is in trouble partly because it has been mislabeled. If we had retained the old title of "Mutual Security," the so-called foreign aid programs would be less prone to the misunderstandings which are present today. The present title of "Foreign Assistance" has led to false implications of giveaway, handout, and charity. Foreign aid is none of those things at all. It is founded purely and simply on the requirements of our own security and the mutuality of our interests with other nations of the free world.

All of us in the Government must share some of the blame -for the program's lack of popularity. We simply have not done enough to inform the public that it is an essential security investment instead of a handout or soft loan by a wealthy nation to its less fortunate neighbors. I am afraid that over the years the Government's attempts to gain support for the program have overemphasized appeals to the generosity of the American people. Now that we are faced with mounting budget deficits and the dollar drain, it is only natural. to select foreign aid as one charity that can be curtailed or even eliminated until our own economic · environment improves.

If foreign aid were charity; this would be sound reasoning. But we know that these programs are not charity; that they are, 1il fact, vital elements in our strategic foreign operatiqns. We recognize· that the ·countless millions in the world who live in poverty and hunger must have · rapid, evolutionary growth if they are not to be plagued by the ills of communism, totalitarianism, and other forms of political fanaticism. We know that our adversaries seek and work for revolutionary turmoil among the peoples of the underdeveloped nations so as to impose their own systems and controls. And we know what the spread of totalitarianism means to us and the rest of the free world in terms of _our present. and future security.

The so-called foreign aid programs are a vital tool i:D. our efforts to seek political stability in the world. We are not seeking to buy good will. We are naturally glad to have it when we can, but our aim is to achieve the kind of world in which . we can prosper as a _strong arid free people.

This bill represents the committee's best efforts to reevaluate the programs in the light of our changing fiscal requirements and our continuing security · needs. The authorization request was the lowest ever and the committee has cut that request by another $600 million. I don't believe that we can afford to lower it any further. To go beyond that by canceling or even calling a moratorium on our aid programs would seriously weaken our entire foreign policy structure and encourage our adversaries

to move into the vacuum. And attempt- -ing to rebuild our programs later would be infinitely more difHcult and expensive.

I would hope that a greater effort will be made next year to cast the so-called foreign aid program in its proper light. But today, let us brush aside the mislabeling and distortions. Let us support this bill for what it is: An important instrument in our vital efforts to protect our own long-range welfare and security.

Mr. MORGAN .. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West

' Virginia [Mr. KEE]. Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to com

mend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives [Mr. MoRGAN] for his devotion to duty-his responsibility in bringing to the :fioor for consideration this afternoon H.R. 15263, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1968.

I fully and completely support this essential legislation as reported by the commtttee.

The late Dr. Eaton of New Jersey, a distinguished Republican and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was the :fioor manager when foreign aid was originally enacted.

He was ably assisted by the late chairman, Sol Bloom, of New York, and my late father, John Kee, who also served as chairman of the committee cooperated as a team in this successful effort for the benefit of our Nation-or country.

Also, the former chairman, Mr. Robert Chiperfield, of Dlinois, a distinguishe-d Republican, supported foreign aid. ..

This is a nonpartisian problem of urgent concern to all of us.

Therefore, I have a warm personal interest, as well as a deep conviction to contribute my humble efforts in a constructive manner to help obtain favorable action.

While the primary objective of foreign aid has been to help create a peaceful and prosperous world, other considera- · tions are vital to the securi.ty of our own American citizens.

While the essential task of foreign assistance must be to set in motion circumstances which will help eliminate those conditions under which communism best breeds-poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, unstable political institutions and little or no economic development--we must also recognize what it does for the Uni.ted States.

The fundamental political judgment facing the United States is what kind of. a world do we want for ourselves and for our children? Do we want that kind of world enough to pursue the policies and to take the actions necessary to achieve· such a world? Do we want to encourage and support the development of the largest free world possible so that in Latin America, Africa, Asia; and most nations will want to grow and prosper outside the CommuniSt system? Are we willing to· continue this extra step of responsibility?

Since the answer to these questions are in the amrmative, it naturally follows that the policies of the United States must be continued toward the attainment of these goals.

Today, we do have American personnel--Our own :fiesh and blood-along

I*'


with personnel of friendly nations-giving their lives every day to preserve freedom.

Mr. Chairman, this foreign aid bill is a fundamental tool in the effort to create a peaceful, prosperous, and free world. For, if we do not establish a climate in which free institutions can develop, then we shall surely see a world in which those who need help will turn to those whose entire way of life is alien to our own. We cannot--we must not--become isolated from that great portion of the world in which the history of the next century is being written.

Nor can we afford to lose sight of the fact that a halt in foreign aid would have dire consequences on the domestic econ-omy. ·

Some economists estimate that $1 billion worth of aid provides jobs for 500,000 Americans . throughout the domestic economy. If one calculates this on the basis of a 40-hour week, ·at the hourly rate of $1.75, it adds up to over $1.7 billion annually. This is what a moratorium on foreign aid would accomplishlower income earnings by the · U.S. worker. This means less purchasing power.

There are other implications. A moratorium on foreign aid will disrupt the military assistance program throughout the world. What money there is in the pipeline for military assistance is already committed. A moratorium would not allow for the anticipated needs of our allies, especially those on the periphery of the Soviet Union and Communist Chiria.

This is not reasonable. We are spending billions of dollars on our own defense-yet we begrudge $390 million, as reported ·by the committee, in military assistance to our friends and allies which would assist them to defend themselves against the same enemy and the same threat.

Mr. Chairman, I have only briefly discussed some of the political, economic, and military consequences to the United States of a moratorium on foreign aid. We must think seriously about this problem; for, in the final analysis, a moratorium on foreign aid could· well be a premeditated national disaster both internally and externally. We cannot afford to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Therefore, Mr. Chainnan, I plead with the Members of the House to approve the measure as reported so the world wlll know that America is resolved to do its part to insure a peaceful world in the most reasonable manrier possible.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York [Mr. FARBSTEIN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD. .

The CHAffiMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I

stand up in behalf of the foreign aid bill because I have a high regard for the self-interest of the United States. I make no plea to this body to be charitable. I ask my colleagues only to be foresighted. For I believe that foresight re-

quires us to spend some of our enormous wealth to assist in the development of the less developed nations.

As a nation, we cannot live surrounded by high w~lls, Mr. Chairman. We .are members of the world. The day is long since past when the well-being of distant Africans or Asians was of no importance to us. The pre~ent may beJong chiefly to us, but the future belongs both to us and to them. And as long as we are destined to share the future, we must make our contribution to assuring its tranquillity.

We are already engaged in one grievous war in the undeveloped world. Vietnam has bled us severely for several years. Not long ago, we ·came close to involvement in a war in the Congo. There is a civil war today in Nigeria, which could well spill over its current confines. We can no longer delude ourselves into thinking we can ignore conditions on remote continents.

The President of the United States, Mr. Chairman, has pledged $1 billion in American funds for the development of the Mekong Delta, if only the terrible war in Vietnam is brought to an end. That war currently costs us $2.5 billion a month. Obviously, a $1 billion Mekong Delta fund Would be a bargain. I say to you today that the $1 billion spent 10 years ago would probably have avoided the war today, saved 20,000 American lives and, perhaps, $100 billion in expenditUres. Surely, that money would have been well spent.

It is within this framework that I ask you today to consider foreign aid. l am not asking you to vote a charitable contribution but to vote for world stability. Communists benefit by suffering and chaos. We benefit by decent living conditions and stable societies. I warn you solemnly that we will spend 100 times over, as we have in Vietnam, if we take the expedient way out and rejecf.the modest requests that the committee asks of us today.

Mr. Chairman, other industrialized nations understand this problem. We are not the only country contributing to the underdeveloped world. We sometimes tend to congratulate ourselves on our disinterestedness on our virtue. But other industralized states sometimes see the future more clearly than we do, and respond to it more generously.

I cite for your information, from an otncial report of a United Nations agency, that the United States is in lOth place among the nations in the world in dedicating a share of its gross national product ro the assistance of the poor nations.

The United Nations has set an otncial goal of 1 percent as the contribution of the rich nations to international development. In recent years the United States has fallen far short of that goal. I might add that ·we are talking now not simply of foreign . aid but also of loans, investment, ·and reinvested profits. Counting· every . dollar ·. in these. categorfes, our contribution is only seventenths of 1' percent of our gross natiomi.l product. And let me add further .that our Government requires that alnwst .all of that money. be sPent within the bound~ aries of the. United State~. . .. ,, '.

. So we must not-deceive ourselves, Mr. Chairman, with the ·belief that we are sitting here dispensing our wealth in a fashion ·tbat is: .unique or even particularly openhanded. France contributes almost twice as great ·a proportion of its GNP as we do and the Netherlands contributes 50 percent more. These countries should be thanked by us as well as by the less developed lands, because their help forestalls anarchy and chaos, which can only cost us most heavily in the long run.

I ask my colleagues then. Mr. Chairman. to contemplate the dividends that foreign aid can bring us. It will not bring us an immediate return but I am conVinced that it will strengthen American society's security in the world. I urge my colleagues to vote for the foreign aid bill, as a downpayment on our safety.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. THOMSON].

Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I should like to put the amount of foreign aid in a little different context from that used by tl)e members of the majority and in fact by the administration.

When the Secretary of State appeared before the co~ittee, I asked Mr .. Rusk to put into the record what the total free world gross nationai product is and then the gross national product for the United States of America, and then to add the items which he considered a8 part of America's foreign aid.

He gave me these figures. nie AID bill, $2,141 million; food for peace, $1,-523 million; Pe~e Corps, $108 million; Inter-An;l.erican Development Bank, $3_00 million; tntemational Development Association, $104 million; for a total of$~.-176 million.

Relating the $4,176 million to the U.S. gross national product of $743 billion, our contribution to foreign aid is 0.51~. or just about one-half of 1 percent of our gross national product.

Now, I do not think that is a fair. way to describe the contribution America makes.

No other appropriation is described in terms relating to the gross national product. We do not talk about our aid to education in terms of GNP or our war on poverty in terms of GNP. We do not talk about our e1fort in Vietnam in ternis of GNP. We talk about it in percentages of what we have in the bank or in the U.S. Treasury to pay the bUls.

That is why I got the figures from the Secretary of State. I called the Treasury Department and asked them to give me some statistics on foreign aid as percentages of budget receipts of this country which are not earmarkeq for. such purposes as un~mployment compensati.on oT s~ial ·security, the highway trust fund, <_>r that type. of ilicQm~ but . which are budget receipts which are .available for use . and for appropriation by the Cori·gress. -They gave me these two interestirig figUres'. · · · · · ' · · ·

In 1966 the "total budget" receipts, according ~to . th~ . Treasury Department were ·$1<)4.73 billion: The· ·total expenditures !or the foreign aiq categories listed by the sec.retary o{ s 'tate were $4.'6'1 billl~n. Th~ ·percenta~~ .~s. · 4:41Jercen.t'. So we

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21563 are spending for foreign aid 4.4 percent of all the money that the U.S. Government takes in.

In 1968 they gave me these figures. The total budget receipts were $113.21 billion, which are not earmarked for other purposes. The total expenditures were $4.93 billion or an expenditure rrutio of 4.3 percent. So in that year we were spending more than 4 percent of all the money that we took in. And, incidentally, a lot of that was borrowed money.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this related. Instead of poor mouthing the American people by saying that we only spend one-half of 1 percent of our gross national product, why do we not say, instead, that we are spending more than 4 percent and approaching 5 percent and then see whether people want to give for mutual assistance or aid or whatever you want to call it, more than 5 percent of all the money taken in by the Federal Government?

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

·Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. Not at this moment. You can get some time on your side. · I would like to say one thing in be)lalf of this bill. Many people for years have criticized the foreign-aid program because of the waste and inem.ciency of the administration of this program which permitted foreign countries in the commodity program to buy commodities which were luxury items or which were ineligible and illegal for payment out of American tax moneys. I have sought for years to stop the sal~ of such things as Meti:ecal and eye shadow and lipstick and deodorants and white sidewall tires, but I have been ridiculed by some of these people who ri~ on the majority side to deprecate the efforts to stop this kind of waste of Anierican taxpayers' money.


Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. They say to me, "Oh, well, w~ told you about that." However, they did not do it, because I had to go down to the agency and have the auditors pick it out. So I tried to work through the Inspector General. An amendment was adopted, which I proposed 2 years ago, which gave the Inspector General greater authority to pick up on the use of American taxpayers' money.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

, Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. I thought that might eliminate the waste in this program and in the purchase of luxury items, but the trouble is that the Inspector General makes a postaudit after the bills have been paid and the money has been used. The Inspector General brought to the attention of this House and the Congress the .fact that we were still spending money to · buy such things as sherry wine. A total of $34,000 worth of sherry wine was bought in the Dominicl\n . Republic. Caviar, cocktail glasses, ~ktail napkins, colored bathroom fixtures, color television sets, in a country that needs pro-

teins and , vitamins ·and ·carbohydrates. years and even in India, which is a great We are still buying sheriy wine. country and which some people seem

Now, Mr. Chairman, they propose to to think is our friend, they owe us $12 -do that, and the committee in its wis- million today which has been expended dom found-and I think under the pres- for these items, luxury items, and I shall sure of an aroused American public. bring with me tomorrow a record of these

Mr. Chairman, the bill states at page items. 10 thereof in subsection (f): Then, Mr. Chairman, when such resti-

No funds authorized to be made available tution is made, we do not get our money to carry out Part I of this Act shall be used back in dollars. It is usually recouped under any commodity import program to in the form of rupees which they can make any payment to a. supplier unless the afford to spend for that purpose. supplier has certified to the agency primarily Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield responsible for administering such Part I, 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vir.;. such information as such agency shall by ginia [Mr. DOWNING]. 'regulation prescribe, including but not lim- Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Chairman, dur-ited to, a description of the commodity sup-plied by him and its condition, and, on the ing my 10 years in the Congress, I have basis of such information such agency shall voted for our foreign aid programs, but have approved such commodity as eligible I assure you it was with great reluctance. and suitable for financing under this Act. I have also voted for every cut that had

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in any reasonableness at all. 20 years that we have had a chance to I have constrained my desire to vote determine the source into which the tax against the entire program because I dollars are going as opposed to those sincerely believe that if a negative vote which are going to consumer items. prevailed and all foreign aid was sud- And, Mr. Chairman, when this bill is denly shut off, it would be cataclysmic. passed-if it is passed-in my opinion Some governments would topple into this will represent a very salutary por- the hands of communism and an open tion of the items contained in this legis- invitation would be extended to the So-1ation for which funds may be expended. viets to occupy any and every strategic

·u country they may desire. Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, WI I have almost reached the point of

the gentleman yield? Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. I yield saturation with the obvious waste, cor-

to the gentleman. ruption, bribery, and mis- and malman-Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I agement of the AID program. These have

think it should be made clear that the all -been cited 1n the news media and I am allegatio~s of wrong~o~ng 'Yere no~ aimed ~~hat only the surface has been ex-at Americ.ans admmistermg t~s pr~- . What has appalled me is that up to gram. I think that th~Y. have t~Ied their now, the AID program had no provisions bes~ to properly admmister this under- · for any surveillance over the distribution takmg. . . of our largesse. Our only means of .con-

I do want to ask these .questions of the trol apparently comes from a postaudit gentleman from Wisconsm: . · which, of necessity, is so long delayed

Can the gentleman tell the Comrmttee that the culprits involved are beyond the whether or not the U.S. Government lost jurisdiction of the law. any money because of the fact that some I have noted with interest that AID ineligible items were sold to some of these Administrator, Mr. William s. Gaud, is unde!developed countries? now aware of the problem and has taken

Is It not true that our Government re- some administrative steps for advance co?ped the cost of. ~ll of those ~ems screening . of commercial transactions shiPP~d to the Dommican Re~ublic · financed by AID. This is 9yn excellent

Is It not also true that with respect move but it is not enough. to Vietnam, $6.2 million of U.S. claims waste and corruption seems to run has been paid, $1.2 million are i~ ~he rampant in this program particularly in process of payment, a:t:lc:I the remammg Vietnam. But the most shocking thing of $500,000 is still under review? all is that this evil has been condoned

Is it not true, also, that preaudit pro- by some scholars in the administration. I -cedures involved in the amendment of have been told, on good authority, that the gentleman from Wisconsin were in- "without American money, guns, food, stituted by AID some _time ago and are medicine, and supplies, the National Lib,- · presently in eJfect? In other words, the eration Front world have a hard time procedures in which the gentleman from surviving." This is a sorry state of affairs. Wisconsin is interested are being en- These . disclosures have revealed that forced right now, without his amend- AID ·has been rel~g on conventional ·ment? postaudit activities to insure that' AID

Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. No; it is moneys are spent for the purposes for not true at all, and I shall bring · the which they were appropriated; and that 'figures in tomorrow. I did not think . I postaudit praCtices have not been ade-:would need them here today, but I will quate for .this task. Untold amounts of have them here tomorrow. AID funds have been dissipated through

Mr. Chairman, I say that with respect illicit practices such as excessive pricing, to any wine which has been purchased short-loadings, kickbacks, freight overand with respect to these other things, charges, and so forth; and through prosometimes they pay us. But if they do pay curement of worthless or questionable us, they do not use the money to feed merchandise without. necessarily violatthe hungry and, even 1f they do pay ing AID regulations. AID funds have us the money back, the money that they been diverted to Swiss and other foreign · can ill afford to spend for that purpose, ,accounts without aiding the intended vie have :filed claims for it. I have been beneficiary and adding to our balance of looking into this for a period of many payments and gold drain problems.

2156i1 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD - -HOUSE July 16, 1968 Recently the-AID Adlninistrator con

ceded that the economic aid involvement was inadequately safeguarded by postaudit measures when he directed the employment of preaudits to avoid disbursements for irregular or imprudent transactions. These preaudit measures have only recently been undertaken.

We should not, however, be satisfied with this modest beginning in defense of the AID instrument. We must make every etfort to urge AID to develop and apply a truly meaningful system of preventive measures so that appropriated funds will promote the goals we seek, including the President's request that austerity be practiced in the expenditure of public funds.

We should require the establishment of the requirement that AID's preaudit activities be evaluated to make certain they meet the tests of prudent use of public funds.

We have relied in the past on independent bodies such as the GAO and the IGA to oversee and evaluate the effectiveness of postaudit procedures which have been employed by AID. We should now require that the same thing be done in connection with preaudits. It is extremely important that AID's preaudit operations be evaluated and reviewed for the purpose of sustaining AID's ability to safeguard public funds. Furthermore, this inspection and evaluation of AID's preaudit procedures should also be undertaken to assure that the course of procedures used will be those least likely to interfere with legitimate AID financed transactions if at all.

It seems to me that this inspection and ·evaluation of AID's preaudit measures should be particularly intensive in the immediate period when such procedures are being instituted and applied for the first time. The GAO and the IGA, as well as appropriate congressional committees can be of great assistance to AID in discharging its responsibilities for the expenditures of public moneys. ·

There is a further reason for enforcing the development by AID of effective and meaningful preaudit procedures. We have also learned in the recent past that in countries such as Vietnam in which there are organized communist economic operations, that conventional AID procedures may well work for the benefit of the enemy. The most recent evidence of this proposition has been provided by Mr. William Lederer's article in the Saturday Evening Post entitled, "Our Worst Enemy," repeatedly describes how the Vietcong depend upon our resources for its survival. There is no reason not to believe that the Vietcong economic operations does not seek to utilize unscrupulous merchants and corrupt public officials to employ many of the scandalous practices which have resulted in the use of appropriated funds to supply sea water, worthless battery additive, overpriced tetricyclene, and overpriced and overprescribed chlorenphenical to Vietnam. There is no reason not to believe that similar Communist econorptc organizations in other countries would seek to subvert our foreign economic AID instrument in the same way, even though to a lesser degree. This is a form of eco-

nomic warfare -which is extremely- new and which will be prejudicial to our economic AID objectives 1f we continue to operate with either conventional postaudit procedures or ineffective preaudit.

I have discussed this matter with the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and with some of its members. None of them, of course, condones such things as this.

I understand that some of my suggestions for reform including the preaudit of programs, in addition to postaudit, are included in the present bill. I hope that AID will implement them effectively. To do less would be to break faith with the American taxpayer.

I am not going to vote for the socalled "moratorium amendment" because that would be equivalent to shutting the program off completely. I am going to vote for a reduction in the funding. I am going to vote for the bill again because I am afraid not to-for my country's sake.

But I will tell you this. If this program is not cleared up, if it is not administered more effectively, the American public is going to demand that the entire effort be abandoned-regardless of the consequences.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a moment?

Mr. DOWNING. I yield to ~he g·entlewoman.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I am interested in everything that has been said by the gentleman, and of course this is a question that has been before the committee. Mistakes have been made. However, I would add that the information the gentleman has been presenting, I am sure, has been derived from a reading of the newspapers, which p~ibly means that the gentleman believes everything he reads in the newspapers.

Mr. DoWNING. May I add to the gentlewoman from Ohio that it is based not only on what I read in the newspapers, but what I have obtained from private sources, and it is a shocking thing.

Mrs: BOLTON. It is shocking to every-one. . -

Mr. DOWNING. Not only that these things have occurred, but that they are condoned.

Mrs. BOLTON. I believe the gentleman is wrong there. I believe there are a good many things being done that are not ·being talked about at all. Thiilgs are better than they were, may I say.

Mr. DOWNING. I hope so. Mrs. BOLTON. Not that they are as

good as they should be. But of course, I am on the minority side, and I believe there are some things that could be done that · have not been done, and I hope will be done.

The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

· Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield ·10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio £Mr. TAFT].

Mr. TAFT._ Mr. Chairman, at the outset, as the newest member of the minority on the committee, it has been a distinct privilege and pleasure to serve with such legislative titans as we have seen here today.

I mention particul&rly with great atfection and admiration the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARAJ and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. KELLY] under whose chairmanship I have served on the Subcommittee on Europe. I would be remiss, too, if I did not say a special word-and not in any note of au revoir, but one of the proper recognition, to the ranking minority member, the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BOLTON].

And I must not overlook the distinguished chairman [Mr. MoRGAN] whom I recognize as doing a. very difficult and a very responsible job, with some of us, particularly those at the bottom of the minority at times, snapping at his heels.

I have sometimes been critical of the procedure and organization of the committee, and I would hope that we can continue to take a look at this and hopefully to improve it. Particularly with regard to the hearings in the area. of foreign aid, the very fact that we are here and the very fact that all of us recognize this bill is at least in a marginal stat~ of .existence. Hopefully it will pass, but It Will not pass with any overwhelming majority, because as has been said earlier today, there is a deep and genuine lack of understanding of the real purp05e and function of the foreign aid program.

It has no constituency, and this is part of the problem. But that is not the only problem involved with the foreign aid approach. It simply has not been presented. correctly. In part, the failures of administration that have been mentioned are responsible · for this. But there is ill addition to the failure in administration-hopefully on its way toward correction-a failure of interpretation of this program to the American people.

As is the case with any import aspect of our foreign policy, it 1s vital in a democratic Nation that-the people understand the nature of their foreign policy and its overall direction.

Many of the troubles which I see us facing in regard to our participation in the Vietnam war today-whether we agree or fail to agree with the decisions that have caused, us to get ther~are the result of a failure of proper interpretation of the problems to the American people and their participation in the making of the decisions that have led us there.

We see a need, therefore, in the foreign aid program for a far broader understanding.

Earlier today I wa:s in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri EMr. CURTIS] with regard to the balance of payments. He very properly observed the lack of coordination of our programs in regard to foreigri policy and I might say not only financial programs, but many other aspects as well.

It seems to me that there have been incursions into what ought to be the proper jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Certainly also, there is a lack of coordination in our committee procedures today.

There is a total lack of coordination between the committees.

We have a complete earmarking of the

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE . 21565

foreign trade a.rea for instance, certainly, One other argument that I would like one of the most important -aspects of our to present to the committee with regard foreign policy, 1n the Committee on to our foreign aid program rela.tes to Ways and Means with no policy to cross India. I know the distinguished gentlerefer between committees, as often ought man from New Jersey [Mr. F'RELINGHUYto be done and as is done in many legisla- SEN] will later talk on the subject of Intive bodies, to get the overall concept dia. But I would be remiss not to mention and a coordinated approach to the prob- in .connection with India the conclusion lems involved. to which I have come--that here is a

But we are not merely dealing with place where foreign aid combined with the foreign affairs area here. We are other efforts-! will not attribute it soledealing with overall area of congression- ly to the foreign aid program-is about al reorganization-upon which I shall to make a major breakthrough 1n the not comment further today. three areas of agricultural production,

Getting back to the foreign aid bill, let the connected area of fertilizer use, and me just say this, as I have said in my also population control. It would be a minority views already, if we did ·not great mistake at this time to cut matehave a foreign aid program, we should rially back 1n this country. And this is have to invent one. one of the first areas that will be affected

No matter w.ho is elected President of by cuts 1n the development loan prothe United States next November, gram. When we get in the debate tomorwhether he be a Republican or a Demo- row, we will be dealing with this. crat, he is going to come before this I would like to point out to the House Congress and ask for a program, what- something which I do not think has been ever the la.bel might be, that is nothing mentioned in the committee report with more nor less than a foreign aid program. regard to India. That is, that if India is

It may vary somewhat from the pro- about to make it economically, we have gram that we have today, but to handcuff a large stake there. We are a creditor of the President of the United States in the India 1ri hard loan ·funds in the amount conduct of the foreign poUcy of the of about $2,600,000,000, and 1n soft loan strongest nation in the world from an funds, of about $2,400,000,000, or a total economic point of view from using eco- of $5 billion. If the Indians are about to nomic power in connection with our for- make it, would w.e not be cutting off our eign po1iey would be as stupid a thing nose to spite our face if at this point we as I think I could conceive of being done. failed to give them the additional help

Moving for a moment to a couple of . they need in order to buy the fertilizer, to aspects of this bill in that regard, it has buy the miracle rice, and to buy the been suggested, and I am happy to say wonder wheat seed with which to inthat almost all of the Members of the crease and finally go over the top and minority seem to be .in agreement with become self-sustaining from the point of' the idea, that we ought to continue this view of food and subsistence of their program with a floor or irreducible mini- people? mum at the very least. I do not say I go This 1s something I think the Com-along with all the cuts that are set out mittee should weigh. and proposed on page 58 of the commit- Having mentioned the area of populatee report 1n the third column, or in the tion control, I would also like to call the proposed final figures that are set out in attention of the committee to the ·fact the fourth column. But I do commend that the bin ·you hav.e before you earthem to the House for the consideration marks a $50 million figure for the area of of Members, for it was the studied judg- population control, giving recognition to

· ment of the committee that if we were the tremendous progress that has been to cut below these figures in any of these made by many of these developing natitles, we would be seriously damaging tions 1n this very great area of need. the ongoing foreign aid program, and Also in closing I would like to mention really putting it out of business. This once again the areas upon which the genwould necessitate its re-creation next tleman from Virginia just touched, the year, &nd there is no Teason why that areas of administrative improvement. In re-creation would be any better than part m of the bill, commencing on page trying to improve and build on the pro- 9, we have specified a number of 1mgram that we have. provements that, 1f they are not already

I would think, therefore, the Members in effect in regulation, would shortly be of the House would give serious consid- in effect through law if this bill is passed eration to this studied judgment by the in the form in which it is presented to committee as to what these irreducible the House. · m1nimums should be. In conclusion, let us reftect that 1f we

I might say l think among some of the did not have this program, we should members of the committee, since the have to create it. I do not see what the publication of this report, there has been answer can be, other than that. I cannot a restudy leading to the conclusion that see how a group as intelligent as this body technical cooperation, whieh was sug- could come to any other conclusion, degested as a maximum cut of $55 million. spite what w.e may .see as deficiencies in has perhaps eut the proposed final figure admmistration or in the concept of parof $145 million back too farJ Many of us tlcular programs, than that, in general, lt feel that we ought to move that up to adds up to a tremendous need for U.S. $170 million. not raising the overall floor foreign poUcy. figures, but finding this additional $25 Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield million in the supporting assistance such time as he may consume to the ·genfigure, where there is more .fiexibility, tleman from Missourl [Mr. !cHORD]. some of this supporting assistance fig- Mr. !CHORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise 1n ure being in connection with the Vietnam opposition to H.R. 15263. operation. Mr. Chairman, each time that the For-

eign Assistance Act has come before Congress during the 8 years that I have been a Member, I have voted against it and have always supported amendments reducing the funds contained in the authorization. Last year, for example, one of my amendments was adopted cutting · the authorization $150 million. I have consistently opposed the Foreign Assistance Act, not because I am against &11 foreign aid, but because I believe tpat the administrators of the program have completely lost sight of the basic principle that "friendship cannot be purchased." In altogether too many instances, the guiding principle for dispensation of aid appears to be solely whether or not the interest of the recipient nation would be served rather than the interest of the United States. I have repeatedly warned that as wealthy as the United States is, it is not rich enough to continue the high rate of foreign aid spending which now totals $170 billion, if you include the interest, since the conclusion of. World War II. During most of the years following World War II we have had to indulge in deficit spending to continue our huge foreign aid program and many of the recipients have appeared to resent the aid more than they have shown appreciation.

The nation of India, the largest recipient of our aid, would appear to be the least appreciative. India has now received almost $8 billion in economic assistance. We have saved India year after year from horrible famines. We have continued to send millions of tons of food to India despite the fact that Indians have shown little desire to help themselves. Throughout the period of this massive foreign aid program, we have been ridiculed and mocked by India's leaders. Mrs. Gandhi today appears to be following the same policy of her father~ She has relied upon the United States to feed her malnourished millions and has purchased expensive arms and weapons and facilities from Russia, ranging from small arms to jet :fighters and small arms plants to aircraft, shipbuilding, and missile production plants. Money that could have been spent for food is being spent for arms. Is not the United States, in effect, subsidizing India's purchase of Soviet arms?

The argument that steps have been taken to reduce the impact of the foreign aid program upon our serious balance-of-payments problems are not imp.ressjveJ The sending of Americ.an produced commodities rather than dollars continues to have an adverse effect upon our balance of payments as we are giving away commodities which in many cases would have been purchased with dollars by the recipient countries.

Charity, Mr. Speaker, begins at home. Let us use our funds to solve our domestic problems and to reduce our ' deficit rather than trying to solve all the problems of the world which are not within our power to solve. OUr serious financial problems leave us no other choice. The committee reductions, approximating $600 million, are not In my oplnlon, large enough. The bill as reported earrtes $2.3 billion which is still more than we can afford. Therefore, I shall support the amendments to be offered further cut-

I '

21566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 1 ~, 19 6 8 _,

ting the bill and I also urge the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida declaring a 1 year moratorium of foreign aid. , Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield

5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-fornia [Mr. TuNNEY]. .

Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. Chairman, before starting my remarks, I would like to say I think that because of the wise leadership of our chairman, Dr. MoRGAN, we have a bill before the House today which every Member of Congress can in good conscience support. I have had the opportunity to sit through many of the hearings and watch the gentleman from Pennsylvania as he sat in the chair, and I have had the opportunity also during the markup to sit by and listen as the gentleman patiently allowed Members to express their opinions and to offer amendments. I think had it not been for

·· the patience and wisdom of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the foreign aid bill would not be here today.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the talk we hear around the corridors of Congress that there may be a moratorium on foreign aid this year, I would like to make a few points. It seems to me incredi'ble that people could actually be talking of stopping the foreign aid program-not that I like seeing American treasure sent abroad when it is so sorely needed in our own country for the education of our children and for the building of highways and for the building of public works, but unfortunately this country is not living isolated, as an island.

We depend on foreign countries in the same way they depend on us. Last year, for instance, we had $31 billion in exports and we imported $25 billion worth of goods. Many of the imports we brought into this country came from the underdeveloped countries, and we know what the history has been in the underdeveloped countries in the last 20 years. We have seen increasing populations and a decrease in the per capita income. We have seen the frustrations these people have. We have seen the revolutions and anarchy.

I would like to ask my friends who are thinking of voting against the foreign aid bill this question: From where are we going to get the raw materials which we use in our own factories, which give employment to Americans in our own country, if the sources of supply are cut off from us? Is it any small wonder that the Soviet Union and Communist China have decided to get into the foreign aid business in the last 10 years? I do not think they did it because they like seeing their money sent overseas, but they recognize that foreign aid does give a country political leverage in the underdeveloped areas of the world,.

One ,of the reasons we have as much political leverage as we have is because of our foreign aid program. One of the reasons we have as much business investment abroad is because of our foreign aid program. One of the reasons we have had an uninterrupted supply of raw materials from these underdeveloped countries into the United States is because of our foreign aid program.

I ask, what is going to happen if we

cut off foreign aid or have a moratorium on foreign aid? What will happen to our business investment abroad? How would any of us, as Members of Congress, like . to be traveling in a Latin American country or in· an African country-where we have had a: foreign aid program for the last 10 or 12 years-the year after we cut off foreign aid?

I think it is very obvious there is going to be an expropriation of American investment abroad, and I think there is likely to be an interruption of foreign raw materials for our factories.

. If we cut off foreign aid, what will happen to the Peace Corps? That is the program which_ many of us feel was an excellent creation to help develop the image of America abroad.

What is going to happen to the Peace corpsmen in those countries to which we have been giving foreign aid in the past if we decide this year to cut off foreign aid? I believe that if we cut off foreign aid we are cutting off the Pea((e CorPs and bringing our young Americans back home. ·

I should like to point· out, also, a major emphasis now in our foreign a1d program is in the area of agricultural development, so that these underdeveloped countries can feed themselves, and also birth control. If we cut off foreign aid, we are cutting off these programs on birth control and agricultural develop-

. ment. Take a look at a country such as India.

It will produce absolute disaster. · Finally I should like to ask, just where

are our priorities? Apparently we are willing to spend $60 billion from our Treasury to keep the Communists out of South Vietnam. We are willing to spend to date 25,000 American lives. Yet we know there are these revolutionary development movements in India, Burma, Thailand, and Malaysia. These are the countries in which we can prevent this kind of revolutionary Communist takeover if we make a little investment now, especially in the area of agricultural development and birth control programs.

So I am going to vote in favor of the foreign aid program. I do not like waste and inefficiency in the management of it, but I feel it is absolutely essential. I do not like waste and inefficiency in some of our domestic programs, but the fact is we recognize they are important and we do not eliminate the program just because there has been some inemciency and waste.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. TUNNEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mrs. BOLTON. It has been very interesting to hear the contributions the gentleman has made to the committee. I am sorry we have not accepted them, but perhaps another year we will. I want to thank the gentleman for ·being as thoughtful and studious and observing as he has been.

Mr. TUNNEY. Thank you very much, Mrs. BoLTON. I really appreciate your remarks. I cannot tell you what a great privilege it has been for me to sit on that committee with you and to listen to your wise counsel.

Mrs. BOLTON. You ·are very kind. We

know why you are here, when you can say lovely things like that.

Mr. TUNNEY. But they are true. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield

3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRASER].

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about the reasons for and the intent of my amendment to section 224Cc) of the Foreign Assistance Act relating to housing projects in Latin American countries.

The amendment, which appears on page 3, line 21, of the committee bill, increased from $500 million to $600 million the total amount of guarantees which may be issued pursuant to the authority of that section.

I was pleased, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment won nearly unanimous support from the coinmittee.

The guarantees provided by this amendment are designed to promote housing construction in Latin America by protecting American investments in such projects and by supporting the development of local institutions capable of financing housing construction and ownership at the grassroots level.

AID's exPerience to date has shown that operations conducted under the au~ thority of section 224 have at least partly missed their mark. In many cases, they did not work out as i.Iitended by the Congress.

Because of the financial issues involved in the maintenance ·of value problem, and the high cost of servicing reiatively , small loans, the interest rate and downpayment requirements on housing built pursuant to section 224 have been too high for a large :Portion of the lower and moderate income classes.

As a consequence, most of the housing built under section 224 has been middleincome housing.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The fact remains, however, that many of the intended bene:ftciaries of section 224 have never been able to come within the purview of its operations.

The increase in the ceiling on housing guarantees, proposed in my amendment, is intended to remedy that situation.

It is the hope of the committee which reported this bill that the Agency for International Development will use this additional authority to promote homeownership for low and moderate income people through such non-pro:ftt institutions as cooperatives and local credit unions.

These institutions, particularly the cooperatives, have conside!.'able experience with matters relating to low-income housing. This experience has not been used sufficiently in dealing with the tremendous housing shortage of Latin America, particularly among the lower and moderate income fa.ril.ilies.

The committee intends to keep a very· close watch on the operations of section 224 to make certain that the congressionalintent will be actively implemented by the Agency for International Development.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we will be able to hold to a minimum any further cuts in the area of technical assistance. Technical ·assistance finances many_ essential

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL 'RECORD- HOUSE 21567 programs which need -to go forward. Much, if not most, of our technical assistance program involves technical personnel who serve abroad.

Technical assistance also finances other kinds of programs which have proved enormously useful. In particular I have been struck by the .ingenuity and effectiveness · of a program conducted under the name "Latin American Scholarship Program of American Universities." Under this program 175 U.S. colleges in 37 different States have already committed some $2,880,000 of their own funds to pay the 4-year tuition costs of 480 young people from Latin America who have agreed to return to teach for 4 years in nearly 100 universities in 17 cooperating Latin American countries.

Five colleges in my own State of Minnesota currently enroll 10 Latin American scholarship program students from six different nations.

The students themselves have borrowed irom sources in their own countries the equivalent of a year's salary in their own currency to finance their English language training and international transportation expenses. AID, under the technical cooperation and development grants ·section of the Alliance for Progress appropriation, has financed their b·ooks and maintenance costs. The combination of student self-help, U.S. university scholarships and AID support, plus the Latin American University's guarantee of future employment to LASPAU scholars, has resulted in a cooperative, educational program designed to strengthen Latin American universities in the very ·area where help from U.S. universities can be most effective.

It would be my hope that programs like this will continue to be funded at the levels that they have been funded at in prior years. If we should cut the amount of technical assistance so that the amount of ·support which can be provided for these programs is cut, it will be a tragedy.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. LoNG J.

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 15263. My vote . for the foreign aid bill is not the single-minded affirmation of the "true believer.', On the contrary. Last year, I voted against foreign aid-as a protest, primarily, against the use of American economic aid funds by underdeveloped countries to compensate for the money they wasted on luxury and sophisticated weapons.

But the adoption of the Long-Conte amendments to the foreign aid appropriations bill last year considerably tightened this loophole by banning American sales of sophisticated weapons to underdeveloped coun.tries not on the frontline of Communist aggression, and requiring a reduction in American economic aid by th.e amount which .a country spends on such weapon.s anywhere.

More needs to be done, undoubtedly, to get a dollar's value from a dollar~s worth of . aid. Waste, ine1nciency, and corruption are still not licked.

The focus must be sharper-to concentrate on countries that are -Willing and

able · to use outside aid in ways that will do the most good.

A new sense of direction is needed-to change what is essentially a banking operation into an operation which cares about improving the life of the poor man who has little hope and even less political power to ·make his demands heard at the highest levels of government.

But it would have been a miracle had the U.S. foreign aid program succeeded effortlessly, without shortcomings, in less developed countries which, unlike the• Europe of Marshall plan days, lack the major prerequisites of economic growthentrepreneurs, an educated populace, trained manpower, skilled management, adequate transportation, stable and honest government, and a sound institutional framework, including widely dispersed land ownership, financial intermediaries and an equitable tax structure.

The United States cannot afford to · throw up its hands because all is not for the best in the best of all possible worlds: Our country lives in a world in upheaval, a world undergoing a population explosion of. massive proportions, where millions of men, women, and children live in conditions of unbelievable poverty and misery.

For all of its faults, the aid program is now beginning to show results. In this month's Foreign Affairs Quarterly, Lester R. Brown describes the heartening beginnings of "The Agricultural Revolution in Asia." The Philippines is selfsu:fficient in rice for the :first time since 1903. Iran is a net exporter of wheat -this year. Ceylon's rice harvest .climbed 13 percent above the previous record, Pakistan's wheat crop rose 30 percent, and the total Indian food grain crop is up 12 percent from the previous record, and 32 percent from last year's drought depression.

Some causes of the agricultural revolution are of recent origin-like the new political commitment by the region's leaders--and others have been long in the making. Mr. Brown writes that the agricultural infrastructure is capable of supporting current advances because of several years of U.S. AID investment in farm-to-niarket roads, in irrigation projects, in agricultural research, and in the training of some 4,000 Asian agriculturists over the past decade. The financing of fertilizer imports is now a major AID activity, and a number of U.S. firms are building fertilizer plants in Asia.

Mt. Brown concludeS: This agricultural revolution is not the

ultimate solution to the food-population problem, but it does buy some much needed additional time in which to ·mount effective family-planning programs.

If food scarcity eases, governments can turn their attention to the business of development. More importantly, Mr. Brown claims, national leaders bolstered by a successful · agricultural takeoff may gain increasing confidence in their ability tQ handle other_ -seemingly insoluble probl~ms.

America cannot afford to abandon this effort now.

Our -coun-try has had the great good fortune to be blessed with an excellent geographic location, rich natural re-

sources, stable political institutions~ and energetic and imaginative citizens: America has a responsibility to help those less fortunate-both because it is the right thing to do, and because it will be very difficult for this country to live at peace in a world torn by revolution and misery.

That is why I shall vote for foreign aid, and why I urge my colleagues to suppprt the foreign aid bill.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. GALLAGHER].

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chail1nan, I rise in support of the program.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, join with my colleagues in paying the respect that is long due and perhaps overdue to the great chairman and distinguished Member of Congress, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MoRGAN], who is perhaps the most knowledgeable man on the subject of foreign aid and of our foreign problems on either side of this Capitol. I do so likewise with regard to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BoLTON], the ranking minority member.

The question has· been raised as to what relationship this program has to our gross national product. The question has been asked too as to what others are doing.

As the United States has grown richer, it has done less. In fiscal year 1949, the Unit-ed States made total economic aid commitments of $7.2 billion. This was 18.3 percent of the Federal budget. It was 2.78 percent of a GNP of $260 billion. In fiscal year 1967, U.S. official commitments totaled an estimated $4.1 billion, $3.1 billion less than in 1949, even though the 1967 Federal budget was three times larger than that of 1949. And where foreign aid in 1949 was 2. 78 percent of GNP, aid in 1967 was just one-half of 1 percent of GNP, even though GNP, like the budget had tripled sinee 1949.

Other nations are moving ahead, but their progress depends on U.S. leadership. Seven small countries-Austria, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Sweden-hav~ more than doubled their official :flows since 1964. Five countries---Germ~ny, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Swedenhave adopted plans whieh would increase their aid programs to 1 percent of national income by the early 1970's and several others-Belgium, Australia, Italy-are moving steadily to higher levels. U.S. leadership, example, and pressure have been major factors in these gains and in establishing the DAC targets for volume and terms, from which we are moving away. All countries followed our lead with Peace Corps. With U.S. aid leadership slipping, others may be discouraged from furtner progress toward our common objective of helping LDC's achieve self-sustaining growth.

Mr. Chairman, when we look realistically at the modest goals of our foreign .assistance program and the ·progress we have made towards their achievements, we can only agree that our efforts are as successful as they are necessary. The critics who say we have failed, or that we are trying to do too much, expect the wrong results from our program. Anyone

21568 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - ·HOUSE July 16, 1968 , who has disproportionate ideas about In short, the United States can only dollars-made in June 1966 is financing what we are trying to do must also be supply a few of the factors for develop- the import of American equipment indisproportionately pessimistic about the ment, and we can provide an example for eluding 62 diesel-electric locomotives, possibilities. and influence upon other wealthy coun- five diesel wrecking ·cranes and railway

One of the many important things tries to do the same. But this is all that shop machinery. By March 31, 1968, which the foreign assistance legislation is needed from us. $16.9 million had been paid out to for 1968 can do, Mr. Chairman, is to However, we can do nothing without a American suppliers for equipment deassure the world that the United States viable program. Without provision for livered to date, including all 62 locowill not turn its back on its neighbors effective aid, this Nation itself will be motives and two of the five cranes. The and its responsibilities. This is a simple rendered feeble and inadequate before balance, about $1.7 million, is still in the statement, but it is the crux of the en- the demands of the world, unable to pipeline awaiting completion of the tire program, and it provides the only widen the margin between hope and order. justification required for its existence. despair, between violence and peace. We Clearly, this $1.7 million cannot be

But in order that we may not have cannot with any justification diminish diverted, for example, to finance the false e:itpectations which are bound to or abandon the aid program now. It is purchase of fertilizer for Pakistan. If this end in disappointment, it is also well to doing what it is designed to do; it is $1.7 million or any other pipeline funds remember what economic aid cannot do. doing what can be done; it is doing what were pulled out for current expenses it

Foreign aid cannot turn other coun- must be done. Without the full support would mean breaking international tries into satellites of the United States of this Congress, it will not survive. agreements, leaving projects unfinished or buy support for us in the United Na- AGAINST A MoRATORIUM oN FoREIGN AID and wasting the initial expenditures, and tions. Nor is it "conscience money," as it Mr. Chairman, as it is now all too evi- leaving American industries to take has been unfortunately called, dispensed dent that a determined effort is being . losses on orders half produced or on into ease some kind of national guilt about made by some Members to declare a vestments in production for which there our great wealth. But these are the anti- moratorium on foreign aid, I would like · is suddenly no customer. thesis of the goals of the program. Our to invite the attention of my colleagues The Journal of Commerce continues: aim is one of enlightened self-interest: to comments made in the July 12 issue of Besides u.s. businesses, the needy coun-to help the deprived people of this world the knowledgeable Journal of Com- tries won't be the only [ones] to suffer. change the desperate facts of their lives, merce. The Journal describes clearly United States private investors will be set to foster stability in an unstable world, some of the devastating effects which back. A moratorium would cancel A.!.D; to enhance our own present economy such a moratorium would bring about. local currency loans for foreign market de- . and build new markets for our future In part, it states: velopment, halt government financing of in-productivity. vestment surveys as well as A.I.D.'s program

For U.S. business, a moratorium would of supplemen~i?g U.S. industry "agribusiForeign aid cannot solve our balance- spell corporate trouble. Not only does the ness" initiatives in the less advanced na-

of-payments problem, but nei-ther does it foreign aid program finance well over $1 btl- ttons. · · aggravate that problem. The fact is that lion a year in American exports, but it helps The moratorium also would force the aid loan repayments from assisted countries underwrite corporate investments abroad agency to either reduce sharply the number this year will exceed offshore expe:pdi- ·and provides technical assistance funds for and size of i-ts private investment guarantees -. ' tures. There will be a significant dollar private projects. for u.s. firms operating in poorer lands or to -. gain. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I can stop this program entirely by next spring. - . . U.S. asssistance cannot go to work think of nothing that would hurt em- In hitting the vitally important area ·

. throughout the length and breadth of ployment_ and jeopardize incomes in of technical assistance, a moratorium , the underdeveloped world.,Our resom:ces . many 'areas of ~ thi~? cq-q~t:ry as drasti- · would effectively kill the whole foreign , are not endless, and this year especially, · ·cally as a $1 billion decline in u.s. ex- aid program. Salaries of AID personnel stringent limitations must be put on the ports. As my colleagues well know, the are paid out of current year funds, and · program. Also, some nations are unable great preponderance of the· money used· obviously, AID personnel would thereor unwilling to make the reforms on to finance U.S. exports under the AID fore no longer be paid. Technicians un- · which the impact of our aid depends, and program is made available on a dollar- der contract as well as other AID field in thes~ areas it would be impractical repayable loan basis-not as grarits. personnel would have to be called home. and f.u~ile to g~~erate programs un<!er Most of the dollars used to finance the Without technical assistance people in prevaillng conditiOns. But in countries program never leave the United State . the field to administer projects and adwhere the United States has concen- s, vice on the use of capital goods purtrated its efforts, there is remarkable they fl~ance purchases of American ex,.. chased in the United States under the · progress to show for our investment. ports. rig~t h:re.- loan program, the entire program would ·

Foreign aid cannot by itself supply the This Simplistic argument that AID come to a dead stop. food needed to fill all the empty stomachs could exist on its pipeline may be appeal- Considering these disastrous effects of . in the world. But the program can help ing, Mr. Qhairman, but it is utterly a moratorium on our aid recipients and hungry people grow their own food and fallacious. Like any intelligent business our own economy, Mr. Chairman, I canbecome independent of emergency bulk firm, the Agency for International De- not comprehend how we can seriously donations. velopment does not disburse the entire entertain the idea. I strongly oppose any

Sixty percent of all adults in the de- amount of a loan in one lump sum. In- action by this Congress to declare a vel?ping _nations can neither read nor stead, the Agency agrees to lend a . moratorium Qn foreign aid, as I am conwnte ~heir names, much less unders:tand country a certain amount of money-say vinced that it would only constitute the compllcated technical manuals, busmess $10 million-if and only

1.f the reci'p'ent final end of .the economic assistance pro-

reports, and market figures. American . . . 1 gram of this country. foreign aid cannot by itself change nat10n carnes out particular s:~-help This program has been and continues this-we cannot provide mass education. measures and meets other expllcit re- to be our best investment in hope for But we can help to build teaching col- quirements. AID administrators then . mankind and for peace on this planet. leges and train local students to teach disburse the loan in sections-perhaps $2 Mrs. BOLTON.. Mr. Chairman, I yield . others. million per quarter-contingent upon the balance of our time to the distin-

Foreign aid cannot cure the sick of the · the developing . coun.try living up to its guished . gentleman from New J~rsey, d d 1 ed ld t t 1 [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN]. un er eve op wor . Bu our echno - part of the agreement. After the first dis- The .CHA_IRMAN. The gentleman from'

ogy will make it possible for humanity bursement, $8 million would constitute to.win th~ struggle ag~inst diseases tha~ the pipeline on a $lO million loan. This New Jer~ey is recognized for 3.0 .minutes. cripple mmds and bodies needed for the is not in any way "free" money; it is Mr. ·aRoss .. Mr. Chairman, would task of development. _. 'tt d t t' 1 _ 't . d 1 the g~:ntlen;1an yi~ld .for an inquiry of

Foreign aid cannot automatically c.ommi e 0 a pa_r ICU ar proJec . an ~ the Chair? check the world's escalating birth rates. literally already spent. . . . . Mr. F.Ii~GHUYSEN. I yield to the But we can encourage poor, crowded A ~ood :xampl~ of .a.pipellne proJ~ct is gentlemaJ:l from Iowa. countries to do it themselve_s, and we can provided m the case of Korea~ where Mr. GROSS. Mr . . Chairman, may I supply the necessary means. We can AID is helping to, complete tpe rehabili.,. . inquire how . much time is left? meet reasonable, practical requests for · tation ot the nation's ·railway system: Aii The CHAIRMAN. There are 38 min-family planning technology and supplies. $18.6 million AID loan-repayable in utes remaining.

July 16, 1968. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21569 Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to

the chairman of the committee. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I

would state to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GRoss] that we only have 8 minutes remaining on our side.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I should like to begi~ by thanking the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. BoLTON] for being so generous .in her allotment of time to me, but I have no intentions of taking as much timl:: as she has allotted to me. I hope to be quite brief.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to compliment the distinguished chairms:n. of our committee for the leadership which he has provided us again this year in a bill which all of us have anticipated might be a difficult one. He has done a good job, and has done it with a committee whose members repr.esent ~ great variety of opinions and philosophies.

We can be grateful also for the very fine contributlons · which the gen.tle.woman from · Ohio . [Mrs. BoLTON] has made this year, as she has in years past.

I would also like to express my regret that so many of our committee members do not seem to be planning to return next year.

Mr. Chairman, what can an individual member of _the Committee on Foreign Affairs say. about the subject of foreign aid in the closing of. the debate? Certainly, much was · said which makes sense, but I . often wonder how much impact whatever is said has on those who vote. I certainly feel impressed this year because there seems to be, I am glad to say, a greater feeling of understanding and of sympathy for the. foreign aid program than we had last year. There is recognition on the part of many that we should take a closer look at the program, and _I would . be in favor of that. Others have . suggested that we should coordinate the variety of ways in . which we . provide assistance, and· I would be in favor of that.

There have been doubts expressed and reservations made about the wisdom of a so-called moratorium. I would like to express my doubts aibout that approach because it would seem to me to have disastrous results. ·

The gentleman from Indiana, who has provided very. wise leadership, although I do not always agree with him, put· it quite well when he suggested that we should not cut too deeply, because if we are to continue our foreign aid program there should be enough substance left in it after the cuts have been made so there is a meaningful program left.

I would like to emphasize the importance of limiting whatever cuts we may make and that we should have a fioor which will · provide enough leeway for those-who administer the various ways in which we ·Provide assistance. Reasonable men, I recognize; may differ about how much money is needed to provide adequate programs of technical assistance, mllitary assistance, development assistance, and so on. Yet it would be flying in the· face ' of actual experience to

deny that there is not a real and continuing need for our help to other countries.

Whenever we may decide as an adequate funding level to service foreign aid, let us not forget that foreign aid is important, and that to be effective it cannot be slashed too deeply.

Let us not forget, either, that there is an absolute necessity, if it is to be effective, for continuity in our foreign aid programs.

Let me stress again the importance,· indeed, the necessity, of foreign aid. No one will argue that it is perfect, but if you look at wh.at has been accomplished and what is being accomplished with the money which has been provided; it is obvious that foreign aid is an important instrument in our foreign policy.

If you think that is not true, take a look at Korea, Turkey, the Republic of China--or Brazil or Colombia or Chile or Pakistan 'or India.

A number of people have mentioned the subject of India. She is scheduled to receive a substantial amount of money under the foreign aid program authorized by this bill.

The administration is requesting a total of $408 million in development loans and almost $15 million for technical assistance.

The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. FRASER] and I took a brief trip-altogether-too brief a trip-to West Pakistan and to India last January. We saw for ourselves what others have mentioned during the debate-the transformation which is occurring in India, in part, because of what the United States is making in the way of contributions to her economy.

There is really an agricultural revolution underway. This year's crops in India are expec-ted to total roughly 100 million tons of grain. This compares to the. previous record total of 89 million tons and a total in 1967 of 75 million tons_of grain.

This has been made possible primarily because of the new seeds that have been developed. It is made possible by the better use of water which is being made available through tube wells and other irrigation systems. It· is made possible primarily because of the feeling on the part of the Indians themselves that something can be done about their condition.

It is an inspiration to see what this · means in a country the size of India--a country of roughly 520 million people.

If the program is to be successful of increasing food, we need to worry also about the nwnber of people to be fed. We saw for ourselves the interest that the Indians and the Pakistanis both are taking in controlling the size ·of their families. Because they, ·too, realize that their welfare depends on this.

We should recognize that the assistance which the United States provides in this area is important. If we are to provide less for .the development loans and, therefore, substantially less to India, this will cut into the amount of fertilizer which is necessary for the new seed. If we supply less fertilizer, obviously less food will be produced. ·

So it is important, I think, that vie recognize there is a need for a continuity:

There is a very real need for support what the Indians are doing.

While I am on this, let me say that basically the Indians are doing the job themselves. Roughly 80 percent of their investment need is being met by the Indians.

The outside external assistance comes primarily from the consortium of 10 nations including ourselves. It is based on the necessity for self help on the part 0~ the Indian Government and it is estimated at $1.2 billion, of which the United States will contribute 40 percent.

So here we have a country of great strategic importance on the threshold of a real transformation of its economy. Because, as its food situation improves, it is going to be possible for the consumers to create an additional demand for the goods and services which can be produced in the economy generally.

There has already been a very significant loosening up in India which could be very severely affected if there should be a reduction at this time in whrut has been the level of supPQTt by ourselves and other countries.

It is for that reason that I am somewhat concerned about the proposed reductions which are being planned ·and · this SJtrikes me as undesirable to reduce too much in these areas-and I am not sure what too much is.

I have my doubts about the wisdom of cutting as much as the commi,ttee has recommended.

I have even greater doubts about cutting the $400 million or more, which has been proposed by a number of members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In any evenJt, substantial reductions could quite obviously be very damaging in countries like India and in other countries that are major recipients of our aid.

Without question, there are new and urgent demands upon the resources of our people, but are we going to pr~ctic~ frugality to a fault, rob Peter to pay Paul when there is no necessity for it? If we move in the direction of sa-tisfying all domestic needs, real and imagined, and satiating all the domestic demands anybody can · dream up, by :running out on our responsibilities to · the rest of this world, we will be making a bad mistake .. We will be opting ·for a simplistic neo-isolationism which would be as perilo.us to our security and prosperity · as it is shortsighted. · · ·

It may be that the cuts of $600 milltori which the conunittee ·has already ap-· proved will prove to be shortsighted; Certainly it will be less easy for those in charge of our AID programs to do a good . job if that much less money is available. · Additional cuts, made here on the fioor, could make the job of providing effective aid almost impossible. ·

What have witnesses said about this year's request? First of all, it was evident that a major effort had been made to keep the requests a·t a modera~ level. William Gaud, Director of AID, pointed out that each overseas AID mission was directed to submit a proposed a~istance program, which had first to be· approved

. by our A,mbassador to that couritry, before being sent to Washington.

21570 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE Ju~y 16, 1968,

· All these requests were then carefully screened by AID, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of the Budget. As the· result of a particularly close interagency review this year, a total of $800 mllllon in requests was not included in the administration's request for $2.5 billion for economic assistance.

As Mr. Gaud described it: This is a tight l;mdget tailored to fit a

tight situation. Particularly in view of the cuts in the Fiscal Year 1968 budget, we believe it is the minimum necessary to support the development momentum now underway in the developing world.

The Foreign Affairs Committee heard weeks of testimony following Mr. Gaud's initial presentation. On the basis of those hearings it would be difficult to deny that this was not a tight budget. Of necessity there has been a concentration of effort in relatively few co:Untries, .with others capable of utilizing aid effectively not even listed as recipients.

Why, you may ask, if the justifications were sound for the funds requested, has the committee recommended that some $600 million be slashed from the amount requested? Is it not the function of our committee to decide how much money can be effectively utilized? Should it not recommend a larger amount if the administration can show the need for that amount?

I personally feel that the committee should have recommended more than it actually has. What has occurred, the committee report will reveal, is that members of our committee have looked more at "the tight situation" in which our country finds itself than at the ways in which the money would be spent. The $600 million reduction was approved because of the committee's recognition that Federal expenditures must be substantially reduced, not because a good case was not made for spending more money.

The request now before us, in other words, represents what the committee feels is an appropriate amount for foreign aid, given the financial predicament in which our country finds itself. Many members, I feel sure, would recognize that more could be utilized for development assistance, technical aid and other programs, but they recognize also the necessity for retrenchment, for "econ-omy'" and ·so on. ·

In brief, these .reductions .from the administration's requests represent a desire to ftild a generally acceptable spending level, rather than a feeling that previous programs have been too big, or that the administration has been less successful this year than in the past in justifying its need for funds.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, it must be clear to us all that the days of ".fortress Ameiica" are gone forever. Excessive reductions in our aid program would have the effect of slowing down the development of our allies to the point where they are once again economically ineffectual and politically insignificant, even invisible. Should this occur, we could then say goodby to our unprecedented prosperity, as we would further aggravate our balance-of-payments deficit and negate the possibility of expanded

world markets. We would then become sitting dueks for aggression, with the majority of our strategically placed free world allies forced to tum. inward to husband their own resources, devastatingly shrunk by the withdrawal of our aid. W-e have the money now, and they do not. It is that simple.

We all know what happens when the money runs out too soon. Machinery rusts and falls to pieces because no one can afford to repair it. Plowed .fields return to deserts--or jungles--because there is no money for seed, for fertilizer,. for irrigation. Diseases reswne epidemic proportions because there is no money for preventive medicines, for public health programs, for water purification. Student from 6 to 76 who have had l year in school and who know the unparalleled excitement of learning to read a. primer and w1ite their names, fall back into illiteracy because there is no money to give them another year of school and keep them from forgetting what they have learned. And apathy, sluggishness, and despair envelop a nation which is poor and hungry · and has no one to turn to for assistance, where the richest people on earth say, "we can't afford to help you. We thought we could, but now we find we need it all ourselves."

Secretary of State Rusk recently pointed out that:

Development takes sustained effort. A fanner needs new seeds and fertilizer each year. A factory needs raw materials and spare parts each year. A technician working to control malaria has to be paid each year. Similarly, new aid funds are essential each year-to set in motion the fiow of goods which take time to order, make, and distribute; to acquire the services of skllled technicians who are hard to find, recruit, and season; and to support the implementation of policy and self-help reforms.

Our aid program cannot be run like a stop-and-go light at a traffic intersection. A reduction in aid · would be the same as cutting the . .flow of a1r to a critically ill patient· in an oxygen tent.

Food shortages in many underdeveloped nations are nearing the crisis stage. Nearly $800 million 1n this year's AID program is intended for U.S. fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, equipment, and -technical assistance needed to increase agricultural production. Procurement must start in fiscal1969 if these supplies are to reach the farmers of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. ·in time for next year's planting.

In the industrial sector, AID loans which finance U.S. machinery, parts. and raw materials for overall economic growth have c.aused an upsurge of private industrial enterprise in countries such as Turkey, .Pakistan, India, and Korea. An aid stoppage necessitated by reductions in our current program would quickly convert this upward trend into collapse. ' Under our aid program ·we . have

brought some 15,000 peopie 'from th~ developing countries to train them here·m such fields as health, ·agriculture; tran.S.;; portatioil, and public administration. · :As a result of the cuts proposed; we could overnight create 15,000 technical training · 'dropouts. Most of ·our '6,500'"AID.:.

financed . technicians working overseas would have to be brought.home.

These are some of the economic consequences which would follow a major cut in funds. The political consequences would be far worse.

We can be assured that drastic curtailment of our aid .would be cause for reJoicing among our ·enemies. it would hand a great propaganda victory to those who have been asserting that when the going gets tough · we will abandon the peoples and free nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The Governments and economies of South Vietnam and . Laos would be in danger of chaos, and the tenuous security of Korea and Thailand would be jeopardized.

Excessive reductions would undermine the Alliance for Progress, and give a powerful weapon to the opponents of progressive Latin American leaders who have committed themselves to Alliance goals and a true partnership of the Americas.

·Such reductions would create a situation in India and · Pakistan which might well · result in renewed recession and increased Communist influence. In Africa, they could confirm a feeling on the part of some that the United States is indifferent to Africa's future.

And here a:t home, mangling our aid program now would deny the new President, during his first few months in office, a primary-instrument of American foreign policy in the developing countries, at the same time that the new President would · be confronted with a whole new series of crises around the world.

These consequences represent too high a price to pay for the absurdly small amount of money which could be "saved" by foreign .aid euts. If, unthilik.:. ably, we ever have to cut our ties with the rest of humanity, let us do it at a time when we are less likely to leave the world in chaos and ourselves exposed to crisis. ·

Excessive reductions in funds for the fiscal 1969 foreign aid program would constitute a reversal of progress, an abdication of responsibility, and a suspension of concern for the national interest. I urge the Members of this House to reject .sach proposals, and to supp_ort the full authorization recommended by the Foreign Mairs Committee.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much. time as he desires to the gentleman from Ohio .[Mr. FEIGHAN]. : Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 15263. Since the inception of the program of foreign aid I have supported every authorization bill and ev-ery appropriation. ·

The· critici-sm of the administration of the foreign aid program has in many histances :been · justifiable: However, ·the overall ·ei!eetivehess-·ot this program ha.S in the ·;aggregate ·been ben:eficiar to ' the interests of : the United States. One , ex::. ample where· the beneficial effeet on· the United States '.has been manifold more to the· :PeoPle· of the developihg nations of the -world is the agricultural develop-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21571 ment program of AID. More than onethird of proposed authorized funds in this bill will be allocated to agricultural development throughout the underdeveloped world.

AID is contributing to larger agricultural production in many na;tions by providing new miracle seeds and fertilizers and pesticides. The development of m 8 at the International Rice Institute in Los Banos, Philippines, by two foundations has provided the means of increased production which can save many countries from . the threat of starvation. IR 8 is the newly discovered strain of rice seed that increases the productivity of a crop three or four times the previous normal yield. Already India and Pakistan are harvesting bumper crops ~ter using the new miracle seeds.

AID is providing funds for the distribution of these miracle seeds and the necessary fertilizers and pesticides.

If there is a moratorium on foreign aid or a severe cut, the impact will not only be felt by American manufacturers and producers of agricultural products, but alsQ, in the underdeveloped world.

An interruption of this program would be most discouraging to the hopes of the people of the less developed countries for enough to eat and a better way of life.

Mr. !MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. MONACAN] may extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection. · Mr. MO~A<;XAN. Mr. Chairman, I sup

port H.R. 15263. I believe firmly that this legislation is

necessary for the effective conduct of the foreign policy of the United Staltes. It 1s a tool and a weapon which the people of this country give to their elected President to assist him in carrying out his constitutional mandate to manage the foreign affairs of the Nation.

Of course, if one viewed this program 1n the stereotype of the critics as a means of . transferring our largesse to greedy and unappreciative foreigners, then opposition would be autom81tic. If, however, one took the trouble to examine the program carefully and see what its compo-. nents were, he would find, I think, that its objectives were valid and its areas of attack were worth while.

Would one wish t9 discontinue, for example, the military assistance program, which provides technology and training for friendly nations throughout the world, or would one wish to cut out the supporting assistance which goes to strengthen the economies of nations allied to us who are striving to resist . aggression and alien control?

Would there be a willingness to limit the programs of the Alliance for Progress, which is dedicated to assisting to help themselves those Laitin American countries, whose stability and cooperation are so vitally important to us? One need only mention these names to realize how closely our security is rel8!ted to their political and economic health.

It is not enough. to say that there have

been defects in the program. This, of course, has been true in the military program, in the agriculture program, in the poverty program, and in the space program. Nor is it sufficient to say that we are trying the impossible. I will admit that there have been failures and that there has been too much optimistic raising of expectations, but we have not abandoned the other programs which I have mentioned because we have considered them necessary to our national welfare and we should not abandon the mutual assistance program for this same reason.

May I refer to one new and significant section in this bill. It is one in which I am particularly interested since I have served as chairman of the Government Operations Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over excess property and which helped to bring to light the recent incredible mismanagement of the Antwerp office of AID.

Section 607 has been amended to place certain specific restrictions on the acquisition of excess property and to require certain standards to be satisfied before such property is acquired.

These standards are· important and should improve vastly the performance of this office.

In my judgment, sections 607 and 608 provide a means for our Government to make substantial savings through the use of excess property. We should not allow poor performance to be the excuse of AID' for doing this job right. With these new rules .• this opportunity will be present and I hope that it will be seized.

In today's world a major power such as the United States must employ all its facilities and powers for its own defense and security.

We cannot retire from responsibility in the world. The Fortress America concept is not practical. We know that from experience.

So, in my judgment support of this bill is essential to maintain our position in . the world and to preserve the security of our people.

Others have already discussed the moderate balance-of-payments impact of this program. I wish to stress the extent to which a President-any Presidentwould have his options limited and his hands tied if this program were not available.

Viewed in the perspective of the past, the proposed bill is indeed modest. It is the smallest amount requested in the history of this program. The committee has already cut the amount by approximately $600 million-a 20-percent reduction.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCKI].

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 15263.

In so doing, I realize that foreign aid is not very popular today. This is :not surprising. Neither does it disturb me in the least. As a matter of fact, I have no quarrel whatever with those who want to. put an end to "foreign giveaways." Our budget is tight, our taxes have just been increased, and Federal spending must be cut. What better place to begin than by

eliminating gifts-or a dole-to some of our friends abroad?

Are we, in fact, talking about gifts in the bill H.R. 15263? Do the funds proposed to be authorized-$1.9 billion of economic aid and $390 million of military-represent charitable donations that our country can ill afford right now?

If this were indeed the case. I would be among the first to cast my vote against the bill before us. And I would do so without embarrassment, without any qualms.

For, after all, charity has to begin at home. And we can only be good to others if we provide first for the urgent needs of our own people.

Mr. Chairman, it does not require deep insight to realize that a large job remains to be done here at home. The goals of our society-a decent life for those who are willing to strive as well as for those who are no longer able to work-are still partly outside our reach. It will take plenty of effort, imagination, and money to achieve them.

Consequently, as I said earlier, I have no quarrel with those who believe-as I do-that we must tend to our national problems and needs before dispensing largesse to those beyond our shores.

But I want to ask again: What does that have to do with the basic issues involved in the bill before us? Does anyone here seriously believe that this bill constitutes a "foreign giveaway"? . I note that some of my· colleagues are

nodding affirmatively. Apparently our committee has failed to communicate the basic facts of this program.

This possibility has worried me considerably, for both the substance and the form of our foreign policy undertakings_ have changed dramatically in recent years. But somehow, this mesSage has not gotten across to some people. Many persons in our country still think of this program in terms of concepts which no longer apply, and names which lost their meaning years ago.

Who, for example, finds the term "supporting assistance" particularly enlightening? What does it really mean? Yet nearly one-fourth of the economic ·portion of this bill has to stand, or fall, under that banner.

Similarly, what images does the term "development loar..s" conjure? Does it suggest a banking loan to some foreign government-a loan that will be used abroad to build a huge dam, a powerplant, or some other imposing industrial project?

That image bears little resemblance to reality. Today, in a country like India, which has been the primary recipient of our development loans, the bulk of the funds involved is used to buy, in the United States, fertilizer, and insecticides, and a variety of other American products. ·

It is a little understood 'paradox of foreign aid that virtually all of it is spent right here, in the United States.

It may be useful, therefore, to look at the program 'Qefore the House today in terms of how the money involved is used, and what priorities are followed.

From the standpoint of uses, the following facts obtain in this 1968 bill:

21572 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- HO.USE July ~ 16, - 19'68

Nearly all of the money authorized in H.R. 15263-military and economic--will be used to finance exports of American goods and services.

This means jobs for American workers and specialists~ business for American firms.

As pointed out in the committee report, on page 10, in 6 years alone, Alnerican commercial exports to 53 countries participating in our foreign policy programs increased by $1.5 billion.

That is nothing to sneeze at. At a time when our trade balance is

declining-when rising prices .make our goods less competitive-when the prospect of lay-offs and shorter hours is becoming an uncomfortable reality for some of our industries-the bill before us is more important to the American economy than ever before.

It may be of interest to the members of the Committee that in .fiscal year 1967, 96 percent of all AID-financed commodities-accounting for nearly $1.5 billion dollars-were purchased in the United States.

Some 4,500 American firms, in nearly 1,600 American towns and cities, in all 50 States of the Union, benefited from this "foreign aid" financing of American exports.

In addition, as of December 31, 1967, more than half-a-billion dollars worth of technical service contracts were being held by private American groups.

In contrast, prior to 1961, only 37 percent of AID-financed procurement was done in the United States, and 57 percent went to other developed countries-primarily Western Europe and Japan.

During the last 7 years, therefore, this program has been completely reoriented and serves today as one of the mainstays of private American export trade.

On what else will the funds in H;R. 15263 be used?

Part of these funds will be used to ship American goods on American ships to foreign destinations. American shipping is more costly than world shlpping and has to be subsidized. This bill, therefore, · will help to support our merchant marine.

Another part of this authorization will be used to help American firms establish going concerns abroad. In recent years, nearly $9 billion in investment guaranties have been issued under this so-called "foreign-aid" program-not to foreigners, but to U.S. citizens and corporations.

Last year alone, private American overseas ventures returned more than $4.5 billion to the United States in the form of remitted profits. This compares with $84 billion in total domestic profits, before taxes, of all U.S. corporations.

Stlll another part of this "foreign aid" will be used to support the overseas programs of private, nonprofit American organizations-church group.s, cooperatives, and various other voluntary agencies.

American education will also receive its share of this "foreign aid.'~ Funds au- · thorized by this bill will be used in part, to build up the faculties of American · universities and re5earch lnstitutlons; to expand our knowledge of the processes of

economic and social development; to sup- · Mr. REUSS. Mr: Chairman; I am glad port private American-sponsored schools to hear that. I take it then the report abroad; and on other, related pursuits. of the gentleman t10 our colleagues con-

It may come as a surprise to some cerns not only weapons like tanks and Members of the House that as of De- jet planes, but also the small arms which cember 31, 1967, 122 American colleges a dictatorship uses to enforce its will on and universities held AID-financed con- the populace. tracts valued .at some $226 million for Mr. ZABLOCKI. It is my understandresearch, surveys, training, and techni- ing that the policy we are now pursuing cal assistance. About $200 million was is designed to withhold any significant contracted to 67 American universitie.s assistance to Greece until there is an for technical assistance projects in 39 acceptable change in the political gov-developing countries. ern.ment there.

It is interesting, how this so-called Mr. REUSS. May I ask the gentleman foreign aid really benefits a wide, and one further question? 1 would hope, howdiversified, section of the American pub- ever, that the moratorium would apply lie, and the American economy. to all arms which are capable of killing

Now, if we look at the }:'riorities em- people? bodied in the bill before us, we see Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, will the another picture. gentleman yield?

The largest part of what we call "for- Mr. ZABLOCKI. I am glad to yield to eign economic aid"-nearly $800 mil- the gentleman from Indiana. lion-will be applied to increasing food Mr. ADAIR. In the interest of a full production and improving food process- understanding, I believe the gentleman ing and distribution in the developing in the well would agree that there are countries. funds, and the amount is probably classi-

Another substantial part-about $250 fted-I will speak to the other gentle-million-will be devoted to education. man from Wisconsin privately on that

A smaller part-about $165 million- subject---.,other funds in this bill which will be applied to health-to interna- would be available for Greece if the mortional research into the causes of can- atorium were not in effect. cer, to the eradication of communicable Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, tore-diseases, and to the solution of other turn to my topic: health problems. All of these priorities embodied in the

Still another part will be used to de- bill before us have but one goal: to help velop transportation and communica- develop a world in which our own Nations; to introduce improved adminis- tion, and other free nations, can seek trative practices in the public and the the fulfillment of man's basic aspirations private sectors; and to promote the de- for peace, security, and a decent life. velopment of viable, democratic insti- In truth, the resources which we as a tutions in the receiving countries. nation devote to these peaceful under- .

Finally, a substantial portion of "for- takings are pathetically small in comeign aid'"-nearly $400 million-will be parison with the costs of war: $70 bilused to strengthen the free world's se- lion a year on national defense; $30 bllcurity and ability to resist .communist lion a year on Vietnam; $20 billion a year aggression. But even here. the funds in- on the cost of past wars-on debt involved will be spent primarily in the terest and veterans' benefits. United States-on the production of ·Mr. Chairman, it may well be that ln military equipment and supplies, and our annual ••fol'leign .aid" presentations, on the training of foreign military per- more emphasis shouid have been placed sonnel. · on the new uses and priorities of our

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, will the foreignpolicyundertakings. gentleman yield? Perhaps then the public at large, and

Mr. -ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle- those in Congress who oppose "foreign man from Wisconsin. a1d" would have a better understanding

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, the gentle- of the difference between a "foreign man from Wisconsin is delivering a very j giveaway" and what the purposes and able summary of tpe legislation before goals embodied in this bill really entail. us. I have this question of the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, under the affable, able, About 15 months ago many of us were and outstanding leadership of our essaddened because the then democratic teemed chairman, and after 3 months Government of Greece was taken over of careful, deliberate, at· times even agby a military "dictatorship. We all hope onizing review, the Committee on that free elections will be possible in . Foreign Affairs slashed the authorization Greece and that democracy can be re- contained in this blll by nearlY $600 stored. Until that occurrence, will moneys million. · under the bill before u~ be used to send We did not do it because the Executive arms to Greece? request was excessive, or the program

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, there unsound. On the contrary, I firmly beis no economic aid for Greece in the bill lieve that the fun amount requested repbefore us. Further, since the 21st of Aprll resented a realistic appraisal of what 1967, there has been a moratorium on needs to be done if we are going to make the deliveries of all substantial items of any significant progress in staving off military assistance to that country. That disaste~miUtary, political, as well as moratorium is being continued. The bi11 economic and social-in the years to would not lift thls moratorium nor come. change it. Such military assistance as is Nevertheless, we cut the program to being carried in the budget for next year the lowest level ever · approved by our is on a contingency basis in the hope that committee. Anq ·we did it strictly on the Greece will move toward a constitutional - basis of our domestic priorlties--realizgovemment. - irlg that in this time of turmoil ·and far-

J ~ z · ·· 16 .·· 1·9-68 uy . .. , . - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD·- · HOUSE 21573 · reachi:p.g change ·.at"home, ·we must deal-· :ijrst ~th th.e problems closest to us.

We cannot, _however, ignore what is happening outside our shores. For. no ' man, and · no nation, is "an island unto · itself." And the future of this country-_ the realization of the American dreamare as much dependent in the long runon what happens at home as on developments in the . larger wo-rld society of which we-are part.· ·

To cut this program even more, or to suspend it entirely for 1 year as suggested by some people, I believe would be foolhardy. To those of my colleagues inclined to follow either of those 'courses, · I would say this: ·

Let those. who wish tO gamble with the future of this Nation take the responsibility for the day of reckoning which is bound to follow on the footsteps of inesponsibility.

And let them answer the next generation when they ask:

"What 'have you done to our country and our world? Why have you abandoned the free nations of Latin America, Asiaand Africa in the hour of this need? Why did you deprive us of a chance to live in· peace with our neighbors and to try ourhand at building a better world?"

I urge my colleagues to support the limited program of assistance provided in· the bill before us. The money it authorizes will enable leS.s. developed allies ,andfriends to do their share to · maintain a collective security posture which deters aggression ·and promotes stable international relations.

Mr. Chairman I submit: · A vote for H.R. 15263 · is a vote in support of stability in the world and a vote to promote and maint~in peace._. ~

Mr. BARING. Mr. Chairman, the titn~ has come when we-in Congress put to an end this wasteful spending of the American taxpayers' money. I call upon my colleagues to join me in voting down the bill before us today. · · · ·

It is time we start taking care of our problems here at home and we can do just' that by diverting the propose'd for~ eign aid funds to our domestic needs. .

Last year we came within eight votes of shutting off foreign aid entirely. Last year the House trimmed the administration's budget request by 28.9 percent. Today, we are asked to approve a mere 20-percent cut in the· administration's budget. .· ·

Each year we receive the administra..,. tion budget along with the honeyed words that the budget is a "barebones budget." Well, the only · "barebones'! that I have seen in the past budgets are those tossed to the American taxpayers while the "meat" goes to foreign countries.

And let us not overlook the fact that the American taxpayer has . to pay an extra 10 percent tax for these so-called "barebone budgets."

Surely, Mr. Chairman, we are not asking the foreign countries to make too extreme of a sacrifice to stop putting his hands into the American taxpayers' pockets . for. 1 year. Goodness know_s, we have enough money in the pipeline to take care of their needs for such vital and Nation · surviving items, such as · television sets-; ·dolls' eyes; cocktail glasses

CXIV--1359-Part 16

a,.nd: salad setS:: bq,bple ·glllll; outboard another· $8 billion be made in carryover · motors an<l &pJ.ing water, to na~e _but a_ flinds from previous years. few. Having thus been ·forced to raise taxes

Mr. Chairman, the time has-come when iii a society already overburdened with we stOp- pouring.' what little wealth we . taxes of one kind or another, and having have left-down this rathole. We a-re .fac- called for long overdue economies in ing a grave economic situation.- · - Government spending to alleviate the :

The Federal budget has. grown to an current-fiscal crisis, it seems to me that enormous size and .we have one of the the Congress now has a responsibility largest peacetime deficits in our history. to the taxpayers of this country to re- · 'fhe American taxpayer is sick and tired assess and reappraise future foreign asof being hit with rising taxes to support sistance programs and to make whatthe rest of the world. A world tnat we. ever adjustments our budgetary situation have supported for over 25 years and demands this year. While I applaud the have nothing to show for it except an action of the Committee on Foreign Af- · outrageous debt. - fairs in reducing the administration's

Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot af- foreign aid request by 20 percent, which ford to continue our massive foreign aid is certainly a step in the right direction, program. If we continue this corrupt I personally feel that even a moratorium· give-away program, we are going to on new authorizations for 1 year would bring a'bout a world liquidity crisis that not seriously jeopardize any essential will jolt our economy like we have never foreign relationships of this country. It seen before. · is estimated that there is over $5 billion-

Foreign aid is the principal cause of in the foreign aid pipeline at this time, our balance-of-payments deficit. not including pipeline amounts for pro.. Foreign aid is the principal culprit in grams financed from other appropriathe debasement of our currency which tions such as food for freedom, ·the in turn has caused the removal of gold Peace Corps, and so forth, which could_ covet on.Federal Reserve notes. . - continue to finance AID gpending during

I urge my colleagues to join me in vot- fiscal 1969. I recognize that special leg-· ~ agaiiist the bill before us and thereby islation may be required to deobligate_ take the first and right step in restoring and reprogram certain commitments fiscal stability to our country. . which are directly related to our national

Mrs. REID of Dlinois. Mr. Chairman, defense and security and . must be. con-· as we consider the Foreign . Assistance tinued . .Act of 1968, it seems t·o nie that the ques-· The time is long overdue for a major tion is not whether the President's re- reappraisal of foreigzi aid. I believe this quest for a $2.9 billion foreign aid author- is the best way to begin. . . . . ization for .fiscal1969 should be -cut: On Mr. HANNA. l\4r. Chairman, as w~ this issue there seems. to be no doubt. move toward fioor consideration of thi~ Public sentiment clearly favors such a year's Foreign ·Assistance A~t. it is ~l~r reduction. The difiicult question to be de- that -D1any Members will have their at-.

tention drawn to incidents of abuse cided in this debate is how much this re- abroad or incidents of competitive_ de,; tiuction should be, or, indeed, whether mand at home. Both sets of incidents are a mor_p.tprium in new~ financing fat: -the year ahead might better serve the real and are ready targets· for a nega-int.erests of our Nation at this critical tive inclined approach. It is equally true. time. that neither set of_ inci<lents n_eed nec~s-;

sarily threaten the heart of our Jl,id _pro-: There- are, of course, .those who will gram. The abuses call for correction.

argue that we must not permit the for- the competitive demands at home ~all eign aid debate to be infiuenced by the for utmost care in balancing the total hard realities of the war in Vietnam, by requirements of a Nation in a time of our overburdened domestic budget and stress. Along with such approaches one social and economic needs at home, by can hope to keep alive the very vital~ our unprecedented Federal deficit, om even urgent, long-term interest of ou:t~ balance-of-payments problem, and so on. country in _ expanding the . goods al).d I · do not agree with such ·reasoning. In . services in the world's hp.v~-not nations. my judgment, foreign aid, just as any Mr. Chairman, the slim hopes for other Federal program, must be reviewed peace in the long run of history rest more in the light of o'ur overall revenue and upon our ability to expand human reexpenditure priorities, and we must apply sources closer to the balance with huthe same tests of objectives and effective- man needs than upon the balance of ness. This year, more than any year since weapons or military strength. The first World War: II; there is a greater need to approach is a balance of hope, the secput the question of foreign aid and our ond a balance of fear, and in the long ability to carry the load in proper per- haul hope is stronger and surer. spective. On the mundane level of a more prac.,.

Several weeks ago the Congress found tical, pragmatic approach to the future, it necessary to approve a l.O-percerit sur- our future, as a free enterprise Nation tax on individual and corporate incomes rests on a continuing expansion of marbecause of the alarming budgetary crisis kets. It is of basic importance then, that .facing our Government today. As a con- the attention of the Members be set for dition for .approval of this tax increase, some time on the positive rather than we very wisely-although belatedly-im- the negative aspects of the aid program. posed a ceiling on Federal spending, re- ·I quote from this month's issue of News quiring that $6 billion be cut from pro- Front in an article entitled "Trading posed actual spending for fiscal1969, that with the Third World": there be an additional reduction of $10 . A continued slowdown in u.s. foreign aid -billion in appropriations for future .may well hurt. busin{!ssmen aiming at new .spending, and that a rescission of still overseas markets. A study by :th~ State De,-

21574 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-' HOUSE July 16, 1968 partment's Agency for International Development · (A.I.D.) shows that U.S. exports . were more than 1.2 · billion higher in 1965 than they would have been without the stimulus of the aid program.

The article concludes with this statement:

AS the Advisory Committee in Foreign Aid thrU Private Enterprise (chaired by IBM chief, Thomas J. Watson, Jr.) has emphasized, the tapping of the vast reservoir of private technJcal and institutional skills in the U.S. can be of invaluable assistance to Less Developed Countries in the development of their industrial potential.

And at the same time, business interests in the U.S. and other developed nations have a large stake in the progress of the Less Developed Countries. These nations, with twothirds of the world's population, are the growing markets of the future.

It is easy to be a critic of a program that has many shortcomings, all of which are immediately obvious and painfully present in the short-range operations. It is equally quite challenging to support a program whose rich benefits are both long range and indirect in nature. But surely, Mr. Chairman, in this House we should be mindful that a great nation measures its health and vitality not in the pains and aches of the moment but the achievements and growth of the years. ;j

Where we can we should minimize the painful problems but in nowise . should we cut o:ff the source of achievement and growth-this is the challenge that is before us as we make our final determination on the Foreign Aid Assistance Act.

I venture a prediction, Mr. Chairman. If ever our country falls victim to the fatal economic iils of deep and disturbing depression it will not be from 'an accelerated recession of market at home which plugs and clogs our production but rather a recession in the over $30 · billion direct and indirect which is involved in our present dynamic international trade.

The health of that international market is in large measure resting upon an expansion of that market. The expansion )>Otentiallies largely within the nations being pushed, albeit slowly, ahead by our foreign aid. I urge therefore sober, constructive, and positive thinking by each Member as we move to vote. I trust that vote will show continued support for a vital and necessary program.

The CHAIRMAN. Tile time of the gen-tleman from Wisconsin has expired.

All time has expired. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1968".

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and

the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. PRICE of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill <H.R. 15263) to amend fur-

. ther the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,

as amended, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker. I ask

unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to extend their remarks during general debate on the bill H.R. 15263.

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


LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE BALANCE OF THE WEEK

Mr. ALBERT. 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 Oklahoma?

There was no objection. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I take this

time simply to advise the House on how we will continue with the program. Tomorrow we will take up the rule and general debate on the State Firearms Control ·Assistance Act of 1968, the socalled gun bill. Then we will come back on Thursday and hope to finish the Foreign Assistance Act under the 5-minute rule to passage. Then we will go back on Friday to the gun bill again. The reason for this change in the program is that tomorrow is the day of the funeral of our former beloved colleague, Joe Pool, arid we did riot want to act under the 5-minute rule while a number of colleagues are away at his funeral. So we will handle general debate on tomorrow on the firearms bill, and then go back to foreign aid on Thursday, and back to the firearms bill on Friday. ; Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALBERT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS; Is a Saturday session still a possibility or more than a possibility?

Mr. ALBERT. Well, I wish the gentleman would reserve his question until a little later in the week, because I might give him better information later on.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman does not see any repetition of yesterday's endurance contest, does he?

Mr. ALBERT. I do not. Mr. GROSS. When we stayed ins~

sion until midnight in order to pile up some-

Mr. ALBERT. Tile gentleman will admit that we accomplished quite a bit.

Mr. GROSS. Yes. We accomplished a substantial contribution to the debt and the deficit of the country yesterday. That is one thing we accomplished. And we stayed in session until midnight to do it.

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

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR-PERMISSION TO Fll.E RE

, PORT

on Education and Labor may have until · midnight to file a report on H.R. 12120, the ·juvenile delinquency conference report.

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


IMPRISONMENT OF JEWS BY ARABS Mr. FARBSTEIN. 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 New York?

There was no objection. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, there

ports become more frequent of the secret practice of genocide within the bound:aries of the Arab States. We can no longer doubt that the Jewish population of Egypt and other Arab countries is currently being held hostage in tll,e Arab conflict with Israel. This population, at best, has been deprived of all its rights to live as others live. But now we know that large numbers of Jews have been sent to what we charitably call "concentration camps," where they are being allowed to wither and die. It is an outrage upon humanity that this is happening. It is inexcusable if we, as Americans, know this is happening and choose to do nothfug about it. I have written the Secretary of State to ask that a United Nations investigation be initiated into this deplorable situation. In due course, I will ask the House to support a resolution calling for such an investigation.

CONGRESS OF THE UNrrED STATES, HOUSE 01' REPR~ENTATIVES,

.washing.ton, D.C., · July 15, 1968. Hon. DEAN RusK, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: With increasing fre-:: quency, reports are emerging from the Arab countries, particularly Egypt, that large numbers of Jews are imprisoned as hostages in the struggle with Israel. We have learned that the Arabs are running concentration

·camps, where these Jews are being held under deplorable contUtions. Surely, we Americans cannot sit by indifferently in the face of these events.

I would feel it is appropriate, Mr. Secretary, for our delegation at the United Nations to propose a full United Nations investigation into the treatment of Jews resident in Arab countries. The precedent for such an investigation is ample. We must not, for reasons of political expediency, be derelict in our duty to the humane treatment of human beings.

If you have another procedure to suggest for putting an end to these practices, I will be glad to entertain it. But we must notas the civilized countries did in the 1930'sstand by while genocide is committed.

Sincerely yours, LEONARD FARBSTEIN,

Member oj Congress.

RETIREMENT OF GEN. G. P. DISOSWAY

' Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee unanimous consent to address the House

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-· HOUSE 21575 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 Virginia?

There was no objection. Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Speaker, on July

31 a most effective and able military officer will retire from active duty, closing a distinguished 35-year career. He is Gen. G. P. Disosway, Commander of the Air Force's Tactical Air Command.

Such illustrious service deserves the acclaim of this Congress and I consider it a privilege to introduce the highlights of the general's career into the CoNGREsSIONAL RECORD.

General Disosway's 35-year military career began when he graduated from West Point in 1933 and within a year was a qualified pilot in the Army Air Corps. In less than 9 years after leaving West Point he was a full colonel at the age of 32. His assignments have taken him across the country and back again, south of the border and to China and Europe. He has held important assignments such as Director of Training for the Air Force and commander of the Flying Training Air Force, now c~lled Air Training Command. For a time he served as senior Air Force member of the Department of Defense Weapons Systems Evaluations Group.

General Disosway was named USAF Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and headee the famed "Disosway Board," which helped to enhance air-ground joint operations, with emphasis on the flexibility of tactical airpower. ·

It was during this same period that General Disosway was instrumental in bringing the versatile McDonnell F-4 Phantom tactical fighter into the Air Force inventory.

In 1963 General Disosway received his fourth star and was appointed Commander in Chief, U.S. Air Forces in Europe. During the 2 years he served . in this capacity he left his distinctive mark on both U.S. and NATO air operations in the European theater.

In 1965 General Disosway assumed command of Tactical Air Command in a period of intense activity. Many TAC units and hundredS of personnel were being sent to Southeast Asia. Replacements had to be trained for aircrews and support activities. The lessons of this new war learned in air combat had to be examined, evaluated, and applied by TAC. The command grew as weapons systems, new equipment, and streamlined management techniques · were introduced.

Every effort was made to give the air forces in Southeast Asia what was needed. TAC met this challenge without degrading its continuing and all-important mission to answer any other contingency that may occur anyWhere iii the world where U.S. interests require tactical air support.

TAC responded to these demands and responsibilities with professional knowhow and calm appraisal~drawn from its commander.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that my distinguished colleagues iil. the House of Representatives will join me in both ex-

pressing our gratitude to General Disos:.. way for his selfless service to our Nation and sending him our warmest wishes as he begins a new career in private .life.

QUALITY OF FOOD FOR THE NEEDY Mr. HUNGATE. 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 Missouri?

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

heard questions raised concerning the quality of food which the U.S. Department of Agriculture is distributing to needy families. In checking into the n~ttcr to obtain the facts, I was surprised to learn that the Department uses higher quality specifications than those applied to the same products I buy in the grocery store.

The food bought for needy families is paid for under the "surplus removal" provisions of section 32 of Public Law 74-332, and the term "surplus removal" has apparently caused some confusion about just what kind of products these are. The statement has even been made that th.:)y are foods that no one else wants.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite the contrary. The flour, meat, cheese, vegetables, and ot..'ler products bought under this program are of at least the same quality available to consumers in the grocery store-and sometimes they may be of better quality. For what the ter.:n. "surplus removal" actually means in this case is that the Department of Agriculture c:.:1 buy foods when they are in best supply and get the best food value for the money spent. There is no reason to equate "surplus" with poor quality.

Specifications are drawn for each purchase, and the food is examined or inspected to see that it meets the specifications before it is accepted by USDA. The specifications are based on grades of quality established by USDA's Consumer and Marketing Service-the same grades that are used commercially. If no official grades have been established for a particular product, USDA · uses military specifications or develops .specifications based on what is available commercially to consumers. In developing · spectfications for flour. for example, the Consumer and Marketing Service ran tests on 200 samples of commercial flours. Moreover, the quality of flour available commercially is routinely checked by Consumer and Marketing Service to keep the specifications up to date. Also, all flour distributed to needy families is enriched by the addition of vitamins and minerals.

The inspection or testing required, before a purchase is accepted from a bidder, is made by Consumer and Marketing Service !traders or laboratory technicians, or personnel licensed by USDA to make inspections. Except when laboratory tests must be made, the product is inspected for quality right in the manufacturing or processing plant. Some products, such as peanut butter, niust be processed under continuous USDA inspection.

The ·1-eQ.uirements for grading and in .. spection are written into the speciflca;.. tions and such gtading and inspection must be paid for by the bidder.

Peanut butter, incidentally, is one of the products that USDA purchases in large quantities as a good source of protein. The Consumer and Marketing Service took the lead in its specification which requires that peanut butter consist of at least 90 percent peanuts-the balance of salt, sugar, and stabilizers. The Food and Drug Administration has issued a proposed commercial standard of identity for peanut butter which would adopt the 90 percent peanut ingredient requirement.

The same objective-to get the most protein for the money-is followed in purchasing canned chopped meat. This is a luncheon meat, made basically of beef or pork, that can be used in sandwiches or hot dishes. Consumer and Marketing Service meat .graders supervise the manufacture of this product from the fresh meat through the entire canning process and they check the quality of the finished product. The quality is the same as that found in canned luncheon meats available to consumers.

Mr. Speaker, USDA requires good quality in the foods it buys for needy families, and assures this quality by requiring certification by its own inspectors.

TRADE POLICIES Mr. StGERMAIN. 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 Rhode Island?

There was no objection. Mr. STGERMAIN. Mr. Speaker, in an

address before this body on July 8, per:.. taining to our Nation's trade policies, I noted the trade deficits experienced during the months of March and May and stated:

I think that it is about time that we cast aside our blind emotions and open our rational eyes to the problem at hand and that is the ever-expanding flood of imports ... We seem to have become mesmerized by trade policies and proposals that will help the whole world at the fata.i expense of the United States.

My proposal to overcome this crucial problem, as noted in my July 8 address, is to enaot legislation to provide orderly trade, particularly in those areas wh1ch most affect our trade balance.

A very poignant news article appeared in the July 15 edition of the Providence Journal in which the problem of an unfavorable trade balance is analyzed in a similar manner.

I ask unanimous consent that this article entitled "Flexible Quotas Seen as Trade Loss CUrb" be inserted into the RECORD.

FLEXmLE QUOTAS SEEN AS TRADE Loss CURB WASHINGTON.-The United States is losing

out in foreigh trade. This fact was a wellkept secret until March and May of this yeu.

The weak competitive position of most American industries was long concealed by the . offi.cial practice of padding U.S. exports while reporting imports on their foreign

21'576 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968

value instead of their landed cost. The discrepancy was several billion dollars annually. The result was a spurious trade surplus that helped justify further tariff reduction. Now the cat is out of the bag. The trade deficit has broken through even under the misleading official statistical treatment.

While the U.S. outproduces its competitors per man-hour, American unit costs are gen- . erally higher because of much higher wages, excepting Canada.

Saying this would make it appear simple: hold back wages while foreign wages rise. Two stubborn facts demolish this simplistic concept. One, the U.S. economy would collapse were consumer purchasing power held down. The wage-sustained purchasing power must grow if it is to absorb the torrent of goods that must be produced if unemployment is not to engulf this country. Year after year American output per man-hour rises. If Americans did not consume more per capita, a declining work force would produce all Americans consume despite population increase, unless the U.S. cuts workhours.

The other demolisher of the concept lies Jn the power of American unions. Anyone who expects wage reduction to shrink U.S. costs is hopelessly naive.

All American economic enterprise today is controlled and regulated-again, by popular mandate--while U.S. foreign trade is to be freed. Vulnerable domestic industry is to be an exposed island competitively handicapped by legislatively imposed cost burdens adopted without concern over the effects on competitiveness with imports, and remediable only by shrinking the work-force.

The prescription will not work as even official statistics can no longer conceal.

from New Jersey on the national level and Mayor Healey on. the local level is a good exampe of how constructive federalsim can be made to work.

Mr. Speaker, this facility will speed service in northern New Jersey. In addition, it will handle the mail more efficiently and save all the taxpayers of the United States money. Thus, this facility, which is so obviously good for Kearny, N.J., is also good for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership in this matter.

THE CAUSES AND CURE OF INFLATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. REuss] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, like other

Members of the Congress, I am deeply disturbed by the persistent rise in prices.

Consumer prices have risen by 3.1 percent per year since mid-1965, compared to only 1.3 percent per year during the preceding 5 years from 1960 to 1965. Since the spring of 1967, the rate has in

NORTH JERSEY POSTAL FACILITY, creased to about 4 percent per year. KEARNEY, N.J. Similarly, the wholesale price index has

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- risen at an accelerated pace, about 3 permous consent to address the House for celllt over the past year, compared to an 1 minute, to revise and extend my re- annual rate of 2.1 percent since mid-1965 marks, and to include extraneous matter. and only 0.3 percent per year from 1960

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to to 1965. the request of the gentleman from If the present pace continues, this will Arizona? · be the most inflationary year since 1950-

There was no objection. 51, when the consumer price index Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, those of us jumped 8 percent.

who serve on the House Post omce com- The 3 years 1965 through 1968 are the mittee are well aware of the North Jer- most inflationary since the Korean war. sey Postal Facility in Kearny, N.J. We Nor can we lightly assume that the torare familiar because of the aggressive rent of price boosts will come to a quick campaign put on in behalf of that facil- end as a result of the recent enactment of ity by our friend, the distinguished gen- a combination tax increase and spending tleman from New Jersey [~r. DANIELS]. reduction. There . is an almost universal

The gentleman from New Jersey has view among experts that the present intold me many times of his interest 1n flatJion will continue for as much as an~ lessening the tax burden on the people other year or two. Indeed, many claim of Hudson county and there is no ques.- that it will not even begin to slow down tion that this facility, which will be seriously for another 6 months or more. privately owned, will add a multimillion We should not be surprised at this, for dollar ratable and will be a boon to the a number of reasons. people of the town of Kearny. Responses to budgetary changes such

I am sure that most Members who are as we have made involve lags, so it will familiar with the New Jersey Turnpike be some time before these changes . can have passed by the location of this facil- produce a major reduction in the rate of ity many times. It will be located near infiation. Having delayed the cure to the the northern part of the New · Jersey disease so long, we shall have to pay the Turnpike, very close to New York City, price of our delay in a longer period of and it will front on the Harrison Turn- cure and recuperation. pike. . Second, the excess demands which

Mr. Speaker, for. many years the started the inflationary move between mayor of the town of Kearny, the Honor- mid-1965 and mid-1966 created imbalable Joseph M. Healey has played a ances between various prices and costs, major role iri the National Association leading to what the economists call. of Cities. His handling of municipal "cost-push'' inflation. The economy w111 probl~ms has brought him deserved ac- continue to adjust to such forces for claim even as far away as Arizona. . some time. ·

The partnership of the · gentleman Furthermore, many practices and poli-

cies undertaken by or condoned by the Federal Government either add to the inflationary pressure or slow the curative process.

It is precisely because this inflation has been so prolonged, and threatens to be further prolonged, that I think it worthwhile for us to review the situation again and learn some lessons about dealing with inflation.

Changes in prices are somewhat like a fever in the human body-:-both are signals that the organism is out of balance. Both maladies can be cured, but only if there is a correct diagnosis as to the cause and if the right medicine to deal with that cause is administered in time. When the thermometer shows that a human being has a fever, we do not wrap the thermometer in ice, nor be content with mere fever-reducing palliatives such as aspirin. The fever is a symptom. Hence, we look for its cause and design a cure for that cause.

In the same way, dealing with infiation by direct price and wage controls is simply a way of operating on the symptoms of unbalance in the economy. It is not a cure aimed at the basic operational or structural factors from which the price-increase pressures are emanating. As soon as direct price and wage controls are removed, the inflation renews with increased fury if the basic cause has not been removed. The essence of the problem is to correctly diagnose the sources of the inflation so that the correct medication in the correct dosage can be applied.

To give a preview of my conclusions, I think that the recent inflation, like many in the past, comes from a variety of sources, and that therefore a combination of instruments is necessary to deal with it. Flexible and effective fiscal and monetary policies, vigorous antitrust enforcement, wage-price income guidelines, flexible and skillful purchasing policies by the Government, skillful use· of various regulatory policies and subsidies--all must be combined so that the economy can enjoy a return to price stability and stable, longrun development in real terms at full employment.

It is necessary, at the beginning, to keep in mind that our national objective as set forth in the Employment Act is to obtain full employment, rapid _ growth, and price stablllty, all at the same time. This must be done within the framework of cooperation between public and private individuals and organizations to maintain our free, private, and competitive eQterprise system. We must · never for a moment lose sight of the fact that our central objective must be a job for each individual able, willing, and seeking to work at the same time we maintain a stable price level to protect the purchasing power of his income and his savings. Anything less is not good enough, and we must constantly search for ways to come closer to this ideal within a free society.

In these remarks, I intend, first, to suggest the causes of the current inflation, and, second, to review possible cures that . can be taken to end the present inflation and reduce the likelihood of future upward movements of the general price level.

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21577 THE ORIGINS OF THE CURRENT INFLATION

Members of this House will recall that only a few years ago, in the face of 6 years of persistently high unemployment and inadequate economic growth, the Congress adopted a series of t~x measures, beginning with the Revenue Act of 1964, intended to remove the fiscal drag on the economy, reduce the hypothetical high employment budget surplus, produce more revenues as a result of increased employment and private incomes, and thus bring an end to the combination of economic stagnation and budget deficits.

By the spring of 1965, this policy was successful. The economy was rapidly approaching desired levels of employment and income. The rate of use of industrial capacity was rising rapidly. The Federal budget on a national income accounts basis had moved from a substantial deficit in the first half of 1964 to a substantial surplus in early 1965. Even on the new unified budget basis, the budget was moving into balance.

·But in the second half of calendar 1965 Federal expenditures began to rise more rapidly as our commitments in Vietnam began to rise. By early 1966, the expansion in defense spending was Tapid and sustained. It began to be clear that if the trend continued, an expanded deficit and inflationary pressures would be inevitable.

At the same time, the private economy was strong and expanding. Civilian government expenditures, particularly at the State and local level, were continuing to rise as they had for over two decades. Plans for business fixed investment jndicated a rise in 1966 of between 10 and 12 percent a really remarkable level considering the very large increases that had already taken place in 1964 and 1965.

Such private investment by late 1965 had reached 10¥2 percent of GNP compared to about 9.6 percent yearly average for the decade 1951 to 1961.

Other signs were so favorable that the Joint Economic Committee, in its 1966 Joint Economic Report, said:

As the American economy moves into the sixth year of uninterrupted expansion, the pace is clearly accelerating. . .. There are signs that price pressures may prove stronger than the Administration expected.

In view of these prospects, the signs of an increasing shiftover to a sellers' market in more and more commodities, and the increasingly vigorous surge of investment, it would be imprudent to do anything less than ready our anti-inflationary defenses, . prepared to use them on short notice. As the price of complacency we could harin. our long-term efforts to maintain full employment and by early neglect ultimately raise the unpleasant necessity of direct controls, such as were required during the Korean war.

PART OF THE INFLATION WAS "DEMAND AND PULL"

Yet the steps taken proved inadequate. Military spending rose almost twice as much as expected, and the budget deficit deepened. The monetary authorities tried to take some braking action by the summer of 1966. But in the face of a strong economy and an expansive Federal fiscal policy, they came very close to creating a monetary panic by the excess of their zeal. Although the rate of ad-

vance in prices and general activity slowed somewhat in the second half of 1966 and early 1967, the economy soon resumed its upward march. The rate of advance in real terms accelerated to over 4 percent per year in the second half, and early this year reached a phenomenal rate of almost 6 percent per year. At the same time, the price advance accelerated again, and for almost a year now has been running at the very high rate of about 4 percent a year.

By the first quarter of this year, the overheating of important sectors of the economy had become apparent. In the first quarter, GNP expanded at a phenomenal annual rate of 10 percent a year; or $20 billion. Of this 10-percent rise in GNP in current dollars, 6 percent was in real terms--that is, total GNP deflated to take out the price changes--and 4 percent represented rising prices. Such a 6-percent rate of real growth is far higher than the potential rate of growth of the economy at full employment of 4 or 4 Y:z percent a year generally believed to be sustainable. In any case, it would be unhealthy for our domestic economy," as well as for our balance of payments, to have 40 percent or more of the increase in current dollar GNP take the form of price increases.

From this brief review of recent economic history, it must be clear that the present surge of inflation originated in the same way as that in 1950-51; that is, it was created by excess demand, brought about by imposing a rapid rise in military spending on top of a strong civilian economy. In the economist's language, inflation began again-as it has so often in the past--with "demand pull." This means that the aggregate money demand was so high, and rising so rapidly, that price levels increased as buyers bid up prices of available goods and services. The demand pulled up prices first of goods and services, then of the productive factors used to create these goods and services.

BUT "COST-PUSH" WAS ALSO PRESENT

But another type of inflationary process soon started operating-that widely called cost-push. As prices increased and the growth of output and employment accelerated after 1965, there was not merely a record demand for workers for the first time since 1960. Compensation per man-hour grew significantly more rapidly than productivity, so that unit labor costs rose significantly.

The change shows up in the median first-year effect of wage agreements reached in major collective bargaining situations. From 1961 through 1964 these agreements provided adjustments ranging from 2.8 percent to 3.2 percent for the first year of the agreement. In 1965, the rate accelerated sharply to 3.8 percent and in 1966 rose again to over 4 Y:z percent. For the total private economy, unit labor costs, which had risen fourtenths of 1 percent per year from 1960 to 1964 climbed 1 percent in 1965, and about 3 Y:z percent in 1966.

Thus as the inflation progressed, not merely prices but also costs began to push upward.

This had two implications. First, it insured that price rises would not gen-·

erally be reversed when inflationary pressures died out. Second, it started a spiraling of adjustments in costs between various occupations, regions, and industries, leading to similar adjustments in prices.

At the start, undoubtedly, costs and prices tended to rise .only in industries· where unions and management possessed a degree of market control that enabled them to protect profit margins and real wage positions independent of demand situations. But as time passed, pressures brought adjustments in other industries and occupations. Cost-push was in full bloom, pushing wages and prices ever higher, whether demand was tilted strongly upward as in early 1966 and since mid-1967, or was advancing somewhat slower as in late 1966 and early 1967.

Indeed, the interaction of demand forces with cost-push adjustments became so prevalent that one wag is said to have labeled contemporary price rises "push-pull" inflation.

This push-pull inflationary process still continues. Demand has continued strong. The deficit in the Federal budget in the fiscal year just ended was well over $20 billion. Meanwhile, the push element mounts daily, as one wage agreement after another provides for everspiralling increases. We have just been compelled by simple justice to put into effect an increase averaging about 5 percent per year for Federal employees, with some getting more than this. We must face another large boost 1n Federal payscales to be put into effect effective at the beginning of the next fiscal year 1970, on July 1, 1969. I am told by some experts that the increase could' easily turn out to be substantially larger in percentage terms than the one just put into effect.

In the pr:vate economy, the discussion in informal circles--aE well as in the press--points to further substantial increases in labor agreements ir ... such industries as steel during the remainder of the year. Figures mentioned range upward from a minimum of at least 6 percent in steel, to rumors of as high as 10 percent or better in some instances. I hesitate to believe the latter.

That these reports of possible further wage increases are not mere gossip is indicated by the record for the firs.t part of this year. Collective bargaining contracts negotiated during the first quarter of 1968 again put heavy emphasis on large first-year wage increases followed by substantial increases for subsequent years. The median first-year wage increase in the first quarter contracts was about 7.4 percent, according to the Department of Labor, compared to 5.7 percent in the contracts negotiated in 1967, which itself is a substantial increase over prior years. Although apparently relatively few workers were affected by these early settlements, they indicate the di-· rection and magnitudes likely to be experienced as ~he year progresses.

A comparison of increases in wages with increases in productivity produces striking results. In the first quarter of this year, total hourly compensation of nonfarm employees--including employer


payments for health, welfare, pensions, soc!al security, and other nonwage benefits-increased 2.6 percent, faster than in any quarter since late 1960, and one of the largest quarterly increases in the postwar era. Nevertheless, the real weekly earnings of the average nonfarm employee-that is, h18 pay adjusted for price increases-actually dropped somewhat over the quarter and was up only 1 percent since March 1967. This is due both to a decline in hours of work and in an increase in prices. If we compare the first quarter of 1968 with the first quarter of 1967, average hourly compensation increased 6.2 percent while output per man-hour gained 2.2 percent. As a result, unit labor costs rose 3.9 percent.

The sharp acceleration in the rate of increase in average hourly compensation, which exceeded the increase in productivity and pushed up unit labor costs, has undoubtedly played a strong role in the actions of manage:r&ent in raising prices. Strong demands and rising costs are reflected in business attempts to raise prices to maintain profit margins. Within the last 6 months every one of the 22 major classes of products in the Wholesale Price Index has experienced price increases.

The inflationary atmosphere is reflected also 1n the reports on corporate profits. Recent surveys of businessmen by Dun & Bradstreet indicate that 60 percent of the businessmen intervi~wed anticipated higher profits in the current third quarter. Nor is this surprising, for in the first quarter before-tax profits rose nearly $4 billion to an annual rate of $89 billion. Thus in the first quarter, the annual rate of profits was about $2 billion more. than the optimistic estimate for all of 1968 underlying the President's January budget.

Much of this increase 1n profits reflected price advances which inflated the book value of inventories held by business. When the influence of these inventory value changes is eleminated, the first quarter profits actually grew at a slower rate than in the final quarter of 1967.

A similar situation probably occurred in the second quarter just ended, as price level increments added to inventory values and the gap widened between paper earnings and real earnings. The Dun & Bradstreet survey reports that 56 percent of the business executives interviewed predicted continuing price increases over the remainder of this year. Inflation was also a factor in the drop in 1967 in the rate of return on corporate net worth, from 11.3 percent in 1966 to 10.5 percent in 1967. Despite substantial increases in product prices, unit costs rose so rapidly as a result of the inflationary atmosphere that profits were restricted.

A notable characteristic of inflationunused manpower and factory capacity despite excess demand-has shown up again this time. By the beginning of 1966 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate had fallen to less than 4 percent, and the rate has remained between 3% and 4 percent since. The ratio of output to capacity in manufacturing reached the 90 to 91 percent range early in 1966. But though the inflation has

continued, unemployment has not declined further despite the large demand by the military for additional manpower and the absorption of many into government or privately sponsored training programs. The ratio of output to capacity 'in manufacturing, indeed, has fallen, and for the last year has averaged about 84 to 85 percent. The heavy rate of investment has been increasing capacity faster than demand has risen. Thus inflation has discouraged demand enough to prevent further reductions in unemployment and idle capacity. Indeed, while the overall unemployment rate has remained in the low 3%- to 4-percent range, there have remained very large pools of unemployed and underemployed workers both in the central cities and in many rural areas.

MONETARY POLICY-oN AGAIN, OFF AGAIN

Throughout the inflationary period since 1965, monetary policy has played a vaclllating and uncertain role. From 1960 to 1965, the period when prices wer,e relatively stable, the monetary authorities increased the money supply by approximately 3 percent a year. This is near the lower bound of the range of 2 to 6 percent a year recently suggested by the Joint Economic Committee as about the desirable range of variation in normal times. But in 1965, the rate was 4 percent and by the end of that year the rate reached the upper bound of the recommended range. In fact, from August 1965 to April 1966 the money supply was increased at a rate of 7.4 percent per year, somewhat in excess of the recommended range. Beginning in May 1966, the monetary authorities followed a policy that fluctuated between substantial expansion and substantial contraction, the net consequence of which was an average annual rate of decline of 1 percent a year in the money supply from April 1966 to January 1967. From January 1967 to January 1968 the money supply was increased 7.2 percent per year. Since January, the rate has again fluctuated somewhat, but averaged between 6 and 7 percent a year.

It is clear that the money supply over this period has continued to expand at a rate far too' high for safety, intermixed with brief periods of extreme stringency. This conduct of monetary policy was well outside the guidelines which I proposed

the -excessive financial stringency, output, · employment, and prices again accelerated sharply.

To sum up this brief analysis of the last 3 years, the sharp expansion of defense spending from an annual rate of about $50 billion per year to between $75 and $85 billion a year, piled on top of swelling private and public demands, initiated a sharp upsurge in prices between late 1965 and the f.rst half of 1966. After a brief interlude, this demand pressure resumed in 1967 and still continues. As inflation got underway, costs began to rise, wage rates rose much more rapidly than productivity, and a costpush cycle set in which also continues. Monetary policy vacillated; through much of the period it accelerated the rate of inflation; but it come close to causing a panic by excessive stringency in the summer and fall of 1966.

It is notable, too, that the wage-price guidelines which had been used so successfully by the administration in earlier years of price stability were quickly abandoned when inflation set in.

In sum, the inflation of the last 3 years is complex-initiated by demandpull, aggravated by cost-push, and but lightly affected by a wildly fluctuating monetary policy and by wage-price guidelines abandoned the moment they were challenged. All of us-the administration, the Congress, the Federal Reserve, important elements of business . and labor-have done many things we ought not to have done, and have left undone many things we ought to have done. Let us resolve, Mr. Sl>eaker, to do better.

HOW TO HALT THE CURRENT INFLATION

At the very outset I warned that we must not expect the present inflation to be brought now to an abrupt end. We shall do well to bring the rate of rise in · prices down to a tolerable magnitude sometime in 1969. To solve the problem of attaining complete stability of the price level may be an even longer process.

But we in Government can play a major role in promoting the restoration of a more stable price situation. And we can do much to 1risure that we maintain price stability permanently once it has been achieved.

in my SUpplementary vieWS in the Joint WE SHOULD HAVE MOVED SOONER TO RAISE

Economic Committee's 1968 Annual Eco- REVENUEs

nomic· Report, and exceeds also the Let us be clear about one lesson from guidelines recommended by the commit- the experience of the last 3 years. Any tee itself 1n its July 1968 report "Stand- time that events at home or abroad ards for Guiding Monetary Action." create a necessity for the Federal GovClearly, over much of the last 3 years ernment sharply to increase its rate of monetary policy has been helping finance spending for any PUrPOse-particularly infiation. for defense-the President and the Con-

But the inflation has also scared the gress must immediately take approprimonetary authorities into a period of · ate revenue-raising steps to· insure that such stringency in 1966 as to create what there are sufficient increases in revenue has popularly been called the · ~ 1966 to offset the inflationary expansion in monetary crunch." This came very close demand. We ought to learn from the conto creating a panic in financial markets. trast between the 1950-53 experience at The stringency effectively slowed down the time of the Korean emergency and the economy for a while in late 1966 and that during the military expansion assoearly 1967 but did little to cure the un- ciated with Vietnam in the last 3 years. derlying inflationary forces or to reduce In the Korea case, Congress took the the inflationary psychology abroad in initiative and insisted on increasing taxes the la.nd. Consequently, the moment to pay for the military program. In fact, monetary growth was resumed to correct three tax bills were passed in only 12

July 16, 1!)68 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21579 months, increasing taxes far more drastically than anything we have had to contemplate in the Vietnam period. The action was prompt and was well underway in a matter of 30 days. The first bill passed the Congress and became law in less than 6 months. The rise in wholesale· prices ceased in only about 6 months, and the rise in consumer prices slowed drastically in less than a year.

In contrast, after 3 years of Vietnam, the present inflation is still vigorous and accelerating. Yet the increase in defense spending after 1950 amounted almost to 10 percent of the GNP .and brought a more than tripling of the defense budget from about $13 billion to between $45 and $50 billion per year. In contrast, the recent increase is only about 50 percent and represents only about 3 percent of our total national output.

Clearly, prompt immediate a·ction, vigorously pursued, can hold inflation to a minimum. In Korean times, it did so. Our present troubles with persistent inflation are, in part, doubtless due to the long period during which we have debated whether to take some form of effective budget action to stop the swelling Federal deficit. It may be noted that prompt action in 1950 produced a substantial cash surplus of $7.6 billion in the first :fiscal year of the Korean emergency, and a balance even in the second year. It was not until the inflationary pressures of the defense buildup had been eliminated that the budget was allowed to swing into even moderate deficit. In the present case, prolonged debate of the issues in and out of Government has been accompanied by a sharp and persistent swing from surplus to deficit and a promotion of inflation rather than its dampening.

This bring-s us to the first major way of curing inflation. If, as was the case this time, excess demand was part of the cause, then we should aim for a moderate surplus. Failure of the Congress to act promptly to insure this is the most serious mistake that can be made. The recent passage of the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 is certainly a step in the right direction, even if 2% years late. It will rapidly reduce the Government's deficit. Indeed, in terms of our national income accounts, it should bring a sharp shift from deficit now to a modest surplus in the first half of calendar 1969. On the overall unified budget basis, the deficit should be drastically reduced from over :P20 billion to perhaps as low as $5 billion or less.

But there are two major questions that must be asked about this measure:

PRIMARILY, WE SHOULD HAVE PLUGGED TAX LOOPHOLES

First. On the revenue side, the 10-percent surtax is an excellent way to temporarily increase taxes in an emergency, as was pointed out in 1966 by the Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy of the Joint Economic Committee, under the chairmanship of the gentlewoman from Michigan [Mrs. GRIFFITHS]. But as 1 have contended before on this :floor and elsewhere, it is difficult and unfair to expect millions of taxpaying Americans to foot such heavy increases in taxes at a time when various loopholes in the tax

structure allow countless Americans to escape paying their share of the tax and in some cases paying any tax at all.

The first requirement for an effective stabilization policy must be tax reform of a drastic character that will simplify, improve equity, and eliminate the unjust loopholes that allow some taxpayers with very large incomes, sometimes running into the millions, to escape taxation.

I am happy that our recent bill provided that the President shall submit a program for such tax reform before the end of this year. I earnestly urge every Member of this House, and particularly the members of the Ways and Means Committee, to direct their most vigorous · efforts toward the passage of such tax reform legislation as early in the next session of the Congress as can be managed.

Tax reform should make it possible, by raising additional revenue through loophole closing and the natural growth of Federal revenues as incomes and employments rise with our economic growth, to reduce or repeal the temporary 10-percent surtax before the end of this fiscal year. It will provide also a sense of justice and confidence in the fairness of Government that will make the public more receptive to emergency tax legislation in the future. A fair Federal tax system will make it much easier to make tax policy work both ways in emergencies, either up or down, as changing conditions may require. WE SHOULD BE CUTTING EXPENDITURES WITH A

SCALPEL, NOT A MEAT AX

Second. While I have accepted the 10-percent surtax as a necessary anti-inflationary measure in the present emergency-though deeply regretting that prompt tax reform was not used instead-! have grave reservations about the expenditure controls and reductions that were incorporated in the recent legislation. I have little confidence that the meat-ax approach will produce the kind of careful management of the Government's budget that is so essential in this inflationary period. I am afraid that unless the President and the Congress develop a national system for establishing priorities among spending categories and implements it very soon, we shall find ourselves pursuing inefficient and perhaps contradictory policies.

We should recognize that the inflationary Government spending increases are concentrated heavily ·on a very few areas. These add little to economic development. The largest expenditure is for the war in Vietnam, which not only takes billions of limited resources out of the economy to be destroyed abroad, but also shifts productive factors away from those uses which produce the greatest overall returns to society. War programs develop an intense excess demand in defense and space supply indus'tries, which not only pulls up the prices of goods and services produced in industries but also creates scarcity of some of our most important resources-for example, scientific personnel. The situation is aggravated by Government investment for costly space studies, for supersonic transports, for quite marginal public works, and for agricultural subsidies. At

the same time well documented ineffici-encies in Government procurement, particularly in the Defense Department, add to excess demand and waste in precisely the wrong places.

Such drastic short-run shifts in demand between particular sectors set off intense inflationary movements in wages and prices. Hence, budget cutting should be centered precisely in those programs that can do most to ease excess demand where it exists. We ought to be concentrating on cutting in defense, in space, in public works. Instead, we are doing just the opposite.

The recent meat-ax approach to budget-cutting could hardly be sillier: it fails to dampen excess demand, and it does dampen necessary supply.

The across-the-board employment lim1tation that only three out of every four vacancies can be :filled will hit hardest in those agencies where the demand for public services is growing most rapidly, such as the Internal Revenue Service or the Post om.ce. It will bring the substitution of expensive military personnel for less expensive civilian personnel in the Defense Department.

Housing, welfare, education, anti-pollution programs, aid to our deteriorating and distressed cities-all these are in crying need of increases in appropriations to insure steady economic growth and a healthy society. But instead, they will be cut, I am afraid, along with the other programs that really do need cutting. We should be pruning less valuable progralll&-:-programs which so far have been well guarded by the conventional wisdom and effective lobbying of entrenched constituencies. This represents the waste of untold billions, while vital services demanded by our growing population go unsatisfied. .

In the long run, the meat ax swing at expenditure programs is bound to turn out to be more expensive than no cuts at all. Vital and sensitive programs once interrupted will prove costly to repair and reinvigorate at a later date. This will be particularly unfortunate if, as seems likely, reinvigoration is but a matter of 6 months or a year away. TO RECAPITULATE: THREE LESSONS WE SHOULD

HAVE LEARNED

Thus, I hope we will have learned the necessity for three reforms in our way of handling fiscal affairs in the interest of stabilizing our economy-

First, to act much more promptly than we have grown accustomed to for some years;

Second, drastically to reform the tax structure to improve equity and provide more popular support for necessary shortrun stabilization action; and

Third, to improve our budgetary process to establish a vastly improved program budget, with a ranking in terms of national pliorities, so that more precisely focused reductions can be made in emergencies. We should bring an end . once and for all to across-the-board cuts which disrupt progress and increase the inefficiency and waste in Government.

Now let us tum to monetary policy. The regulation of the availability of

money and credit and policies controlling debt management operatiqn must work~


1n careful coordination with Federal fiscal operations as integral parts of an overall program if we are to have a healthy growing economy without infiation. We have again had a vivid lesson in recent years of the dangers that can grow out of failure to recognize the need for teamwork in the formulation and execution of our various economic policies. These are not separate, alternative channels for regulating the stability of the economy-they are complementary, and even in large measure different aspects of the same policy. As the Joint Economic Committee recently stated in its report on monetary• guidelines:

When the President, the Congress, and the Treasury have decided on a particular combination of expenditure and tax policies, they have already determined the magnitude of the Treasury's debt management operation, and by this channel have decided in large part the limits within which monetary pollcy will operate. If, as in fiscal year 1968, a deficit of over $20 bllllon has to be :ftn.a.nced, and this makes up a high proportion of the total, of new credit sources, then clearly the Federal Reserve System and its enough Treasury securities in the open market to facil1tate absorption of the residue of this huge addition or, alternatively, to inducing a very sha.rp reduction in funding of private requirements. (p. 4.)

THE FED SHOULD NOT TRY TO COUNTERACT DEI'ICIZNCIES IN FISCAL POLICY

In the past there has been too much yielding by the monetary system to the temptation to take upon itself responsibllity for preventing inflation when the Administration in power or the Congress follow fiscal policies that are inflationary. The resulting wide swing in monetary policy have been upsetting to the private economy, aggravating the ill effects of poorly chosen fiscal policy. It is time that the Federal Reserve System and its o:Hicials recognize the definite limitations of their assignment as dayto-day managers of monetary operations and leave to the Congress the determination of policy.

These observations imply-and I wish to make it explicit-that we ·in Congress are directly responsible for all aspects o:! stabilization policy. We cannot escape that responsibility by pretending that we have delegated to the Federal Reserve System overall economic authority. Our votes here on the budget and on debt management operations have made policy decisions affecting the stability and growth of this economy which, if wrong, cannot be righted singlehandedly by the manipulations of the credit markets by the Federal Reserve System. If the Fed tries to correct Congress fiscal mistakes with meat ax monetary stringency, it 1s likely to bring on a recession in the process of getting. rid of inflation. And its money-tightening, unlike a tax increase, 1s uneven in its application, falling principally on housing, small business, and State and local government, while consumer spending and ordinary capital spending go relatively unchecked.

The best that the Fe·deral Reserve can do is to keep money and credit markets on as even a keel as possible, consistent with the guidelines set forth by the Congress in regard to fiscal, mone_tary, and debt management policies.

Then, if this forces the Federal Reserve into the position of financing an lnfiation, they should report this to the Congress with suitable recommendations for an alteration in national economic policies. If monetary policy is to be successfully managed so as to contribute to economic stability and growth, then the monetary decisions will have to be made by this Congress along with its decisions on the budget.

Some students of economic policy, discouraged by the difficulty of carrying out well-coordinated fiscal and monetary policies, are urging that the Government abdicate its responsibility for short-run stabilization. These critics would have Government policies targeted exclusively on long-run objectives, and allow strenuous antitrust enforcement and natural adjustments in the marketplace to carry the burden of short-run adjustments.

This course is untenable. We can and must do an accept.able job of coordinating monetary and fiscal policy in a v.·ay that enables us to create an economic climate favorable to attainment of both our long-run growth and our short-run stabilization objectives. A NEW LOOK AT THE 7-PERCENT INVESTMENT

TAX CREDIT IS NEEDED

As I have already indicated, the process we now labor through will have to be modified. Congress will have to take a close look at the programs it ha~ authorized and funded in the past-programs which have, from time to time, created excess demand in particular industries or sectors.

For example, we are now experiencing virtually full employment, yet we have some 15 percent excess productive capacity. At the same time, business translates inflationary increments in aggregate demand into continued high and rising rates of investment. Thus Government policies, s:uch as the 7-percent investment tax credit, are subsidizing a high and rising level of capital investment, adding to the problem of current excess demand and generating potentially dangerous excess capacity-particularly in manufacturing-at the same time.

Yet, the inflation causing bottlenecks that now exist on the supply side of our economy are concentrated ~lmost entirely in the availability of trained labor, not in the amount of capital available. Pools of trainable unemployed and underemployed dot our cities and many rural areas. In the first quarter of this year, in urban poverty neighborhoods, it was reported that the· unemployment rate was almost 9 percent for nonwhites and almost 6 percent for whites-this at a time when the overall unemployment rate was at or close to 3¥2 percent. It is estimated that in recent years about 10 percent of those employed in these central poverty areas are underemployed. These people are anxious to perform useful and rewarding jobs. They do not want to be a burden on society. Yet, the Government continues to subsidize capital investment while largely standing aside from the human resource problem, wringing its hands at the violent consequences of perennial neglect.

Certainly the Government can dampen

inftation if it will aid business and the public sector alike to turn these pools of unused or underutilized labor into a current productive resource, giving it the sktll, training, and the jobs to make it productive. Such an effort could almost certainly add to the health of the economy if it financed part of this program by suspending, or preferably, permanently repealing the 7 -percent tax credit.

ATTACKING THE HIGH COST OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE

Another example of specific sector action is the rising costs of health care and hospital services. The medical care component of the consumer price index is increasing at a 7.5-percent .rate this year. During the last 2 years, medical costs rose at an average of 8 percent per year. Over the same period, hospital daily· service charges spiraled at a 16-percent annual rate.

One reason for higher hospital costs is the fact that medicare patients are staying longer in hospitals. Accurding to the American Hospital Association, the average length of stay for patients 65 and over rose more than 15 percent between September 1966-3 months after the medicare program started-and November 1967. Indeed, this trend occurred during a period when the average length of stay of patients under 65 was decreasing. The degree of medical care is linked with income levels, so that when incomes are rising the demand for hospital care also increases.

Another concurrent factor comes from the tendency for recipients of health insurance to overutilize hospital facilities. Insurance against hospital costs is more widespread than is insurance for other forms of health care, and doctors may put patients in a hospital to get treatment rather than arrange for treatment on an outpatient basis because the patients wtll have bills paid for them only if they are in the hospital.

Increased demand for the limited amount of hospital beds, coupled with longer stays for medicare patients, pushes up hospital costs. When patients occupy hospital beds who, from a medical standpoint, could be getting equally good care at home or in an extended care facility, pressures grow for hiking up overall hospital costs, for 'higher medicare taxes, and for higher health insurance premiums. This is reinforced by the relatively lower pay for health facility employees and shortages of personnel.

Tax income for the hospital insurance segment of medicare had to be boosted 25 percent last year-primarily to meet skyrocketing hospital costs. Congress may have to increase these revenues again-and soon-if something is· not done to slow down the rise in costs.

Additional easing of inflationary pressure in the health care area might come from tax law changes. Beginning this year, taxpayers are able to deduct up to $150 toward the cost of health insurance without · regard to the 3-percent limit. Perhaps this allowance should be broadened, increased, and rewritten to give the deduction only if insurance covers both health and hospital care under pro-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE .. 21581 :visions that encourage more_ outpatient care. Outpatient and home_ health care can be included in deductible policies. Such a reform would encourage health .insurers. to offer, and consumers to subscribe to, policies which present ·alterna_tives to hospitalization.

In addition, I believe that a thorough study should be made of possible medicare amendments. Treatment outside hospitals should be encouraged where it is medically feasible.

HOW TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE FOOD PRICES

Food prices were one of the elements that started the 1965 demand-pull inflation. Demand spurted, but supply was not responsive. Wholesale prices of farm products, processed foods, and manufactured animal feeds jumped 9 percent between December 1964 and December 1965. Over the same period, food prices rose 3.5 percent. The inflation carried over into the first three quarters of 1966. Over the. 9 months food prices moved up 4.5 percent.

Even though food price increments are partly explained by the lag between changes in demand and changes in production, food infiation is avoidable. Surely stable food prices could have been expected from the expensive agricultural support programs in which the Government has long been engaged. The jumpy record of food and farm product price movements over the past decade is a searing indictment of farm price supports. Government interference with the market mechanism has caused artificially high prices at the same time that net income per farm has stagnated.

For years we have been talking of ending our muddled agricultural policies. The longer we proscrastinate, the more serious the problem grows. Government price setting has not worked up to now, it is not working today, it will not work in the future. A better approach would be for the Government to clear out of agricultural price-setting altogether. Let supply and demand determine market prices. And instead of inefficient price supports--which pay some farmers and farm corporations up to $500,000 a year not to produce at all-the Government should establish a system of income supports for farmers.

A gradual switchover from price supports to income supports must be aimed at easing any possible disruptive effects on farm income. If we allow agricultural programs to keep growing more expensive while at the same time food price inflation continues, pressure will develop to end all fann . support programs entirely. The just and the unjust would suffer alike. Dislocations from such a move might be disastrous.

Small and family farms still constitute a good proportion of the total farm structure. These smaller producers would be more likely to collapse than would large and corpora~e farms if price supports were suddenly terminated and no alternative support program was offered. Prices and production for all farmers would adjust depending upon elasticities of demand and supply for various commodities. An income support program would be anti-inflationary since it would tend to counteract the spreading market

power of tbe expanding number of corporate farms. The trend toward less total farms and more conglomerate farms throughout the country presents the dim prospect of monopolistic control over .food priees- by relatively few nroducers. Income snpport programs would encourage family farms to remain in operation, thus assuring the existence of a viable agricultural market structure and viable rural communities as alternatives to ur-ban "sinks." ·

Now let us turn to wage-price and antitrust policies.

Some of the recent inflation happened because potential Government tools to combat "cost-push" pressure were not fully wielded. Failure to apply the brakes kept the inflation steaming on faster and faster. As in agriculture, the longer we stall, the harder it becomes to cure. Government already has two strong repressants available which should be employed to cool off inflation. Neither has been used effectively during the current inflation. THE WAGE-PRICE GUIDEPOSTS SHOULD BE REVIVED

First. Once again for 1968 the administration has a:bandoned its previously successful wage-price guideposts policy. As it did in 1967, the Council of Economic Advisers begged off from stating a specific guidepost figure. In fact, the Coun-cil admits that the target of price stability related to productivity changes "cannot be achieved in 1968." In the 4 years that real guideposts operated, price stability was attained. Over that period, the guidepost figure did not stray far from the long-run productivity growth rate of about 3 percent. · When inflationary price increases started in 1966, both labor and industry complained they were being shortchanged by the guideposts. And since the guideposts were touted just as that -alone--as a benchmark-their lack of any real teeth proved faulty as a number of major contract settlements and many price increases rushed past the guideline :figure.

Once the guideposts were broken, instead of attempting to redefine the concept and get price and wage setting back on the right track, the Council backed off completely. No specific guideline number was given for 1967. None was offered this year. In effect, the Council t:P,rew the baby out with the bathwater. No matter how heatedly the administration decreed with the guidelines are not official, imposition of a specific number to be used as an optimal rate of change serves a useful function in focusdng public opinion on inflationary behavior.

Theory here is not overly sophisticated. The Council sets it forth this way:

The only valid and noninfiatlonary standard for wage advances is the productivity principle.

Thus, when productivity advances average 3.2 percent, so should wages. Wage settlements above that average are inflationary. Such settlements should receive some sort of stigma. So should businesses which contribute by pushing prices up beyond a guidepost mark. Certainly there are technical faults with-

in the guideline _system which was used the last few years. It is equally true that the guideposts cannot be the only Government tool to combat inflation. But, specific guidelines did prove to be a factor in holding down price level increases when they were applied. It is imperative that the guideposts be revived~

ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE MORE VIGOROUS

' Second. It is impossible to praise anti-trust policies-which were originally passed with the prime objective of halting improper pricing practices-at a time when price levels are always climbing. Giant industries, with price and production linkages spreading throughout the economy, are dominated by a few firms which often "set" prices that rule an entire sector. In periods such as the last 3 years, when there has been uneven economic performance, businesses with substantial market power tend to maintain profit rates through administered price increases. Real costs may not have changed significantly for these businesses, but they raise prices nevertheless.

A current trend is the development by a rash of mergers, of vast conglomerate companies. The merger movement has reached all-time highs. Larger mergers-involving acquisition of firms with over $10 million in assets-jumped over 50 percent last year in the number of firms acquired, and over 100 percent in aggregate asset terms. So far it has been hard to determine the effects that the merger trend has already had on market prices. It is not hard to predict, though, that continued growth of supercompanies can lead to a situation in which price directions can be guided by a few massive organizations.

Antitrust agencies hold the legal authority to investigate and challenge monopoly and monopolistic tendencies.

That authority is not being utilized aggressively.

Some Government policies may even stimulate mergers. Tax code provisions encourage companies to gain loss-guar·anteed-type businesses for tax gains. Other tax provisions grant multiple surtax exemptions and favor the sale or merger of family corporations.

Concentration · of economic power is dangerous. One threat looming from overconcentration is that of inflation resulting from the loss of competition. The Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 aimed a·t curbing such concentration through traditional antitrust policies. Since then, antitrust agencies have met with success in challenging many vertical and horizontal mergers. Recently, the Supreme Court has broken up a number Of conglomerate mergers. Yet, conglome•·ate mergers still increase at breathtaking speeds. Administered price inflation-based not on demand nor on costs as the key element--may cascade if stronger steps are not taken to hold back the tide of conglomerate mergers. · Other aspects of present antitrust leg

islation could also stand greater scrutiny. To deter violations, the Sherman and Clayton Acts have both criminal sanctions and civil remedies in the form of treble-damage payments. To the extent

21582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968 that these penalties function well, certain related price increases can be averted. When these remedies are weakened and antitrust violations become profitable, price rises are encouraged.

One significant loophole already is known. Tax laws tend to weaken civil remedies by allowing violators to deduct treble-damage payments as ordinary and nec~ssary business expenses. Since the tax rate is almost 50 percent of taxable income, wrongdoers bear only about ha~f the damage costs. The other half IS picked up, in essence, by the Government.

Passage of legislation to disallow the deduction of treble-damage payments would make antitrust violations more expensive by reducing the degree to which the cost can be shifted onto other taxpayers. By diminishing incentives for antitrust violations, one source contributing to inflationary pressures could be eliminated. By its nature, the tax deduction escape is an obscure but powerful inflationary agent. There are others like it. Efforts should be made to trim all such loopholes from antitrust laws.

Wage-price guideposts and antitrust measures are Government's frontline weapons against cost-push inflation. Other Government policies can aim also at diminishing-price-level increases caused by supply and cost factors. LOWERING THE COST OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY

INCREASING THEIR SUPPLY

Much of the price inflation in consumer services is created by low productivity and high wage-rate increases. Another key element in the rise of service prices is the inadequate response to increases in demand, in terms of augmenting the supply of workers.

Many service jobs are in highly skilled fields where education and training programs stretch over long periods. No type of short-run programs can increase the total number of doctors, dentists, and nurses. And, as inflation forces up training costs in these fields, the supply may get even more critical at the same time that demands soar for such services. New Government and private programs-largely massive aids to medical and nursing education-are needed to assist in developing these key service sector positions. The alternative to such programs--which might consist of subsidies to persons qualified to enter the field-is sharp inflation for years to come. At the same time, current manpower development programs should be expanded to increase entrance into other service fields, such as TV and auto repair.

LE'l'TING IMPORTS HELP KEEP PRICES DOWN

Worldwide economic development means that Americans now should be able to purchase more and better low-cost high-quality imported goods. But current U.S. trade policy may hinder the ability to buy these goods.

We know that most import taxes on specific goods get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. The steeper the tariff, the higher the imported good price, and the less of that good can be sold. A high enough tariff looms as more than just a tax. It serves to prohibit

completely the chance of the good to ever reach the market.

Early in our history, tariffs represented a prime source of national revenues. Later, they were used to assist newly growing American industries to survive against foreign competition. But, in terms of American economic development, those days are long gone. Direct taxes have supplanted tariffs as a key revenue source. Technology and productivity advances mean American business is now the world's largest and most profitable free enterprise system. But tariffs still are retained. There is even new talk of hiking up even more some of our nontariff barriers, such as quotas.

Tariffs sometimes are justified as m~ans of solving balance-of-payments problems. However, they are not optional solutions. Once tariffs become levied, rescinding them is a slow and torturous task. Higher American tariffs invite retaliatory actions by other nations. And such retaliation cuts back on our ability to export.

Today, instead of aiding the economy, tariffs are major barriers to stable growth. In reality they are nothing more than direct subsidies to a few favored firms. Because inefficient producers are rewarded, tariffs lead to gross resource misallocations. Market supply is reduced. Overall price levels are forced up.

THE CASE OF PETROLEUM IMPORTS

More sophisticated import restrictions, such as petroleum import quotas, also contribute to higher prices. In 1959, Government initiated a limit on the volume of crude oil imports through a mandatory control program. For just one product-gasoline-total demand has risen 14 percent since 1959, but impo$ are just now reaching 1959 levels.

Petroleum industry profits have been . consistently high. But even though in

dustry risk rates are significant, no justification remains for handing it both a staggering oil depletion allowance and stringent import quotas. The effect of such market constraints is felt dearly by consumers-first, in terms of higher prices and, second, as a result of an inequitable tax structure. Government should reexamine its decisions to subsidize the petroleum industry if it is serious about cutting back inflation.

Oil import quotas are just one of a random number of specific trade barriers which reinforce inflation. Other restraints that help increase price levels include the tariffs or quotas on textiles, agricultural commodities, and chemicals.

The American Selling Price--ASPprovision negotiated for chemical imports needs tot J eliminated quickly. The chemical industry profit picture has brightened since ASP was approved, and implementation of Af!P will cause higher prices at both wholesale an~ retail levels.

INFLATION ISSUES IN THE LONGER RUN

This analysis of recent inflation and its possible cure has penetrated only the surface layers of the problem. But we can perceive the said fact. We have the knowledge and tools to prevent inflation, and we have the knowledge and tools to cure it now. But we have failed to use them. We should change our ways.

In the longer run, when the present in-

fiationary binge has been ended, the Nation, and particularly the Congress, must devote strenuous efforts to develop procedures to enable us in the future to use our knowledge and tools to attain rapid growth and full employment without inflation. We can do it. As I have pointed out:

First. The Government can maintain a reasonable balance, or preferably a modest surplus, at high employment levels, thus avoiding setting off a demand inflation.

Second. The Government can reform the tax structure to produce both a more equitable and a better performing rev-enue system. .

Third. The Government can operate monetary policy in a more stabilized and stabilizing manner.

Fourth. The guideposts for wage-andprice behavior can be revived and the cooperation of the private sector can be gained in their day-to-day implementation.

Fifth. The Government and the private sector can cooperate in removing the bottlenecks in various sectors which would otherwise lead to inflation at high employment levels.

Sixth. The Government can, through vigorous antitrust enforcement, contribute to a more competitive and, hence, less inflationary economy.

Seventh. The Government can, by maintaining open borders to trade, encourage import competition to keep our industries on their toes and competitive in their pricing.

Doubtless there are many additional ways that men of good will and intelligence can find if we devote the resources to the problem. But the basic prerequisites in · the longer run for effecting and maintaining price stability in a full employment economy are a national determination that successful stabilization policy is worth the effort, and the national will to pursue timely adaptations of policy.

Without the political will, all the technical knowledge in the world will be useless. I believe this Nation has learned a lesson. I hope I am right, and that the coordination of public and private policies in the future will lead to a drastically different result than what we have experienced in recent years.

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed with--and we all must be-this list of seven steps which the gentleman feels must be taken and that would be salutary if we did take them to halt inflation.

I was very much struck by the earlier statement of the gentleman that we know what we have to do to stop inflation, and I would agree with this entirely. I think we now do know what to do. The great problem is to do it. And I wonder if the gentleman would agree that the real reason we have inflation, despite all of our economic knowledge, is political, really, rather than economic? The fact is that to get tax action in time, to get tax reform to regulate the supply of credit

-July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ·-· ·HOUSE 21583 properly, to restore wage and price guidelines, to prevent monopolies -from doing the things that they do to raise prices, to get proper trade procedures, all orf these things require us to move in the-face of very powerful political self-interest groups, who want, really, I believe you would have to say, more than their share of the national dividend; they really want things they are not entitled to, and in the process of trying to get them all these groups fighting for this is what really creates an inflationary pressure. And since they do have this power, it is awfully hard to curb them. I wonder if the gentleman would agree with this as a general statement?

Mr. REUSS. I completely agree with the gentleman from Maryland. I believe he has put it very well. The reason we have inflation, and we do, is simply because we lack political will--

Mr. LONG of Maryland. Or self-discipline.

Mr. REUSS. Yes, or self-discipline to arrive at that desirable state of full employment without inflation which the Employment Act of 1946 told us must be the goal of national policy.

The trouble is that with each special interest group scrambling for its share, and a little more than its share, the great body of the citize1;1ry, the ordinary consumer, gets lost in the shuftle.

It is time that someone paid attention to his interest, and this can be done.

We have made great economic strides in recent years. We have shown that it is possible to bring this country out of a recession to something approaching full employment. But we do not seem to have solved the other half of our goalhow to achieve that without producing inflation. The gentleman's calling for a national spirit, that we are going to keep the cost of liv1ng stable, I think, is what is needed and I think we should take it very seriously.

Mr. LONG of Maryland. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin on a very brilliant and masterful job of summarizing the forces which lead to inflation and the problems that face us, in spite of all our economic knowledge, in holding those forces in check.

Mr. REUSS. I am very grateful to the gentleman.

A "BARGAINED" ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND A "DEADLOCKED" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: A PREVENTION FORMULA The SPEAKER pro tempore <Mr.

MuRPHY of New York). Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. GOODELL] is recognized for 30 minutes. ·

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, the United States faces the serious possibility that no presidential candidate will receive a majority of the electoral college votes following the November 5 election. In this event, the election of our next President could come through---:: either a bargained electoral ~ollege or as the aftermath of a deadlocked election in the House of Representatives. A bargained presidential election in the electoral college would be intOlera~le, and

the aftermath of a deadlocked election in the House of Representatives would be undesirable. · ·

Both would seriously impair the effective functioning of our two-party system. Both would endanger the continuity of our Presidential leadership. Both would undoubtedly inhibit decisive Presidential leadership. The lessons of history provide dramatic advice that we should pursue a course which will prevent either a bargained electoral college or a deadlocked House of Representatives.

In 1801, the hotly disputed presidential election of 1800 . recalls the names of two presidential adversaries--Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. When neither man received a majority in the electoral college, the election moved to the House of Representatives where 36 ballots and 7 days were required to elect the 3d President. Charges and countercharges of deals and compromises and bargains odorously filled the air during those 7 days and 36 ballots. The comments of Alexander Hamilton vividly demonstrate the irate tension filling the air:

I trust the Federalists will not finally be so mad as to vote for Burr ... His elevation can only promote the purposes of the desperate and the profligate. If there be a man in the world I ought to hate, it is Jefferson.

Though our system of government survived, there remained unwanted scars of a serious Presidential fight which endangered our Pr~sidentialleadership at a critical point in the early history of our Nation. Time has changed; today's President ia.l leadership must make crisis decisions J aily which touch the lives of all Americans and countless persons throughout the world. The vengeful specter of charges and countercharges cannot be permitted to hang defiantly over the head of our next President while he makes critical and fate-filled decisions in the crisis-torn 20th century.

In 1825 a quarter of a century . later other famous names and faces once again contested for the Presidency in the House cf Representatives following an inconclusive electoral college. Leading in t~ ... e electoral college vote was Andrew Jackson, followed by John Quincy Adams, and William H. Crawford. Henry Clay, a westerner like Jackson, threw his not in-considerable support in the ·· House of Representatives to John Quincy Adams even though Andrew Jackson had received a plurality of both the nationwide and electoral college votes. Supporters of Jackson blamed the defeat of their candidate on the "Judas of the West"Henry Clay-later to be appointed by Adams as Secretary of State. This appointment led to the cry of "corrupt bar.:. g~.in" which could not be silenced. And Adams never quite ov :rcame the handicap of being the candidate who defied the popular will and defeated the people's choice for President.

In 1877, the Civil War aftermath brought the notorious Hayes-Tilden dispute in 1876. Challenges to electors selected in several States caused the Congress to establish an electoral commission to decide the disputes, subject only to disapprov~l by both, Houses of

Congress. The long process of reconciling the · challenges required 31 days before .the final result was announced at 4 a.m. on March 2, 187'7. In the end, Hayes was elected President even though he had received one-quarter of a million fewer popular votes than Tilden. The disputes about presidential electors left an aura of fraud over the 1876 election.

The cause that produced this aura of fraud in 1877 has not been removed to .this day. Indeed, one historian remarks:

The 1876 election ... demonstrated a grave defect in the Constitution: its !allure to spell ou.t exact responsibility for eounting the electoral votes and resolving disputes, so that the resolution of the entire Presidential election can swing on the intrigues and maneuvers in a partisanly motivated Congress, to the detriment of the people and the Presidency alike.-Neal R. Peirce, the People's President. 1968.

In 1888, producin'g no vitriolic results comparable to the elections of 1800, 1824, and 1876, the election of 1888 brought Benjamin Harrison to the White House even though he had received 95,096 fewer popular votes than Grover Cleveland, his opponent. Had Cleveland carried only one additional State-New York-he would have won the election. NEARLY DISPUTED 20TH CENTURY ELECTIONS:

1916, 1948, AND 1960

The 20th century has produced no American President who has been chosen President by the electoral college after suffering a popular defeat nationwide. Three elections, however, have come close to doing this.

In 1916, a shift of one-fifth of 1 percent of the California vote would have elected Charles Evans Hughes over Woodrow Wilson even though Wilson's national popular vote plurality was well over onehalf million. Without a major third party threat in 1916, there was no realistic possibility that both would be denied a majority of the electoral college vote.

In 1948, the election would have led to an inconclusive electoral college and sent the election into the House of Representatives had there been a shift of only 12,487 votes in California and Ohio. The 1948 election also demonstrates how big a role third parties can play in determining the outcome of sizable blocs of electoral college votes in large States. Truman, for example, apparently lost 74 electoral votes in New Yor~, Michigan, and Maryland because Henry Wallace was on the ballot.

In 1960, an election with no significant third par.ty movements, the election could easily have been won by the losing popular candidate with the shift of 8,971 popular votes in Illinois and Missouri. Significantly, however, if a third party candidate had presented a s~rious threat, an inconclusive electoral college would have occurred. Only 35 electoral ·votes, subtracted from the winning candidate's total, would have sent the election to the House of :aepresentatives.

YEAR 19 68 : THE PROBLEM AND THE FORMULA

THE PROBLEM

What 1960 lacked, 1968 possesses: a third party presidential candidate who could poll enough electoral college votes to .deny a .. majority of electoral college votes to either. major presidential candi-


date. The President would · then be elected through either a bargained electoral college or possibly as the aftermath of a deadlocked House of Representatives. Neither alternative is de-:sirable.

The latest polls, taken in July, indicate that George Wallace could capture a small, but significant, portion of the nationwide vote-between 16 and 21 percent-and the electoral votes of several States. His nationwide vote could drastically alter the vote totals in States which have close elections, thus changing the electoral college vote count to favor one presidential candidate over another.

Moreover, Wallace is presently projected to receive at least 47 electoral votes with a possibility of another 44 for a total of 91. In the event of an inconclusive electoral college vote, W·allace has publicly admitted that he would bargain his elector·al votes for certain concessions from either of the two major presidential candidates. In times like these, with critical domestic and foreign problems pressing upon us, we cannot tolerate the perversion of a bargained President. Our next President must be free, based ·upon his mandate fr.)m the American people, to pursue an imaginative and positive course towards eliminating the problems which divide us at home and bringing the peace which eludes us abroad.

If the 1968 presidential election is decided in the House of Representatives after an inconclusive electoral college vote, there would remain a very real possibility that the House -of Representatives would be deadlocked. Since P:t:esidential voting in the House of Representatives is done by State delegation, it is possible that neither the Republican nor Democratic Party would command a majority of 26 of the 50 State delegations necessary to elect their respective presidential candidate.

The machinations essential for one candidate to receive the required majority could so cloud the leadership of our next President that he would be unable to move immediately and constructively to establish himself as the true leader of our Nation in a time of domestic turmoil and. international confusion. A leaderless America would be a divided America, and a divided America would be a weakened America.

The sinister possibilities of this situation behoove us to act as concerned Americans to prevent the undesirable from occurring. Santayana once ;remarked:

Those nations that do not learn the lessons . that history has to teach are -condemned to relive them.

The history of electoral college difficulties leaves no choice but to formulate a plan to prevent another difficulty;

THE FORMULA

It is clear that an undesirable situation could occur at the November 5 election in which no presidential candidate would have a majority of electoral votes. The best course to pursue now is the establishment of a formula for electing the next President without the quandary of electoral college compromise or the fruit-

less and, indeed, harmful exercise of prolonged presidential consideration in the House of Representatives. A plan to avoid the undesirable should be premised upon two sound principles: that the American people have a right to elect their own President without the possibility of the new President's actions being inhibited by electoral college bargains and with the assurance that continuity of our presidential leadership will be maintained. Any plan based upon these premises must be bipartisan in nature to insure its success and also to insure its fairness to the American people. It is with these premises and this thought of fairness in mind that we urge consideration and adoption of a fivepoint formula to elect our next President and Vice President if no presidential and vice presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral college votes.

First. Triggering mechanism. The plan would be invoked immediately after it was clear that no presidential and vice presidential candidates had won a plurality or a majority in sufficient States to command a majority of the electoral college votes as a result of the November 5 election. When this occurs, the newly elected 91st House of Representatives and Senate would, by prior agreement, be committed to electing the respective candidates for President and Vice President who received a plurality of the nationwide popular vote.

Second. Binding device. No candidate or member shall be bound by his pledge until sufficient pledges are given to implement the .. formula."

Third. National conventions. Both major party conventions will be asked to write into their respective platforms an agreement that their party's representatives in Congress should vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates receiving a plurality of the nationwide vote. 'l'he platform pledge would not be binding unless both parties wrote such into their platforms.

Fourth. Support of State party organizations. The various State party organizations will be encouraged to support the pledge and, moreover, to select electors to the electoral college who would not be susceptible to compromising their commitment to their party's presidential candidate in the electoral college.

Fifth. Public opinion leaders. All major sources of public opinion-editors, columnists, educators, business and industrial leaders, and civic organizations, and so forth-will be encouraged to endorse the proposal. ·· This point in the formula together with points two through five are highly important for discouraging electors in the electoral college from electing our next President and Vice President through a bargained electoral college. There is no official mechanism for prohibiting such an electoral college "bargeJn"-hence, the reliance on the relevant points of this formuia. To assist in preventing a bargained electoral college, each presidential and vice presidential candidate will be asked to publicly pledge his support for this formula. · · - It is with deep concern for our Nation's

future that this proposal is offered, hop;;. ing that Americans of all walks of life

will join hands with us to insure the continuity of our presidential leadership in these tumultuous days of national crisis.

GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION, CONSOLIDATION, AND DECENTRALIZATION ESSENTIAL FOR A CREATIVE FEDERAL SYSTEM The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. CULVER] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CULVER. Mr. Speaker, I have joined a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives in sponsoring legislation to reduce the confusion and red tape which the local official faces in dealing with the Federal bureaucracy.

In addition, it is a significant first step toward the essential objectives of reorganizing and consolidating the operations of the Federal Government, to increase the efficiency and economy of Federal programs, and to return as much responsibility, control, and flexibility as possible to the people they are designed to assist.

This legislation, the Program Information Act, wolild require a comprehensive compendium of all Federal assistance programs, to be updated systematically. In addition, it would require the President to make annual recommendations for simplifying and consolidating· guide.:. lines, requirements, and programs.

Mr. Speaker, I represent an 11-county district with over 130 individual communities. As I have worked with local officials, educators, and private citi.:. zens in my district in their dealings with the Federal Government, it has become increasingly clear to me that· nowhere does there exist any logical, complete, and comprehensible source of information about the type of assistance that is available and the method by which you go about obtaining that assistance.

Because of this, only the very largest cities and universities have the staff and research capability to keep abreast of what is going on, much less cope with the Federal bureaucracy.

The rest of the communities, many of which operate with part-time mayors and· local officials who have other job responsibilities, simply do not have the personnel with the time and the money it takes to sit down and figure out what assistance is available to meet their particular needs, to complete the extensive and technical applications, and to follow-through to assure that their request is given just consideration . .

Since I have been in Congress, I have held annual formal meetings with the community officials in every town in my district with a population of more than 1,000. Working together, we have been successful in obtaining sewer and water ·projects, hospital and nursing home grants, library funds, assistance for park acquisition and development, post offices, and other community facilities.

But I am constantly frustrated by the fact that, even after 4 years of this kind of activity, I still cannot offer these people · one single source of information which answers their questions and identifies potential programs of assistance. . The' Office of Economic Opportunity has made a notable effort toward filling

July 16, 1-968 CONGRESSIONAL- RECORD- HOUSE 21585 this information gap, and certainly its Handbook of Federal Assistance Programs is the most meaningful assembly to date. But that handbook, though it is helpful, still excludes many types of assistance, describes others that are no longer in existence or which have not been funded, and above aH, provides such minimal information that it gives the typical official only a vague hint of what might actually be available to him.

Invariably, I return from a series of such meetings with a list of problems and needs which require a number of telephone calls and letters to various agencies and departments just to find out if they have programs directed toward those needs, if they have money in the programs, and how the communities go about seeking those funds if they are available-all of this before the local official even gets an application form to complete.

If those of us in Congress, who deal in the most direct and day-to-day contact with the Federal bureaucracy, are frustrated by the lack of information and confusion that does exist, how much more so must be the small town mayor, or the local principal, or the independent businessman.

Enactment of this Program Information Act will, for the first time, provide the information thE:.se officials and citizens need to seek assistance.

As for Members of Congress, it will not only help in meeting our constituents' needs and.requirements, but equally significantly, it will provide us with meaningful information on which to form sound judgments on legislative programs. It will demonstrate the relative worth of programs in order to set priorities in the allocation of Federal resources. It will help to determine the desirability or need for any new programs that may be proposed. And it will show where programs have outlived their usefulness, and where duplication, overlap, and lack of coordination exist.

Finally, the measure will provide the basic source of information for the Commission on the Reorganization and Management of the Executive Branch, which I proposed in H.R. 11558, a measure I in-troduced earlier in this Congress. . ·

That legislation establishes a commission to study the organization and management of the executive branch of Government in order to ·make changes necessary or desirable in the interest of governmental efficiency and economy, and to insure that they are being administered and implemented with the maximum local initiative, :flexibility, and control.

If we are to have a truly creative Federal system which is responsible and re- . sponsive to the people it serves, then Congress must take positive and emphatic steps to reverse the trends toward Federal domination and bureaucratic confusion. Enactment of both the Program Information Act and the Executive Reorganization and Management Act are urgently needed first steps toward that objective.

Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the RECORD the text of H.R. 18503, the Program Information . Act, and H.R. 11558, the Executive Reorganization and Management Act:

H .R. 18503 A bill to create a catalog of Federal as

sistance programs, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives . of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the

"Program Information Act". DEFINITIONS

SEC. 2. For the purposes of this Act--(a) The term "Federal assistance program"

means any program providing Federal benefits, regardless of whether it is identified as a separate program by law or by any administering agency, which can be differentiated from any other such program on the basis of its legal authority, its administering office, its . specific purpose, the specific benefits it provides, or the specific qualifications of its beneficiaries.

(b) Federal assistance program "benefits" include but are not limited to grants, loans, mortgage loans, mortgage and other insurance, scholarships, other financial assistance, property of any kind, services, technical assistance, and expert information.

(c) A Federal assistance program "beneficiary" includes but is not limited to a State, or grouping or subdivision thereof, county, city, other political body, profit or nonprofit corporation or institution, any individual, or any other potential beneficiary, domestic or foreign, other than an agency of the United States.

(d) An "administering office" is the lowest subdivision of any Federal agency or department that has direct, operational responsibility for a Federal assistance program.

(e) )'Federal agency or department" means any executive department; independent commission; wholly owned Government corporation; board, bureau, office, agency, or other establishment of the Government, including any independent regulatory commission or board; and the municipal government of the District of Columbia.

EXCLUSION ·SEc. 3. This Act does not apply to any ac

tivities related to the collection or evaluation of national security information.

CATALOG OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS SEc. 4. The President shall transmit to

Congress during the first days of each regular session a catalog of Federal assistance programs, referred to in this Act as the ca~aIog, in accordance with this Act. The catalog shall set forth the required program information for each Federal assistance program, summary data and text, supporting addi ... tiona! detail, required reports, recommendations, and other matter as the President may determine.

PURPOSE OF CATALOG SEc. 5. The catalog shall be designed to

assist the potential beneficiary identify all existing Federal assistance programs wherever administered, and shall supply information for each program so that the potential beneficiary can determine whether particular assistance or support sought might be available to him to use for the purposes he wishes.

REQUmED PROGRAM INFORMATION SEc. 6. For each Federal assistance pro

gram, the catalog shall-(1) identify the program. The identifica

tion may include the name of the program, the authorizing statute, the specific administering office, and a brief description of the program including the objectives it is designed to attain.

(2) describe the program structure. The description may include a statement of the eligibility restrictions, the available benefits, and the restrictions on the use of such ben-efits. ·

(3) state the level of funding. This statement may include a tabulation of the appropriations sought, past appropriations, obligations incurred, average assistance given, or other pertinent financial information designed to indicate the size of the program and any funding remaining available.

(4) ·state the costs to the recipient of receiving assistance or support. This statement may include a statement of prerequisites to receiving benefits, and of duties required after receiving benefits.

( 5) identify the appropriate officials to contact. The list may include contacts in both Washington, District of Columbia, and locally, including addresses and teleph one numbers.

(6) describe the mechanics of application. The description may include application deadlines, and the time taken to process or approve an application.

(7) identify related programs. FORM OF CATALOG

SEc. 7. (a) Detailed budgetary information shall be given for each Federal assistance program. Except for budgetary information, similar information for each Federal assistance program may be consolidated.

(b) The program information may be set forth in such form as the President may determine, and the catalog may inculde such other program information and data as in his opinion are necessary or desirable in order to assist the potential program be:Q.eficiary to understand and take advantage of each Federal assistance program.

(c) The catalog shall contain a detailed index designed to assist the potential beneficiary to identify all Federal assistance programs treated to a particular need.

(d) The catalog shall be in all resp<'lcts concise, clear, understandable, and such that it can be easily understood by the potential beneficiary.

SIMPLICATION OF APPLICATION PROCEDURE SEc. 8. The President shall transmit with

the catalog a report setting forth the specific measures taken in the past year to simplify and consolidate the·various application forms and program guidelines a potential beneficiary would use to benefit from each Federal assistance program, and to coordinate, simplify, and consolidate application forms and · program guidelines of one Federal assistance program with application forms and program guidelines of other related Federal assistance programs, admini·stered either by the same or especially by different Federal agencies or departments.

MONTHLY REVISION SEc. 9. The President shall revise the ca

talog at no less than monthly intervals. Each revision-

( 1) shall reflect for each Federal assis·tance program any changes in the program information listed in section 6.

(2) shall further reflect . addition, consolidation, reorganization, or cessation of Federal assistance programs, and shall provide for such Federal assistance programs the program information listed in section 6.

(3) shall include such other program information as will provide the most current information on changes in current funding status,· on changes in organizations administering the Federal assistance programs, and on other changes of direct, immediate relevance to potential program beneficiaries as will most accurately reflect the full scope of Federal assistance programs, and the current organizational structure of the Federal agencies and departments that administer such programs.

(4) may include such other program information and data as in the President's opinion are ne~essary or desirable in order to' assist the -potential program beneficiary to U:Q.derstand and take advantage of each Federal assistance program.

21586 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968 · PUBLICATIO!t BT SUPERINTENDENT OP

DOCt1MENTS

SEC. 10. The Su~tend.ent ol Documents shall ma.ke the catalog and all rev1slons thereof available to the public a.t cost in quantities adequate to meet public demand, providing subscriptions to the catalog and Tevisions thereof in such manner as he may determine.

The catalog shall be the only compendium of program 1nlorm.ation published by any Federal agency or department. For its own use, any department or ag~ncy of the United States may reprint such parts of the catalog, together with such other program inlormatlon, as it may deem appropriate, and may change the form of the catalog in any such reprint, but all the ·program information listed in section 6 as is given in the most recent revision of the catalog shall be retained in any such reprint. All other compendiums of program information are prohibited in order to make the catalog the exclusive source of such program information both for the public and for the program officer.

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS

SEC. 11. The President may delegate any function conferred upon him by this Act to the Director or other personnel of the Bureau of the Budget, with authority for redelegation within that Bureau, but no functions under this Act may be delegated to any other department, agency, or officer of the United States.

AMENDMENT TO BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING ACT, 1921

SEC. 12. Section 207 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 u.s.a. 16) is amended (1) by inserting "(a)" immediately after "Sec. 207.", and (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(b) The Bureau, under such rules and regulations as the President may prescribe, shall prepare the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs in accordance with the Program Information Act, shall prepare proposals on improvements in the catalog so as further to assist tb.e potentia.l program bene:flcia.ry to understand and take advantage of eacih Federal assistance program, and shall make every e.ffort to simpilly and consolidate the various application forms and program guidelines that a potential beneficiary would use to benefit from each Federal assistance program, and to coordinate, simplify, and c,:onsolidate application forms and program guidelines of other related Federal assistance programs, administered either by the same or. especially by different Federal agencies or departments. In order to fac111tate its performance of any function speci:fled in this title, the Bureau of the Budget may- ·

"(1) prepare information for machine processing;

"(2) process information by machine by performing mathematical or logiCal operations thereon, selective retrieval, integration, or other machine operations; and

"(3) prepare for presentation or other use information processed by machine. The Bureau may acquire automatic data processing equipment and retain personnel needed for any activity authorized by the Program Information Act."

TRANSFER OP FUNCTIONS

SEc. 13. (a)) The functions of operating the Federal information exchange system and of preparing the catalog of Federal assistance programs administered prior to the enactment of this Act by the information center of the Office of Economic Opportunity are removed from the Office of Economic Opportunity and shall be adm1n1stered instead by the Bureau of the Budget, not to be delegated therefrom to any Federal agency or depa.rtm.ent. Such personnel, records, property, and unexpended balances of appropriations related to functions under this Act as may be agreed upon between the Director of the Oftlce Of Economic Opportunity and the Di-

rector of the Bureau of the Budget may be transferred from that Oftlce to the Bureau.

(b) .Sections 613 and 635 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 are amended by in~erting "of the Bureau of the Budget" immediately after "Director" each place 1t appears therein. -H.R. 11558 A b111 to establish a Commission To Study the

Organization and Management of the Executive BranCh of the Government, and to recommend changes necessary or desirable in the interest of governmental efficiency and economy Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Executive Reorganization and Management Act of 1967". FUiDINGS OF FACT AND DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEc. 2. (a) The Congress finds that there are more than one hundred and fifty departments, agencies, boards, commissions, bureaus, and other organizations in the executive branch engaged in performing the functions of Government; that such a proliferation of governmental units tends to produce a lack of coordination between them and overlapping, conflict, and duplication of e.ffort among them; that the President and the Congress need additional tools and procedures to exercise better supervision and direction over so large a number of governmental establishments; and that improved organizational structure and managerial techniques would permit the President to carry out more effectively the constitutional mandate that he coordinate and manage the executive branch in accordance with the laws enacted by the Congress.

(b) The Congress declares that it is the responsibility of the President, in conformance with policy set forth by Congress, to administer the executive branch effectively and economically, and that it is the joint responsib111ty of the President and the Congress to provide an executive organization structure which will permit the efficient and economical discharge of the duties imposed upon the President by the Constitution.

COMMISSION ESTABLISHED

SEC. 3. (a) To a.ssl.st the President in the discharge of his constitutional responsibilities, there is hereby established the Commission on the Reorganization and Management of the Executive Branch (referred to hereinafter ~ the "Commission"). The Commission shall be composed of nine members appointed by the President from persons holding office In Government and persons in private ille who are specially qualified by training and experience to perform the duties of the Commission. The President shall designate a Chairman and a Vice Chairman of the Commission from its membership.

(b) Five members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. A vacancy in the membership of the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.

(c) Members of the Commission appointed from private life shall rooeive compensation at the rate of $100 per diem when engaged in the actual performance of duties of the Commission. Members of the Commission who are Members of Congress or · officers of the executive branch of the Government shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services as Members of Congress or officers of the executive branch. All members of the Cammission shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses actually incurred by them in the performance of the duties of the Commission.

(d) For the purposes of chapter 11, title 18, United States Code, a member of the

Commission appointed from private life shall be deemed to be a special -Government employee.

DUTIES OF THE. COMMISSION

SEC. 4. (a) The Commiss1on shall analyze and assess the present organization, ooordinatlon, and management of all departments, agencies, boards, commissions, bureaus, independent establishments, and other organizations in the executive branch to ascertain what modlfl.ca.tions and innovations in their structure and administration are required to realize the purposes of this Act.

(b) It shall be the function of the Commission to-

(1) recommend appropriate reorganizations within the executive branch to retlect present and anticipated needs, capab111ties, and potentialities of the Government and the Nation;

(2) evaluate the extent and quality of coordination between and within organizations in the executive branch in order to propose measures to insure the maximum degree of cooperation and consistency in governmental action; and

(S) appraise the current status of administrative management in the executive branc}?. with a view to proposing reforms and new procedures, techniques, and fac111-ties which will improve the conduct of Government service.

(c) The Commission shall complete its study and investigation eighteen months after the date of its appointment. Within sixty days after the completion of such study and investigation the Commission shall transmit to the President and to the Congress a report of its findings and recommendations. Upon the transmission of such report, the Commission shall cease to exist.

POWERS OF THE COMMISSION

SEc. 5. (a) The Commission shall have power to appoint and fix the compensation of an Executive Director and other personnel as it deems advisable, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter ·51 and subchapter Ill of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.

(b) The Commission may procure temporary and intermittent services of experts and consultants to the same extent as is authorized for the departments by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed $75 per diem for individuals.

(c) To carry out the provisions of this Act, the Commission. or any duly authorized subcommittee or member thereof, may hold Buch hearings; act at such times and pla.ces; administer such oaths; and require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, :records, col'Tespondence, memorandums, papers, and documents, as the Commission or such subcommittee or member may deem advisable. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the Chairman of the Commission, the Chairman of any such subcommittee, or any duly designated member, and may be served by any person designated by such Chairman, or member. The provisions of sections 102 to 104, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C. title 2. sees. 192-194), shall apply in the case of any !allure of any witness to comply with any subpena. or to testify when summoned under authority of this section.

(d) To enter into contracts_ or other agreements with Federal agencies, private firms, institutions, and individuals for the conduct of research or surveys. .

(e) Subject to the requirements of national security, the Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality, information, suggestions, esti-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21587 mates, and · statistics for the purpose of this Act; and each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, omce, independent establishment, or instrumentality is authorized and directed to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chairman or Vice Chair-man.

APPROPRIATIONS

SEc. 6. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as may be required to carry out the provisions of this Act.

COMES NOW SOCIALIZED HOUSING Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I have had

the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives for almost 8 years, and I have always tried to be prudent in my use of the word "socialistic" to describe the Great Society proposals, most of which I have opposed. But, in looking for the proper adjective to apply to the omnibus housing bill, which is now in conference, socialistic is the most fitting term to apply and I think it's time we called a spade a spade.

We have now gone all the way with L. B. J .-H. H. H. in establishing socialized housing as a way of life in America. To be sure the administration has done it by a system of divide and conquer. The bill for example, has 14 different titles, some good, some innocuous, and some downright atrocious. Under the "carrot and stick" method, Members who . supported a few or even many provisions of the bill had to take the bad with the good if they wanted to show their support for any of it.

The second aspect of the "divide and conquer" thesis was to appeal to the sense of compassion, by offering an alleged means of permitting poor people to purchase homes they cannot now afford. I refer, of course, to the scheme to have the other taxpayers of the Nation pick up the "tab" for most of the interest charges on house payments. In some cases, depending on the location and size of the family-it is possible, according to the report of the House Committee on Banking and Currency,. for a family earning as much as $10,000 a year to qualify for subsidized interest payments by the Federal Government.

The report further points out tl.~.at this bill establishes ground rules which include subsidization of 70 percent of the families of the N'ation.

No proposal along these lines was ever advocated even in the worst days of the depression in the 1930's, when millions of Americans were standing in breadlines. That it should be adopted during a time of relative economic prosperity and low unemployment, illustrates more aptly than anything else that the JohnsonHumphrey administration now regards the Federal Government as one gigantic charitable institution.

What this measure will do to incentive

and ambition are impossible to measure, but I fear the worst, and if other welfare programs for the otherwise able bodied are any indication, I fear it for good reason. It appears to me the will, incentive, and moral stamina of people in a kept society-can only deteriorate further under this legislation.

Take the case of a family whose income is $6,900 a year. Assume that in its particular area, this qualifies the family for Federal payment of a portion of the interest charges. Now assume that the breakoff point for Federal subsidies is $7,000 a year income, and that a nextdoor neighbor has an income of $7,100 a year-this family, in almost the same income bracket, gets no subsidy at all. Two predictable developments are within the realm of probability. If the first breadwinner has a chance to be promoted, or an opportunity for new and higher paying employment, he will probably reject it. To accept a higher income would result in loss of eligibility and a financial loss that could result in thousands of dollars over the term of the mortgage. The question automatically evolves, Where do we stop?

The other breadwinner, on t:te other hand, has a direct pocketbook motive to take a slight reduction in pay, if by qualifying for a subsidized home loan he can save thousands of dollars over the term of his mortgage.

And so we have come full cycle back to my original charge of "socialized housing," wherein the ambitious are penalized and the indolent rewarded.

Much more, of course, could be said on the subject including the Treasury being bankrupt. The action this House has taken will be difficult, if not impos-sible, to reverse. The cost over the 40 year ''open ended" authorization is almost incalculable. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be paying an average of $1,000 per unit annually to enable an estimated one-third to one-half million families to become homeowners in the next 3 fiscal years.

Furthermore, even with this free subsidy, the homeowner's equity will not be increased by so much as 1 red cent. That equity will build up so slowly under this plan that at the end of 15 or 20 years, it will be barely enough to cover the additional expense of major maintenance repairs. Thus, we reapproach the European system of cash for appliances and no homeownership ambition.

The number of bureaucrats who will have to be hired to administer this program staggers the imagination. The bill adds two new Assistant Secretariesmaking a total of eight Assistant Secretaries-plus thousands of additional employees and many supergrades for HUD, which was created as recently as November 9, 1965. In contrast is the staid old Treasury Department, still managing to get by with only five Assistant Secretaries.

The inflationary aspects of this bill are self-evident. Can we ready the necessary building sites for 6 million new building units over the next few years, without driving land values out of sight? Can we gather the necessary materials and labor for those units without new wage-cost spirals? Can we compete with

cheap labor around the world without protective tariffs while doing it?

The bill makes a mockery of the congressional mandate to reduce Federal spending. It will send it soaring into the wild blue yonder, and will almost completely dilute the $6 billion cut in expenditures voted by Congress, but which the President has yet to implement. At the same time it provides a bottomless hole into which will pour the additional revenues produced by the 10-percent tax surcharge.

The housing bill is a gateway not to paradise, but to socialism. The only restraint which may slow down our ride in that direction is that the funds must still be appropriated, and· in our present fiscal squeeze there will not be much available. But, even this is designed by the Washington collectivist-planners, to cause the poor to cry betrayal and increase political pressures to open the financial floodgates.

The .questions are can we reverse the tide, and do we have the courage to try? The answer to those questions will be forthcoming next November. When will we learn that every public clamor cannot be satisfied by the public purse; or put another way, when will we learn that there is no such thing as a free house? Somebody always pays.

STRENGTHENING THE GOVERNMENT'S FISCAL ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL Mr. BETTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. BE'ITS. Mr. Speaker, good ac

counting standards based on an accrual system and properly used, could bring about meaningful improvements in the management of Federal agencies, and more effective administration of its activities and programs. Good accounting will pinpoint cost, identify weak and wasteful operations, provide comparative cost data, relate costs to program activities, reflect promptly the results of management and other improvements, point out areas for concentrated attention, and in many other ways show the way to economical and efficient operations.

According to the figures released recently by the General Accounting Office, there is a notable lack of compliance to the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950. In March 1968, th~re were 173 Government agencies whose accounting systems were subject to approval by the GAO. Sixty-one of these agencies had approved accounting systems, while 30 more were under review. At least 58 of the 61 approved accounting systems needed reexamination due to legislation enacted since the time of their approval. An overview of the status of the accounting systems of various agencies will provide highlights of this situaton.

As of June 30, 1967, the Department of Health, Educaton, and Welfare had none of its 12 systems approved and only

21588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE . July 16, 1968

three under GAO review; the Department of Housing and Urbo.n Development had neither its one system aPProved nor under GAO review; the same is true for the Office of Economic Opportunity; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had its one system under GAO review but not yet approved; the Department of Transportation had only four of its 10 systems approved and none of the other six under GAO review; the Agriculture Department had five of its 15 systems approved and three under GAO review; the Interior Department had six of its 17 systems approved and none of the other 11 under GAO review. The Treasury Department-which should be a leader in this etfort since it has joint responsibility with the Bureau of the Budget and the General Accountng Office for fiscal management and accounting procedures--had only four of its 18 systems approved and six under GAO review.

In addiction to that, the process of agency submission of accounting systems is disappointingly slow. My reviewing various hearings and experience with the GAO lead me to conclude this delay is not the fault of the GAO. In the 8 months ending February 29, 1968, a grand total of three systems had been approved by the GAO. If this pace were to continue, it would take another 25 years to receive GAO approval of all systems. This does not take into account the 58 systems which need reexamination right now, as well as the necessary reexamination of all systems approved during that 25-year period resulting from new legislation. Surely, something must be done about this.

I 1nt:roduced H.R. 916.4 last year which, 1f adopted, would be an important step in the right direction. It provides that the Comptroller General will furnish Congress the names and positions of those who are fiagrant in their tardiness to comply with the procedures outllned by the GAO. The Comptroller General does retain .some discretion. Secondly, this bill will oblige the head of any newly created or reorganized agency to consult with the Comptroller General rega:rding the principles, standards, a.nd related requirements for accounting, including legal requirements applicable to public contracts and disbursement of public funds.

The way to insure that no new agency initiates any wasteful procedures 1s to get it on the Iig'ht track before any spending begins. Also, this legislation will forbid any agency from spending public moneys if it does not comply with the procedures outlined by the Comptroller General within '2 years after this bill becomes law. Finally, if the Comptroller General recommends to anY agency changes relating~ etfective control over and accountability for funds, property, and other assets for which that agency is responsible, that agency must report whetHer or not it has complied with that recommendation. I truly feel that all four provisions of this btll are crucial, and will go a long way toward eliminating waste and mismanagement in the Government.

The need to bring about rapid development and approval of accrual accounting

systems prompted me to sponsor H.R. lmprovementll in the. area o! :financial man-12998. This measure was cosponsored b1 agement. There is still too much generalizaCongresswoman DWYER of New Jersey, tion within the Bureau as to its activities in Congressmen WYDLER of New York, this direction and not enough discernible

;results. ERLENBORN of illinois, BROWN of Ohio, 5. The Bureau o! the Budget should begin COWGER of Kentucky, and MYERS of In- a vigorous campaign at all management levels diana,· who also desire to improve Gov- in all departments and agencies to promote ernment economy. management use of cost information result-

It takes a two-pronged approach. The ing from approved accounting systems. first is based on a proposal made re- Greater economy and efficiency in Governcently by the Comptroller General. It ment can be obtained only i! Federal manwould amend the Budget and Accounting agers use their accrual accounting systems

as management tools. Act by requiring the head of each execu- 6. The Civil Service Commission should tive agency t.J transmit a report tO Con- continue its .emphasis on training its finangress on the status of the development cial management, and should maintain close of its accounting system or systems at contact with agencies' managers to be certhe end of any calendar year during tain that the causes offered meet the greatwhich its systems have not been ap- est current need. proved. In addition., each agency would 7. The Civil Service Commission should be required within 1 year following the immediately seek to resolve the problem of

funding the development costs of training approval of its accounting systems to programs. This could be accomplished submit to Congress a repor.t setting forth through a revolving fund, which would perthe manner and extent to which such mit the Commission to spread these costs systems are being used by the agency as over a number of years rather than charging a "management tool and the benefits them against the training conducted during being derived. the current year. The Commission presef:1tly

The second part of the legislation is has a revolving fund for the investigation program, which possibly could be expanded

designed to restrain the executive agen- for this purpose. cies from attempting to put into etfect 8. All departments and agencies should enprograming-planning-budgeting sys- courage :financial management personnel to tems-PPBS-and from preparing budg- attend Civil Service Commlsson or other etary and appropriation requests based proffered training courses ciTected toward upon PPBS until they have developed improvement of their skills, or which can GAO approved cost accounting systems. assist them in strengthening management

operations 1n their areas or responsiblllty. In etfeot, this legislation is intended as 9. Operating management persontlel should an inducement, if not a sanction, upon be encouraged to attend training courses diexecutive agencies. The bill provides that . rected toward better utlUzation o! the finanappropriated funds shall not be used by cial information wlth which they would be an executive agency to prepare budget supplied through an approved accounting

t . t t f i t' system. The Bureau of the Budget should es 1ma es or reques s or appropr a Ions assume responsibility for this activity. based upon PPBS until and unless the 10. Departments and agencies should furagency has in etfect an approved cost nish the General Accounting Office With more accounting system. If the executive realistic target dates tor the submission of branch is · as desirous as it claims to be their accounting systems for approval by the in instituting PPBS, then it will devote · Comptroller General. Target dates should the needed time, effort, and expertise to be set on the basis of the development of develop approved accounting systems. planned programs, and not on Wishful

thinking. Following are the recommendations 11. The goal of accounting system Improve-

contained in the 22d report by the House ments 1s to promote economy and efficiency Subcommittee of the Committee on Gov- through Improved financial management opernment Operations of July 1967. These erating as an integral part of total managerecommendations contain many of the ment. Because of their direct concern With points included in this legislation. I trust matters of economy and etneiency, we beCongress and the agencies will heed lieve that the Appropriations Committees these rec. ommendations and will hasten should give special consideration to requests

by departments and agencies for funds for passage of this legislation: accounting systems Improvement work, tn-

1. The General Accounting Office should eluding more modern systems and more commake an annual report to the Congress sum- petent trained personnel. marizing findings relating to inadequate I would like to submit !or the consld-accounting systems and the progress of . agencies tn developing systems for submis- eration of the House several articles and ston and approval by the comptroller · letters I have received on the need for General. better Federal 1inancial management.

2. The General Accounting Office should Most were submitted by the deans of the continue to circulate among executive agen- schools of business of universities across cies e_xamples of good financial management the country, which illustrate the need for practices. Indications are that this activity the kind of provisions set forth in H.R.

is ;~r~~~iJ'!;:!~al Accounting om.ce is urged 91~4 and H.R. 12998• ~ 1 would ~e to formalize the re~valuation of previously to I_Dclu.de other relevant material on thiS approved accounting systems. Some pre- legislation. . viously approved systems are now inadequate Dr. Ford kindly forwarded this letter because of program ·changes, new manage- to me from a member of his staff: ment techniques, or because they have Dr. D. B. FoRD,

deteriorated through misuse or lack of proper Dean, SclLoo"z of Business Administration, use, or for other reasons. All previously ap- . Texas A. & 1. University, proved systems should be reevaluated on a Kingsville, Tex.: regular cycle of perhaps 4 years, and ap- I thil!k that the Congressman, however, proval Withdrawn or qualified when such ie attempting to eliminate one weakness ·action becomes necessary. which was hardly mentioned by those who

4. Budget examiners in the Bureau o! the seek to improve the accounting procedures Budget should be directed to work more o! the Federal government. Yet, this weakeffectively in persuading agencies to make ness is most grievo~s. I am, of course, re-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD- HOUSE 21589 !erring to the administrative agencies' failure to improve their accounting systems and get them approved.

Mr. K. M. GmSON, Assistant Professor of Business.

-The letters and other material follow: Hon. JAcKSoN E. BET.rs, Ways and Means Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BETTS: Your comments on the importance of accounting systems are well taken. We agree that an effective accounting system plays an important role 1n management's control over, and accountabillty for, funds, property, and other ~sets. It accomplishes this function in a number of ways, such as: (1) segregation of duties to assure accuracy and reliab11ity of records and reports; (2) internal check to assure safeguarding of assets and other resources; and (3) identification and measurement of (a) ineffectiveness of operationsnonattainment of goals which were selected as most appropriate after consideration of all alternatives in the allocation of scarce resources, (b) inefficiency of operationsnonaccompllshment of appropriate goals at least possible cost--that is, not adhering to the concept of minimization of costs, and (c) uneconomical operations-waste, extravagance, duplication, and, perhaps, illegal transactions.

Generally, these matters apply to almost all kinds of management decision making, including those involving financial matters. Your schedules (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOl. 113, pt. 19, p. 26067), particularly the one entitled "Tables of Inefficiency and Mismanagement Compiled from GAO Annual Reports" demonstrate your points well. In this connection, we believe that a well-designed cost accounting system, for example, will identify variances (budget vs. actual, etc.) and by analyses the cause-and-effect relationships may be revealed, and thus related to pollcies, procedures, and practices, which result in waste, unnecessary operations, and soon.

Should you need additional information, please contact me.

ROBERT R. DOCKSON, Dean, School of Business Administra

tion, University of Southern California.

Los ANGELES, CALIF. 90007.

Hon. JACKSON E. BETTS, House oj Representatives., Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: I personally strongly endorse H.R. 9164 and H.R. 1299l3 and feel sure these bills would have the strong support of members of the accounting teaching profession. I am quite familia!.' with both operations and personnel of the GAO and hold it in high esteem as a professional group who are performing very valuable services to Congress, government agencies, and the tax~ payers of our country.

RoBERT H. Mn.Ls, Professor, Accounting, Lehigh University.

BETHLEHEM, PA.

Hon. JACKSON E. BETTs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Sm: In regard to your comments concerning stre1_1gthening the government's fiscal administration and control, on Tuesday, September 19, 1967 and H.R. 12998, I am in complete agreement as to the need and im· portance of having an adequate accounting system prior to the implementation of a planning-programming-budgeting system.

I, along with five colleagues, am currently investigating various PPBS training programs, publications, etc. The purpose o! this i~vestigation is to detertnine the prerequisites for a PPB system and the procedures

CXIV--1360-Part 16

necessary for the implementation of a PPB System.

In our limited research to date we have found, in our opinion, entirely too little emphasis given to the accounting system. This has been particularly true of training programs conducte~ by various federal agencies fo~; federal employees. At the same time we have found various states proceeding with caution in implementing PPBS because existing accounting systems are inadequate. Federal announcements, publications, correspondence, and training programs are replete with references to "costs," but virtually no reference to the accounting' system which will be used in determining "costs.".

Mr. CHARLES T. ANDREWS, CPA, Assistant Professor, University oj Missouri.

COLUMBIA, Mo.

Congressman JACKSON E. BE'l"l'S, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: I have read with considerable interest the two bills (H.R. 9164 and H.R. 12998) which you have introduced into the COngress. I am fully aware of the problems which the General Accounting Office has encountered in getting governmental agencies to adopt acceptable accounting practices. I feel. that the two bills which you have introduced will help to force compliance with the recommendations of that office, and are, for that reason, highly desirable.

All of us appreciate movements toward efficiency of operation 1n our governmental entities, and for that reason I strongly endorse the two bills which you proposed to introduced.

WACO, TEx.

EMERSON 0. HENKE, Dean, Baylor University.

Hon. JACKSON E. BE'l"l'S, House ·of Representatives, W.a..shington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: As an accounting teacher having a specific interest in the field of governmental accounting and fiscal affairs, I have reviewed carefully H.R. 9164 and H.R. 12998. While I have not done any specific research in this area of Federal fiscal accounting and responsibillty, I do feel that as a professlonal accountant and as a private citizen that the above mentioned bills are extremely meritorious; and it is urged that favorable Congressional action be taken at the earliest practicable ·time. I, therefore, o:ffer my full support in your efforts on behalf of these bills.

HENRY KEY, Chairman and Professor, Accounting

Department, Texas Christian University.

FORT WORTH, TEX.

Hon. JACKSON -E. BE'l"l'S, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: I have reviewed H.R. 12998 and H.R. 9164. The objectives of each of these bills appear to be sound and their enactment and implementation should serve to · move our governmental agencies to sounder administration. Without a,dequate data efficient administration is quite difficult. Your bills would appear to be a step 1n the right direction.

W. C. FLEWELLEN, Jr., Dean, Mississippi . State University.

STATE COLLEGE, MISS.

Hon. JACKSON E. BE'l"l'S, Ways and Means Committee, Hous·e of Rep

resentatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETTS: Dean William

Voris has asked that I reply to your letter regarding your two bills, H.R. 9164 and H.R. 12998. Your efforts to extend the effectiveness of cost-based accounting to all agencies

in the Executive Branch are certainly commendable. If successful, they should result 1n substantial political social and economic benefits.

TUCSON, ARIZ.

EDWARD 8. LYNN, The University of Arizona.

Hon. JACKSON E. BETTs, House a/Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BETTS: While I am only partially professionally educated in accounting, I found your materials on- H.R. 9164 and H.R. 12998, •and the text of the Bills Interesting and understandable. Associate Dean Joseph Ford, and Professor Richard Beers, Head of our Accounting Department, who are professional accountants and students of cost accounting theory reviewed the Bills a.t my request.

Dean Ford said, "Concur wholeheartedly! Departments and/or agencies must use a cost system which has approval of the Comptroller General I No funds should be allocated to those that do not have the approval on or before a certain date."

Professor· Beers said, ''Two things are inconceivable to me:

· "1. That so many agencies and departments are apparently not conforming with GAO requirements.

"2. That there could be any opposition to either of these two bills (H.R. 9164 and H.R. 12998).

"There can be no such things as accountability without good accounting."

"We wish you well in your efforts to gain passage of the Bills.

Sincerely, JAMES M. PARRISH,

Dean, Drexel Institute of Technology. PHILADELPHIA, PA.

[From the Journal of Accountancy, August 1967]

LocAL GovERNMENT AccoVNTING: IT's Youa RESPONSIBll.ITY, Too

(By Bruce Joplin) The electo.mte and government officials are

faced with the most difficult task of allocat .. ing a limited amount of tax dollars to an apparently unlimited demand tor those dollars. Accurate measurement of government functions and programs will become increasingly important as the scope of activities broadens. The need for developing a framework based on quantitativ.e data by which the electorate may evaluate and choose on some objective basis from among the various programs of government is most urgent. As will be demonstrated later, the method by which government accounts are typically maintained prevents the accurate accumulation of costs by program, much less a quantitative measurement of the benefits derived from programs. ·

Strict adherence to fund structure ln reporting government activities precludes the ~urate compilation of costs by function because the expenses relative to any given program are usually spread among numerous funds. The consolidation of funds appears to be the only way to insure an accurate accumu1atlon and reporting of costs.

REFORMS NEEDED If accounting in government is to meet the

needs of legislators, the public and operation management and at the same time fulfill statutory requirements, significant progress must be made in a number of areas. Too often, reforms in government accounting practices are piecemeal. They are not designed with broad, predetermined, valid objectives in mind. The following gives the direction in which I believe government accounting must progress:

1. Government accounting must become multi-dimensional. The government accountant must accept responsib1llty for in-

21590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· HOUSE July 16, 1968 ternal · and external reporting of financial information in addition to his traditional re· sponsibility for reporting on compliance with legal requirements.

2. The primary accounting system must be based on accumulating and reporting costs by function. The present method of reporting first by fund and then by object must be relegated to a secondary position.

3. A method of measuring and reporting benefits in some objective manner must be developed. Here the government accountant finds his greatest challenge because there is no easy way to measure the benefits of service functions such as parks provided by the state or police protection provided by the city.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 4, 1967] No-ACCOUNT FEDERAL ACCOUNTING

Eleven years ago Congress took a look at all the money the Government was spending, and at the antiquated, helter-skelter accounting systems most Federal agencies were using. Alarmed by what it saw, it amended the Budget and Accounting Act to require the agencies to adopt up-to-date, cost ac· counting systems.

At the time, in 1956, annual Federal expenditures totaled about $66 billion and the public debt stood at $273 billion. This fiscal year, spending is expected to reach about $143 billion and the debt may exceed $335 billion.

However, of the 173 Federal agencies subject to the law requiring them to set up Government Accounting Office-approved, modernized accounting systems, only 61 have complied. And most of those are small agencies with small budgets.

The big agencies are still dragging their feet, for the most part using what are called obligation accounting systems. These show the amount of money agencies are authorized to spend, but fail to show the actual costs of particular programs or operations.

Properly designed cost accrual accounting systems, on the other hand, provide not only better control over funds but also up-to-date cost data on operations. They help to deter· mine whether money is being spent wisely and used efficiency, and whether results justify the costs. Adequate cost accounting systems, says the U.S. Comptroller General, are "basic and fundamental to the whole operation of the Federal Government."

If that is so, perhaps it helps to explain some of the deficiencies evident in Federal agency operations. The Health, Education and Welfare Department, for instance, has 12 accounting systems subject to GAO approval; the number so far approved is zero. HEW has been found, by GAO, to be guilty during fiscal 1966 of inefficient record-keep· ing and property management.

The Agriculture Department has 15 accounting systems subject .to approval; only five have been approved. Interior has 17 sys· tems with six so far approved. A:nd Treasury, which surely ought to be setting an examP.le, has only four approved systems out of 18.

Rep. Jackson Betts of Ohio is leading a move in . the House to compel all agencies to speed up the accounting reforms they were obligated by law to adopt 11 years ago. Since no-account Federal accounting tends to breed no-account Federal programs, that move deserves full Congressional support.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D.O., November 6, 1967. Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, Chairman, Committee on Government Op

erations, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: Your letter of October

3, 1967, requested our views regarding H.R. 12998, a bill to require disclosure by each executive agency of the status of development of its accounting system for the imple·

mentation of planning-programming-budge:ting systems.

The l>roposed new subsection (d) for section 113 of the Budget and Accounting ProCP.dures Act of 1950, as proposed in the bm, would implement in principle the concepts we expressed in a letter to you on March 14, 1967, B-115398, copy enclosed. That letter dealt with the question as to what practical steps could be taken to establish a higher priority in the executive branch agencies to develop accounting systems meeting the re· quirements of the Comptroller General. We bP.lieve that the proposed new supsectlon (d), requiring agencies to report to the Congress each year if their accounting system is not approved, as stated in the proposed bill, would be satisfactory itS a means o~ keeping the Congress 'informed regarding action be- . ing taken by Federal agencies in the develop· ment and implementation of their financial management systems. Although the bill does not specify the general content of such agen· cy reports to the Congress, we believe the matter of content can be adequately cared for through the regulations which would be issued by the Bureau of the Budget after consulting with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller General.

We are in accord with the objectives of H.R. 12998, namely, to achieve compliance with the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act and to encourage the development and use of adequate, reliable, and useful budgeting and accounting systems that recognize ·accrual concepts so that actual costs will be disclosed to all levels of management and to others who are concerned. However, we have serious reservations regarding the desirability of en· acting the proposed subsection (e) that would be added to section 113 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, as stated in H.R. 12998. This proposed subsection provides that "No appropriated funds may be used 'l)y an executive agency to prepare budget estimates or estimates or re· quests for appropriations based on planning· programming-budgeting systems or methods unless suc):l agency has had approved its accounting system or systems by the Comptrol· le:<' General • • • ." ·

It is well recognized that each agency during recent decades necessarily must have been involved in planning, programming, and budgeting work as a matter of internal operations and as a matter of preparing and justifying a budget for the President to present to the Congress, although the extent and adequacy of this work may have varied between agencies. We do not see how an agency could prepare a budget request for the President to send the Congress unless such agency did appropriate and extensive planning, programming, and budgeting. Presumably, the bill as now drafted, as it relates to this matter, is directed to the specific planning-programming-budgeting system that has been given wide attention in Government circles during the past 2 years. This particular system, in essence, provides increased emphasis on the analytic and documentation processes that should precede a.nd support requests to the Congress for legislative authorization for new programs and for appropriations. The requirement for more specific and detailed planning and documentation for not only the current year but for a 5-year span may be considered as a new requirement established by the President. We believe that the actual application of

. sound planning, programming, and budgeting serves as one significant meaiis of reducing the costs of Federal programs, and therefore such applications should be encouraged.-

The planning, programming, and budgeting system and the accounting system of an agency are in reality interlocking parts of the overall financial management system of an agency. In fact, the planning and budgeting concepts adopted and used by an agency es-

tablish financial information needs that are to be supplied by the accounting system. Therefore, budgeting and accounting systems, including concepts used and a'ccount classifications established, have to be developed in harmony with each other. This concept was recognized in the principles and standards for accounting prescribed by the Comptroller General, wherein provision to accommodate the requirements of the President's planning-programming-budgeting system has been mad·e a requisite for approval of agency accounting systems.

If the development of a good budgeting system is to be handicapped by lack of funds for proper development, the related accounting system may fall short of- being appropriate, adequate, and fu,lly useful to management. The lack of funds for staff for adequate attention to planning, programming, and budgeting would, in effect, constitute an inpediment to the creation and implementation of modern accounting systems that are properly related to, and support, modern budgeting concepts and techniques.

Thus, we conclude that under H.R. 12998 an agency would find itself in the dilemma of trying to develop an adequate, modern, useful accounting system without being able to concurrently develop the related adequate, modern planning and budgeting system. Acconiingly, we believe that the executive agencies would be handicapped through enactment of lines 13 through 18, page 2, of H.R. 12998, and that those lines should be deleted from the bill.

We will be glad to meet with you and members of your committee and staff to discuss our views on this matter.

Sincerely yours, ELMER B. STAATS, Comptroller General

of the United States.

A TRIDUTE TO RALPH ROESSLER

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is a rare

and joyous occasion for a man to see a dream of many years become a reality. Such an occasion is now approaching for a personal friend and constituent in north central Indiana. He is a charter member of the Kiwanis Club of Marion, Ind., an organization which marked its golden anniversary 2 months ago.

Twenty-nine years ago Ralph Roessler was giving thought to various projects the service club could adopt. The idea came t" him that the club might initiate an effort to establish a reservoir on the Mississinewa River north of Marion. The reservoir could aid in flood control and provide a center for area recreation.

It turned out to be quite an idea; one which resulted in the establishment of more things than one reservoir. In his efforts to arouse support for the project Roessler pointed out it was but one of many potential projects which would be of great benefit to Indiana. He is a persuasive individual. Within 5 years a bill had been introduced into the State legislature and signed into law by the Governor, a bill which created the Indiana Flood 'control and Water Resources Commission. Aimmg the original board members was, of course, Ralph Roessler.

July-16, · 1968. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 2159f In the early ·1940's a group of repre-·

sentattves from cities in north cent:ral Indiana met to consider approaches· to :ftood control problems along the upper

~fb:'as01~~e f:r:a~n v~¥e~eTh.JP~:; Wabash River Association. Its first president, Ralph Roessler. Officials of this group later met with o:tncials of the Lower Wabash Valley · Association. Both decided their goals were the same if their geography was not. The groups merged into the Wabash Valley Association, an organization spread over Indiana and Tillnois. Its first president was Ralph Roessler.

The combined efforts of the organization, the flood control commissions of the two States and the congressional delegation made up of members whose districts included portions of the Wabash Valley began to show results.

Ralph Roessler's dream of a reservoir on one river in north central Indiana became a resenioir complex involving three rivers and three reservoirs.

The reservoir he dreamed about on the Mississinewa River will be completed before autumn bows to winter this year. It will be in full operation next year. It has already seen service in the field of its primary purpose, flood control. A secondary benefit, its use as a recreational center, will be in full utilization a year from now.

But Ralph Roessler has done more than spearhead a major conservation effort in the Middle West. His refusal to accept defeat, his persistence in the face of great odds, his patience when faced with misunderstanding, all of these and · more have been an inspiration to me and the many others he has worked with through the years. He has proven that his dream of three decades ago was not an impossible dream.

on us. It is imperative that the Congress pass remedial legislation this year.

H.R. 16593 makes sure that no nation would suffer a severe reduction in its level of immigration to the United States as a result of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The bill provides that a ":floor" shall be established for every nation, based on its average level of .immigration to the United States during the decade prior to the enactment of the 1965 act. The :floor would in no way be based on the former quota, but only on the actual numbers which came in during those years. The bill provides a floor, equivalent to 75 percent of the annual average level of immigration during the 1956-65 base period, or 10,000, whichever is less. To the extent that immigration falls below the floor for a given fiscal year, extra numbers will be provided the following year, so that total immigration equals the established floor.

H.R. 16593 is not in anyway a reversion to old national origins quota system.

Under the 1965 act the immigration preferences are drawn in such a way that much of the potential immigration from several countries in Western Europe, which cannot meet the qualifications, is screened out. This is no more equitable than the old explicit national restrictions, which screened out Asians and Africans.

If the State Department's projections at the time the 1965 act was considered had been accurate, it would not be necessary to take remedial action at this late date. The Congress was assured that under the provisions of the new act. Ireland would be able to qualify for about 5,200 places a year.

However, it has simply not worked out that way. Irish immigration dropped to about 1,800 in 191>6 and 1967. With the 1965 act now fully in effect, the state Department has estimated that the rate of Irish preference immigration during

IRISH IMMIGRATION the next year will be only about 600. In RESTRICTIONS the interest of equitable treatment this

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- must not be permitted to happen. mous consent to extend my remarks at The Committee on the Judiciary has this point in the RECORD and include ex- had many months to .consider a means of traneous matter. remedying this problem. Although my

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there bill has some 35 cosponsors, I have no objection to the request of the gentleman particular pride of authorship. I -only from New York? ask that a bill be reported out this session

There was no objection. that will insure that no nationality group Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, some 36 Mem- be severely harmed by the unintended

bers of the House have introduced iden- effects of the 1965 act. tical legislation to overcome unantici- I include at this point in the RECORD pated and inequitable effects of the Im- the very cogent testimony of John Colmigration and Nationality Act of 1965 lins, national chairman of the American by establishing a floor under the 1m- Irish National Immigration Committee, migration levels from every nation . . As before the Subcommittee on Immigration the primary sponsor of this . bill, H.R. and Nationality of the House Committee

~ 16593, I am anxious to see this legisla- on the Judiciary on July 3, 1968. tion acted upon by the full House. our I am sure that ·my colleagues will find working deadline of July 1, when the · the arguments persuasive, and I hope 1965 act went fully into effect_, has al- they will join in support of prompt conready come and gone. Immigration from gressional action to remedy the inequity: Ireland, the COUntry most seriOUSly af- STATEMENT 07 JOHN P. COLLINS, B.EFORE SUB-fected by the 1965 act iS expected to COMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE JUDICIARY .COM-decline to one-tenth of its traditional MITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, level. A hearing held by the Subcom- JULY 3• 1968

mittee on Immigration and Nationality In December 1965, a new u.s. Immigration of the Judiciary Committee on July 3 to and Nationality Act became law. It was the

hope of all that these amendments would consider · H.R. 16593 and similar pro- result in a fair and equitable u.s. imm1graposals has not resulted in further action. tion policy. There can be no questio~ that Now the deadline of adjournment is up- the previous law was unfair to many nations.

Some nations had no quotas at all and others were so small that they were conSistently oversubscribed. The United States was more than generous to Ireland over the years t:n matters of immigration and hence the American Irish inade no protest when the u.s. sought to correct the discrimination against other nations. All truly hoped for a !alr lm.migration policy toward all.

Unfortunately the new law In attempting to cure the discrimination of the old law, has now saddled Irishmen (and Q,Uite possibly · other nationalities) with an inequitable and unfair U.S. immigration policy. U.S. immigration is on the rise. One country's immigration to the U.S. increased by 200% in one year alone. Meanwhile the number of Irish permitted to enter the U.S. continues to decline not because the Irish don't wish to come here but because they are barred from entry.

Irish immigration to the United States-(Embassy statistics-Dublin)

1964 --------------------------·----- 4, 619 1965 ------------------------------- 4,004 1966 ------------------------------- 1.741 1967 ------------------------------- 1,798

The American Irish community is shocked by the drastic effects of the 1965 Act on Irish immigration to the U.S. and stands to receive a further shock after June, 1968 when the law goes into full effect.

OUR GOAL

The American Irish, all 30,000,000 of them are not seeking to encourage Irishmen to come here. But they do seek as American citizens and voters that those Irishmen who desire to come and settle in the U.fi. be given that opportunity subject to reasonable regulations and they do seek the same equality of opportunity in immigration that otb,er nations now share ln.

To this end, the American Irish National Immigration Committee was formed. Having headquarters in New York and chapters throughout the U.S. it seeks a fair, just and equitable U.S. immigration policy.

THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS Be it right, wrong or indifferent Ireland,

England and Germany for many years pro.- · vided the bulk of immigrants to this country. These three countries had the largest quotas under the old law. Much of Ireland's quota went unused in recent years but Irish immigration to the U.S. did average betweeen 5,000 and 7,000 a year in recent years.

First, since the new law went into effect, Irishmen (literally by the thousands) who want to come here and who formerly could come here are being deprived of visas. This is

·while immigration to the U.S. from some other countries in the Eastern Hemisphere is at an all time high. This situation is due in part to the new law itself and in pa.rt due to the Labor Depe.rtment regulations established pursuant to the law.

Secondly, a.fter June 1968, Irish immigration to the U.S. will drop to less than !our hundred. a year. This will be not because Irishmen dont want to come here but because they won't be issued visas. At the sam.e time immigration from certain other countries will be 20,000 a year. Ireland's faJte and punishment is a far cry from the privileged position she held prior to December 1965. This second problem is due to the 1965 amendment8 to the lmJ:nigration and Nationality Act.

WHY THESES PROBLEMS FOR IRELAND

The new immigration law eliminated the national origins quotas, promoted the reuniting of familles and proteoted American _ labor With a few strokes of the pen. Each of these aims' is good and is worthy of our support.

Ireland, England and Germany enjoyed a privileged position in U.S. imm.lgration prior to 1965 parti .. any because of the number of immigrants contributed by them in earlier

21592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968 years. Now all nations will have to compete equally for U.S. immigration numbers. This is good, except that the terms for competition are fairer to some nations than they are to others.

It is now evident that when the new law was drafted, there was a failure to anticipate the effect that the new law would have on the formerly so called "privileged countries" and in particular Ireland. Overlooked was the sociological pattern of immigration in these CO\lntries and history of the country's immigration.

THE FAMILY PREFERENCES

The new law provides for a system of preferences based on family relationship and skills. These are of little help to Ireland, while they are of much help, particularly the family relationship preferences, to other nations. Out of the 1904 visas issued in Ireland between December 1, 1965 and March 31, 1967 only 499 were of the family preference type and 435 of these used by brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.

Ireland's immigrants to the U.S. have traditionally been of the nonpreference unskilled variety. The argument has been put forth that the reason for this was that Ireland had such a large quota, that it was easier to obtain a non-preference visa than to file for a preference. Recent statistics however would destroy that argument. Analyzing Irish families, one finds that a few brothers and sisters from the family emigrate while others remain at home. The mother and father remain at home. The Irish emigrant is generally young, unmarried and hence brings no spouse or children. It is the rare case in recent times when a whole Irish family emigrates to the U.S. Thus Ireland's sociological pattern of immigration does not permit it to compete equally with some other nationalities for family preferences.

THE PROFESSIONAL PREFERENCE

In the first sixteen months under the new law only 11 Irishmen qualified for visa preferences as professionals or needed skills workers. This is in part due to training and to the economy of the country. In this area

·Ireland is the hardeFt hit of the three formerly "privileged countries." However it should be noted that unlike many other nations of the world, Ireland was never the recipient of substantial U.S. foreign aid.

Thus these two preferences the third and the sixth are of little help to Ireland. Of course it may well be better that professionals and skilled workers remain at home in Ireland as in any technologically developing nation.

SECTION 212(a) (14)

The majority of Ireland's contribution of immigrants has always been in the unskilled labor area and will be until June, 1968. They came here to better their lives economically and in turn hopefully they bettered the nation. At least we know they contributed heavily to the independence and security of this nation down to this very day in Vietnam.

Until December 1965, the Irish unskilled immigrant had little trouble in entering the U.S. He or she could enter unless the Secretary of Labor said no. Now under the revised Section 212(a) (14) the immigrant can't enter unless the Secretary of Labor says yes. American Irish long active in labor unions as well as all Americans are desirous of protecting American labor and want to see no American worker put out of a job as theresult of any immigrant coming into the U.S. But is section 212{a) (14) necessary in its present form and is it accomplishing its in-tended purpose? .

Immigrants add but a tiny fraction to the total U.S. labor force, so our government officials tell us. In the last seven months of fiscal year 1966 about Ys (slightly over 10,000) of the total U.S. immigrants were of the nonpreference v·arlety. This is certainly a small

number (considering that close on 34,400 American born workers enter the labor force every four days). While at the same time up to 153,000 immigrants in the preference categories can come into the U.S. each year and are free of any labor restrictions. They can take any job they want and put any American worker out of a job. The law seems overconcerned with the small remainder. This small remainder must comply with section 212(a) (14). New seed ~mmigration is being eliminated and the U.S. will be the loser.

LABOR CERTIFICATION

From July to November 1965, the last five months that the old law was in operation 2,338 in the non-preference category emigrated from Ireland to the U.S. During the sixteen months from December 1965 through March 1967, under the new law 1109 nonpreference Irishmen entered the U.S. Some Congressmen have termed the situation deplorable. The Labor Department regulations have done little to help and much to hinder. The recent changes made by the Labor Department were of little or no help to the Irish and the statistics bear this out.

SCHEDULES A, B, AND C

The jobs that the Irish tr·aditionally took when they came here are on Schedule B, the prohibited entry list. One can seriously question whether there is an actual nationwide oversupply of workers for all jobs listed on Schedule B. One can also question the method and procedure by which such jobs come to be listed on this schedule. Certainly supply and demand for jobs may vary from locality to locality and from time to time. Whether the jobs listed on SChedules A and C are the sole ones for which there is a demand for workers can be seriously questioned.

THE DEFINITE JOB OFFER REQUIREMENT

The obvious truth is that employers do not want to hire workers sight unseen. Our country was built with new seed immigrationindividuals who had no close relatives here but who were willing to come here and work hard for a better life. I! an applicant desires to come here and work in a job category which has been certified as having no oversupply of workers, then he should not be required to do the impossible, to find an employer who will hire him sight unseen.

Three out of the five reasons given by the U.S. Embassy, publin for the decline in immigrant visas issued, dealt with the definite job offer requirement, l~bor schedules and labor certification.'' ... there is no doubt that section 212(a) (14) of the Act was caused a decrease in Irish immigration to the United States. As many Irish visa applicants are ulliSkilled or semi-skilled workers, they are unable to qualify under Section 212(a) (14) as amended."

June 30, 1968-Irish Inunlgra.tlon Comes to Ali End Under the new law up to 170,000 immigrants can enter from the Eastern Hemisphere each year. These 170,000 members are allocated among the seven preferences. No numerical amount is assigned to the non-preference category, only the left overs. Not only has no provision been made for nonpreference immigrants but the future does not augur well for new seed immigrants not only from Ireland but from all countries. Ir.eland stands to suffer worst of all for over 68% of her immigrants are of the non-preference variety and traditionally have been such. Since the new law went into effect 1109 out of 16i9 visas issued in Ireland went to non-p11eference immigrants.

The Visa Office projections estimate that for .fiscal year 1969 there will be only 3,200 non .. preference visas available for the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Others estimate that co~e July 1968 no visas wlll be available for non-preference immigrants.

The non-preference category becomes eligible for visas only when numbers 'are left

over and unused in the preference categories. Despite the fact that each nation is limited to 20,000 immigrants a year there are at present backlogs in the third, fifth and sixth preferences in 34 countries. There is a backlog · in the non-preference category in 39 countries.

While Ireland is of course technically eligible to share in any non-preference visa numbers that are available, it must be remembered that the visas will be issued on a first come, first served basis. Some other foreign nationals have immigration petitions filed as far back as February 1, 1955. Ireland has never had a backlog and her immigration is current, at least until July 1968. Then her immigrants must get on line behind other nationals whose countries' have backlogs and who have had petitions on file for years. It may be years if ever before an Irish non-preference immigrant again enters the United States. All because the U.S. chose to change its philosophy of immigration.

Thus in an effort to cure the old inequity, the burden has been placed on Ireland, the nation least able to complete. She has little or no immigrants who can qualify for a preference and her non-preference immigrants won't be able to enter. To give equality to others she is being made to suffer. A truly unfortunate state of affairs.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES

Beginning in September 1966, the American Irish Immigration Committee drew the attention of Senators, Congressmen and government agencies to the fact that the 1965 Immigration Law was discriminating to Ireland in effect. The committee requested that Senators, Congressmen and government agencies examine the situation and that legislative hearings be scheduled. Early in 1968, the State Department wrote to the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate informing them of existing proble~s under the new law. On April 3, 1968 Subcommittee Number 1 of the House Judiciary Committee began hearings on the operation of the 1965 law. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to follow a similar course of action.

As of April 1, 1968 more than 30 bills to amend the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act had been introduced by Senators and Congressmen. Included among these were bills advocating:

1. Amendment of section 212(a) (14) to read as it did prior to December 1965.

2. Amendment to eliminate the definite job offer requirement.

3. Special legislation to eliminate immigration backlogs currently existing in many nations.

4. Amendment of section 101(a) (27) (D) to permit entry of religious sisters and brothers, with relative ease.

5. Amendment of sections setting up the various preferences and transferring sonie to the classification of immediate relatives who may enter without numerical limitation.

These proposed changes are worthy of our support in the development of a more equitable law toward all nationalities. But most of the above proposed changes would not in and of themselves remedy the discrimination against the Irish.

H.R. 16593, introduced by 23 Congressmen • on April 10, 1968, does seem to alleviate the present restriction on Irish immigration to the U.S. At the same time it applies to all nationalities and seems eminently falx: to each.

Along those lines we have heard various rumors that the Irish Government is in favor of the present law, that the Irish Government is not in favor of a change which is embodied within H.R. 16593. I tell the distinguished Members of this Committee today that those rumors are false, they are despicaqle rumors. We have it on good authority from the Irish Government that the Irish Government is not in favor of the continua-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD- HOUSE 21'593 tion of the present United States immigration policy and that it has no objection whatsoever to the passage of H.R. 16593. The Charge d'Affaires in Dublin, Ireland, was so informed by the Irish Government last Friday morning, and the Irish Ambassador to the United States was so instructed by his government.

Simply explained, it plooes a "floor" on immigration from each country. This "floor" would be equal to 75% of a country's annual average immigration during the 10-year period 1955 to 1965 with a maximum floor limit of 10,000 for any country. In the case of Ireland, this num·ber would be 5,390, e.g., If in 1968 1,000 Irish immigrate under the present law, under the new formula an additional 4,390 Irishmen could immigrate to the U.S. in 1969 and they would not be subject to the present labor restrictions.

I am sure you will remember the words of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Celler, on April 1, 1968, when he said that he saw no reason why a bill couldn't be passed in ten days admitting between five and ten thousand Irishmen. I am sure you are also aware of the statement of Commissioner Farrell that he saw no objection to the present bill.

With reference to H.R. 16593, our request is that you convene an executive sess~on today and that it report a bill to the Judiciary Committee by Monday and that you, Mr. Chairman, send a letter to the Rules Committee that you intend to introduce a bill before Congress adjourns.

In addition to Congressional amendments, Labor Department revision of regulations is needed in the following areas:

(1) Re-examination of job schedules now and periodically.

(2) Issuance of one schedule only-a "prohibited" job list issued on a regional basis.

(3) Re-examination of procedur~s used for placing occupations on job schedules.

(4) Promulgation of these procedures and the resultant findings each time a job schedule is amended.

(5) Elimination of the definite job offer requirement. IMMIGRATION TO UNITED STATEs-STATISTICAL

CHARTS

CHART 1.-U.S. immigrant visas issued, world-Wide (fiscal year July 1 to June 30)

1963 ----------------------------- ·291,936 1964 _______________________ .,: _____ 477,684

1965 -------------------~--------- 287,679 1966 ----------------------------- 311,356 1967 ----------------------------- 326,553

CHART 2

TOP 10 COUNTRIES Fiscal year 1965: ·

l: *1;~~~~=-=~==:=::=::::::::=:=: ::::::::: 1 !!i 5. Ireland___________________________________ 5, 555 fi. France-------------------------~-------"-- 4, 071 7. Netherlands------------------------------- 3, 201

J ~~~1~~~================================= ~: ~! Fiscal year 1967: 1. Great Britain ______________________________ 26,750

~: g~l~a~=:::=:=:=:::::::::::::::::=:=======: f~: ~~~

l: ~i~~~~~:~~~:~~=:::~~~~ ::~~ :~~:~: ~~ :~~ ·!i[ ~~ 1~: ~~~i:~;~~~-================================ i: n~ Estimate, fiscal year 1969:

r: ~~~~f,.; __ :~~~~~ ~l ~Hl ~~ ~ ~ ~~ l~~~ l~- ijJ m 8. India---- ~ ---------------------- -------- -- 6, 300 9. Poland _________ . ________ . ____________ . _____ :_ 6, 000

10; rr~f~~~a_v~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1~

CHART 3

PREFERENCE AND NONPREFERENCE IMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED TOP 10 COUNTRIES AND IRELAND, FISCAL YEAR 1967 (NEW LAW)

Country 1st pref· 2d pref- 3d pref-ere nee erence eren~e

Great Britain ________ 16 375 61 Italy _____________ -~- 167 4,386 147 China _______________ 146 1,~~ 439

~~~~g~L:=:======: 22 47 79 1, 557 11

Greece ___ ----------- 30 1, 417 66 Philippines _____ ----- 270 1, 201 1, 852 Poland _____ --------- 39 1, ~~~ 101 Yugoslavia_--------- 53 111 India_------------ - - 3 354 833 Ireland ____ --------- 7 59 3

Statistics provided by Visa Office, U.S. State Department.

CHART 4

IRISH IMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED

(By fiscal year, July to June]

Portion of Total that total

Old law, 1962.--- ---------- -----· Old law, 1963 ___________________ _

813 1::: ~~~:::::::::::::::::=== Old law, 1966 (July to November) __ _ New law, 1966 (December to June) __

5,345 6,237 6,328 5,378 2,375

696

issued in Dublin

4, 076 4,618 4,914 4,232

(a)l, 979 (a)585

----------------Total, 1966_________________ 3, 071 2, 564

(b)2, 044 New law, 1967____________________ 2, 665 ~g~~; ~~g

New law, 1968 _______ -------------------------------------

Note: A discrepancy exists between the figures issued by (a) U.S. Embassy and (b) Visa Office.

Source: Statistics provided by Visa Office, U.S. State Depart-ment, and U.S. Embassy, Dublin. .

CHART 5

NUMBER OF IRISH WHO WANT TO IMMIGRATE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO OBTAIN VISAS

(Calendar year Jan. 1-Dec. 31)

1964 1965 1966 1967

Preliminary inquiries______ 6, 483 5, 797 4, 725 4, 235 Applicant for immigrant

visas__________________ 5, 817 4, 750 1, 996 2, 446 Immigrant visas issued____ 4, 619 4, 004 1, 741 1, 798

Note: Statistics provided by U.S. Embassy, Dublin.

CHART 6

Germany Britain Ireland

Old quota existing prior to December 1965 ___________ 25,814 65,361 17,756

Immigrant visas issued fis~~~!~~~s: _____ __ _______ 26,240 21,596 5, 354

1963_----------------- 26,969 21,781 6,237 1964_----------------- 28,691 30,324 6, 328 1965_-- ---- ----- ------ 25,171 28,698 5,378

Estimate by State Depart-ment in 1965 for fiscal

25,238 5,246 year 1966 ________________ 18,566 Actual, fiscal year 1966 _____ ~ 18,596 20,831 3, 071

· Estima~e by State Depart· ment in 1965 for fiscal

24,405 5,113 year 1967---------------- 16,399 Actual, fiscal year 1967------ 16,479 26,497 2,665 Estimate by State Depart-

ment in 1965 for fiscal year 1968 ________________ 16,399 24,405 5,113

CONCLUSIONS

The new law provided for a three year adjustment period. That Ireland cannot adjust is now evidenced in the statistics. She cannot adjust for the new terms of adjustment are unfair to her. The terms of the old law were concededly unfair to some other nations but this does not justify solving the problem wit'.:b J?.ew terms unfair to Ireland.

4th pref- 5th pref· 6th pref- 7th pref- Nonpref· erence ere nee erence ere nee erence

63 798 110 1 20, 78~ 6,363 4,800 2, ~~g 40 1, 519 3,~~~ 1,673 0

62 159 15 6,086 1,462 8,402 344 5 0

401 8,425 219 3 0 1,500 852 174 1 0

261 1, 607 174 266 283 720 748 169 1, 653 0 45 200 98 0 0 7 441 8 0 1, 783

In March 1965, the U.S. Secretary of State foresaw part of the problem, when he stated:

"A strict first come, first served basis of allocating visa quotas would C!'eate some problems in certain countries of northern and western Europe, which under the national origins system enjoyed a situation where quota numbers were readUy available to visa applicants.

"To apply the new principle rigidly would result, after a few years, in eliminating immigration from these countries almost entirely. Such a result would be undesirable, not only because it frustrates the aim of the bill that immigration from all countries should continue, but also because many of the countries so affected are among our closest allies. At a time when our national security rests in large part on a continual strengthening of our ties with these countries, it would be anomalous indeed to restrict opportunities for their nationals here.;'

Ireland's sons and daughters have · for decades contributed to the building and growth, of this nation in every conceivable area of endeavor. The quota which was given to Ireland under the old law was in part a small recognition of these contributions. Recognizing that the Irish have no monopoly on these contributions, nevertheless, the present law in its effect on Ireland is a sad .commentary in this area in that the sw.eat and blood of the Irish working cle.ss has easily been forgotten.

Of concern is whether the existing law now in operation since December, 1965 is carrying out the true intent of Congress and our citizenry. There must be legislative and executive action to eliminate the unnecessary hardships and to acknowledge our national concern primarily for the dignity of man as man and secondly in what he can or cannot do. The situation now existing with regard to Irish immigration must be remedied and the Ameri~n Irish community cannot be satisfied until it is remedied.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to call my colleagues' attention the sta·ten;1ent of John W. Duffy which he presented to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Nationality on .July 3 on behalf of the United Irish Counties Association of New York, Inc.: STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DUFFY BEFORE SUB

COMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE JUDICIARY CoM:J.'4I'l"l'EE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 3, 1968

(NoTE.-Mr. Duffy is a past presddent of the assOciation, is presently serving as a director and for the past 9 years has been chairman of the New York Irish Feis.) The United Irish Counties Association of

New York, founded 1904, is ·a delegated body with representatives from each of the thirtytwo Irish . County Organizations. The combined membership of these organizations is about forty thousand. The United Irish Counties Association has, since its inception played an active role in the civic, religions,

21594 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD-- HOUSE

social and cultural life of the New York Metropolitan Area. For the past twrty,..six years it has sponsored the great Irish Cultural Festival-The New York Irish Feis.

We are well aware of the drastic reduction of Irish immigration to the 'United States as a result of the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Our organization was one of the first Irish groups in the United States to have a committee on Immigration. From our close contact with recent Irish immigrants we were well aware of the situation. We were one of the original founders of the American Irish Immigration Committee. We remain a constant supporter of its goals and alms.

We stand for a fair, just and equitable immigration policy toward all nationalities. The present U.S. Immigration policy is unfair to the Irish.

We urgently request that you support and favorably report out of committee a bill sponsored by over thirty-eiglht Congressmen. This bill H.R. 16593 is fair to all nationalities. We urge its adoption.

WAYNE ASPINALL RENOMINATED Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr.

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speak

er, some 43 years ago I first met and became associated with the Honorable WAYNE N. AsPINALL, Representative from Colorado Legislature in 1931 when we We met :first as law students at the University of Denver in the fall of 1923 and began our elective service together in the Colorado's Fourth Congressional District. were both freshmen in the State house of representatives. We have served together here in the U.S. House of Representatives--WAYNE ASPINALL completing his 20th year, I, my 18th. I can tell you that one of the most valued possessions that we share is the bond of friendship that has grown between us. As my colleagues know, this is one of the genuine rewards that come to all who serve in public office.

On July 12, 1968, in Fort Collins, Colo., the delegates to the Fourth Congressional District Democratic Assembly once again nominated WAYNE ASPINALL for reelection to the Congress by acclamation. In his acceptance of the honor, WAYNE ASPINALL delivered an address that deserves the attention of all of us in this body and of thinking Americans everywhere:

Mr. Chairman and delegates of the convention, once again, I thank you !or the honor you have shown to me; and, the expression of confidence that you have given to my elective public service of over 44 years. I not only express · to you my own personal greetings, but also those of Mrs. Aspinall (Julia to many of you). I am pleased to say that she is quite well-and, but for the briefness of this hurried trip, she would be with me to greet you in person.

The people of my home community, of my county, of my congressional district (the great Fourth), of my state and of my nation have been good to me. Although I stlll consider myself young 1n spirit and· energyyes, and in constructive principles and tenets of progressive and sound government-yet, I know that with the number of years that I have to my record, my time ·of service is

running out. Only two or 'three men in our State's history have records of longer local, state and national elective service than I. May I say that . with this long service and expression of confidence by my fellow · citizens, goes my continuing personal · thanks and my ambition to give to you the full measure Of whatever talents I may have.

Now may I become a little more personal in yet another way. Our great Democratic Party has been good to me. It has permitted me to serve it and those who a-re its members in all levels in our great State-precinct caucus chairman, county chairman, congressional district chairman and state chairman. Also, I have been honored by my colleagues in Congress by being chosen for ten years now as the chairman of our party zone; that is, the entire West with the exception of California.

I respect the other party. I have great admiration for both parties. I have love and great affection for the Democratic Party. I chose to be a Democrat when I was 16 years old. I shall die a Democrat. It is truly constituted to be the party of the people. When we fail at the polls, we do so because we have forgotten our high aims and ideals of service to the people.

With this love of my fellow citizens and my love for my work in. your behalf,. together with the confidence you place in me, I become your debtor and I shall remain so.

Now, I would like to spend a few additional moments with you discussing a matter that, of late years especially, has concerned me very much. In fact, my concern has been growing week by week, month by month and year by year as I have been searching for just the exact words to put the problem into perspective. Part of my dilemma, I am sure, is my own inability to find that perfect phrase to mirror my thoughts. Another part of the difficulty, I am equally certain, is the chameleon-like quality of the problem as it shifts from time to time and from place to place-showing up, first, in one t~egment of our society and then in another. I have thought that, 1f I had a key word, it would lead to that key phrase. I have tried many-none of them have comple.tely satisfied me. I keep returning to the one word I started with: Discipline.

I _ am advised that this is not a popular word today. Many call it quaint. Stin others dismiss it as irrevelant. When, I ask you, did this significant transformation take place? When did it fall from ' acceptance? When did it pass beyond the bounds of relevancy? Some say that, as r think of it, discipline fell into disrepute when the bomb fell on Hiroshima. Others say the lessening of its leavening influence came with the advent of television. The "Johnny-come-lately" experts on social behavior marry it forever to this nation's in.:volvement in Southeast Asia. Always-and mark this carefully-always, the cause. or the excuse, for the alleged demise of disCipline is laid at the door of some outside event or force. When reciting the obituary-for discipline, no one is ever self-incriminating. It is always like the little child who say, "He made me do it!" But, my friends, we are not little children and it is time we put away the excuses of children. The very definition of discipline precludes outside forces from having that fatal effect.

The dictionary defines discipline as "Training or course of training which corrects, molds, strengthens or perfects." An additional definition is: "Training that develops self-control, character, or o(ierliness and efficiency."

If we once possess discipline, if we once have training that strengthens and perfects and develops self-control and orderliness; no outside influence is going to eradicate it. It can only be subjugated and voluntarily sacrificed on the altar of convenience by those who are just plain lazy-physically, mentally, morally, ·politically and intellectually lazy!

One might develop the relationship. or dis-

clpllne· to all phases · or liuman actlvity-t:he discipline of the arts, the disc.lpline of science, etc'._:_but all ' of m1. adl¥t life has be.en spent iii the discipline · of laws and gover~ment-and that IS the matter that concerns me the most at this time. . Law is the . attempt by man to put order into society .... Whether it produces that order is the real test of its effectiveness and/or need for revision. Reflect with me· for a moment on the struggle of the men who framed our government and launched its institutions. Let us always remember that · these men formulated our federal union and constitutional only when the selective performance permitted by the loose document of the Articles of CoDtederation f.oundered ori its own permissive and selective procedures: And, do keep in mind for a moment that pl::--iSe, "selective performance" and its companion, "permissive procedures."

Plainly stated in the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and oth,er kindred documents is the social contract theory of government;-,a concept poles apart from divinely instttuted·kings or their modern-day counterpart, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The contract is rather simple: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving thek just powers from the consent of the governed. . .. "

We agree by contract that we will do certain th: ·.2gs in our own behalf in the name of the Government. We concurrently agree that we will not do certain other things in the name of the government, and, accordingly, we reserve certain powers and certain acts frOPl the government. .

This is clear enough. We agree and contract for defense and the general wel~are. We do, however, bar any abridgement or infringement of speech, religi.on and press .. We do guarantee fair trials, a jur.y in criminal cases, equal protection of. the .law, due process and tl,le right of the people peaceably to asse~ble and petition their government for redress of grievances.

'l'his is not .the selective performance permitted under the Articles of Confederation. Under selective performance, states could, and did, ignore the acts or requests of the Congress. They could, and did, enforce differing standards on speech, religion, assembly, due process, and det:ense and general welfare. Confederation proved too weak for the necessities of government. It was replaced by a federal union with specified powers applicable in all reaches of the Union.

And. selective performance will not work now. Mere statement does not convert . t:PJs republic of specified powers into a citizens confederation with each citizen reserving the right of the sovereign to accept or reject a rule or regulation. We started as a nation of law: we so remain. We have not yet $et each citizen free to pick the laws he will obey, yet be free · from the ·consequence of. .non-performance. We have not yet assigned to mobs a sovereignty denied to individuals. We yet hold to the clear doctrine that conspiracy is an _ evil of itself . . Neither have we assigned the right of counseling disobedienc.e to some baby doctors, some professors, or some militants whether they be poor or middle class, social register cir garden variety taxpayer.

As for me, I have contracted with no one to abridge my own rights. I have no reason to th~nk that . you have .. I still expect to be secure in my person and property, free as much from felon or thug as from search or seizure by the state. I still expect performance as the prerequisite of reward. I still expect standards to be met until changed. I have not contracted for anarchy, that mindless machine--:all start ancl no stop, _

No gove.rnment, no civilized people, can tolerate selective performance. The highest goal of our founding fathers was to prevent arbitracy .acts by the state, by prince 'or by faction. Freedom of speech is not an arbi-

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21595 trary right to outrage public decency. Freedom of assembly is not an arbitrary right to camp wmy nilly in colleges, factories or on the public thoroughfares . .. Freedom is not fire. Freedom is elbow room for self-development, even if occasionally denied.

The Earl of Clarendon, English historian and statesman, once said: "The law is the standard and guardian of our liberty; it circumscribes and defends it; but to imagine Uberty without law, is to imagine every man with his sword in his hand to destroy him who is weaker than himself; and that would be no pleasant prospect to those who cry out the most for liberty."

This, is what bothers me today. There are those who cry out for liberty, but in doing so, they plow up the very roots of that which they seek. They equate liberty with permissiveness and freedom with license.

I am firmly convinced that these are days when the heart of the American people wants to do the things for all citizens that are fair, equitable and just. But, I am also firmly conVinced that these are also days when the mind of the American people is insufficient to meet the motivations of its heart.

I want to make it clear that I am not here to point the finger of accusation. It is too easy to slip into the view that the younger generation has slipped or has been driven astray. I have seen and talked with too many of our young people to write them off as the "lost generation". I have been Visited by these young people in Washington and I have met them in their schools and colleges here in Colorado. These are young people who will learn from our accomplishments and from our mistakes. They will go on to correct, mold, strengthen and perfect. And, when they have given their best, they will find that there are those who follow them who are impatient with their progress . .

As for those who have attracted the attention of the news media-those who would grab a headline by grabbing the dean-they are without discipline. They are out of order. And, if they shout back that I am merely a part of the "Establishment", then I say to them: change the "Establishment" if you will, but change it with discipline and order or the world you seek will come crashing down on you with the first breath of the next generation's disorder.

I see a total people banding together within their own dignity as citizens to "overcome" long years of denial. I see a total ~pie anxious and dedicated to so participate in their own victory that it will generate a prid~ that will be a bright banner for their children and - for their children's children forever.

I ~ a total people determined to prove their known capacity for honor as the way to bury deep the ancient life of inherent inequality. This is our performance against which prejudices wash in vain.

In short, I see America. I see a reflection of its people, their several dreams, their human doubts, their effort to advance against a host of problems. I see a great social experiment in self-government and freedom of spirit at a balance pqint between d-estructive forces and creative forces, between hate and hope, between standards and social sloth.

There are those in this room who· are impatient with social prog·ress or seek more policy change, but they have chosen to seek that progress or change within the framework of this Assembly and those procedures which shall follow.

As I have suggested, law is discipline. But, I have also tried to suggest that discipline is more than law. De Toqueville put it this way: "There is no country in the world in which everything can be provided for by the laws, or in which political institutions can prove a substitute for common sense and public morality."

Discipline never was and never could be a restriction of the freedom of the mind and

. spirit. It never could crush out an idea. But, discipline is the only means by which ideas can be put to use for the benefit of mankind.

I close with the saying of the English poet laureate, Robert Southey: "Order is the sanity of the mind, the health .of the body, the peace of the city, the _security of the state. As the beams to a house, as the bones to the body, so is order to all things."

J. E. B. STUART ELIZABETH CUP CHAMPS

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

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

There was no objection. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today

to welcome back to this country the J. E. B. Stuart crew which returns to Virginia this afternoon after capturing the world renowned Princess Elizabeth Cup at the Royal Henley Regatta held at Henley on Thames, England, last week.

In 1965, 10 young boys who were entering J. E. B. Stuart High School borrowed a 30-year-old shell from Washington and Lee High School in Arlington County. They did so because of their intense interest in this sport and because the Fairfax County school officials were unwilling to sponsor a team officially. Although the official "hands off" policy continued, a booster's club of adults was formed and by selling Christmas trees, baked goods, and holding ra1Hes, funds were raised to pUrchase a new ·shell and provide expenses for entering rowing contests.

Since February of this year, the crew has won every race it has entered. But, again, the victories were due only to the dedication of coaches Walter Barber and Mike Gasch, the son of Judge Oliver Gasch, . and the boys themselves, since · the school continued its policy of nonrecognition. In addition to their weekend workouts, the crew rowed every morning at 5 a.m. before attending 8 o'clock ~lasses and went back to the river each night after school. The perserverance paid off-in spades.

First was the winning of the Northern Virginia Schoolboy Championship, then the Stotesbury CUp on the Schuylkill River at Philadelphia followed by the capture of the U.S. National Schoolboy Rowing Championship the following week also at Philadelphia. Then came the big challenge-the Royal Henley Regatta. Although still without official school recognition, the crew's boosters set about the task of raising the necessary funds to · make the trip to England. Moral support came from Vice President HUBERT H. HUMPREY, Senator WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR., and Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr.

Not surprisingly, the crew did raise the necessary funds. They did so with the help of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the local television and radio stations, the local newspapers and perhapg most significantly, an unusual outpouring of $1 and smaller contributions by thousands of interested area citizens. Needless to say, all who were involved deserve a hearty word of thanks.

Upon arrival in England, the crew

promptly defeated Cornell University in two practice heats. On Wednesday, July 10, the crew met Oundle School of England in their first race and defeated them by 3 ¥2 lengths after which, on Thursday, they disposed of the crew from Ealing School of England by 1 Ya lengths. On Friday, Stuart defeated Shrewsbury School of England in the quarterfinals by 4 lengths. Saturday morning brought the Stuart crew into competition with the Nautical College of Pangbourne, England, in the semifinals where again Stuart's superiority brought victory by 3 lengths. Saturday afternoon brought the final race. Eton College of England, the defending champions from 1967, would meet Stuart in the final dash for the coveted Princess Elizabeth CUp. Eton was determined not to allow the American team to capture · the historically treasured cup. Continuing in the tradition established in the past 5 months, however, Stuart rowed to a decisive victory.

We owe a debt of gratitude to these boys, members of the new generation, who have labored so tirelessly to bring honor not only to J. E. B. Stuart High School and Fairfax County, Va., but who in so doing have brought honor to their Nation. At this point, for the benefit of my colleagues, I wish to list the names of the crew members and their positions: Bow _________________ Corbin Wilson. 2-------------------- Reed Augliere. 3-------------------- Mike Hacskaylo. 4-------------------- David Foulis. 5-------------------- Tom Lang. 6-------------------- Eric Rudrud. 7-------------------- Steve Hancotte. Stroke _______________ Steve Wilson. Coxswain ____________ , David Hafner. Alternate ____________ . M'ike DeBlois. Alternate------------ · Phil M;angano. Alternate ____ .:. _______ , Stan Boyd. Alternate____________ Tom Buchanan.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the great honor these boys have brought to our Nation, I feel a great sense of personal pride from my knowledge of Reed Augliere who is an oarsman in the crew. Reed is an outstanding young man whom I have known since his early childhood. He is a young man who manifests those strong wholesome characteristics all parents strive to attain in their offspring. His parents, Mr. and Mrs. Vincent Augliere, must feel an immeasurable amount of satisfaction in Reed's day to day accomplishments as a student, athlete, and young citizen.

During the summer of 1966, I had the pleasure of having him serve as an intern in my office. His unique qualities enabled him to perform tasks on my behalf that were a testimony to the maturity and ability he possesses far beyond his chronological age. In September, Reed will enter Syracuse University. Both in that endeavor and the years that lie ahead I wish him every success which he has so heartily earned and so richly deserves.

J. E. B. Stuart crew-well done-and welcome home to an appreciative Nation.

WE ARE STILL WAITING, MR. BAILEY

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at

21500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 16, 1968 this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter.

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

There was no objection. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, last Wednes

day I addressed a letter to Democrat National Chairman John Bailey, calling on him, and by inference the President, and the other candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination, to disassociate themselves from, and torepudiate in no uncertain words; the racIst statement of the Black United Front and concurred in by the District of Columbia Democrat national committeeman, E. Channing Phillips.

That statement, Members will recall, referred to the slaying of Washington Policeman Stephen Williams as "justifiable homicide of a honky cop."

To this date, 1 week later, no repudiation has been !orthcoming and the statement still stands with the support of the District of Columbia Democrat national committeeman, who presumably will be a favorite son candidate for his party's presidential. ·nomination. Furthermore, the issue has been compounded by the passage of a resolution by the District of Columbia Central Democrat Committee, which in so many words sought to defend the Black United Front resolution. The District of Columbia Democrat Committee added insult to injury, by deleting a sentence that would have offered condolences to the survivors of the slain police officer. I am still waiting for Chairman Bailey to respond to my suggestion that he rebuke the Democrat national committee's representative from the District of Columbia. There is still no word on the subject from presidential contenders MCCARTHY or HUMPHREY, or from President Johnson. Perhaps the President will see fit to respond to an open letter he has received from the District of Columbia Police Wives Association, Inc. Since I am not aware that the President has encouraged any member of his party to call this letter to the attention of the public, I insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, at this point, a copy of the open letter to the President:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE WIVES AsSOCIATION, INC.,

Clinton, Md., July 15, 1968. The PRESIDENT, White House, Washington, D.O.

DEAlt MR. PRESIDENT: Former President Eisenhower writing in the Reader's Digest of May, 1968 declared; "one of the principal aims of our Constitution was to 'insure domestic tranqullity'; indeed, in sequence of objectives, the authors placed it ahead of common defense." The wise men who founded this nation well knew that anger over justice denied, or envy and hatred begotten of ignorance, and prejudice, would as always before, create trouble; that there would always be false leaders ready to inflame men to acts of purposeless violence.

We the members of the District of Columbia Police Wives Association has always been deeply appreciative of your interest and concern for the interest in and concern for the Metropolitan Police Department. As recently as July 3, 1968 you said, "Washington's policemen are among the nation's finest. In the critical hours of unrest and violence which

gripped the city they performed most difficult missions ... the backbone of law enforcement in each of our communities is the Policeman on the beat. In no city of America is this more true ·than in the District of Columbia." The very day you wrote this letter to both Houses of the Congress, police private Stephen A. Williams was killed and police private Frederick Matteson was critically wounded while trying to do their duty in the 1300 block of Columbia Road N.W.

The past ten days have seen the issuance of the incredible, divisive and inflammatory statement by the Black United Front which has been condemned by Mayor Walter E. Washington, D.C. Public Safety Director, Patrick V. Murphy, City Council Chairman John W. Hechinger, -editorials in the Post, Star and the Washington Daily News, and by many members of the Congress. The D.C. Federation of Civic Associations, an outstanding Black-led organization of some 40,000 district citizens, was highly critical of the Black United Front statement and as, reported in the local .newspapers, expressed its sympathy to the families of slain police private Stephen A. Williams, critically wounded police private Frederick Matteson and voted to send a letter of condolence and a check of $50.00 to each.

The Reverend E. Franklin Jackson, the District's outgoing Democratic National Committeeman, said it is his own opinion "and that of a vast majority of the black people" tha.t the statement of the Black United Front was infiammaory and antagonistic to the entire community." He said, regarding the Reverend Channing Phillips, that "the national committeeman must be concerned with the welfare and the wellbeing of the total community, and must not in any sense .of the word give in to one side or the other" in a way that would polarize the community.

Four policemen have been k11led in line of duty in the past 7 months in the Nation's Capital since November. This is an incredible toll to have taken place in 7 months. In the pace of this reco.rd, unequaled in any other capital City in the world, the Washington Post reported July 12, 1968 on its front page under the astounding headline "City Democrats Hit 'Assaults' by Police" the following "The city's new Democratic Central Committee ad()pted a resolution last night strongly condemning what it called, assaults on citizens by police. At the same time, the Committee deleted from the proposed language of the resolution a statement of sympathy for the family of police private Stephen A. Williams, who was killed with his own gun on July 2, while attempting to make an arrest. The section cut from the resolution said "We strongly condemn assaults against police officers who are properly carrying out their vital responsibilities to protect the public."

We pray you will speak out Mr. President, and provide leadership to this troubled community and clarify the issues. The Democratic Central Committee and the Black United Front have done more than shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. They have poisoned the relationships between the Police and the Community. Unless you take immediate steps to correct this situation and to provide leadership in this crisis, more lives will be lost and this community will descend further into anarchy and chaos.

You have said "the safe·ty and security of its citizens is the first duty of government." You have also said; "the long shadow of crime falls over the streets of the Nation's Capital, mocking its proud institutions ... the Uberty of every citizen is diminished." We agree Mr. President with these moving statements of yours. We also agree with former President Eisenhower, "tha.t ·there would always be false leaders ready to lnfiame men to acts of purposeless violenc·e," and we believe General Eisenhower words apply with special aptness to the inflammatory language in the resolutions adopted by

the Democratic CentraJ Oommi ttee and the Black United. Front. ' .

We request not only you to spee.k out on these issues but to throw your support be• hind Congressman Casey's amendment reported by the House Rules Committee to add 10 years imprisonment to the regular penalty when a firearm is used in a robbery or an attempted robbery, which is the centraJ. recommendation of the D.C. Gun Control Act which you called on the Congress to ena.ct into law in your historic message of March 13, 1968 "safeguard the public order and stop tragedy." It will help prevent the killing of our husbands. The Policeman's Association of the District of Columbia in a full page ad in the Star on July 7, 1968 asked, "Who Cares?" We do, Mr. President, and we are certaJ.n you do too.

May we hear from you? Respectfully yours,

JOAN ABBOTT, President.

REPORT ON H.R. 17748-THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, by direc

tion of the Committee on Education and Labor, I am today filing a report on H.R. 17748, a bill for an Occupational Safety and Health Act.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the result of long weeks of work by the Education and Labor Committee, and, in particular, by the Select Subcommittee on Labor of that committee, chaired by the very distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. HOLLAND]. I regret Very deeply that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not a candidate for reelection to the seat in this House which he has filled with honor and dignity for so many years now. It is typical of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that this bill-probably the last bill his subcommittee will report to the House under his leadership--is dedicated to the well being of the working men and women with whom ELMER HoLLAND has, throughout his legislative career, been proud to identify himself.

PROPOSED EXEMPTION OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FROM PERSONNEL CUTBACK Mr. DANIELS. /Mr. Speaker, I ask

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

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

There was no objection. Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to

add my support to a bill, H.R. 18191, introduced by my good friend from New York, the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service [Mr. DuLSKI], which would exempt the Post Office Department from the cutback in personnel required by the recently signed tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, mail volume has risen sharply in recent years. As a matter of

July 16, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL- RECORD- HOUSE 21597 fact, in fiscal year 1969 it is expected to be at least 11 percent greater than it was in fiscal year 1968. It is estimated that during fiscal year 1969 the Post Office will process some 84 billion pieces of mall, an increase of 10 billion pieces over 1966. As I see it, and having served for almost 7 years on the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee I speak with some knowledge of the subject, this increase cannot be handled by the same number of personnel without crippling the postal service, and I am not indulging in fanciful rhetoric when I repeat, without crippling the postal service.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, some Members of this House are not aware of what the effect will be if Mr. DULSKI'S proposal is not enacted into law. I assure you that unless relief is granted, the American people are going to let out a cry which will dwarf all other protests. The people of this Nation are not going to pennit the postal service to degenerate into chaos, which is what will happen if the Ways and Means Committee does not promptly report out Chairman DuLSKI's bill.

The manpower reduction will result in a constant decline in employment while, on the other hand, we see a constant increase in volume. I ask all Members, and particularly those Members who have had wide experience in private business, does this make any sense at all? I submit that it does not.

Mr. Speaker, I might also remind this House that the Congress, very sensibly and reasonably, has in recent years approved several improvements in working conditions of postal workers. Notable among these are an expansion of the 5-day week, changes in overtime practices and an almost complete elimination of the split shift. Now these reforms which I supported, as did most Members of this House, require more, not less, personnel. Yet, as it stands now we are asking a dwindling number of employees working shorter hours to handle an ever increasing volume of mail.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons I have outlined are sufficient to give special consideration to the needs of the postal service. We have already cut the budget of the Department by $169 million. Postmaster General Marvin Watson has said that he will make every effort to live within his budget and operate in such a way that we can avoid substantial cutbacks in services. To go any further is to invite chaos.

Mr. -Speaker, I cannot support such a policy and I think no responsible Member of this House can fail to see the need for immediate consideration of H.R. 18191.

SLOWDOWN IN AIR TRAFFIC Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr.

Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute.

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

There was no objection. Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr.

Speaker, three times in the last 2 days when I have been flying on planes be-

tween Boston, Washington, D.C., and New York City, the planes have been excessively delayed; each time the pilot came on the intercom to explain that his aircraft would be delayed for reasons he could not divulge. Weather was not a factor.

The slowdown in aircraft landings is supposedly necessary because of administrative regulations requiring a certain specified length of time between landings. These regulations were never so rigidly enforced until just the last 2 days. It is no coi~cidence that the regulations are now being rigidly enforced at the same time the FAA is facing personnel hiring restrictions as a result of the employment freeze in the Federal Government. It is obvious that the FAA traffic controllers-by slowing down air trafficare trying to influence public opinion to force the administration and the Congress to give the FAA more money,

Whether or riot the strict interpretation of the FAA's administrative regulations is in the interest of aviation safety remains to be seen; the fact they just recently rigidly followed these regulations gives reason to believe that safety is not the issue. In addition, the slowdown is causing extreme congestion over the airports, which only adds to the safety hazard. Planes must circle the airport for hours-I ¥2 hours for the Soviet jet which landed yesterday at JFK airport-and they are stacked in layer upon layer over the airport in thousand foot intervals.

Finally, the loss to our economy of delaying businessmen, servicemen, and vacationers who travel by air can never by regained. ·

If the FAA wants more money from the Congress, it should come before the appropriate congressional committees and ask for it, and be able to show a real need for it. To use the form of blackmail now being used is blackmail plain and simple and must not be allowed to continue.

I have written to Chairman STAGGERS of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee urging him to investigate this matter immediately.

H.R. 12120-CONTROL OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY-CONFERENCE REPORT Mr. PERKINS submitted a conference

report and statement on the bill (H.R. 12120) to assist courts, correctional systems, and community agencies to prevent, treat, and control juvenile delinquency, and for other purposes.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent. leave of ab

sence was granted as follows: To Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania <at

the request of Mr. MoRGAN), for today and the balance of the week, on account of illness.

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED By unanimous consent, permission to

address the House, following the legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was granted to:

Mr. REuss, today, for 1 hour; to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. MICHEL, on July 17, for 30 minutes; to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. GooDELL (at the request of Mr. SMITH of New York), for 30 minutes, on today, to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter.

Mr. CmVER <at the request of Mr. PATTEN), for 5 minutes, today; to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.

)!:XTENSIONS OF REMARKS By unanimous consent, permission to

extend remarks was granted to: Mr. ScHWENGEL and Mr. FULTON of

Pennsylvania <at the request of Mrs. BoLTON) ·during general debate today in the Committee of the Whole.

<The following Members· <at the request of Mr. SMITH of New York) and to ·include extraneous matter: )

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr.PELLY. Mr. AsHBROOK in two instances. Mr. GROVER. Mr. CURTIS in four instances. Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. SMITH of Oklahoma. Mr. MINSHALL in two instances. Mr. KuPFERMAN in five instances. Mr. MORTON. Mr. MESKILL. Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Mr. NELSEN. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. DENNEY. Mr. BucHANAN in two instances. Mr. GooDELL. <The following Members <at the re

quest of Mr. PATTEN) and to include extraneous matter:)

Mr. FRASER in two instances. Mr. NIX. Mr. MOORHEAD in three instances. Mr. GoNZALEZ in three instances. Mr. PHILBIN in three instances. Mr. PoDELL in two instances. Mr. EVINS of Tennessee in three in-

stances. Mr. DULSKI. Mr. BRASCO. Mr. VANIK. Mr. RosENTHAL in two instances. Mr. FLooD in two instances. Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. DIGGS in two instances. Mr. MORRIS of New Mexico. Mr. RARICK in four instances. Mr. COHELAN in three instances. Mr. UDALL in six instances. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. MILLER of California in five in

stances.

SENATE BILLS REFERRED Bills of the Senate of the following

titles were taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows: ·

s. 3042. An act for the relief of Dr. Mario E. Comas; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 8043. An Act for the relief of Di. Juan c. Arrabal; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

s. 3051. An act for the relief of Dr. David

21598 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE J~ly 16, 1968 Alfredo Orta-Menendez; to _ the Committee on the Judiciary.

s. 3075. An act for the relief of Dr. Richard Francis Power; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

s. 3076. An act for the relief of Dr. Miguel A. Gomez; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 3081. An act for the relief of Eduardo Raul Fernandez Santana; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 3082. An act for the relief of Dr. Narciso A. Lores; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

s. 3085. An act for the relief of Manuel Hector Mere Hidalgo; to the Committee oJi the Judiciary.

s. 3152. An act for the relief of Sein Lin; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. 3166. An act for the relief of Dr. Jagir Singh Randhawa; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED The Speaker announced his signature

to an enrolled 'i:>ill of the Senate of the following title:

s. 2986. An act to extend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker:

H.R. 2756. An act for the relief of Arley L. Beem, aviation electrician's mate chief, U.S. Navy;

H.R. 10773. An act to amend section 1730 of title 18, United States Code, to permit the uniform or badge of the letter-carrier branch of the postal service ·to be worn in theatrical, television, or motion-picture productions un-der certain circumstances; •

H.R. 16703. An act to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes; and

H.R. 17354. An act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes.

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. BURLESON, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that that Committee did on this day present to the President, for his approval, bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 2756. An act for the relief of Arley L. Beem, aviation electrician's mate chief, U.S. Navy;

H.R. 3400. An act to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to require aircraft noise abatement regulation, and for other purposes;

H.R. 4739. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant long-term leases with respect to lands in the El Portal administrative site adjacent to Yosemite National Park, California, and for other purposes;

H.R. 9063. An act to amend the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, to provide for the timely determination of certain claims of American nationals, and for other purposes;

H.R. 10773. An act to amend section 1730 of title 18, United States Code, to permit the uniform or badge of the letter-carrier branch of the postal service to be worn in theatrical, television, or motion-picture productions under certain circumstances;

H.R. 13402. An act authorizing the use of

certain buildings in the District of Columbia for chancery purposes;

H.R. 15562. An act to extend the expiration date of the Act of September 19, 1966;

H.R. 16065. An act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release on behalf of the United States conditions in deeds conveying certain lands to the State of Iowa, and for other purposes;

H.R. 16703. An act to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes; and

H.R. 17354. An act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that

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

(at 6 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 17, 19681 at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

2057. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting proposed amendments to the fiscal year 1969 budget (H. Doc. No. 355); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.

2058. A le•tter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated June 3, 1968, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and an illustration, on an interim survey of Ventura Marina, Calif., in partial response to an item in section 6 of the River and Harbor Act ap- · proved March 2, 1945 (H. Doc. No. 356); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed with an illustration.

2059. A letter from the Sec~:etary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated June 3, 1968, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and an lllustration, on a review of the reports on Snohomish River (Everett Harbor), Wash., requested by resolutions of the Committees on Public Works, House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, adopted April 14, 1964, and April 28, 1964 (H. Doc. No. 357); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed with an illustration.

2060. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated June 3, 1968, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and an illustration, on a review of the reports on Hamlin Beach State Park, N.Y., requested by a resolution of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, adopted September 25, 1945 (H. Doc. No. 358) ; to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed with an illustration.

2061. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated June 3, 1968, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and lllustrations, on an interim report on Mad River, Humboldt and Trinity Counties, Calif., requested by a resolution of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, adopted June 13, 1956, and additional authority for the study is contained in section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (H. Doc. No. 359); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed with illustrations.

2062. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief

·.

of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated June 3, 1968, submitting a report, together with accompa:nying papers and lllustrations, on a review of the report on State Road and Ebner Coulees, Wis., requested by a resolution of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, adopted May 10, 1962 (H. Doc. No. 360); to the Committee on Publtc Works and ordered to be printed with illustrations.

2063. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated June 3, 1968, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and illustrations, on a review of the reports on Mississippi River outlets, vicinity of Venice, La., requested by a resolution of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, adopted April 14, 1964 (H. Doc. No. 361) ; to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed with lllustrations.

2064. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated June 3, 1968, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and an lllustration, on a review of the report on Port Hueneme Harbor, Calif., requested by resolutions of the Committees on Public Works, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, adopted April 18, 1963, and June 19, 1963 (H. Doc. No. 362); to the Committee on Public Works and ordered to be printed with an lllustration.

2065. A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting a report on economic assistance provided to Korea by the Agency for International Development, Department of State; to the Committee on Government Operations.

2066. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to approve Public Law 9- , 189 of the territory of Guam, entitled "An act to add chapter 6, to title XXII, to amend sections 4004, 21000, 21002, 21003, 21201, 21204, 21206, 21208.3, and 21214 of, and to repeal section 21208.2 of, the Government Code of Guam, relative ,to the Guam Power Authority," and Public Law 9-190 of the territory of Guam, entitled "An act to add chapter 7 to title XXII of the Government Code of Guam, relative to Guam Power Authority revenue bonds"; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

2067. A letter from the Chairman, Indian Claims Commission, transmitting a report that proceedings have been finally concluded with respect to docket No. 4G-K, Robert Dominic, et al., As the Representatives and on Behalf of All Members By Blood of the Ottawa Tribe of Indians, Plaintiffs, v. The United States of America, Defendant, pursuant to the provisions of 60 Stat. 1055, 25 U.S.C. 70t; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

2068. A letter from the Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice, transmitting reports concerning visa petitions approved according certain beneficiaries third and sixth preference classification, pursuant to the provisions of section 20.4(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC 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. WILLIS: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 18612. A bill to enact title 44, United States Code, "Public Printing and D6cuments", codifying the general and permanent laws relating to public printing and documents (Rept. No. 1719). Referred to the

July 16; 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE 21599 Committee· at the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. PERKINS: Committee on Education and Labor. H.R. 17748. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Labor to . set standards to assure . safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women, to assist and encourage the States to participate in efforts to assure such working conditions, to provide for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health, and for other purposes; -with amendment (Rept. No. 1720). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. WILLIS: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 17864. A bill to amend titles 5, 10, and 37, United States Code, to codify recent law; and to improve the code; with amendment (Rept. No. 1721). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. McMILLAN: Committee on the District of Columbia. S. 1224. An act to establish a register of blind persons in the District of Columbia, to provide for the mandatory reporting of information concerning such persons, and for other purposes; with amendment (Rept. No. 1722). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. PATMAN: Committee on Banking and Currency. H.R.16775. A b111 to provide for increased participation by the United States in the International Development Association, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 1723). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Mr. PERKINS: Committee of conference. H.R. 12120. An act to assist courts, eorrectional systems, and community agencies to prevent. treat, and control juvenile dellnquency, to support research and training efforts in the ,prevention, treatment, and control of juvenile delinquency, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 1724). Ordered to be printed. . -------

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. WILLIS: H.R. 18612. A bill to enact title 44, United

States Code, "Publlc Printing and Documents••, codifying the general and permanent laws relating to public printing and documents; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ByMr.DORN: H.R. 18613. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 in relation to industrial development bonds; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. LUKENS: H.R. 18614. A bill to amend title 10 of the

United States Code to prohibit the assignment of a member of an armed force to combat area duty if certain relatives of such m.ember died while serving in the Armed Forces in Vietnam; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. MORRIS: H.R. 18615. A bill to encourage the growth

of international trade on a fair and equitable basis; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By Mr. MORSE: H.R. 18616. A bill to amend title 10 of the

United States Code to prohibit the assign.:. ment of a member of an armed force to combat area duty if certain relatives of suoh member died while serving in the Armed Forces in Vietnam; to the Committee on Armed Services.

By Mr. SLACK: H.R. 18617. A bill to encourage the growth

of international trade on a fair and equitable basis; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

By l\4r. WAMPLER: H.R. 18618. A b111 to amend title 10 of the

United States Code to prohibit the assignment of a member of an armed foree to combat area duty if certa.in relatives of such member died while serving in the Armed Forces in Vietnam; to the Oommittee on Armed Services.

By Mr. BOLAND: H.R. 18619. A bill to create a catalog of

Federal assistance programs, and far other purposes; to the Com..mtttee on Government Operations.

By Mr. CAHILL: H.R. 18620. A bill to amend the Immtgra

tion and Nationality Act to make the visa numbers remaining unissued on June 30, 1968, available for 1mm.1grants from certain foreign countries; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HALEY~ H.R. 18621. A bill to deslgna;te ce.rtaln lands

within the Paseage Key National Wildlife Refuge in Florida as wilderness; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. NIX~ H.R. 18622. A bill to curtail the mailing

of certain articles which present a hazard to postal employees or mail processing machines by imposing restrictions on cert"ain advertising and promotional matter In the mails, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

H.R. 18623. A bill to provide th.at the qualification of municipalities far city delivery service be expressed in terms of revenue units, rather than cash receipts, a.nd for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Oivil Service. •

H.R. 18624. A bill to readjust the compensation of the advisory board for the Post Office Department; to the Committee on Post Otfl.ce and Civil Service.

H.R. 18625. A b1Il to exempt medicai officers and nurses in the postal field service from the provisions of sections 3571 (a) and (c) of title 39, United States Code; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

H.R. 18626. A b111 to amend title 39, United States Code, to permit employees of the Post Office Department to accept checks or money orders, to provide penalties for the presentment of bad checks to the Post Office Department, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. RODINO: H.R. 18627. A b111 to provide for the redis

tribution of unused quota numbers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ROSENTHAL: H.R. 18628. A b111 to disarm lawless persons

and assist State and Federal enforcement agencies in preventing and solving firearms crimes, to require registration of all firearms and licenses for purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition, to establish minimum llcenslng and registration standards for the possession of firearms, to encourage the enactment of effective responsible State firearms laws, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. SAYLOR: H.R. 18629. A bill to amend the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended; to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

By Mr. UDALL: H.R. 18630. A bill to amend title 5, United

States Code, to provide for the payment of overtime and standby pay to certain person .. nel employed in the Department of Transportation; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

By Mr. CURTIS: H.R. 18631. A bill to establish a Peace by

Investment Corporation, and for related purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. HALPERN: H.R. 18632. A blll to amend title 10 of the

United States Code to prohibit the assignment of a member of an armed force to combat area duty if certain relatives of such member died while serving in the Armed

Forces in Vietnam; to the Co:mmlttee on Armed Services.

By Mr. MORRIS (for himself and Mr. WALKER):

H.R. 18633. A blll to declare that certain :federally owned lands are held by the United States in trust for the Indians of the Pueblo of Laguna; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. EILBERG: H.J. Res. 1411. Joint resolution authorizing

and requesting the President to proclaim the week of November 17 through 23, 1968, as National Family Health Week; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. WALKER: H. Con. Res. 799. Concurrent resolution ex

pressing the sense of the Congress that the Post Office Department should continue to provide services at the level in effect before July 1, 1968; to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

MEMORIALS

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as follows:

368. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the Legislature of the State of California, relative to handicapped taxpayers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

369. Also, memorial of the Legislature of the State of California, relative to seizure of American fishing boats off South America; to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 1 of ru1e XXII, private bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows:

By Mr. ADDABBO: H.R. 18634. A bill for the relief of Carmela

Bart; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 18635. A bill for the relief of Domenica

Girgenti; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 18636. A bill for the relief of Gianni

and Rosa Girgenti and minor chlldren, Madalena and Vincensa Girgenti; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 18637. A bill for the relief of Marla Rosa. Girgenti; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BRASCO: H.R. 18638. A bill for the relief of Salvatore

Cracchiolo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 18639. A bill for the relief of Mrs. Leonarda Cusenza Domingo, and her children, Francesco and Catherina Domingo; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 18640. A blll for the relief of Salvatore Riggio; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BURTON of California: H.R. 18641. A bill for the relief of Brandy

Shek-Ching Ho; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R. 18642. A bill for the relief o! Choon K1 Paik; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BUSH: H.R. 18643. A biil for the relief of Eva

Anna-Lisa Sjoberg Nylund; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. GILBERT: H.R. 18644. A bill for the relief of Esperan

za Alcalde; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. HALPERN: H.R. 18645. A bill for the relief' of Ara

Zakaryan and h!.s wife, Berchula Zakaryan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

ByMr.mWIN: H.R. 18646. A b111 for the relief of Anica

Vapurcuyan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

21600 By Mr. JOELSON:

H.R.18647. A blll for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. Giovanni Battista Asaro; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. O'HARA of nunols: H.R. 18648. A bill for the relief of Spyro

dionyssios Limberatos; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS By Mr. PHILBIN:

H.R. 18649. A bill for the relief of Frank Erba; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. REINECKE: H.R. 18650. A bill for the relief of Shl

Chang Hsu (also known as Gerald S.C. Hsu); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

July 16, 1968 By Mr. TEAGUE of California:

H.R. 18651. A bill for the relief of Francisco Moreno-Santa Cruz; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ZION: H.R. 18652. A bill for the relief of Demetrio

Mendoza Maglalang; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS HEARINGS ON PROPOSED PANAMA

CANAL TREATIES SHOULD NOT BE CONCEALED

HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA


Tuesday, July 16, 1968

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, on June 26, 1967, the Presidents of the United States and Panama announced the completion of negotiations of the proposed new Panama Canal treaties, which would abrogate the 1903 treaty, surrender U.S. sovereignty over the Canal Zone to Panama, make Panama a participant in the management and defense of the canal, raise transit tolls considerably and, ultimately, give to Panama the existing canal and any new one that may be constructed in that country, all without the slightest reimbursement for the billions of dollars that have been, or may still be, invested by the taxpayers of the United States, and without congressional authorization.

In connection with the last point, Mr. · Speaker, I would invite attention to ar

ticle IV, section 3, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution that vests the power to dispose of territory and other property of the United States in the Congress and not in the Senate alone, which provision I now quote:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ...•

As I have stated on many occasions, the Canal Zone and Panama Canal are constitutionally acquired domain and property of the United States over which our Government has exclusive control.

Quite naturally, many Members of Congress were shocked by the audacious provisions that were contained in the proposed treaties. As a result, the very next day in the House, Members started the introduction of resolutions in opposition to the proposed treaties, and soon there were a total of some 150 sponsors.

Thereupon, the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held extensive hearings, with Members of Congress, representatives of the merchant marine and patriotic organizations, experts on Panama Canal problems, and officials of the State Department testifying.

Instead of publishing the hearings and reporting out the resolutions, the subcommittee postponed further consideration and did not authorize the printing of the hearings. Thus, there was denied to Congress and the general public essential ~nformation to which both are entitled.

In an effort to secure publication of the hearings during the present Congress, on June 20, 1968, I wrote the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs recommending the immediate publication of the hearings. He has now replied and I have answered his reply reiterating my June 20 recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, the gravity of the situation is emphasized by the fact that legislative bodies of the following six States hnve adopted resolutions opposing any surrender at Panama: Alabama, Cali-: fornia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The entire exchange of letters follows:

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.O., June 20, 1968. Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.O.

DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: After the introduction · and support by some 150 members of the House of Representatives, both House and Concurrent, opposing the pending Panama Canal treaties that would- cede United States sovereignty and ownership of the Canal Zone and Canal to the Republic of Panama, the Subcommittee on InterAmerican Affairs of your Committee held extensive hearings, and the witnesses included Members of the Congress as well as others.

The subcommittee, on August 16, 1967, approved House Resolution 676 (Sullivan Resolution) opposing the treaties but delayed further consideration until agreement has been reached between the United States and Panamanian negotiators and failed to authorize publication of these important hearings.

Despite the foregoing, the Survey of Activities of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, January 10, 1967-December 15, 1967, recently issued by your Committee, makes no mention of the indicated hearings relative to the canal problem, although Section IV on pages 29-31 of the Survey does list "Measures Not Receiving ;Final Action". This is not the only case of suppression in the Congress as regards the current interoceanic canal situation that has denied the Congress and the Nation essential information on the canal question.

As the result of my long study and close observation of canal problems, I have formed some very definite conclusions, namely:

1. That there is evidence in both Panama and in the United States that the proposed treaties, perhaps with some modification, wm be signed and presented to the United States Senate and the Panamanian National As:. sembly for ratification at a time which their supporters deem opportune.

2. That the Committee on Foreign Affairs should not wait for agreement by the ne.:. gotiators but should report out its resolution . promptly for action by the House without further delay.

3. That in its report the committee quote and emphasize Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution concerning. the disposal of territory and property of the United States.

4. That it authorize the printing of the 1967 canal hearings now.

In these connections, Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize that the security of the United States as well as of the Isthmus of Panama and the Panama Canal are dependent upon the proper wise solution of the issues involved and that full publicity and not suppression should prevail.

Sincerely yours, DANIEL J. FLOOD, Member of Congress.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAmS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.O., July 2, 1968. Hon. DANIEL J. FLOOD, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DAN: Your letter dated June 20th was just received in this afternoon's mail and that is the reason for the apparent delay in my answering it. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments and conclusions on the Panama Canal problem, particularly becau~e I know of your close and intimate knowledge of the situation there.

May .I, howe1ler:, take this oppOI•tunity to , correct several misunderstandings. that appear in your letter. The Subcommittee did not approve H. Res. 676. Actually, on August 16, 1967, the subcommittee voted 11 to 1 to postpone consideration of H. Res. 676 and similar resolutions until agreement had been reached on the treaties.

As it has not been reported, and is still pending in the subcommittee, it has not been referred to in our Survey of Committee Activities. If you will check pages 29 through 31 you will note that the references are to measures which received favorable Committee action but which had not yet been the subject of final legislative in either the House or Senate. Whenever action 1s taken on any of the Panama resolutions, I can assure you they will receive a correct listing.

There has been no suppression of information about H. Res. 676. The subcommittee's decision to postpone publication of the hearings was due to a desire to release all the testimony, including that given in executive session, and this could not be done until the treaty texts had been officially released. Also, in the foreword of the Survey I have stressed that "Nothing contained in or omitted from the survey should be interpreted as indicating legislative intent with respect to the legislative matters covered. This intent, where expressed, will be found in the appropriate hearings, reports, files, debates, and statutes."

With kindest personal regards and best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours, THOMAS E. MORGAN,

_Chairman.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.O., July 11, 1968. Hon. THOMAS E. MORGAN, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.O.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1968, in reply to my recom-

July· 16, 1968 mendation for prompt publication of the 1967 hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs of your Committee concerning the Panama Canal. Because I evidently did not make myself sutliciently clear I wish to elaborate.

Concerning the point as to what action the subcommittee took, records supplied me at the time by the subcommittee show that on August 16 it did consider House Resolution 676, 90th Congress, and adopted substitutes for· its last whereas clause and its resolve clause, which subcommittee actions certainly constitute an approval even though H. Res. 676 was not voted out. The subcommittee then adopted a motion temporarily postponing further consideration of House Resolution 676 and similar resolutions "until agreement of both parties on the completed texts of the treaties has been reached."

As to the texts of the treaties, these were released in Panama after the joint announcement by the Presidents of the United States and Panama of completion of the negotiations and were sold on the streets of Panama City. Moreover, their texts were printed in the Congressional Records of July 17, 21, and 27, 1967, in statements to the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.

The prime purpose in mind for the immediate publication of the 1967 hearings is to enable the Congress and the Nation to have the benefit of the information therein developed in advance of submission of the treaties to the Senate, for the disposal of United States territory and property is involved in them. This power is vested by the Constitution in the Congress and. not exclusively in the Senate.

The policy of suppression of information opposing the proposed Panama Canal Treaties iS notorious. The Congress should certainly prove its desire for publicity by giving publicity which is in its province to give in opposition to tne treaty proposals so that the Congress and the American people can _ be fully informed and thus prepared to register their decision if and when the treaties may be presented for Senate ratification and Congressional ac~ion.

As matters now stand, knowledge of the treat¥ proposals emanate only from Ex~c~tive otlicials supporting them; no otlicial information touching these matters is desS'1minated from the Congress. Thus one of the most vital situations in ·American history is blanketed by the suppression of official information in the congress as urged by our treaty making otlicials with the result tllat only their arguments and representations are publicized. This is manifestly a gross wrong perpetrated against our people wh~ have .furnished an investment of over five billions of dollars in the Panama enterprise.

Acco;rdingly, I reiterate . tlle recommendations of my June 20, 1968, letter.

With assurances of highest regards, I am, Sincerely yours,

DANIEL J. FLOOD, Member of Congress.

GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER PROPOSES A PROGRAM FOR PEACE IN VIETNAM

HON. PAUL FINDLEY OF ILLINOIS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monda.y, July _15, 1968

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 13, 1968, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller detail~d a brUliant, practical, ancl honorable pl~n under which a long-needed de-Americanization of the Vietnam war would begin at once. He has proposed an alterna-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

tive to the present costly stalemate which is plausible, coherent, and realistic. He is the only presidential candidate to spell out in detail the policies he would follow if elected, and in doing so has demonstrated the wisdom and courage required to meet the most complex problems of t his era.

In order that my colleagues may acquaint themselves with Governor Rockefeller's proposals, I would like to submit his statement on Vietnam at this time:

A PROGRAM FOR PEACE IN VIETNAM

The tragedy of Vietnam has distressed and divided the American people more than any conflict in our modern history. Twenty-five thousand Americans have died there. And the war has come to trouble the very bases of American security and American society.

I believe--and have repeatedly statedthat the Administration's policies, both political and military, have not worked. The war has been been conducted without a coherent-strategy or program for peace. It has been manned by a draft that holds millions in needless doubt of their future. It has been financed by a headlong inflation that imperils our economic life.

I believe, therefore, that a new and constructive Vietnam policy is essential and urgent.

We must learn the stern lessons of this war. We must end the war through negotiations

as quickly as possible on just terms. We must de-Americanize the war in South

Vietnam even while negotiations continue. If nominated and elected, I pledge to work

with all my strength and ability to achieve these ends.

II

The representatives of the United States and North Vietriam have been meeting for two months in Paris for ·preliminary peace talks. The only agenda item has been the cessation· of bombing. Previously, , six weeks were required for selecting a site. Before substantive talks can begin, there will have to be agreements on who will participate in the formal conference, as well as an agenda for such a meeting. ·

We know the cost of such slow progress from past history. In the Korean War; we suffered more casualties while regotiations were going on than before they began.

I believe that there are now two serious obstacles to progress in Paris.

The first is the hope, in Hanoi, that our November Presidential election may somehow improve their bargaining position. -

The second, is a lack of mutual trust about ultimate aims.

These obstacles can be reduced if America atlirms now a concrete plan for peace.

I want to remove any doubt in Hanoi's mind about America's unity on objectives. I want to speed negotiations and save lives.

The present Administration has avowed, ' again and again, that we are ready to withdraw our forces if Hanoi is ready to do the saxne. In -the . Manila declaration, -the Saigon Government and our other allies agree. Yet no specifics have been given.

I am, therefore, now setting forth a detailed four.:stage plan for peace in Vietnam.

This plan has three essential elements. First.-A mutual pull-back and ultimate

withdrawal of all outside forces. (U.S. and its non-Vietnamese allies on 'one side and North Vietnam on the other). This pull-back would be monitored by an international peacekeeping force which would initially act as a buffer between the outside forces aild ulti-mately replace them. · ·

Second.-A settlement of the internal arrangements of South Vietnam by the people · of South Vietnam on the basis of the principles of self-determination through free elections to be supervised by the international peace-keeping force. Every group ·that

21601 is willing to abide by the democratic processes and is prepared to renounce force--including the National Liberation Frontshould be free to participate in these elections.

Third.-A de-Americanization of the war to enable us to· reduce, substantially, American forces-whether or not Hanoi cooperates.

Such a clear-cut plan cannot possibly weaken our negotiating position in the preliminary talks about the cessation of bombing which are now taking place. On the contrary, we can only strengthen our position in the substantive discussions to come, by such specific testimony to the integrity and force of our will for peace.

III

The program I anticipate entails realistic steps toward peace through four logical stages.

During the first stage: 1. North Vietnamese regular forces would

move back toward frontier areas of South Vietnam while U.S. forces would be deployed around the populated areas.

2. An international peace-keeping force composed of neutral nations-Asian, if possible--would be interposed as a security buffer between American and allied forces on one side and North Vietnamese forces on the other. This would automatically represent a major deescalation. It would sharply curtail-if not eliminate-the kind of military operations which cause most casualties. It would be a big and realistic step toward a cease-fire.

3. As soon as the North Vietnamese movement back to the frontiers starts, the United States would withdraw 75,000 troops from South Vietnam as a token of its good faith.

During the second stage: 1. As North Vietnamese regular forces, as

well as North Vietnam "fillers" in Viet Cong guerrilla units, withdraw from South Vietnam, we would undertake simultaneous withdrawal of the bulk of our remaining forces. - 2. The small United States forces left in

Vietnam would be confined to fixed installations as long as North Vietnam carries out its . commitment.

3. As the National Liberation Front ceases guerrilla operations and agrees to abide by the democratic process, it will be guaranteed participation in the political life of the country.

4. An enlarged international pea~e-keeping force would gradually be introduced into the populated areas, to monitor the withdrawal of forces as defined above, the effecting of local cease-fires, and the guaranteeing of free political activities.

During the third stage: 1. Free elections would take place in Viet

nam supervised by observers from the inter- · national force trained for this function.

2. The United States would withdraw its small remaining forces.

3. The international peace-keeping force · would remain.

During the fourth and final stage: . 1. The two parts of Vietnam would decide

whether to unite or remain separate by direct negotiations.

2. FOllowing this, the international peacekeeping force would be withdrawn.

This four-stage plan should be put forward after full consultation with the governments of South Vietnam and our other allies. Its guarantees and -international supervil:lions should be worked out by an international conference of all interested nations-perhaps 'the Geneva Conference Group of 1954. And the United Nations should be asked to aid, wherever practicable, i:t;l_ expediting details and communicationS.

:rv Such a plan for peace would directly and

immedi~tely serve our stated goals and national interest. ·

21602 It would dispel any uncertainty about our

intentions that might now contribute to deadlock in the negotiations-thll!J quickening chances for a political settlement. . It would achieve our purpose of enabling the people of SOuth Vietnam to determine their own fate without outside interference and through free elections.

It would introduce an international presence of concerned neutral countries to supervise compliance. and so minimize any dangers of future unilateral intervention.

It would enlist the self-interest of all nations directly concerned to ~ustain the agreement, for these nations, which have learned the dangers of war in Southeast Asia to world peace.

It would both avoid the disastrous consequences of our unilateral withdrawal and lead to the end of this tragic war.

v We must face one final, obvious question:

What should we do if North Vietnam rejec~ such a program? It is true th.at any plan, however reasonable, might now be scorned. We can only test Hanoi's good faith, not guarantee it.

The answer is: Whatever Hanoi's response, we can and should change our own Vietnam strategy. For the Administration's policywhich hat Americanized the war and has lacked a definiable goal-has convinced Hanoi that time is on its side. Therefore, we can and should move toward de-Americanizing the war. This would not enly reduce our casualties, it would also speed the more vigorous assertions of responsibility by the South Vietnamete-the development most likely to convince Hanoi that it cannot win its objectives by force.

We can work to this specific end with the follpwing measures:

1. American forces should be deployed where they will do the most good at the least cost. Most American casualties have been incurred in "search and destroy" operations and in static frontier defense. Ninety percent of the population lives in sixty percent of the territory. Our troops should be moved to protect this area.

2. The Army of South Vietnamese forces should be given increasing responsibilities and adequate equipment and training. Today, the Army of Vietnam is still_ largely equipped with World War II weapons. It has only ten percent of the artillery and airp'ower to equivalent U.S. units. This must be remedied immediately.

3. As the Army of Vietnam is re-equipped a~d gains in strength, American forces can be withdrawn for the periOd of a year at a regular rate on the order of' 10,000 a monthprovided North Vietnam does not increase its rate of infiltration. Mter this time, a reassessment would be necessary. -

4. As much as one hal! of the swollen American civilian staffs engag~d in the pacification program seem dispensible. These staffs suffocate in the Vietnamese sense of responsibility by gearing programs to an American scale, American staffing procedures and American preferences. They cause resentment without enabling ·the South Vietnamese Government to relate itself more closely to its people.

5. We should advocate more vigorously than ever a broadening of the -base ot the political life of South Vietnam including the widest possible grouping of lion-Communist pOlitical forces. For this is the essential -prerequisite for shifting from mmtary to poUtical competition with the National Libera-tion Front. ·

6. We should reiterate-despite any initial rejection of such a plim by· Hanoi-our commitment to it as a true and honorable path to peace.

VI

I herewith pledge that, as President, I w111 carry out this plan and these a:ctlons.

I also pledge that we will not again find

EXTENSIONS ·oF REMARKS ourselves with a commitment looking for · ~ justification. ·

I pled·ge that we will support our allies, but not substitute for them. ·

I pledge that we will carefully allocate our resources according to well-defined priorities.

I pledge that we wlll face our future challenges by trusting our people. We will tell · them the whole truth and the whole risk.

I pledge that finally, I will work with all my strength for peace and justice not only in Asia, but for all nations and peoples of the world.

DEATH BY ANARCHY OR PEACEFUL CHANGE BY LAW

REMARKS 01'

HON. JAMES R. GROVER, JR. 01' NEW YORK



Mr. GROVER. . Mr. Speaker, every Member of the Congress should read this outstanding tribute to our great men in blue in an address delivered on the occasion of the memorial services for members of the Suffolk County Police Department. who have died in the line of duty, by the Rev. Edward A. Wisbauer, J_r., S.T.B., Episcopal priest chaplain of the Suffolk County Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, and the Suffolk County Police Conference: . DEATH BY ANARCHY OR PEACEFUL CHANGE BY

LAW?

Deputy County Executive Meade, Police Comnlissioner Barry, President Finn, guests, and members of the Suffolk County ·Police Department. The violent death of a peace officer in thl'l line of duty is a symbol of .the frightening contradictions all Americans fear will destroy our nation. For the peace officer is a. living sign of what a nation requires to preserve its life. He represents the p·reservation of order among men. He is a sign of what men have· discovered to be the best way to maintain order, and that is by the eruorcement of law. He represents the guardian interest of law makers and · government executives who wish to maintain the peaceful intercourse of free men in a united society that is all for one and one for all. ·

When a peace officer dies in the line of duty in violent attack, the lives of our nation's. fam111es are in jeopardy. The soul of a nation is ln its law under God, and tli.e body of that law is in its outward sign, the police officer. As when a body dies, the soul is wrenched ~part from its vehicle of performance, so when the peace officer .is killed, the law loses its vehicle of performance.

Now, men and women shrink from cancer because in its nucleus, it is disorderly in growth, and does not bring natural, easy change, but chaotic and violent death. The chaos of cancer is a contradiction to the gentle change and normal death that age brings which in itself is like democratic change, slow and natural. Likewise, the attack on the peace officer is like cancer attacking a healthy body. The attack upon the symbol of law and order is a frightening contradiction of what we know we need -t<> remain a nation united during peaceful change. The attack upon the officer of the law brings not a democratic change in a society, but chaos and violent death· to police first, and ·to nation second. A nation, like a httman body, cannot withstand; the chaotic atta.ck on the symbol of law and

July 16," 1968 order ·ana·reinain a soeiety that Is all fol' one and one for all. ·

And. -although Americans ·usually disUke change, America is not afra.id of change.: We do resist· ·change by many means: we picket, lobby, editorialize in· ou:r· news 11?-edia., peace:-:· fully demonstrate, and if ·we ·· ln'e- politlciari.s · we verbalize .. . but we are not a nation thatis afraid of change. The proof of that is when all our efforts have been exerted to prevent · what we do not want ... we retire from the battle field and try to talk ourselves Into getting used to accepting what we opposed by reason or prejudice or emotion. So it is not change, like a normal death that Ameri• cans fear. We fear the contradictions about us, the cancers of chaos that are growing in the name of what a changing America justly needs, but by their methods will destroy America.

Two examples come to mind: First SNCC, or The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. Here is an organization that is largely non-student in makeup. It is largely violent in the methods it uses to bring about the American dream of racial equality •.. and it does not coordinate the factors of that dream, it destroys that dream replacing it with a nightmare of violence. Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown· are the demagogues ~ho play upon the pain of a people who have too long suffered the unjust loss of opportunities the rest of us have enjoyed. It is the startling contrast of what these men stand .for and 'the methods they advo.:. cate, with words ••student . • • Non-violent ... Coordinating ... Committee" that shocks us. And anarchy is color blind. because a second example is the white dQminated organization called Students For a Democratic Society. Their escapades on Columbia University's campus is a study in contr.astl A DemQeratic .SocieW, ca~pus or civil, does not b:ting change to a peaceful, stubborn adminis·tratt6n by mob rule, plllaglng, and · the ~forcefur -containment' of ·the officials in . that very society with which they disagree.

Now what is-it that lies beneath the surface of the criminal who assaults and kills a peace officer? What is the premise of a student organization that assaults faculty members, or objects to the police departttlent enforcing the law against the sale and possession ·of narcotics on its campus? The political profile of anarchists from Marx, to Trotsky, Hitler . to Castro, Carmichael and H. Rap Brown, . Che Guevara to the Ku Klux Klan is all of. one shape: these persons and their defenders believe that they possess a status · in their particular pursuits· which make them immune, no not immune, but apart from the society of law and order, above the obligation to maintain the peaceful intercourse of men in a united society,

· So . what America fears. is not change but the cancer of anarchy, violent change, brought about by an increasing number of groups who consider themselves · within the sanctuary of tlie untouchables. Our nation is gradually becoming a soci'ety of exclusive groups, little islands unto themselves, and in opposition to all orderly change. -

The second frightening contradiction Americans fear will destroy our nation ls the often spineless silence of many politicians whose lust for votes either softens their voices to a whisper in the face of ·lawlessness, or who give vocal support· to those who attack law enforcement bodies, thereby frightening the law abiding public by .the soft .treatment shown to criminals in Penal Oode Revisions. The essence of. the.wqrd politiciaJ?., is politics, from the Gr~.ek ;word Polis wl).ich refers to a city and it's inhabitants. The frightening · contradiction before-· Americans in their fear for their nation's health is that politicians; who are to consider the welfare of the 'inhabitants of their district, are often afraid to slam down their hands and say, ·"That's enough,"· and return to the police officer, and the ·District Attorney the immunity from attack on prudent methods needed

July 16, 1968 to prosecute crime and the apprehension of its perpetrators. Peace officers do not need words of encouragement from politiciansthey need new laws!

So this morning we are not merely commending to God. the souls of these peace officers killed in the line of duty, which in fact need not be done before a merciful God whose law they defended . . . nor are we only thanking God for their courageous examples by which others may learn to approach their job. We are here also because we are alive to the fact that more and more of our men on this job daily face increased possibilities of violent death by assault from anarchists who are gaining greater protection from the law each day. With this prospect before us, fewer men will be willing to join the department knowing that the palice officer is no longer considered by many government executives to be a positive force. For we now have come to this ... this greatest contradiction of all: we now have peace officers on the defensive who must justify their efforts against an armed criminal trapped in the act . . . who must justify their presence in society as if they were interlopers and ·invaders among self righteous, untouchable groups . . . all this is the new picture politicians are asking us "to buy" when they vote down the legislation that would strengthen the peace officer.

May God protect us from the final dissolution of police efforts by the constant hammering away at police efficiency and morale.

THE TAX BILL WITHOUT EXPENDITURE RESTRAINT

HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS OF MISSOUBI


Tuesday, _July 16, 1968

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my practice to prepare a mimeographed letter to my constituents whenever the volume of mail on a particular issue requires it. This allows ine to reply to each of my constituents in the necessary depth and detail.

The tax bill, recently passed by the Congress and signed by the President, is an issue which has both engendered

. much correspondence and requires full discussion.

I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD today the mimeographed letter which I sent out to my constituents on this issue. I am making this a matter of public record, because, as one who has stressed the need for fiscal reform for many years, I feel a full and public statement of the reasons for my opposition to the President's tax bill-which was presented under the name of fiscal reformshould be available to all who may be interested in examining it. It is my hope that members of the financial community and news media personnel specializing in economic affairs will give it their attention, as I feel that the key to our needed fiscal reform-expenditure restraint, and not a tax increase-has not been fully comprehended by these people.

My letter follows: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C.

Thank you for your recent letter concerning federal taxes and expenditure policy. Since writing a lengthy letter setting forth the details of my views on this serious matter

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS the Congress has nuw passed, and the President has signed, what is termed the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968. As you may imagine, I have received a voluminous mail on this important subject and, again in order to be able to reply in detail, I am resorting to this mimeographed form letter. If after reading it you have further questions and comments, please write further and I can assure you will receive an individual response discussing these added points.

As one who has been trying to stress the need for basic fiscal reform by the federal government for years, you might well wonder why I voted against this bill and took the floor of the House to oppose i-t. This is particularly true as two years ago in my capacity as the ranking Republican member of the Joint Economic Committee I pointed out that even after a large cut in federal spending levels it regrettably would probably be necessary to ask the people to pay more taxes for a while in order to correct the fiscal imbalance which has cumulated and been allowed to get badly out of control.

However, the key to fiscal reform lies not in increasing the federal tax rates which are still too high but in cutting back expenditure levels. An increase in tax rates can only be considered as temporary and supplemental to reducing expenditure levels at best, and then only after expenditure levels have been scheduled for reduction with reference to the specific cuts to be made. It is possible that a tax rate increase can produce less not more revenues if it contributes to an economic slowdown which reduces the tax base. Certainly what programs are cut back and what programs are permitted to move ahead at the same or at increased expenditure levels makes a considerable difference economically, particularly in combatting inflation.

Clearly the Johnson Administration at the most wanted increased tax revenues to pay for its increasing expenditures. It was opposed to cutting back expenditures in any sense. In actuality the Johnson Administration wanted to pay for the increasing expenditures through increased deficits and adding to the federal debt and only reluctantly asked for increased taxes as a result of the pressures of the monetary authoritie·s and the international banking community. Note the way in which the Administration continued to drag its feet in actually asking Congress for the tax rate increase. The last thing the Johnson Administration wanted to do was cut expenditure levels and it knew the Congress would insist on this as a price for any tax rate increase. It is important to realize that the Johnson Administration dragged its feet long enough in asking for a tax rate increase so that fiscal year 1968 came and went so that no expenditure cuts were applied to this fiscal year. It is also important to stress that the . $6 billion expenditure cut so widely publicized is not a cut from the expenditure levels of fiscal 1968 but a lowering of the greatly increased level of spending for fiscal 1969 implicit in the President's January 1968 budget message. The $6 billion cut was not from the $135 billion level the President set for fiscal 1968 in his January 1967 budget message, but from the $186.1 billion expenditure level set for fiscal 1969 in his January 1968 budget message. ·

The Joint Economic Committee in its March 1967 Annual Report on the President's budget message for fiscal 1968 and on the President's 1967 Economic Report unanimously recommended that the expenditure level of $135 billion be cut by $6 billion to $130 billion ... if we were to avoid the damages which would result from continued infiation and rising high interest rates. The Joint Economic Committee also pointed out that the deficit would be closer to $30 billion for fiscal 1968 than the $8 billion deficit set out in the President's budget. (Fiscal year 1968 ended this June 30 and the deficit is over

21603 $25 billion.) The Democrats on the committee suggested that a tax- rate increase on top of a $5 billion expenditure cut would slow down the economy and therefore would do more damage than good. The Republicans suggested that the $5 billion expenditure level cut was too little to stop inflation and higher interest rates and that even with a somewhat greater cut a tax rate increase could be absorbed temporarily and would probably be necessary if we were to stop the forces of inflation.

Throughout calendar year 1967 the Johnson Administration, ignoring this advice, increased its spending beyond the large increases set in its own budget messages. For the last half of fiscal 1967, namely January through June 1967 it increased spending level to $126.7 billion by $13.9 billion over its original expenditure estimates. It continued this rate of increase for the first six months of fiscal 1968 (namely the months of July through December 1967). Far from accepting the bipartisan advice of the congressional economic committee, the Johnson Administration did the opposite and without any reference to the Congress increased its spending levels beyond the already large increases projected in the budget. Furthermore, not until August 1967 did the Johnson Administration do anything about pushing for a tax rate increase bill even though the President had included the anticipated revenue increase in his budget figures. This established the point I have made that the Johnson Administration really preferred financing its increased spending by increased debt rather than increased taxes.

The Ways and Means Committee held public hearings and held continuous executive sessions on the Administration's belated request for tax increases during the months of September and October 1967. Many eminent economists and business men testified along with the Johnson Administration economic and fiscal authorities. With very few exceptions the expert witnesses outside of government advised that cuts in expenditure levels were necessary (and they were talking about both the current fiscal year 1968 and the next fiscal year 1969) if fiscal policy was to be effective in dampening the forces of inflation. Almost all argued that even with expenditure cuts some tax rate increases to provide more revenue would also be necessary. There was considerable disagreement among the experts as to what the mix of expenditure cuts and tax rate increases should be. Regrettably none of the witnesses were prepared to discuss where expenditure cuts should be made, even though they all agreed that it made a considerable economic difference what programs were to be cut back to effectuate the expenditure level cuts. Seven out of the eight expert economists agreed that $1 blllion cut in expenditures had a considerably greater impact on dampening the forces of inflation than did $1 billion increase in revenues and there always remained the question of whether ·increasing tax rates would actually bring about increased revenues. Some economists agreeing with Chairman Wilbur Mills were concerned lest a tax rate increase slow down the economy and thus end up in less revenue. Although. I did not agree with these economists their point of view was based upon considerable logic, if the economic picture was as some economic indicators they pointed to suggested.

However, the Ways and Means Committee adjourned these hearings because the Johnson Administration refused to even discuss where even minimal expenditure cuts could be made. The Administration spokesmen insisted that they had presented a tight budget and the only way they could cut was to apply a meat ax across the board cut. They refused to enter into a discussion to establish priorities between programs. Of course, the only intelligent way to cut expenditures

21604 is by establishing priority among. programs and slow down or put on the shelf those programs with lower priorities after elimi-nating the wasteful programs. ·

The next move in this tragic charade being played by the Johnson Administration came in January 1968 when the President presented his budget message for fiscal 1969 and his Economic Report for calendar 1968. Both reports showed clearly that the President far from following the economic line recommended by the Congressional Economic Committee and the majority of the Ways and Means Committee and most economists and business leaders, had chosen to continue to follow the course recommended by the "New Economic." His expenditure levels for the current fiscal year were by then running at an increased annual rate of over $142 billion, not the $135 billion level originally set in his own budget ... and certainly not the $130 billion level recommended by the Congressional Committee. Furthermore the level of expenditure set :(orth in the budget for fiscal 1969 (to begin July 1, 1968) was $186.1 billion. (This is the figure for the consolldated budget which includes expenditures from trust funds financed by earmarked taxes not out of general revenue.) The expenditure level for the administrative items, those items financed out of general revenue, was about $152 billion or a whopping $17 billion more than the administr.ative budget expenditure levels originally set for fiscal 1968, namely $135 blllion.

The deficit for fiscal year 1969 was set in the budget message at the unrealistic figure of $8 billion. However, the deficit for the administrative budget ... which reflects the amount of money that must be borrowed and hence become part of the federal debt was $11 blllion. Again it became quite clear that this was a gross underestimate similar to the underestimated deficit projected for fiscal 1968 which as we now know turned out to be $25 billion instead of $8.1 billion. Secretary of Treasury Fowler in testifying before. the House-Senate Conference on the tax expenditure cut legislation in May stated that the deficit for fiscal year 1969 would be around $31 billion if the tax-expenditure package were not enacted into law. Even with this enactment into law it is clear that the deficit will be closer to $20 billion than to $8 billion given in the budget message. Again we see the evidence of the real fiscal policy being pursued by the Administrationnamely to increase expenditures and finance the increase essentially by deficits not taxes.

Again the Johnson Adm1nistra tion delayed through the early months of 1968 in sending up a tax increase message. Furthermore, it failed to respond to the standing invitation of the Ways and Means Committee to discuss expenditure cuts in the context both of establishing priority between programs and lowering the total level of spending. Of course the Administration had given its answer to everyone who cared enough to read, to the Ways and Means Committee request of last October to come in with a budget revised to lower spending levels. The January 1968 budget message to the Congress showed increases, not decreases, in total spending levels for the current fiscal year and for the next fiscal year, $7 billion increase for fiscal year 1968 and a $17 billion increase for fiscal year 1969.

The Administration in January presented an anemic and ambivalent program to cut back on the deficit in international payments. The program consisted of restricting private expenditures abroad in context of increasing government spending abroad. Although the Secretary of the Treasury said the "keystone" of the program was enacting the tax rate increase legislation no efforts were made to push for it. The extension of the selected excise tax rates scheduled to be lowered, passed the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate without

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS : the Administration doing anything to pusli for its income tax rate increases. The Administration was well aware that the price being demanded by the Congress for the surtax was reduction in expenditure levels. The Administration reiterated its previous position that its 1968 budget was a tight budget and that the 1969 budget was also a tight budget. Neither budget could have its expenditure levels reduced, they argued.

The Administration continued in this attitude. When the U.S. Senate added the amendment to the excise tax bill to impose the surtax in conjunction with a $6 billion cut in "xpenditur.e levels from the $186.1 level, the Administration vigorously opposed it. The Administration continued to fight this amendment during the conference sessions between the House and · Senate. It even opposed a $4 billion cut. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget under Presidential orders refused to discuss establishing priorities between programs in order to reach agreement on any cut in expenditures. The Director talked only in terms of the unacceptable across the board meat ax cut. Only llfter the matter at long last came before the House itself for approval did the President publicly state that he would accept the $6 billion expenditure level cut. But this at most was mere lip service. At the same time his cabinet officers were busy stirring up special interest groups in the general public and the Congress to oppose the expenditure cuts by falsely stating that veterans' programs, education and welfare measures were going to be cut. He still would not sit down with the Congressional leaders to consider where either the $4 or a. $6 billion cut would be made on a line item basis. It is impossible to cut expenditure levels without advance planning which means advance notice of where these cuts are to be made. The House debated the tax-expenditure bill a mere four days before the new fiscal year began, the year in which $6 billion cuts had to be made. At this late date no one in the Congress or the Administration could say where the cuts were being made. This was conclusive evidence to anyone who cared to look for the truth that no cuts were indeed being made. At most the cuts could only come a month or two later. And only six months of this fiscal year are under the Johnson Administration. The last six months are under the new President to be elected in November. It will not help stem present inflationary forces in July, August, September, October and November by cutting next January and February.

I reiterated time and again in speeches on the floor of the House beginning May 14, that I would support the tax increase bill if ~the President would spell out where the line item cuts would be. I had two purposes in mind. 1. To be certain that these cuts were really being made. 2. To be able to evaluate the economic effect of these cuts. I repeat, 1t makes considerable economic as well as social difterence ... not to mention political difference . . . where the cuts are made. Certainly the economic factors must be weighed if we are to do the job of stemming infiation. Regrettably I did not receive support in this position from either the financial community or the leadership of the Republican Party.

To this date the President has not spelled out ... or consulted with the leaders of Congress of where the $6 billion cut is to be made. We are now well into the new fiscal year and no lowering of expenditure levels have come about. As a matter of fact on June 25, a White House spokesman was quoted by the United Press as saying that the President could not begin cutting "for months". It was stated that he could not begin to cut until the Congress had finished passing the appropriation bills. If further proof was needed that the President had no intention of cutting the expenditure levels during the remaining 6 months of his term of omce this should supply it. However, there

July 16, 1968 is even more ·concrete evidence that the-~ President has ·been playing . fiscal charades with the Congress and the country. While all of this discussion was going on· the President has revised his estimates of expenditure levels for the current. fiscal year up- . 'Yard from $186.1 billion to $188.8 billion, almost a $3 billion increase . . . not a $6 bil- · lion decrease.

Now the tax rate increase had become somewhat important to the President's ability to continue at this increased spending level. Mr. Mills, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, stated during debate on the surtax expenditure package in response to my argument that the President would not abide by the expenditure cut of $6 bil- · lion that the debt ceiling law would prevent him from spending at a level of $186.1. He could not increase deficit financing ·that much. But the crunch of the debt ceUing doesn't have its full impact until December 15th ... the low point of revenue collections for the federal government . . . well after the November elections. Furtherniore, · as Mr. Mills or any student of the debt ceiling legislation knows, there are many cushions that have been placed in setting· the ceiling to permit the Treasury Depart- · ment to have fiexibillty in managing the federal debt. These cushions can be used improp~rly to allow for increased spending levels instead of for their designed purposes ot efllcient debt management. Secretary of the Treasury Fowler in many collo-· quies with me over a period of years in con-· sidering debt celllng legislation has made it clear that he would not resist the improper use of these cushions. Furthermore; federal capital assets can be sold off to defeat the discipline of the :federal debt ceil-ing. · ·

Whatever argument Mr. Mills might have had for saying that the present debt limit would force the President to abide by the $6 billion cut it certainly was a more compelling argument to not give the President more tax revenues until he waa firmly tied down in cutting his expenditure levels. If the debt ceillng will serve as a discipline even with the several billlons of revenue collected before December 15 from the surtax, how much more of a discipline would it be if the President did not have these additional blllions in revenue? Mr. Mills and the Congress by voting for the surtax without firm commitments to cut expenditures have let the President off the hook in cutting expenditures during his final months in office. The forces of infiation will be fed not diminished ui the next few months as a result of this action.

Cutting expenditure levels immediately is the one effective way of dampening the forces of inflation. The Johnson Administration has chosen not to take this course and successtully resisted all etrorts to force lt to do so. The course it is taking is to spend the additional Revenues taken from the people which will merely continue the high level of utilized purchaaing power in the society. We have merely transferred the decision of how to spend the money from the private sector to the governmental sector. It is the overspending of the federal governmental sector that has put us in the fiscal bind in which we find ourselves, not the private sector. Government spending by its very nature is more infiationary, less disciplined and I would argue more poorly designed to solve the social problems of our society than private spending disciplined as it is by both the market place and the political process.

In my previous letter I listed some $17 billion of expenditure cuts we could make without touching the war in Vietnam or the war on poverty . . . or the fields of health, education, and welfare. Certainly we would not need to touch veterans' pensions, school lunch programs, or head-start or social security, as the Administration has alleged in a

July 16, 1968 demagogic and irresponsible fa.shlon. I begin my suggested expenditure cuts with those that have a double-barrelled effect: 1) cutting back our troops in Europe • . . a $2 billion saving; 2) cutting our foreign e,id programs from an expenditure level of around $5.5 billion to a level of •1.8 b1llion. Moving over to the domestic area I suggest cutting 1) research and developing which has burgeoned to an _unrealistic level of $17 billion in a very few years, to •14 billion; 2) cutting public works from a $5 billion level to a $2 billion level; 3) cutting the space program from a $4.8 b1llion level to a $3.5 billion; 4) switching the agriculture programs from those of government restraint ancl regulation, paying farmers for not produchig to programs which permit them to get increased returns through th.e market place for producing, a saving of $2 billion; 5) holding federal employment to present levels saves $1 billion; 6) all of this will save $1 billion in interest rates on the federal debt.

Some have felt that the President has logic on his side when he says he cannot set his expenditure levels until the Congress finishes its appropriation bills. He does not. · He is using the little understood and unduly complicated federal appropriation process to deceive the people and the Congress. The Congress does not set expenditure levels. Rightly, the power to set expenditure levels rests in the President subject to the Congressional judgment on financing these expenditures through tax revenues or increasing the federal debt. If the federal debt should not be further increased in the Congress' judgment then it rightly may say to the President set your total expenditure level lower . . . or it may say we will finance this expenditure level by increasing taxes.

In the long run, over a period of many fiscal years, of course, Congress effects the spending levels, because the Congress must give to the President the power to spend before he spends. However, the congressional appropriation process of giving the President the powel' to spend money does not specify in what fiscal year that power to spend must be exercised. Indeed, most appropriation bills contemplate the President using the power over a number of fiscal years. This new fiscal year began July 1 With the President having carry-over balances of power to spend, ~nutilized~ of around $222.3 billion. To these carry-over balances will be added the new appropriations passed by this Congress which . . . if the Congress adheres to the President's requests ... and it essentially is ... will amount to another $200 billion. In other words, the President will have a pool of over $400 billion power to spend from which he has said he Will spend only $186.1 ... now $188.8 billion in the current fiscal year. Note how without any reference to Congress he raised his spending level estimate a couple of months ago by almost $3 billion. Last year without any reference to the Congress he raised it by $7 billion. The year before by $13.9 billion. Actually he could raise it $20 b1llion or lower it $20 billion . . . and more . . . without any reference to the Congress. Furthermore, through the development of "supplemental" appropriation bills the President has gotten around the constitutional limitation saying he. cannot spend money unless authorized by law. He merely spends the money and then has Congress retroactively pass the law giving him the power to do so.

President Johnson is relying on the general complexities of federal financing to confuse both the people and regrettably many Congressmen by this false statement that he does not have the power to set spe.nding levels and that he must wait for the Congress to appropriate the full $200 billion additional he has requested in new appropriations •.. Congress could vote $210 btllion or $190 billion in the 15 appropriation b1lls it has under consideration this year.

CXIV--1361-Part 16

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Ten billion or twenty billion one way or the other need not have any bearing on the level of spending for the current fiscal year. It certainly has no bearing on the spending level the President- sets :for- the next four crucial months before the- November election.

Now I think it 1s important to answer a few other false arg_uments that are constantly advanced by the school of "New Economics" which has set our current flscal policy and which is bobbing and weaving to avoid being forced to change it in light of the serious flscal problems which now face our nation both at home aild abroad. For make no mistake about it, the Johnson Administration has not abandoned the fiscal policy of the New Economists.

Essentially this fiscal policy states that federal deficits make no dtiference. The important thing. is to keep the economy moving. The economy is kept moving, the theory ~ by continuing to increase total purchasing power in the- society. If the private sector is not spending enough to keep the gross national product increasing (and gross national product does measure economic activity ... not wealth, however, I hasten to add) then the federal government must spend more to bring about this increased total demand in the society. And the federal government should increase this total demand .by deficit financing because if the increased spending by government comes out of taxes from the people it cuts down on their spending. However, there is some advantage from financing increased government spending through tax increases even though increased deficits are a preferable way, because government can be counted on to spend the money, and more intelligently and for social "good", while the private sector might merely increa.Se its saving rate or spend it foolishly on "luxuries". This

· economic philosophy is closely allied as can be seen with a social and political philosophy that holds that government spends money more wisely than the private sector and therefore lt is essential to concentrate more spending power in the central government and cut back on the private sector.

It is quite clear why the New Economists fight so bitterly any efforts to force the federal government to lower its total expenditure levels and why it will take new taxes, if forced to, instead of the preferred way of increasing the debt to finance the increases. It is also clear why spending discipline to get the most for the dollars spent is relatively unimportant under this political economic theory. The important thing is to keep the economy heated up. Spend foolishly if neces- · sary but by all means spend.

To those who express concern about the size of the federal debt this school has developed a number of different sophisticated arguments, each one of which has a clever appeal but upon examination is specious. 1. Don't worry we owe the debt to ourselves. Well, this isn't quite as true today as it once was because increasingly some of the federal debt is being held by foreigners. Aside from that, however, the basic point with its full implication is revolutionary. The full implication is that the basic economic structure upon which our system of civiliza!tion is based can be ignored and wiped out. Property laws and private ownership have no important economic or social signifl.cance. Various people, business and non-profit institutions own the federal debt. They have this wealth set aside for their retirement, for educating their children, for expanding industry, for research and development, or for whatever. If their wealth is really not theirs, but "society's", "ours", then th~ historical economic and social structure of our society is wiped out. In its place, of course, comes a new structure where those who "direct" the society-those who contend the government should make the decisions of how we spend money-now lilllocate our resources. Well, I

21605 have a great respect for my professiongovernment---but believe me those of us in government hardly have thQ knowledge or the Wisdom to make the right decisions for the rest of society. The market place is the better place to- make economic decisions-just as the ballot box is the better place to make political decisions. Both place their emphasis on the importance of the human being and give to the individuals, equally and collectively, the ultilnate power of decision making in the society.

A second argument advanced is that we need not to worry abput the size of the federal debt because it is a less ratio to gross national product than it was twenty years ago. The fallacy of this argument is exposed by asking the question, is the ratio of 20 years ago a proper checkpoint? Suppose the ratio 20 years ago for some reason or other was very high and dangerous and we are still far from what should be our optimum ratio? The ratio of federal debt to GNP is a very proper and important one in evaluating whether the debt is too high or not. GNP is a good indicatQr of the size of our federal tax base inasmuch as our federal taxes are applied to economic activity.

As has been stated, GNP is a good measure of economic activity. - It is important to emphasize that the federal government does not rely upon taxing wealth for very much of its revenue. Local governments are the ones that primarily use the wealth tax for their essential revenues.. SO whether the economic activity 1s creating wealth or de-stroying wealth ... as is frequently the case in time of war . .. does not matter to the federal government for the immediate situation. In the long run of course if we are increasing the economic activity by using up wealth . . . and inflation will help do this . . . we are going to run into trouble. This is exactly the trouble we are now in. Nonetheless the ratio of debt to GNP is a proper and important one to consider in determining whether the federal debt is too high. During the growth of this country over the past 100 years the ratio of federal

.debt to GNP seldom exceeded 15%. These periods in which it did were-usually war periods, when deficit financing was necessary to carry on the heavy expenditures of the war.

The ratio, after each war, settled back to below 15%. Twenty years ago was the period immediately following the heavy deficit financing required to win World War II. The debt GNP ratio soared to well over 100%. Twenty years later instead of being close to the optimum ratio of below 15% the ratio is barely under 50% . And two-thirds of the reduction of the ratio from 1946 to 1968 was the result of the heavy post World War II inflation, hardly a ·course to commend. (Debt is in fixed dollars while GNP is in current dollars.) This high ratio leaves little resiliency in the event of another costly war or serious depression. The dialogue should be carried forward on what the optimum GNP-debt ratio should be, not be snagged on the fallacious dogma that because the ratio today is considerably below that of 1946 we have no cause to worry about the size of the federal debt.

One other argument being advanced in recent years by the New Economists to gain adherence to their theories centers around the tax cut of 1964. A real fiscal lesson can be learned in revieWing the debate and the subsequent flscal events surrounding it. The New Economists have been busy rewriting history in order to turn what was a disastrous defeat for their theories into a paper victory.

The New Economists advocated a tax cut in 1964, as they stated, in order to stimulate a sluggish economy. The classical economists advocated a tax cut in order to remove the impediment high tax rates imposed upon a dynamic economy. Both schools were tor a

21606 tax rate cut but based upon almost diametrically opposed economic theories. These conflicting theories show up vividly in their two opposite figures of .speech. 1. To stimulate a sluggish economy. 2. To remove an impediment holding back a dynamic economy. What happens when a stimulant wears off? You need another stimulant. What happens when you remove an impediment ... like a rock in your shoe? You keep moving and feeling good.

These two opposing theories clashed over an important fiscal point. The classical economists stated that in order for the tax cut to be effective federal governmental spending had to be cut, otherwise the federal deficit -that would temporarily result from the tax rate cut would create inflationary forces that would be worse or equal to the impedlment to 'economic growth that the high tax rates had been.

The New Economists of whom Dr. Heller, the then Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers was a leading spokesman, argued the converse. Federal spending must not be cut, he argued, otherwise the stimulative effect of increasing the spending power of the private sector through the tax cut to increase total spending in the soc.fety would be neutralized. Increasing total spending in the society, according to this theory, was needed to get rid of the "sluggishness".

Dr. Heller and I had a colloquy during a public hearing of the Joint Economic Committee in respect to these two theories. I suggested to Dr. Heller if he financed the temporary deficit created by continuing the increase in federal spending and at the same time lowering revenues by the tax rate cut, by selling the government bonds to the people or to private businesses it would take away from them the very increased purchasing power he stated he was after. Dr. Heller agreed that this would be so. He said he did not expect the federal government to sell the bonds to the private sector, but rather that he expected the Federal Reserve System to buy them. I responded that I thought this would create inflationary pressures that would come out in increases in the Consumer Price Index, the Wholesale Price Index and in higher interest rates • . . because this would be increasing the supply of money and credit beyond the capacity of the economy to absorb it. Dr. Heller responded by saying that with the relatively high rate of unemployment and the relatively low rate of utilization of plant capacity these inflationary forces would be absorbed and the desired result of increased GNP from lowering unemployment rates and increasing plant utilization would come about. The ensuing economic growth would provide the increased economic activity ... increased tax base . . . which would replace, as time went on, the loss of revenue from the lowering of the tax rates.

I responded by saying that I thought the unemployed were largely frictional, structural and institutional unemployed rather than cyclical unemployed. That there were more jobs going begging even in this period of relative high unemployment than there were unemployed. I felt that the bottle-neck was lack of skills in demand, unskilled and obsolete skilled, among the unemployed. That t11e heating up · of the economy would not put them to work but that carefully desi~ned programs of training and retraining and efforts to change the attitudes of unions toward the need for increased mobility of labor plus efforts to ameliorate the social bias toward minority races getting into the labor market were necessary to do the job. I observed that far from the economy being sluggish it was so dynamic that it was rendering machines and plant as well as skills economically obsolete at an increasingly rapid rate. That heating up the economy could aggravate rather than help in this process.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS I pointed out that the plant capacity that

Dr. Heller identified as idle was largely obsolete and inefticient plant capacity. That heating up the economy might put some of it into use but this would be inefticient and a mal-allocation of oua- resources. That essentially it would increase costs and contribute to the very inflation that we sought to prevent.

Regrettably the dialogue ended at this point instead of moving forward to find out what wa.s the true picture. Was the economy sluggish or was i.t experiencing growing pains from its rapid teahnological advancements?

Fortunately a decision had to be made on the fiscal point of whether or not to cut back on federal spending to make way for the federal income tax rate cut. The Republicans in the House of Representatives .sought to hold the federal expenditure level to $97 billion for fiscal 1964 and $98 billion for fiscal 1965. The Administration fought the Republican proposal, but the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee avoided a direct confrontation by getting the House to accept hortatory language urging the President to hold down his expenditure levels in lieu of the Republican sponsored amendment. The tax cut then became law.

The test was whether the President would increase his expenditure levels by about $5 billion a year as they had been planned to a $102 billion for fiscal year 1964 and then a $107 billion for fiscal year 1965 or would he . hold to the $97 billion level for these two fiscal years until the beneficial effects of the tax cut could take hold and bring in the increased revenues through the expansion of the economy no longer hobbled by the high tax rates.

The President certainly had ample power to spend at the increased levels, from the combination of his carry-over balance of unused power to spend and the new appropriation laws passed by the Congresses. I a.Sked on the floor of the House which President Johnson would stand up. The President who kept asking for additional powers to spend? Or the President who would not increase the

· spending levels? It was a question for a brief period only. The record is there for anyone to read. Fiscal year expenditures were held to a $97.7 billion level and fiscal 1965 expenditures were held to a $96.5 level. And expenditures were held to this level for the first two months of fiscal 1966, July and August 1965. The tax cut as everyone knows was an economic, social and political success. However, in September 1965 a new President Johnson stood up, the President who had been accumulating unutilized powers to spend by getting increased appropriations out of the Congress but not spending the money. In the month of September the spending level on an annual basis jumped to about $105 billion, and from then on month by month expenditures levels continued to soar. Inflationary forces were activated. The Federal Reserve Board moved in in November to try to curb with monetary power the inflationary forces being loosed on the Nation, then after holding firm, backed down in 1966 under a vicious and uncalled for attack by President Johnson. The Administration continued its rapid increases in expenditures levels. Now just three fiscal years later the expenditure level has jumped from $96.5 billion to $152 billion. (These are administrative budget figures relating to those federal expenditures financed out of general revenues and/or sale of new debt securities, not out of earmarked taxes.) Only $25 billion of this $55.5 billion increase is attributable to the Vietnam War. These expansionary budgeti:l are the budgets the Administration has referred to as tight budgets.

Now all, both home and abroad, are seeing the results of this new fiscal policy. Heavy intlati9n is beginning to rise and the psychology of inflation once stilled through the stricter fiscal polici~ of the 1950's is ramp-

July 16, 1968 ant again. We are experiencing the highest interest rates since the Civil War. Gold has been flowing out of our country at a dangerous rate and the dollar is in serious trouble. The U.S. positior. as the world's banker is threatened. The U.S. deficit in international payments grows larger and cumulates. Now ou!" trade balances have been cut down because of the impact of domestic inflation. Imports rise at a rapid rate. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board states that we are in the worst fiscal crisis since 1931.

And yet a.s I ha.ve pointed out the Administration has not changed its fisoal policy. It will not cut the expenditua-e levels even though it has been ordered .to by a law the President himself signed and said he would accept.

It was a grievous error for the Congress to have imposed an additional tax bUirdEm on the people without insuring thrut a reoaJ.citrant President would cut back on federal spending because this will not slow down inflation. Thls ine:rea.sed revenue given to the President will obviate what expenditure discipline existed in the debt ceiling legislation. The slight reaction of the stock market to the passage of the tax increase bill I think reflects the real tJhinking of the people both here and abroad. The investing public has discounted for some time amy real possibility of the Johnson Administration changing its fi.soal policy to correct the economic damage which at long l·ast has become clear to everyone. Nor irS the Congress ready to blow the Whistle on President Johnson. The world financiers now look to the November elections. Then the America.n people will have an opportunity to change fiscal policy at the ballot box. If there is no change in November then I think we wiLl see the results across the economic board, not just in the Sltock market, not just in the U.S., but throughout the world.

On the other hand, if there is a change, I believe our country irS -sufticiently srtrong to reestablish itself and continue once again on its path of providdng incre,a.sed stan.d.wrds of living for increasing numbers of our people.

Sincerely, THOMAS B. CURTIS.

POSTAL CATASTROPHE :tfERE

HON. THADDEUS J. DULSKI OF NEW YORK



Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that Congress exempt the Post Office Department from the mandatory cutback in personnel oo:dered in the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968.

The demands for postal service are increasing and yerti the Department is being ordered to cut back on the personnel required to handle the mail.

Unless the Post Office Department is exempted, something will have to give. There is only one place that can give: postal service.

On the heels of the postal rate increase last winter, our citizens had a right to expect an improvement in service-not reduced se·rvice.

I have introduced legislation, H.R. 18191, to exempt the postal service from the manpower reduCJtion. My bill is now before 'the Committee on Ways and Means. '

Officers of the National Association of Letter Carriers have sent a· very timely letter to Members, as follows:

July 16, 1968 - DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Former Postmaster General Lawrence F. O'Brien, appearing before the Subcommittee on Postal Appropriations, declared that the Post Office Department was approaching a catastrophe. With the advent of Public Law 90-364, the catastrophe has arrived.

The Post Office Department, under this law, will be compelled to forego hiring 15,780 needed employees this year. It will also have to cut 15,000 positions from the existing quota. In four years, the Post Office Department will be required to surplus 83,238 positions.

Consider these facts. Congress last year increased rates by one billion dollars. The revenue of the Post Office Department amounts to six billion dollars a year; its expenditures amount to seven billion dollars a year. The bulk of the difference in income and expenditures is made up of Public Service items.

The cuts ordered will place the postal personnel back at the 1966 complement. This in the face of the largest Gross National Product in the history of the Nation:--now in excess of $800 billion.

We have a rapidly increasing population; there are between one million and one and one-half million new homes every year. We have a mushrooming growth in suburban areas.

The Nation is concerned about poverty and necessary jobs, but will cut out over 30,000 jobs from the postal service in one year. Curtailment of deliveries will eliminate the jobs of utility men. These men will pick up the work of the substitutes, and substitutes, who have no guaranteed hours of work, will find their income brutally slashed.

Mail does not evaporate when deliveries are cut. It piles up, requiring more expensive handling and delivery procedures. The use of overtime will leap by bounds. Expenditures could very well be greater than less, under the proposed cuts.

The mail users, who are spending one billion dollars a year more, will be receiving inferior service.

The postal service is a basic industry in our economic life. The Post Office Department has no control over its volume of work-the mailing public sets the work load.

The Dulski bill, H.R. 18191, wm exempt the Post Office .Department from these drastic cuts. Please give this bill your active support.

Sincerely. JEROME J. KEATING,

President. J. H. RADEMACHER,

Vice President. J. STANLY LEWIS,

Secretary-Treasurer. CHARLES N. COYLE,

Assistant Secretary-Treasurer. GEORGE A. BANG,

Director of Life Insurance. JAMES P. DEELY,

Director of Health Insurance.

HON. GEORGE L. P. WEAVER

HON. FRANK THOMPSON, JR. OF NEW JERSEY



Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on June 26, at the conclusion of the annual conference of the .Interl).~tional Labor Organization in (aeneva, the United States . was honored by the unanimous election of the Honorable George L. P. Weaver as Chairman of the ILO gov~rning body. Mr. ·Weaver 1s


Assistant Secretary of Labor for International Affairs.

For the pas,t several years the House of Representatives has sent congressional advisers to the ILO to work with the u.s. delegation, which is headed by Assistant Secretary Weaver. My colleagues, Representative WILLIAM AYRES, of Ohio, the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor; Representative JoHN AsHBROOK, of Ohio; Representative JAMES G. O'HARA, of Michigan, and I, have comprised the congressional delegation for the past 2 years. In that capacity we have worked very closely with Assistant Secretary Weaver and the rest of America's splendid delegation.

Mr. Weaver is a remarkably able and effective leader who has the admiration and trust of my colleagues and myself, and as the following article so well states, Mr. Weaver has the trust of the representatives of more than 100 nations who participated in the ILO. The article referred to "ILO's Weaver" is by John Hurling, the distinguished labor specialist of the Washington Daily News:

ILO's WEAVER (By John Herling)

Little attention was given by U.S. media to a significant development in the life of the international community. The election of George L. P. Weaver, Assistant Secretary of Labor to the chairmanship of the Governing Body of the International Labor Organization. This is much more than the story of a local boy making good.

The action took place June 26 in Geneva, Switzerland, at the conclusion of the annual conference of the ILO, the unique UN tripartite agency which alone is made up of representatives of government, employer and union sectors. For some obscure reason, ILO proceedings and programs receive only the skimpiest of coverage. This is outrageous neglect.

Next year will be the 50th since ILO's creation as an agency of the League of Nationsits sole surviving organizational offspring. For the past 20 years its director general has been David A. Morse, once Undersecretary of Labor under President Truman.

While to most Americans, including many in the labor and management fields who should know better, the ILO stands remote if not disembodied, the fact is that to most nations of the world, ILO affiliation has become one of the great access routes to recognition and identity. For it is from the ILO here that a good deal of fertile thinking and program innovation has been accomplished in the social and economic fields. The ILO, without blowing a trumpet, is one of the UN's most pervasive agencies.

At any rate, ever since his appointment in 1961 by President Kennedy as Assistant Secretary of Labor in charge of international affairs, Mr. Weaver has headed the u.s. tripartite delegation to Geneva. He found himself involved in the highly sophisticated operations and maneuvers of an assembly of men and women who make shrewd, hard judgments on policy as well as personalities.

For seven years, Mr. Weaver has had the responsibility of administering the work of the American delegation, but also of standing up as spokesman for the U.S. often against the violent attacks of its detractors, communist and sometimes non-communist.

Such an assignment often has been difficult for Mr. Weaver, as an American Negro leader, to carry out. As his government's spokesman, he rejected with eloquence and precision misrepresentations of America's ~aci~l posture. At the same time, he did not

21607 brush aside his awareness of the profound shortcomings in American society. Mr. Weaver, thereby, became a credible spokesman for his country.

Aside from his recognized growth in competence, Mr. Weaver won from his colleagues, from the more than 110 nations represented in the ILO, the kind of personal regard and appreciation which sensitize diplomatic relations on all levels.

Thus Mr. Weaver's unanimous election as chairman of the governing body for the next year was, as Director General Morse said, the product of "genuine unanimity-meaning that people voted as they truly wanted to vote. He has earned the respect and the confidence of the entire Governing Body because of his consistent demonstration of openmindedness, fairness, firmness, and friendliness ... I have rarely seen such a combination of qualities."

Before coming to the Labor Department, Mr. Weaver's major career was largely given over to trade union activity, with time out for various governmental assignments. He is the third American to serve as chairman of the ILO Governing Body in the last 30 years. His predecessor, George Cabot Lodge, Assistant Labor Secretary under President Eisenhower, served as chairman of ILO's Governing Board from June 1960 to 1961, when he stepped down as Assistant Secretary of Labor. By gentlemen's agreement, Mr. Lodge overlapped as Assistant Secretary of Labor for the first six months of the Kennedy Administration. This enabled him to fill out his term as chairman of ILO's Governing Board, to the advantage of the United States.

HELP WITHOUT HANDOUT

HON. JAMES V. SMITH OF OKLAHOMA



Mr. SMITH of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the so-called Poor Peoples Campaign, Rev. Ralph Abernathy has now been released from jail and promises to continue his demands on the city of Washington and on the Congress.

The past demonstrations have already cost in the area of $1 million and this does not take into consideration the tremendous loss of revenue to the city's economy as a .result of convention. cancellations and loss of tourist trade.

The main expenditures as a result of the Poor Peoples Campaign were as follows: District of Columbia government, $806,000; Department of the Interior, $221,436; District of Columbia National Guard, $54,955; Department of Agriculture, $10,600. This totals $1,082,991 of the taxpayers' money that was spent as a direct result of hesitancy and indecision on the part of the Johnson-Humphrey administration which allowed the campaign to thrive in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial.

In addition over $1 million came from the pocketbooks of various Americans in the form of donations to the campaign. Abernathy himself admits contributions of $1.3 million, and claimed the cost of the campaign cost the South-ern Christian Leadership Conference $1.5 million.

All in all, the "March" cost $2,582,-991 of either taxpayer or private funds

21608 to support the campaign. What, however, was gained? The announced goals of a guaranteed annual income for all people classified under the "poverty standards" of the Johnson-Humphrey administration, are so unrealistic 1n this time of national fiscal crisis~ that it almost makes the campaign a total fraud on the poor and those who supported the campaign.

The Gallup poll recently found that poor people want jobs, not a guaranteed income. The Poor People's Campaign is a mockery of economics 1n a free society. I trust that the balance of a $20,000 motel bill accrued by Abernathy and his staff will be paid, and that the restaurant and cafeteria bills "walked" by "campaigners" will be noted, and that the administration will never allow such a disgrace to blight the National Capital again.

I . am inserting an editorial from the Daily Oklahoman which make a most interesting assessment of this subject:

HELP WITHOUT HANDOUT If someone knocked on your door demand

ing money on the threat of burning your house down, your reaction no doubt would be instant and forceful.

There isn't much difference between that example and some of the demands being made on official Washington by spokesmen for the "poor people."

Even with the best intentions, programs and funding, no instant panacea for the less advantaged is possible. There are many 111s needing a cure but there is no quick cure.

Skills and education are acquired over a periOd of time, just as the mass of what 1s called the middle income class acquired them.

The primary advantage lies in opportunity, which many of the impoverished have not had., but creation of those opportunities is more to be desired than any form of dole or guaranteed income.

THE NEW CONSENSUS

RON. HERMAN T. SCHNEEBELI OP PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. SCHNEEBELI. Mr. Speaker, the July 6, 1968, edition of the Christian Science Monitor contains an article by Rosooe Drummond about the fact tha..t Federal Government has gotten too big to administer properly the vast assistance programs which have been mounting year after year. This comment appears to be both timely and accurate and is submitted herewith:

THE NEW CoNSENSUS (By Roscoe Drummond)

WAsHINGToN.-What would you say such political leaders as these have in common: the late Robert Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Sen. Eugene McCarthy, Gov. Ronald Reagan, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), liberals Daniel Moynihan and Richard Goodwin, GOP conservatives Gerald Ford and Melvin Laird?

Far apart as they are politically, they have come together on one S'lngle, central, significant proposition:

That the federal government has gotten so big, so cumbersome, so chaotic that it simply can't administer the vast assistance pro-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS grams which have been mounting year after year.

WELFARE MUDDLE Their agreement is just beginning to come

into focus. They have been speaking separately but each has been saying very nearly the same thing.

What these diverse politicians are now saying is that federal funds, functions, and authority must be radically decentralized before the whole house of cards crumbles by its own weight.

On the basis of his :first-hand experience in Washington, Mr. Moynihan, who now heads the Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Urban Affairs, concludes that Washington has proved itself very good at collecting federal taxes but very bad at administering federal services.

How bad? That is the question which must be answered so objectively and so conclusively that those who are reluctant to face the facts can no longer 1gnore them.

That answer is now at hand. It comes from the titanic efforts of young, :first-term Congressman William V. Roth Jr. (R) of Delaware, who devoted four months to surveying the whole federal establishment. He set out to :find the number, purpose, scope ·and size of every federal assistance program and where and how they were administered.

DISHEVELED SPRAWL He found plenty. He found that nobody in the federal gov

ernment--neither the White House nor the Budget Bureau nor the Congress nor all the department and agency heads put togetherknow how many programs, where they all are, what they do or how the public can get to use them.

He found that Congress does not have adequate information to decide which prograxns to continue and which to terminate.

He found that some programs which don't exist are publicized and that others which do exist are unknown.

He found that at a minimum there are 1,050 federal assistance programs spending $20 billion a year.

He found that at least 25 federal departments and agencies are operating widely overlapping prograxns doing about the same thing.

Clearly this disheveled sprawl is getting so bad that unless something is done soon there is danger of a massive breakdown.

Congressman Roth presented his imposing array of facts without raising his voice and without trying to xnake partisan capital.

But his colleagues knew they were listening to one of the more important speeches delivered in Congress. Rarely are there many on the floor to listen. The real measure of his impact is that by the next day more than 50 congressmen and senators called Roth's office to ask questions or get more facts.

Roth had them-and they withstood close and skeptical scrutiny.

There is no doubt, I think, that the time has come to reverse the flow of political power to Washington. It will come. There is a mounting political momentum behind it from conservatives and liberals alike.

The need is to make sure that the process of decentralization is orderly, and well carried out.

WHY WArr? It is to this end that Mr. Nixon says that

if he is Presiden·t one of his first acts would be to create a special commission on government reorganization, like the Hoover Commission, to :find the best means, not to dismantle the federal government, but to decentralize it.

That is good. I raise only one questionwhy wait? It is wasteful, riskful, dangerous to wait. Why shouldn't Congress move immediately to create such a commission so it

July 16, 1968 can report its :findings early in the next session? Congressman Roth will ofl'er such a proposal. Shouldn't Congress act now?

FOUR YEARS OF BETRAYAL

HON. THOMAS M. PELLY OF WASHINGTON



Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been trying to restore the U.S. merchant marine have been continually frustrated by the administration. And, now, the reasons have been clearly outlined in the editorial in the June 1968 edition of the American Marine Engineer.

Mr. Speaker, I include this editorial in the RECORD. The editorial is as follows:

FOUR YEARS OF BETRAYAL The Admimstration has logged a sorry

maritime record over the past 4 years, though it began hopefully with a promise by President Johnson that he would recommend a new maritime policy-a promise which went unfulfilled until last month, when the recommendations turned out to be only an invitation to maritime suicide.

Among the statements and actions which have characterized the Administration's continuing campaign to denigrate and downgrade the American merchant marine over the years are the following:

October, 1965: The Boyd Report is issued, recommending a massive downgrading of the U.S. merchant fleet.

December 1965: Commerce Secl'etazy Connor dooms the Maritime Advisory Committee report (recommending a revival of the merchant fleet) when he states "no federal officer-such as the chairman (Connor)shall be controlled" by the report's findings.

January, 1966: La.bor Secretary Wirtz tries to sap a key pillar of the industry-1:ts freecollective-bargaining province-by arrogatin3 the contract-arbitrator's role in a letter presuming to interpret MEBA's agreement with management.

February, 1966: Marad and DOD fa.11 to maintain minimum standards on Vletna.msealift vessels, and only improve such conditions as inadequate "slop chests", poor launch service, slow mail and shore-leave restrictions after repeated, concerted protest.s by unions.

August, 1966: Defense Secretary McNamara says there's "no excuse" for nonmilitary "50-50" cargo. Export-Import Bank Pres. Harold Linder joins in attack on "50-50" cargo, cal11ng lt an "impediment" to foreign shipments. Sept~mber, 1966: Connor insults American

seamen by supporting a Government ruling that seafaring is not a critical occupation to the nation. (This is one of the months that MEBA men give their lives in the Vietnam sealift in defense of their country.)

January, 1967: President's budget message offers the Merchant xnarine "peanuts"-just enough subsidy ($143 million) to build 13 ships-while proposing funds to build a fleet of Fast Deployment Logistic ships.

February, 1967: McNamara impugns patriotism of U.S. liner operators by implication in apparent effort to pressure them into abandoning their statutory obligation to man the nation's "essential trade routes" and voiunteering their vessels instead in the Vietnam sealift, for which the Government had failed (in violation of the 1936 maritime law) to provide an adequate merchant fleet.

July, 1967: DOD asks permission to let foreign-flag-tankers operate in U.S. c;tomestic

July 16, 1968 trades, claiming no U.S. tankers are available-but backs down after strike threat by unions and amazingly discovers U.S. tankers are available, after all.

December, 1967: Acting Marad Administrator J. W. Gulick suggests U.S. should have a merchant fleet that is "free-er" of a "heavily government-supported program."

February, 1968: McNamara libels marad's maritime subsidy program, calling ·it "disgraceful" and "wasteful" and recommending that the Government "penalize inefficiency" in "ship operation." While attacking the program operated by another federal agency and authorized by a still-in-force federal la-:-;, he promote- the idea of a state-owned maritime goliath (FDLs) to be run by his own department, the Defense Department.

May, 1968: Johnson adds insult to injury by selecting Boyd (who had been barred by Congress from a supervisory role over Marad) to propose a program for maritime disaster, an enfilade which implicitly attacks virtually each of the 15 points recommended by the AFL-CIO Maritime Committee and supported by a major section of the maritime industry.

A review of the record reveals what might have been overlooked in judging a single instance of the Administration's betrayal of the maritime industry:

The Administration's anti-maritime policy has not been one of inadvertence, bungling or pre-occupation with other, pressing concerns; it has been a premeditated and carefully planned campaign to weaken and eventually liquidate the entire American merchant marine.

Ironically, the industry has consistently given the Administration the benefit of the doubt, frequently suggesting that its actions were well-intentioned towards the maritime industry, though mistaken.

Today it is clear that the planners in the White. House, despite disclaimers, were certainly affl.icted with no lack of foresight as far as they were <?Oncernedl They knew precisely where they were going. The record of four years shows that. Last month's antimaritime proposals prove it.

PATRIOTISM

HON. ROGERS C. B. MORTON OF MARYLAND



Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, Charles Edward Kearney, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., wrote the prize-winning essay on ''Patriotism" in a statewide contest sponsored by the Maryland Chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America.

His imaginative approach to a subjeCJt, which never in our history has been more meaningful, is worthy of the attention of this body. I am pleased to commend his essay as worthwhile reading for all Members of the House of Representatives:

PATRIOTISM I was present during the rigors and hard

ships at Valley Forge. I sailed with Commodore Oliver Perry during the battle for Detroit which took place on Lake Erie. I was in the midst of the heated battle during the campaign of Bull Run. I supplied courage to Abraham Lincoln during the ravaging Civil War. Did he visualize his country t?rn and sad, or did he see the ashes of another Phoenix rising from the dust and creating an era of solidarity and brotherhood? I accompapanied Theodore Roosevelt when he charged up San Juan Hill. I stOod beside President WOOdrow W1lson during his famous, but fu-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tile attempt to get the Versailles Treaty ratified. I was in the cockpit with Colin Kelly as he guided his crippled aircraft towards the smokestack of a Japanese destroyer. I inspired President John Kennedy when he made his historic decision to quarantine Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. My present engagement is accompanying those boys who proudly go to Viet Nam to honor our commitment with an ally to help suppress aggression in their country so that the tentacles of oppression will not reach our shores.

It is ironic that I am only called on to assist during periods of strife. The more that I am used, the less I tarnish. My wlllingness to help is as certain as the rising of the sun tomorrow. Some people confuse me with waving a flag, paying taxes, signing loyalty oaths, and voting. But I feel that I am in a separate class all by myself. Who am I? My name is Patriotism.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

HON. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI OF ILLINOIS



Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REcORD, I include the following letter to the editor of the Washington Daily News:

EDITOR,

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS,

Washington, D.C., July 12, 1968.

Washington Daily News, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: It has come to our attention that you featured a story in your issue of Thursday, July 11th, on trucks and the weight and size legislation in the Congress. In the course of your report apparently some misconceptions were presented regarding our position on this matter, and also regarding the actions of the Chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, the Honorable Jennings Randolph.

The weight and size bill was originally introduced in the Senate on the behalf of twenty-two members of the Senate, representing both political parties, from the far west, mainly because of the specific highway transportation needs of that area.

Four days of hearings were held on the proposed legislation by the Senate Committee, at which time we appeared and presented testimony. We represent the State highway departments and our testimony was, of course, based on balloting by the individual State highway departments on the various elements involved in the legislation.

In fact, we presented more technical testimony than possibly any other group appearing before the Committee, and in addition, we have greater responsibility in this particular area of legislation than any other group since the State highway departments have the responsibility of creating, building and maintaining the State highway systems, and we must take a broad, comprehensive look at all highway needs.

In addition, the Senate Public Works Committee engaged in three days of hearings on bridge safety, at which time we again appeared and gave testimony which was extensive and extremely technical in nature and had a definite bearing on the matter of truck weight and size legislation.

During the hearings, the matter of authorizing heavier and larger trucks on the Interstate System was considered and examined, and as a direct result of our appearance and that of the Federal Highway Administration, the bill was modified to bring permissible

21609 dimensions and weights within acceptable and proper limits in our opinion.

It is our belief that the bill, , as reported and passed by the Senate, and further modifled by the House Committee on Public Works, will give adequate protection to the public's investment in highways, and will give an optimum balance between this aspect and the use of the highway.

The weights and sizes, as contained in the legislation at this time falls within the spectrum that was developed in our extensive AASHO Road Test Research Project as being within that range that would provide this optimum balance.

As a result of our testimony, the so-called "bridge formula" which develops the maximum gross weights was changed to include intermediate axle groupings in order to protect bridge structures, and the prescribed maximum weights are inclusive of all tolerances which, we believe, to be good legislation and very much in the public interest.

The only major differences that might be cited between our testimony and in the legislation has to do with the so-called "Grandfather Clause" and this difference has now been minimized to where we have no serious objections.

The report of the senate Public Works Committee makes it quite clear that the responsibility for affecting changes in existing vehicle sizes and weights rests primarily within the States, and the States alone have the exclusive authority with respect to any actual changes in the truck sizes, but these cannot exceed the maximums included in the proposed Federal legislation, which is in line with our policy position.

We are satisfied that the fullest consideration was given to the many issues involved in this rather complex and important legislation, and nothing adverse will result from its enactment.

We made it quite clear at the time of our appearance that we could live with the maximum weights that were finally developed between the two Congressional Committees. With the growing importance of highway transport to supply goods and services, as well as transport people, a modest amount of liberalization is justified to assure an expanding economy.

Sincerely, A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Director.

A BILL TO ESTABLISH A PEACE BY INVESTMENT CORPORATION: A NEW DffiECTION IN AMERICAN FOREIGN AID

HON. THOMAS ·B. CURTIS OF MISSOURI



Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today which I hope will be a vehicle toward the development of a badly-needed new approach to American foreign aid. It is a bill to create a federally chartered corporation to engage in industrial development and economic assistance activities in developing countries, utilizing both public and private funds. A companion bill <S. 3415) was introduced on May 1, 1968, in the Senate by my colleague Senator JACOB K. J AVITS on behalf of a bipartisan group of 11 other Members of the Senate.

The general purpose of the Peace by Investment Corporation Act is to redirect foreign aid policy by focusing on the potential of the American private

21610 capital market instead o! public funds. The performance of our foreign aid programs over the last several years shows the need for the infusion of the strength, dynamism, and skills of our private economy.

The legislation contemplates government-private enterprise cooperation by providing that the chief source of the corporation's funds will be obtained through the sale of "peace by investment" debentures in small denominations to the American public. Funds from private investors would be attracted to the corporation because: First, it would provide for a diversity of private investment overseas, thus minimizing the risks inherent in single project ventures or investment in one commodity field; second, it would give small investors an opportunity to participate in pooled investment projects, far greater in scope than any thus far attempted, under the skilled management which investment of the contemplated magnitude and character would encourage; and third, it would provide the American people an opportunity to participate in a major constructive effort to help their fellow men.

These debentures could produce up to $375 million in any one year, but not to exceed $1.25 billion outstanding at any onetime.

In addition to the "Peace by Investment Debentures," which are the most important source of the corporation's funds, an additional $50 million in initial and temporary capital funds for the corporation would be subscribed by the U.S. Treasury. During the first 6 years of its operation, the corporation would also be authorized to borrow from the Treasury in amounts up to $60 million in any 1 year-but not to exceed $300 million outstanding debt at any one time.

This use of Government funds is for the purpose of providing seed money to attract the vast private resources of this country. Government can use its resources to open the way for private investment, and in the case of the Peace by Investment Corporation the initial Government funds attract the small and medium private investor for whom investment in underdeveloped countries would otherwise be too risky. The legislation provides for a reasonable time for initial Government involvement. During the first 6 years of the corporation's existence it would function as an agency of the United States. After this time the Government's functions would be transferred in an orderly fashion to private operation and management. The Government would receive reasonable compensation for all services rendered in the corporation.

THE NEED FOR CHANGES IN POLICY

Foreign aid has a very definite and important part in our foreign policy. Spent wisely as part of properly planned and effectively administered programs, it can promote peace and world development. The theory of foreign aid is excellent. But the application of this theory has been justi.:flably questioned.

For example, it has been developed that we could spend $1.8 billion a year effectively in helping nations get on their

EXTENSIONS. OF REMARKS

economic feet. However, it has also been developed that the actual $5 to $6 billion we have been spending per year has included ineffective expenditures, actually wasteful and damaging to the very objectives sought. We must constantly review our programs to see that they actually help developing countries get on their economic feet.

It has been demonstrated that far from getting nations on their economic feet, in many instances we have been making permanent charity cases out of them. Neither people nor nations appreciate aid which keeps them in subservient dependence to the source. A key example is the growing recognition among leaders in India that our wheat programs, sent in the guise of helping the starving people, has seldom reached the hungry and by selling far below market prices has discouraged the building of an agricultural system there.

Another example of misconceived aid is found in building steel mills in lessdeveloped countries with American capital. Often these have proven to be an economic drain, not an economic asset. Although the initial investment capital is supplied through foreign aid, additional capital and skilled human resources, both of which are in short supply, are required from within the country to keep the mill going even when they might be more productively employed elsewhere. The mill becomes a source of pride to the country's government, perhaps, but does really little to provide a sound economic base for the well-being of the people.

Legions of further examples could be produced, but the point can be easily seen that fundamental premises of our foreign aid program have been subverted and are in dire need of reexamination in light of present international conditions. We need to turn again to the fundamentals and invite open debate on how we best help underdeveloped countries in the late 1960's and 1970's.

We best move forward to help nations and underdeveloped countries by example. We move forward to correct our own errors in our own social structure. To the extent that we recognize and correct social injustices here, we best encourage others to correct their errors. It is in this way we best maintain our prestige. Other nations and peoples are just like ourselves-they want to stand on their own feet as a self-sustaining country.

Second, we best move forward through programs of people to people as opposed to programs of government to government. This is particularly important where there are governments which do not represent the will of the people and which can exist in office only through misuse of our support which we send for the good of the country at large.

A third way to move ahead is through developing foreign trade. Trade should be the base upon which we rest our effort to assist developing countries. The phrase "trade not aid" is an oft-stated principle of our foreign economic policy. But do we mean it? If trade not aid is to be more than a slogan we must let developing countries sell what they can

July 16, 1968

produce and grant them access to .the markets of the developed countries for these products.

The fourth way to move ahead is through loans as opposed to grants. If in developing trade and the market mechanism in underdeveloped countries there is a need for interim aid, let it be loaned not granted. Loans are more apt to be bottomed upon proper economic expenditure policy. If it is to be loans, let these loans be private rather than governmental. The expenditure of the private loans funds requires economic decisions directly subject to the discipline of the marketplace and only indirectly to the discipline of the political ballot box.

The fifth way is through grants. There are areas in which grants are the only way we can get the job done. If grants are to be used then they should be unrestricted grants not grants tied to U.S. domestic, political, or economic policy, U.S. balance-of-payments problems, or anything else.

This legislation merits full congressional consideration as the great potential of the Peace by Investment Corporation Act is that it attempts to combine these fundamental principles in the proper order of priority. First the corporation would help underdeveloped countries by its very example. It would be authorized to invest in economically sound undertakings of a profitmaking nature with emphasis on the encouragement of small- and moderate-sized enterprises. The corporation would seek to develop new enterprises which have not been able to attract investment for one reason or another. It would take risks and it should. In short, the Peace by Investment Corporation Act is exporting the best of our private enterprise system in order to stimulate the development of healthy economies in developing countries. It is an appropriate foreign policy instrument of a free people. It is not, as is almost universally the case under our present foreign aid programs, exporting the concept of Government help, and Government control, and Government activity.

Because of this, the Peace by Investment Corporation Act fulfills our second principle in an equally satisfactory manner. This legislation inevitably promotes "people to people" programs in contrast to our present "government to government" policies. Through this federally chartered corporation, acting as a catalyst, the people of this Nation may effectively invest their capital and resources in people and enterprises of another developing country. Independent people, not just strong governments, could result from effective implementation of this legislation.

Our third, fourth, and :fifth fundamental considerations-the priority and appropriate use of :first trade, then loans, and then grants--are also fostered by this legislation. In channeling our private resources into investment opportunities of foreign developing countries we are creating 1n these nations the means for future foreign trade. We are developing their independent resources to an extent that will let them live with

July 16, 1968

dignity. We would be doing for them what we should be doing for individuals on welfare In our own society-getting them on their economic feet so that they can be useful and contributing members. This means trade first, and under certain conditions, economically 'ba..<ni loans, and only when there is no other way to get the job done should we turn to grants-the foreign aid parallel to domestic welfare, which is equally debilitating in the long run to nations as welfare is to individuals.

THK CHALLENGE TO THE CONGRESS

There are many examples when alternative programs to meet agreed upon social problems exist, but the Congress has failed to consider the alternatives. In the area of foreign affairs there is widespread agreement that there are serious problems of mere human subsistence in much of the world outside the United States. There is also considerable agreement, although a bit less than the agreement that the problem exists, that the United States should take affirmative steps to relieve this problem. There is fairly general agreement that the steps taken should include both political and nonpolitical action; that is to say, action through the mechanism of government and action through the private profit and nonprofit organizations and the individual citizen which compose our society.

The alternative solutions toward eliminating world poverty are almost all involved in what sort of mix should exist between political and private action. However, anyone criticizing the particular foreign aid programs presented to the Congress over the past years usually has been dubbed by the proponents of the particular programs as being uninterested in solving the problems or as being so ignorant as to deny that a problem exists. The congressional committees have hardly ever considered any alternative programs to the one presented by the administration. Indeed so· irrational has the congressional process been that the various programs, because there are many, remain uncoordinated one with the other. The administration does little to coordinate the programs and the Congress less.

The slogan "trade not aid" has never been seriously debated or discussed by the Congress, yet upon analysis it relates to programs quite at variance with the existing foreign aid programs. Do we really mean trade not aid? I doubt if we really do because our aid programs have been designed and administered in ways which discourage what trade we have and encourage more aid in its stead. Likewise, our trade programs, particularly the Government sponsored cartel types like the Textile Agreement, the National Coffee Agreement, and the various voluntary quota agreements, seem to be moving toward more State-politicalcontrol, not less, which means that far from freeing up and increasing foreign trade we are stifling and decreasing it.

The Alliance for Progress which is designed to get more capital investment into Latin America has never had clearly spelled out what the mix between new government and new private investment

EX'FENSIONS OF REMARKS

is to be. As time goes on, it appears that the program has been administered in a way to discourage what private investment already existed and to stunt the growth of whatever private investment was in process.

In the recent House debate on the foreign aid authorization blli I pointed out that the Watson Commission created by the Javits amendment to the Foreign Aid Authorization Act of 1963 to study how private investment and private enterprise might be encouraged and our governmental foreign aid programs correlated with them, had made an excellent report in 1965, which contained many many practical suggestions for reform. However, that report was largely ignored by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its studies and was in effect suppressed by the AID administration. In a similar fashion the Clay Commission report of 1962, reviewing our foreign aid programs from the standpoint of proper balance, was in effect suppressed anrl ignored. These are just a few of the recent studies of alternative programs which the congressional committees under the Democratic leadership have refused to consider. It is little wonder that our international policies made behind closed doors and unexamined in public have run into dimculty.

We can no longer safely and responsibly leave the policy of foreign aid to selected participants in "behind-closeddoor" sessions. A fundamental reevaluation of our foreign aid policies is necessary with particular emphasis on the role of our private enterprise economy. We must bring out into the open the many of the underlying causes of world poverty and in the process identify the correct course of action to alleviate them. This means developing an affirmative policy. The Peace by Investment Corporation Act is an excellent means toward this goal. THE PEACE BY INvESTMENT ACT WITH SECTION

BY SECTION ANALYSIS Be it enactea by the Senate ana House

of .Representatives of the Unitea States of America in Congress assembled,

GENERAL PURPOSES SECTION 1. The recent establishment of the

"Peace Corps" reflects grow.ing realization that governments and diplomatic relations alone cannot bring enduring peace, without tha consollda'.:ion and expansion of peopleto-people relationships. Economic relationships are fundamental to human relationships, and private economic endeavors are inseparable from systems of human freedom. This measure is designed to establish and expand people-to-people relationships in the economic field; to encourage an expanded flow of private capital investment from the United States into economically sound enterprises in underdeveloped areas of the world in the interest of world peace thi"ough mutu economic progress; to enlarge the num ..Jl priva.te investors participating in t -· "' flow of capital so as to forge more direct links among the peoples of the world; to reduce gradually thereby the need for United States public investment and grants overseas; to help redirect the total flow of capital from the United St-ates so that increasing portions of this total flow go to the underdeveloped areas, and thus be in better harmony with the domestic economic needs of the United States and the effective management of its international balance-of-payments problems.

21.611' PJ:ACl!: .BY .IliVBSTKEBT CORPOUTION: BASIC

..uNCTIONS SEC. 2. There 18 hereby established a Peace

by Inveatmen·t COrporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporat:lon") with the following basic functions in accord with the purposes of this Act:

(1) As an equity investment agency, the Corporation may purchase the securities and obligations of, or make loans to (A) any underdeveloped country or political subdivisions thereof, (B) any public agency or instrumentality of any such country, or (C) any private or semiprivate firm, corporation, or association doing or intending to do business wholly or mainly in any such country or countries. Any such purchase or loan shall be for the purpose of financing or assdstlng in financing any undertaking of a profltmaking nature to expand such industrial, mining, construction, or agricultural activity in such country or countries as will, in the judgment of the Corporation, further the purposes of this Aot, and any such undertaking should place particular emphasis upon the encouragement of small and moderate sized enterprises and upon achieving widely diversified endeavors.

(2) The Corporation shall make available such technical assistance as in its judgment will fac111tate the purposes of this Act, and will not be .iuplicative of adequate technical assistancv ,which is available from sources other t .n the Corporation.

BASIC CRITERIA FOR INVESTMENT PROGRAM SEc. , . In carrying forward the investment

progran pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 2 c f this Act, the Corporation shall be guided by the following basic criteria, and shall Ir ake appropriate findings accordingly:

(1) : :ach specific investment is in furtherance o : an undertaking which is economically S< und, actually or potentially profitable and e< nsistent with the sound long-range econon ic development of the country in which t is located.

(2) rhe country in which the undertaking is loca ;ed has had full information with respect o it and an opportunity to express a judgm mt as to its desirabHity.

(3) Because of the insufficient availability of vev ~ure capital from other sources, the invest nent is not in competition with, or duplicatl.,-e of, other private investment programs or other public programs of the United States or of international agencies, which give easona.ble promise of accomplishing comparable results in accord with the purposes >f this Act.

(4) Each investment, taking into account the cc untry in which it is located, is in accord v 1th the general international economic and p >litical policies of the United States.

(5 )., The investment program in general is cons tent with the short-range and longrang policy of the United States to maintain max :1um employment, production, and purchaf 1g power within the domestic economy.

(f The investment program in general is coru ;tent with the short-range and longrani need of the United States to maintain a ss tsfactory balance-of-payments position.

(, The investment program in general, and m its specific applications, is mutually be .dcial to the country to which the in-

... iment flows and the country from which . li emanates, taking into account not only purely economic considerations but also consideration of human improvement under free lnsti tutions. BASIC FINANCING OF PEACE BY INVESTMENT

CORPORATION SEc. 4. (a) The Corporation shall have a

capital stock consisting in part of fifty shares of class A stock having a par value of $1,000,-000 per share. Such stock shall be the only stock of the Corporation having voting power, as long as any of it is outstanding, and it shall be subscribed to by the United States Government. The Secretary of the Treasury

'

21612 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS shall use the proceeds from the sale of any ceeds of any securities issued after July 31, securities issued under the Second Liberty 1945, under the Second Liberty Bond Act, Bond Act for the purpose of such subscr1p- and the purposes for which securities may be tion, and the purposes for which securities issued under that Act are extended to inmay be issued under such Act are e1etended elude such purpose. Payments for such obllto include such subscription. Payment to the gations by the Treasury, and repayment Corporation for the subscription of the thereof by the Corporation, shall be .treated United States to such stock, and repayments as public-debt transactions of the United thereof, shall be treated as public debt States. transactions of the United States. Certifi- (e) One-fifth of the proceeds of the sale cates evidencing stockownership by the of the debentures issued under subsection United States shall be issued by the Corpor- (b) of this section shall be set aside by the ation to the President of the United States, Corporation in a special fund to be estabor to such other person or persons as he lished by the Corporation. Such fund shall may designate, from time to time. The probe utilized (1) to retire fully, within a visions of the Securities Act of 1933, and the period of six years or less from the initial Securities Exchange Act of 1934, shall not issuance of such de·bentures, the class A apply to the Corporation, or to the original stock of the Corporation issued under subissue of its securities, while any class A stock section (a) of this section, ·and (2) to reis outstanding. t ire fully the obligations issued under sub-

(b) The Corporation is authorized to issue section (d) of this section in accordance for public sale "Peace by Investment Deben- with the terms of retirement contained in tures" which shall be in denominations of such obligations. Moneys in such fund shall $5, or any multiple thereof, and shall have be invested or reinvested by the Corporation such maturities (not in excess of twenty in interest-bearing obligations of the United years) and bear interest at such rates as states or in obligations guaranteed as to inmay be determined by the Corporation with terest and principal by the United States: the approval of the Secretary of the Treas- Provided, That when the Class A stock of the ury. Such debentures shall be fully and un- Corporation and the obligations issued unconditionally guaranteed as to principal by der subsection (d) of this section have been the United States. For as long as the Cor- retired in full, any balance remaining in poration remains an agency of the United the special fund shall be merged with other States, the aggregate amount of debentures funds of the Corporation obtained through issued under this subsection in any one year the sale of debentures pursuant to subsecshall not exceed $375,000,000, and the total tion (b) , and their exchange for class B amount of such debentures which are out- stock pursuant to subsection (c), and shall standing at any time shall not exceed thereupon be available for the general pur$1;250,000,000. The Corporation, with the poses of this Act. approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, (f) Except as otherwise provided in this shall by regulation fix the maximum section, all funds available to the Corporaamounts of such debentures which may be tion pursuant to tllis section, and receipts held at any tin:e by any individual, corpo- from its operations, shall be available to the r at ion, firm, trust, association, or other en- Corporation for its general purposes under tity, respectively. this Aot.

(c) The Corporation is authorized, at the INITIAL MANAGEMENT OF PEACE BY INVESTMENT option of the holder of any debenture is- " CORPORATIONS sued under subsection (b) ; to exchange such SEc. 5. (a) Until the condition t f th debenture for class B stock which the Cor- . - 8 se or poration may issue in such form, and subject in sectwn 6 of this Act are fully met, the to such terms and conditions, as it may pre- Corporation shall be an independent agency scribe, subject to the approval of the Secre- of the United States. . tary of the Treasury for as long as the Cor- (~) The management of the Corporatwn poration remains an agency of the United durmg its existence as an agency of- the states. United States shall consist of a Board of Di-

(d) The Corporation is authorized to is- rectors (hereinafter referred to as the sue from time to time, for purchase by the "Boa~d") • composed of (1) five members Secretary of the Treasury, its notes or other al?pomted from private life by the President, obligations: Provided, That the aggregate Wlth the advice ~nd consent of the Senate, amount of obligations so issued shall nort, who ~hall collect1v:ely possess broad expertexceed $60,000,000 in any one year, and the ence m various areas of economic endeavor; aggregate amount of such obligations out- (2) the Secretary of State, the Secretary of standing at ·any one time shall not exceed the Treasury, the Secretary of Commer?e, $300,000,000. No such obligation shall be and the Secretary of Labor, to serve ex offic1o; issued more than six years from the date of (3) four members to be appointed by the the first issue, or after the Corporation President from various United States agenceases to be an agency of the United States. cies concerned with international economic such obligations shall have such varied ma- development; and (4) a President and Execturities (not in excess of twenty years) as utive Vice President of the Corporation, as may be determined by the Corporation, with set forth below, who may be appointed from the approval of the Secretary of the Treas- private life or from public service. All memury, with periodic retirement of each obliga- bers, except those serving ex officio, shall tion commencing in the first year subsequent serve at the pleasure of the President. to its original issue: Provided, That any such (c) The Board shall elect a Chairman obligation may be retired at the option of from among its members. Any vacancy in the the Corporation before maturity in such Board ·shall not affect its powers, but shall manner as may be stipulated therein. Each be filed in the same manner as the original obligation purchased by the Secretary of the appointment. A majority of the Directors Treasury hereunder shall, as long as the Cor- shall constitute a quorum, and action shall poration remains an agency of the United be taken only by a majority vote of those States, bear interest at a rate determined present. by the Corporation on the basis of the cur- (d) The Board shall designate an execurent average rate on outstanding marketa- tive committee of seven members not more ble obligations of the United States as of than two of whom (exclusive of 'the Presithe last day of the month preceding the is- dent and Executive Vice President of the suance of such obligations; except that when Corporation) shall be members appointed the Corporation ceases to be an agency of from private life. The executive committee the United States each such obligation shall shall perform the functions and exercise the bear interest at the rate of 4 per centum per powers of the Board at such times and to annum. The Secretary of the Treasury is au- such extent as shall be provided in the bythorized for the purpose of this subsection laws of the Corporation. to use as a public-debt transaction the pro- (e) Members of the Board appointed from

July 16, 1968 private life shall receive$-- per diem when engaged in the actual . performance Of their duties, plus reimbursement for necessary travel, subsistence, · and other expenses incurred by them in the performance of such duties.

(f) There shall be a President of the Corporation, to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall receive a salary at the rate of $- per annum, and who shall serve as chief executive officer of the Corporation, as a member of the executive committee, and as a member of the Board. The President of . the Corporation shall, in accordance with the bylaws, appoint such officers and employees as may be necessary for the conduct of the business of the Corporation, define their duties, and fix their compensation.

(g) There shall be an Executive Vice President of the Corporation, to be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall receive a salary at the rate of $-- per annum. The Executive Vice President shall serve as President of the Corporation during the absence or disability of the President thereof or in the event of a vacancy in such office.

(h) No director, officer, attorney, agent, or employee of the Corporation shall in any manner, directly or indirectly, participate in the deliberation upon or the determina~ tion of any question affecting his personal interests, or the interests of any government, corporation, partnership, or association in which he is directly or indirectly personally interested.

(i) The President may also appoint an advisory committee to the Board, composed of individuals drawn from private and public life outside the United States, who need not be citizens or residents of the United States. TRANSFER OF PEACE BY INVESTMENT CORPORA

TION TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT SEc. 6. (a) When the class A stock of the

Corporation has been retired in full, within a period of six years or less, as provided in section 4(e), in accordance with the objective of vesting as soon as feasible the management of the Corporation in private ownership, the Board shall transmit to the President of the United States, for submission to the Congress, recommendations for such legislation as may be necessary to provide for the orderly transition of the Corporation from an agency of the United States to a corporation under private ownership and management, including (1) appropriate provision for transfer to the owners of the outstanding peace by Investment Debentures or class B stock of the Corporation the assets and liabilities of the Corporation, (2) appropriate provision for vesting in such owners the exclusive voting power of the Corporation, with each owner being thereupon entitled to one vote per share, and (3) such addition~! provisions as may be necessary to protect any outstanding investments in the Corporation by the United States: Provided, That the President, in connection with such submission to the Congress, shall also provide recommendations as to whether a sufficient portion of the obligations purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 4 (d) have been retired to justify the transfer of the Corporation from public to private ownership and management.

(b) In connection with the transfer referred to in subsection (a), a complete and final accounting shall be made by the Corporation and the Government, at which time the Government shall receive reasonable compensation for all Government services rendered to the Corporation.

GENERAL CORPORATE POWERS AND DUTIES SEc. 7. (a) For tll,e purpose of carrying out

its functions unde·r this Act, the Corporation shall have succession in its corporate name;

July 16, 1968 may adopt and use a corporate seal, which shall be judicially noticed; may sue and be sued in its corporate name; may adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations governing the manner in which its business may be conducted and the powers vested in it may be exercised; may make and carry out such contracts and agreements as are necessary and advisable in the conduct of its business, and may purchase, discount, rediscount, sell, and negotiate (with or without its endorsement or guarantee) and guarantee notes drafts, checks, bills of exchange, acceptances', including bankers' acceptances, cable transfers, and other evidences of indebtedness in carrying out its functions under this Act, may appoint and fix the compensation of such officers and employees as may be necessary for the conduct of its business, without regar-d to the civil service laws or the Classification Act of 1949, define their authority and duties, delegate to them such powers vested in the Corporation as may be necessary, require bonds of such of th~m as may be desirable, and fix the penalties and pay the premiums of such bonds; may assign or sell at public or private sale, or otherwise dispose of for cash or credit, upon such terms and conditions as shall be determined reasonable, any evidence of debt, contract, claim, personal property, or security held by the Corporation in connection with the payment of loans or other obligations, and collect or compromise all obligations held by the Corporation; may set up or ·engage such subsidiary agencies in the United States or in underdeveloped countries as will facilitate the business of the Corporation and may enable such subsidiary agencies to sell debentures issued under section 4(b), or to sell their own stock for the purpose of buying such debentures; may acquire by purchase, lease, or donations such real property or any interest therein, and may sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of such real property, as may be necessary for the conduct of its business; shall determine the character of and the necessity for its obligations and expenditures, and the manner in which they shall be incurred, allowed, and paid, subject to the provisions of this Act, and provisions of law specifically applicabl 1 to Government corporations; may pay dividends on class B stock out of profits or other earnings; shall be entitled to the use of the United States malls in the same manner and upon the same conditions as may be applicable to the executive departments of the United E";ates Government until such time as it ceases to be an agency of the United States; and shall be subject to Federal taxation from the time that it ceases to be an agency of the United States. The foregoing enumeration of powers shall not be deemed to exclude other lawful powers necessary to the purposes of the Corporation.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 955 of title 18, United States Code, any person, including any individual, partnership, corporation, or association, may upon proper authorization act for or participate with the Corporation in any operation or transaction engaged in by the Corporation.

(c) Section 201 of the Government Corporation Control Act, as amended {31 U.S.C. 856), is amended by striking therefrom the words "and (5) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation" and adding at the end thereof the words " ( 5) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and (6) Peace by · Investment Corporation."

(d) When the Corporation is transferred to private ownership and management as provided in section 6, it shall, in add~tion to the corporate powers and duties set forth above in this section, be empowered to exercise inter alia. the functions of an investment trust, to establish such insurance system~ as-may be deemed in furtherance of the purpose~ of this Act, and to engage in other activities generally in line · with those of

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Corporations engaged in such functions when operating under private ownership and management.

PENAL PROVISIONS

SEc. 8. (a) All general penal statutes relating to the larceny embezzlement, or conversion of public moneys or property of the United States shall apply to the moneys and property of the Corporation.

(b) Any person who, with intent to defraud the Corporation, or to deceive any director, officer, or employee of the Corporation or any officer or employee of the United States, makes any false entry in any book of the Corporation, or makes any false report or statement for the Corporation, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(c) Any person who shall receive any compensation, rebate, or reward, or shall enter into any conspiracy, collusion, or agreement, express or implied, with intent to defraud the Corporation or wrongfully and unlawfully to defeat its purposes, shall on conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

REPORTS AND STUDIES

SEc. 9. (a) The Corporation shall submit to the President, for transmission to the Congress at the beginning of each regular session. a complete and detailed annual report of its operations under this Act.

(b) The Corporation, immediately upon its establishment, shall commence studies of additional measures, including tax measures, which would further promote the flow of private capital from the United States to underdeveloped areas of the world consistent with the economic and financial policies of the United States. Such studies shall be amplified in the light of the experience of the Corporation. As soon as practicable, and not later than three years after the establishment of the Corporation, it shall prepare for transmission to the Congress the initial results of such studies, including legislative recommendations.

CITATION

SEc. 10. This Act may be cited as the "Peace by Investment Corporation Act of 19-".

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF PEACE BY INVESTMENT CORPORATION BILL

Section 1 sets forth the purposes of the bill which are to establish and expand people-to-people relationships in the economic field; to encourage an expanded flow of private capital investment from the United States into economically sound enterprises in underdeveloped areas of the world in the interest of world peace through mutual economic progress; to enlarge the number of private investors participating in this_:flow of capital so as to forge more direct links among the people of the world, and for other purposes.

Section 2 authorizes the Corporation to purchase the securities and obligations of, or make loans to (A) any underdeveloped country or political subdivision thereof. (B) any public agency or instrumentality of any such country, or (C) any private or semiprivate firm, corporation or association doing or intending to do business wholly or mainly in any such country or countries. Investments would be confined to economically sound undertakings of a profit-making nature, with emphasis on the encouragement of small and moderate sized enterprises. This section also authorizes the Corporation to provide technical assistance but will not duplicate such assistance already available from other sources.

Section a establishes basic criteria for tb,e investment program of the Corporation. As a necess!l_.ry condition for maki~g such investments the Corporation would have to find

21613 that 1) such project met ·sound economic criteria; 2) loan financing or equity assistance would not take the place of funds which would otherwise flow readily for the same purpose; 3) in the investment program in general was consistent with the policy of the United States to maintain maximum employment, production, and purchasing power within the domestic economy; 4) the pro'gram in general was consistent with the promotion of a satisfactory balance-of-payments position for the United States, and 5) the program in general was in accord with the general international economic and political policies of the United States. The Corporation would also be required to -obtain the views of the country in which the affected enterprise would be located.

Section 4 sets forth the means to provide basic financing of the Corporation. Subsection (a) states that to provide initial -and temporary capital funds for its operations, the Corporation would be authorized to issue class A stock of 50 shares of par value of $1 million per share totaling $50 million. This class A stock would be subscribed to by th& u.s. Government through the Secretary of the Treasury.

Subsection (b) authorizes the Corporation to offer for public sale "Peace by Investment Debentures" in denominations of $5. So long as the Corporation remains an agency of the United States the amount of debentures issued in any one year shall not exceed $375 million and the total amount of such debentures outstanding at any time shall not exceed $1.25 billion.

Subsection (c) authorizes the Corporation to exchange at the option of the holder, any debenture issued under subsection (b) for class B stock which the Corporation ·may issue subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. ·

Subsection (d) authorizes the Corporation to issue from time to time, by purchase by the Secretary of the Treasury, its notes, debentures, bonds or other obligations provided that the issue of such obligation shall not exceed $60 million in any one year nor shall the aggregate amount of such obligations outstanding at any one time exceed $300 million, nor shall any such obligations be issued more than 6 years from the date of the first issue, nor shall any such obligations be issued except so long as the Corporation · remains an agency of the United States. Such obligations would be interest bearing and would have varied maturities not in excess of 20 years, with provision for retirement before maturity.

Subsection (e) provides that one-fifth of the proceeds of the sale of Peace by Investment Debentures be earmarked in a special fund for the retirement of the class A stock which would have to be retired in full within 6 years or less from the date of original issue of class B stock.

Subsection (f) states that except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this bill, all funds available to the Corporation pursuant to this section, and as earnings from its operations, shall be available for its general purposes under the act.

Section 5 describes the form of ini~ial management of the Corporation.

Subsection (a) provides that the Corporation shall be an independent agency of the United States, until the conditions set forth in section 6 of the act ar~ fully met. . ,

Subsection (b) states that the management of the Corporation during its existence as an agency of the United States would consist of a Board of Directors of 15 membet:s consisting of a President, and Executive Vice President appointed by the President of the United States from private life or from public service; 5 members appointeP. from private life by the President of the United States, with the advice and cons~nt of the Senate; 4 members appointed by the President . ot the United Statei:drom various u.s. agencie~ concerned with international economic de-

21614: velopment; and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Commerce, and Labor, serving "8X officio.

Subsections (·c) through (1) provide for the election of -a Chairman, designation of an Executive Committee, the eompens&tion of the Board, the President of the Corporation, and the Executive Vice President and authorized the President of the United States to appoint an Advisory Committee to the Board.

section 6 establishes a method of transfer of the Corporation to private ownership and management Subsection (a) provides that when the class A stock of the Corporation has been retired in full within the period of six years or less provided in section 4 (d) of this Act, the Board shall transmit to the President of the United States, for submission to the Congress, recommendations for such legislation as may be necessary to provide for the orderly transition of the Corporation from an agency of the United States to a corporation under private ownership and management, including (1) appropriate provision for transfer to the owners of the outstanding Peace by Investment Debentures or class B stock of the Corporation, the assets .and 11a.b111ties of the Corporation, (2) appropriate provi·sions for vesting in such owners the exclusive voting power of the Corporation originally vested in the owners of class A stock, with each owner being thereupon entitled to one vote per -share, and (3) such addition·al provisions as may be necessary to :Protect any outstanding investments in the Corporation by the United States: Provided, That the President, in connection with such submission to the Congress, shall also provide recommendations as to whether a sufficient portion of the obligations purchased by the .secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 4(d) of this Act have been retired to justify the transfer of the Corporation from publlc to private ownership and management.

Subsection (b) state-s that a complete and final accounting shall be made by the Corporation and the Government at which time 'the Government shall receive reasonable ·Compensation f.or all Government serYices rendered. the Corporation.

Section 7 establishes general corporate power-s and duties f.or the CorporAtion.

Section 8 sets up penal provisions with re-epect to larceny and embezzlement of tbe Corpomtion's funds or property.

Section 9 calls for periodic r.eports to the Congress and authorizes the Corporation to make certain studies.

Section 10 provides that this act may be -oited as the Peace by Investment Corporation Act of--.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN EMPLOY-MENT-BANKERS TAKE THE LEAD

HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, there 1s a growing awa.:reness in the country that high school dropouts and other previously considered unemployables can be trained to become productive, useful members of society. They need someone who cares, a little motivation, and good incentives. I am pleased that the banking industry has taken great initiative in this area.

The early efforts of Chase 'Manhattan in training high .school .dropouts has proven so successful and so relevant to


the needs of these young people. that severai other banks have followed suit in opening training centers where remedial and technical sldlls can be learned, and where young ·men can earn while they learn.

This is a good investment on the part of the Labor Department, which supplies part of the funds for the JOBS pro,gram and for the banks. I commend the banking industry for what I envision a.s only the beginning in a major national effort to provide equal opportunity in employment, and include an: excellent article from the New York Times of July 14, describing this activity, which I commend to the attention of my colleagues:

BANKS AND DROPOUTS GET ACQUAINTED

(By Leonard Sloane) Last December, the Chase Manhattan

Bank began a program for training unskilled .high school dropouts. The initial results of its work with these "unemployables" have been so successful that the bank now says i·t will train 1,000 in the next three years.

In two weeks, the First National City Bank will open a training center in lower Manhattan, where it will provide remedial and technical skills for entry-level jobs for the hardcore unemployed. Some 700 young men and women will receive this instruction in the next 18 months under a contract between the bank and the United States Department of Labor.

And just last week, the American Institute of Banking began classes in basic education and banking terminology for ghetto residents who are employed by 34 commercial and savings banks in the New York area. Its .goal is to provide this training for more than 700 members of minority groups over the next year.

These programs a.re indicative of what the banking industry is beginning to do across the nation to make the phrase "equal opportunity" in employment more meaningful. Other banks working through different means to achieve a greater rapport with the Negro Community include the Bank of America in California, the nation's largest, and the Industrial National Bank in .Rhode Island, the biggest in that state.

Why are banks, both locally and nationally, taking such .an interest in finding the unemployed and training them for jobs they are presently unqualified for? For one thing, banks are highly visible institutions and their employment of Negroes .and Puerto Ricans is usually obvious to the public, unlike the situation in most manufacturing industries whose factories are not normally visited by passers-by.

"Banks draw the1r employe and customer populations from the city," says a veteran banker. "You just can't pick up your bank and move it to the suburbs as some other companies can. So if you have to stay locked in with the city and its working class, you have to be aware of who the people are."

But why are banks going in for these various programs at this time when the population mix in the big cities has already been changing for many years? One banking offici-al puts it this way:

"Training minorities for employment has just become respectable with the formation of the National Alliance of Businessmen and the leadership of such men as Henry Ford [chairman of Ford Motor Company] and J. Paul Austin [president of the Coca-Cola Companyl. And .since banks see themselves as the capstones of business anyway, they figured that this is the time to do something in that area."

One of Chase's "somethings" is its training program for young men between the ages of 17 and 22 who are unable to meet the bank's qualifications f.or w~ite-collar em-

July 16, 1968 ployment. The men are referred by social agencies, bank liaison o:fllcers, employment interviewers and 'Others and have 1n common a basic motivat1on to succeed as bank employes.

"Wl''re looking~or the young men who have some potential that can be tapped and who want to go to work/' says Arthur J. Humphrey, a Chase assistant treasurer and director of the program. "We don't mind his being skeptical but we want that wlll to win."

PHASES DESCRmED

These are three phases to the remedial program in reading, language skills and mathematics that Mr. Humphrey and other bank officials have worked out with the six t.eachers employed by Chase. The first encompasses a six-week, ali-day session during which trainees receive a nontaxable training allowance of $1.60 an hour.

During phase two, employes are placed tn entry-level jobs at which they earn about $75 a week but return to the 28th floor training center at 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza. for up to two hours of remedial education a day. The final phase is geared to make the young men better qualified for promotions as they open up at the bank .

"I love it because it's a lot different !rom. school," says Gilbert Rivera, 17 years .old, who dropped out of high school in the lOth grade. "You get more individual instruction here."

"We have more confidence in the teachers than we did at school," adds Rudy Martinez, 21, who has completed phase one and Ia now working as a tape feed clerk in the domestic money transfer department. "They're not like teachers, they're more like friends."

Venise Greene, an 18-year-old from Brooklyn who left high school last March, points out that "in school they didn't start at ~ .root of things. Here they start at the root and go on up."

One reason for this unusual teacher-student relationship 1s the small class sizes of 10 to a group. Another is the informality that prevails with teachers called by their first names and students able to walk out of the room at any time for personal reasons. And then there is the fact that students even help to organize the curriculum by selecting their own books to read.

For instance, one poem read by the students in the Chase program is .. The Ballad of the Landlord," by Langston Hugbes. Edu-cational critic Jonathan Kozol was dismissed from the Boston school system in 1965 !or reading this poem to his students because of its alleged antiwhite tone.

CENTER BEING SET UP

As Linda Kunz, a teacher of language arts, ·observes, "W'e have no set syllabus here. Content is geared in two directions, toward their own backgrounds and toward anything to do with banking. The students should not deny their own backgrounds nor should they only get into the banking area when they start their jobs."

At First National City, two :floors are being outfitted at a building on Canal Street and Broadway for the first two 20-student classes in its training program for the unemployed and underemployed. Over a 16-to-22-week period, these young men and women will be given remedial skills and technical training f<>r such jobs as general clerk, typist and check-processing machine operator.

While they are being trained by the bankas part of the Federal Government's Job Opportunities in the Business Sector programthe students are bank employes and are paid a salary of $65 a week. Upon completion o:! their training, they receive a:n increase of at !!:east $10 a week and move into a beginner's job at the bank.

Robert W. Feagles, a City Bank senior vice president, emphasizes that "the entry-level position is n:ot the end of the road. These

July 1-6, 1968 men and women have career opportunities absolutely on a par with any other employes. Our whole purpose is to erase the hard-core stamp and make them nonidenti:tlable as anything but employes of the bank."

This will be accomplished even at the new training center through the immediate . establisl.lment of an employer-employe relationship, rather than a continuation of any government aid situation. The environment, moreover, will be that of work-with its 9-to-5 day, punctuality and dress requirements, etc.-instead of a high school for adolescents.

Funds for the students in the J.O.B.S. program were provided by the Government to the tune of more than $1.5-million. However, the bank figures that more than $150,-000 of its own money is involved in providing administrative and other services not covered by the training contract.

According to Mr. Feagles, this money is well spent. "Social problems are only resolved in an atmosphere of economic equality and well-being. We have been aware of the need to do more as we re-examined our criteria for entry-level jobs. This is a major step toward the first requirement, economic equality.''

ADDITIONAL SCHOOLING

The classes at the American Institute of Banking are providing, in effect, for a consortium of banks what giant institutions like Chase and City Bank are doing on their own. Students with average fifth to eighthgrade achievement levels will be given six weeks of training to lay the educational and career foundations for bank employment.

Afterwards the students will return to A.I.B. classrooms for nine hours a week of additional training. "This instruction plus departmet_ltal b1J.nk experience will point the successful trainee directly toward the mainstream of departmental promotability and a successful banking career," says the institute.

While the A.I.B. is providing its facilities at the Woolworth Building for the classes, the actual teaching and counseling will be done by the Board for Fundamental Education, a nonprofit organization that designs programs for the disadvantaged. Bankers from the participating institutions-such as the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, the Bowery Savings Bank and Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.-will also conduct panel discussions with the trainees.

HALOOFTHEWEEK: JUDGEJOHNV. CORRIGAN

HON. WILLIAM -E. MINSHALL OF OHIO

lN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, July. 16, 1968

Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Cleveland Press Columnist Milt Widder, gives a "Halo of the Week" award to meritorious Clevelanders and I was delighted to see the honor go to our distinguished common pleas Judge John V. Corrigan. He has won the respect and affection of thousands of his fellow citizens for his good work. Although he would deprecate the compliment, tJ;le halo would be most becoming.

An accompanying halo might well be awarded to his brother, the much beloved ·Msgr. Thomas Corrigan of St. Charles Parish in Parma, Ohio. Between the two of them, the Corrigans make Greater Cleveland a better place in which to live.

I am pleased to include the Widder item in the RECORD:

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS HALO OF THE WEEK: JUDGE JOHN V. CORRIGAN

To Common Pleas Judge John V. Corrigan this Halo of the week. Reason: This week he was named chairman of a most important committee which will draft ru1es that (when approved) will set procedural laws for all courts in Ohio. He chairs a group of 24 judges and 10 influential attorneys. The rules must be approved by the Ohio Supreme Court. Judge Corrigan, only 48 (but graying), lias had the respect of fellow judges and the legal profession for a number of years. He is active in church and welfare circles: he is a board member of Rainey Institute and St. Vincent dePaul Society, a working member of the Knights of Columbus, the Greater Cleveland Safety Council and the Welfare Federation.

HON. DONALD W. NICHOLSON

HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OF :MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, in February of this year, the House was greatly saddened to learn of the passing of our dear friend and former colleague, the Honorable Donald W. Nicholson, who so ably represented the citizens of Cape Cod during his long service in the House. To all of us, he was beloved and highly respected by all of his colleagues and his fellow Cape Cod oonstituents, and his host of friends in and out of Congress.

At 79, the spirit of this great American was still strong, reflecting a long and fascinating life of varied experiences and accomplishments. Many of these years were difficult, but our dear friend thrived on hard work and political combat, which he never shirked. In the end, his physical strength could not withstand his last battle with ill health and Massachusetts lost one of its great sons of the public service.

We all miss him-not only his many friends in this House, but the citizens of our State wbo benefited so much from his wise leadership during the 21 years he guided them so faithfully first as a State senator, and later as president of the State senate.

Congressman Nicholson's outstanding qualities of strong character, determination and independence are reflected by the solid and substantial contributions he made to the welfare of the State and the Nation.

He was truly the self-made man, in typical Horatio Alger fashion, since in his early youth he worked at such varied trades as streetcar conductor, night telephone operator, and restaurant manager.

His first political experience came in 1921 when he was successful in gaining the office of selectman in his home community of Wareham. Later, he entered the State legislature where he served with distinction in the senate. He was subsequently elected to Congress where he served six terms, retiring in early 1959 to his beloved Cape Cod.

Although Nick sat on the opposite side of the aisle, where he fought the political battle for his party, he and I were close, warm friends down through the years. I well recall his concern when I sponsored in April 1957 the first bill in Congress

21615 calling for the establishment of a national park on Cape Cod following the national seashore survey conducted by the National Park Service.

Prompted by the opposition of many people on Cape Cod to any national park in their backyard, Congressman Nicholson sponsored legislation to establish the Cape Cod Canal National Park, confining the park to the Cape Cod Canal area.

I feel sure that it must have been a source of secret pride to this proud Cape Codder that his bill and mine led to more detailed studies of the Cape Cod national shore by the National Park Service, which had been requested by the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee to furnish reports on both our bills.

The rest is history. Later, our valued friends and distinguished colleagues, the Honorable EDWARD P. BOLAND and the Honorable THOMAS P. O'NEILL both sponsored bills to establ-ish the Cape Cod National Seashore.

Subsequently, the late great President Kennedy, as Senator, and Senator Leverett Saltonstall sponsored legislation giving the detailed boundaries of the Cape Cod National Seashore, in which they were joined by the Honorable HASTINGS KEITH, Congressman Nicholson's successor in the House, and other interested Members of the House.

All of us who knew Congressman Nicholson could not help but admire his rugged adherence to his own principles and his refusal to be swayed from a course which he felt was right and just. His courage, ability, determination, and independence were unquestionable and remain an inspiration for all of us in the public service.

Nick will be remembered for many, many years to come in this House and in the Commonwealth for his great achievements and the warmth of his friendship, and I personally feel his absence most keenly. I offer my heartfelt sympathy to his beloved and dear widow and helpmate, Ethel, and his family, who have suffereC. the real loss of his love, devotion, loyalty, and firm attachment to them.

May our dear friend and former colleague, Nick, find eternal rest and peace in His heavenly home.

GUN CONTROL

.HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL OF NEW YORK

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, July 16, 1968

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, the failure of this Congress to take any significant action on gun-control legislation is a disgrace. It flagrantly ignores the overwhelming sentiment of the American people. For over 30 years now, a majority of the people have favored stiffer gun-control laws. Current polls show that 80 to 85 percent of the citizens of this country want stronger gun-control laws now.

Yet this Congress fails to act. The senseless slaughter within our Nation continues unchecked by reasonable firearms controls. Each and every day, the

21616 newspapers are full of accounts of suicides, murders, robberies, and accidental shootings involving the illegal or improper use of firearms.

Why does this Congress do nothing? Why does it shamelessly flaunt the demands of the people? Why does it ignore the pleas of our most respected law enforcement o:tncials? Why does it fail to live up to its responsibilities to the people?

Some would claim that gun control laws will disarm the people, deprive them of their "right to bear arms," leave our country defenseless and ripe for invasion, take away the pleasures of the true sportsman, and will leave the honest citizen helpless before the army of criminals that infests this country.

Is this the logic of the 20th century? Is this in any way representative of the desire of our country to throw off the terrible shroud of violence that hangs over it?

Mr. Speaker, I introduce today a bill to provide for the registration and licensing of all fire·arms, and to regulate the sale of ammunition. It will maintain strong Federal standards while allowing responsible State administration of them. States will have the opportunity to plan their own licensing and registration programs. It gives the States plenty of room in which to regulate themselves, and still provides national uniformity o1' registration.

The failure of Congress to respond to such a clear and affirmative demand for gun-control legislation would be a national disgrace. I implore the Congress to recognize the obvious and act now.

A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE COMMISSION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION

· HON. FRANCES P. BOLTON OF OHIO

' IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mrs. BOLTON. :M:r. Speaker, I am happy to join Congressman RoTH and others in sponsoring legislation to establish a Commission for the Improvement of Government Management and Organization.

The need for such a Commission is obvious when -one realizes there are more than 400 Federal programs designed in one way or another to aid our cities, but these programs have been largely ineffective because of 'OV~rlapping, duplication, and unnecessary redtape.

This was pointed -out by the President's Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, otherwise known as the Kerner Report. Buried deep in volume three of its report, the Commission said

There 1-s little doubt that the system through which federal programs are translated into services to people is a major problem in itself . . . federal programs often seem self-defeating and contmdictory~ :field ofticials unable to make decisions on tb.eil' own programs and unaware of related. efforts; agencies unwllllng or unable to work together; programs conceived and ad-


ministered to achieve different and sometimes con:fticting purposes.

The Commission concluded: In short there is a clear and compelltng

requirement for better coordination of federally funded programs.

In order to achieve this coordination, we need a reorganization of the Executive Branch; we need better accounting and programing systems; we need consolidation of the multiple grant programs; we need a review of grant programs to eliminate those no.t needed and give priority to those that are most essential.

A Commission for the Improvement of Government Management and Organization would be the means to accomplish these objectives. We all recall the two Hoover Commissions which accomplished so much. It is my hope that the legislation will be favorably considered in the very near future.

WHAT'S RIGHT WITH AMERICA?

HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEE



Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, it has become fashionable in some quarters today to criticize our great Nation, to dwell upon our problems, and to obscure the greatness of America.

In this connection my recent newsletter-Capitol Comments-emphasizes "What's Right With America?" Because of the interest of my colleagues and the American people in this most important subject, I herewith place the newsletter in the RECORD.

The newsletter follows: [From Capitol Comments, July 8, 1968]

WHAT'S RIGHT WITH .AMERICA? (By JoE L. EviNS, Member of Congress,

Fourth District, Tennessee) As we have just celebrated our 192d Inde

pendence Day -and as our great Nation strives to meet the challenge of change and solve its problems of ,growth, there are many who ·are busily engaged in complaining about thiBgs which they feel are wrong with America. Indeed we have our problems-the conflict in Vietnam and the problems of our cities, among others, but the great advantages of America far outweigh its diftlculties.

The Soviet Communist leader Brezhnev this week described modern America as a .. rotting society .•. a degrading society." Regrettably this view is endorsed by others. We all recogni:;re that many changes are taking place in America and in our society. Our population is growing rapidly, we have problems in our cities and development of technology and 'Science and other changes are bringing about change and progress.

However, desplte these problems of growth, -our Nation has built upon the genius of our .forefathers a NatiOn in which more people enjoy liberty, freedom, QPPOrtunlty and other advantages than are enjoyed in any nation in the world. Our Country guarantees to au Americans freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue happiness to one's fullest potential.

France is wracked by revolution-Englantl has become a thir-d..,rate ,power-Germany remains divided-while the United States remains tne strongest, most powerful and

July 16, 1~68 greatest Nation iii the world. The United States stands as a citadel of freedom and democracy-the envy of the world. Our nation was built on faith in people and our problems must not blind us to our heritage of liberty and freedom bequeathed to us by our forefathers, which must be perpetuated.

Americans traditionally have looked ahead to their faith in freedom and democracy during times of crisis. In every great crisis our people have prevailed because of our faith in our American way of life. And we are confident and have faith that the solutions to our present-day problems will be found and that peace will be achieved.

The overwhelming majority of the American people have retained their faith and confidence in our Nation-the principles upon which our Nation was founded, and which today stands as the oldest and greatest democracy in the world. Acts of violence by a few individuals are not representative of most Americans. The problems of crime must be dealt with effectively at the local, state and national level.

While there are those who complain about our Nation, let us retain our faith and our .confidence-remembering what is good and right about America-and preserve and strengthen the greatest Nation in the world.

AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN NOT SO BAD

HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS



Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasant change, Mr. Speaker, to note presr commentary emphasizing the positive and pointing out the often overlooked spirit and excellence of the American business 'system. Therefore, I find the article by columnist John B. Sheerin, C.S.P. in the July 12 New World, the Chicago archdiocese Catholic newspaper, a refreshing change of emphasis from much of the abuse which is hurled at the private sector.

Under unanimous consent I submit the article for inclusion in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, as follows: SUM AND SUBSTANCE: AMERICAN BUSINESS

MEN NOT AS BAD AS PAINTED (By John B. Sheerin, C.S.P.)

A favorite sport of French intellectuals is critic ism of American business. They cherish an old stereotype of the American businessman as an utterly ruthless monster who is interested in squeezing the last ounce of profit out of every transaction.

They know the capitalist as he appeared in 19th century French literature, a heartless wretch who had absolutely no concern for the welfare of his local or national community. He was out for himself and the devil take the hindmost. So the literary Frenchman tends to go back to the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution for his idea of capitalism and blithely identifies the laissez faire capitalist with the present day .American tiusinessman.

Some years ago, Jacques Maritain tried to correct this distorted picture of the American businessman by tell1ng his countrymen, in his "Reflections on America," that the Ameriean capitalist ls not quite that bad.

EaTly America was inftuenced by the Gospel and according to "the French philosopher, a certain amount of Gospel compassion has entered the American bloodstream-even. the veins of the American businessman.

At the present time, American busineg.g is

July 16, 1968 trying to do a lot for the poor in the ghettoes. I remember being at a meeting of the New York Rotary club not so long ago when a speaker asked if anyone present would promise to give a job to a Negro youth during the summer.

I was astounded at the number of volunteers. In fact, some executives promised five or 10 jobs. In most cases, it meant taking on youths who had no training and very little education.

John W. Gardner, chairman of the Urban Coalition, has joined with business and religious leaders to launch four advertising campaigns that will be seen and heard nationwide in newspapers, magazines, outdoor posters, and on radio and television programs. Albert Cole of the Advertising council estimated that more than $25 million worth of space and time will be contributed by the media in the next twelve months: "This advertising may well reach and influence more millions of Americans for the better than all the demonstrations we have seen in the past year."

I was particularly interested in Religion in American Life's "Emergency Summer Campaign." This organization which once featured ads and TV spots urging Sunday church attendance now focuses, with the help of the J. Walter Thompson company, on ads dealing with open housing, job opportunities for underprivileged, the need for involvement in the problems of the poor.

"Join for Youth" had an interesting ad addressed to businessmen headlined, "All the time you spend yakking about 'the youth problems' you could be doing something about it." In smaller letters, the ad asked employem to hire young people, help create jobs for them, teach new skills, encourage schools to stay open this summer and help develop recreational activities and entertain-ment. -

"When a riot starts, business stops." Selfinterest undoubtedly motivates some community-oriented businessmen but at the same time, I feel sure that many are motivated by a finer and deeper concern than self-interest.

FOR THE RECORD

HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK OF OHIO



Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, in 1955 the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee received from the then attorney general of the State of New Hampshire, Louis C. Wyman, personal papers from the home of Harry Dexter White in Fitzwilliam, N.H. These papers were the subject of much analysis by the subcommittee and a report entitled "Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments--The Harry Dexter White Papers, Part 30" was issued in August 1955. In its foreword the subcommittee stated regarding these papers:

The Concord documents furnished an excellent source for such a study, revealing who were White's associates in and outside of the Treasury Department (including a number of individuals with Communist and espionage records), the far-reaching influence of White and his group in the Government, his political activity, and his ardent obsession with matters pertaining to the Soviet Union, including even Russian revolutionary songs.

The subcommittee hastened to add: It should be understood, however, that the

mere appearance of a reference to or ·eorre-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS spondence with Harry Dexter White by any individual does not necessarily have any subversive connotation and that such references and correspondence were in many instances inherently relevant to his official duties and those of his associates.

The report gave the backgrounds of various people who had correspondence with Harry Dexter White as indicated by his personal papers. On pages XXXIV and XXXV of the report the subcommittee listed some of the activities of Justice Abe Fortas during this period of time. As the subcommittee states, the mere exchange of correspondence with White "does not necessarily have any subversive connotation," and this should be borne in mind.

Perhaps Justice Fortas was "a babe in the woods" in associating with the various groups listed below, but if his decision in the Robel case concerning Communists in defense plants is any indication, he has yet to learn the inherent danger of the machinations of the Communist Party and certainly should not be selected for the top spot in the Highest Court of the land.

I include the above-mentioned material from the report of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in the RECORD at this point:

ABE FORTAS

On January 4, 1945, Abe Fortas, then Under Secretary of the Interior, wrote to Harry D. White congratulating him on his appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Fortas felt that the promotion was "completely deserved" and would "strengthen the Government considerably." White expressed his "deep satisfaction" at the note (exhibit 84-L, p. 2572). Fortas was a member of a dinner group which met on May 11 (year not given) at the Athens Cafe, 804 Ninth Street NW., Washington, D.C., including Dr. Lubin, David NHes, Mr. Appleby, C. B. Baldwin, Dr. Ezekiel, Oscar Chapman, L. B. Currie, and others {exhibit 70-A, p. 2252).

On a letterhead dated May 18, 1942, o! the International Juridical .Association, 100 Fifth Avenue, New York Oity, a.ppears the name of Abe Fortas as a member o! its national committee. Among his fellow members with records as members of the Communist Party were: Joseph R. Brodsky, Nathan Witt, Leo Gallagher, Lee Pressman, David J. Bentall, Isaac E. Ferguson, and others who have been ·active in defending Communist cases. The House Committee on Un-American Activities characterized the International Juridica.l Association as an organization which "actively defended Communists and consistently followed the Communist Party line." (Report on the National Lawyers Guild, September 21, 1950.) It was an official offshoot Of the International Labor Defense cited by the Attorney General as the "legal arm of the Communist Party."

The International Juridical Association was succeeded in the Ccmununist hierarchy by the National Lawyers Guild. The leadership of the two organizations interlock significantly. In 1937, Fortas was a member of the national executive board of the National Lawyers Guild, which has been cited as subversive by the Attorney General. In 1940 a split occurred in the organiza.tion and there was a defection of a large group of wellknown anti-Communists. To our knowledge Fortas' name has not appeared on its letterhead .since then.

A letterhead of the American Law Students Association shows Prof. Abe Fortas, of Yale !Jaw School, a:s a member of l'ts faculty advisory -board. The American Law Stud-ents Association was a pal't of the American Youth Congress which has been cited as sub-

21617 'Varsive by the Attorney General. It was also an affiliate of the United States Peace Committee, a part of the Communist-controlled peace front. Its letterhead shows union label 209, of the Prompt Press, which prtnts Communist Party literature.

Abe Fortas was a member of the Washington Committee for Democratic Action, which has defended the interests of individual Communists and whose meetings have been addressed by such well-known Communists as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Lee Pressman, and Doxey Wilkerson. It was active in 1940 and 1941 during the period of the Stalin-Hitler Pact.

THE RECORD OF WHAT'S RIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES IS AN IMPRESSIVE ONE

HON. CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR. OF MICHIGAN



Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks 1n the REcoRD, I include the following: [From the Washington Post, June 19, 1968] THE RECORD OF WHAT'S RIGHT IN THE UNITED

STATES Is AN IMPRESSIVE ONE

(By Roscoe Drummond) Hasn't the time come to speak up for

what's right with America and not center so much on what's wrong?

We think so, and our purpose is not to stop reform but to accelerate it.

Life magazine put this caption on a somber editorial: "Wherever We Look, Something's Wrong."

That is true and needs to be said. There's plenty wrong and it is amply visible. But there is much that is of good report on the American scene today and often Lt is not Visible but lost in massive self-deprecation. We offer a different caption than Life's: "Wherever We Look, Something's Right."

We need to see it and to say it not merely to keep things in perspective. There is a stronger reason. If we are to succeed in freeing the aggrieved and the impatient from the temptation to yield to violence, we must show them that the democratic process in America has worked, is working, and can be made to work even more effectively.

The record is impressive. It shows that our society and our way of governing is sufficiently animate, vital, and productive to warrant the conclusion.: Don't wreck it, use it.

Take the record on racial justice: More wrongs have been righted and more

things that are just have been achieved in the past decade and a. half than were accomplished over the 90 years from the end of the Civil War to 1954. That was the year of the milestone Supreme Court decision which began to lay the legal basis in America for complete racial justice and equality of opportunity.

Since then every arm of the Federal Government--the courts, the Congress, and three Presidents-have acted to see that the Constitutional writ of equa.lLty under the law runs to the boundaries of the Nation.

Except for hard pockets of delay, public places are open on an equal basis, the vote is assured, and Negroes, with white help and white assent, are electing Negroes to posts of high governing authority.

In the last four years the Federal Government has invested twice as much in education as It invested in the previous century.

The Federal Government is devoting three times more resources to health programs this -year than it did in 1964.

Job-trainlng programs are being greatly expanded. The war on. poverty 1s just begin-

21618 ning to pay significant dividends. Together business and Government are committed to reducing hardcore unemployed by 500 000 by 1971. ,

The best tribute to the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., took only four words. "The ayes have it," said the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, striking down racial barriers in A.bout 80 per cent of the Nation's housing and providing other protections, became law.

There is a Justice on the Supreme Court who is Negro. There is a member of the President's Cabinet who is Negro. Negroes are moving steadily into the middle classes and in rising numbers are going to coll-ege.

Howard K. Smith, the ABC commentator, does not overstate it when he says: "The era of Martin Luther King has made ultimate triumph inevitable. Negro impatience may obscure it, but in fact tremendous fm·ces are at work and cannot be stopp-ed."

Not enough, many will cry. And they are right. But it provides the evidence of things to come. It proves that American democratic institutions have been productively at work to begin to remove the blight of racial discrimination.

The crucial ingredient of success in dissolving the mood of violence and in accelerating racial justice is knowledge of how much progress has been made. To do more to overcome what's wrong with America, we need to be more aware of what's right with America.

SAN JOSE, CALIF., TO HOST BIENNIAL NATIONAL JACL CONVENTION

HON. DON EDWARDS OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my remarks, may I invite the attention of my colleagues in the Congress to the 20th Biennial National Convention of the Japanese-American Citizens League, JACL, which is to be held in San Jose, Calif., August 20 through 24, 1968. Hyatt House Hotel will be convention headquarters.

At that time, more than a thousand delegates representing the 91 chapters and membership in 32 States, will convene to implement the convention theme: "JACL---Heritage for the Future."

Its youth, or junior JACL division which was organized as a national entity 2 years ago at the 19th biennial national convention in San Diego, Calif., will hold its second biennial conclave in conjunction with the 20th biennial, with its headquarters at San Jose State College.

As most of my colleagues are aware the JACL is the only national organiza~ tion of Americans of Japanese ancestry. All of its members are citizens of the United States; and most, but not all, are also of Japanese ancestry.

JACL HERITAGE

As citizens, members of the JACL have tried to follow the challenge of their national motto: "For better Americans in a greater America." As members of one of the smallest nationality minorities in this country, they have organized, in the words of another slogan, to try to achieve "security through unity."


In the pursuit of these twin objectives, ever since 1930 when the JACL became a national organization, it has devoted itself to the elimination of prejudice and discrimination-in the law in economic practices, in social relati~nships-against those of Japanese ancestry in particular and against all citizens in· general, for JACL long ago recognized that no citizen is free unless all citizens are free. Concurrently the JACL dedicated itself to the promotion of the welfare and to the securing of more and equitable opportunities not just for Japanese Americans but for all people, knowing that justice should not be based on race, color, creed, or national origin.

Here, in Washington, JACL's legislative accomplishments are legend, and many of us were privileged to participate in some of them. Among the more notable are naturalization for those of the Japanese race by eliminating race as qualification for citizenship; immigration opportunities for Japanese and other Asians, first, by repeal of the 1924 Jap~ne~e Exclusion Act; and second, by abobshmg the racist national origins quota system and the even more racist Asia-Pacific Triangle discrimination; and partial compensation for the real and property losses suffered as a consequence of the 1942 mass military evacuation of all persons of Japanese origin from the west coast.

With other citizens of good will JACL was active in the campaign to 'secure statehood for the deserving Territory of Hawaii; to enact the many civil rights and humanitarian measures that have made the American dream more meaningful for the disadvantaged; and to encourage understanding and cooperation between the United States and Japan.

By res<;>rting to the courts, JACL was able to preserve the citizenship of American-born Japanese, to nullify the socalled alien land laws that denied alien Japanese the opportunity to buy or own land, to invalidate statutes denying certain commercial licenses to permanent resident Japanese, and to outlaw the arbitrary loss of citizenship through operation of law.

And, in concert with their fellow civic organizations, JACL participated in the historic civil rights cases involving restrictive housing covenants and pract~ces, public school segregation, integratiOn of public accommodations and facilities, jury duty bigotry, and so forth.

On State and community levels too, JACL worked to strike from the statute books unfair and discriminatory laws and ordinances, joined in litigation that extended the area of freedom and justice considerably, and inspired citizenship and other civic projects.

In these, and many other, constructive ways JACL provided the leadership that has enabled Japanese Americans, as a nationality minority, to achieve status as an integral part of their community, State, and Nation that would have been undreamed of even just a quarter of a century ago, when most Americans of Japanese ancestry were suspect citizens interned in wartime interior camps.

This is the JACL heritage, of successfully overcoming prejudice and persecu-

July 16, 1968

tion, that this distinguished organization at its 20th biennial hopes to preserve for others of Japanese ancestry yet to come by expanding its contributions to the multicultural society of this land th~t other Americans too may come to enJOY all of the benefits and promises of this country.

SAN JOSE CHAPTER LARGEST

With some 1,600 members, the San Jose chapter today is the largest and among the most active in the national organization.

First organized in 1923 under the leadership of the late Kay Nishida, it was known as the American Loyalty League. When it joined in 1930 to form the national association, it became the San Jose chapter. Early stalwarts of this ci~ize~ship movement included Dr. HisaiChl Nakahara, Eiichi Sakauye, Shigeo Masunaga, Dr. Tokio Ishikawa and the late William Yamamoto and To~hi Taketa. Masunaga, Sakauye, and Ishikawa, by the way, are still active.

For its outstanding community servic.e programs, th'3 chapter has been twice awarded the "Chapter of the Year" honors by the Northern CaliforniaWestern Nevada District Council the largest of the eight into which th~ national is divided geographically. It was also the first chapter among the 91 to provide group hospitalization insurance for its members, beginning this service in 1947.

Current officers are President Karl Kinaga, an attorney at law; First Vice President James Ono, another lawyer, of Sunnyvale; Second Vice President Mrs. Phil Ajari, a legal secretary of Saratoga; Third Vice President Phil Matsumura, a nurseryman; Recording Secretary Mrs. James Hirabayashi a public school teacher; Corresponding Secretary Dr. Arthur Y. Nomura, an optom~trist; Treasurer Henry Uyeda, supervisor et Beckman Instruments, Inc.; Official Delegate Richard K. Tanaka, Jr., an architect; and Thousand Club Ch~irman Henry Yamate, a certified pubhc accountant.

There are, of course, many distinguished Japanese Americans in this San Jose area. Among those involved in public affairs and widely known are Norman Mineta, the first nonwhite member of the city council; Judge Wayne Kanemota, of the municipal court; and attorney Grayson Taketa, who is the first Japanese American on the continental mainland of the United States to be a major party candidate for the U.S. Congress. In the education field, Paul Sakamoto and Tom T. Nanamura are principals of the Sunnyvale High School and of the Meyer Elementary School respectively, while Edward Hoshino Harry Miyakusu, Shigeo Masunaga, To~ Matsumoto, and Eiichi Sakauye are members of their local school boards. An internationally recognized YMCA leader is Dave Tatsuno, while Yoshito Uchida is a world-famous judo instructor.

This will be the last national JACL convention to be held in California for some time, since the 1970 convention will be · held in Chicago, the 1972 convention here in Washington, D.C., and the 1974 convention in Portland, Oreg.

!uly 16, 1968 'CONVENTION PROGRAM:

The 5-day 20th biennial convention begins the morning of August 20, when the national board and staff convenes. That same afternoon, the national youth council and the national youth commissioners begin their meetings.

The next 4 days are crammed with business sessions for the delegates, with several joint affairs with JACL delegates and junior JACL'ers. Of special interest may be the all-afternoon work session where plans and programs will be hammered out under which local chapters and individual JACL members will become more involved in the human rights and social progress problems of their local communities.

A fashion show luncheon, the youth queen competition, the tour of Japanese gardens, .and opening ceremonies, including the finals of the National JACL Oratorical Contest, are among the special events for August 21.

A recognitions luncheon, at which time the JACL'er of the biennium 1967-68 will be honored and several outstanding JACL'ers will receive special citations and awards, is scheduled for August 22, followed by the traditional convention outing, which this year will be held at Blackberry Farm. Of significance, perhaps, is that the JACL'er of the biennium 1963-64 was Father Clement, a Maryknoll Catholic priest who is the uno:fficial chaplain of the national organization.

A testimonial luncheon and the traditional Thousand Club whingding are slated for August 23, with the climactic eonvention banquet and Sayonara Ball set for Saturday evening, August 24.

Whitney Young, Jr., executive director of the National Urban League, will address the banquet, whlch will also acclaim the Nisei of the biennium 1967-68, the Japanese American who during -the biennium has contributed most to advance the welfare of those of Japanese ancestry in the United States.

Two years ago, in San Diego, the Nisei -of the biennium was our colleague, the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. PATSY TAKEMOTO MINK. Senator DANIEL K. INOUYE, also from Hawaii, won this highest award among Japanese Americans in years past, as did Congressional Medal of Honor winner Hiroshi Miyamura of Gallup, N. Mex.; internationally recognized architect Minoru Yamasaki of Detroit, Mich.; and Denver Post associate editor William Hosokawa, among others.

Dr. Thomas Taketa, who also serves as secretary to the national JACL board, doubles as general chairman of the 20th Biennial National Convention, the first ever held in San Jose. Associate chairman is Phil Matsumura, with the youth chairman being Miss Sharon Uyeda. Recording secretaries are Mrs. Yoshi Bepp and Miss Kathy Taoka; corresponding secretary, Mrs. Terrie Taketa; treasurer, Tad Sekigahama; and youth advisers, Richard Tanaka, Ben Horiuchi, and Miss Beverly Takeda.

GEORGE J. INAGAKI TESTIMONIAL

A special feature of this national convention will be the testimonial luncheon for George J. Inagakl of Los Angeles,

EXTENSIONS OF .REMARKS sponsored by fue Venice-CUlver chapter of which he is a member.

Inagakijs being honored for more than 30 years of active and inspired ser:vice to JACL, ranging from local chapter officer 1n Sacramento in the early thirties to two terms as national president, 1952-56. He was named Nisei of the biennium 1955-56. Still active in JACL activities, he has probably contributed more than any single individual to develop JACL's sound financial structure. ·

He is the personification of citizenship at its best, for he not only devotes himself to the JACL blllt also to civic, veterans, welfare, and fraternal enterprises.

Following the outbreak of World War n, he was a part of the JACL leadership that protested the west coast evacuation, then made representations in Washington that Japanese Americans be permitted to volunteer and serve in the U.S. Army and that Japanese American evacuees be released from their detention to return to normal communities outside the wartime camps. He himself volunteered and served :with distinction in military intelligence against the Japanese enemy in the Pacific, being on the statr of Admiral Nimitz during the invasion of Okinawa.

After the war, he helped raise the funds by which JACL carried on its legislative and litigative fight for vindication as loyal citizens and to correct as far as possible the sufferings, sacrifices, and the indignities of that unprecedented mistreatment.

At the same time, he helped individual evacuees return to their homes, to find employment, to reestablish businesses and professions, et cetera. He was particularly active in revitalizing the fiower industry among Japanese Americans in California. He aided in the welfare of the sick, the needy, and the orphaned, and .encouraged Japanese Americans to join non-Japanese fraternal organizations .such as Rotary International.

For more than a quarter of a century of service to his fellow men, the George J. Inagaki Citizenship Award is being established in his honor, to be awarded the JACL chapter that during the biennium most nearly represents in its activities and programs the citizenship and community service personified by the deserving honoree.

NATIONAL JACL OFFICERS AND STAFF

Typical of the cross section of America is the membership of the national JACL board.

National president is Jerry J. Enomoto of Sacramento, Calif., chief of the classi-1ication section of the California Department of Corrections.

First national vice president is Tom Shimasaki of Lindsay, Calif., an insurance underwriter for the New York Life Insurance Co.

Second national vice president is Dr. David M. Miura of Long Beach, Calif., a dentist.

Third national vice president is Henry Kanegae of NewPort Beach, Calif., a rancher and grower and shipper.

National treasurer is Yone Satoda of San Francisco, Calif., an accountantcontroller of a restaurant chain.

Secretary to the national board is Dr.

21619 Tom Taketa o! San Jose, Calif. a research scientist-Tadiation physiologist-associated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Thousand Club chairman is Dr. Frank Sakamoto of Chicago, Dl, an optometrist.

Immediate past national president is Kumeo Yoshinari of Chicago, m., an executive vice president of Turtle Wax Plastone Co.

A past national president is Dr. Roy Nishikawa of Los Angeles, Calif~ an optometrist.

National legal counsel is Willlam M. Marutani of Philadelphia, Pa., of the law finn of McCoy, Evans & Lewis.

Chairman of the Pacific citizen board is Roy Uno of Santa Ana, Ca.lif., an advertising production supervisor with Beckman Instruments, Inc.

National youth commissioner is Kay Nakagiri of Burbank, Calif., an aircraft designing specialist with Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

Governor of the eastern district council is Dr. Warren Watanabe of Philadelphia, Pa., a research supervisor with Rohm &Haas Co.

Governor of the midwest district council is Henry Tanaka of Cleveland, Ohio, executive director of Hill House for mental health rehabilitation and research.

Governor of the mountain-plains district council is Mrs. K. Patrick Okura of Omaha, Nebr., director of Volunteer Services, University of Nebraska College of Medicine.

Governor of the intermountain district council is Ronnie Yokota of Pocatello., Idaho, staff administrative specialist with the Army.

Governor of the Pacific Northwest district council is Henry Kato of Portland, Oreg., a real estate broker and berry grower.

Governor of the northern Californiawestern Nevada district council is GTant Shimizu of San Jose, an attorney at law.

Governor of the central California district council is Tokuo Yamamoto of Clovis, a farmer.

Governor of the Pacific Southwest district council is Ronald Shiozaki of Gardena, Calif., proprietor of clothing stores.

Members of the National JACL Youth Council are Russell Obana of San Francisco, Calif., a student at San Francisco State; Paul Tamura of Oregon City, Oreg., a student at Oregon State University; Miss Misako Hasebo of Yettem, Calif., a student at the local junior college; Brian Morishita of Idaho Falls, Idaho, student at Idaho State College; Miss Patti Dohzen of Los Angeles. Calif., a student at Qalifornia State College at Los Angeles; Miss Elaine Uchiyama of St. Louis, Mo., a student at Duke University; and Norman Ishimoto of Washington, D.C., a student at the Uni-· versity of Maryland.

National director is Masao W. Satow of San Francisco, with assistant directors Jeffrey Y. 1\l:atsui of Los Angeles and Yoshio Hotta of San Francisco. Midwest office secretary is Mrs. Esther :Hagiwara of Chicago, lll. National youth director is Alan F. Kumamoto oi Los Angeles. Editor of the Pacific Citizen,

21620 weekly membership publication, is Harry K. Honda. Washington representative is Mike M. Masaoka of Washington, D.C.

JACL HYMN

Mrs. Marion Tajiri, a native of San Jose, wrote the words to the J ACL Hymn, which summarizes the history and the aspirations of JACL: There was a dream my father dreamed for

me, A land in which all men are free; Then the desert camps with watch-towers

high Where life stood still, 'mid sand and brooding · sky. Out of the war in which my brothers diedTheir muted voices with mine cried: This is our dream, that all men shall be free. This is our creed, we'll live in loyalty. God help us rid the land of bigotry That we may walk in peace and dignity.

JOBS FOR "HARD CORES"

HON. FRANK J. BRASCO OF NEW YORK



Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Speaker, President Johnson has wisely stated that the "make work" programs of the 1930's are not the answer to today's vexing problems of unemployment.

Rather, he believes, and I concur, that the answer to the complex problems of joblessness lies in training the hard-core unemployed for work in private industry.

One of the most encouraging developments of 1968 has been increased activity by American business to help the Nation come to grips with what has come to be called "hard-core unemployment."

Across the country, businessmen are channeling the brainpower and ingenuity that built the greatest industrial Nation on earth toward helping the disadvantaged help themselves.

To show the contributions of American business in this important area, I include the July 1, 1968, Christian Science editorial, "Jobs for 'Hard Cores'," in the RECORD:

JOBS FOR "HARD CORE" Chalk up an item of hopeful news on the

racial front: Job training programs, organized by the business community, are proving that a good many of the so-called "hardcore unemployables" can be employed. Most of them are young, from poverty homes, and black. They can indeed learn to hold down a paying job.

For example: In New York the Chase Manhattan Bank graduated 17 ghetto youths, mostly high school dropouts, from a recent six-week training course in reading, language skills, and mathematics. Now they will start work as keypunch operators and clerks, at $75 a week.

For another example: Lockheed Aircraft Corporation enrolled 98 trainees in a 12-week program--dropouts, boys who never had worked consistently, a few with arrest records, most of them Negroes. Of this total 18 quit, 10 were discharged for absenteeism or chronic lateness, but 61 finished satisfactorily. All went into useful jobs, 43 at Lockheed.

This shows what can be done. Costs of such programs run high; the government often subsidizes the traini;ng. effort. Unexp~cted problems crop up: absenteeism, distance to work, too-meager training allowances. But

EXTENSIONS OF -REMARKS ultimately a great many "hard cores" find themselves holding down worthwhile jobs.

The National Aliiance of Businessmen has pledged that it will find jobs for 100,000 unemployed by July of next year, and 500,000 by July of 1971. How valuable this effort will be is shown by the unemployment rate among blacks: 6.4 percent, twice that of whites. Among young Negroes it runs to 24.7 percent.

There are very few big corporations in the United States which have not detailed some key officials to study the problem of jobs for the eager blacks, and jobs for the "unemployables." The first results of these studies are beginning to appear.

THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC

HON. ANCHER NELSEN OF MINNESOTA


Tuesday, July 1-6, 1968

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have received a copy of the Bank of New York Letter of May 1968, which is devoted to a discussion of the controversy surrounding drug prices. As a member of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee concerned with this matter, I wish to bring it to the attention of Congress, and include it at this point in my remarks: THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND THE

PUBLIC; Do PRESCRIPTION DRUGS COST Too MUCH? WHY NOT SWITCH TO GENERIC-NAME DRUGS AND SAVE?

(By Samuel H. Woolley, President) When a prescription has cured a minor ail

ment or a major disease, or even saved your life, you will probably give justified credit to your doctor. When you get the bill for the prescription, your reaction may be quite different. Is your druggist adding an unreasonable markup on what he sells? Or, going a step beyond the druggist, are you contributing more than you should to the profits of a supplier that most of us know very little about: the pharmaceutical industry?

The costs of Medicare and Medicaid have sharpened the public concern with the price of drugs. Many thoughtful citizens and their representatives want to know why the invalid or the taxpayer should pay a premium for a brand-name drug used in a prescription if a generic-name drug will give the same results at lower cost. They want to know what, if anything, the brandwname manufacturers are giving the public in return for the premium.

Our business is banking-not drugs. And we would prefer to leave the pricing of all drugs to the free marketplace, and the prescribing of drugs to our physicians. Moreover, we do business both with people who manufacture pharmaceuticals, and with those who use them and pay for them.

Our concern is that the controversy that surrounds this vital industry could lead to a situation where we throw out the baby along with the bath water. In the interest of better understanding, therefore, we discuss here some of the issues involved, with the frank admission that much of the background has been provided by our conversations with representatives of the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves, and by the statements of government and professional people.

Penicillin was totally useless to man fotr millions of years. It was a very ancient chemical substance when, one morl)ing in September, 1928, ~lexanqer Fleming noticed that a bacterial culture dish in his laboratory at

July 16, 1968 St. Mary's Hospital in London ·had become contaminated. Some vagrant spore had seeded a lush growth of blue-green mold. in the dish. Around the mold was a clear transparent right which suggested to Fleming that something in the mold had destroyed germs which came in contact with it.

Patiently, Fleming cultivated the mold-a commonplace species of Penicillium-and obtained a crude broth. He injected it into mice infected with various germs and discovered that the mold-juice, which he called "penicillin", decimated ger"ms in mice as well as in culture dishes. In a report which languished for years in a scientific journal he made one of the great understatements of our time: "Penicillin may be an efficient antiseptic for injection into areas infested with penicillin-sensitive microbes."

But penicillin was not yet a drug. Years later, while London staggered under Nazi bombs, British workers strove desperately to produce penicillin in hope that it might save lives. They devised a method of growing the parent molds in old-fashioned bedpans. It wasn't good enough. In early 1943, all the medical penicillin in the world was just about enough to treat 400 patients.

Then the British pioneers turned to American industry. More than a dozen U.S. pharmaceutical firms, the government, and English scientists collaborated in a crash program to mass-produce penicillin. Private industry invested $25 million, the government $3 million, before the first mass-produced dose was marketed. The breakthrough came when industry learned how to produce penicillin in giant fermenta;tion tanks laced with moldnutrients.

At long last penicillin became a drug: standardized, purified, in doses of uniform strength, in many oral and injectable forms; in ample and immediate supply to patients everywhere. Transformation from an obscure natural chemical into a life-saving drug was effected by the special skills of the pharmaceutical industry in conjunction with the medical profession. This is the route, with myriads of complex variations, that a mere chemical substance must travel to become a drug.

LET'S LOOK AT THE RECORD Today, the "ethical" pharmaceutical in

dustry-which is to say, makers of potent doctor-prescribed drugs, in contrast to familiar non-prescription drugs such as aspirinis in something of a crisis of success.

We take its contributions to medical and health care more or less for granted. Antibiotics have been available from birth to ~ entire generation that has grown up and started families. But only "yesterday", if you came down with pneumonia you had one chance in three of dying and at best a long period of recuperation. Tuberculosis, "blood poisoning", pneumonia, typhoid fever, polio, measles, diphtheria, many other diseases have greatly diminished in incidence or seriousness-some have almost disappeared-in large part because of research-developed drugs. The great majority of major drugs in current use were discovered and virtually all were developed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Indirect social contributions of the industry are hard to measure but real none the less. We don't give thanks for an illness we never suffer or complications that never occur because of effective drug therapy, but these benefits are reflected in the economy in less sick-time ari.d absenteeism and in the buoyant pursuit of personal affairs. The doctor shortage would be more acute than it is were it not for modern drugs that enable a physician to treat more patients in his workday and to forestall complications that would require follow-up visits.

The spillover of scientific knowledge stem~ mi,ng from pharmaceutical discoveries is great but little appreciat.ed except by tech~ nologists. For instance, discovery of vitamin

July 16, 1968 B12 in a pharmaceutical laboratory opened pathways of new insights into complexities of blood formation, pernicious anemia, and nutrition. There is no way of calculating the number of lives saved, increased life expectancy, and preservation of well-being effected by modern drugs.

Yet the pharmaceutical industry is mistrusted in many quarters and on numerous grounds. Its critics charge unjust prices, exorbitant prices, arbitrary high prices of patent-protected drugs, disparity in prices of the same product, wasteful and misleading advertising that unduly influences doctors, inordinately costly promotional methods.

Following the Federal Trade COmmission's split decision in early 1967 concerning charges against several drug firms of a conspiracy to fix prices, which in effect exonerated these firms of this charge, a United States district court jury found three drug firms guilty of anti-trust violations. The firms had pleaded innocent, and said that they would appeal.

The record, then, is confusing: unquestioned contributions to health on the one hand; serious doubts and accusations on the other. It might be helpful to pause and get a closer look at the pharmaceutical industry itself, and what it's like.

UNIQUE NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY

In the pharmaceutical industry, no single company has as much as 7 percent of ethical drug sales. Currently (the roster changes) there are 1,325 drug manufacturing companies, of which many are small regional firms with limited product lines. About 700 produce prescription drugs.

For all the headlines it evokes, the industry is surprisingly small. Any one of a dozen manufacturing corporations-Jersey Standard, the "Big Three" in autos, U.S. Steel, IBM, and others-has greater sales than the entire ethical pharmaceutical industry. In 1967, U.S. sales of prescription drugs for human patients amounted to $3.lt billion at manufacturer's price levels, plus some $350 million sales to federal, state and local governments. Worldwide sales (American drugs are in great demand overseas) boosted the total to $4.8 billion.

As we know it today, the industry is very young, although some of its members are quite venerable. It rushed through adolescence to husky maturity in a span of some three decades. The modern pharmaceutical indus try-and modern medicine--may fairly be said to have begun in the 1930's when the sulfa drugs were introduced. These were the first "magic bullets" to attack specific germs that cause widespread disease-and attack them without significant harm to the typical patient. Their lifesaving introduction generated profits and stimulated research fervor. The tools of research-instruments that project men's questing rr.inds into the infinitesimal world of molecules-became more and more refined and sophisticated. The great research explosion in the physical and life sciences was under way.

The public is keenly aware of the "wonder drugs" that have emerged from that scientific explosion; yet it still knows little of the industry that produced them. The ethical drug industry communicates with skilled professionals in the service of health-pharmacists and physicians-rather than with the ultimate consumers. This is because the_ physician is responsible for prescribing what is uniquely right for the individual patient, and the pharmacist is responsible for providing exactly what is ordered by the physician. However great the virtues of a drug, it can degrievous harm if it is misused.

Another significant aspect of the industry is the very large proportion of incomeaveraging around 10 percent of sales-that is earmarked for research. This is a scienceand-research-based industry, c·haraderized

CXIV--1362-Part 16

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS by rapid innovation and relatively brief dominance of the market by a new drug. Threequarters of the 200 most;.prescri'bed drugs in 1966, accounting for two-th1rds of prescription drug sales, were unavailable in 1958.

In a report based on annual surveys of member firms, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association stated that during 1966, the industry spent an average of $91,000 to support eaoh doctorate-level professional or scientifi·c individual in its research and development organization.

Such funds are overwhelmingly genera ted within the industry. Thus the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association announced in November, 1967: "The prescription drug industry . . . financed more than 96 percent of its research and development a•ctivities with its own capital last year. Government funds accounted for only 3.4 percent of the industry's research." -

By way of contrast, the Association noted, "All private industry pays for only 41 percent of its research and development with government supporting the remaining 59 percent."

None of the drug industry's research is supported by foundation grants. As a matter of fact, the industry makes its own contributions to universities, medical s·chools, and teaching organizations: grants for research and for scholarships in pharmacology, for exa.mple. These contributions are made both by individual drug companies and by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association Foundation.

IN THIS FIELD: TWO SEGMENTS

But there are really two kinds of prescription drug makers. One segment of the industry does research, develops new drugs, performs costly animal and clinical tests and enormous amounts of paperwork to satisfy the Food and Drug Administration of safety and efficacy. Its products often carry brand names and are subject to rigid quality controls. A single product may undergo more than 250 separate tests involving not only months or years, but also very costly equipment such as spectrophotometers, potentiometers, and polarographs. The cost is considerable; 18 percent of production employees work on quality control.

Another segment of the industry is essentially in a different business: a compounding and distribution business. For .the most part, these manufacturers duplicate and sell established drugs that were researched, developed, and tested by other medical and pharmaceutical scientists. Their products are usually marketed under the generic names of the active ingredients, though sometimes with brand names too, and generally are cheaper than the product of the original developer who invested heavily in research and the establishment of standards of quality, and whose efforts prepared a ready market for the drug.

These industry differences are pertinent to current "generic name" controversies which we shall examine later.

Why is a relatively small industry, an essential stone in the arch of medical care, so subject to repeated charges and investigations? No doubt, in part, because health problems are emotionally loaded. Prescription drugs are forced purchases that seldom give pleasure. To be sick is an injustice; to have to pay for it, an imposition. A warm doctor-patient relationship is common, but not a warm manufacturer-patient relationship.

It isn't easy to compare prices o:! prescription drugs. When there's an illness in the family, the person with a prescription from the doctor doesn't take time to shop around; and when he sees the bill for the prescription, he may feel that he is being gouged for what he got.

Spiraling costs of hospitalization and medical care arouse resentments that include drugs, which are a part, though a rela-

21621 tively small and declining part, of total health services. Strong currents of social philosophy embrace health as a human right to be underwritten by governments. The push to involve the government ever more deeply in the organization, central direction, delivery, financing and monitoring of medical services implies profound changes affecting doctors, patients, pharmacists, resear{lhers, hospitals and manufacturers. One aspect is the proposed shifting of drug bills from the individual to the public, via Social Security levies and wel!az:e programs, by having the government pick up the tab for qualified patients.

Congress last year rejected a proposal by Senator Russell Long to establish a formulary of drugs, listed by generic or nonbrand names and prices fixed by the government, to be paid for under present Federal established programs. Many doctors feel that such a proposal might restrict and prevent them from prescribing as they see fit in the best interests of their patients. Readers of The New York Times Magazine found a moderate expression of this feeling recently (August 13, 1967) in the words of Michael J. Halberstam, M.D., who practices internal medicine in Washington, D.C.:

"The attempt to tie generic (rather than brand name) drug prescriptions to the Government's outlay in Medicare has generated uneasiness in me and other physicians. I usually prescribe by the less expensive generic name myself, yet I respect the major drug companies for some true contributions to therapy and to physician education, and I respect those of my colleagues who feel their patients are safer if they receive a drug made by a major company ra.ther than a copy house. Drug costs are lliOt that large a percentage of the total economy or even the health dollar to warrant restricting categorically the physician's freedom to prescribe."

DO DRUGS COST TOO MUCH?

A great deal of indignation has geen generated by charges that prescription drug companies make excessive profits. Many drug companies typically produce a range of products and thus their financial data do not reveal the entire precise story. However, there can be little doubt thaJt for many companies ethical drugs are a highly profitable business-in fact, the pharmaceutical industry is amonb the leaders in terms of return on invested capital.

This is a high-risk industry, characterized by constant innovation; and profits of individual companies vary considerably. A big break-through drug may be followed by a long dry spell in discovery. In major fields of therapy, first one company and then another gains leadership as new products of greater benefit to patients are introduced. Profits from a widely-prescribed drug help to sustain less profitable ones, such as those needed in only a few cases a year.

In a free economy, no one can say what a proper level of profit should be; but if an industry is to survive and progress, it must be sufficiently profitable to attract the required capital and human resources.

The belief that drug prices are too high arises in fact from the spiraling costs of medical care. Drugs were "not the key aspect at all" in soaring medical costs, former Secretary John W. Gardner of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has said. Hospital care was "perhaps the most dramatic element in the picture."

To the extent that new drugs help to reduce the period of illness, they also help to cut the patient's costs by reducing his stay in the hospital and the period of treatment by his doctor.

Of the total health care dollar, drugs account for 13.8 cents, a decline from 16.7 cents within a decade, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office <Y.f Business Economics. While hospital and other medi-

21622 cal costs have been rising sharply (-along with general living costs). retail drug pr.l.cee began to drop in 1960 and continued downward to new lows in 1967. Ahd the level of manufacturers' prices on ethical pharmaceuticals has declined 9 percent since January~ 1961.

Obviously it is desirable that drugs be available at the lowest cost consistent with quality. Many legislative, political, and consumer groups advocate the generic-names route to this goal. And to the extent that competition is a factor in price control, generic-name drugs have a perfectly legitimate function. But there -are other important considerations worth examining.

GENERIC CONTROVERSY

Every drug of known structure has a complex chemical name and a somewhat simpler generic name. The latter is a coined word With chemical connotations. Many drugs also have brand names or trade names, as do autos, toasters, detergents, toothpaste, and thousands of commodities which inform the consumer of the identity of the manufacturer and his full responsibility for his product. Popularly, a generic-name drug is construed to be an unbranded drug.

Arguments for the virtual abolition of pharmaceutical trade names not only concern the industry but are directly related to the public interest. Advocates make two assumptions: that generic drugs are therapeutically identic•al with other drugs with the same active ingredients, and that they cost the consumer less. Both assumptions ca.n be true. But not invariably.

A generic name identifies only the active drug agent. Many other components that carry the active agent and help it work in the body enter into tablets, capsules, and other dosage forms.

"In other words, generic equivalency does not necessarily connote therapeutic equivalency."

The quotation is from the testimony of a quality control executive in one of the major drug :firms, appearing before the Monopoly Subcommittee of the Senate Select Small Business Committee on November 29, 1967.

The speaker detailed the therapeutic importance of such factors as particle form and size in antibiotics, and of proper selecting and compounding of non-drug ingredients to lessen pain on injection; to lessen the liability of allergic reactions; to produce more prompt solution in the stomach and absorption in the blood when that is desired; to retard solution in the stomach of a drug that is better absorbed in the intestinal tract, or that does its work better if it is gradually released; to mask bad flavor of an active ingredient.

Another pharmaceutical executive, testifying before the same committee, said:

"The research-oriented Innovator type o! company generally sets higher quality standards for its products than does the noninnovator [and] will not market a drug product until it has been clinically tested for safety and effectiveness." · This speaker quoted the former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, George P. Larrick: _

"Our experience has shown that those who do not have proper controls are more likely to produce substandard drugs. The point ..• is not whether drug manufacturers are large· or small, but whether they have the scientific personnel and laboratory control to pro-duce pure, reliable and safe drugs."

Dr. James L. Goddard, now head of the Food and Drug Adlninlstration, recently indicated concern that not all generic drugs may be of equal value in treatment. The Medical Tribune, of November 16, 1967, reported him as saying that ''he has received 'disturbing' information about la.ck of therapeutic equivalency in a number of generic products and that as a result his agency may have to .. : require clinical tests of equivalency."

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS "The FDA will not be 'accomplishing its

mission' unless it is able to assure the physician that 'he can prescribe by any name he chooses and from any manufacturer,' Dr. Goddard said, 'and I can't honestly give that reassurance today.' ••

But the monitoring of drug quality is complex and expensive. Any government system of day-to-day production surveillance of drug quality would have to employ the same quality checks that quality manufacturers already use. Mammoth proliferation of government staffs and red tape would surely increase. (though hiding) costs that responsible manufacturers now assume.

Generic producers usually copy only one or two of the most widely-used dosage forms of a drug, leaving it to others to produce the relatively low-volume, less-profitable forms needed by many patients. A number of important drugs are produced only by brand-name manufacturers.

Generic drug producers do not commonly have research, development, or promotion costs, or maintain important informational services for physicians as innovative firms do. These very services have brought much criticism upon the heads of the industry.

INFORMATION AND DISTRIBUTIVE SERVICE

Pharmaceutical firms that develop new drugs accept the continuing responsibility of giving the medical professions complete and updated information. Medical service departments maintain company-doctor communications, answer professional queries, get reports of clinical experiences with drugs. Sales representatives called "detail men"-college graduates, often pharmacists-make personal calls on physicians to inform. them of new and old products. Doctors generally regard detail men as performing a helpful service. A misstatement of fact by a detail man to a knowledgeable physician could damage his company's reputation irreparably.

Pharmaceutical advertising is another of many sources of information available to physicians. It is strictly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and must give ali pertinent information, favorable and unfavorable, indications and contraindications. Informative package inserts, symposia, and reprints of medical journal articles are other aspects of informa~ional service.

THE IMPRESSION AND THE FACTS

All of this costs money and gives rise to charges that drugs co~t more tha.n they should because doctors are flooded with flamboyant, garish, hucksterish junk mail. A widely circulated figure gives the impression that the pharmaceutical industry spends $3,000 per physician per year on promotion.

The facts are not that dramatic. One pharmaceutical executive gave an analysis of the figure at the National Conference on Medical Costs held in Washington, D.C., in June 1967. The $3,000 includes $500 for warehousing and del1ve.ry. The remaining $2,500 of marketing cost, divided among some 140 companies that make 95 percent of prescription drugs, shrinks to an average expenditure of just about $18.00 per physician per company per year. -

Much investigation of the industry focuses on manufacturers' rather than retail prices. Included in the latter are inescapable C06ts of getting any product to consumers. Drugs are not marketed by the ton or carload but by the milligram or bottle. Some are perishable. SOme must be refrigerated. W-arehouses must be spaced around the country, delivery s·ervices at the ready. Record-keeping of drug lots must be meticulous. Pharmacists have expensive stocks and must charge enough to cover overhead and reasonable return for profession-al service. Distribution costs add substantially to the retail prices of drugs. And of all other commodities.

One man in the pharmaceutical industry has figured that his company couldn't sell tap water through the drug store trade at ·a dollar a gallon and break even: "The drug-

July 16, 1968 gist would need at least 40 percent and the wholesaler 16% percent. This would leave about 50 cents to buy the bottle, pay for the transportation of about 10 pounds, pay salesmen's expenses, advertise and promote, and then, finally, pay for overhead. You can apply this same story to the other industries and come up with a simil-ar answer."

Some critics complain tha.t the price of the same prescription drug varies from pharmacist. Such variation does indeed exist, and it may be attributable to any of a Wide variety of factors: one pharmacist's costs of doing business-rent, salaries, utilities--as compared with those of another; his maintenance or nonmaintenance of such services as charge accounts and free deliveries; the volume of b.usiness he does in any specific drug; and, finally, the amount of profit he decides he needs to have in order to continue in the business.

Whether government or industry takes responsibility for making drugs available to patients within minutes, substantial distribution costs are unavoidable. The costs of tax-supported government distributive agencies would be hidden-but they would still be there.

RESEARCH OR PERISH

Where do new drugs come from? Not from manufacturers who produce only generic drugs. Of new drug entities originating in this co,mtry and marketed between 1940 a.nd 1966, 87 percent came from research-based firms in the pharmaceutical industry; the rest from government agencies, institutions, and universities. In 1966, the industry plowed some $400 million of its own money into research; in 1967, this figure was expected to top $462 million.

Research is less a matter of choice than of survival. One or several of a firm's most profitable drugs may support the total research effort. But a dominant drug may be superseded by a. competitor's better one tomorrow. Even the limited 17-year monopoly of a patent can be 1llusive. Patents require full disclosure--long before marketing--of information that competitors can use in trying to develop similar drugs, therapeutically as good or better, for introduction long before the original patent expires.

Decriers of the industry's research assert that altogether too much of it is wasted on molecular manipulation of known drugs, to produce imitation "me-too" drugs no better than the original. Undoubtedly there is waste in research activities, but one never knows--like John Wanamaker, who said that he could cut out half the advertising he did if he only knew which half was unproductive.

A patient who desperately needs penicillin but cannoi; take it because he is deathly sensitive to the drug is grateful for a different antibiotic which does much the same thing as penicillin but to which he is not sensitive. Manipulation of peniclllin molecules has created several semf-syn thetic penicillins with properties distinctively different from "original" penicillin, which w-as a mixture of several natural forms.

A physician who today prescribed one of the original sulfa drugs, unless in very exceptional circumstances, would likely be chargeable with malpractice, because so many improved sulfa drugs have come along since the original became available.

Legislative action abQlishing pharmaceutical trade names, requiring generic prescribing, or putting a low ceiling on profits of particular drugs, could in time dry up private research by depriving the industry of financial capacity and incentive. No matter who does it, pharmaceutical research is costly. Of 6,000-odd promising laboratory compounds, perhaps one survives extensive tests and becomes a useful drug. Development of a drug, proving its safety and effi.cacy, standardizing dosage forms, satisfying exacting FDA requirements, informing

July 16, 19"ii8 the professions. :filling supply lines he:tore . a dose is sold-all of these essential steps com-

. monly cost more than the drug's discovery. An informed estimate is that an important new drug entity represents an investment of $7 million or more and seven years' time.

GOVERNMENT-DmECTED RESEARCH?

What of the alternative that the government might undertake direction of the nation's pharmaceutical research? At once existing fac111ties, equipment, scientific personnel, and special skills of the pharmaceutical industry would have to be duplicated or confiscated. Costs weuld more likely increase than decrease, but they would be shunted to everyone who works and pays taxes.

It is particularly interesting that. in England-a country with a distinct socialist orientation-the pharmaceutical industry has not been completely socialized. Medicine has been socialized-though prescriptions are no longer free, in the wake of the devaluation of the pound; but the pharmaceutical industry has been comparatively free to pursue a course similar to ours.

In England, not long ago, a committee of inquiry into the pharmaceutical indust~y said, "There may be an element of econonuc waste in competitive research, but the evidence we have obtained leads us to believe that without such competition there would be a slower rate of discovery."

There is considerable evidence that farreaching implications of the pharmaceutical industry's problems are neither recognized nor appreciated by the majority of Americans One difficulty is that of communication bet;een intelligent outsiders and a highly technological industry. This letter is intended to help bridge the gap in understanding.

There are those who believe that government can do better and at lower cost what the industry ts doing and has been doing, with the results that we have seen. There is no solid evidence to support this belief. But in every man, woman, or child who has been saved from suffering and imminent death by a modern drug, there is a demonstration that the pharmaceutical industry, stimulated by competition, has kept faith with the people-and a caveat against turning tt over to a tax-supported bureaucracy.

You don't tear down a good house because it needs a few alterations and improvements. Shortcomings of the pharmaceutical industry-and there are some-are of the sort that can be resolved by reasonable, thoroughly-informed men with a constructive approach.

Everyone needs the pnarmaceutical industry-if not today, then almost surely on some tomorrow. Much unfinished business lies ahead; serious business. Pharmaceutical research must continue to make its contributions to unsolved problems of human health.

One hopes devoutly that the yet-undiscovered drug we may need tomorrow is beginning to emerge from some pharmaceutical laboratory today.

MARLBORO'S MEMORIAL DAY . EXERCISES

HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OJ' MASSACHUSE'rl'S

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday1 July 16~ 1968

Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day l was highly privileged and honored to be the guest speaker at impressive exercises conducted in the :fine

EXTENSiONS OF .. REMARKS

community of Marlboro, Mass., in my district. '

It is always a pleasure for me to meet and greet old Marlboro friends, and it was particularly impressive for me to see the great number of people lining the city streets to view the Memorial Day parade and the huge throng which gathered in historic Monument Square to participate in the closing ceremonies of the city's Memorial Day observance.

The noted Worcester, Mass., Gazette in its May 31 edition carried an account of the observance and I place it in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, together with the full text of my remarks at these wellconducted exercises.

The material follows: [From the Worcester (Mass.) Evening Ga

zette, May 31, 1968] ADULTS JOINED BY YOUTH-WAR DEAD RE

MEMBERED IN AREA' S CITIES, TOWNS

MARLBORo.-With special memorial services and a Main Street parade, the city took time off yes·terday to honor its war dead.

The generation gap was forgotten as young and old alike marched beneath the flags that lined the way to Memorial Square.

The day's observance began with a brief memorial service in front of the plaques leading into the Veterans' Memorial Auditorium of the high school. Group visits to the graves of the city's fallen soldiers followed.

At 10 the parade formation made its way from the high school parking lot behind Marshal John F. Hanley, past commander of the Sgt. John P. Colleary Post, V.F.W.

BOY SCOUTS

Marching with National Guard units and a contingent from Fort Devens were representatives of e·ach of the city's veterans' associations. And with them were the Boy Scouts and marching bands from Marlboro High School, Immaculate Conception parish and St. Mary's Church.

Twice along the way, the march was halted and the bands muted. At the World War II Memorial at City Hall· and at the Doughboy Monument, rifle salutes snapped through the stilled crowds.

More than a thousand lined the sidewalks to watch the parade as 1 t progressed down Main Street to the Grand Army of the Republic Monument at Monument Square. _

Once there, the marchers and spectators paused to hear the address of U.S. Rep. Phll1p J. Philbin of Clinton.

"The sorrow and lesson of Memorial Day," he told the assembly, "is that the price for liberty is never paid, the fruits of freedom never fully won, the rights of the individual never secure."

And, he intoned, ':The period in which we live is no exception."

UNBLJ!!MISHED

He reminded the audience of the responsibilities that must be borne as a consequence of the freedoms that have been given. "Let us be mindful that In our time we must stand firmly and boldy, as they did in theirs, to be worthy of the great sacrifices they rendered, to preserve and protect the noble legacy left to us so that this nation may remain the great citadel of liberty that it is, unblemished, untarnished, and intact not only for our own generation, but also for those who come after us."

Bringing his talk to a close, be offered this plea: "Let us continue to strive with all our hearts and with every measure of our strength and devotion to establish an honorable peace in Vietnam and the world, so that this nation, and all nations, may live together in amity and understanding and work a.nd labor together for expanded freedom, prosperity, understanding and brotherhood for all."

21623 - · Speaking with Philbin were Robert Thomas and Nikki Felonis of Malboro High School, winners, respectively, of the American Legion and VFW essay competitions.

The Rt. Rev. William Sullivan, pastor of Immaculate Conception Church, gave the benediction, and the Rev. Herman E. Nelson. rector of Holy Trinity Episcopal Ohurch, closed the day's program with his prayers.

REMARKS IN PART OF CONGRESSMAN PHILIP J. PHILBIN MEMORIAL DAY EXERCISES, MARLBORO, MASS., MAY 30, 1968 Mr. Chairman, reverend clergy, distin

guished guests and veterans and friends. It is fitting that the closing exercises of

Marlboro's tribute today to its heroic dead should take place in Monument Square before this familiar Grand Army of the Republic Monument, and close to the famed historic John Brown Bell captured at Harpers Ferry a little over a hundred years ago by Union soldiers from Marlboro.

There are many among us who can look back on the memory of other Memorial Days and take note with a bit of sadness that in many places the community observance of this holiday is not what it used to be. That is why it is particularly inspiring to note that Marlboro has kept up this fine custom with visits to cemeteries to honor our dead and with a traditional Memorial Day Parade.

All of us are indebted to the veterans organizations of Marlboro for keeping alive this very impressive observance of Memorial Day in the community, and I am honored and proud to join with you in these typical Memorial Day exercises to pay our heartfelt tributes of gratitude, love and affection to the gallant and the brave of every American war, who served our country with total loyalty and their fullest measure of devotion and to remember and honor those who are no longer with us.

Since the Civil War, which is commemorated by the G.A.R. Monument here in Monument Square, the best of American manhood has fought and died many times to preserve liberty, justice and freedom for Americans here at home and peoples in distant places all over the world.

In every case where Americans have fought and died, we have always had the hope and prayer that "they shall not have died in vain." But, the sorrow and lesson of Memorial Day is that the pric.e for Uberty is never paid, the fruits of freedom never fully won; the rights of the individual ·never secure. The period in which we live is no exception.

As the nation pauses in its affairs on this Memorial Day to pay heartfelt tribute and honor to our heroic dead, it is also the time and place to express our gra tltude and to remember the gallant and the great ln every American generation who laid down their lives so that this great government of ours, in its dedication to human freedom, might survive, grow, prosper and become, as it has become, the greatest nation in world history.

No honor we could confer upon these gallant men would be enough to express our thanks, and the thanks of a grateful nation, for what they have done to protect, preserve and save this great land of ours, its homes, its freedoms, its vaunted institutions of enterprise and justice.

No monument no matter how great and impressive, no plaque, no words can measure their noble sacrifices. They rest in honored glory. They are enshrined in grateful American. hearts with eternal love,. devotion and gratitude.

On this day of dedication, as we pay tribute to our honored dead, let us be mindful that in our time we must stand firmly and boldly, as they did in theirs, to be worthy of the great sa.crUlces they rendered, to preserve and protect the noble legacy left to

. "U8 ao that this nation may rematn the great

21624 citadel of liberty that it is; unblemished, untarnished, and intact not only for our own generation, but also for those who come after us.

It is for us and for our times, as it always has been for all Americans, to take up the burden with purpose and courage to give living expression to the memory and example of the great sacrifice of those we honor today, to carry out the inspiration they have given us to defend our blessed land and its priceless liberties against those who seek our destruction, and who strive to turn this free nation and the free world into confiict and tyranny.

While we are faced tOday at home and abroad with problems of surpassing magnitude and gravity, while the poison of subversive doctrine and activity confronts us in many places at home and abroad, this country will never give up its freedoms, 'and it will never allow those who are seeking to destroy them, whether they be at home or abroad, to accomplish their evil goals.

As in other instances when we were assailed by dangerous enemies, let us unite and solidify this nation as never before.

There is no problem, however serious and challenging that this country cannot solve, if we hold fast and firm to the truths responsible for our freedom and our greatness and the inspiring ideals of our honored dead.

It is in the homes, the schools, the churches, and the communities of this great land of ours that this battle must be fought.

With courageous, forward-looking leadership, and with the American people working together, regardless of race or creed, ready to assume their full responsibilities as citizens of this great country, the richest, the most powerful and the freest in all history, let no one mistake it, this country will not only preserve its freedoms, but will continue to rise in future years to even greater strength, greater prosperity, spread among all our people, and even broader dedication than ever to the ideals of personal liberty, and free government where law and order prevails.

In that spirit, of confidence and courage, let us continue to strive with all our hearts and with every measure of our strength and devotion, to establish an honorable peace in Vietnam and in the world, so that this nation, and all nations, may live together in amity and understanding and work and labor together for expanded freedom, prosperity, understanding, and brotherhood for all.

Let us resolve on this Memorial Day that the example of the brave, the free, and gallant shall never die and that their sacrifices will never be forgotten by a grateful American people who owe them so much and intend to preserve what they fought a.nd died for.

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK

HON. ROBERT 0. TIERNAN OF RHODE ISLAND


Monday, July 15, 1968 Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Speaker, the red

wood forests found only along the coast of northern California have been the focus of a growing conservation movement for a number of years. A wide variety of plans have been advocated by various groups and interests. As a result, considerable confusion has enveloped the entire situation.

Hidden by this confusion, however, are a number of simple points which indi-


cate the action we must take if we are to protect a fair sample of the great oldgrowth redwood forests.

The first point is the most basic: We should save a reasonable and superlative sampling of these great trees and their natural environment. That we should do so is dictated by a prudent concern for the quality of the American environment and for the opportunity for our citizens, our young people and our grandchildren to know these great forests. The redwood is unique-the tallest of living things on earth. We have heard much in recent years of the need to exercise stewardship of our resources. Here is a need for stewardship which we should not deny.

The second point I would make is this: In setting aside a national park to preserve a sample of these trees, let us do the kind of job that will succeed. Let us be sure that we establish a park within which these trees can truly be preserved.

Finally, in establishing this park, we should choose an area of really superlative trees. The experts of the National Park Service and many conservationists have agreed that the best remaining, asyet-unprotected stands of old-growth redwoods are found in the valley of Redwood Creek and its tributaries. Here is where our efforts should center-on these areas of trees which are unprotected now and which will surely be lost soon if we do not act responsibly.

I conclude from these points, Mr. Speaker, that the bill does not do the kind of job needed. It proposes a park woefully too small, and incapable of adequately protecting a natural redwood forest. The major area included in the bill which is not already protected as a State park is a corridor along Redwood Creek. This corridor is less than a quarter mile wide on each side of the creek. It cannot protect the trees along the creek from damage caused by erosion when the slopes above are logged. It cannot protect the creek itself from siltation and pollution. It cannot screen the visitors from the ugly scars of logging operations which will inevitably enter the upper slopes if they are not themselves included within the park plan.

This is not a park which can be preserved. It is not a park which can properly display its wonders to visitors adequately provided for by appropriate developments and a quality environment.

To bring this plan up to a reasonable standard-recognizing the needs of the local economy, but also recognizing that a national park can be a tremendous economic boon to an area-we must add certain critical areas. We must extend the boundaries along the lower Redwood Creek from ridge to ridge so that a unitary area can be protected from erosion and from visible scars. As a minimum we must add the drainages of Lost Man Creek, Little Lost Man Creek, and Skunk Cabbage Creek-all in this lower Redwood Creek area. These are complete watersheds and they comprise areas which can, in fact, be preserved.

I call upon the conferees who will consider this bill with the other body to accede to those parts of the Senate act which provide for these important areas to be included in this national park . .

This is the minimum we must do if we

July 16, 1968

are to measure up to the level of stewardship necessary for the redwoods and if we are to measure up to the standards which we wish to maintain in our great and popular national park system.

RIGHTS OF FARMWORKERS

HON. PHILLIP BURTON OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ·

Tuesday, July 1·6, 1968

Mr. BURTON of California. Mr. Speaker, the right of farmworkers to organize and to engage in collective bargaining with the protections offered workers in every other industry in our Nation can no longer be ignored. For 3 years, the United Farm Workers, AFLCIO, has been striking to seek a living wage, the right to collective bargaining representation, decent fringe benefits, and the chance to live and to work with dignity.

A boycott of California table grapes is now in progress in support of this continuing strike and a strike, authorized overwhelmingly by farmworkers on June 15, 1968, against the Coachella Valley growers in California. The Coachella Valley growers have refused a representation election to determine whether or not the majority of the workers desire to be represented by the union.

I, along with organized labor across the country, am happy to join in public support of the boycott as a legitimate act by the farmworkers to gain the rights afforded other union laborers in this country. I applaud the decision by Mayor John Lindsay's office to support the boycott in New York City which normally buys 15 tons of California table grapes for its hospitals and jails. And I regret that the Governor of my own State has overlooked the plight of the farmworkers and has attacked New York City for its boycott support.

This country and the Congress have neglected far too long the rights of the farmworkers. For this reason, I cosponsored H.R. 16014 which would amend the National Labor Relations Act to make its provisions applicable to agriculture. The passage of this legislation is the least we can do to help settle disputes between farmworkers and farm management through orderly, legal· procedures. I call on my colleagues to support the farmworkers' rights to change their working conditions under protection of the law.

Two religious groups in California have issued public statements in support of H.R. 16014. I am happy to share with my colleagues the statements by the Catholic bishops of California on May 31, 1968, and by the diocesan council of the Episcopal diocese of California on May 21, 1968, as follows: STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF

CALIFORNIA ON ExTENDING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO INCLUDE FARMWORKE~S

The problems of farm labor and ·the organization of farm workers have been vigorously debated for over three decades. Their plight has reached varying attep.tion in the

July 16, 1968 public forum, but for the most part, relief and solutions for their problems have been few. · The majority of our nation's fa.rm workers

belong to that vast majority of poor, forgotten, and neglected Americans. Both government and private agencies have given no more than token response to their cries for help. Many farm workers and their families continue to exist in the most direful poverty.

During the past three years we in California have felt the anguish, bitterness and even despair of the farm labor dispute in Delano. As this dispute continued in its intensity, we realized ever so painfully that farm workers have been seeking a basic right accorded almost all other workers in this country. During the course of the dispute, we, the Catholic Bishops of California, presented clearly the Church's social teachings on the right of all men-both farmers and farm workers--to organize themselves for purposes of collective bargaining and mutual protection.

We now reaffirm those teachings, motivated by the knowledge that the entire agricultural industry will benefit from such organization. Farmers, as well as farm workers, are forming various associations of self-help to strengthen their economic position.

We have insisted before and we insist again that there is a moral issue involved in this area of human relations. Imposed political solutions will not have any lasting effect. Only a recognition on both sides 0! the dignity of the human person will continue to a just solution.

There will be no peace in the fields until we recognize the contradiction between this inherent dignity and the actual poor living conditions existing for many of the farm worker fam111es. ·

In formal testimony before a Hearing of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor held in Delano March 16, 1966, we set forth clearly the following points:

"Any group in society has the . right to form an association to foster its own well being. It is understood <-hat this association act within law and therefore is concerned with the general welfare as well as with its own.

"Applied to farmers, this principle justifies their membership In any legitimate organization of their own choosing. Applied to farm laborers, this principle also justifies their membership in any legitimate organization of their own choosing.

"But it ts not sufficient to recognize the right to organize in theory only. In order that this right be recognized in fact it is of crucial importance for the various governments to legislate criteria and techniques for determining the legitimacy of a particular effort to organize workers and to protect these workers from reprisals for joining in these organizing efforts.

"This is of particular relevance to farm labor organizing. Without these criteria farmers have no reasonable way of knowing who legitimately represents their workers, and the workers themselves may have doubts about the legitimacy of a particular organizing effort."

We stressed quite firmly the need to extend the National Labor Relations Act to include farm management-farm labor relations. This Act has served other fields of labor well by bringing orderly, legal procedures to settle disputes. While no legislation is ever perfect or satisfactory to every single individual, the Act has proven itself valuable over the past thirty-three years. We reiterate this view.

The National Labor Relations Act could not only provide the necessary due processes of law and the procedures, but also would make available trained personnel to see that both farmer and farm worker are protected and arrive at just solutions to their problems. We feel strongly that genuine, lasting peace will

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS never come to farm management-labor relations until farm workers are included under the National Labor Relations Act. We have witnessed .chaos and human suffering all too clearly to Judge otherwise.

Legislation has been introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to effect the extension of the National Labor Relations Act to include farm workers. Congress has found reason to exclude such workers since 1935. We cannot in conscience allow another year to pass without effecting social justice for the farm worker.

Today that precious moment in history is afforded us to usher in a new era for farm workers. We respectfully urge all the members of both Houses of Congress to consider the urgent need for this legislation and to act favorably for its passage.

RESOLUTION REGARDING SENATE BILL 8 AND HOUSE BILL 16014

Whereas the Diocesan Council has consistently supported the aspirations of farm workers to working conditions and wages in keeping with those of other segments of the labor force, and

Whereas farm workers are not now covered by the National Labor Relations Act,

Resolved that the Council of the Diocese of California urge the passage of Senate Blll 8 and House of Representatives Blll 16014, extending coverage of the National Labor Relations Act to farm workers so that they may have the same legal rights of other workers to engage in collective bargaining with their employers and be represented by unions of their choice.

(This resolution was passed unanimously by the Diocesan Council of the Episcopal Diocese of California, on May 21, 1958.)

MONSTERS ON THE HIGHWAYS

HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL OF NEW YOBX



Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, those of us who frequently travel the interstate highways cringe at the sight of the monstrous trucks we often have to pass. But these trucks are necessary, and few people would propose their elimination from these roads.

A bill recently passed by the Senate and approved by the House Public Works Committee, though, would unjustifiably allow much wider and heavier trucks to use the Nation's Interstate Highway System. Aside from causing great inconvenience to individual motorists, this bill would create a large number of danger spots, since heavier trucks would approach or surpass current road and bridge weight tolerances. There is evidence, for example, that heavy trucks were in part responsible for the collapse of a bridge over the Ohio River a few months ago, causing many deaths.

A cogent editorial on this subject, appearing in the July 11, 1968 issue of the Long Island Press should be of interest to all of us concerned about highway safety. The article follows:

MONSTERS ON THE HIGHWAYS The Senate has passed a blll which would

permit wider longer and heavier trucks on the interstate highway system. Fortunately the House hasn't acted yet. It should send this bill to the graveyard.

The bill would permit 9-foot-wide trucks

21'625 with triple trailers weighing 138,000 pounds-or more--on interstate highways. Imagine a caravan of those 9-foot-wide behemoths on 12-foot highway lanes and you get a glimpse of the highway nightmare that would confront motorists.

The Department of Transportation warns the super-trucks would over-stress bridges on the interstate highway system from 32 to 36 percent. Obviously that means the bridges would have to be strengthened. That's only the beginning.

The blll applies only to interstate highways · but trucks must use older roadways to get to and from the interstate arteries and that means a huge outlay of highway funds in any state which authorizes the super-trucks. The Transportation Department estimates $2,800 mUlion must be spent to beef up older highways for the supertrucks.

Taxpayers already are subsidlzlng the trucking industry. True, the truckers are taxed, but not equal to the highway maintenance costs, and those costs wlll skyrocket if we have triple-trailer monsters.

As expected, the blll is backed by the American Trucking Association, but it is opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Automobile Association and the Association of State Highway Departments. Rep. James Grover of Babylon voted to bring the bill out of the Public Works Committee, but he now doubts he wlll support it on the floor. We trust all other Long Island Congressmen will join him in opposition.

MESKILL ASKS CONGRESSIONAL PROBE OF OEO GRANT

HON. THOMAS J. MESKILL OF CONNECTICUT



Mr. MESKILL. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I sent a letter to the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor in which I set forth some of the strange details surrounding the grant of nearly a quarter of a million dollars in Federal antipoverty money to a corporation which does not exist.

News :first came in the form of a press release from the Office of Economic Opportunity dated July 10, 1968. It stated that Connecticut Law Reform, Inc., Windsor, Conn., has received a grant of $272,443 for a legal services program.

Investigation by the press and by myself turned up the information that this corporation does not exist and that the grant allocation was unknown to all responsible Connecticut officials from the Governor on down.

In my letter to Chairman PERKINS, I set forth the following information, which should be of interest to his committee:

First. Hartford County, Conn., has had a legal aid program for the past several years.

Second. Neighborhood Legal Services, an OEO funded program, has been in operation for 2 years and has received grants totaling $285,000.

Third. The corporation, Connecticut Law Reform, Inc., to which the grant was made, does not exist. The address listed for it in the grant is the residence of Attorney Howard H. Orenstein of Windsor.

Fourth. Mr. Orenstein has told the press that he was unaware that he had submitted an application for this addi-

21626 tional legal services program. However, the assistant legal counsel at the New York office of OEO tcld me on the telephone July 12 that Mr. Orenstein was hired as a consultant by the New York office for the express purpose of putting this grant application together.

Fifth. Mr. Orenstein is a former official of the neighborhood legal seryices program in Hartford and OEO legal services consultant.

He is presently a full-time consultant for the Connecticut state Commission on Human Rights at an annual salary of $14,000 a year. It has been reported in the newspapers but I have not personally confirmed these reports that OEO's plans for this corporation called for Mr. Orenstein to become the director at an annual salary of $20,000.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this program was drawn up solely at the request of the OEO New York office and was not in response to requests from any of the responsible officials in Connecticut. In fact, the whole procedure has been carried out without their knowledge.

I hope the distinguished Committee on Education and Labor will be investigating this situation promptly. It should not take too long. More important, is that all the facts be presented to the Congress and to the public. A loose attitude toward the taxpayer's money has all too often marked the operations of OEO along with an anxiety to establish numerous, high-salaried positions.

The timing of this particular grant award is also interesting. It seems that this large sum of money was located just before the fiscal year ran out on June 30. Apparently, it was unthinkable that any unused funds be turned back to the Treasury. Also unthinkable, evidently, was the ide~ of using the money to expand some of the proven programs such as Headstart. A number of people have written to me urging that Congress make more funds available for Headstart. Yet, here was over a quarter of a million dollars available for my part of the country which could have been used for Headstart. Instead, OEO decides to rush through an enormous grant to a dummy corporation designed to accomplish some sort of mission which was not requested by nor cleared with local officials.

This lax attitude does not sit well at any time. It is particularly reprehensible during this period of high taxes and heavy deficits.

At this point, with permission, I place in the RECORD an excellent editorial from the Hartford Courant of Sunday July 14.

The Courant, the oldest newspaper in the United States, performed an outstanding service in the investigation of this situation and in publishing the facts.

The editorial follows: A FREE AND EASY WAY WITH TAXPAYERS' CASH

Whatever Connecticut Law ·Reform, Incorporated may turn out to be, its origins thus far have certainly had their share of mystery. The New York Office of Economic Opportunity says the proposed organization "w111 prevent the duplication of the legal services program in Connecticut." And this may be true.

But unfortunately, almost everyone elseincluding the taxpayer who is involved to the tune of nearly $273,000-seems pretty much

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS in the dark about the whole business. The Connecticut Office of Economic Opportunity apparently was not consulted on the need for Law Reform, Incorporated. State poverty and legal aid officials know nothing about it. And Connecticut members of Congress are demanding more facts on how the grant to CLR was applied for, considered and awarded.

In short, the funding of Connecticut Law Reform, Incorporated, seems to have proceeded in a strange manner indeed. As has been well said, the matter might seem amusing if it were not for the fact that a large hunk of the taxpayer's hard-earned money weren't being sunk in it. But the free and easy way that an organization which still exists only on paper can get money from the Federal government is quite enough to make the public laugh out of the other side of its mouth. It won't be hard for most people to agree with State Republican Chairman Howard Housman that programs are being rubberstamped in Washington when the details surrounding them are unclear to so many local officials who should know about them.

There may be some clearer answer to the issuing of the grant to Connecticut Law Reform, Incorporated. But it surely hasn't come to light yet. Meanwhile the citizen taxpayer, faced with a 10 per cent hike in what he has to shell out of his paycheck, is going to wonder just how many more of these offhand handouts are being made in Washington and the branches of Federal government everywhere every day.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS: HOW THEY WORK

HON. CHARLES E. GOODELL OF NEW YORK



Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, last week, together with Mr. CURTIS, Mr. WIDNALL, and Mr. TAFT, I introduced the Community Self Determination Act. A major aspect of this legislation, indeed its central thrust, is the Community Development Corporation, which is designed to provide a vehicle for generating economic development within the impoverished communities of our country.

There are many such local corporations in being today. For the most part they have emerged independently of one another as a logical evolution consistent with time-tested national principles.

One such organization is the Harlem Commonwealth Council. The council has recently published its 1968 progress report, which I include below because it -illustrates and explains how these organizations function. It is important, I believe, that we of the Congress understand the structure and purpose of these organizations, and for this reason, I also include the address and telephone number as well as the names ·of the officers and staff of the council: Harlem Commonwealth Council, Inc., 306 Lenox Avenue, New York, N.Y. 100; 212-876-5721.

The report follows: The 500,000 bl?-ck people in Harlem are

able to · spend $500 million for consumer goods every year. That is a sum larger than the Gross National Product of any one of several underdeveloped nations which our Department of Commerce can safely certify to businessmen as at the threshold of a sus-tained economic growth rate. '

July 16, 1968 Until now, no promise like that has been

feasible for Harlem. It is an underdeveloped and underdeveloping community with affiuence all around it. Eighty percent of _its 6,000 retail and manufacturing businesses are owned and managed by white people who do not have, and cannot be expected to have, more than a commercial interest in the community. The economic sickness of Harlem is the leakage of its capital; for generations Harlem's dollar has been siphoned off by white businessmen.

What goes out is Harlem's money; nearly all the little that oomes in is from public welfare, the sort of "foreign aid" which is necessary for existence but useless for growth.

It is a waste of time to blame anyone for this state of things. What we must do is restore the economic potential of Harlem which has been so long neglected and abused. The function of the Harlem Commonwealth Council is to bring back to Harlem that internal economic vitality which is essential to its social development.

WHAT IS THE REMEDY?

The Harlem Commonwealth Council, a tax-exempt and nonprofit organization, was established under an Office of Economic Opportunity demonstration grant in September, 1967, and commissioned to help strengthen existing businesses, and find and assist in organizing and financing new enterprises in Harlem.

We believed from the very beginning that one root problem of Harlem is that almost no one who lives there owns anything. History has taught us that progress depends on the regenerative processes of capital goods. It is not enough to attract white-owned industry to Harlem. Finding jobs for blacks is not enough either, critical as it is to HCC's daily function. Both of these become enough only if we can also develop Harlem's capital.

The Harlem Commonwealth Council's strength and promise is that its aspirations and Harlem's are the same. It is staffed by Harlem residents with deep roots in the community and broad experience with the successful world beyond it.

Because they have lived inside Harlem, they know the real ground on which the black businessman stands; because they have worked outside Harlem, they can tell him what healthier businesses have learned. I-t is, we think, this unique double vision which has made it possible for HCC to begin to do what so many of its predecessors, however good their will, have until now failed to do.

For ex·ample: ( 1) An HCC staff member can talk directly

with the businessmen he is trying to help. (2) An HCC staff member can develop cri

teria for capital loans to black businesmen less stringent than those which prevail with institutions used to dealing with larger and more traditional white-owned enterprises.

(3) At the same time, HCC has resources for systematic planning for Harlem which no agency before it has commanded. Its affiliated subcontractors, which include Columbia University, the New School for Social Research and the National Association of Manufacturers, have united to begin those depth studies of Harlem which will give us the scientific diagnosis of Harlem's economic health upon which a lasting cure depends.

( 4) HOC's promise has llittracted the voluntary and engaged assistance of a host· of organizations varying in function but alike in expert resource: combin81tions of concerned citizens like the Urban Coalition; consultants in management like McKinsey and Company and the United States Research and Development Corporation; and private corporations, like ·Talcott Factors, Arthur Anderson, ASC TSibulatlng, and Mobil 011.

( 5) And HCC has directed its energies Just as much at enlisting in its efforts such in• digenous Harlem institutions as CORE, HARYOU, the Harlem Chamber of" Conimerce, ·

July 16, 1968 the Architteots' Renewal Oommlttee of Harlem, and the Neighborhood Boards-at closely involving and continually informing them of its developments.

HOW IS IT WORKING?

The best way HOC knows to illustrate the working of this special combination of talents is with concrete histories from the experience of our first six months.

Last winter the slowness of New York City's procedure for paying drug bills under its Medicaid Program threatened disaster for Harlem's black pharmacists. Their low cash reserves and narrow profit margins could not carry them through the period after they dispensed the drug while waiting to be paid for it.

HOC managed to aiTange a system of commercial funding and create an organization offering pharmacistil either short-term loans or outright purchase of their accounts receivable. This device helped keep 11 pharmacists in business and is being extended to 26 others.

Because the initial activities of the factoring organizations have been so encouraging, HOC plans to expand to serve physicians and dentists who are similarly strained by Medicaid payment delays.

The loan to the pharmacists was the first occasion when any agency except the government provided Harlem businessmen with operating funds on criteria other than the ones normally demanded by bankr- Not enough black pharmacists can, for e>. >ol.mple, yet afford insurance. Even so, these pharmacists can now keep abreast of their expenses and have that advantage in relations, with wholesalers and distributors which is only possible with a secure line of credit. From this experience with a special emergency, HOC is now projecting something like a commercial bank to serve other black businessmen.

The problem of city Medicaid payment delays has also instructed us in the need for an accounting and business computer service in Harlem. For example, if HOC's computer can process a pharmacist's bill to fit the city's computer, the lag between billing and payment will be dramatically reduced.

Within the next two months, the Medicaid accounts of every Harlem physician, dentist and pharmacist will have been put on our tapes. Within a year we expect to be able to offer a complete computerized operation to every pharmacist in the city. Within two years, the computer data center can process the records and accounts of all five Harlem hospitals and offer its services to other municipal hospitals. At its initiation 12 persons will be hired for this computer program, and it will serve as a training base for these and future key punch operators. McKinsey and Company, estimates that, with citywide expansion, this will be a viable business with unlimited potential.

Harlem has long needed a 24-hour pharmacy. HOC has found the $150,000 needed to purchase the site across from the new state office building, modernize it and fit it with supplies. The date for the opening is August of 1968. It will serve as a limited wholesaler for other Harlem pharmacies and as a distributor of black cosmetics to them and to beauty parlors.

HOC will organize and staff this operation and thereafter sell shares in the community.

The shortage of competent sales help is a continual complaint of Harlem pharmacists; we plan to use this new enterprise as a training center for salespeople.

The Green Shoe Manufacturing Company, the country's largest producer of children's footwear, asked HOC's help in establishing a Harlem outlet under black ownership. Within three weeks, HOC found an owner-prospect, a site and staff. The new store will open in July or August of this year, financed jointly by its new owner, by HCC and by Green Shoe. Its estimated business volume will be

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS $250,000 a year and it too will be used for tra1n1ng shoe salesmen to develop a skill pool for further outlets.

HCC and its research affiliates have compiled a data bank which gives the first comprehensive description of the Harlem business community. By now most industrial enterprises can assume that the basic statistics they need to plan are already available for them readymade; in Harlem we had to gather those statistics for ourselves before we could begin.

What we have talked about are projects at the operational poifnt. HOC has a number of others in varlous advanced stages of planning. All give promise of substantial employment of persons and capital.

HOC's automotive diagnostic center would offer the fullest range of services that exists in New York from diagnosis through repair. It would employ 40 persons trained in skills r anging from the mechanical to the managerial, Mobil Oil and the Ford Motor Company have expressed interest 1n wo:rking jointly on this venture. It will require $500,000 in capital and ARCH has already drawn the architectural plans. HOC hopes to open the autodiagnostic clinic in the spring of 1969.

A major petroleum compa ny has asked HOC to seek out prospective proprietors for its Harlem service stations which are not now under black ownership. We expect to have nine stations make this change by next November. The new owners will be trained in techniques of successful service station operation; and the. petroleum compa.ny conscious of the capital problem has promised its assistance in the arrangement of terms.

Harlem's greatest natural resource, next to people is its location, the most central and accessible in the New York metropolitan area. ARCH and HOC together have begun an intensive survey to find what properties might be available for the industrial park which would be the best use of this natural advantage.

This is a concept never before tried in the ghetto. HOC has found a large number of corporations who are willing to install their facilities in such a park. It.s importance to the community would be immeasurable: (1} there would be a large influx of capital; (2} American industry would have a practical opportunity to assist an underdeveloped area; (3} Harlem residents could look upon a major enterprise, operated and staffed by blacks, and recognize their vested interest in the capitalist sys,tem.

Harlem is our home and its regeneration is the great objective of HCC's endeavors. Even so, we know that what HOC is doing can serve a world much larger than Harlem. The Harlem Commonwealth Council is a fusion of business, government, and its neighbors, working together to restart a stalled community. The example of that oommon effort and what success it wins can be a prototype for stalled communi ties all over America.

Board of diTectors Chairman, Isaiah E. Robinson Jr.; Chair

man- Harlem Parents Committee. Vice-Chairman, Preston Wilcox; Staff As

soc.-Education Affiliates of Bedford Stuyvesant D & S Corporation, Coordinating Committee IS 201, Planning & Parents Committee P.S. 25-136.

Secretary-treasurer, Kenneth E. Marshall; Vice President--Metropolitan Applied Research Center Inc. Former Executive Staff Member HARYOU.

Directors Leo Rolle, Excutive Director, United Block

Association; Chairman, Board of Directors ARCH.

Arthur Hill, Deputy Inspector NYC Police Department.

¥arshall England, Executive Director, L.A.B.O.R.; Former Chairman, Harlem CORE;

21627 President, HARYOU-ACT Community Corporation.

Kenneth H. Simmons, Program Director, Urban America; Former Co-Director ARCH.

Roy Innis, Former Chairman, Harlem CORE; Assoc. National Director of CORE.

Staff personnel Donald M. Simmons, Executive Director. Thelma Scott, Deputy Director. Rozendo Beasley, Assistant to Director. Nathan A. Richards, Project Coordinator. Carl Ann Keeling, Administrative As-

sistant. Louis A. Wheaton, Fellow-in-Residence.

Addition to board of directors J. Max Bond, Director of Architects Re

newal Committee in Harlem. "Funded by OEO (Office of Economic

Opportunity) Research and Demonstration Section".

THE BEST OF AMERICAN IDEALS

HON. ROBERT V. DENNEY OF NEBRASKA


Tuesday, July 1·6, 1968

Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent times, we have seen many violent student demonstrations against the order of our society. But today there is a remarkabl~ contrast in Washington where a small group of students from the J Jhn F . Kennedy College in Wahoo, Nebr. are demonstrating in the traditional democratic style of taking their case to elected officials and the public regarding the need for maintaining private institutions.

These are fine·, dedicated young people who recognize that if this country is to continue its progress, it must have small colleges as well as the large universities so that young people can have the tools with which to compete.

This extraordinary group of students displays the very best of American ideals: self-help, courage, integrity and devotion in times of adversity.

For the benefit of my colleagues and readers of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD all over the country, I include the introductory letter these students are giving to every person they contact. The letter, which is self-explanatory, follows:

DEAR SIR: It is apparent that the "in" thing with the current generation of students is to demonstrate. Some colleges this past year have experienced student demonstrations which have sought to destroy their very foundation. The students of John F. Kennedy College have not demonstrated against their country, their college administration or their elders; no draft cards have been burned at John F. Kennedy College. Mindful of the words of the President that "in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger," the student body unanimously signed a petition supporting our troops 1n Vietnam.

John F. Kennedy College was es·tablished in 1965. Permission was granted from Mrs. Jaqueline Kennedy to use the name of our late President. She was pleased to grant this permission provided the college -would maintain the high standards of education that might be expected from an institution named for her late husband. Today these standards are being maintained.

John F. Kennedy College is a Liberal Arts College with 550 students currently enrolled

21628 with a projected student body at 800 for September, 1968. Because the college :1.8 new we have no large flnanctal endOwments; we do not benefit from tax-support money~ and of course. we do not yet have an alumni. Consequently, lllte many small private institutions of higher learning, John F. Kennedy College 1s experiencing serious financial difllculties. As might be expected, income from students was not adequate to meet all of the obligations of the college and each of the first three years has been a. deficit operation. Pres&ntly moneys are due the Internal Revenue Service, payroll and tax deposits for the summer months, bank mortgages, and insurance payments. The immediate emergency needs of the college amount to slightly over $200,000.00.

We students of John F. Kennedy College have decided that direct action by the student body to help our college is proper and justlfied. In an age when it 1s popular for students to tear down and destroy our institutions of higher learning, we wish to help build and . promote our college. President Kennedy went to the heart of the matter when he said " ... I believe in an America where every child is educated not according to his means or his race, but according to his capacity; where there are not llliterates; . . . where there are enough col-

. leges and dormitories to ·make it possible for every young man and woman of talent to go to college ... ". The need for colleges in America was highlighted by Senator Wayne Morse, who has stated that "in order to meet the needs of higher education by 1985, two things must happen: all existing colleges and universities, public and private, must double in size; in addition we shall require 1,000 new colleges with an average student population of 2,000 each." Rather than promoting the building of many new colleges we are simply trying to save an excellent one already in existence. We, the student body, represent more than half of the states in the union, so we feel that its continued existence is important to more than a narrow segment of our population. We feel that the ideals and objectives of this liberal arts college are important to the educational objectives of our nation.

So, on behalf of the students at John F. Kennedy College, the faculty, the administration, the community, the nation, we solicit your help in our effort to ensure the continued existence of this, our college. We ask you to undertake in our behalf any venture that you consider to be worthy and honorable. If you know of people who would be interested in contributing to our cause, we would be pleased to learn of them. If you can in any way enlist the support of your many friends and colleagues to our benefit, we would appreciate it. If you can publicize our need for funds, it would be of service to us.

We feel that John F. Kennedy College should remain in existence as a living monument to a great man. Therefore, we, the student body, are willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship" to save our school. We would appreciate your assistance at this most critical time.

Sincerely yours, STUDENTS To SAVE

JOHN F. KENNEDY COLLEGE.

THE "PUEBLO"-HOW LONG, MR. PRESIDENT?

HON. WILLIAM J. SCHERLE OJ' IOWA


Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, this is the 176th day the U.S.S. Pueblo and


her crew have been · in North Korean _hands.

METEOROLOGY, AIR POLLUTION, AND PLANNING

HON. WENDELL WYATT o:r OREGON


Tuesday, July t.6, 1968

Mr. WYATT. Mr. Speaker, one of the most obvious and pressing problems facing this Nation is that of air pollution abatement and control.

Dr. Fred W. Decker, a meteorology professor at Oregon State University, recently reported to me his researched view that modern meteorology relevant to air pollution often does not get applied at the right point in highway and industrial planning.

Based on Dr. Decker's findings from observations made in Europe and his involvement in air pollution control in Amertca, he urges that professional meteorologists be consulted early in planning highway and plant site selection.

At this point I insert his remarks and commend them to my colleagues for their consideration. His plea, coming from an outstanding member of the meteorological profession, is directed to Federal, State, local, and prtvate authorities involved in the pollution problem. His concern for the growing suffocation of urban areas through atmospheric pollution is thoughtful, timely, and above all important to our Nation's future.

The matertal follows: DoN' T NEGLECT METEOROLOGY

(By Fred W. Decker, Ph. D.) Atmospheric .sewers :flow from many indus

trial sites across residential or commercial areas and bring harmful or offensive eftl.uents to mar the home and business environments of millions of Americans. The older industri'!ll location criteria. tend to ignore these factors, even when protests arise in attempts to warn of the probable consequences. Hence, we continue to locate new industrial plants, highways, sewage treatment plants, and other producers of noxious exhausts in places which often assure future trouble, expense, or the denial of civ111zed atmospheric conditions for present and future generations of people. · Must America submit to an era of intolerable pollution before we take some simple steps to limit the concentration of air pollution in urban areas? Can anyone from a fresh-air environment doubt that the polluted air infesting some metropolitan areas actually contributes emotional factors erupting in urban violence? Fastidious though the protesters might appear, do they not exhibit the symptoms of irrltab111ty which may contribute predictable urban upheavals, simply expressing the disgust of many people with their own choking environment? Must the sun rise high toward noon before it appears as anything but a dim red orb in a smudgy, chemical-fi.Iled morning sky because of the air which settles in some major urban river basins? Questions like these suggest major trouble as America's reward for ignoring and neglecting existing knowledge and technology because industrial and public planners seem to consider it too much trouble ·to avail themselves of meteorology, the science· of the atmosphere.

We have technology and knowledge to foresee the troubles which will arise from

July 16~ 1968 bad site selection. but ofte:a. Americans do not apply· their much-vaunted. "know-how". A great deal of our present and future trouble comes from sheer neglect of the existing knowledge and techniques. In at least some cases the neglect seems to arise from the fact that specialists tend to ignore each other. In a1r pollution questions we meteorologists often do not get consulted untU after the trouble starts. Then. when plans have gone past .. the point of no return" for instance, we often cannot give the help which we could have rendered if called in at the start of the planning. Meteorologists ult1ma.tely may testify as expert witnesses 1n litigation. whereas earlier we might have helped avert the basic trouble by participating in plant design and site selection.

In the Far West the deeply-cut narrow valleys have a number of notorious situations in which industrial plants located near sources of water have polluted the air confined in the valleys and hovering to blanket nearby populated areas. The pressure to eliminate water pollution has also tended in some cases to shunt the pollution into the atmosphere at these Installations located on rivers or lakes. In still other cases a predictable on-shore :flow of cool, stable marine air carries industrial effluents to blanket a populated area farther inland, or a great basin of stagnant air in a valley surrounded by high mountain ranges will get increased concentrations of pollutants as the air recirculates past the sources for a number of days pending arrival of deeply-mixed fresh air with a storm front.

Situating the outlets of pollution at high levels for rapid dilution and swift removal of the pollutants could greatly relieve the problems caused by unavoidable release of pollutants. "Take to the hills" provides a policy for locating these sources of pollution which cannot economically eliminate the objectionable ingredients in their atmospheric exhausts. I have advocated this policy fo,: kraft paper mills in the Far West, for instance. Dr. George Arnold of Southern Illinois University advocated this policy earlier for the relatively shallow basins along rivers of the Midwest afllicted with malodorous, noxious eflluents. But, many people have asked, where has anyone ever taken such a radical step as to deny an industrial plant its "best" location alongside a river in a valley bottom and instead to locate it on a h111? Does not the meteorologists' cure seem too drastic?

For a successful example of meteorologically-guided site selection, consider the 300 megawatt oil-fired steam-turbine electric power plant just east of Lake Geneva near the Swiss town of Vouvry. Considering the plans, authorities of Canton Valaise some years ago demanded at least a 985-foot stack to remove the exhaust fumes from the stable atmospheric layers draining from the Alps down the Rhone Valley. The Swiss federal aviation authorities, however, forbade construction of such a tall obstruction as a hazard to :flight. The successful solution consists of locating the entire plant on the plateau Chavalon sur Vouvry with a stack to emit exhausts 1850 feet above the valley :floor. The swiftly-flowing, deeply-mixed air currents of the troposphere above the valley air ("pollutosphere", as I have labelled the lower trapping layers) now remove the fumes from the vicinity of the residential and agricultural area satisfactorily.

While meteorology cannot produce miracles of weather modified on order or yield forecasts pin-pointed far in advance, knowledgeable meteorological consultants can deliver results in their proper places on planning teams. Working with the engineers of various .specialties, they can select sites and otherwise assist in design to reduce the impairment of civlUzed living while stlll gaining the benefits of industrialization.

Regulatory bodies should insist upon

July 16, 1968 qualified meteorological surveys of proposed sites, but industry should without compulsion take steps to get such surveys made while still considering various alternative sites. Highway design should have the aid of meteorologists in seeking ways to avoid concentrating the fog-producing ve.hicular exhaust on thoroughfares situated in narrow terrain channels.

Congress can insist that Federal support or permission carries the obligation to make use of modern meteorological assistance in minimizing the foreseeable pollutosphere problems. But Federal regulation would not have to appear very often if administrators and engineers sought professional meteorological help before constructing works which necessarily created new probelms in low terrain where trapped stable air de-velops the pollutosphere. ·

Industrial and other planners can learn about qualified meteorological consultants from the American Meteorological SOCiety (either the Boston headquarters of the local AMS chapter). But higher education has too often omitted this subject from the academic environment of future engineers, administrators, and others who go forth to plan and construct the sources of air pollution. The special programs of instruction financed with Federal funds for the purpose of producing specialists in air quality control should particularly include courses aimed at developing competence in general meteorology as well as specialized knowledge of techniques involved in air pollution problems. Specific recognition of meteorology and its importance to many planning activities should include new opportunities for college major studies in the field and new meteorologist registration to identify the qualified practitioners.

The consequences of air pollution seem too serious to continue either ignoring meteorology entirely or having other specialists attempting superficial "do-lt-yourself meteorology."

ROGERS OPPOSES PROPOSED TAX ON TRAVEL

HON. PAUL G. ROGERS OF FLORIDA



Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that the Senate has resumed hearings on the proposed tax on travel abroad. I strongly opposed this tax and feel it would in the end prove more costly and bothersome than it is worth.

We have seen testimony that if the Senate passes the proposed tax on travel, it will necessitate additional personnel in the customs department and additional personnel in the postal departments because of the processing of the mail returns tourists will be forced to file.

It is estimated that the entire revenue raised from the tax, excluding the added costs, would be about $140 million. That figure would most probably be reduced greatly when the bureaucracy needed to administer the program was built up. Of course there would also be the natural input of additional Internal Revenue Service people here, too.

On top of all this, there would be created an ocean of redtape and bookkeeping and the bill would set American tourists adrift on this bothersome sea. The whole thing is not practical or wen


thought out and would be all but unenforceable.

The Senate is presently holding hearings on the bill which would impose a 30-percent tax on all money American tourists spend over $15 per day. I hope that the Senate will turn down this proposed tax.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AMENDMENTS

HON. CLAUDE PEPPER OF FLORIDA



Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, the House adopted yesterday under suspension of the rules the very vital Vocational Education Amendments of 1968. This legislation means much to the people of my district and of the Nation. Since the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, this Nation has recognized the need for vocational education, and this legislation offers evidence that this concern has not diminished; that, in fact, the need for improved vocational education programs has only increased. Indeed, as our highly technological society becomes more sophisticated, the development of skilled manpower to operate the new machines and implement the innovative methods necessarily becomes a prime consideration of legislative activity. The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, H.R. 18366, thus deserves our immediate attention and approval, for this act cari be instrumental in meeting the demands of our economy and in expressing our concern for the individual's dignity.

Vocational education legislation has been effective in the past, but it must be made more inclusive and more penetrating if it is to reduce the frustration experienced by many young people who do not seek a college education. In Dade County, Fla., for instance, almost 5,000 young people were aided by the vocational education centers; across the country, 1.7 million high school students, 15 percent of the total enrollment, were in training programs leading to gainful employment. However, unless the imaginative programs encouraged by the 1968 amendments are im~ plemented, many other young adults who are not reached by present programs-in Dade County and elsewhere-will not know the security and satisfaction of gainful employment.

The importance of this legislation can be further realized by examining the changing conditions which mark our economy's progress. In the last decade, for example, there were a mere 1.1 million occupational opportunities for those who had just a high school degree, as compared with 8.3 million for those who had some postsecondary education. These employment conditions are highlighted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' report that the unemployment rate for June 1968, rose from 3.5 to 3.8 percent-an increase, according to BLS, almost entirely in the unskilled labor category and attributed to the high school graduates

21629

and dropouts who could not find employment. Recognizing that 26 million students will graduate from high school in the next decade, and that the number of unskilled jobs will continue to decrease rapidly, one can appreciate the urgency of this legislation in providing a greater opportunity for training and education to the Nation's young people.

The 1968 amendments would provide for exemplary programs and projects in vocational education which will promote cooperation between public educational agencies, manpower agencies and private business as well as explore new avenues of research and training. This bill will also provide guidance and counseling for the high school dropout; it will direct the high school graduate toward fields that will serve to develop his interests and abilities; it will likewise stimulate the various educational and employment agencies to refine their curricula and programs to meet the needs of all students requiring vocational education. These numerous new programs wtll hopefully enable each participant to combine education with work expertence and to have adequate contact with related agencies that can offer job placement services.

Provisions changing previous vocational education laws are equally as important as new programs to vocational education. The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 consolidate the 23 programs and purposes of previous legislation-such as the Smith-Hughes Act and the George-Barden Act, 1946-for the ultimate purpose of providing greater :flexibility to the States and local agencies and more long-term planning arrangements in administration. Provisions similarly repeal the "matching requirement" of past legislation-a repeal that will now permit the poorer school districts to receive greater shares of Federal funds for worthwhile programs. It is also required that each State formulate 5-year plans, to be supplemented and revised annually through program plans of State boards and State advisory councils. This would direCt the activities in vocational education so that they will adjust to changing circumstances and needs and thereby achieve maximum effect.

By further stipulating that at least 25 percent-and in no event less than 15 percent---of the regular State grant funds be expended on programs for the disadvantaged, this bill takes a bold step toward correcting a serious· imbalance which has characterized previous programs. For too often, vocational education programs are directed at those most amenable to training and development rather than those with the most critical need. Thus, in Dade County, the unemployment rate for teenagers is more than nine times the national average; in the Nation, the unemployment rate for teenagers is 28 percent, more than seven times the national average. The basic reason for this tragic situation is that those teenagers from economically disadvantaged homes usually do not find easy access to the numerous vocational education and training programs within the community; these students are so divorced from the mainstream of society that they remain impervious to present

21630 guidance toward and incentives for training. The bill therefore concentrates its principal thrust toward stimulating creative but efficient programs in vocational education programs that will draw these students toward productive employment. '

Of equal importance to the poor and the disadvanta-ged is the separate authorization for consumer and homemaking education in title I. It is an adaption of the amendment which I introduced to this body, an amendment that further recognizes the socioeconomic factors which underlie any effective vocational education program. A child or a young adult, one who lives in unsanitary conditions and who does not receive the proper nourishment for physical and mental health, will often lack the motivation to take advantage of the opportunities offered by any of the preceding programs. Beginning with 1970, my amendment provided that a certain portion of the $15 million authorization for State grants be used in this long-neglected area of homemaking education in depressed areas. The committee amendment requires that a onethird portion of the annual allocation in each State be used for consumer and homemaking programs in economically depressed areas.

This amendment to the regular homemaking program would, in effect, train teachers and provide aides who in turn would educate families in low-income homes about health and nutrition. This is of particular significance since women are frequently the family heads in these areas and are often unable to adequately meet all of the family's responsibilities. My amendment and the subsequent committee amendment would thus recognize the statements of the President's Council on Consumer Interests which stressed that women in low-income areas are most susceptible to being duped by shopkeepers, that these families know least about mental and physical hygiene, and that these families suffer the most from psychological strangulation.

This authorization, then, will teach the family how to most effectively utilize its food stamps and limited income; this authorization will teach these families how to keep their homes clean despite the inhibiting conditions of slum housing; this authorization, in other words, will enable each family to es·tablish the physical and psychological atmosphere so crucial to motivating the family's children. In Dade County alone, more than 10,000 families will :find their diet more stable, their health safeguarded, and their lives more enriched.

Finally, in conjunction with this emphasis on the education of the disadvantaged and the socioeconomic factors that effect students in vocational education, the 1968 amendments will likewise offer expanded opportunities for those out of school. Title IV of this legislation will lower the minimum age requirement for adult education programs from 18 to 16 years. This amendment will subsequently permit young men and women of limited education and experience to acquire the skills and absorb the motivation required for gainful employment. It

-EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

can make a worthy contribution to easln~ able citizens off welfare rolls and on to payrolls. It will help young people in Neighborhood Youth Corps and Job Corps gain a basic education together with job skills.

Mr. Speaker, recent events have blatantly revealed the frustration in our cities, a frustration that casts a shadow over our advancing economy. We must :finally realize that vocational education and in particular homemaking education involve more than meeting the economy's manpower needs; it is ultimately a question of enabling each individual to learn the joy and dignity derived from selffulfillment, from a physically well-balanced and healthy life, and of allowing each individual to contribute to this Nation's development. Let this legislation promulgate a more promising future for millions of young people; let this legislation offer to each family the -hope for a reasonable standard of living and the ability to maintain a meaningful home life.

ITALIAN REFUGEES

HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OF :MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, despite the heavy legislative schedule ahead of us in the few short weeks ahead as the 90th Congress strives to adjourn, it becomes imperative for this House to take action on pending bills for the relief of the victims of the earthquakes in Sicily.

Among these bills is my H.R. 15192, to permit the issuance of 2,000 special immigrant visas for the unfortunate refugees from this great natural disaster, which created so many homeless and disrupted the lives of thousands of people.

I am deeply interested in this legislation and was pleased to join my dear and able friend from New Jersey, Congressman RoDINO, and others in sponsoring this humane bill.

There are many Italian people in my district with relatives in Sicily who are refugees as a result of the earthquake. I hold these friends of mine in highest regard, both those who have come to this great country in the past and those of Italian descent who were born here and are native born American citizens who have made immeasurable contributions in war and in peace for the perpetuity and protection of our American institutions.

Naturally, I am anxious to assist these victims of the earthquake in Sicily so th81t they may be given the opportunity

. to have their admission to the United States expedited in every way possible and be given the chance to start life anew in this great country of ours where they will find even better opportunities and abundance than those who have come to this Nation in the past from foreign countries.

I think that this legislation is highly meritorious and I am proud to join 1n

July 16, 1968 support of it and to urge that 1t be considered and enacted before Congress adjourns.

To measure the multitude of rich contributions of people of Italian blood to civilization and to this country would be impossible.

The annals of art, literature, science, invention, music, and the humanities, outstanding achievement in government, business, the professions, and every calling are replete with Italian distinction and achievement.

The world and this Nation could never repay these memorable accomplishments.

We need more of them today. And we need the kind of loyalty to the values of America and warm friendship for ourselves that the members of the great Italian society can provide and the high standards of fine, loyal citizenship these valued people exemplify. ·

JUSTICE FORTAS SIXTH TENNESSEAN TO SERVE ON NATION'S HIGHEST COURT; LIFE MAGAZINE ANALYZES "WARREN COURT"

HON. JOEL. EVINS OF TENNESSEE



Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion with respect to the appointment of Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and in this connection I place in the RECORD herewith my recent newsletter concerning the role of Tennesseans on our Nation's highest Court.

In addition Life magazine in a recent editorial discussed the Supreme Court and its accomplishments and :flaws. The article underlines the lack of restraint which many believe characterized the "Warren Court" and suggests that Justice Fortas as a greater lawyer will exercise greater restraint.

I also place in the RECORD herewith the editorial from Life magazine.

My current newsletter, Capitol Comments, and the editorial from Life fol-low: · NOMINATION OF ABE FORTAS AS CHIEF JUSTICE

HIGHLIGHTS SIX TENNESSEE APPOINTMENTS

TO NATION'S HIGHEST COURT

President Johnson's nomination of Justice Abe Fortas of Memphis as Ch:ief Justice of the United States Supreme Court recalls the strong representation whioh Tennessee has had on the Nation's hlghest Court since our early history. A study has shown that the following Tennesseeans were appointed to the Supreme Court:

Justice John Catron, appointed May 1, 1837, by President Martin Van Buren; Justice Howell E. Jaokson, appointed March 4, 1893, by President Benjamin Harrison; Justice Horace Harmon Lurton, appointed January 3, 1910, by President W1lliam Howard Taft; Justice James Clark McReynolds, appointed October 12, 1914, by President Woodrow Wilson; and Justice Edward Terry S. Sanford, appointed February 19, 1923, by ·Presldent Warren Harding.

President Andrew Jackson of Tenn~ee appointed Roger Taney of Maryland as Ohief Justilce in 1836. Chief Justice Taney wrote

'July· 16, 1968 the famous decision preceding the Civil War that favored the South. This was the Dred scott Decislon which held that a runaway slave must be returned to his owner !rom Wisconsin, and which. outraged the North.

Historians and wise men predicted that following the Taney decision a. Ohief Justice would someday make a decision favoring the North, but that t1l1s should not provoke another Civil War. Ohie! Justice Warren, who was appointed by President Eisenhower on October 5, 1953, led the Supreme Court in rea.dhl.ng several decisions which were unpopular in the South.

With the nomination of Justice Fortas of Tennessee as Chief Justice, a new era is beginning in the Court. The period of the Warren Court is ending and the new era will bear the imprint of Chief Justice Fortas, assuming he is confirmed by the Senate. Indications are that the Fortas Court will take stronger positions for law and order. Justice Portas is also known to be strongly in favor of free competitton in our tree enterprise system, and holds strong views against monopoly and monopolistic power.

Concerning the elevation of Federal Judge Homer Thornberry from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, your Representative served ten years with Judge Thornberry when he was in the Congress before his appointment to the Federal Judiciary. Justice Thornberry's legislative and political background should provide him and the Court with helpful, practical experience and many predict he will emerge as a great Justice. The conftrm.ation of Justices to the Supreme Court is a matter for the Senate. Predictions are the President's appointments will be approved.

A GREAT COURT-AND ITS FLAWS

"The work of the Warren era is finished . . . the greatest era of court history since John Marshall.'• So says Abe Fortas, just appointed to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the U.S. But if the Warren era is over, what about the controversy that surrounded its major decisions?

The John Birch Society suspended its "Impeach Earl Warren" campaign eight months ago as politically counterproductive. Yet 19 Senate Republicans are trying to block his successor's confirmation lest it fasten the Warren "liberal" tradition on a country that may want the Court to follow the November election returns. And Congress has just passed a section in the Omnibus Crime Control bill which attacks three recent Court decisions on the rights of criminal suspects. The storm blown up by Warren's work will be a long time subsiding.

John Marshall had 34 years to turn the U.S. Constitution into the legal spine of a nation. In his 15 years, Warren undertook to set national norms for our race relations, our representational system ("one man, one vote") and our treatment of criminal defendants. He seized on these three areas of clear injustice, which had been badly neglected by Congress and the states. He made them Supreme Court questions, and by his decisions he revitalized and updated both the quality and the direction of our democracy.

The effect of these decisions on how Americans behave toward each other has been greater than any act of the three Presidents or eight Congresses of Warren's time. The current civil rights revolution started with Brown v. Board of Education (1954). As Jack Greenberg of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund has put it, that decision and its judicial progeny have "changed more hearts and minds than all the sermons preached between 1954 and the present. Indeed, it changed a good · many sermons.'' The pains, strains and incompleteness of the Negro revolution should not obscure the fact that the law has been its ally and gave it a way to stay within a framework of law and order. Moreover, the .

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Court's trail-blazing did awaken Presidents and Congress to their duty to share the lead in new civil rights legislation (1957, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1968) .

The reapportionment decisions, which begaJl with Baker v. Carr (1962), also stirred more than half the state legislatures to take the action toward fairer distrtcting they knew they should have taken years before. Yet Baker v. Carr is a good example of why many lawyers who agree with the Warren Court's decisions (as being just) hate to read its opinions (as being sloppy law). Although it has tried to set "guidelines" of how the states could make their voting districts substantially equal in population, the lower courts and legislatures are in a welter of confusion over its application because no clear constitutional principle has emerged. "One man, one vote" is less principle than slogan.

A similar legal obscurity has attended other great Warren reforms. The protections of the Bill of Rights and of "due process" had long been a dead letter for many suspects and criminals under state jurisdiction. Not only was the "third degree" (and its more sophisticated substitutes) still a widespread police practice, but state courts generally maintained subfederal procedural standards. Since the Constitution (in Warren's words) "exists for the individual as well as for the nation," the Court moved into this area with such famous decisions as Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) (everybody's right to a lawyer), Escobedo (1964) and Miranda (1966) (higher standards for confessions). The "secrecy of the station house" was invaded by the Court because nearer-by consciences were asleep. The result has been a pervasive challenge to magistrates and police chiefs. It has not sparked a universal jailbreak or dangerously inhibited the war on crime. But because many decisions were more sweeping and imprecise than they need have been, it has left lower courts and polleemen unnecessarily confused.

Good jurists are almost daily confronted with what Archibald Cox, former Solicitor General, calls an "insoluble dilemma": how to serve social justice and at the same time maintain a clear and predictable body of law. The extremes of this dilemma are rigidity and formlessness; the latter attracted the Warren Court. It gave justice (and a lot of mercy) to most of the litigants before it, but scamped the need of lower courts and lawyers to reason their way into the next decision. The surest escape from this judicial dilemma is not to align with "liberals" or "conservatives" but for the Supreme Court to limit the legislative role, as the late Felix Frankfurter tried to do: i.e., defer to the legislative branch in hard cases and practice "judicial restraint.''

The Warren Court has had little truck with judicial restraint. One of its minor revolutions was in the laws against obscenity which have been all but stricken from the statutes, thus giving a new freedom to artists and writers but also to the smut industry. Warren himself has tried to get the Court out of its obscenity cases on the ground that it had more important work to do. But his was only one vote among nine, and some law professors even argue whether it should be called the Warren Court or not. His influence was personal, not doctrinal. He has been called a "Swedish Jim Farley" and he was certainly more politician than jurist; but more statesman than either. He had a vision of the Constitution that will be with us for many years. That is politics of a high order.

Abe Fortas, if confirmed (as he surely should and will be) , will also occupy a political role. He is a Johnson crony, but this is not in itself a threat to the separation of powers. Unlike Homer Thornberry, the new appointee who will add a touch of Southwestern moderation to the Court's councils, Fortas is not a Johnson worshiper or depend-

21631 ent. His is one of the best and subtlest legal minds in the U.S. Unlike Warren, who led his Court by personal warmth and siZe, Fortas is likely to shape his by brains and Judicial sophistication. Warren had one favorite question in oral hearings: "Yes, but is it fair?" Fortas is noted for more searching questions relating to the state of the law.

The law and its mystique must never lose touch with the average citizen's sense of justice, for all Americans are part-time amateur lawyers and want to perpetuate their barroom arguments about legal rights and wrongs. But the law's predictability, which is as essential as its justice, depends on more professional considerations. These have suffered most from the bold sweep and careless craftsmanship of the Warren Court decisions. Abe Fortas can do a great deal to tidy up the loose ends of Warren's great work. And since reapportionment is giving the views of Congress and the legislatures a "presumptive validity" which they lacked before Earl Warren took this country in hand, the Fortas Court may see reason to give the idea of judicial restraint another turn on democracy's ceaseless wheel.

UNDER THE NATIONAL DOUBLE STANDARD

HON. JOHN R. RARICK OF LOUISIANA



Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, small won-· der the masses of our people are confused and bewildered about the directions taken by our quasi-royal leaders.

We send diplomats and airplanes to Moscow for historic firsts as our sons die from Soviet steel in Vietnam. We support U.N. sanctions against Rhodesia, but demand no boycotts or reaction against the Soviet-British genocide operation in Biafra.

It is not the American people who are sick-it is those in high places who would like to lead but only know how to follow:

Under unanimous consent I submit news articles from the Evening Star and the Baton Rouge, La., Morning Advocate as part of my remarks:

[From the Baton Rouge (La.) Morning Advocate, July 15, 1968]

U.N. BLANDLY ALLOWS BLACKS TO MALTREAT. BLACKS BUT RHODESIA! THAT'S SOMETHING ELsE

(By John Chamberlain) The other day we were trying to reconcile

the expenditure or $26 billion a year on antipoverty measures with the claim that there are ten million starving people in the U.S. Naturally we couldn't make sense of the situation. Now we are trying to reconcile the existence of the United Nations, which is dominated by the Afro-Asian bloc, with horrifying news o! mass starvation in the Biafra part of Nigeria and the butchery on Nllotic blacks, maybe as many as half a million of them, in the southern Sudan by the Moslems of the north. Naturally this doesn't make any sense, either.

The least sense of all is made by the U.S. liberals. They weep copious tears when innocent bystanders get hurt in the Vietnamese war, and they support the campus protests against napalm, the use of which has obviously saved the lives of many U.S. soldiers in battles with the Viet Cong. But has anyone heard a liberal peep about what has been going on in Nigeria? Or in the Sudan?

Leslie Kirkley, the director of the Oxford

21632 Oommittee for Famine ReUef, which, working out of England, spends some $8 million a year to alleviate hunger in 80 countries, fl.n~ly managed to get a story of the Biafra tragedy into print a long time after it had started to happen. Nigeria, once the show piece of West Africa, has, of course, been in the midst of a brutal civil war for more than a year. The war began when the ·Biafrans, who live in the Eastern Region of Nigeria, seceded. They had good reason to feel aggrieved, for 30,000 members of their brethren o.f the Ibo tribe had been massacred. The war has gone badly for the Biafrans, who have had their ports blockaded and captured. Their contact with the outside world ·is by airlift from islands in the Gulf of Guinea. Not much goes into the beleaguered Eastern Region, which must feed its population of 13 million.

But news comes out of the eastern region, and as it is relayed from the British press it is really terrible. The children are dying because of a chronic protein shortage. The local name for the deficiency disease caused by this form of malnutrition is kwashiorkor. Its symptoms are swelling joints, scaly skin, yellowing hair, and complete apathy. Physicians who have recently been in Biafran villages say that two m1llion w111 die before the summer is over 1f nothing is done to move 200 tons of protein per day into the country.

The U.N. knows about the situation, but keeps hands off. It is, after all, a civil war that has been going on in Nigeria. And it is a ciVil war that has wracked the Sudan, leading to the deaths ext a.ll those southern Sudanese. The argument is that a country's internal troubles are its own. But the trouble in Rhodesia is internal, yet the Afro-Asian bloc has insisted on U.N. economic sanctions against the Rhodesians.

The United States, egged on by its liberals, conducts an ineffectual boycott of Rhodesia. Since a white minority rules over a black majority in Rhodesia, one can see why the liberals react as they do. But in Nigeria it has been black against black, and the liberals, if they were really liberal, should be crying out against the mass starvation of black Ibos.

Before there was a U.N., pepole in the U.S. reacted when mass starvation threatened a country. Herbert Hoover fed the Belgians, who had been our allies; he also led a crusade to save starving Russians even though they happened to be Communists. But voluntary relief expeditions are no longer de rigueur. We are supposed to have official institutions to take care of such matters. The only trouble is that the institutions-the U.N. internationally, the OEO (Office of Economic Opportunity) domestically-don't make connection with the needs of the day.

The rea.lly transcendent irony is that we do the least to help people who are most like ourselves, at least as we used to be. The Ibos of Nigeria were the self-starters, the enterprisers. They were rising to the top in their country, supposedly the model for all of Africa, because of their ab111ty. It was more than bureaucratic jealousy could stand. Perhaps it is only natural that the U.S. liberals should tacitly side with the Nigerian bureaucr8its in their efforts to suppress the Ibo tribe.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, July 4, 1968]

U.S. OSTRACISM OF RHODESIA REPUDIATES 1776 (By James J. Kilpatrick)

PHn.ADELPHIA.-"How fortunate were the American colonies!" Dean Acheson observed the other day. "They had no United Nations to confront in 1776."

The former secretary of state was speaking to an audience of specialists in international law, g8ithered for a sectional meeting of the American Bar Association. His topic was the

EXTENS~ONS OF REMARKS wrongness of American policy toward Rhodesia. He put it bluntly:

"It will surprise some of our fellow citizens, though hardly anyone here today, to be told that the United States is engaged in an international conspiracy, instigated by Britain, and blessed by the United Nations, to overthrow the government of a country that has done us no harm, and threatens no one. This is barefaced aggression, unprovoked and unjustified by a single legal or moral principle."

The charge that Britain brings against Rhodesians, Acheson continued, is the charge that George III brought against Americans 192 years ago. The rebellious and ungrateful Americans were proclaiming independence! They felt it necessary, in the declaration that Jefferson penned here in Philadelphia, "to dissolve the political bands which had connected them with another people, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."

It is good to come back to the quiet walks of Independence Square by twilight. This was where it all began, the dream, the poetry, the s8idness, the bursting heart. Tom Jefferson was here; and Ben Franklin, John Adams, the Lees. We think of them as heroes; and on Independence Day, in a thousand village squares, we mark the birth of the Republic they conceived. They were the founding fathers.

And what an irony it is, that Independence Day of 1968 finds today's Americans committed to an official policy which treats Ian Smith and his brotliers in Salisbury as a "rebel, racist regime." If these mute bricks h8id tongues, they would cry shame upon Lyndon Johnson, upon Dean Rusk, upon Arthur Goldberg--£hame upon all the lickspittle politicians who have repudiated our own history in a sick effort to to8idy up to the Afro-:Asian bloc.

The parallels between Rhodesia today, and the colonies then, are not exact. But if Independence Day means something more than a sweaty afternoon at the beach, or a few more beers on some suburban porch, we ought to think upon these things.

One o! the sins charged to Cecil Rhodes and his fellow pioneers is that they took their land from the native blacks. OUr own founding fathers, it will be recalled, seized their land from the native Indians.

The more immedia-te charge against Rhodesia-the charge that has produced the conspiracy and the a-ggression Dean Acheson has denounced-is that Rhodesia has refused to provide for majority rule by the country's largely illiterate blacks. The charge, in brief, is poUticalimmorality.

Do we dare examine that charge in the light o! our own history? Our own heroes stand at the bar-just as guilty, just as innocent, just as realistic, as Ian Smith and the patriots a-round him. Our own founding fathers hounded the Indians with relentless fury. Our own defenders 01! the equality of "all men" engaged in the slave trade; the framers of our own Constitution treated blacks as "other persons," voteless, mere chattels. Under the supreme law of our land, the escaping slave had to be "delivered up on claim o! the party to whom such service or 18ibor may be due."

Look at the record! The infant United States of America, which now gazes with such tainted virtue on Rhodesia, couldn't have cared less about majority rule. North and South, we denied our own blacks the right to vote or to own property. (In Rhodesia, blacks do both.) We denied the vote to women. (Women vote in Rhodesia.) We proclaimed our independence, and embarked upon the processes of gr8idual enlightenment that have brought us, nearly two centuries later, to the point in time we occupy today.

Rhodesia's claims to independ~nce from Great Britain are better in . every way than

July 16, 1968 the claims advanced by our Continen·tal Congress. A decent respect for our own history should compel us to renounce the expedient U.N. resolution, and to permit Rhodesia to go her own way-as we went ours.

[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, July 16, 1968]

REGULAR SERVICE OPEN-U.S. LINE COMPLETE Am LINK TO Moscow

Moscow.-An American jetliner, with a second close behind it, landed at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport today establishing the second part of regular commercial service between the Soviet capital and New York.

The first Pan American Boeing 707, carrying VIPs and journalists, landed at 2:42 p.m. (7:42 a.m. EDT), more than an hour behind schedule.

The second aircraft carried paying passengers. Both had stopped briefly at Copenhagen on their flight from New York.

A Soviet Aerofl.ot airliner landed in New York yesterday to open the commercial route after 10 years of Soviet-American negotiations.

A small crowd of diplomats, Soviet officials and newspapermen met the first plane at the sunlit airport.

U.S. Ambassador Llewellyn E. Thompson and the Soviet deputy minister of civil aviation, Boris Bugayev, were the official welcomers.

The arrival lounge was decorated with Soviet and U.S. flags and the Pan American house flag and the passengers were given medallions marking the establishment of the airlink.

E81Ch airline will fly the route once a week. The aerofl.ot plane will stop in Montreal and the Pan Am plane in Copenhagen.

FOOD AND WELFARE

HON. JEFFERY COHELAN OF CALIFORNIA



Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, there 1s in the juxtaposition of the American farm program with the American welfare system an indefensible contradiction.

Farmers receive enormous amounts from the Government to withhold production or to supplement prices. These payments total more than $3 billion a year, and some individual farmers receive more than $100,000 a month.

Welfare recipients in Mississippi receive a maximum of $10 a month in the case of needy mothers and needy children.

Quite clearly hunger is a problem for the welfare recipient while overproduction of food is the bane of the farmer.

But the problem is not just one of contrasts, or even of just hunger. It has been translated into a de facto national policy of encouraging migration of rural poor to the cities. This policy is the result of the variance in State welfare allotments-rural southern States making alarmingly small grants, while urban northern States make larger, more adequate payments. The outcome is an incentive to move north to the cities.

This situation, which is so desperately in need of correction through a set of national welfare income standards and a revised farm program, is candidly and

July 16, 1968

earnestly reported in an article by Vincent J. Burke in the Los Angeles Times. I include this piece in the RECORD at this point: · ·

[From the Los Angeles Times, July 3, 1968] ABERNATHY'S GRIM QUESTION

(By Vincent J. Burke) Before he was jailed for leading his lobby

of poor people on an unlawful march to the grounds of the Capitol, the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy asked a question which probes deep into the nation's scale of values.

He said he wanted President Johnson to give a frank answer to this question:

"Why does the U.S. government pay the Mississippi plantation of a U.S. senator more than $13,000 a · month not to grow food or fiber and at the same time pay a starving child in Mississippi only $9 a month? And what are you going to do about it?"

Anyone unfamiliar with the farm and welfare programs might wonder whether Abernathy was engaging in demoagoguery or fantasy. Actually the statistics of the Abernathy question are basically correct.

The facts are these: Farm payments-The federal government

last year paid $157,930 to the plantation of Sen. James Eastland (D-Miss.), a champion of white supremacy. This consisted of a payment to compensate the Eastland planta~ tion for holding some of its land out of ·production (as Abernathy alleged) and other payments to supplement the price received from sale of cotton actually produced (not mentioned by Abernathy).

The farm program provides this two-fold system of benefits for growers of key cash crops, principally cotton, whea:t and feed grains. Last year payments totaled $3 billion and 408 individual growers and corporate farms received more than $100,000 apiece. Five of them collected more than $1 million each.

Welfare payments-Each state sets its own level of benep.ts and gets federal aid to help finance the cost. In Mississippi, the maximum payment for a needy family of a widowed or deserted mother is $10 for the mother and $10 for each child, and actual payments average less than $9. The $10 maximum compares with California's maximum payment of $47.75 and New York's maximum of $65.50, highest in the nation. Although cash payments are supplemented with federally subsidized food in some coun~ ties, it is obvious that children on welfare in Mississppi know the pangs of hunger.

Most urban dwellers in the Nbrth would agree that the disparity between the payments made to Mississippi's big cotton growers and those given its needy families is indefensible. ·

While the Northern suburbanite would re~ gard Mississippi's treatment of its poor welfare clients as a moral issue, he probably would not see it as a threat to his own wellbeing. After all, he is now engulfed in problems close to home--fear of riots, decay of the center city and its schools, racial tensions all about.

However, there is a connection between the problems of Northern ghettos and the welfare payments provided by Mississippi and other Southern states.

By failing to intervene to require national standards of welfare and unemployment benefits, the . federal government has encouraged a massive migration of poor and ill-trained Southern Negroes into the North. The North has not only allowed, but enc·ouraged tlie South to export its racial and welfare problems to the North.

It is true, of course, that federalization of the welfare system to narrow the regional gap in benefits would mean that the federal government would have to pay all, or almost all, of the cost. At present each state determines the size or' payments to its welfare ·recipients and the federal government helps

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS pay the cost under a complex matching formula. ·

But the extra cost of federaliZing welfare would be of economic benefit' to the North,

' when balanced against the mushrooming · costs in the North of state welfare appropria-tions, crime, rioting and public schooling of the disadvantaged to which the present system is contributing.

The insanity of the present system be. comes evident, if you were to imagine operat

ing the farm program on the principles of the welfare program.

Each state would set its own support prices for crops. Suppose California and New York were to prop the market price of wheat at $2 a bushel and other states were to guarantee a price much lower. Then, in time of surplus vast quantities of wheat would flow into California and New York warehouses, imposing a major burden on taxpayers of those states.

In effect, this is happening under our decentralized welfare system. Surplus muscle power from the South has been piling up in Northern ghettos.

In addition to providing a decent minimum level of welfare payments, any new federalized system should specify that the needy family of an unemployed father is eligible for welfare. This rule applies now in 21 states, including California; but in the other 29 states, including most of the Southern states, the father must desert his family in order for his wife and children to qualify for welfare.

TRUCK-TRAINS BILL DRAWS FIRE FROM BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS




Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, William Steif, an enterprising reporter foa:the Scripps-Howard newspapers, has disclosed that Francis C. Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads and an expert on highway construction, is opposed to a bill, S. 2658, that would allow triple-trailer trucks carrying up to 69 tons to use our interstate highways.

·According to Mr. Steif's report, which appeared in the Pittsburgh Press of Monday, July 15, Mr. Turner was so concerned about the safety implications of S. 2658 that he chose to contradict his superioa:-, Federal Highway Commissioner Lowell K. Bridwell, who had testified for the bill.

Mr. Turner told Mr. Steif that truck. trains could cause serious problems of overweight on older and longer interstate highway bridges. Intersta,te bridges are the most modern and up-to-date in the Nation, but this bill would make many of them obsolete even before the Interstate System is complete.

Mr. Turner also spoke out on the dangers that heavier and wider trucks would create for the Nation's 100 million automobile drivers, and urged that truck weights and widths be rolled back, not increased in the manner S. 2658 proposes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Turner is a highway engineer with 39 years of roadbuilding experience in the Federal Government. He would not have reached his high position if his judgment in highway con-

.21633 struction matters were not sound. I consider his outspoken crtticism of s. 2-658 another example of his long and dedicated service to this Nation. The .Congress cannot afford to ignore his views on this legislation.

If this body passes S. 2658 and allows truck-trains on our interstate highways, it will do so in the face of overwhelming evidence that heavier trucks will mean more highway deaths and shortened highway life with little benefit to the public interest.

Under leave to extend my remarks, I insert Mr. Steif's article at this point in the RECORD, along with an editorial commenting on the story, which also appeared in the Pittsburgh Press of July 15. I commend them to the attention of those of my colleagues who fear the cbnsequences of truck-trains on our highways. The articles follow: [From the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Press, July 15,

1968] HIGHWAY EXPERT FEARS BOXCARS ON BRIDGES,

HILLS (By William Steif)

WASHINGTON.-Francis C. Turner, director of the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR), said today a Senate-passed bill which would permit 69-ton trucks on the interstate highway system was "not as conservative as I'd like to see it."

Mr. Turner said super-long trailer trucks possible under the legislation would cause "serious" trouble on longer and older bridges of the interstate system.

He also said "bigger, heavier, less manageable" trucks would affect other motorists.

He noted, for example, that the giant trucks would be "slower climbing grades" and, therefore, autos might have more trouble passing them.

Mr. Turner thus split with his superior, Federal Highway Administrator Lowell K. Bridwell, who gave Administration endorsement to the big truck bill in appearance before Senate and House public works sub-committees. .

"In our opinion," Mr. Bridwell told the Senate subcommittee, "the increase in weights and sizes . . . would be beneficial."

He explained: "The real economic tradeoffs are lower unit

costs for the movement of goods as compared with the higher costs of capital investment and maintenance and construction ... It is our judgment that the increases in weights and sizes as. proposed by the Administration are on the plus side."

Administration backing has been a major factor in winning congressional support for ·the bill. · ·

But Mr. Turner, an engineer with 39 years of roadbuilding experience at BPR, said the bill's removal of the current 73,280-pound truck weight limit and its failure to include any truck length limit would make it "theoretically possible to have a vehicle 1000 miles long."

The weight limit was removed, Mr. Turner said in an interview, "because the truckers want to have the opportunity to work toward trains on the roads, trucks with triple and quadruple trailers."

He noted that triple-trailer trucks already are betng run "experimentally" in a couple of states.

A bipartisan minority of the House .Public Works Committee said the bill "would permit trucks to operate weighing 138,000 pounds"-69 tons-but the committee majority nevertheless okayed the measure and the Rules Committee cleared it last week for House action.

Mr. Turner said the long truck-trailers would "not have too much effect" on shorter

21634 bridges ot the interstate system, but would cause "some trouble" on longer and older bridges. The bridge trouble, he added, would be "serious."

Mr. Turner also said "the bigger, heavier, less manageable" truck-trailers would have direct effects on passenger car drivers. One he cited was that the trucks would be "slower climbing grades."

In Nevada, where triple trailers are being used from Reno to Lake Tahoe, passenger autos now are lined up behind under-powered trucks crawling uphlll.

"We had recommended a weight-horsepower ratio for the b111 and . a provision for better brakes," Mr. Turner said, but the Senate oommlttee knocked them out.

"We'd Uke to see a 65-foot limitation. We'd Uke to see a rollback of limits so that we'd have some uniformity, have the same things apply to all states. We even proposed a phasedawn so that truck operators could get economJ!c Ufe out of their equipment.

.. But the truckers wanted a much more libemllzed bill ... Polltics and life being what they are, I suppose it's unreal to think we can reach any kind of uniformity."

Mr. Bridwell, a newspaperman before being named to a Commerce Dept. job in 1962, favored raising the single-axle truck load 11mlt from 9 to 10 tons and the double-axle limit from 16 to 17 tons.

He also favored increasing truck widths from eight to eight and a half feet. The bill now includes these provisions.

In supporting the increases, Mr. Bridwell said the Administration favored higher user taxes on owners of the 300,000 large trucks, mainly diesel, who would benefit. Mr. Bridwell conceded the increased weights and sizes "would result in higher costs and a reduced life of the highway system."

A study completed in 1964 for BPR showed the biggest trucks pay the smallest share of the costs of building and maintaining the roads. As a result passenger car driversthrough paying gas taxes to the highway trust fund-subsidize big truckers.

Mr. Bridwell said the major reason for raising truck weight and size llmits was to get "fullest productivity possible" from the roads.

Truckers are among the nation's heaviest polltlcal donors and 1968 was regarded as an ideal time to push quietly to boost truck size and weight limits.

Such legislation has been dormant since the last presidential election year, 1964.

Transportation Secretary Alan Boyd, refused to comment on the 69-ton truck b111, but one of his aides said the measure suddenly had come under "intensive study" and promised a statement soon.

RuN OvER BY 'I'RUCKS

With tb.e help of its pa.Is 1n Congress and 1n the Johnson Ad.m1nistratllon, the highway freight-tra.tn lobby ls running over everything ln its way: common sense, the judgment of experts in the Government, the interests of the taxpayers, members of Congresa who oppose the big truckers' ever-expanding demands.

A New Hampshire oongressma.n who helped Write a dissenting report on the bill to legalize these freight trains on the highways was tlu'eatened by the head of the truckers' a.ssool.ation in his state.

"Assuming you plan to run :tor re-election," Roy H. Stewart of the Motor Transport Associllltl.on wired U.S. Rep. James C. Cleveland, "I suggest you re-consider and support this bill."

The director of the Bureau of Publd.c Roods {BPR), an acknowledged authority on road construction, was overrlden by the Fedeml highway administrator, an ex-newspaper reporter, and a.ppa.rently by ather top brass in the new 'l'ra.n6porta.tl.on Dept.

WUUa.m Stei!, Washington reporter for the

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS Press and other Sc:ripps-Howa.rd neW5J)e..pers, interviewed the BPR director, Frano1s C. Turner, a career Government offi.cdal.

Mr. Turner, among other things. favors a rollback of limim on truck weights and sizes, instead .of permitting the over-size heavyweights proposed by the bill now before the House and already approved by the Senate {with only seven senators on the :floor).

He cdted what would happen to motorists coming up behind the big trucks on the "slower climbing gmdes." He said the truckers who would get triple-trailer trucks approved in the pend:ing bill are looking ahead to quadruple-trailer outfits.

Imagine trying to pass one of those giants on a hill!

All in all it is a sorry picture. The big trucks don't pay their share of highway costs now. Ma.klng them bigger simply wlll saddle the other motorists with more expense, while the highways deteriorate faster.

And in New Hampshire, at leaat, the chief trucker is mighty a.rroga.nt about it .

BLACK POWER STRIPPED OF HOSTILITY SPELLS PRIDE

HON. CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR. OF li4ICHIGAN


Tuesday, July 16, 1968 Mr. DIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I include the

following article from the Washington Star of July 11, 1968: BLACK POWER STRIPPED OF HOSTILITY SPELLS

PRIDE

{By Charles Bartlett) Responsible Negro leaders like Whitney

Young of the Urban League appear to be moving to the left with their endorsements of "black power" but they are in fact rescuing a valuable concept from irresponsible hands.

No longer able to shape the restoration of the ghettoes from their past posture as moderates, these leaders are taking a significant step toward making their rheto1'1c more relevant to the moOd and the problems. They have resolved to adopt the rallying cry of the radicals as the device for which they have long searched, a means to exhort the Negro to help himself.

"Black power" under its new sponsorship will be torn away from its talrnishing association with the pseudo-leaders, the antiwhite m1lltants who talk o:f "honkies", "getting the gun," and a separate black state. It will be construed to mean "black pride" instead of "black coercion."

The transition will not be easy because the radicals will not cheerfully surrender theil' favorite handle and many whites who support civil rights are leery of the connotations of black power. Liberals will resent the de-emphasis of the goal of integration and extremists will decry the abandonment of black nationalism.

But the logic of the concept lies in its responsiveness to two stubborn facts: the ghettoes wm not disappear swiftly, perhaps not for two decades; and the process of integration will not enable the Negro to shed the crippling sense of inferiority which is his greatest handicap.

As Roger Wilkins of the Community Relations Service wrote last December, "the black theoreticians have concluded that supplication 1s denigrating and inefficient, that cooperation With white liberals is ineffective, that white people cannot or Will not make the system work for poor black people, and consequently that black people must save themselves if there is to be any salvation."

Stripped of h~tile overtones, the concept

July 16, 1968 . of black power is simply, in Wilkins' words, that black Americans must create for themselves an environment which is conducive to their psychological health and institutional strength. They must narrow the gap between their own sense of inf'eriority and the white man's toense of superiority before they can hope to live as equals.

The attraction to black power as a coercive force is transformed by this reasoning into a movement to discover how power can be constructively exerted against the urban crisis, how people can grow strong even though they are born and raised in ghettoes.

John Gardner of the Urban Coalition has discovered already that the pressure of th.e problems inspires in the ghetto leaders a high degree of practicality. They soon become realists and many will ultimately become pragmatic political mastem who brush away the rhetoric to grope with the circumstances.

For example the flnanciaJ. failure of the supermarket in Watts that was designed to be totally independent of white lnfluences has already taught its lesson. A simlla.r co ... operative effort in New York is prospering because its managers accept the guidance of experienced white entrepeneurs.

The black power concept will be modified by experience and the influence of men like Gardner to acknowledge the fact that no business or poll tical undertaking will flourish in isolation. The society derives its mW!cles, commercially and politically, from its interconnections and these Will serve the ghetto better than dogmatism.

The significance of the new sponsors o! black power 1lJ that they a.re not dogmatists or dreamers. They are men who are ready to face the problem where lt exists and their potential for gOOd is tremendous.

BIRMINGHAM'S AVENUE OF FLAGS

HON. JOHN BUCHANAN OJ' ALABAMA


Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, the people of Birmingham, Ala., have demonstrated in many ways their overwhelming support for the efforts of our :fighting men 1n Vietnam. Toward this end, the city has adopted the 1st Infantry Division in Vietnam, with local civic and church groups in Birmingham doing everything in their power to help the 1st Infantry fulfill its mission. Not only is individual interest shown in the men of the 1st Infantry but these groups 1n Birmingham also help in a variety of ways to carry on the Big Red One's civic action programs in its area of responsibility in Vietnam.

On Veterans Day, November 11, 1967, to show further the city's support of our fighting men and, in particular, to honor these brave men who have given their last full measure of devotion for their country in Vietnam, Birmingham dedicated avenues of flags lining the major arteries of the city, each honoring a serviceman killed in action. The Birmingham A venue of Flags extends from downtown Woodrow Wilson Park to the city limits at Vulcan. consisting of 300 flags. On patriotic occasions, there are displayed over 1,200 flags lining various arteries throughout the county.

The fiags were first fiown November 11 through .November 22, 1967, in honor of

July 16, 1968

Alabama's 417 war dead. The :flags :flew ·1 hour in honor of each war dead or a total of 417 hours, on this :first occasion.

Since then, the :flags have :flown on Memorial Day, May 30, 1968; June 17, 1968, Flag Day; and July 3, 4, and 5, 1968, in connection with Birmingham's annual Independence Day celebration.

Chief architect of the A venue of Flags and chairman sponsoring it is a distinguished young attorney, John C. Schmarkey. Serving with him are: Trustees, Dr. Raymond Christian, Mr. Carl C. Brown, Mr. John Bloomer, Mr. William c. Green, Jr., Dean Arthur Weeks, Mr. Dave Campbell, Mr. Temple Tutwiler, and Mr. John Henderson, and exofficio ~rustees, Mayor George Seibels, Jr., Mr. Fred Weil, Mr. Raymond Weeks, and Mr. Victor Hanson, II.

Through the contribution of the many who had a part in the creation of the Avenue of Flags, Birmingham has sought to express its humble gratitude for those men, without whose sacrifice on the field of battle, freedom could not live in our time. This was beautifully expressed in a poem on this subject by Birmingham's Mrs. Joe D. Bancroft, which is included herewith:

THE AVENUE OF FLAGs-A CITY'S ANSWER

(Copyrighted by Betsy Barber Bancroft, 1967) The newsprint faces of the young, war killed, Look out at us from columns of the dead. Thei-r voices cannot say, "I won't be back." Without a word their eyes are eloquent To us who sit at home and read their names. If we. had words to say what should be said They could not hear. So we have raised an avenue of flags And since those dead have spoken without

sound We know that they will hear the silences As flags -speak out to say a city's heart, And they will rest without regretfulness.

ROCKEFELLER'S SURRENDER ON THE INSTALLMENT PLAN

HON. JOHN M. ASHBROOK OF OHIO



Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, the recent program to end the war in Vietnam as proposed by candidate Rockefeller is not only a disservice to the negotiators in Paris, it is naive beyond belief. It is as the Chicago Tribune has editorially observed, "surrender on the installment plan."

The good faith by the Communists which Rockefeller expects as a consequence of his proposed actions is the good faith the Communists have shown during 50 years of dealings with other nations; it is the good faith evidenced in the United States attempts to gain the return of the Pueblo and it is the good faith which allows the North Vietnamese to indiscriminately rain terror on the population of Saigon while pompously denying the presence of North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam-and all during peace talks.

It is bad enough to suggest pulling out of Vietnam, considering the virtual


bloodbath that would follow for the South Vietnamese, but to suggest this particular series of maneuvers while doing so is an atfront to the American people.

The editorial from the Tribune follows: KIBITZERS ON VIETNAM

Nelson Rockefeller has unveiled a fourstage program to bring "peace" to Viet Nam, which can be summarized as surrender on the installment plan. The New York governor, who fancies that the Republican Presidential nomination should be conferred on him, thus joins a Democratic aspirant, Sen. Eugene McCarthy, in playing bull in the china shop while the United States is conferring with the Communists of North VietNam in Paris on possibilities for an end to the war.

McCarthy has announced his belief that the American people are ready for "unilateral withdrawal" from Viet Nam, which would certainly bring peace of a sort--the peace of the grave for South Viet Nam. He has expressed readiness to rush off to Paris to talk to the communist negotiating team, which would be sure to welcome him with open arms.

Gov. Rockefeller's flutings from the dovecote are not quite as unsophisticated as the McCarthy formula, which is simply to bug out. Rocky would achieve the same result but would keep up appearances while yielding the field.

Initially he would pull out 75,000 Americans to show "good faith." Then an international buffer force would interpose itself between the remaining Americans and the enemy. This would take some doing, as the Communists are all around us and the South Vietnamese. Next, the North Vietnamese forces would politely go home. They have never shown any willingness to do so. A few small American units would then retire to enclaves, and the Viet Cong guerrill-as would lay down their arms and become politicians.

After that, free elections, complete American withdrawal, and discussions between North and South VietNam to decide whether to unify. Even if the North Vietnamese retired, there would be nothing to prevent them from coming back. But anyone who has heard their doctrine of protracted war can be certain that they wlll keep on fighting even if Rockefeller and McCarthy won't.

Such is Rockefeller's des<:ription o{ how he would proceed "as President." Once the business was polished off, the author undoubtedly would attribute the result to bad faith on the part of the Communists. Who, in his . right mind, expects good faith from them? The verdict of the inquest on Yalta would again apply: "We wuz robbed."

The talks at Paris have been arranged between the governments of the United States and North Viet Nam to explore any possibilities for agreement which may exist. The United States representatives are the offi<:ial spokesmen for the government of this country. Neither Rockefeller nor McCarthy holds any portfolio whatsoever. Their observations are purely gratuitous. Neither is even the Presidential nominee of his party, and it is highly unlikely that either will be.

To sound off in these circumstances is merely to embarrass the accredited government and its accredited spokesmen. Former Vice President Richard Nixon, whom Rockefeller is trying to head off for the party nomination, has had the good sense and discretion to remain silent while the negotiations are being pursued. He may expect, as we do, that nothing will come of them, but he has refused to put a spoke in the wheel of those who speak for his country. Rockefeller and Mccarthy are not given to simllar restraint.

21635 TOURISTS SHOULD RETURN TO

WASHINGTON

HON. DONALD M. FRASER OF MINNESOTA



Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to plead for a return to normal of Washington's tourist trade, which has fallen off grievously in recent months but is now showing strong signs of recovering.

The reasons for the decline were obvious. In March, following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, serious disorders broke out in a few spots in the District of Columbia. For nearly 2 months, starting in April and continuing into June, several thousand poor people from all over the land occupied the plywood shacks of Resurrection City, near the Lincoln Memorial.

Accompanying both of these eventsthe disorders and the Poor People's Campaign-were large amounts of nationwide newspaper, television, and radio publicity. The events probably received more coverage than they would have received anywhere else simply because they occurred in the Nation's Capital. I remember particularly vividly the stark photograph of a soldier, ri:fie at the ready, standing on the steps of the Capitol, that appeared on front pages across the country. Such publicity could hardly have anything except a discouraging effect on the city's tourist industry.

It is unfortunate that much of the publicity, focusing as it did on the con:fiicts and the violence, distorted the true picture. How to tell the American public that the March disorders lasted only a few days and were confined to relatively few blocks of the city? How to convince the public that the great majority of the Poor People's Campaigners behaved legally and with dignity? These were sides of the stories that went untold. Mayor Walter Washington put it well:

Some of the rumors you hear about this <:ity have been so distorted and blown out of proportion that the results would be almost humorous if they weren't so serious.

But the damage was done, and it took a frightful' toll. By mid-June, the decline in Washington's convention and tourist business had reached a stunning total of about $50 million. The loss of visitor income for 1968 is projected at a minimum of 25 percent, which could cost the city between $5 million and $6 million in direct tax revenue unless there is a dramatic upswing.

I could quote many other :figures to illustrate the extent of the damage, but I do not think the use of discouraging statistics would serve a helpful purpose. The encouraging fact is that Washington is on its way back to normal. Clarence A. Arata, Executive Director of the city's Convention and Visitors Bureau, said it this way recently:

Tour groups, and individual tourists who had been staying away from Washington, are now returning. Conventions, which had never diminished appreciably, are being held with regularity. Of significance is the fact that women's groups, particularly, are holding their conventions successfully and with even better than average attendance ...

21636 There 1s a. rea.l singleness of purpose evi

dent now in Washington-that is to make the city again a.s attractive to tourists and conventions as ever. In this effort the Mayor, his deputies, the police department and the merchants, hotel operators, restaurateurs and the Convention and Visitors Bureau are all more mindful than ever of the comfort, safety and convenience of our visitors.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the responsibility of every Member of Congress to tell his constituents the true facts about the Distliict of Columbia. These facts are not all pleasant; like all major cities, Washington has its problems, such as a rising clime rate. But the truth is that it is safe for citizens to walk the streets in most sections of the District.

Every American should visit his Nation's Capital, with its beautiful museums, shrines, and parks. There is no greater tourist attraction in the United States, and no city offers the tourist more to see and do. This is the story we should be spreading.

THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO CENTRAL AMERICA

HON. HENRY B. GONZALEZ OJ' TEXAS



Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish to share an article with my colleagues which quite aptly describes President J'ohnson's recent trip to Central America and the impaet he made. The translated -article written by Ma-nolo Reyes in the Diario Las Americas in Spanish on July 14, 1968, is as follows:

On his recent trip to Central America, "the President o! the United States combined the personality of a statesman with his great huma.ni ta.r1an cl::lua..ctet'.

In various soenes filmed especially for Cba.n.Ilel 4 by our colleagues in El Salvador, we see the ftve President of: El Salvador, Oo6ta Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala reunited at the historic meeting tha-t took pla.oe on July 5. There, a Joint Declaration was signed by the ftve Central American Presidents and President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The Ch1ef Representative o! this nation reiterated his support for the integration of Latin Amer'ica and Central Amer1ca, manifesting his admiration !or the advancements a.ttadned by Central America. President Johnson also manifested a special interest in the proposal to establish a stabilizing monetary fund in Central America.

Finally, President Johnson promised the continued support of the United States in the integration process o! Central America, acknowledging that to overcome the problems ·tndicated by the Presidents o! Central America requires not only sustained internal etforts but significant levels of external assistance as well. Lastly, ·as President Johnson departed from the conference palace having terminated his role of a statesman and Chief Representative o! this leading nation o! the world, President Johnson showed his great human character.

In these scenes, also filmed especially in El Salvador !or our program "News en Eapanol," we see President Johnson in a sport shirt, accompanied by the First Lady, his daughter, and his host, the President of El Salvador, Fidel Sanchez Hernandez and his wife, Mrs. Marina de Sanchez Hernandez ••. Conversing in a jovial tone and a

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS friendly smile, just like an ordinary citizeJ;t, the President of the United States visited the bathing resort "LOs Chorros" (The Gushers) which is 20 kilometers from the capitol, San Salvador. Los Chorros is a beautiful tourist attraction in El Salvador. President Johnson spent an afternoon of rest after his tremendous responsibiilties. In all his appearances in El Salvador, in schools and public squares, President Johnson asserted himself because of his personality and natural manner. From this international observers will understand that President Johnson's trip to Central America was a resounding success because there lt left evidence of the President's statesmanship and naturalness that won the affection of the People of Central America.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROTECTED IN RIOT REINSURANCE MEASURE

HON. WILLIAMS. MOORHEAD OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, an editorial in yesterday's Washington Evening Star paid just and highly deserved tribute to our distinguished colleague from New Jersey, the Honorable EDWARD J. PATTEN. It was he who had the foresight to offer as an amendment to the riot reinsurance title of the housing- bill legislation authorizing the District of Columbia to take full advantage of the provisions of that title. If the gentleman from New Jersey had not taken the initiative, District homeowners and businessmen would have had less assurance of receiving the benefits of the reinsurance title.

I applaud our colleague, and wish to assure him that the House conferees on the housing bill will do their best to persuade the Senate conferees to accede to his amendment, which has great merit.

Very simply put, the amendment empowers the District of Columbia to require its licensed insurance companies to organize a mandatory pool for property insurance if the voluntary FAIR plans authorized by the riot reinsurance title does not do the job of providing basic property insurance protection to all District homeowners and businessmen with insurable property.

The amendment also allows the District to assess its licensed companies for the District's portion of the riot losssharing contemplated in the national reinsurance program.

Under leave to extend my remarks, I insert the editorial from the Evening Star at this point in the RECORD, and commend it to the attention of my colleagues:

RIOT INSURANCE

The residents and businessmen of the District owe a tidy debt to Representative Edward J. Patten of New Jersey. It was Representative Patten who last week successfully attached an amendment to the administration's omnibus housing b1ll, enabling the District to take advantage of a federal reinsurance program permitting the government to underwrite part of major casualty losses in riot areas.

Representative Patten's timing could not have been better. The last several weeks have

July 16, 1968 seen a real crisis develop here, with a. mounting rate of cancellations and refusals to renew. It has become increasingly apparent that for this city to keep functioning, let alone rebuild its shattered sections, the federal reinsurance, or pooling, program would have to be approved. But tne enabling legislation for the Distriot also is vital. Although a bill to this effect, sponsored by Senator Joseph D. Tydings of Maryland, was moving smoothly through the Senate, it had begun to look as though the House District Com.:. mittee would let the proposal languish until Congress adjourned. The Patten amendment, identical to the Tydings b111, eliminated the need for committee action.

Although a big step forward, this doesn't mean that the District and other big-city insurance problems are solved. In the first place, the legislation now goes to a conference committee. It is essential that the District enabling provision be kept in the measure. Moreover, the final version of the legislation should re:fiect the Senate version in not putting a ce111ng on the federal government's last-resort involvement in the insurance pool. The $150 m1llion ceiling set by the House should be removed.

A final resolution of the problem will depend on the determination o! District insurance oftlcials and the private insurers to make the federal program work, and to provide fair access to property insurance for all who need it.

A NATIONAL NEED: A REAL GUN CONTROL BILL

HON. BERTRAM L. PODEtL OJ' NEW YORK



Mr. PODELL. Mr. Speaker, unhappily I am constrained once again to report another death by rifie fire 1n my city, on Monday, July 15, 1968, in Manhattan's Lower East Side. This time the victim was a young bride of 3 weeks, 23 years of age. I know that our hearts are filled with deepest sympathy for the bereaved husband, so recently a ·groom and so suddenly a widower.

Yet this is not a time to weep, nor a time to mourn. The dead must be buried. But let us pray that we do not inter with the dead, the fervent hopes of our people for an end to this carnage by effective gun legislation.

The character of the gun law we pass is no longer the critical center of the gun law controversy. The Congress has for so many years stalled on this . issue that we are now confronted with a crisis in confidence, a crisis f}S to whether the democratic process continues to respond to the needs of the people. Certainly the people of our Nation will not tolerate a Congress which has so fully acquired .an organic quality of its own, that it can breathe, live, and act without regard to the wishes of the people they are sworn to represent. Nor are our people disposed to substitute a goverrurtentt for lobbyists in place of the government for the people.

The life of a nation, as with all living things, is one 'of constant change. We are living · in a period of ferment, in our own Nation and ih every country in the world. The tides of change are even eroding the monolithic structure of the Communist world. We can channel these tides inte constructive courses, or be en-

July 1.6, 1-968 gulfed by them and pulled by the undertow into directions uncharted and toward objectives unknown. This then is the challenge of gun control legislation: whether the future of our Nation is to be circumscribed by obsolete interests too long vested, or move forward into the futur~ in safety and security.

The people killed by gunfire in my city during the past 2 weeks, the tragic victims of gunfire In other cities, towns, and villages of our Nation, were anonymous people, with their tragic deaths earning a momentary newspaper headline. Yet to their families, to their parents and children, to their husbands and wives, these victims were their universe. And with their death, these universes exploded beyond repair.

This then is the time for resolution; the time for dedication. Let us not wait until another President of the United States is assassinated. Let us not wait until another U.S. Senator is assassinated. Let us not wait until another Nobellam:eate is assassinated. Let us do now what we should have done years ago. Let us pass a law for gun registration and licensing. Let us put an end to that part of an America which serves as a dumping ground for unwanted weapons by merchants of death throughout the world. Let us demonstrate to our people, to our constituents that we represent them with concern and with honor.

SOLID ARGUMENTS FOR GUN CONTROLS

HON. RICHARD D. McCARTHY OF .NEW YORX

IN THB HOUSE O.P REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday_, July 16, 1968

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr . .Speaker, the distinguished journalist, Robert G. Spivack, writing in the Denver Post, has incisively analyzed the problem of gun-control legislation. He points out that:

This nation has been in a state of emotional -turmoil for much too long. Some of the emotion has been artificially stimulated, some has welled up from the deepest anxiety.

However, he goes on to say that: There comes a point at which each of us

must make a decision where a national policy 1s involved. It was .altogether proper that the "Congress, as well as the rest of us, listen attentively as the National Ri:fle Association and its opposition groups, such as the Emergency Committee for Gun Control, headed by Col. John H. Glenn, Jr., present their arguments.

We have heard them all now and we have also heard from the President. There has been ample time for each side to present its case.

After reviewing both sides of the arguments, Mr. Spivack oomes down soundly on the side of effective gun-control legislation. In his own words:

What it bolls oown to is simply a matter of common sense. Where guns are easily accessible people are going to get them. as they have. There are appr<>xima.tely 100,000,000 in this oountry today, owned by individual citizens.

In tb.ose parts of the country where gun. CXIV--1363-Part 16

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS are most easily obtained the murder rate is 200 to 300 percent higher than it is in cities or states where regulations are more stringent.

Mr. Spivack acknowledges that it is men, not weapons, that commit murder:

But common sense tells us that a killer whether he is in a blind rage or a hardened criminal, is less likely to commit murder if his own life is endangered, as it is when a knife, or other instrument is used. Then the killer comes closer, physically, to his victim. That _increases the risk to himself.

With permissiJn I insert in the RECORD this thoughtful analysis of the gun-control problem:

WE SHOULD PASS GUN CONTROL Bn.LS (By Robert G. Spivack)

WABHINGTON.-The argument has been made by Sen. Eugene McCarthy and other thoughtful men that it is unwise to enact any legislation under "panic" conditions or in response to great emotional pressure.

This is a view that is widely shared. Where legislative procedures are concerned it is sound policy. It is for that reason, despite urging from many quarters, that I have deferred expressing my own views in the current debate over gun control legislation.

This nation has been in a state of emotional turmoil for much too long. Some of the emotion has been artificially stimulated, some has welled up from deepest anxiety. It has been of two kinds.

After the big city riots all of us have heard, even from the mildest people we know, the comment that, "one more riot and I'm going out to get me a gun, for self-protection."

At the same time, after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, we have all heard people say, "What's happening to this country? Any nut can get ·a gun and kill anybody he does not like. Isn't

• there any way to protect men like Kennedy and King, or prevent such tragedies?"

Very often the same people expressed both sentiments. Neither is difil.cult to understand.

But there comes a point at which each of us must make a decision where a national policy is involved. It was altogether proper that the Congress, as well as the rest of us, listen attentively as the National Ri:fle Assn. and its opposition groups, such as the Emergency Committee for Gun Control, headed by Col. John H. Glenn Jr., present their arguments.

We have heard them all now and we have also heard from the President. There has been ample time for each side to present its case.

As I review the evidence and examine the facts, it seems to me that the National Ri:fle Assn. has lost the argument. This is not a conclusion based on any sense of panic. Nordo I buy the a1·guments that America is a ''sick society, .. or that Americans are more violent than the Red Chinese, the North Vietnamese Communists or other "peace-loving" people.

Nor d<> I believe that every sportsman is a cold-blooded killer, any more than every S\P"geopis, at heart, a butcher.

What it boils down to is simply a matter of common sense. Where guns are easily accessible people are going to get them, as they have. There are approximately 100,000,000 in this country today, owned by individual citizens.

In those parts of the country where guns are most easily obtained the murder rate is 200 to 300 per cent higher than lt is in cities or states where regulations are more stringent.

The argument has been made that it is the man, not the weapon, that does the killing. We know there are far more murders committed. on impulse than are premeclltated. But common sense tells us that a kllle.r, whether he 1s In a bllnd rage or a hardened.

21637 criminal, ls less likely to commit murder if his own life is endangered, as lt is when a knife, or other instrument, ts used. Then the ktller comes closer, physically, to his victim. That increases the risk to himself.

What does the present situation require? The minimum in the present circumstances, it seems to me, would be these three points: (1) registration of all guns owned or possessed by anyone other than law enforcement officers. or members of properly constituted m1litary forces (2) licensing of all persons who o.wn or use guns (3) a ban on mall-order gun sales.

Postmaster-General Marvin Watson has already ordered that guns being -shipped through the malls be properly identified, an important first step towards bringing the traffic in guns under control.

But 1f disarmament among nations is imperative it is equally important within the natio.n. The objective is the same, to cut down violence from whatever source it springs.

THE ABE FORTAS PREJUDICECOMMUNISM

HON. JOHN R. RARICK OJ' LOUISIANA



Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the testimony of Marx Lewis, chairman of the Council Against Communist Aggression on . the Fortas confirmation be here placed in the RECORD for all to read.: TESTIMONY OF MARX LEWIS, CHAIRMAN' OF THE

COUNCU. AGAINST COMMUNIST AGGRESSION, ON THE NOMINATION OF HoN. ABE FORTAS AS CHIEF JUSTICE OJ' THE 'UNITED STATES, SENATE JUDICIARY CoMMITTEE, JULY 11, 1968 I appreciate this opportunity to appear

before your committee. My name is Marx Lewis and I am the Chairman of The Council Against Communist Aggression. The Council is a non-partisan, non-profit organization organized in 1951 ~t a conference called by Sal B. Hoffman, president of the Upholsterers International Union. The Council is supported by both liberals and conservatives who believe that the communist movement poses a grave danger to free institutions in this country ·and abroad. Its activities are designed to alert people to this danger, to strengthen our national security measures and to augment our will and capacity toresist communist aggression everywhere by all feasible means.

We believe that the elevation of Mr. Justice Abe Fortas to the position of Chief Justice of the United States should be viewed by the Senate in the light of its impact on our ab111ty to defend our institutions against communist subversion. Let me say at the outset that I am not questioning the loyalty, patriotism, or legal competence of Justice Fortas. I know nothing about him except what has appeared in the public record. That record is not adequate to justify any firm judgment on my part. I presume that the members of this committee have examined and evaluated all the public and confidential material bearing on these aspects of Mr. Fortas qualifications for an oftlce of trust. I am sure that it is understood by every member of this committee tha.t the fact that a man has achieved great prominence and has won the confidence of important people is no substitute for ea.re!ul consideration prior to his aseum.ing any position of trust with the government.

The committee also knows that the public record does reveal that Mr. Fortas was associated. in his earlier years with several communist-front organizations and that those years covered a period when it was VM'J com-

21638 mon for American intellectuals to succumb to Marxist ideas and to become involved in communist activities in varying degrees. There is nothing in the public record which shows clearly whether Mr. Fortas was one of thooe who subscribed to the communist philosophy or whether he differed strongly with those about him who were known to have a Marxist bent. All the public knows is that Mr. Fortas had some association with four groups that have been designated as communistfronts. Some might conclude from this that he probably had views during the period that he was associated with those groups that were not hostile to the communists. It would no doubt clear the air and set minds at ease if the committee would elicit for the public record a clear statement from Mr. Fortas about his attitudes to.ward communism in this early period of his career and the subsequent changes, if any, in his thinking. I cannot imagine that Mr. Fortas would have any objections to this, since he himself argued in one of his early legal cases that it was more important to examine the known beliefs and attitudes of a government employee than to examine only his associations in resolving questions about security.

Those who have impugned Mr. Fortas' loyalty on the basis of his past associations would no doubt resolve their doubts if this committee were to establish that in the 1930's Mr. Fortas was known to be a vigorous critic of Stalin's brutal forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture, of the show trials and the bloody purge of 1937-38, of the Hitler-Stalin pact, and the Soviet invasion of Finland. They could hardly continue to question Mr. Fortas' opposition to totalitarianism of the Committee could establish the fact that Mr. Fortas was not one of those who favored turning Eastern Europe over to the tender mercies of Stalin and that he did not agree with those who argued in 1945 that we should share our atomic bomb secrets with the Soviet Union. They would be relieved to learn that he never believed Mao-Tse-tung to be merely an agrarian reformer, if that is the case.

i suggest that these hearings could serve a very useful purpose in setting the minds of the doubters at rest if they would put in the public record the views that Mr. Fortas held on these and other important issues that would demonstrate clearly that he was never a Marxist-Leninist or a follower of the party line.

My objection to Justice Fortas' confirmation does not rest upon any doubts about his past associations or beliefs. It rests entirely upon the fact that Mr. Fortas has long been in the forefront of the battle to weaken the defenses our government has erected to protect this country against communist subversion. Mr. Fortas has been a vigorous opponent of the government's loyalty and security programs since they were instituted 1n the Truman administration. His views were outlined in considerable detail in an article he wrote for the Atlantic Monthly in August 1953. After severely criticizing the loyalty program, he advanced a proposal for certain reforms which would have virtually destroyed the program as a means of screening out security risks.

For example, he suggested that no eulployee should be subjected to a loyalty hearing unless there was reason to believe that the employee had engaged in activities inimical to the United States within the last three or five years. Anyone familiar with the way in which the communists operate knows that this is completely unrealistic. Consider, for example, the fact that the only evidence that pointed to the communist ties of the notorious Soviet agent, Harold "Kim" Philby was his communist activity during his student days at Cambridge. He carried on a successful masquerade for over three decades, all the time doing his own country and ours tremendous damage. None of the actions

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS inimical to his own country were ca.rried out in the open, of course. It should have been clear to Mr. Fortas in 1953 that the screening rules he proposed would have been completely ineffective· against such dangerous Soviet agents as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and Laughlin Currie, whose treachery was still very fresh in everyone's mind.

Mr. Fortas also proposed excluding from consideration in loyalty hearings any involvement in communist-front organizations prior to the time when they were officially designated as front organizations. He would have made an exception from this exclusion for those who appeared to have been a part of the communist control apparatus of the front, but Mr. Fortas strains our credulity in suggesting that until the Attorney-General officially applied the red label to the front groups only the communists knew that they were communist fronts. The adoption of a rule of this type would have provided an escape for many an individual who knowingly cooperated with the communists during the period before the front groups were officially so labeled by the Attorney-GeneraL This would have badly weakene~ the security program.

Mr. Fortas made a number of other suggestions that would have greatly hampered the weeding out of security risks from government employment had they been adopted. He implicitly took the position that it was better for the government to err on the side of employing security risks than to err on the side of safeguarding our national security.

Fortunately neither Congress nor the Executive Branch agreed with Mr. Fortas in this stand. Our government has consistently held that national security considerations must take precedence over the rights to government emp~oyment of those individuals whose record of association and beliefs provides good reason to suspect that they may not be completely loyal to the United States.

Unfortunately, the Judicial Branch of the government has demonstrated both the will and the power to override the other two branches of government in this matter. The Supreme Court has taken the lead in emasculating and nullifying laws passed by Con-

. gress that were designed to safeguard this nation against subversion by the agents of the Soviet Union. Since his elevation to the Supreme Court Mr. Fortas has clearly demonstrated that his opposition to effective safeguards a.gainst subversion remains as strong as ever.

This was demonstrated by his concurrence in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Warren in United States v. Robel last year. This opinion found that Congress had acted unconstitutionally in making it illegal for members of the Communist Party to work in designated defense plants. The opinion denied that the government had any right to invoke its "war power" or the "concept of national defense" to safeguard our vital defense plants from infiltration by known members of the communist conspiracy as had been done by the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950. The Court found a new and previously undiscovered right in the First Amendmen~the right of association, Justice Fortas and the four other members of the Court who joined in this opinion equated the protection of this new found right to the defense of the nation itseiT. They said "It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense,· we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties--the freedom of association-which makes the defense pf the Nation worthwhile." The Court-and Justice Forta.sspecifically rejected the suggestion that it f!hould balance the interests of the government in safeguarding our security against "the First Amendment rights asserted by the appellee." The Court said, "We deem it inappropriate for this Court to label one as

July 16, 1968 being n1ore important or more substantial than the other."

This must be one of the most shocking utterances ever to come from any Court. What it means is that the Court denies to the government the basic right of defense against those who associate together, under the control and direction of a foreign power, for the purpose of overthrowing our free institutions. In the view of Justice Fortas and four of his colleagues on the Supreme Court the right to associate to conspire against the government actually takes precedence over national security, since the Court found for the appellee. Those who understand the nature of the communist conspiracy and its objectives have found the Court's reasoning in Robel beyond all comprehension. Justice White wrote a stinging dissent in which he gave an excellent description of the communist conspiracy and the reason we must defend ourselves against it. He said:

"The national interest asserted by the Congress is real and substantial. After years of study, Congress prefaced the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 ••• with its findings that there exists an international Communist movement which by treachery, deceit, espionage, and sabotage seeks to overthrow existing governments; that the movement operates in this country through Communist-action organizations which are under foreign domination and control and which seek to overthrow the Government by any necessary means, including force and violence; that the Communist movement in the United States is made up of thousands of adherents, rigidly disciplined, operating in secrecy, and employing espionage and sabo- , tage tactics in form and manner evasive of existing laws. Congress therefore, among other things, defined the characteristics of Communist-action organizations, provided for their adjudication by the SACB, and decided that the security of the United States required the exclusion of Communist-action

·organization members from employment in certain defense facl1lties."

Justice White noted that there was no question but that the Communist Party was a Communist-action organization within the meaning of the Act, meeting all the criteria described above. He also observed that the Supreme Court itself had accepted the findings of Congress that the Communist Party posed a threat "not only to existing government in the United States, but to the Uni~ States as a sovereign, independent nation."

It was not at all clear to Justices White and Harlan, who joined in his dissent, why the Constitution should be interpreted as giving priority to the rights of association of conspirators over the rights of all of the rest of us to protect ourselves against their freedomphobic conspiracy. If in the name of national defense the government can ask our fine patriotic young men to give up their lives, why can it not ask a participant in a foreign-controlled conspiracy against the United States to give up the privilege of working in one of our vital defense plants?

The Robel decision opens the door for the infiltration of communist saboteurs and agitators into our vital industries. This is bad enough, but it portends an even more dangerous development. It is certain that before long the Supreme Court w111 be asked to rule on the right of the government to bar the employment of communists by the government itself. With Robel as a precedent it seems highly likely that a Court headed by Chief Justice Fortas will find that the government has no right to refuse to hire communist party members. And if members of the Communist Party itself are ruled eligible for government employment, loyalty as a test of eligib111ty for government employment w111 become a dead letter. Our government's defense against penetration by Soviet agents and sympathizers will be even

July 16, 1968 more completely emasculated than ·they would have been by the hamstringing changes suggested by Mr. Fortas back in 1953. The doors will have to be opened to the secret party members such as Alger H1ss and to the open party members aJJ.k.e. We will again find ourselves as wide open to espionage and subversion as we were in the days when Hiss, White, Currie, Witt, Pressman, et, al, were able to wheel and deal on Moscow's behalf with complete impunity.

The Robel opinion in which Justice Fortas concurred did suggest that it might be permissible under the Constitution to exclude some communists from some types of employment. It drew a distinction between "active" and. "passive" members of .the Communist Party. In concurring in the drawing of this distinction Justice .Fortas does not enhance our respect for either his legal logic or his perspicuity .. Jf not his honesty. The implication is that there are members of the Communist Party who are sufficiently dangerous to our national security that the government may be justified in overriding 'the Constitutional rights guaranteed by Robel and may legally exclude them from employment in certain defense plants. The Court in taking this position seems to be saying that national security considerations can take precedence over freedom of association provided the threat to national security is demonstrable to the satisfaction of the Court. Justice White pointed out that the Court apparently wished to arrogate to itself the right to determine which members of the communist conspiracy were sufficiently dangerous that they might be denied one of their purported Constitutional rights. We may infer from this that Justice Fortas and his colleagues did not object to the ,Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 l;>ecause it infringed upon a previously unknown constitutional right in making the employment of -communists in defense plants illegal. They imply that they would be willing to accept such a restriction in the case of certain party members. Their real objection to the act, therefore, is that it presumes that all Communist Party members pose a danger to our national security it employed in strategic industries or positions. The Court employed a specious constitutional argument in order to nullify the judgment Congress had made about the significance of membership in the Communist Party.

As Justice White pointed out, Congress after long and. careful study decided that the members of the Communist Party were potentially dangerous. This was no casual "seat of the pants" judgment. Those who have studied the Communist Party know that there is no such thing as an "inactive" or "passive" party member unless he has taken that status on orders from the party. They know that the most dangerous participants in the communist conspiracy are the so-called "sleepers" who seem to be inactive or without ties to the party but who may do extremely valuable work covertly and who may be summoned to more active or more open duty whenever it is to the advantage of the party.

When :five justices of the Supreme Court suggest that these "passive" mem.bers of the Communist Party are benign, innocent individuals who pose no JX>tential threat to our national .security, we can only conclude that these justices are uninformed and. naive. However, it is very diffi.cult to conceive of Justice Fortas being uninformed and naive in this area. He has been able to observe the machinations of the communists at close range since he entered government service in 1933. He was personally .acquainted with the most dangerous "passive" communists who penetrated our government. When they were exposed he must either have been shocked to discover what they had done, or he must have had sufficient knowledge of

EXTENSIONS- OF -REMARKS communist methods . to know tlbat those who appear benign can actu:a.lly be very deadly. He undertook the defense of a number of government employees accused of havtn~r eommunlst connections 1n 'the late 1940's and early 1950's. 'Knowing him to be a. thor• ough lawyer, we may assume that he undertook to inform himself about the nature of the communist movement in connection with these cases.

I :find it difficult to believe that Justice Fortas really thinks that a "passive" member of the communist conspiracy is less dangerous to our national security than an active party member. I would think that since he has seen the great damage that "passive" communists can do from an unusually gOOd vantage point he would ;oo in the forefront of those warning the nation of the danger posed by covert members of the party and seemingly harmless fellow travelers. I am at a loss to understand how Justice Fortas can ooneur in a decision of the court that is predicated upon a proposition that 1s demonstrably false. This committee should explore this question with Justice Portas and discover, if possible, whether Justice Fortas, despite all his experience, iS truly ignorant of the dangerous fallacy in· volved in trying to assign degrees of dangerousness to communists depending upon the intensity of their activity. If Justice Fortas professes ignorance in this area, we will be forced to conclude that his learning ability has been g!l.'eatly exaggerated. On the other hand, if he Tecognizes the fallacy, he must be asked to explain why he concurred in the Robel opinion predicated upon it.

Justice Fortas in concurring in the RobeZ opinion gives us clear notice that he still favors the hamstringing of the government's internal security program. This process has already been far advanced by the Suprem.e Court, and there seems to be no reason to doubt that Mr. Fortas would use the ofllce of Chief Justice to .advance it srtlll further. The confirmation of Mr. Fortas to that post would be tantamount to a vote for judicial repeal of laws that are absolutely vital to our national security. It would be tantamount to saying that the Senate agrees With Justice Fortas that tt is more .important to protect the right of a few to take part in a foreign-controlled conspiracy to destroy our Uberties th:an it Is to protect ourselves against that conspiracy.

I am sure that there is not a Blngle member of the United States Senate who would want to run for election on such a platform. The American people do not agree with Justice Fortas and his four colleagues that the Constitution requires them to disarm this country in the battle against Soviet subversion. Since the Constitution does not require that Justice Fortas and his colleagues be responsive to the wishes of the electorate, the people must of necessity look to the Sen~ ate to speak for them in this matter of vital national interest. I am sure that if the vast public were informed of the vital issues at stake they would demand overwhelmingly that you recommend against con:firmation of Justice Abe Fortas for the office of Chief Justice.

INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT JOIN IN AGRICULTURAL BREAKTHROUGH

HON. JOHN J. McFALL OF CALIFORNIA


Mr. McFALL. Mr. Speaker, recently I learned the qetails of a truly remarkable accomplishment which clearly demonstrated that seemingly impossible problems can be solved when attacked by the

21639 combined resources of private industry and. Government, using the techniques of modem science. I want to relate the highlig~ts of this story to my colleagues, knowing they will share my admiration of and join me in paying tribute to those who played important roles in the drama.

The story begins back in 1953 when the advisory board administering a California State marketing order covering large Lima beans found that despite its costly promotion campaign financed by growers through self-imposed assessments, the per capita conswnption of dry Limas was steadily declining,

To determine the reasons for this decline, the board financed a scientific consumer .study which removed all doubt as to why American housewives were buying and cooking not only fewer dry Limas but fewer dry beans of all varieties. In summary, the consumer panel said:

Beans take too long to prepare and cook and they are difficult for many people to digest without discomfort.

USE ADMIRABLE JUDGMENT

With admirable business judgment, this board of bean farmers and handlers decided to stop wasting its money promoting a commodity which is Ul :etted to the hurried habits and sedentary occupations of modern life. They turned their attention and funds to modernizing their product, sponsoring research to make their bean quick to cook and easy to digest.

They took their problems to food scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of California. Both institutions agreed that a long and costly program of research offered the only hope, and even then, they_ could not assure success.

The two organizations offered to work on the problem using existing facilities and personnel, but they warned that results would be a long time coming without additional funds to hire full-time technicians and purchase any special equipment that might be needed.

In 1956, after agreement that the quick-cooking problem should be tackled first and approached from two angles, the advisory board offered to make grants-in-aid to cover costs of accelerating the effort. One phase, working on the idea of precooking, got underway at the University of california campus at Davis, the other, based on treating the raw bean to improve cookability, was begun at the USDA laboratories in Albany and Pasadena, Calif.

Mter basic research to determine bean constituents, it became apparent that the problems of oookability and digestibility were related and that the solution involved work on all varieties of dry beans, not just Limas. More money was needed than the growers could provide so the National Dry Bean Council asked the Department of Agriculture administractors to help. The Department requested and Congress approved appropriations to begin investigating the difficult problem of digestibllity and to relate the work to other varieties of beans.

VISrr AT OFFICE

A few weeks ago, two gentlemen from my home State, Gordon Monfort, man-

21640 ager of the· California Lima Bean Advisory Board, and Dr. Louis B. Rockland, research chemist at the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Chemistry Laboratory in Pasadena, called at my omce. They advised· me of two amazing quick-cooking dry bean products and also described a new process of preparation which restaurants and other institutional feeding kitchens can use to cut dry bean cooking time from about an hour to only 10 minutes. This method was actually developed at the request of school lunch program nutritionists to solve the problem of limited range space and time in thousands of small school kitchens throughout the Nation who must prepare nutritious, hot, low-cost lunches with a small staff in a. short period.

One of the new products is a redried bean which cooks in about 30 minutes. The other, a. processed frozen bean, cooks in 5 minutes. Neither bean needs any presoaking and the :flavor, appearance, and texture of both are superior to the unprocessed bean prepared the old-fashioned way with a long soak and cooking time.

They also told the background of this exciting story and, perhaps most important of all, Dr. Rockland told me of a promising series of experiments he and his fellow scientists at Pasadena and Albany are conducting which may point the way to a solution of the digestibility problem.

I am sure all of my colleagues, whether they represent rural or urban areas, share my enthusiasm over this achievement because the real benefactors of this research team effort are the consumers-the homemakers, the restaurant and hotel people, the dietitians of our school lunch program, hospitals and other institutions, and the subsistence divisiox:s of our Armed Forces--all of whom will be able to save valuable time and fuel through the use of these new beans.

PAY DESERVING TRIBUTE

One of my· purposes in relating this story today is to pay official tribute to the many individuals and organizations who have played a vital role in the 14-year drama.

First, of course, are the dry Lima bean growers of California who saw the problem, asked for help in solving it, and have put more than $250,000 of their own money into the research. The present chairman of this group is John S. Cox, a farmer in my district.

The remaining members of the team deserve equal credit and at the risk of omitting other deserving individuals I want to name some of the key administrators, scientists, and financial contributors.

They include our colleague, Chairman JAMIE L. WHITTEN, and members Of his House Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, whose confidence kept funds forthcoming when the road to success seemed blocked with insurmmmtable barriers. Credit also should go to Congressman WHITTEN's counterpart in the U.S. Senate, Senator SPESSARD ·L. HoLLAND, and his subcommittee members who shared this confidence. They provided support of the other House for the appropriations.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS·

In the U.S. Department of Agriculture many persons made major contributi~ns. Leader of the project is, of course, Dr. George W. Irving, Jr., Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service, aided by members of his administrative staff. In the West, Dr. M. J. Copley, Director of the Western Regional Laboratory, took personal charge_of the project and assigned many of his top staff members to the work. Dr. E. A. Beavens and Dr. Louis Rockland of the Pasadena Laboratory deserve special credit for their direction and supervision of the Bean Board personnel. They have worked continuously on the project since 1956 and the public patents on the quick-cooking beans name Dr. Rockland and associates as the inventors.

HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

Finally, let me point out some of the problems these able people and all of us in Congress face in the future. We share the tremendous responsibility of developing world resources to feed exploding populations. In just a few short years our problems of agricultural surplus will give way to a greater problem of producing the nourishment which the world's people.: must extract from an ever-dwindling acreage of productive soils.

A key weapon in this war on hunger and poverty, in my estimation and that of leading demographers and nutritionists, will be the humble bean, rich in lowcost protein and energy-giving carbohydrates. Scientists tell me there are many ways it can be improved by continuing research. In addition to the work now gC'ing on to make it acceptable to everyone digestively, science can improve the nutritive value of its protein and other constituents, can develop improved seed which will produce more sacks to the acre, have drought and disease resistance, and grow successfully in climates and soils where present varieties fail to produce.

May I conclude with this reminder? Agricultural research is a major weapon in the war against hunger-a factor in world survival-a function which must be continuous and vigorous to meet the ever-changing needs of the world.

I hope this outstanding example of what agricultural research can accomplish will remain in our memory as ~ reminder of our responsibility to see that this essential tool never suffers from lack of attention and support.

POSTAL BILLS

HON. ROBERT N. C. NIX OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. NIX. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced five bills at the request of the Post Office Department. These measures are, as I understand it, noncontroversial and of a housekeeping nature. On Thursday, July 25, my Subcommittee on Postal Operations will ask that witnesses from the Post Office Department appear and discuss these bills.

July 16, 1968

Although it is late in the session, we. will be able to have the bills printed and studied and a hearing record. Interested parties can study the measures between the sessions of Congress and these items could be our first order of business during the next session.

A REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE 90TH CONGRESS

HON. WILLIAMS. BROOMFIELD OF :MICHIGAN


Tuesday, July 16, 1968 Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, as

the work of the 90th Congress nears completion, I have attempted to summarize some of its major accomplishments and indicate areas where further legislative efforts are needed in a report to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Michigan. That report follows: THE 90TH CONGRESS REFLECTS MOODS OF THE

NATION

The record of the 90th Congress, which may be completed within the next few weeks, is a mixture reflecting the strong opinions and divided moods of the country in this year of unusual turmoil and change.

It is a record which attempts in many ways to answer that variety of moods. Congress responded to what might be described as the conservative trend in this country by passing a broad anti-crime bill which provides Federal money to help strengthen local police departments, regulates handguns for the first time, permits police wiretapping under court order and modifies some controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Congress also made an attempt, although in my view not a very successful one, at curtaiUng the size of the Federal budget and in many other areas demonstrated its desire to stabilize and consolidate following a period of sweeping change.

Congress also responded to the problems of the cities, the poor, and the menace of racial unrest. The Civil Rights Bill went further than anyone expected Congress to venture when the session began last January. The housing blll, emphasizing home ownership subsidies, low-income apartments and riot insurance for ghetto dwellers and businessmen, was one of the most far-reaching measures since the basic housing act .was passed in 1949. Congress also extended anti-poverty legislation, passed a tax incease, a truth-in-lending bill, and a pure meat law.

In some cases Congress went too far too fast and in others it did not move quickly or effectively enough. But in the broad sense, the 90th Congress was not a "do nothing" session. There is still much unfinished business. There are the problems of violence, of Vietnam, of racial tension, of the extremes of great poverty and great wealth side-byside, of pollution, of providing jobs, of slums and of ghettoes. And there is the major task of attaining a healthier, more stable atmosphere in our American life. Hopefully, some of the work of the 90th Congress will provide guidelines for developing new attitudes and outlooks for coping with those problems. WHAT CONGRESS DID ON SOME MAJOR ISSUES

Taxes.-Congress passed a 10 percent income tax surcharge along with a ceil1ng on the Federal budget, in effect requiring a $6 blllion cut in Federal spending for fiscal 1969. I opposed this measure. (See left.) the bill 1s

July 16, 1968-expected to produce an estimated $15-.6 billion in revenues before lts July .1, 1969 expiration date. The measure is retroactive to January 1, _1968 for corporations and to April 1, 1968 for about 82 million individual tax~ payers. Another 16 million persons in lower income brackets are una1Iected by the increase.

Crime.-Congress approved broad crime control legislation which I supported au-1ihorizing $400 m1llion in Federal grants over a 2-year period for planning and launching programs to strengthen local law enforcement. The money will to a great extent be administered by the states. The bill prohibits the mail order sale of handguns, permits local police agencies to engage in wiretapping for a limited period under court order, and bans all electronic eavesdropping by private citizens. It restricts the U.S. supreme Court in reviewing cases involving confessions, eye-witness testimony, and state criminal convictions on writs of habeas corpus. Additional gun control legislation is pending in both the House and Senate.

Cities.-'I'he House and Senate passed differi:--::: versions of landmark housing legislation and are now working out differences. The House bill, which I supported, authorizes $5.3 billion in Federal giants during the next three years to build 1.7 million new or rehabilitated housing units. The bill stresses private home ownership and also provides low-rent housing and rent supplements. It authorizes new programs of riot and flood insurance in which the Federal government will share losses with private insurance companies and the states.

Foreign policy.-Vietnam remained at the center of attention with the start of negotiations with North Vietnam in Paris. I fully support those e1Iorts and am ready to do anything that I can to help bring the war to an end as quickly as possible. Our foreign policy generally suffers from a lack of clearly defined goals and well thought out methods for attaining them. Future policy should place less emphasis on the use of our military power and more stress on helping the under-developed nations build their economies and social institutions so that they will be able to make their own decisions.

CONGRESS MAY LIMIT CENSUS QUESTIONS

Among other things, Uncle Sam now wants to know how many people share your bathtub, how much money you earn, and -yvhat kind of plumbing you have in your home.

The questions are part of a lengthy and complicated questionnaire proposed by the United States Census Bureau for conducting the 1970 Federal census.

The Census Bureau has a good argument to justify the need for every statistic these questions will collect. But a great many people are asking what happened to the right of individual privacy. They think it is time to draw the line against further invasions in this area by the Federal government.

That is why I have introduced legislation which would limit the Census Bureau to seven baste questions to which answers could be legally required. Those seven questions are: name and addreSs, relationship to the head of the household, sex, date of birth, marital status, race or color, and visitors in the home at the time of the census. Under the bill the Census Bureau could ask addi.: tiona! questions, but it could not require that they be answered. Similar legislation has been introduced by other Congressmen and is now pending before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee-. Hopefully, the Committee will act favorably oti it in time to affect the 1970 census.

WHY I VOTED NO ·oN THE TAX BILL

, While I am deeply concerned about the seriousness of our. fiscal crisis, I opposed the 10 percent income tax surcharge &nd Federal

EXTENSIONS -OF REMARKS

spending cut proposal because I do not believe it will resolve that _crisis.

As long as we are involved in a costly war in Vietnam and faced with urgent domestic needs, I believe we should establish a list of national priorities and deal with them in an orderly and responsible manner, just as you do your family budget. Many non-essential programs could be reduced or deferred until priority needs are met. ROYAL OAK BQY IS NATIONAL AWARD WINNER

In November 1967, 11-year-old Randy Clement of Royal Oak risked death to save the life of a 5-year-old who had stepped into the path of a speeding car.

A few weeks ago, Randy was in Washington to be honored for his heroism by Vice President Humphrey and to receive the National Lifesaver Award from the American Automobile Association.

A 5th grader at the Starr Elementary School, Randy was one of 8 Safety Patrol boys in the nation to receive the award.

Randy's courage is a great source of pride to his parents, Mr. and Mrs. George Clement, 2918 Glenview, Royal Oak, and to all of us in Oakland County.

STARVATION IN BIAFRA

HON. BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL OF NEW YORK



·Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, because I am a member of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have followed the situation in Biafra very closely. But even were I not a member of that subcommittee, I would be deeply concerned as a human being. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have already died from starvation in the year-old civil war, while the estimates of future fatalities from malnutrition have reached the fantastic figure of 1 million per month.

Every humanitarian impulse tells me that we must aid these starving people, many of whom are children. The frustrating problem is that this war is intensely political. The United States justifiably is reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries.

Since all Biafran-held territory is surrounded by Federal-held territory, the only way to give direct aid to the Biafran people would be through an airlift. The State Department, in investigating this situation, has decided that delivery of food and medical supplies by air during the rainy season to improvised airstrips would be "hazardous, costly, and insufficient by far to meet the dimensions of the famine and relief problem there." Nigeria has agreed to let supplies for Biafra travel through her territory, but the Biafran Government has vetoed any such plan, believing that acceptance would be tantamount to surrender.

Caught in the center of this political stalemate are millions of starving Biafrans, suffering from "kwasiorkor ," the Ghanian term for protein-calorie malnutrition.

I have communicated to the State Department my belief that the administration should do everything in its power to convince those bearing· responsibility

2164f to let the supplies get through to those who require them. I have also expressed my belief that American aid, whHe substantial, should be given through some international agency such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and not unilaterally. In addition, this matter should be brought to the attention of the United Nations Security Council.

Above all, as President Johnson has said, "innocent persons should not be made the victims of political maneuvering."

NORBERT LOPEZ DAY IN NEW MEXICO

HON. THOMAS G. MORRIS OF NEW MEXICO



Mr. MORRIS of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to bring to the attention of my colleagues the work of a New Mexico educator designed to accelerate student readiness for absorbing certain normally difficult concepts. Mr. Norbert C. Lopez, who is superintendent of the Espanola, N.Mex., schools, has designed this revolutionary method known as the synthetic experience approach. For the benefit of my colleagues, I am placing a description of this approach in the REcoRD at this point, as well as a proclamation of the State of New Mexico making June 6, 1968, "Norbert Lopez Day in New Mexico": THE SYNTHETIC EXPERIENCES APPROACH TO

INSTRUCTION-A NEW FOCUS ON LEARNING OPPORTUNITY

Recently developed by a New Mexico educator, the Synthetic Experience approach is a. revolutionary method designed to accelerate student readiness for absorbing certain normally difficult concepts.

Based on the observation that most abstractions require certain impressionable experiences before the abstractions can be perceived and understood, the procedure in the application of this approach is to create experiences synthetically and to pack them very close together in didactic sequence so that no room is left for confusion when the experience is projected on the learner.

Exposing the senses to this quality of experience places the learner in position to receive not only a clear amplification of the projected ideas, but also to absorb them within a small fraction of the time it might take if the required experiences would be stumbled into during a course of life. Theoretically, any normal person can attain any quality of knowledge and understanding, except that some individuals might take 200 years to undergo and assimilate the necessary experiences. Under synthetic exposure, the same individuals might assimllate the same background in 200 hours.

To give Synthetic Experiences form and a color of reality, the man who thought up the idea packs the experiences into story episodes, from which the sequence unfolds with the movement of the story. In other words, the story is written to follow a course which highlights experiences believed to contribute to the understanding of an important concept. The student undergoes the experiences vicariously (synthetically) as he enJbys ·the story, and readiness for learning sets in as a by-product.

21642 The :firs~ in a se1,1.es of children.'s stories

with "synthetic experiences" is now available to schools and experimental institutions. Fully lllustrated for maximum effect, 1t is titled King Pancho and the First Clock. It comes with a manual that explains how the story can be used to teach youngsters to tell and understand time in one or two weeks. Small sets of eight or twelve books in a classroom are sufficient for remedial or developmental instruction with special groups of children.

PROCLAMATION

Whereas, a native New Mexican has produced a book "King Pancho and the First Clock" that represents a major breakthrough in the field of Education, having developed the synthetic experiences approach to instruction; and ·

Whereas, the legendary "Pancho" has been cast in a refreshingly new role in this book, which will be a source of new pride to the cultural group traditionally associated with "Pancho"; and

Whereas, Norbert Lopez is himself a Spanish speaking American who grew up struggling against the disadvantages imposed upon a minority cultural group in the American Southwest;

Now, therefore, I, E. Lee Francis, Governor of the State of New Mexico, by the powers vested in me, do hereby proclaim June 6, 1968, as Norbert Lopez Day in New Mexico.

Done at the executive office this 16th day of May, 1968.

Witness my hand and the great seal of the State of New Mexico:

Attest:

E. LEE FRANCIS, Governor.

ERNESTINE D. EVANS, Secretary of State.

Bffil\flNGHAM'S 15TH ANNUAL INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION

HON. JOHN BUCHANAN 011' ALABAMA

IN THE HOUSE OF' REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, Birmingham's annual Independence Day celebration is always a memorable event. This year's program, however, highlighted by the presence of Lt. Gen. Jonathan 0. Seaman, commander of the U.S. 1st Anny and former commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Vietnam; sergeant major of the U.S. Army, William 0. Wooldridge and many other dignitaries was particularly outstanding.

On Wednesday evening, July 3, station WBRC-TV, sponsor of several of the principal events of the celebration, telecast a 30-minute concert in Birmingham's Fair Park, featuring the 313th U.S. Army Band, WAC Band, Sgt. Maj. W. 0. Wooldridge, and a fine speech by a Brooke Hill High School student, Miss Barbara Long ..

On July 4, a special service was held dedicating a plaque at Woodrow Wilson Park honoring the Birmingham area war dead. At this service, sponsored by the Women's Auxiliary for Patriotic Events, Mrs. Martin Lide, chairman, a plaque was unveiled of the Jefferson County soldiers who had given their lives in Vietnam. Mrs. J. Martin Smith and Mrs. Georges Bridges were cochairmen of this event.


From this service, the visiting dignitaries traveled up Birmingham's Avenue of Flags, whi.ch are erected on each patriotic occasion on all main arteries of tbe city, to station WBRC-TV for a noon flag-raising ceremony telecast atop Birmingham's Red Mountain.

Lt. Gen. Jonathan 0. Seaman was feature speaker at this inspiring event. Birmingham has maintained a special interest in this military officer since our city adopted the 1st Infantry Division in Vietnam at the time it was under his command.

General Seaman's visit was a red letter day to the people of Birmingham. The speech which he delivered was so informative and inspiring, it should be heard by all Americans. At my request, General Seaman has been kind enough to provide me with a copy of this patriotic address which is included herewith in the REcoRD and which I commend to the attention of my colleagues: INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION, JULY 4,

1968, BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

I am honored to have been invited to be with you today as you salute the Armed Forces of our United States.

As the former commander of the 1st infantry division-the big red one--I am especially pleased to Visit, for the first time, this great city of Birmingham, which in November of 1965 adopted that famous division.

Many of you win recall, I am sure, the ceremonies of that historic day when Sergeant Major Wooldridge, who was then the 1st diVision sergeant major, returned briefly from Vietnam to represent the more than 15,000 soldiers of the big red one who were fighting a cunning, wily, and fanatical enemy in the jungles and rice paddies of that far off land. Sergeant Ma.jor Wooldridge, now the sergeant major . of the United States Army, returned to his adopted city-Birminghamwith me today.

I don't think any of you citizens will ever know how much your patriotic gesture meant--and still means-to our officers and men.

Each company size unit in the division is sponsored by a civic organization. A school, or a business firm. The charitable acts this great city has performed for the Vietnamese people are legion-and run the gamut of sending clothes and soap for needy refuges to returning the little 4 year old orphan girl-Thi Mal-to Birmingham for heart surgery, without which she could not have lived.

And not the least of your welcome contributions to our e:fforts there was sending to VIetnam that famous team from the Birmingham News-Alf Van House and Tony Falletta-who stayed with the 1st diVision for several months and reported to you firsthand the true conditions of eombat In that unhappy country.

Today is the Fourth of July-the one hundred and. ninety second birthday of freedom-of liberty-of opportunity-of independence--for the American people.

As it was 192 years ago-so it is today. Birmingham's adopted sons and all our brave men in Vietnam are fighting for the ideals of freedom and Uberty and justice.

Liberty and independence can be secure only if free men resolve to draw a line against aggression and oppression-stand on that line, and hold it!

But a great tragedy has befallen our nation in recent months, and that is the lack of confidence displayed by many in our national purpose and our m111tary effort after North Vietnam's tet offensive.

There are those within our country who say that we should never have become eom-

July 16, 1968 mitted in Southeast Asia-that we have no interest in Vietnam.

But certainly every American can understand the necessity or a. ~ommitment 11 heknows that America's vital interests are seriously threatened. Perhaps this point has not been stressed sufficiently in d~scussions of our role in Vietnam.

A careful analysis clearly indicates, that not only are vital U.S. and free world interests deeply involved in Vietnam and in Southasia, but we, as a nation, have given our word that we will help to combat aggression in certain areas of Southeast Asia.

The U.S. commitment to fight in South Vietnam was made for many reasons-these involved not just Vietnam, but our policies and actions throughout the world.

U.S. national policy is the outgrowth of our experience with aggression that led to World Wars I and II.

The lessons of World War I were ignoredand our country withdrew from effective world responsibility. When aggressors challenged the peace in Manchuria, Ethiopia, and then central Europe during the 1930's, the U.S. and the rest of the world community did not act to prevent their success. The result was World War II. Had the ''uninvolved" nations intervened at the proper time, this terrible conflict might well have been avoided.

The shock of having the defeated Japanese and Nazi regimes promptly replaced by an even more virulent and aggressive Communist threat to the world, forced America into free world leadership and into the adoption of a positive national policy ot deterrence.

We are involved in Vietnam because we know from painful experience that the minimum condition for order on our planet is that aggression must not be permltted to succeed. For when it does succeed, the consequence is not peace--it is further expansion of aggression!

Those who have led our country since 1945 have not lost sight of the chilling fact that a third world war could be a nuclear war.

Th.e result of this conviction and policy has been a generation's effort which has not been easy for the United States. We have borne heavy burdens. We have had to face actual conflict, and a series of dangerous near and outright confrontations with totalitarian regimes.

But the hard and important fact is that since World War II, external aggression has not been permitted to become a general war.

You well recall that just a little over three years ago the build-up a! our combat forces in Vietnam commenced. That wu after North Vietnamese regular formations had invaded South Vietnam in considerable strength. The South Vietnamese were weary and discouraged after years of fighting, and they were, on the verge of giving up the struggle to the greatly superior force~

Since that eventual decision was made, the situation in Vietnam has continually improved. The situation is not bleak-it is not hopeless. And we are Winning the war.

But let not one of us misunderstand the en.emy's major offensive now. It is aimed directly at the citizens of the United States. It is designed to crack our will. We have the strength; we have the power-but do we have the will and the spirit to succeed? We are the aggressors real target because of what we represent.

To me. the losses that the North Vietnamese and the VietCong are su1fer1ng dally in both manpower and equipment are staggering. The actions they are taking now constitute a terrific gamble to w1n at the conference tables in Paris what they cannot win in the jungles, the rice paddles, and the cities of that far off land.

What we need more than anything else Is the confidence and understanding of our own people-and the determination and the wm and the guts to carry on this unpopular war to a BUccessful conclusion.

July 16, 1968 And now just a brief word about our

American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.

All that I know about the American serviceman convinces me that he understands the purpose beyond the war well enough not to be shaken by the clamor of protest flit home. He has seen the terror, murder and destruction inflicted on the people of South Vietnam by the Viet Cong and their aggressive allies from the north. He knows that he must persevere in his soldier's job to help the people be free of the Communist aggressor so that they can proceed with the peaceful task of building their own government as they choose.

Our men in Vietnam are performing their job magnificently. They are the finest we have ever sent into combat. They are smart and quick to learn. They are aggressive, and they fight hard and courageously. They are highly motivated, and they are proud of their contribution to the cause of freedom.

I believe that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will leave the military service with a firmer sense of their responsibility to be involved in our Nation which they have served. They know the meaning of involvement because they have been involved in sharing responsibility for defending all that our flag symbolizes to us and the world. They represent the one great hope that will pre-

. serve all that generations of Americans have preserved fur us.

Let all of us see the broader vision our President portrays when he says:

''Freedom and peace in the United States can only be secured if America remains involved in, and concerned with, the future o! human freedom throughout the world."

FIN.A:'1CIAL STRAITS FOR CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

HON. JOHN BRADEMAS OF INDIANA



Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, a most important development in American edu

. cation-the efforts of big city public · school systems to win more state financial support by resorting to the courtsis discussed in a timely article in today's Wall Street Journal, July 16, 1968. I commend to the attention of my colleagues this timely article by George A. Nikolaieff: CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, STRAPPED FOR MONEY,

ASK COURT RELIEF-8UITS CHARGE STATE FORMULAS DEPRIVE URBAN YOUNGSTERS OF EQUALITY IN ScHOOLING-OPPOSITION FROM SUBURBANITES

(By George A. Nikolaieff) DETROIT.-Big city public schools, tired of

wringing money from an overburdened property tax and grudging state legislators, are trying a. new approach-through the courts.

Their demands for more money could result in a basic reorganization of state aid to primary and secondary education, which totaled $12 billion last year. Victory for the cities "could have an impact on education comparable in its significance to the Supreme Court's 1954 decision on desegregation," says Harold Howe II, U.S. Commissioner of Education.

Suits already have been filed in two cities, Detroit and Chicago, and at least 40 other cities are closely watching the legal maneuvering. Observers say that if the cities win, state aid to suburban schools probably would suffer. Then many suburbs, already highly

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS taxed, would be forced to consider tax increases. The resulting outcry ultimately could affect Federal aid-to-education policy.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ISSUE Plaintiffs in the suits are the Detroit board

of education and a group of Chicago ghetto parents and children. The Chicagoans are getting legal help from the antipoverty program. The plaintiffs argue that existing formulas for allocating state aid ignore the needs of individual districts, perpetuate an uneven distribution of funds and therefore deprive some children of the equal opportunities promised by the 14th Amendment. They urge the courts to order the state legislatures to devise new formulas more closely attuned to the needs of individual districts.

The pupils big city districts must educate are often poor and culturally deprived. Many are members of minority groups; about 60% of the children in the Detroit district are Negro. The districts themselves must compete with other desperately needed local programs for money from the property tax base.

A study by the Carnegie Foundation shows that in the 1964-65 school year the nation's 37 largest cities had $121 per pupil less to spend than the outlying districts. Two years before the gap had been only $62 per pupil, and experts believe it is still widening. They note, for example, that in the past school year Detroit could spend only $600 per pupil, while its wealthy suburban neighbor, Grosse Pointe, spent about $900. All-Negro Willowbrook district, near Watts in Los Angeles, spent $613 per pupil, including $219 from Federal assistance funds, while plush Beverly Hills spent $1,017.

HIGHER CITY COSTS With few exceptions, school districts rely

for their support largely on a combination of local property taxes and state aid. Last year local taxes provided $15.3 billion of the $31 billion bill for primary and secondary education, state aid provided $12 billion and the rest came mainly from the Federal government. Today, "property taxes are exhausted," says Joel Cogen, assistant to the mayor of New Haven, Conn. "You can't raise them any more."

The reason, the educators say, is that other local services also supported by the property tax cost more in the core city than in the suburbs, due to big-city congestion and higher labor costs; in addition, cities usually spend more than suburbs for such things as cultural activities and transportation fac111-ties. Another Carnegie study found that in 1966 New York City residents paid $44.26 per $1,000 of tax valuation for municipal services, compared with $21.83 for four surrounding suburban counties.

Nor have urban districts been very successful when they've turned for relief 1;o the state legislatures. The Portland, Ore., district educates 17% of the state's children but gets only 12.5% of the state aid funds. In

· fact, says Melvin Barnes, district school superintendent, the district contributes more to state education funds through the income tax than the state returns to the district. Last year, after a severe shortage of funds forced the district· to cut back its budget to $44 million from $53 million, it made an allout try for state help. For the first time it sent a fulltime lobbyist to the legislature.

"We came back empty-handed," says William Bade, the district's fiscal officer, "We're getting a little less from the state this year than we did last year."

BANDING TOGETHER This spring educators in 40 "low wealth"

districts in and around Los Angeles, angry after the state legislature snubbed their individual requests, banded together to apply collective pressure in the future. The new strategy has yet to be tested.

Most state school aid formulas, including

21643 those in Michigan and Illinois, where the test suits were filed, already favor the poorer districts. For example, Detroit's state aid last year totaled $230.35 a student, while· Grosse Pointe got only $145. But the city educators say the extra aid isn't enough.

They argue that most state constitutions and the 14th Amendment require the state not just to support public schools but to treat all students equally-even if it means spending more per pupil in city schools than suburban schools for such things as special courses to improve reading and study skills. "The states assumed the responsibility for equitable public education, and they've got to pay for it,'' says Zane Cohn, attorney for the group that filed the Chicago suit.

Both the Chicago and Detroit suits attack state aid formulas based on property values within the school district. Michigan's formula is typical. It starts by allowing each district the same gross aid per pupil: $280.50. From this figure, after adjustments for various factors such as transportation costs, the state then deducts an amount based on the total property valuation in the district. Because the wealthier suburbs have higher percapita property valuations, they normally get less aid per pupil than the city districts.

In theory, the Michigan formula equalizes school aid because it penalizes the districts best equipped to raise money through the property tax. But critics say it doesn't help big city districts enough and argue that its basic assumption is wrong. "State money should be handed out on the basis of what it takes to provide a decent education instead of how big and fancy the houses are in the school district," says Stephen Schlossberg, counsel for United Auto Workers union, which has filed a brief in support of the Detroit suit.

Neither suit proposes specific alternatives to present aid plans; the critics assume new plans, in accordance with court guidelines, could be worked out later. But urban education experts mention four possible alternatives.

Under one, the city school board would prepare its budget based on needs and present it to a state agency for certification; the state would then supplement local revenues to the extent needed. Another plan would create a special metropolitan agency for education, akin to existing transportation authorities, with power to tax and to supplement money raised by the school board. A third concept would relieve local boards of one burden by requiring capital financing of new construction through statewide-bond issues. A fourth envisions a complete takeover by the state of all educational financing.

AIMING FOR THE SUPREME COURT Attorneys for both Michigan and Illinois are

trying to have the suits dismissed. Argues an attorney for Michigan: "It seems to me the legislature has ihe authority to spend the tax money in any way it sees fit."

Supporters of the suits say they will carry their fight to. the 'Supreme Court if necessary. The Detroit sult was filed in Wayne County Circuit Court here. In Chicago, a lawyer for the Federal antipoverty program says that city's school suit was filed in Federal district court in hopes that "we may get to the Supreme Court ahead of Detroit."

There is certain to be plenty Of resistance along the way. Most suburbanites already tax themselves more heavily for education than do city dwellers. The Carnegie Foundation study shows that in 1966 New York City raised only $12.96 per $1,000 valuation for education, while surrounding suburbs raised $20.53 per $1,000.

The Detroit suit already has produced a break between the Detroit school board and its banker of more than 30 years, the National Bank of Detroit. In May, the board routinely sought to borrow $14 million to cover expenses for the balance of the term,

21644 bU:t the bank refused. It ma.tntained that the lawsuit, in challenging the constitutionality of basic education laws in Michigan, raised questions about the borrowing powers of an!f school district, including Detroit's. Angry, the board turned to the Bank of the Commonwealth-viewed as a maverick by more conservative members of Detroit's banking community for the funds.

LOOKING AT WASHINGTON

Some education experts think that regardless of the outcome of the suits, pressure will increase now on the Federal government to assume a bigger share of the financial burden !or primary and secondary schools. (The government now meets about 10% of the cost, mainly through special funds.) The educators reason that 1! the cities win a bigger share of state aid, the states won't be able to raise the extra money needed to help offset the blow to more affluent districts. "By default at the state level, it would just force the problem up to the Federal level," says Theos I. Anderson, superintendent of schools in Grosse Pointe. I! the cities lose, their next step might be an assault on Washington, it's thought.

Indications are that Federal offlcials already are preparing for either possib111ty. -The Offlce of Education is getting cost estimates and studying "other implications, including what it means for the department," says Stephen Trachtenberg, assistant to Education Commissioner Howe.

Whatever the headaches, educators already see some gains. "Even 1! the new thrust doesn't work, it highlights the problems city schools face," says an education authority in Washington. And two months after the Detroit suit was filed, the Michigan legislature approved a special $6.3 mill1on appropriation to be allocated around the state on the basis of need. Most of the money is expected to go to the cities, particularly Detroit.

Board members see this as a viotory for their argument. "It's OK by us 1! the lawmakers decide to do it on their own," says one attorney close to the case, "as long as we get the money."

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD D. DONOHUE AT HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING· ON TARIFF AND TRADE PROPOSALS

HON. HAROLD D. DONOHUE O:r MASSACHUSETTS



Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, few leg-1slative subjects are more important to the maintenance of our national and international economic development and none are more challenging in their complexity than the projection and accomplishment of a wholesome and equitable solution of our balance-of-trade problem.

The extraordinary congressional concern in this matter is evidenced by the most unusual number of bills, suggesting solutions, introduced by various Members of the House, including myself.

All of these proposals, in wide response to the imperative international, national, and regional urgency of this problem were reviewed, during recently concluded public hearings, by the most distinguished chairman and his dedicated associates of the House Ways and Means Committee.


On June 13, last, I presented testimony, in connection with my own blll, H.R. 8361 and related measures, before the House Ways and Means Committee and I include the statement at this point:

Mr. Chairman, may I first congratulate and express my gratitude to you and the members of your distinguished Committee, on behalf of my constituents, for scheduling these hearings on the vitally important subject of the continued existence of a great many American businesses, with their employment opportunities, that have, thus far, not been given sufficient time or reasonable aid in adjusting themselves to the economic encroachments of foreign imports.

This is, indeed, a challenging problem, with many complex ramifications, and I am well aware of the Chairman's, and this Oommittee's, deep interest and studied diligence in seeking and encouraging a fair and reasonable legislative solution to everyone involved.

Although I do have my own legislative proposals pending before the Committee I am not concerned that my suggested solutions should be adopted. I am primarily and only concerned that the central problem itself shall be thoroughly examined and that this Committee will, in its wisdom, select, assemble and recommend, from any and all measures now before you, the proposal you believe to be in our best national and international interest.

As you, Mr. Chairttlan, and the members of the Committee are aware, I have several times expressed my views here on this problem; I know your burdensome schedule and I realize you have an extraordinarily large number of witnesses to hear. Therefore I have no intention of intruding too long upon you. I shall only, if you will, at this time, present a summary of my sentiments.

First, let me express my conviction that few, 1! any of us, are diametrically opposed to the basic objectives underlying the accepted long-range purposes of our overall trade expansion program.

However, in fulfilling our responsibi11ty and obligation within this program to our American · people, I think it is incumbent upon us to insist that the sentiment expressed by President Eisenhower back in 1953 and the warning presented in the report of the Commission on Foreign Economic Policy should be carefully observed and reasonably carried out. President Eisenhower, in a statement on trade policy contained in his first State of the Union Message declared: "This (trade expansion) objective must not ignore legitimate safeguarding of industries, agriculture, and labor standards."

The report of the Commission on Foreign Polley contains this admonition: "American labor should not be subjected to unfair corppetition as a par·t of any program to expand our foreign trade."

Mr. Chairman, because this sentiment and admonition has been so often ignored, in-creasingly great economic hardships have been and are being inevitably visited upon certain numbers of American workers and industries throughout the country and particularly in my own home area where the textile, steel, machine tool, shoe and leather, and so many other businesses are suffering from an accelerating avalanche of low-cost imports produced under foreign economic conditions that our domestic industries and workers cannot possibly meet without violating our own laws and sabotaging our acclaimed civilized and economic progress.

Mr. Chairman, the original legislative proposal to greatly expand trade agreements contained pledges to guard against the disIntegration of American industries from accelerated and excessive foreign competition which could not possibly and immediately be met by any reasonable and practicable means; avenues o:r appeal to presidential re-

July 16, 19o8 lief authorit;y, under these circumstances, were established. Unfortunately, they have mostly proved to be little more than expensive but idle gestures contrary to the general understanding of the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize I do not think that anyone intends, and especially I, to convey any thought that any protectionist war shall be initiated or that capricious and negligent business appealers be granted any unwarranted privileged assistance ln detriment to our foundation policy and I do not believe that any responsible businessman in this country would seek or want such help. The responsible American manufacturers and workers who are affected are not asking complete protection from all foreign competition; they are simply asking and seeking an equal opportunity under mutually fair competitive conditions in an open market. I think they should be fully heard and just as responsibly heeded. They have the right.

I would even voice the hope that the Executive Department, by the use of administrative processes already existing, would avoid any disruptive threat to the quota system by granting a reasonable measure of relief on an application of proven, just need.

I would voice the further hope that those abroad would take notice and heed our American situation and particularly the hearings this renowned Committee is even now conducting. I would suggest that very likely the most constructive and wholesome solution of this domestic d.ifHculty lies in their sensitive response to the practical reality that the United States COngress will not leave beseiged American industries, with their employees, of just cause, continuously vulnerable to unlimited encroachments from foreign sources. Foreign self-restraint and response in the form of voluntary quotas would undoubtedly offer the best avenue toward averting any serious interruption in the further progress toward wholesome, free international trade.

As I indicated in the beginning, it is truly not a simple or easy problem to solve but it is just as truly our responsibUity to try to do so and I know, Mr. Chairman, that you and your Committee associates will dlllgently seek an equitable answer to this challenge of vital importance to ourselves and all other peoples everywhere.

Mr. Chairman, may I again express my deep appreciation to you and your COmmittee associates for your courtesy and consideration.

JUDICIAL REFORM: ONE ANSWER TO CRIME AND VIOLENCE

HON. JOHN R. RARICK O;f LOUISIANA



Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, while some cynical voices would blame the crime and violence problem on poverty, racism, and peace, the voices of our learned scholars are silenced by lack of equal treatment by the communications media. These more moderate and knowledgeable intellectuals know full well the cause of our dilemma is connected with the revolt of our Federal judiciary and the unsavory characters who are using the law and their position to destroy Western civilization.

Hon. Wilson K. Barnes, associate justice of the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, has dellvered a documented paper on his feelings of the need and method for judicial reform.

I include his documented paper, a

July 16, 1968

speech on "Individual Freedom and Limitations Upon the Power of Government," and a speech by Mrs. Elizabeth C. Barnes on "Mail-Order ConstitutJ.onsThe Twilight of the States?" as follows: CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM OJ' THE SUPREME

COURT OJ' THE UNrl'ED STATES

(By Hon. Wilson K. Barnes) In March, 1967, I had the honor to address

the Daughters o! the American Revolution at the Ohio State Conference on the subject "Individual Freedom and Limitations Upon the Power of Government." This address was published in the , August-September 1967 issue of the Daughters of the American Revolution Magazine, so that many of you have probably read it. In that address I sought to trace briefly the history of constitutional limitations upon the power of government and the great benefit to this Nation resulting from those constitutional limitations. I also sought to point out that one of the present dangers to our federalism was the extraordinary advance of Federal power by what, in my opinion, have been erroneous constructions by the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to the scope of the power of the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce and in regard to the scope of the provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting the denial by the States ot the equal protection of the laws or of life, liberty or property without due process o! law. I suggested in that address that there might be several remedies to this immediate danger.

These were: (1) that a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States voluntarily return to more orthodox constitutional doctrine; (2) that the Congress, acting under its power given in Article III of the Federal Constitution limit the judicial power of the lower Federal Courts and the appellate power of the Supreme Court to confine the judicial power to proper federal areas; and, (3) that the Congress- exercise its power under clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to limit the enforcement of that Amendment to the areas of federal power intended by those who drafted that Amendment and as construed by the Supreme Court prior to 1940.

Alas, the pious hope which I expressed in the first remedy has been dashed by actions of the majority of the Supreme Court since I prepared the Ohio Conference address. Not only has the majority of that Court continued to apply unorthodox constitutional doctrine, but in the case of Giles v. Maryland., 386 U.S. 66, 87 S.Ct. 793, 17 L.Ed. 2d 737 (1967), the majority of the Supreme Court, without finding any constitutional flaw in the proceedings in the Maryland State Courts and, indeed, recognizing that upon the facts as found by the State Courts there was no federal question, nevertheless returned the case to the Maryland Court of Appeals for what amounted to a reconsideration of our decision in that case. This was done over the vigorous--and to my mindclearly correct dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan. If you forgive a reference to my dissenting opinion in State v. Giles, 245 Md. 660, 667-668, 229, A.2d 97, 101-102 (1967), I summarized my views in regard to the unwarranted expansion of federal power in general and in regard to the new and unprecedented action by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Giles case, as follows:

"I am profoundly disturbed with what I believe to be the unwarranted expansion of federal judicial power over the States and their judiciary by construing the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to include many of the limitations of the :first eight amendments to the federal Constitution, and a new interpretation ot the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amena-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS ment. My views in regard to what I believe to be unwarranted extensions of federal judicial power have already been fully expressed by me in prior dissenting and ooncurring opinions and need not be repeated here. See Truitt v. Boarcl of Public Works, 243 Md. 375, 411, 221 A.2d 370, 392 (1966); State v. Barger, 242 Md. 616, 628, 63D--44, 220 A.2d 304, 311, 317-19 (1966); Montgomery County Council v. Garrott, 243 Md. 634, 650, 653, 222 A.2d 164, 172, 176 ( 1966); Hughes v. Maryland. Committee for Fair Representation, 241 Md. 471, 491-513, 217 A.2d 273, 385-98 (1966).

"I must vigorously protest against the attempted exercise by the Supreme Court in this case of a supervisory power over the decisions of this or any state court of last resort. At least the prior expansion of federal judicial power has proceeded under a construction of provisions of the federal constitution itself; the present case, as Mr. Justice Harlan points out, does not proceed on that basis. If this new theory is pursued, it will gravely impair the federal system. This new theory obviously· should not be encouraged, or SJcquiesced in, sub silentio. I have felt obliged to raise my voice in protest."

The need for congressional action under either Article III or Clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is urgently needed at the present time in view o! the startling increase in crimes of violence against both person and property in the United States. It is ~ignificant, I think, that this great and unprecedented increase in crime, has occurred since the power of the State Courts in the enforcement of the States' criminal law has been substantially curtailed by the decisions of majorities of the Supreme Court applying provisions of the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution to the States in regard to persons accused of crime. Quite apart from the proper constitutional limitations involved, it must be apparent to all that the imposition o! federal standards of police investigation and crim1nal procedures which are largely confined to the more sophisticated federal crimes for which investigations are made by the highly competent and expensive Federal Bureau of Investigation, upon State investigatory and criminal procedures which deal with the oommon law types of crime-murder, robbery, larceny, assault, rape and the like-is bound to confuse, frustrate and generally weaken the State administration of its crtmlnallaw. This has been the result in many cases.

As I said in my dissenting opinion in State v. Barger, 242 Md. 616, 643, 220 A.2d 304, 319-20 (1966):

"A comparison of criminal offenses and the growth of population in the United States with the year 1958 indicates that from 1959 to 1964 criminal offenses increased 58% and the crime rate (the number of offenses per 100,000 population) increased 44%. Of these criminal offenses violent crime increased 40%, while the crime rate for crimes of violence increased 27%; crimes against property increased 61% while the rate of property crimes increased 46%. During the period in question, the population increased only 10%. In 1964 the number of willful killings increased 8% over 1963. The national murder rate was 4.8 killings per 100,000 persons in 1964. The 9,250 victims of murder was the highest number since the post-war year of 1946 and the annual increase in murder in 1964 over 1963 represents the sharpest trend for crime in recent years.

"During the period in question the Supreme Court of the United States decided four cases which initiated profound changes in criminal law procedures in the United States by imposing on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, federal rules of exclusion of evidence seized contrary to the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, the necessity of the presence of counsel for the defendant at various stages of the accusatory process ' and protection against alleged

21645 Bel! incrimination in regard to statements made by the accused. These are Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S·.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). I have seen no studies which attempt to show what effect these decisionS' may have had upon the extraordinary increase in crime in the United States, but if the certainty of apprehension, conviction and punishment of criminals acts as a deterrent to criminal activity (as I believe it to be) , it seems reasonable to suppose that these decisions have played some part in that increase."

As I view the present situation, it will do little good for the States to amend their laws in regard to the suppression of crime or tor the Congress to pass similar laws unless Congress first frees the State Courts from the imposition of provisions of the first eight amendments by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

If the Congress will act as suggested, the immediate threats to our federalism and to the States as viable governmental units can be solved. These remedies, however, would only mitigate, as it were, the present effects of a fundamental defect in the Federal Constitution, itself, in regard to the selection and tenure of the justices themselves. It occurred to me that it would be interesting and helpful to explore this thought and to suggest a possible remedy for this fundamental defect.

One should begin the inquiry with an examination of the basic theory of sovereignty in the United States. In this Country, the people are sovereign. All government, state or federal, emanates from the people and must be responsible to the people. Each individual citizen as a "sovereign" has certain, Godgiven inalienable rights--as the Declaration of Independence proclaims-which government cannot take from him. Indeed, it government seeks to impair these rights or subvert the liberty of the people, it is the duty o! the people to change that government. The fact that the British Government, with an all powerful King who bad a majority in the House of Commons and who dominated the House of Lords, had subverted the liberties of the colonies and their people, justified the War for American Independence which was won by your ancestors. It follows, as a matter of course, from the theory that sovereignty is in the people and that they have the capacity, intelligence and integrity to govern themselves, that government should be limited. Thomas Jefferson, that great philosopher of the American Revolution, put it well when he said, "That government is best which governs least," and who stated, on one occasion, "Don't talk to me about the integrity of public officials. I say chain the politicians to the limitations of the Constitution itself."

It was for this reason, that .Jefferson supported the addition of the first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution, which Madison thought were unnecessary as the Federal Constitution established a federal government of strictly limited, delegated, powers, so that the Individual citizen would be protected from any possible invasion of his individual rights by the federal government. Jefferson, however, was most unhappy about the provisions of the Federal Constitution establishing the federal judiciary. His objection was that the federal judiciary was not made responsible to the people and he predicted with astounding accuracy what would be the probable result from this defect in the Federal Constitution. He said:

"The germ of dlssolutiQn of our Federal Government is in the Constitution o! the Federal judiciary; an irresponsible body--advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the Government of all be consolidated.

21646 "To this I am opposed; because when all

government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it wUl render powerless the checks provided of one government on another ·and will become as venal and offensive as the government from which we separated."

Can anyone deny that since 1940, federal jurisdiction has not been greatly a.dvanced by the Supreme Court at the expense of the jurisdiction of the States? I think not. How then can this defect be remedied? In my opinion, it may be remedied by an amendment to Article III of the Federal Constitution.

This address will be largely confined to the suggested provisions of an amendment to Article III of the Federal Constitution dealing with the Supreme Court of the United States as Congress now has the complete power to revise the provisions of law in regard to the selection and jurisdiction of the federal Courts other than the Supreme Court. The tenure of the judges of the federal Courts "inferior" to the Supreme Court could follow the same theory aa the one advanced as applicable to the supreme Court.

As a matter of political theory, all branches of the federal government--legislative, executive and judicial-should be directly responsible to the electorate, which manifests the wlll of the sovereign people. Direct selection of officials, however, is not practicable in several instances because of the size of the Country, its differing local traditions and other factors attendant upon a rapidly developing Nation. The definite trend has been toward increased participation by the electorate in selection of federal officials. When the selection of judges is considered, there are relevant factors which are not present in the selection of other officials. There are two competing concepts: (1) that judges ultimately be responsible to the electorate, and (2) that judges be independent, so that they may impartially administer the law, and protect individual and minority rights even against the temporary opinion of the major-

· ity contrary to those rights. In many States, the first principle is accomplished by the direct election of judges to relatively short terms. Although this accomplishes the first principle beyond doubt, it may frustrate the second, and equally Important, principle of judicial independence. How can these two competing theories be reconclled? If you will pardon a personal reference to my native State of Maryland, It is my opinion that these competing principles have been effectively reconclled in that State. In Maryland both our nisi prius judges, our judges of the Court of Special Appeals and of the Court of Appeals--our highest Court on which I have the honor to serve-are all originally appointed by the Governor. The practice has grown up, that the Governor selects the prospective judge from a list submitted by the Bar Association or Bar Associations concerned.

After serving on the bench for at least one year, the judge then runs for election at the next ensuing general election in the political subdivision or judicial Circuit set up in the Maryland Constitution, without party designation. He may, and usually does run in both the Democratic and Republican primary elections and if he obtains the nomination of both parties-as is usually the case-his election for a 15 year term is assured. The press and news media are devoted to the "sitting judge principle" so tha·t the incumbent judge, if he does a reasonably good job, is practically assured of election. At the end of the 15 year term-a sufficiently long term to insure independence-the "sitting judge" is practically always re-appointed by the Governor and then runs in the succeeding primary and general election as already Indicated. The Maryland system has worked well and I would ordinarily recommend Its adoption for the federal judiciary, if it were

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS not for the size of the Country, and the substantial practical difficulties in having the federal judiciary directly elected in contested elections.

Under the present provisions of the Federal Constitution, the selection of justices of the Supreme Court with life tenure by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate, frustrates completely the first principle mentioned, i.e., that the justices ultimately be responsible to the electorate. Iregret to say that, in my opinion, the constitutional requirement of confirmation of the appointment of a justice by the Senate has not been meaningful during the past fifty years. The President has become too powerful politically to be effectively resisted in this area. The plain fact of the matter is that presidential appointments to the Supreme Court have in many instances been confirmed notwithstanding the rather clear absence of qualifications of the appointee for this high office and without regard to the avallabillty of eminently quallfied lawyers and judges who should have been selected. When one compares, for example, the outstanding qualifications of the late Judge Learned Hand of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with those of several of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court while he was available for appointment, the force of this observation wm be readily apparent.

In short, the problem resolves itself into how to limit the power of presidential appointment of justices In order to improve the quality of appointments and to insure that such appointees have some responsibillty, at least, to the electorate after they are ap-pointed. .

The American Bar Association has pointed the way to a solution to this problem in its "Model Judicial Article," which it recommends for adoption by the several States. The ideas underlying the Model Judicial Article may, however, be adapted to the selection of federal judges. Indeed, in my opinion, it can be much better applied to the federal judiciary than it can be to the judiciary of the several States.

The basic ideas in the Model Judiciary Article are (1) selection of judges is given to the executive but is limited to a list selected by a Judicial Nominating Commission, and (2) the judge shall after 3 years of judicial service from the date of his appointment and every 10 years thereafter, be subject to approval or rejection by the electorate. In this way the two principles mentioned are sought to be reconciled and this method as adapted to federal conditions may well be the answer to our problem. I would recommend the following adaptation:

Nine federal appellate circuits would beestablished, largely following the present division into ten circuits but with the Eighth and Tenth Circuits consolidated into one circuit and the District of Columbia consolidated with the Fourth Olrcult. There would be a justice of the Supreme Court appointed by the President from the judges-both State and Federal-or lawyers in the circuit. The appellate circuit system-already in force in many States-would insure that there be justices from all sections of the United States and thus avoid the danger of a concentration of appointments from one section.

The Presidential power of appointment, however, would be limited to selection from a list of five eligible persons selected by a Judicial Nominating Commission made up of the members of the federal House of Representatives and the Senate from the States in the appellate circuit from which the appointment is to be ma<;le. In this way the representatives of the people in the appellate circuit would a.t least Zimit the range of presidential appointment and to that extent the electorate would participate in the judicial selection. Prior outstanding judicial service-either in the federal or state courts-

July 16, 1968 would be highly -considered by the Nominating Commission, although it would probably not be wise to make this requirement an exclusive requirement. There may be an outstanding practicing lawyer who should be included in the list of five. The opinion of the appropriate committees and officials of the American Bar Association and of the State and local Bar Associations should be sought and considered by the Nominating Commission. This type of selection will not only greatly improve the chances of getting the most qualified persons for appointment to the Supreme Court, but it will inevitably improve the performance of all the judges throughout the United States in both the federal and state courts if they realize that their judicial efforts will be recognized and considered when vacancies in the Supreme Court occur.

After the justice has served for three years, he should be subject at the next presidential election, to approval or rejection by the electorate in the Federal Appellate Circuit. This would be a relatively simple matter as the notation could be put on the ballot on which the presidential electors appear "Should Justice X be retained in office? Yes ONoO"

If the majority o;f the eleCitorate voting on this question indicates "Yes." Justice X would remain in office for another 12 years, when the same pi'OCedure would be used. I think that two additional years should be added to the 10 years recommended in the A.B.A. Model Judicial Article, as this would give the justice a total of 15 years-a term which has worked well in Maryland and does insure judicial independence. If the vote is "No," then there would be a vacancy and the a,ppointive process would begin again.

I would not place a mandatory retirement based on age, as is done in many State Constitutions, for example, 70 years of age in Maryland. In my opinion, the provision for approval or rejection by the electorate will take care of the problem of senility. If Justice X has really become senile, thds fact will likely lead to his rejection by the electorate, or perhaps more importantly, the fact that Justice X must face approval or rejection, may well lead to his voluntary retirement prior to the election.

It may be asked whether the use of the Senators and mem;bers of the House of Representatives as the Nominating Commission would lead to political considerations being dominant in the selection of whether these members of the Congress would likely respond to the presidential will in any event so that there would be little change in the present system of appointment.

I do not think this would be the result. On the contrary, the members of the Nominating Commission, the majority of which face the electorate every two years, would find thwt their political future would be significantly affected by the caliber of the person they voted to include in the list of judicia.! appointments. On the one hand, they could "point with pride," as it were, to having been instrumental in including on the list the most outstanding judge or lawyer in the Federal Appella.te Circuit who was then appointed by the President; on the other hand, if some political hack or other undesirable person were included on the list and appointed as a justice, the full fury of the electorate would fall upon members of the Nominating Commission at the next election-and you can rest assured that the opponent of the incumbent Senator or Representative would point out such a fact to the electorate!

It must be understood that no institution, however venerable and revered, can ultimately be better than the integrity, learning and competence of those persons who main·· tain it. One great advantage of the proposed system of judicial selection and tenure for justices of the Supreme Court would be that

July 16, 1968 public opinion and the opinions of the legal profession would focus Qn the _possible ~ppointees before they were presented to the Presidelllt for appointment. At the present · time the determination to make the appointment is formed in camera,-in the pres1d~mtial l;losom, as it were. The appointment is largely a fait accompli when the Bar and the public learoo of it. The device of the Nominating Commission will give all interested parties an opportunity to express their views and recommend appointments to the Nominating Commission.

The make-up of that Commission will insure a full and fair hearing. The list will most likely include those judges and lawyers noted for their integrity, devotion to duty, knowledge of the law, adherence to the established norms for judicial decision, including a high regard for their obligation to follow established precedents, and the other fine qualities which make for a desirable judge.

This Is a much need·ed constitutional reform In the selection and tenure of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Our federal system requires it. The preserva·tion of our liberties and institutions cries out for it.

[From DAR magazine, August-September 1967]

INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT

(By H:on. Wilson K. Barnes, judge of the court of appeals of Maryland, address delivered at the Ohio State Conference, March 1967) President Woodrow Wilson, then a profes

sor at Princeton University, stated a profound truth when he said: "The history of human freedom is the history of limitations upon the power of government." The truth of this statement was understood by our English ancestors when some 700 years ago they forced · King John to assent to Magna Charta as the first substantial limitation upon the otherwise a;bsolute power of the Crown. Later on there was a struggle between the King and Parliament for the exercise of governmental power, resulting finally in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which expelled James II from England and with him the Divine Right of Kings, a.nd the ultimate establishment of parUamental'y supremacy. In England, however; there has never been and a,t· the present time, there is no effective constitutional limitation upon the exercise of. governmental power M there is n .owritten constitution, the provisions of which may be enforced by the courts to protect. the individual subject against the exercise of governmental power conferred by an Act of Parliament.

The War for American Independence was fought to prevent an unjustified exercise of arbitrary power by the King and his controlled Parliam.en t in which the thirteen colonies were not represented. It should be observed that t.he King h&d, In effect, regained complete control of the English government by obtaining a majority in the House of Commons favorable to him. When the War for Am.erican Independence was successfully concluded, the people in the thirteen colonies were determined that there would be no repetition in the colonies of the unlimited and absolute governmental power which had oppressed them and caused the war. The problem was how to establish governments which would be sufficiently powerful to carry out the minimum requirements of government but not powerful enough to oppress the people. A most happy solution to this age-old problem was rea;ched by the device of written constitutions which (1) divided the powers of government into their three great and natural divisions based on function--executive, legislative a.nd judicial-and, (2) set out. the basic, inalien!llble rights o! the individual citizen in a Bill of Rights whiCh limlted the exe.rcise of govern-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS mental power as it related to the individual citizen. The oonstitutions of the new thirteen States represented the supreme will of the sovereign people.

The courts when faced with a conruct between the provisions of the constitutions and governmental action, necessarily gave effect to the constitutional provisions and declared the conflicting governmental action unconstitutionaL This exercise of judicial power to establish and vindicate in a practical manner, the supremacy of the written constitution and its limitations was the great contribution of the thirteen States to political science.

When it became obvious that a stronger and more effective national government should be established, the framers of the Constitution of the United States-quite naturally I think-followed the theory of government and its limitation, which had been followed in the thirteen States. As had been done in the States, the powers of the new National Government were divided vertically, shall we say, between the executive power to be exercised by the President, the legislative power by the Congress and the judicial power by the Supreme Court and such other courts as Congress might from time to time establish .. This division of powers was done to establish a system of checks and balan.ces to prevent any one branch or division of government from becoming sufficiently powerful to dominate another branch and thus exercise absolute power subverting the freedom of the individual citizen. They had recently witnessed the domination by the King as "executive," of Parliament, the legislative branch of the British government, and were determined that this misfortune should not occur in the United States. There was, however, another limitation upon the power of the new National Government-a horizontal division shall we say-between the delegated national powers and the reserved powers in the States and the people. As originally prepared, the Constitution of the United States did not contain a Bill of Rights and the principle of federalism was implicit rather than explicit. James Madison did not think It necessary to have a B111 of Rights as it was his opinion that, since the National Government was a government of expressly delegated powers only, specific limitations of power to protect the individual citizen were not necessary: When this Issue was addressed to Thomas Jefferson-the most outstanding political philosopher of the American Revolution-he wrote from France, where he was then Ambassador. as follows:

"Don't talk to me about the integrity of public officials. I say chain the politicians to the limitations of the Constitution itself."

His sound advice was followed and the first ten amendments-the Btll of Rightswere promised as a part of the constitutional system. The Tenth Amendment declaring that aU powers not delegated to the National Government were reserved to the States or to the people insured the federal character of the new Government. It was well that this was done a.S It seems clear that the Constitution of the United States. would not have been adopted but for this assurance.

The basic political philosophy underlying both the Federal a.nd State Constitutions is that expressed by Jefferson:

"That government 1s best which governs least."

This statement is the natural result of the concept that. sovereignty-the right to rulewas no longer vested In a monarch, but in the people, so that the individual citizenpossessing, with his fellow citizens, 'the sovereignty theretofore held by the Kingwas capable of governing himself and should be free to do this. This new "sovereign" was possessed of inalienable rights which must be protected against- the officials of t.he Government and even against the will of a. majority o:f his fellow citizens. To insure this latter

21647 protection, provisions were established for the indirect election of t.he President by electors, of the United States Senators by the legislatures of the States· and the appointment of judges for life a.nd during good behavior. There were similar provisions in the State constituti.ons. It was only in the lower house-the House of Representatives-that the electorate directly elected their representatives a.nd, it may be noted, that the qualifications for voting were usually restricted in the States by property qualifications.

As a result of having all known practical limitations on the power of governmentvertical, by a strict division of powers, direct by a Bill of Rights and horizontal by a division of powers based upon scope of governmental impact-that is the federal conceptthe individual citizen of the United States had more freedom than had ever been enjoyed by any other citizen since the time of recorded history. WilUam Gladstone, . the great English prime minister, well stated:

". ·. . The American Constitution is . . . the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.''

The extraordinary and unique individual freedom enjoyed by citizens of the. States and of the United States resulted in the most amazing growth and development of the Country. The constitutional protection of life, liberty and property which undergirds the free enterprise system, transformed. a bankrupt Nation of some 4,000,000 people and a great wilderness to the west, partly inhabited by hostile Indians, into the richest and most powerful Nation of the earth in a relatively short time. It Is hard to believe that this all has occurred in less than 200 years-178 years to be exact. This has been the result of individual freedom guaranteed and effectuated by constitutional provisions limiting the power of government.

It is small wonder then that the Daughters of the American Revolution--descendants as they are of those soldiers, sailors and patriots who made all this possible-have consistently, from the foundation of the National Society In 1890 until the present time, courageously defended with all their power the American constitutional system and the individual freedom guaranteed by it.

One would suppose that every American citizen would vigorously defend the constitutional system which is so soundly conceived and which has conferred such benefits-both spiritual and material-upon him. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The growth of socialism with its central emphasis upon the control of the ineans of production by the state, rather than by Individual citizens, and the control by the state o-f the Individual citizens themselves, now poses a real threat to constitutional government. This threat Is inevitable as the two concepts in regard to both government and economics are entirely different , and rest upon different theories of government and economics. The socialists may conveniently_:_like Gaul-be divided into three parts: ( 1) the Marxist socialist, (2) the Fabian socialist, and (3} the unwitting socialist.

The Marxist socialist is, of course, a fo!lower of the teachings of Karl Marx whose program for world revolution was summed up In the Communist Manifesto issued in London in 1848. The R:assla.n Communist Revolutfon In 1917 gave the world the first effective Marxist socialist government in . a large and important state which we know as the. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The second large and important state to fall to the Marxist socialists was China. These two powerful states are dedicated to the destruction of constitutional government in the United States; and the defense of our Republfc against these Marxist socialist states and their sa.temtes 1s the primary obligation of the National Government. The evll purposes of these two Marxist socialist states present

.21648 a grave danger to our Nation from military -attack and internal subversion.

Fabian socialism also began ·in England in 1883-4 by the formation of the Fabian Society. Its adherents believe in the .basic theory of socialism, but are not willlng to establish that theory by force and violence. Their method-far more subtle and therefore far more dangerous than a frontal attack by military force-is to propagate the socialist theory slowly (hence the name "Fabian" after Fabias Cunctator, the Roman General of dilatory tactics) and by placing its adherents in positions of power in the government and finally changing that government into a socialist state. The Labour Party in England has substantially absorbed the Fabian Societies; it is a Socialist Party.

I strongly recommend to all of you the interesting and comprehensive artlicle of Mrs. Frederick Griswold, Jr., National Chairman of National Defense, in the March, 1967 Daughters of the American Revolution Magaz.ine entitled "Destroyers of Freedom Part I: The Fabians-Helpmates of .Subversion." A study of this fine article will give a real understanding of the Fabian socialist movement and methods.

The third group, the unwitting socialists, consists of citizens who do not understand or have not even heard of the theory of socialism, but who because of lust for power, greed, envy or just plain ignorance, unknowingly support programs to socialize the Government of the United States or of the several States. Often those who make up this group are motivated by a sincere, but 1nisguided, desire to reform the unreformable, to ameliorate by use of tax revenues, the condition of individuals who more often could quite well help themselves or . be helped by private benefactors, both individual and in the churches, and by the desire to impose their ideas of socially desirable conduct by law upon those who disagree with them. They stoutly deny that they are socialis·ts, but declare emphatically that those who disagree with them are "reactionaries," who refuse to swim in the "wave of the future" and who cannot see that heaven is to be established on earth by governmenW.l decree. The principal work of you Daughters-as individual citizens-is to point out to this group the true nature of their conduct and its ultimate destruction of constitutional government and individual freedom in the United States.

When does the attack come and how shall we meet it?

It is . clear to me that socialism cannot be etrectively established in this Country until the governments of the several States are rendered inetrective and all basic governmental power is co-ncentrated in the Federal Government in Washington. When and if that is accomplished, that complete centralized power must then be concentrated in the hands of the President--the executive branch-who then with the guidance of a socialist bureaucracy will finally establish the all-powerful socialist state.

As we look upon the current scene, can anyone doubt that the power and authority of the governments of the States are becoming more and more limited and that the real power is being concentrated in Washington? How is this accomplished?

The first method used to advance Federal power at the expense of the State is the use of Federal tax money to underwrite in whole or in slgnifica.nt part, programs normally within the complete control of ·the State government. This Federal largess is accompaJ;>.ied by Federal rules and regulations and once the State officials accept the Federal subsidy, they find that etrective power over the program has passed to Washington, It is well said that "He who pays the piper, calls the_ tune." We have seen this come to pass in agriculture, public. hqustng. and it is now be.ginning in public education. Ironically it is

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS the success of the . free enterprtse system economioally. that provides the funds by Federal taxation which enables this to be done. The remedy is twofold: ( 1) . the election of Representatives and Senators who ,will substantially reduce Federal taxation and who will decline to vote for the centralizing projects, and {2) the election of State Representatives and Senators who will decline to accept the Federal subsidies.

The second factor which has led to a most extraordinary. advance of Federal power and a substantial weakening of our federalism, has been the expansion of Federal power in two ways. First by the Supreme Court's reinterpretation of the power of Congress to .regulate interstate commerce and, secondly, • by the expansion of Federal judicial power over the States through new interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a painful and delicate subject for me as a judge of Maryland's highest appellate courtThe CoUrt of Appeals of Maryland-but as I have officially expressed my views on this general subject in several dissenting and concurring opinions, I feel entirely free to express them here.

Those who defend the substantial increase in Federal power through the constitutional grant of power to regulate interstate commerce justify their position in this way. They claim that the great increase in our population, the increased means of communication and the increased "interdependence" of all our citizens, make it necessary to have a substantially increased .central control of not only interstate commerce itself but any thing that "atrects" interstate commerce. Hence, the old concepts arising in a largely agrarian society cannot be used now in our present concentrated "urban" society. I come to exactly the opposite conclusion. In all other walks of life, the larger ··and more concentrated the activity becomes, the more is the need for decentralization, not centraliZation. The sheer impossibility for one man or a small group of men to act intelligently on a very large operation, the inevitable bureaucracy, red tape and delay attendant upon the centralization of control, make. it imperative that power be decentralized and operated on the local scene, rather than be concentrated at a place far removed from the local operation.

The failure of the government of the U.S.S.R., after 50 years of absolute state control of its citizens and the Russian economy, to produce as much food as was produced under the old . Czarist economy, is a living witness to the impossibility of operating the economy of a large, modern state by a central socialist planning authority. The same thing has resulted ln Red China and to a lesser degree in communist satellite states. The present difficulties in Great Britain are, in. my opinion, directly connected with its socialist government. All friends of individual freedom should point out the devastating effects of socialist concentration of power.

The expansion of Federal power over "interstate .commerce" has principally occurred in the fields of agriculture anq labor legislation. It reached its high water mark, so to speak, in the amazing decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 11, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942), which arose here in Ohio. After the Agricultural Adjustment Act based on the Federal power to tax had been held to be unconstitutional by the pre-1935 Supreme Court, a new Act was prepared based upon the power to regulate interstate commerce. The acreage of wheat to be grown by farmers was limited as provided in the new Act. Filburn, a dairy and poultry farmer in Montgomery County; Ohio, declined to participate in the program.· He ·received an ·allotment from the local board of 11.1 acres of wheat with an estimated normal yield of 20.1 bushels to the acre. He sowed 23 acres and harrvested an "excess" 239 bushels of wheat.

July .1-6, 1·968 These excess · bushels. :were subjected by the

. ·Act .to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11. Filburn declined to pay this penalty and did not receive a marketing card to sell his wheat. He did not care · about this,. as he ·fed all of his wheat on his farm, selling none either locally or · in interstate . coiJ;lmerce. In a proceeding by him to enjoin Wickard, the Secretary of Agriculture, the three-judge Court ruled with Filburn on the ground, among others, that the wheat grown by him did not move ir., or directly affect, interstate commerce, and hence, the Federal Government had no power to proceed against him under the Interstate Commerce clause. The Supreme Court reversed.

It held, in effect, that Federal power was established because if Filburn had not grown more than the minimum allotment of 11.1 acres of wheat he would have had a need which might have been supplied by the purchase of wheat which probably would have moved in intersta_te commerce, and hence his failure to comply with the Act, along with similar failures to comply, if they existed, importantly "affected" interstate commerce. Under this curious reasoning it is rather clear that there is no activity of any citizen that does not "atrect" interstate commerce. This decision and others of similar nature are quite at variance with prior decisions of the Supreme Court requiring a direct effect upon interstate commerce before Federal power could. be asse·rted. In my opinion, this was an unwarranted construction of the clause in the United States Contitution giving Congress the power to "regulate interstate commerce."

During the past 15 years, we have witnessed a great extension of Federal judicial power over the State courts and legislatures by the . expansion of that power through a reinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. You will recall that after the Wa:r between the States was concluded, three amendments to the Constitution of the United States were proposed-the Thirteenth, to abolish slavery, the Fourteenth, to guarantee that the new freedmen would not be denied their rights of United States citizenship by State action and the Fifteenth, to prevent a denial of suffrag~ to the new freedmen because of race, color or previous condition of servitude. These amendments had a basic and similar purpose and the Supreme Court held that they were to be construed together.

The Fourteenth Amendment--which incidentally was ratified under dubious circumstances in 1868-contained five sections: ( 1) to define United States citizenship and provide that United States citizens should not be denied by any State their life, liberty or property without due process of law or of the equal protection of the laws; (2) a provision in regard to the apportionm.ent of representatives; {3) a provision in regard to disabilities for holding office for persons bearing arms against the Republic; ( 4) a provision confirming the public debt of the United States and . disaffirming the .debts of the Confederacy; and (5) a provision that "the Congress shall have the power to en:force, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." A clause identical .with clause ( 5) was included in both the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

It was contemplated by those who drafted the three Civil War amendments that Congress should implement them and provide for their enforcement as the amendments provided. These three amendments were not to be self-executing as were the first twelve amendments to the Constitution. Congress did just this by passing the first Civil Rights Act. It is interesting to note that in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 u.s. 3, 3, S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835, the Supreme Court in 1883, declared Sections 1 and 2 of the -Aot prohibiting discrimination by private persons in regard to inns, public conveyances ·and places of public amusement to be unconstit.utional as

July 16, 1968 - the Federal power granted by Seetion ( 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited by its terms to State action and did not extend

· to acts of private persons. It is interesting to note that a similar provision in the last Civil Rights Act was sustained by the Supreme Court under the clause in the · Con-

. stitution granting Congress the power ~o regulate interstate commerce!

The expansion of Federal power under the Fourteenth Amendment bad begun by an expansion of the phrase "due process of law" prior to 1930, Mr. Justice Holmes stated in May 1930:

"I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety I feel at the ever-increasing scope given the 14th amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the states. As the de-

. cisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidity of those rights lf they happen to strike a majority of the court for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions."

By God's mercy, he did not live to see the present affirmative expansion by a majority of the Supreme Court of Federal judicial power over the States.

The Supreme Court had held at an early date, that the amendments to the Federal ·Oonstitution-the B111 of Rights-did not apply to the States but only to the Federal Government itself. This was obvious from the language of the first ten amendments themselves and from the dual nature of sovereignty in this Country. After the Fourteenth Amendment was proclaimed as being in effect, there was a long and continuing effort to have the Supreme Court hold that the provisions of the first. eight amendments--or portions of them-applied to the States through the due process clause of Section ( 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment. This attempt was resisted by the Supreme Court until 1940, when that Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, held without discussion or consideration of the constitutional debates in Congress, that the provisions of the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excess thereof" applied to the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision opened a Pandora's Box of Federal power and the end is apparently not yet.

In a series of decisions involving "freedom of speech," "unreasonable searches and seizures" and other provisions of the first eight amendments, Federal judicial power over the States has been greatly extended. The obscenity cases, the prayer in the school cases, the cases of Federal control over the enforcement by the States of their criminal law all flow from what I consider this basic error in judicial construction. It is clear to me both from reading the language of the Fourteenth Amendment itself and from a study of the debates in Congress when the Amendment was prepared and allegedly adopted for presentation to the States for ratification, that this interpretation is not justified. It seems obvious to me that the inclusion in Section (1) · of the Fourteenth Amendment of one clause from the Fifth Amendment-that a State should not deny a ciitzen of the United States "life, liberty or property without due process of law," necessarily indicates that the remaining clauses in the Fifth Amendment and the other provisions of the first eight amendments were excluded. Then too, there was and is nothing in the various Civil Rights Acts to suggest such an expansion of Federal power.

This expansion of Federal judicial power has not been accomplished without vigorous protest on the part of a minority of the Supreme Court itself.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 21649 For example, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, "With all respect, I think the Court has

· 81 s. ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), Mr. misapplied a great constitutional' principle. · Justice Harlan, in his dissenting opinion, I cannot see how an 'official religion' is estab

joined by Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. lished by letting those who want to say a Justice Whittaker, stated: prayer say it."

"The Court, in my opinion has forgotten The extraordinary thing is that Thomas the sense of judicial restraint which, with Jefferson anticipated the expansion of Feddue regard for staTe decisis, is one element eral judicial power by interpretation of the that should enter into deciding whether a Constitution. He stated: past decision of this Court should be over- "The ·germ of dissolution of our Federal ruled .... The action of the Court finds no Government is in the Constitution of the

· support in the rule that decision of constitu- Federal judiciary; an irresponsible bodytiona! issues should be avoided wherever pos- advancing its noiseless step like a thief sible. The unwisdom of overruling Wolf with- over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall out full-dress argument is aggravated by the be usurped from the States, and the Govcircumstance that that decision is a com- ernment of all be consolidated. paratively recent one (1949) to which three "To this I am opposed, because when all members of the present majority have at government shall be drawn to Washington one time or another expressly subscribed, as the center of all power, it will render powone to be sure with explicit misgivings. I erless the checks provided of one governwould think that our obligation to the States, ment on another and will become as venal on whom we impose this new rule, as well as and offensive as the government from which the obligation of orderly adherence to our we separated." own processes would demand tha~ we seek What is the remedy in this delicate situ-that aid which adequate briefing and argu- atlon? · ment lends to the determination of an im- My earnest trust is that the majority jusportant issue. It certainly has never been a tices themselves will conclude that the prepostulate of judicial power that mere altered vailing interpretations are unwarranted and disposition, or subsequent membership on will themselves move to apply more orthodox the Court, is sufficient warrant for overturn- constitutional doctrine. I believe that I deing a deliberately decided rule of constitu- teet some movement in this direction, altionallaw." though it might be only wishful thinking on

In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, my part. Failing that, the Congress of the 7 L.Ed. 2d 663, Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated United States acting under Article III of the in his dissenting opinion: Constitution may limit the judicial power

"The Court today reverses a uniform course of the lower Federal Courts and the appellate of decision established by a dozen cases, in- power of the Supreme Court to eliminate the eluding one by which the very claim now unwarranted exercise of Federal judicial sustained was unanimously rejected only five power or congress might well exercise its years ago .... Such a massive repudiation of power under clause (5) of the Fourteenth the experience of our whole past in asserting Amendment to the same end. Although 1 destructively nova! judicial power demands hope indeed that such action will not ultia detailed analysis of the role of this Court mately be necessary, it is to be preferred to in our constitutional scheme .... In effect, a dissolution of the States as viable political today's decision empowers the courts of the entities and the establishment of an allcountry to devise what should constitute the/ powerful national government. proper composition of the legislatures of the As a member of the Advisory Board of the fifty States. If state courts should for one National Society of the Daughters of the reason or another find themselves unable to American Revolution, I am well aware that discharge this task, the duty of doing so is quite properly the National Society, the State P'-!; on the federal ~ourts or on this Court. · · · Societies and the local Chapters of the DAR

There is nothmg judi~ly more un- do not, and are not, permitted to engage in seemly nor mo~ self-defeating than for this political activities. Oourt to make ~n terrorem pronouncements, I trust, however, that a8 individual citito induJ.ge in merely empty rhetoric, sound- zens you will see to it that Senators and Repi~ a word of promise to the ear, sure to be resentatives in the Congress of the United d:tsap~inting to the hope. · · · To find such States will be prepared to save the basic a polltical conception legally enforceable in nature of our Federal Republic. Your ancesthe broad and unspecific guarantee .of equal tors died for it; you, as individual citizens, protection is to rewrite the ConstitutiOn. . . . must act to preserve it. The notion that representation proportioned to the geographic sproo.d of population is not so universally accepted as a necessary element of equality between man and man that it must be taken to be the stand.ard of a political equality preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment-that it is, in appellants' words 'the basic principle of representative government'-is, to put it bluntly, not true . . However desirable and however desired by some among the great political thdnkers and framers of our government, it has never been generally practiced, tod:aly or in the past."

In the same case, Mr. Justice Harlan, in a seprura.te diss·enting opinion, &tated:

"I can find nothing in the Equal Protection Clause or elsewhere in the Federal COnstitution which expressly or impliedly supports _the view that 'state legislatures must be so structured as to reflect with approximate equality the voice of every voter. Not only iB that proposition refuted by history, as shown by my Brother Frankfurter, but it strikes deep into the heart of our federal system. Its acceptance would require us to turn our backs on the regard Which this Oourt has always shown for the Judgment of state legislatures and courts on matters of basioally local concern."

Mr. Justice Stewart in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962), in his dissenting opinion, stated:

[From DAR Magazine, February 1968] MAIL ORDER CONSTITUTIONs--THE Twn.IGHT

OF THE STATES?

(By Elizabeth Chesnut Barnes) (NoTE.-Elizabeth Chesnut Barnes (Mrs.

Wilson King Barnes), a graduate of Bryn Mawr College, the University of Maryland Law School and a member of the Maryland Bar, was Chairman of the National Defense Committee, NSDAR, 1959-1962 and State Regent of the Maryland State Society, 1964-1007.

(Mrs. Barnes was a candidate for the Constitutional Convention recently held in Maryland. She organized the Save Our State Committee (S.O.S.) in June, 1967 to bring to the attention of the Convention dele_gates and the general public the dangers to Constitutional government inherent in the Draft Constitution prepared by the Maryland State Constitutional Convention Commission. The S.O.S. Committee prepared a "Proposed Constitution," a synthesis of the Present Constitution (which was revised and updated), with the Draft Constitution. This "Proposed Constitution" was sent to every deleg·ate and to many Maryland newspapers. The Committee has also sent out Press Releases from time to time and letters

21650 on .pertinent Constitutional issues to .the delegates.

(Because or Mrs. Barnes' famllla.rity with -the sub]ect of ,C.onstitutiona.l revision in her own State as well as throughout the N.a.tion, we have asked. her to. alert our readers to the salient issues involv.ed, inasmuch as Oonstltutlonal ·revision is now being sought in more than '20 States.)

Of .supreme importance to every. voter in the United States 1s the pressure being exerted by certaln organizations in this Country to modlty, Tevise and, as in the State of Maryland,, to rewrite completely the State Constitutions. On a.n sldes, the attack stems from the theme that the State governments are so outmoded and cumbersome that they cannot meet "the ·cha1lenges of modern s~ ciety. The State Oo"lmtitutions are said to be lacking 1n 11ex1b111ty, modern management capabUity and: quick responsiveness. These nocuments are called imprecise and bu.lk;y, s;rcha.tc, old-te.shl~ed. Regional government is advocated to supplant existing county govermnents -and -ultim.a.tely State governments or to be super-imposed upon them.

To unders-tand the present drive to "mod'ernize" State Constitutions and to promote metrop611t&n or regional ·govemment in the United states, ·one must take a long look ·back 'to 1894: when -tne National Municipal League was organized ·tn New York to fi-ght -graft ·and corruption 'in municipal governments. After 19 years, the League abandoned lts plan ·to Teform city governments and umtertook ·~ita'tl:-on for appointed experts <ealled. city managers. The .PUblic was told that ·by hiring ·such ·experts it could by proper use ot ·tne democratic process secure 'better government for less money.

The National Municipal League became ·the parent organization -of many similar and related organizations now l-ocated at 1313 East Sixtieth Street, Chicago, Dlinois. Most of these groups have interlocking directorates -and are tax -exempt, 1lnanced by such tax free foun'dattons as Rockefeller, Carnegi-e, 'S.U.d ·F(!)rd. One -of the oldest of these organizations and also one of the most important 111 the International City Managers' :Assoclafl(!)n, whose Model Charter was ·adopted by th:e citizens of san Antonio, T-eDB m Ootober 1951. Essentially, this Charter replaces government by elected officials -and substitutes -government by appointed -officlals. ·Mr. 'Clyde Watlan-d, in an addrem; at 'St. Mary's University ln 1959 showed how Metropolitan Go-v:ernmemt (Metro) first be-gan ·at the -.grass roots in San Antonlo and to what lengths it went in establishing power in the hands of the few: "The City is authorized to own and operate every type utility and private bl.1Bines8, to tax .and control every service and Deeupatlon .or pr-of-ession; to selze every · parcel of property and to operate or resell it; to take without court action every item -of ·personal property and sell it ·to the b.1gb.es't bidder from the 1ron.t door of the City H:a111:••

The philosophy (i)f 1ihe City Mana-ger advo.cates was .detalled ruDe yea•rs ago in the August 1958 ls1:;ue >0t' Harper's Magazine. The United States was to be divided into ·twelve <iistrlcts, erasing State, County and other existing boundaries. Each of these Dlstric'lil .ts to be govem.ed by a Metro:polita.n District, at the center ef wihich 1s a professional admlniBtrator.

Thus, the fedem.tion of 'SOVereign states united by a central gov-ernment of llmited. powers -woulcil be changed for a nation divided into numerous metrGpolltan a.real!l spread across forgotten state boundary lines. rn clutr.ge of :eacb. &rea would be -an appointed. .expert. G'ntil the entlnl Nation was so constltute4, each a.rea government would levy taxes l(!lrectly on 1ts oWn. eitizens; ·but on .compleUon of the "Plann.el'S' " dream, the central Government in WasntngtOn wauld levy :a:a tlaes, and 'the:n. atstrlbute them to the regtonaJ. rgovel'lllDle:ntls.. A't i81bouit the rsame

.EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

time as ;t'his .plan to ..dlvlcie the U.nlted states .into Districts . was r.tweaJed, JUJ. article n. .ga.r.cllng the "ohsGlescence" o:r S:ta.te .,gGv.ernment appeared 1n the Tfmu "Di.Bpatch of Richmond, Virginia.

·'I'h.ose of us who w.ould like :ta preserve .ou.r States as vital Wlits in our Federal system should ,pay special .heed to the w.ords ,of Dr. Warner Moss, then head of government at the CoU~e of William .and Mary. He declared in a talk to the V-irginia section of the InternatiQilal City Managers' Association: "The growth of urban areas is .nullifying the need for State governments and for political parties. Urban citizens are •nationally minded' and political power is expressed more ·effectivcely through mass communications and pressure groups than ;through political parties.

"In some ways, State governments are obsolescent. To be effective the authority o! local government must coincide with the . areas of the problems.

"We must admit that the boundaries of .our State bear little relatton 'to ;political a.nd economic re~ty. F.ar more real are the met·ropolltan areas of Hampton Roads and Wash.lngton, both bound to the National Government by ties which make the Commonwealth Gf Virginia appear ·an intruder."

.In .addition to the ·International Managers' • Association and very influential in the effort to influence legislation in State Legislatures is the Council .of state Governments, also located at 1313 East Sixtieth ·Street, Chicago, !Illinois. The Council's secretariat controls almost half of the Metro core which promotes varlous featur-es of Metropolitan Government ·and is exclusively supported by appropriations .of the Legislatures of all the State governments .. From 1933 to 1936, this organization was merely a title on a letterhead. According to Jo Hindman, a recognized authority an :problems dealing with Metro Govel'nment: "1313's .COuncil of Sta·te Go:vernments "has sent into the States platoons of agents, newsletters, directives ·and a flood of 1:313 ·periodicals .... The !1.313 law factory publishes the prepackaged laws in form convenien·t for -copying, with a blank space for -insertion of a blll number. The whole thing ·can be handed to a Legislator to be intro-duced to the State Legislature. The State ot T-exat~ received a mental health ·bm in just -thalt manner. -

"When 'Metro draft legislation is considered ready for pubUcstion ·tn Suggested State Leg''islation, the catalog of mail-order laws, the process is 'handled by 1313's Commlttee on Suggested Jstate Legislation, a subcommittee of the Council of State 'Governments:•

It has been reported that the Council of Intergovernmental .Relations, .another group connected with 1.313, has been financed by Rockefeller money. F .o:rmed in the 1940s in Washington, it selected counties in different States for res.earch and experimentation. State Commissions on ·Intergovernmental :Re-

' 1ations are 1313's· beachheads in our State governments. The influence of ithis or-ganization ls round ln the "Draft Constitution" recently under consideration by the Maryland Constitutional Convention in which ;several sections .are devoted to inter-governmental relations .

A spokesman for the Natlo:nal Municipal League, the mastermind o! tlle 1313 de;aringhouse, -said at a -constituti(!)nal convention r-ally in Detroit .(Detroit T.im.es • .July 22, 1960), that the basic wrongs With most archaic State constitutions was the manacling 'Of · the State and the handcmffing of government. It might seem that the Na1ll:Dna1 .Municipal League is interested !in heJp1ng State governments survive and yet experience has shown that "Metro by practice and Metro by >Statement is 'VioleDtly .OlJPosed "to '11ni1ted. government." The pubUc is 'tberef«e -coDfused when it hears "that revitalizing the States , ancil re-estabUshtng their natural po-

July 16, 1~68 .sition .aDd. ~power 1:n ,a strong F-ederal .sys:$em .is .a. goal. now mor-e .eagerly .sought."

We :lind. that .seven years later, -the "Planners" are ,still hammering away a.t their .determination :to .cha.nge State governments ;to their Uking.

In July · 1967, the Research a.nd Policy Committee of ·.the Oo:mmJ.ttee for Improvement of Management .1n Government, under the .Chairmanship .of. Emello G. Coll-ado, Executive Vice Pres:ident Of the Standard. 011 Company ~New .Jersey) published a pamphlet .entitled "Modernizing State Government," whose purpose was ( 1) to describe re.asonable .requirements for any State government seeking to ut111ze its major opportunities, and (2) to set.forth measures for obtaining necessary reforms. The author of the ;pamphlet stated that most State governments are poorly .organized to fulfill their growing responsibllities and to perform. the .functions clearly within their .province. He quoted with approval from .a speech of Governor Daniel J . Evans of Washington: ·~state g.overnm.ents are unquestionably on trial today. If we are not Willing to pay the price., 11 we .cannot change where change 1s requlreci, then we nave only one .recourse. And that is to prepare for an orderly transfer .of our r:emaining responsib111ties to the Federal Goycernment."

In order to hasten and facilitate the alteration of Sta.te Constitutions, the Na.tlonal Mu- , .nlcipal League has published two series -of books which are offered to the public at moderate prices and are recommended reacllng for delegates to the Constituti.onal Conventions. In Series I, we find "The .Model State Constitution," ·~salient Issues of COnstitutional Revision;'' "The Future Bole of the States," "The Constitutional C(!)nvention: A .Manual on its Planning, Orga.ntzatl.on ,and Operation," "How to Study a State Constitution"; and .in .Series IT, "State Constitutions: 'The Shape of the ~ocument," ".State Constitutions: Reapportionment," "State Constitutions: The Governor," "State Constitutions: ·The Structure of Administration," and "State Constitutions: TheBill of R'i.ghts.N

Of special interest in this group of pamphlets is "The Model Constitution" w:Qich embodies the most recent ideas of the "Planners" whose theory is that all State Constitutions should be short, ,concise documents, modeled on the Oonstitution of the United States of America. They .should greatly increase the power of the executive, streamline the judicial system, institute regiO'na.l government, etc. It is their theory that we should now trust our public officials with enlarged .gov:ernmenta.l power .so that they can perform the enlarged governme:m,tal services aUegedly necessary because ,of the increase in population. It 1s .suggested that the reader compare pages 165-172 Of the Salient Issues oj Constitutionaz Revision published in l961 by the National Muni¢pal League and page 18 of the Introduction to the Model State Constitution (Sixth Edition). These publications by th.e National .Municipal League and others, including Row t.o .S.tudy a State Constitution by Mrs. Charlotte Irvine of the League Of Women Voters .and Dr. Edward M. :Kresky, Associate Director of the Temporary State lNew York') Commission on the Revision and .Simplification Gf the COnstitutJ.on and currently attached to the. office of the Governor of New York, have been financed with the assistance of a gr.a.nt from :the Ford Foundation.

In response to the drive by the "Planners" to revise State Constitutions and reform S'J;ates , governments in accord with regional and Me~ concepts, studi.es are being initiated in many of the .states with a view to 'bringing :up-to-date their .so-called a.rohaic Oonstitutlons. These include Massachusetts, for w'hlch it .has been reported that. the Fed~ral Government. appr.oved .a $'122.000 .comprehensive stuCiy~48.0~000 of th1a .appropriation will be pald by the ~pa.rtm.ent of Housing s.n.d "Urban ~ve1opment. Another

July 16, 1968 study, financed over a two-year period by the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, was recently concluded in North Carolina. All major proponents of "reform" agreed apparently that State Constitutions must be revised, membership of most State Legislatures be reduced to expedite the legislative process and Governors should have more executive power and authority.

It is interesting to note that many States are now being pressured to achieve these "reforms." Connecticut ( 1965), Michigan ( 1963) , New Jersey (1966) and Tennessee (1965) have recently completed a revision of their Constitutions. New York has just rejected the product of its recent Constitutional Convention. At this writing the Maryland Constitutional Convention has completed a. new Constitution to be submitted to the State's electorate in May 1968. Rhode Island also held a Constitutional Convention in 1967. Pennsylvania's Convention met in December; other States in which Constitutional Conventions have been recommended by Constitutional Study Commissions or in which drafts have been prepared by Commissions include Arkansas (1965), California (1966), Florida ( 1967), Idaho ( 1967) , Illinois ( 1967), Kentucky (1966), Louisiana (1965), New Mexico (1967), North Dakota (1967), Utah (1966) and Washington (1967). FUrthermore, in several other States: Massachusetts, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Vermont, Constitutional Conventions were recommended by the Governor or the Legislature; and in Delaware and Indiana, by the Legislature.

A very interesting article entitled "Maryland Constitution Could Be Model For All of Nation," by Richard Homan in The Washington Post for September 7, 1967, indicates clearly the significance of the Constitutional Convention recently held in Maryland which adopted in large measure the provisions for a State Constitution propounded by the National Municipal League in its "Model Constitution."

"Maryland could be about to write a state constitution for the Nation.

"Throughout the Country, State governments are beginning to feel new powers and flex new muscles--especially since reapportionment forcibly brought them abreast of mid-20th century problems.

"Caught in a power squeeze between the action layers of government, Federal and local, the state governments now seem willlng to fight their way back and reclaim a healthy chunk of the governing structure.

"But many, including Maryland, can't because their state constitutions 1 fail to give them the flexibility, modern management capability and quick responsiveness they need.

"There is no constitution they can look to as a model to provide the tools they need.

"Maryland's Constitutional Convention, which opens Tuesday after nearly three years of exhaustive preparation with H. Vernon Eney as president, would like to write that kind of constitution.

"The proposal drafted by the Constitutional Convention Commission, and the 142-member Convention itself, will primarily be concerned with the needs of Maryland and its 3.5 million citizens.

"The delegates also are aware of the broader needs of State governments and they consider Maryland-a state often called an America in microcosm, straddling the NorthSouth border, with western mountains and Atlantic seashore, with industry, farms, fisheries and offices-an ideal testing place for progress.

"Much of what is wrong with State constitutions is simply old age.

"Maryland's is 100 years old. Thirteen are older. Except for Hawaii and Alaska, only five States have writt~n new constitutions since 1930, and 21 still use their first. -

"The United States Constitution is 180 years old but it is a ·different kind · of constitution. It is a basic grant of power from

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS '

the people to the Government and presumably never will need a complete overhaul.

"Since states already have power, their constitutions are not grants of power. Instead they detail the organs of State and local government, their functions and limitations.

"These obviously need regular updating. "Maryland lived under its first, revolution

inspired constitution for nearly a century, then wrought radical changes with a series of three constitutions during the tumultuous Civil War years, before settling down for another century of relative inaction with its Constitution.

"Still, changes had to be made and 124 amendments covering more than 200 topics have been added to the present Constitution.

"The resulting document is imprecise and bulky, faults common to nearly every old state constitution. With 17,000 words, Maryland's is still below the 27,000-word average ....

"From all indications so far, a majority of the convention is prepared to draft a new constitution that would expand power of the executive branch and unify the governor's control of it; set broad guidelines but leave many details of government and its maintenance to the legislature; revise state-local relationships by strengthening the county and allowing for future regional governments within the ·state; establish the first statewide, unified court system and bring state guarantees of individual rights into line with the United States Constitution." ...

According to delegates who attended the Maryland Constitutional Convention, much of the reading material provided them came from the National Municipal League.

it is notable that a comparison of the Draft Constitution prepared by the Maryland Constitutional Commission appointed to study and revise the Maryland State Constitution with the Model Constitution, indicates that in general theory and format, and in some instances in the language used, the draftsmen of the Draft Constitution were definitely guided by the Model Constitution. It would seem that the National Municipal League reached the wrong conclusion on the facts on which it relies. The very concentration of population, the ever increasing restrictions and regulations from both the present State and Federal Governments make constitutional limitations on the exercise of governmental power more necessary today than at any time in our history. The limitations should be strengthened, not relaxed.

Of significance, also, is the basic theory relied on by the National Municipal League that State Constitutions should use the general language embodied in the Constitution of the United States and copy its comparative brevity. When this theory is examined more critically, however·, one can see that the Constitution of the United States is a poor model indeed for a Constitution of a State.

In the first place, the Federal Constitution was drawn for a government of strictly delegated powers only and was to operate on a national level, while the State government was the principal governmental body, with many more and varied functions. Hence, it was not thought to be necessary to spell out the more limited delegated powers as it was in the State Constitutions.

Secondly, even in 1787, there was substantial differences in sectional interests, culture, point of view and economic position between the original thirteen States, and in addition, there was a vast territory in which would be created new States having interests and problems which could not then be foceseen. The Federal Constitution, of necessity, was kept general and more open to interpretation than :was necessary or desirable for a State .Constitution which would provide for an established State, with people of similar interests and generally With the same cui ture and point of view. The Federal situation made a

216'51 general and short Constitution necessary; there is no necessity for such a State Constitution.

Thirdly, the very generality of provisions of the Federal Constitution has led to an amazing increase in Federal power by all branches of the Federal Government and particularly in the executive and judicial branches during the past three decades. There would be a corresponding enormous increase in State governmental power if the general provisions of the Model Constitution were adopted. Indeed, the draftsmen of the Model Constitution do not seriously dispute this. Their theory appears to be that this increase in State governmental power is necessary to protect the State from encroachment of Federal governmental power. The individual citizen who desires freedom from unreasonable and overbearing governmental power--either Federal or State--will take small comfort from this. An Executive functioning under this type of Constitution with plenary powers in the exercise of most executive power and a substantially unrestricted Legislature are far more likely to cooperate with their Federal counterparts than they are to resist them.

It would be well for the citizens of States whose Constitutions are attacked as verbose and archaic to examine them carefully to see if the charge is true. For ex:a.m.ple, where these allegations were made regarding the Maryland Constitution, it was by no means the case. It is true that the public interest requires that a State Constitution spell out as specifically as practicable how its provisions apply so that unnecessary and expensive litigation construing his provisions in specific factual situations will not be necessary. The relatively small number of Maryland cases construing the present Maryland • Constitution indicates that it has not required constant construction by the Courts.

The most important defect in the Model Constitution and also in the present Draft Constitution recently pending before the Maryland Constitutional Convention is in the elimination to a marked extent of selection of many important officers of the State government by election. In the Draft Constitution, the important State offices of Attorney General and Comptroller of the Treasury, now required to be elected, are eliminated from the Constitution and the draftsmen state in the commentary to the Draft Constitution that these officials should be appointed by the Governor. There would apparently also be such appointment of the State Treasurer, now elected by the General Assembly. The Board of Public Works, now composed of the Governor, the Comptroller and the State Treasurer would be abolished as a Constitutional Board. This Board sits at stated intervals and considers various fiscal and other matters of importance in the operation of the State government. It acts as a check upon the power of the Governor. In addition to the Comptroller and the Attorney General, the election of judges in either a primary or general election in which there might be candidates opposing the judge is eliminated (a judge after 8 years would "run against his record"), and the election of States Attorneys, Registers of Wills, Sheriffs and Clerks of Court would also no longer be elected as a matter of Constitutional mandate. In short, approximately 50% of the officers now elected would no longer be subject to election.

The avowed purpose of the draftsmen of the Draft Constitution in Maryland is to strengthen substantially the already powerful Governor and to eliminate any constitutional checks or balances within the executive department itself. The Governor's power in granting executive clemency is strengthened by the elimination of the requirement of giving public notice prior to action by the executive in this delicate field and his power of appointment and removal of various State officials has also been increased. With his power in the formulation of the State's budget and his usual position as head

21652 of the dominant pol1tical ])a.l'ty contr-olling the Genertal .Aasembly, 'the ·Governor of Maryland would be the dominant figure 1n the State government.

In the Dr.a!'t Constftution, there is also :a substantial concemtr.a. tion of pow.er 1n the hands of the proposed Chief Justice of the proposed Supreme Court of Maryland. The Chief Justice would appoint the Ch1e! .Judges of the :newly proposed SUperior Courts (:the new trial courts of original jurisdiction) who would .hold otnce at his pleasure and the Chle! Judges would in turn appoint the Clerk :ot the Sup.erior Court who would hold omce at the Chief .Judge's pl:ea;sure. The Chief Justi<:e -would .also hav,e .enlarged powers to send the lower .court :Judges to other )urlsdi-ctions t0 try ,cases. The ·entire judicial system 0! the State would be a unWed Judlctal system <>! which the Chief Justice would be the 11.dmln1stm.tive head.

.Equally .alal:DliDg, are the changes ln the Dmft Constitution in regard to State .finances. At the present "time there are firm restrictions in the present State Constitutton wbi:cb. insu~e that Ma.ry.land will have a balanced :budget. ~e State bonds must be seeu.red by the allocation of :a. .specm.c tax -to pay their pr:lnc1;pa.l and interest. Most DX1-portantl:y the pr.in.cipa.l of -the bonds must be paid. 1n a yea.rs---,.tba.t is. during the ••poUtlea.l W'e times" of 'the Legislarors who vote too: the issuaace of -the bonds. There is also an absolute prohibition against the loan or pledging of the State~ credit to .any private perS(!)n, firm or -association. This absolute prohibition was .first placed 1n Ute Constitution of 1851 as a. result of the near bankruptcy of the State rb:ecause of lts loan of the State's credit to advan-ce works of internal improvement by priWite companies, princtpa.lly in the construction of canals and ra.Uroads. This -absolute prohibition was contiaued 1n 'the Constitution of 1864 and ln :the present Cons·titutlon of 1867.

The Draft OoDStitutlon wo-uld substantially modify ~ese provisions by increa.sdng the time !or .repayment <>f the principal of the SAte bonds !rom 15 :to 25 -years. the elimination of the reqW.rement of tb.e allocation <Of a speci!lc tax for repayment .and the _penntsskm of the 1oe.n <Or pledging of the credit at the State tG :private -persons. finns « cm-por,ations if a public plll'p06e would be served. a.ru:l with a wote of three-.fi!ths ot both Houses of the General Assembly required. In spite of guarded BSSura.noes by oerta.ln brokers tha.t, 1n their Oopin!on. the relaxation <0! the present constit11tlona.l -restricti<>ns would not adversely <&Jrect t.he present high .rating of ihe state's bonda (.AA.A, the .h!ghest .!"a.ttn,g in the Un:lted states). there are many who think to the contrary~ A oompa.rlson of Maryland's hJgh erecUt rating with the credit ra.ting of states having .similar constitutional provisions -to those in the Draft Constitution. indeed. indie&tes the <OOD.trary.

In :a;dd;W.on to 'these extr.a.orddnary proposals. the requirement of the num.ber '0! names far a. referendum petition is substantially increased from the present 3% of the total number of votes cast !or Governor at the last gubernatorial election to 5% of the number of such votes cast; the power of the General Assembly over local government Js Sllbstantta.U.y increased; regional governments may be ,set up with power to borrow money and collect taxes imposed by the General Assembly or by local government; the General Assembly must require a. county t .... have a charter :fmrm ·of government after four years whether the county wants 11t or not; a.nd, the credit of local governmen.ts may under certain .oomlittODS be loaned to individuals, associ-ations or corporations.

Wooc:tmw Wilson pr.o!oundly stated, "The history ct. human .freedom is the history n! ltmlta.ttons on "the power a! government ... T.homaa Je1fersom. stated, .. 'That government is best 'Which govems least." These statements .alllD.mU'ize tile fundamental philosophtca.l baa1s ;tor limited 'Constitutional ~over.n.ment in thla <Country. It .must be •p-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS parent that the ·philosophy of the clra.ftsmen 'Of both the Model Constitution and the Dmft Constitution in 'Maryland is basically opposed. t.G the philosophy of limited government. 'Their stated tbeocy iB that the checks and balances in the existing State Constitutions prevent the States !rom performing the necessary. interrela.red governmental services now required in this industr-ial century, in whtch the population has greatly increased and communications have been greatly expanded. It is contended, as already noted, that unless the States concentrate the power of the State government in the hands of the Governor and a. few other State omcials, the States wlll decline -or perish as vla.@le ,governmental units and their service functions wll!l. be taken over by the .Federal Government. The argument is unsound and. indeed, the eontr..aey- effect will result if the present constitutional restrictions on the power of State omcia.ls are eliminared. The new "unrestricted" State otncia.ls ue far mwe likely to .coopera-te closely with their Federal countelpa.rts and the provisions of the Model Constitution and of the Maryland Draft Constitution in :regard to interstate .and other governmental ·~cooperation" indicate this.

Elgh t years ago Dan Smoot warned the Amedca.n public in TlLe D.a:n .smoot .Repor-t: "Metropolitan Gover.nment has become a part of a pincers movement which can destroy the whole fabric of Government and social organization in the United States., ellm1n.a.te the sovereign states a8 .meaningful political entitles, and divide the Nation lnto metropolitan regions {soviets) managed by appointed experts, who will be answerable primarily to the supreme soviet in Washington, which will provide most of the tax money . .

"The only function that citizens wlll have in 'governing themseleves• will be periodically to vote !or the commlssloners or councilmen who appoint the experts. These elected omcta:Is ·win become the "Victims rather than 'the supervisors of the experts they appoint.

"At the top of the pincers movement is the 'drive !or world .government in which our Nation will lose its independence and become interdependent on all other nations !or sur-

. vivai; at the bottom Is ~Metropolitan Government.'"

Having failed to br'lng about regional government through the United Nations and its agencies such as NATO, the "Planners, are, as we have seen, concentrating on developing regional government at the grass rootstheir grand design '"for human llving whleh provides for the continuity of man's total experience withln Its area." In all parts of our Country today, the forces or Metropolitan Government are parading under the attractive labels of "home rule'' and "emclency." They a.t'e offering their "Mail Order Constitutions" neatly packaged for those who unquestioningly believe in labels and catchy phrases without investigating the product or the maker Those who thoughtfully examine the contents wlll find the odor of State ·soci&ltsm prevalent throughout. I! a. State's elecrora.te is sumciently ill-advised to adopt a "Mail Order Constitution," it will most likely find itself in a. few years chained to the Federal chariot. Once chained, it will never again be free. The sacrifices at Valley Forge and now in Vietnam will have been in vain! Our generation may indeed witness the twilight of the States!

OHIO'S PLAN NEEDS REVISION

HON. CHARLES A. VANIK OJ' OHIO


Tuesday, July 16, 19.68

Mr. V ANIK. Mr. Speaker, the Department of 1the Interior manages a very .fine program .Of grants and aids to .~

July 16, 1968 States in acquiring and developing parks and recreation areas under the land and water conservation fund. There is only one maJor .requirement for a State to participate in that program: the State must develop a statewide plan of how it intends to spend the Federal moneys most wisely and efficiently to serve all the people of the State.

Ohio.,s original temporary plan filed with the Department of the Interior expired in November 1966. The last portion of a new State plan was not submitted to the Department untU .April 1968. During the intervening year .and a ha.Jf Ohio was ineligible f-or further dlsburs~ment of the money allotted to it. In total., Ohio was allotted $7.3 million, of which she used $5.3 before her original temporary plan expired. Thus, because of State inaction. $2 million has been withheld from the people of Ohio.

Today, I inquired ink> the status 'Of the Department of the Interior's :review of Ohio's plan. I was shocked to learn that the Department was having serious difficulties in approving the plan because of the way it was written.

The State of Ohio, in submitting the plan, has divided the State into eight different districts and then did a detailed explanation of how it intended to improve the recreational resources of the Scioto .River region-only one of tbe eight districts in the State. The rest of Ohto has been Ignored by the plan submitted by the State. I strongly hope that the Department of the Interior will reject this inadequate plan and direct that the State submit a plan which wm serve an the people of the State, including the metropolitan areas which most critically need recreational facill.ties.

RESOLUTION OF THE ALLEGHENY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

HON. JAMES G. FULTON OF PENNSYLVIANlA

IN THE HOt!TSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following resolution: RESOLUTION BEFORE THE BoARD OF CoUNTY

COMMISSIONERS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTT PA. • Whereas. the Steel Industry of Allegheny

County and of Pennsylvania forms the economic lifeline !or hundreds of thousands of our wage earners and citizens as witnessed by the fact that 195,000 Pennsylvanians are di .. rectly employed by the industry with annual earnings of $1.5 billion, and.

Whereas, the .rapid and consta.n t increase of foreign ·steel importa has COITOded a.nd threatens to sever that lifeline unless corrective measures are taken-the 'evidence being that steel imports of 11.5 million -tons in 1967 alone cost at least 14:,000 Jobs or Job opportunities in Pennsylvania; and. this becwnes more ominous in the !ace ot un.ch&llenged statistics which show that steel 1mporte for the first five months o! 1968 have climbed 56 percent over the same period or I.aat year -and are likely to reach 16 miliUm tons by lihe end of this year. a.nd

Wll.ereu, the al&rma smmded by the steel

July 16, 1968 producers of"' Pennsylvania, spokesmen !or· related industries and by the United Steelworkers of America call for regulatory legislation, and

Whereas, we recognize the need to maJntain the principle of free world trade and have no intent to support tariff barriers, but only to protect American producers and workers a.gainst so-called "dumping" of foreign steel on our domestic markets at prices with which our steel makers cannot fa.irly compete;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that this Board of Commissioners of Allegheny County, on behalf of industry, wage and salary earners and the economic strength of our entire community, do hereby petition and urge the Congress of the United States and the Administration to support and enact quota legislation that will restrict the 'rising and damaging tide of foreign steel imports, and

Be it further resolved that copies of this Resolution be addressed to the major steel producers of this area, to the Pre&ident of the United Steelworkers of America, the four Congressmen from Allegheny County and the two United States Senators from Pennsylvania to the end that appropriate legislation be enacted at the earliest possible date.

FEDERAL GUN LEGISLATION

HON. G. ELLIOTT HAGAN OF GEORGIA



Mr. HAGAN. Mr. Speaker, we in the U.S.•House of Representatives stand at the crossroads today. Sometime this week, we will be called on to cast our votes on the ma;tter of more Federal gun legislation. This all-important vote will come at a time when many people in this great countr!' of ours are still in a state of shook as the result of unrestrained violence, the disgraceful murders since the first' of the year including the senseless slaughter of many of our finest lawenforcement officers and numerous innocent victims. These events have caused an almost hysterical panic among many people, who are reaching out blindly to further gun controls as a solution to violence.

I submit to you that it is not to congress that this couDJtry should tum for further gun controls, if such is needed, and certainly the time to vote on such a matter is not in the midst of such an unreasoning atmosphere as we are now witnessing.

In my opinion, the misuse of guns by criminals and our irresponsible citizens would be a far lesser problem if we removed oome of the unreasonable restrictions from our law-enforcement agencies and allowed them to enforce the existing laws to the fullest extent.

No, the matter of further gun control~ should rightfully be left to the diScretion of the individual States. The great majority of our citizens and the millions of sportsmen have shown beyond a shadow of a. c.~oubt, that . they are capable of r£:::::ponsibility in the ownership and use of :fireanns.

Passage by this House of any legislation .. aimed at further gun controls will constitute additional abridgement of the

CXIV--1364-Part 16


constitutional rights of law-abiding Amerlcans.

I urge my colleagues to jodn me in voting against further gun control powers by the Federal Government.

KEEP TRUCK TRAINS OFF OUR HIGHWAYS




Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, in all my 10 years in Congress I have not seen a bill that so flagrantly disregards the public interest proceed as far as has S. 2658, which would greatly increase the weight and width limits for trucks using our interstate highways.

This bill would allow triple-trailer behemoths carrying up to 69 tons to travel at high speeds on highways that must be shared by more than 100 million smaller vehicles.

This bill would richly reward a tiny segment of an industry that has never paid its fair share of highway construction and maintenance costs. At the same time; it would greatly increase the hazards that automobile and small truck drivers face today with trucks half the size of those this bill would allow.

Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contains an editorial which eloquently summarizes the dangers in S. 2658. Under leave to extend my remarks, I insert the editorial at this point in the RECORD and commend it to the attention of those who are concerned by the threat S. 2658 poses to highway safety. The editorial follows:

CONGRESS JUMPS FOR TRUCK LOBBY

Congress apparently is about to enact a big truck b111 that will richly reward a minority segment of the American trucking industry and severely penalize the vast majority of Americans in terms of cost, safety and convenience.

At the behest of Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, the Senate has already passed a bill that would authorize use on the Interstate Highway System of triple trailer trucks weighing up to 69 tons and measuring eight and a half feet in width. This increases the maximum permissible weight for trucks to nearly twice the present limit and expands the width by six inches. Once the Senate had passed the big truck bill, the House Public Works Committee, under the chairmanship of Congressman George Fallon or Maryland, approved the same measure after less than 40 minutes of discussion.

This kind of hasty, ill-considered legislative action is indicative of the power of the big truck lobby, which represents a minority of owners of the nation's 15 million trucks. In responding with such alacrity to the special pleading of the rich truck lobby, Congress is ignoring the interest.s of most highway users, including the drivers of 80 million passenger cars and some 14,700,000 small trucks. In allowing rubber-tired freight trains on the highways, Congress would be heedlessly increasing traffic hazards for a vast number of ordinary motorists and unjustifiably increasing costs for overburdened taxpayers. The Department of Transportation has said that upgrading the roods to a.ooom-

21653 modate the heavier trucks would- cost an estimated $2.8 billion.

The House should let the special interest truck legislation die instead of ramming it through under the inexcusable pretense that its benefit to the economy would outweigh it.s harm to highway users and taxpayers.

WESTERNERS AND GUNS-SOME CONTRARY EVIDENCE

HON. MORRIS K. UDALL OF ARIZONA



Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is a general impression held by many that States like Arizona are made up almost wholly of gun-toting types who would rather shoot you dead than stand still for enactment of new firearms legislation. To be sure, my State has a long history of shooting and violence. Names like Tombstone and Geronimo come quickly to mind. And, to be sure, the shoot 'em up point of view makes itself heard in many newspapers and in a great and unending flow of mail from Arizona.

However, what many of my colleagues may not realize is that even in a Westem State like Arizona there is strong sentiment in some sectors and among many people for passage of new laws to impose some restraint on the present, nearly wide-open traffic in firearms in this country.

This fact is made evident by the mail I receive, which is about equally divided between the advocates and opponents of firearms legislation. And it is revealed in occasional newspaper columns and editorials.

To illustrate, I have here a column by Hanson Ray Sisk, publisher of the Nogales Herald in Nogales, Ariz., in which he advocates the registering of guns and licensing of gunowners.

I also have a column by Jones Osborn, editor and publisher of the Yuma Daily Sun in Yuma, Ariz., calling for registering of all guns and screening of gunowners before permits are issued.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a column by Steve Emerine, copublisher of the Green Valley News in Green Valley, Ariz., calling generally for stronger gun laws.

Because these columns may reveal how hazardous it is to genevalize about public opinion, one's own constituents or even about such concepts as "the West" I shall, without objection, insert these three columns at this point in the RECORD: [From the Nogales (Ariz.) Herald, July 11,

1968] Vmws AND lNTERVmws; CONTROL OF GUNS

(By Hanson Ray Sisk) Rep. Morris K. Udall (D-Ariz.) has em

barked on a herculean task in his Congressional District which includes Pima, Pinal, Cochise, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties. ·

He is mailing a questionnaire this week to 184,000 homes asking his constituents to express their views of the heatOO. gun control legislation now in Congress and which is being pressed by the Johnson acim.inistration.

The questionnaire includes such vital questions including: ·

21654 "Do you believe there is a need for new

firearms legislation?" "Do you believe all firearms should be

registered?" The cards provide columns for both hus

band and wife, or any two members of the household, to answer.

According to news reports the legislation for gun control is perhaps the "hottest" issue now before Congress. The lobby against it is tremendous, and the issue must be decided soon. The President wants all guns registered and licensed.

The legislation was sparked after the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy and there are proponents and opponents who are beating the drums all over the nations.

"I have never seen such a divisive issue,'' said Rep. Udall. "One wou11 think there was no middle ground. The opinion so far seems equally divided with proponents claiming we must have sweeping gun control laws and opponents saying the legislation will rob us of our freedoms and violate the Constitution"

When the questionnaire is received we urge the recipients to answer the queries and mail the card back to Rep. Udall.

Our own views, as we have stated previously, is for rigid gun controls as crime in the United States, particularly in cities, is the nation's biggest problem and soaring rapidly.

We read daily of holdups, robberies, outright murder, and even some women and children seem to possess firearms. Obviously something must be done.

It is easy to buy guns if you have the money and many of the weapons are in the hands of irresponsible people of the criminal type.

Let's have them registered and licensed. We believe a rigid law will reduce crime in the streets and make the people safer in their homes.

[From the Yuma (Ariz.) Daily Sun, July 7, 1968]

EDITOR'S NOTEBOOK: A DAY OF RECKONING APPROACHES

(By Jones Osborn) An older brother of Sirhan Sirhan, driving

peaceably along the Pasadena freeway Wednesday, was shot at.

His only "crime" was to have been born in the same family with the young man who is accused of the Robert Kennedy assassination. There is no cloud of suspicion over him, legally or morally. A few hours before he was shot at, he had made a statement:

He said he didn't need police protection "because I have faith in the American people being fair and just."

But that very same day, one or more persons got hold of a gun and fired at him as he drove along, minding his own business. That 1s the act of a unstable mind. Had the aim been better, Sirhan's brother would be dead and we would once again be asking ourselves, "How can we stop this senseless killing?"

On the very same day, in New York another demented character shot and killed an innocent young woman in a public restroom, and wounded an elderly man sitting on a park bench nearby, and wounded two policemen before he was himself killed.

But we ought not be surprised at such acts of murder and attempted murder. For murder is becoming commonplace in the U.S.

.During the week in which Congress refused to bring rifles and shotguns under a very mild law covering interstate shipments, there were 109 homicides by gunfire. And that was a rather quiet week.

In 1966, this country averaged 125 homicides by gunfire, every week.

The paradox is that nearly all of us agree that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals, juvenile delinquents, alcoholics, narcotics addicts and the men-

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS tally unbalanced or unstable. Yet a segment of the population resists taking the only steps that can achieve that goal. In short, all guns must be registered and all owners screened before they are permitted to own firearms. -

Until such reasonable measures are taken, the slaying of innocent persons with firearms will continue, year by year, until the bloodshed will become so revolting that harsh and restrictive laws will become a reality. Tl).at is the history of such issues where one side stubbornly refuses to yield to reasonable regulation.

[From the Green Valley (Ariz.) News, July 11, 1968]

VALLEY VIEWS

(By Steve Emerine) U.S. Rep. Morris K. Udall's continued fight

for gun control legislation, which has accelerated since the assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, has brought him a flood of petitions from gun law opponents.

But strangely, nearly all of them live in the Phoenix area, which is outside Udall's district.

The petitions recite the usual arguments that gun laws will discriminate against the law abiding citizen and sportsman and violate the citizen's constitutional rights. They call on Udall, as "our representative," to reverse his stand on federal gun control legislation.

And the signatures are those of persons living in Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Glendale and other areas of Maricopa County.

Most of Maricopa County is in the district represented by Rep. John Rhodes, a Republican, Rhodes originally backed gun legislation, but suddenly changed his stand. (Suppose he got the petitions, too?)

The western part of the county i·s in Rep. Sam Steiger's 3rd Congressional District, which also includes Northern Arizona. Steiger, a Republican, has opposed gun legislation all along.

To Udall's credit, he hasn't altered his position because of the petitions from his "constituents" in the Phoenix area. But the tactics of the pro-gun forces there are indicative of the pressures being put on all senators and representatives.

Immediately after Kennedy was shot and killed, thousands of concerned Americans wrote their congressmen to urge stronger gun legislation. This action was spontaneousand simultaneous-and it caught the wellorganized gun lobby off-guard.

Now, however, the gun lobby is on the move. Letters from its members continue to bombard senators and representatives in Washington. In addition, petitions similar to those being sent to Udall are being passed throughout the country.

And the net result is that although polls have shown for more than 30 years that Americans want stronger gun laws, senators and representatives are beginning to be swayed by their mail from the gun lobby. Action on proposed legislation has started to bog down. The chances of its passage this session are getting slimmer.

What's needed is more pressure from those who want the legislation passed now.

If you've already written Senators Paul Fannin and Carl Hayden and Representative Udall, it's time to write Arizona's other two representatives, John Rhodes and Sam Steiger.

And if you've already written them, it's time to write senators and representatives from other states-perhaps from the state from which you came.

The campaign is far from over. If the ma;.. jority of citizens who want stronger gun laws are to win, they wlll have to adopt some of the tactics of the minority which opposes them.

July 16, 1968

"TAIL STRATEGY": A STUDY ON MILITANT COMMUNISM

HON. JOHN R. RARICK OF LOUISIANA



Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Michael Kulchytzky of Westchester, lll., provides us with an interesting analysis of the indefensible policies of our country toward the unrepresented peoples of the world-with whom we officially carry on no dialog-the enslaved victims of Communist overrun countries.

Mr. Kulchytzky is a native of Ukraine but he · also has the desire of liberty and individual freedom for his people.

Under unanimous consent I submit his treatise for inclusion in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, as follOWS:

THE "TAIL-STRATEGY": THE PROGRESSIVE SURRENDER

Let us imagine a man with a good rifle, lost in the Rocky Mountains, and a huge grizzly, approaching to him. As the grizzly was drawing nearer, our man started to make use of his rifle, but, instead to shoot into head of beast, he was shooting into its tail. Soon our man ran out of his ammunition.

Exactly in the same situation is America, being involved in wars in Vietnam and Korea. Red Moscow is the "grizzly", and VietnamKorea is its "tail". The wars in these countries is a trap, devised by Moscow in order to exhaust U.S.A. morally and militarily on "second-rate" fronts, remaining herself intact, before final showdown. Instead to shoot into head of "grizzly", America is wasting its military might, fighting its "tail", thus rendering itself hopelessly weak in case of said confrontation, which is imminent.

This "Tail-strategy" is nothing but an inevitable consequence of the series of political blunders or treasons committed and have been committing on "high places", especially, since the black days of recognition de-jure of U.S.S.R. by U.S.A. in 1933. No doubt that this fatal act was the greatest betrayal of Free World and America itself in favor of Communism. And no doubt that in such a way was opened in America itself a "Pandora-Box" with all imaginable calamities against this beautiful country. The second World War was in deepest sense theresult of said betrayal, crowned by surrender of U.S.A. to Red Moscow in Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam, and other places.-U.S.A. was submitted to law of "chain-reaction" with its component of "tail-strategy" as a narrow road of progressive surrender to Communism.

Some considerations. The ultimate objective of Communists is world dominationsubjugation. This is the axiom. If an individual in the remaining Free World nurses and expresses doubt in this postulate, he is either a political ignorant, hopelessly naive, or a Communist himself. The imminence of general confrontation with red global i.t::Uperio-colonialism-its "last attack" against West--is rooted. in the very nature of destructive pseudoscience of Marxism-Socialism-Oommunis:r,n, as the greatest provocation against mankind in its whole history. The "principles" of this provocation are:

1. Atheism for conversion of human into · animal-animalization of mankind;

2. Abolition-denitil of spiritual and material private ownership, as complete total robbery of mankind for the cause Of International Parasitism and its ally-supporter through the "state" by the means of "na-

. tional' --;ation," as the greatest deceit; · 3. Class stru.ggle, or the organization of mass-massacre--a bloody embodiment of criminal rule--"divide and reign"-on the

'July 16, 1968 background of burning jealousy, insidiously inspired for the aim o! seizure 1n this way of power and all national and private property by "proletarian hands";

4. "Internation.aJ.imn," or the camouflage of International Parasitism and its ally-supporter- "elder brother .. - Muscovite/Red Moscow/, who, as Communist-Bolshevist, became red fascist.

International Parasitism, or "grave-diggers," are all those, even whole nations at least in their upper ranks, who lived and live on account of other people, or nations, and strive to preserve their parasitic rule by political-military means, and first of all by aid of Marxism-Socialism-Communism.

The "principles" of Marxism-SocialismCommunism, being applied in time and ampleness, are based tactically on Lenin's rule"two steps forward, one step back"-for the purpose of .psychological deception of mankind by the means of alternation of terror waves of different intensity, namely [chart not inclUded in Record]:

A. Line of "mild" terror and "narrow" conditions of life, that is the line of some alleviation---''thaw", inside of Moscow prison of nations, and outside-are in progress "cold" wars;

B. Line of sharp terror-genocide, famine, great poverty, distress, and different persecutions, especially, against enslaved nations-inside of this prison; conquering, "hot" wars-outside under camouflage of "liberation" of "colonial people" from "capitalist oppresson";

C. General line of Communist Party. The General Line of Communist Party in

its action is represented by a zig-zag, interchange of waves.-After a period of sharp terror-genocide, comes out a connivance"thaw" or a wave of "mild" terror. This wavetactic serves in bands of International Parasitism, "grave-diggers", as an insidious tool for deception of common people, and, especially, Americans, having no close experi-ense with red devils. -

Many, let us say, "sirens" are persistently luring America to fatal rocks of "Scilla and Charybdis", just using "thaws" for propaganda in favor of Reds, suppressing in the same time evidences of horrible waves of sharp terror-genocide.

Some examples, Mr. Walter W. Rostow, foreign policy planner and special advisor to President of U.S.A. in security matters, was always chanting about "mellowing" policy of communist Russia, inviting U.S.A. to "show good will" toward this kingdom of slavery and genocide, by unilateral disarmament--destruction of American military might. This "planner-adviser", advocating abolition of nationhood, vigorously recommended transfer of American armed forces to Organization of United Nations, this institution of Hlss-Molotov. Mr. Rostow is a planner for "World Gov-t" under domination of International Parasitism, whose left wing-head is represented by Red Russia.

The late Adlai Stevenson, as ambassador of U.S.A. to U.N., was always using any hint of "thaw" behind the iron curtain. His brainwashing exclamations-"Russia is inching to freedom", "Russia challenge wanning", "Reds in defensive"--contributed very much for spiritual disarming of Americans. A. Stevenson was the most outspoken protector of Castro's Cuba before invasion of U.S.A. on his communist stronghold in 1962.

Mr. George F. Kennan, former ambassador to Russia, started to brainwash Americans with madness of "peaceful coexistence" with Reds as early as in 1952. This "historian" revealed himself as an ignorant. His statement "Ukraine is the Pennsylvania of Russia", advocating preservation of Russian colonial empire, was in deepest sense a "pre~cription" for conversion of America. into a "Pennsylvania of Russia" too. Mr. Kennan closes his eyes on waves of sharp terror-

EXTENSIONS OF . REMARKS genocide. He prefers to see in terrorized population of U.S.S.R. a "disciplined society" only, suggesting that "Soviet system is so vastly superior to the American system" that "We simply could not compete". It seems that Mr. Kennan is for surrender of U.S.A. to Reds.

The ideology of Marxi8m-Socialism-com.:. munism, founded on materialistic world outlook, is indeed a faith-religion of anti-Christ, and marxist-socialist-communist party represents by itself the "mystic body" of himanti-Christ, or "church" with "father-god~·satan. For "gospel" of this anti-Christ's "church" serves the Communist Manifesto of K. Marx, his das Kapital, the Dialectical and Historical Materialism, together with paranoical in their cannibalism "sacred" scriptures of Lenin.

The "principle" of class-struggle, as the organization of mass-massacre, is nothing, but the cult-ritual of satan-"baptism•r by blood and tears of your neighbour, even brothers-sisters, parents. . . . Therefore, Communists and their fellow-travelers "baptized" in such a way, are, so to say, "cemented" by blood. As collective murderers, they are "cemented" also by fear of retaliation in case of downfall. The third motive is thirst for power, which brings them hegemony and position of a class-caste with "privilege" to live on account of others, as a drone with a whip-gun in hands. Bloody "baptism", fear and strive for power force Communists to commit this crime-murder again, and again . . . Class-struggle under Communists' rule never ceases-at first it was raging against "bourgeoisie", and afterwards-against "enemies of people"--enemies of communist class-caste.

Marxism-Socialism-Communism is an ideology of complete/total/robbery-expropriation-and mass murder, being in the same time the heaviest brake for productive-creative forces of mankind and, thus, a motivesource of permanent imperialism-robbery, as way of life. Marxists, Socialists-CommunistsBolshevists can not turn back from their bloody way voluntarily. Therefore they must have the ultimate goal of world conquestsubjugation.

The bloody account of Marxists-SocialistsCommuno-Bolshevists's rule in Moscow jail of nations is represented by murder of more than 80 m1llion of innocent people, including about 15 million of those, who were not born, and hundreds million of enslaved.

The "Tail-Strategy". The architects of "tail-strategy" are entrenched mostly in State and Defense D-ts, and among advisers of presidents of :u.s.A. Just these people in visible "high places" are immediate "switchmen," who pushed and are pushing America into Moscow's trap of "second-rate" fronts, instead to deliver a crushing blow to this blood-thirsty monster-into its head, thus securing world peace. Only such a blow would terminate at once all wars of "liberation", turning tide in opposite direction of said "chain-reactions", and against its "sponsors" in visible and invisible "high places",

The grim prerequisite for "tail-strategy" was represented by partition of Germany, Korea and Indo-China in favor of Communists. These "gifts", together with delivery of China and several countries in Eastern and Central Europe to red murderers, constituted not only a spring-board, but an "invitation" to them for further aggressions ... Just here started retreat of America from victory.

A respectable man, watching a sadistic villain torturing his victim, and, instead to protect it, encourages the murderer, is indeed an accomplice of later. The recognition of U.S.S.R. in 1933 was granted to this gang of .murderers despite the fact that they perpetrated, during 1932-33 a horrible, unheard in whole history of mankind, genocidal crime, killing through purposely arranged famine/all food was snatched away from

21655 people forcibly /many million of innocent people in Turkestan, Ukraine, Cossakia/Don, Kuban, Terek/and North Caucasus. In Ukraine alone have died more than 6 million of people. So, America has not only completely disregarded the great dynamic force of nationalism within Moscow jail of nations,-but, in contrary, by said recognition heavily suppressed it. If to consider that enslaved nations constitute almost a half of U.S.S.R.'s population, and they have proclaimed in 1917-18 their independence,-the fact of maimed possibilities to turn tide of "cold" war against Communism, becomes more than evident.

By the end of World War II, Gov-t of U.S.A., under influence of dark forces, rejected British Prime-Ministe·r, V. Churchill's proposal to get rid of "both evils" at once. Instead of that, Reds received all what they wanted, together with several hundreds million of slaves. This was ·also a blow against nationalism,-a flagrant betrayal of subjugated nations, and an America's suicidal act, as well.

The withdrawal of said recognition as an act erroneously issued, and, in contrary, the recognition de-jure and de-facto of aZZ subjugated nations, would be not only an honest vindication toward them, but a great support for America's defense, as just these people are the most faithful friends of it. Nationalism of subjugated nations is an "Achilles' hill" of Moscow imperio-colonialism.

The "switchmen's" action in area of "tailstrategy", in rather recent past, might be exposed by some examples.-

Dean Acheson's, as adviser of State D-t, announcement/ January 1950/that Korea was not included into defense perimeter of U.S.A., was followed within six months by North Korea's attack. War in· Korea lasted more than 2 years; 33,629 Americans were kllled, far more were wounded. A Soviet delegate to U.N., a communist, was "dutifully" allowed to dispatch American military orders to allied troops in Korea because this war was officially a "police operation" of U.N ....

John F. Dulles, as secretary of State, was personally responsible for division of IndoChina, accepting Communists' rule in North Vietnam, and thus giving them possib111ty to attack South Vietnam. As of March 8, 1968, the U.S.A. had lost 19,313 killed in action, 117,680 wounded in Vietnam. Bloody war rages further ... The · slogan "MoscowPeking will fight to the last Ho-Chi-min's soldier" can be extended-"and to the last American GI".

Dean Rusk, as secretary of State, together with Averel Harriman, as undersecretary, have pushed Laos into arms of Communists, despite pro-American attitude of this country. Now Laos is used as sanctuary for Vietcong and North Vietnam, and American boys are paying for this "blunder" with their lives.

State D-t cablegram to Tito/November 2-nd, 1956/-"The Gov-t of U.S.A. does not look with favor upon Gov-ts unfriendly to Soviet Union on the borders of Soviet Union"--sealed the fate of Hungarian freedom-fighters, and allowed Moscow to butcher them ..•

The ominous fate of Cuban patriots at Bay of Pigs was the result of the most shameless provocation toward them, devised in "high places".

The restrictions, crippling military efforts of American armed forces under command of Generals Douglas MacArthur in Korea, and William Westmoreland in Vietnam, are the most flagrant examples of "no-win" policy and its component of "tail-strategy".

Besides that, has to be considered, that Free World can not live "in shadow of rift between Russia and China" simply because such a "rift" doesn't exist at all. The "family quarrel" indeed is an insidious play to

21656 put Western World asleep in order to ease burial of it, despite some superficial differences between red murderers how to accomplish this "wet job"--Qnly political ignorant can believe in possibility of "hot" war between Russia and China.

Some conclusions. The time since the end of W.W. II was marked by countless humiliations and "peaceful" retreats of America in face of red murderers, accompanied with loss of prestige, enormous material resources and lives of many thousands of Americans, besides many million of peace- and freedomloving people, massacred by Reds in their "areas of influence". The loss of time for U.S.A. due to "tail-strategy" procrastination was indeed a great gain for Communists, who achieved remarkable success in armament-conventional and nuclear. The increase in number of ICBM, installation of ABM around many cities of U.S.S.R., and possible deployment of space nuclear missiles/SCRAG/,all together makes situation of Free World more and more dangerous, especially, when military initiative rests in Reds' hands as the result of "tail-strategy".

If U.S.A. will practice further this suicidal "tail-strategy" with accompaniment of "cultural exchange", madness of "peaceful coexistence" and "building of bridges" to red devils, the perdition of this country will be imminent, and the death of at least of one half of its population-unavoidable,-death either due to "last attack", or due to use of "peaceful means" /"reeducation" /in communist slaughter-houses, famine, arctic areas, concentration camps, etc.

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS How long Ameljcans wlll continue to tol

erate such a mess at home? How long irresponsible people/or sinister, dark forces;on "high places" will be allowed to inflict irreparable damage to their beautiful country, being also harmful for friends of it? How long Americans will allow to help Reds, striving to "bury us"? How long America will suppress forces of nationalism, essentially opposed to Communism as is in the case of

-enslaved people in Moscow jail? And how long America will allow anti-Communism forces to decay without use them for fight for freedom as is for instance in the case of Indonesia.

Red murderers, as global imperio-colonialists, are death-enemies of enslaved peoples' nationalism. Yet Reds cunningly use nationalism outside of their prison, "sponsoring" so called "wars of liberation". Vietcong is an example par excellence of such a perfidy. Instead to use nationalism too, honestly, for unification of corresponding nations, as has to be in case of Vietnam and Korea, U.S.A. considers 17-th and 38-th parallels as "taboos", playing a miserable role into the hands of Reds.

Only by decisive blow into head of "grizzly" may America avoid its cruel fate. From moral point of view such a step is fully justified not only because of selfdefense.The elimination of red bloody menace, hanging, as "sword of Damocles" over entire world, will save lives of billion of people, securing in the same time prosperity-progress.

The punishing hand of Nemezls doesn't show mercy to those, who refuse to execute

July 16, 1968 the leadership granted them by God, as is in the case of America. Nemezis will punish those, who bury their talents, or use them for harm to their neighbours.

STATEMENT OF POSITION

HON. JAMES G. FULTON OF PENNSYLVANIA



Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening, July 3, 1968, the day before the Fourth of July congressional recess, I was returning to my district to fill a heavy schedule of "must" appearances on this patriotic holiday when the last rollcall vote was called on the House floor.

I had been present on the floor until evening to the point when my last opportunity to get back to my district by plane had expired. That there were so few Membe:·s responding-222-showed the unexpected nature of this rollcall, as so many Members had to leave to return for speeches in their districts on July 4.

Had I been present, on the motion to recommit the District of Columbia revenue bill, H.R. 16361, I would have voted "yea."