SENATE-Thursday, March 21, 1968° - US Government ...

7220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - ~ENATE March . 21, 1968 Americans for the .Security and Stability ment left them in occupation of the west of Israel and in my judgment should be · bank area. It was never ceded. to Jordan by · of extreme interest to all Americans who · Israe~ -nor DY an-y international authority. respect -freedom and democracy. Neither was the Gaza Strip Egypt's. This ·

, . . . Strip was part .. of Palestine and included in Israels survival as a . nat10n should the Mandate of the League of Nations to be

be of concern to all Americans, for Israel part of the Jewish National Homeland It alone today stands as a bastion against w.as also occupied and held by Egypt u~der Soviet expansion in the Middle .East. the armistice arrangement of 1949. It was

The case for Israel is expertly stated never incorporated. into the State of Egypt. in the following message: It ~as ad.ministered. by Egypt as a separate

(From the New York Times, Jan. 5, 1968] No RETREAT FOR ISRAEL-Moscow-CAIRO AXIS

MUST N-OT PREVAIL

The Arabs in concert with the Soviet Union are loud in their demand that Israel should retreat to the armistice lines of 1949. Their cry finds an echo among some wellm~ning but naive people in support of their stand. Realism and fairness require that right-minded Americans should make known their reJection of such an unwarranted .claim.

RIGHT TO THE LAND

Israel has inalienable rights to the Eretz Yisroel territories she won in the war forced upon her by the Arabs and their Soviet Communist allles. Israel's rights are supported by history, geography, and by international sanction.

These territories were part of the mandated 1:1,rea which was placed under the authority of the League of Nations after the first World War. Britain, the League's Mandatory, administered Palestine under the charge of developing the Jewish National Home. The United States .sanctioned the Mandate .and its purpose by a special convention with Great Britain. The histori<:al bond of the .Jewish people with the Land of their forefathers, the Land of the Bible, was thus given international sanction. The U.N., by approving the restoration of the Jewish State, confirmed this bond.

There never was. in fact, an independent Arab State in Pale.stine.

NO CONQUEST BUT LIBERATION

The Israeli soldiers, forced into a war, entered the battle for the Land not as ,conquerors and occupiers, but as liberators. They liberated territories which. had been forcibly occupied by Egypt and Jordan and they returned them to the rightful owner, the State of Israeli.

ARABS HAVE NO VALID CLAIM

F,gypt and Jordan have no Tights to the a-reas Israel wrested from their domination. These territories never right!Ully belonged to them.

The west bank of the Jordan, including Old Jerusalem, was illegally occupied. by the Jordanians in 1948. They annexed it by unilateral action after the armistice arrange-

territory. ·

AGGRESSORS CANNOT BE APPEASED

For years, prior to June 5th, Israel was thTeatened with annihilation. Arabs, through radio and press, promised to destroy the men, women, and children of Israel. The Gulf of Akaoo was closed to Israel's shipping by Egypt's armed blockade . . . in itself an act of war. Now ~ael is urged by some to show "magnanimity" and give up the fruits of the victory she has won by the valor of her soldiers. It is maintained that the Arabs will then reciprocate and make peace with the Jewish State.

Experience has shown that such advice is induced by wishful thinking. Every attempt to appease aggressors proved to be an excursion into futility. Israel learned this lesson the .hard way. All peace overtures to the Arabs have only emboldened them to greater acts of bloodshed and pillage.

INVITATION TO MURDER

The .armistice lines were .an open invitation to marauders and terrorist bands. Israel suffered many casualties from such murderous attacks during Israel's nineteen years of existence.

Israel's .1949 arm.istice lines were ·indefensible. Israel could have easily been cut into two OT three areas by a. sudden attack. Nasser and Hussein were about t.o launch such an attack. Only Israel's speedy victory saved the nation from disaster.

Israel dares not risk her safety and the lives of her people by returning to the exposed positions of the .armistice borders. No one has a moral right to encourage such an eventuality.

ISRAELI'S ACCOMPIJSHMENT

Soviet Russia formed the axis with .Cairo for the sole purpose of achieving the old Russian imperialist ambition: to dominate the Middle East . . Had Nasser, Hussein, and Syria been successful in their attack on Israel, the Soviets would have gained control of ·the Eastern Mediterranean and the gateways to Asia and Africa.

The vital interests of our ·allies and the U.S. herself would have been imperiled. Israel's vctory averted the danger to the U.S. positlon in the Middle East.

Israel's victory iSaVed the day for the

Western democracies . .As State Secretary Dean Rusk -told Senator Thruston Morton: "It was a victory for the West." It was indeed a victory for the U.S.

ISRAEL MUST NOT BE WEAKENED

The Moscow-Cairo axis seeks Israel's retreat to the armistice lines in order to regain a position of strength to again attack Israel. They are already well advanced in arming for a fourth round of war.

SUPPORT FOR AN ALLY

The American people must not remain indifferent to the designs. of the Moscow-Cairo axis against Israel. Justice and our national interest require that we stand by Israel and nourish her determination to retain her present strong and legitimate position.

Now that Israel's request for American planes and anns is under consideration, write to President Johnson, to your Senators and Congressmen urging that no pressure be applied on Israel to withdraw to the former artificial boundaries. ·

Urge your go:vernment to supply Israel, our friend and ally, with weapons for defense. Urge them to give Israel political support for the preservation of her birthright, security, and permanence.

Inserted by Americans for the Security and Stabllity or Israel, Samuel H. Wang, Organizing Chairman, 227 West 45 Street, New York, N.Y.10036. ·

The SOth Anniversary of Ukrainian Independence

HON. HUGH SCOTT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED .STATES Wednesday, March 20, 1968

Mr. SCOT!'. Mr. President, with r,espect to the 50th anniversary of Ukrainian independence, a private order is being submitted for the reprint publication of all statements and other insertions made by Members of the Senate prior to, during, and after the January 22, 1968, event, which was observed in the Senate on January 23, 1968.

If there is no objection from any Senator, his or her statement or insertion will be incorporated in the reprint brochure, which has been requested by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.

SENATE-Thursday, March 21, 1968° ·The Senate met at 12 o'clock meridian,

and was called to order by the President pro tempore.

'Ibe Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, D.D., offered the following

· prayer:

Our Father God, on the threshold of a new day, send us forth armed with Thy power, to overcome evil; if need be, to endure hardship, but in all things to serve Thee bravely, faithfully, joyfully; that, at the end of the day's labor, kneeling for Thy blessing, Thou mayest find no blot upon our .shield.

Thou art the center and soul of every sphere, yet to each loving heart how near.

Renew our faith in Thy power and in

the victory of Thy Pllr.POses. Here let us see again the vital and eternal things that are stronger than the noise of the world.

Quicken our love of America that . we may see the shining glory of the Republic both as a heritage and a trust.

Open our eyes to see a glory in our common life with all its sordid failures, and in the aspirations of men for better things and for a fairer world, which, at last, must burn away every barrier to human brotherhood as Thy kingdom· comes and Thy . will is done in all the earth.

We ask it in the Redeemer's name: Amen.

THE JOURNAL

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I-ask unanimous consent that the reading of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, March 20, 1968, be dispensed with.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr . .Hackney, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House had passed a bill (H.R. 10790) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide . for the protection of the public

... .. -

March 21; 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD '- SENATE · 7221 health from radiation em1ss1ons from electronic products, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bill and joint resolution, and they were signed by the Vice President:

S. 454. An act for the relief of Richard K. Jones; and

S.J. Res. 72 . Joint resolution to provide for the designation of the second week of May of 1968 as "National School Safety Patrol Week."

HOUSE BILL REFE:fl:RED Mr. BARTLETT subsequently said:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill (H.R. 10790) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products, be referred to the Committee on Commerce, and when reported by that committee, the bill be ref erred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

The bill was read twice by its title, and, pursuant to the above request, was first referred to the Committee on Commerce, thereafter to be referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

LIMITATION ON STATEMENTS DURING TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that statements .in relation to the transaction of routine morning business be limited to 3 minutes.


EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following letters, which w·ere referred as indicated: REPORT OF PROPOSED FACILITIES OF ARMY

NATIONAL GUARD A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secre

tary of Defense (Properties and Installati-ons), Department of Defense, reporting, pursuant to law, the location, nature, and estimated cost of an additional facilities profect proposed to be undertaken for the Army National Guard; to the Committee on Armed Services. THE 33D ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION A letter from the Chairman, Fed~ral Com

munications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 33d annual report of the Commission for the fl.seal year ended June 30, 1967 (with an accompanying report); to the Committee on Commerce.

REPORT OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL A letter from the Comptroller General of

the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the review of the administration of the contract for construction of- a veterans hospital in the District of Columbia,

Veterans' Administration (with an accompanying report) dated March 21, 1968; to the Committee on Government Operations. REPORT OF DESALTING OF SEA AND BRACKISH

WATERS A letter from the Secretary, Department of

the Interior, reporting, pursuant to law on the operations of the Depar_tment regarding the desalting of sea and brackish waters, and to provide recommendations for further legislation; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. PROPOSED HAZARDOUS RADIATION ACT OF 1968

A letter from the Acting Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection · of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products (with an accompanying paper); by unanimous consent to the Committee on Commerce and thereafter to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

EXECUTIVE REPORT OF A COMMITTEE

As in executive session, The following favorable report of a

nomination was submitted: By Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee

on Public Works: Meriwether Lewis Clark Tyler, of New York,

to be alternate Federal Cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

BILLS _AND JOINT RESOLUTION INTRODUCED

Bills and a joint resolution were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. TYDINGS: S. 3203. A bill for the relief of Bechu

Banerjea, his wife Pushpalata Banerjea, and their children, Binapani, Sukla, Jaya, and Tarak; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. GORE: S. 3204. A bill to amend the Internal Rev

enue Code of 1954 so as to tax the undistributed earnings and profits of foreign corporations controlled by U.S. persons; ·and

S. 3205. A bill to repeal the exclusion from gross income of certain income earned outside the United States; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CLARK, Mr. DODD, Mr. HART, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. METCALF, Mr. MONDALE, Mr. Moss, Mr. NELSON, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. WILLIAMS of New ' Jersey, and Mr. YOUNG of Ohio):

S. 3206. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, relating to the construction of waste treatment works and to the conduct of water pollution control research, ~nd for other purposes; to the Oommittee on Public Works.

(See the remarks of Mr. MUSKIE when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. BURDICK (for himself, Mr. METcALF, and Mr. Moss):

S. 3207. A bill to amend section 2 of the Act of June 30, 1954, as amended, providing for the continuance of civil government for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Af-fairs. -

By Mr. BAYH: S. 3208. A bill to provide for the extension

of the term of certain patents of persons who served in the military forces of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

(See the remarks of Mr. BAYH when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. MONRONEY (for himself and Mr. HARRIS) :

S. 3209. A bill to amend the act of August 25, 1959 (73 Stat. 420), pertaining to the affairs of the Choctaw Tribe of Oklahoma; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

By Mr. FONG: S. 3210. A bill for the relief of Marcelina T .

Reyes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. HILL:

S. 3211. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products; by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee on Commerce, when reported by that Committee, to be referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

(See the remarks of Mr. BARTLETT relating to the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. FANNIN: S. 3212. A bill relating to the authority of

the States to control, regulate, and manage fish and wildlife within their . territorial boundaries; to the Committee on Commerce.

(See the remarks of Mr. FANNIN when he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.)

By Mr. McGOVERN: S.J. Res. 157. Joint resolution to supple

ment Public Law 87-734 and Public Law 87-735 which took .title to certain lands in the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Indian Reservations; to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

( See the remarks of Mr. McGOVERN when he introduced the above joint resolution, which appear under a separate heading.)

S. 3206-INTRODUCTION OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1968-NOTICE OF HEARINGS Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today I

am introducing, along with Mr. BAYH, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CLARK, Mr. DODD, Mr. HART, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. METCALF, Mr. MONDALE, Mr. Moss, Mr. NELSON, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey, and Mr. YOUNG of Ohio, the President's proposed Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968.

Primarily this legislation is directed toward making av·ailable funds authorized by the Congress for sewage treatment construction grants. As every one of my colleagues is aware, in 1966 the Congress unanimously enacted the Clean Water ReS'toration Act which authorized $3.4 billion over 4 years for' the Federal share of the construction cost of community waste treatment facilities.

Of the $450 million which was authorized for fiscal year 1968, only $203 million was made available. The President's budget for fiscal year 1969 requested only $225 million compared to an authorized amount of $700 million.

The request was sufficiently below the authorization to the extent that the massive water pollution construction backlog is not being diminished. In fact, it is difficult for me to believe that the amount made avaµable for fiscal year 1968 and requested for fiscal year 1969 will even be ' adequate to keep up . with new de-mand. ·

The President, Secretary of the In-

7222 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE March 21, 1968

terior Udall, the Bureau of the Budget, available for the regular grant program, and the Federal Water Pollution Control $475 million· would remain available for Administration are equally as aware of the new contract approach. this critical situation as are the Mem- The Secretary could not .obligate .or exbers of Congress. This awareness is evi- pend any of the remaining $475 million denced in the legislation which I am in- authorized without receiving enactment troducing today. of an act providing for such obligation

The President is calling for a new ap- and expenditures. If the Congress should proach to extricate the Nation from the determine that the full $475 million aufinancial bind slowing our water pollu- thorized for fiscal year 1969 should be tion fight. Essentially this new approach made available, the Secretary can then provides a method whereby the Secretary contract with municipalities for conof the Interior can enter into long-term struction of sewage treatment works. The contract commitments to make principal Federal share of such work shall not exand interest payments to State and local ceed the total amount of $475 million nor public bodies to meet the construction shall any State receive more than 10 cost of waste treatment works. Implicit percent of the available amount in any in this approach is the basic concept of one year. the Federal water pollution control pro- The advantage of this program over gram, that the primary responsibility for the existing grant process would be that control of pollution rests with State and the secretary need not spend the entire local government. amount in the given year of ap'propria-

Under this proposal a local public body tion. He would be making principal and will sell bonds in an amount equal to interest payments over the 30-year life of both the Federal and the local share of the bond issue. Thus, the Federal Govthe cost of a waste treatment plant. The ernment would not have to borrow that Federal Government will repay, on an $475 million except as funds were reannual basis; the principal and 1nterest quired to meet payments on principal. associated with the Federal share. Mr. President, this proposal merits

There are several unique features of early consideration by the congress. It this legislation which I wish to bring to appears to have the basic ingredients the attention of the Senate: which will be required if we are to move

First. The program is primarily de- ahead with our water pollution control signed ·to serve standard metropolitan program. Because of the urgency of movstatistical areas or areas of 125,000 people ing ahead with that program, the Subor more. committee on Air and Water Pollution

Second. The appropriate local public will commence its hearings on this legbody having jurisdiction over the treat- islation on April 9 and continue through ment work would be requested to estab- April 11. lish a system of revenue producing user Members of the Senate are cordially charges in order to underwrite the cost invited to present testimony on this bill of the bonds .and assure a systematic on April 9. I would deeply appreciate the method of repayment of principal and counsel of my colleagues on this matter. interest on those bonds. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The

Parenthetically, Mr. President, the bill will be received and .appropriately Secretary would have the authority to referred. waive the requirement if it would not The bill (S. 3206) to amend the Fedserve to "improve the financial capabil- eral water Pollution Control Act, as ity and efficiency of the waste treatment amended, relating to the construction of system."

Third. Bonds sold by a public body to waste treatment works, and to the con-carry out the purposes of this act would duct of water pollution control research,

and for other purposes, introduced by not be tax exempt. However, the Beere- Mr. MusKIE (for himself and other sen-tary is authorized to pay to the public · ators) , was received, read twice by its body a sum equal to any difference in in-' t -terest costs associated with the absence title, and referred to the Commi tee on of tax exemption. Public Works.

Fourth. The Federal Government . would guarantee the entire cost of the bond issue, and

Fifth. The contractee would be required to meet conditions similar to those set forth in the existing Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to comprehensive plans, state approval, and water quality standards.

Mr. President, this legislation also includes authorization for appropriation of interest payments which would be in excess of the basic authorization contained in the Clean Water Restoration Act and contains a technical revision of the research section of the act with an extension of the authorization for that section.

The Secretary would be required to request and receive, through the appropriations process, any funds which he intended to commit to this program.

In other words, assuming that $225 million of this year's authorization 1s

S. 3208--INTRODUCTION OF BILL PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF PATENT TERM POR VETERANS Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I introduce, ·

for appropria~ reference, a bill _providing for the extension of certain patents of persons who have served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States, and ask that it be printed in full in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is not at all unique. As a nation, we have always been acutely aware of the sacrifices which servicemen are asked to make in insuring our continuous defense. Likewise, we have been constantly alert to developing ways through which these sacrifices might be, at least partially, ameliorated.

My bill would extend to veterans the

opportunity of being granted extensions for patents which their call to military service has prevented them from fairly and fully exploiting. It gives to veterans no more advantage than is now enjoyed by those holders of patents who are not being asked to serve in the Armed Forces of their country.

Precedents for granting this opportunity have been well established. Following both World War I and World War II, Congress passed legislation providing the returning veterans with -this same privilege. Under present circumstances, Mr. President, it seems only right that this privilege should be made available once again.

The bill proposes no giveaway. To be eligible, a veteran must have been honorably discharged. In addition, he must also be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commissioner on Patents that his military service had .indeed "substantially reduced" any benefits he might have been able to receive from his patent.

It should be emphasized also that the bill would not grant such extensions automatically. Its sole function would be only to authorize their being made. The ultimate burden of proof in the matter would be the obligation of the veteran himself. Consequently, the bill would entail no cost whatsoever to the Government:

In addition to the reauthorization of .such patent extensions to eligible veterans, the present bill does include two "innovations." Unlike either of its predecessors, my proposal would not be limited in application only to those who served during specifically designated years. All veterans who .have not benefited under previous similar bills would be eligible in the future.

A second feature not included in past legislation is that a veteran, for the purpose of this b111, could count as "act.Ive service" all time which elapses between his initial induction into the armed services and his final honorable discharge. This portion of the b111, Mr. President, seeks to extend coverage to those unfortunate veterans who, having been wrongly judged have been forced to live under the discriminating shadow of a less than honorable discharge until able to have such judgment reversed and their honor restored.

Mr. President, we can never hope to repay our servicemen adequately for their many sacrifices or for the irretrievable interruptions to their lives and careers. Thi.s bill seeks only to further implement our conviction that the veteran deserves an opportunity at least equal to that which the rest of us constantly enjoy.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill will be printed in the REcoRD.

The bill <S. 3208) t.o provide for the extension of the term of certain patents of persons who served in the military forces of the United St-ates, introduced by Mr. BAYH, was TeCeived, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed 1n the RECORD, as follows:

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD - SENATE 7223 s. 3208

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of .the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the Act entitled "An Act to prQ.vide for the extension of the terms of certain patents of persons who served in the military or naval forces of the United States during World War II," approved June 30, 1950 (64 Stat. 316), as amended, is amended to read as follows: . .

"Any person who is the inventor or discoverer of an invention or discovery for which a patent was granted to him during his performance of active service in the military or naval forces of the United States resulting in an honorable discharge and who has not received a patent extension unq,er any previous Act, and who during such service was not receiving income from said patent or patented invention or discovery, or whose income therefrom was substantially reduced as a result of his said service, may obtain an extension of his patent for the term specified herein, upon application to the Commissioner of Patents Within one year afier the enactment of this Act or within one year after the termination of such service, whichever is later, and upon complying with the provisions of this Act. The period of extension of such patent shall be a further term from the expiration of the original term thereof equalling the length of the said service during which his patent was in force, but in no event shall exceed a period equal to the term of the original patent. Any ~riod of time required following said service to obtain recognition of the right of such a person to an honorable discharge shall be considered part of such service."

Section 5 of said Act is amended by strik-1n·g out "(a) No" and by striking out subsection (b).

S. 3211-INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSED RADIATION ACT OF 1968 Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the bill <S. 3211) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products, introduced by Mr. HILL, be referred to the Committee on Commerce, and when reported by that committee, the bill be ref erred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

S. 3212-INTRODUCTION .OF :aILL RELATING TO MANAGEMENT BY THE STATES OF FISH AND WILD

. LIFE

Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, I introduce, today, a bill to clarify the present dispute between the States and Federal Government over resident species of fish and wildlife on Federal lands. I will at a later time explain the provisions of this proposed legislation and the great need for its enactment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately ref erred.

The bill (8. 3212) relating to the authority of the States to control, regulate,

· and manage fish and wildlife within their territorial boundaries, introduced by Mr. FANNIN, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 157-INTRODUCTION OF JOINT RESOLUTION RELATING TO TITLE TO CERTAIN LANDS IN THE LOWER 'BRULE AND CROW CREEK INDIAN RESERVATIONS

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference, a joint resolution to supplement Public Law 87-734 and Public Law 87-735, which took certain lands in the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Indian Res.ervations in South Dakota.

In the creation of the Great Lakes of the Missouri River the Federal Government required the taking of a great amount of land previously not inundated by water and in many respects most productive. Amounts suballocated to nontrust interests were withheld from distribution because of the uncertainty over whether the· owners of those interests were intended to be compensated from the negotiated price or whether they were intended to be compensated in some other way.

There are 15 tracts of nontrust land owned by 16 persons or their heirs. The amounts are $1,185.42 on the Lower Brule Reservation and $8,125.34 on the Crow Creek Reservation. The Secretary of the Interior recommends payment to these individual Indians for the following reasons:

First. The Government took the entire interest in the land, not merely the trust interest, anci the. negotiated price was based upon appraisal schedules that' included all ownership interests. It is therefore reasonable to divide the negotiated price among all ownership interests._

Second. In any event, the total amounts withheld from distribution are too small to be allocated now among all of the other ownership interests.

For these reasons, I ask that the joint resolution be received and appropriately referred.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be received and appropriately ref erred.

The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 157) to supplement Public Law 87-734 and Public Law 87-735 which took title to certain lands in the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Indian Reservations, introduced by Mr. McGOVERN, was received, read twice by its title, and ref erred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF JOINT RESOLUTION

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] I ask unanimous · consent that, at the next printing of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 150) to designate the month of May 1968 as "National Arthritis Month" the name o~ the Senator from Texas [Mr. Towim] be added as a cosponsor.


CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS

DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL HALIBUT WEEK

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I submit, for appropriate reference, a concurrent resolution authorizing and requesting the President of the United States to proclaim the week beginning May 19, 19'-68, and ending May 25, 1968, as "National Halibut Week." In addition, the resolution calls upon the people of the United States to observe such week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Last year I presented a similar proposal and an effort was made by everyone interested in this valuable resource to pay honor to this natural marine wealth from the sea, and pay due respect to those who harvest and process this excellent protein from the North Pacific Ocean.

The Halibut Fishermen's Wives Association based at Seattle, has regularly conducted interesting events and festivities during the annual Halibut Week, and are deserving of much credit for their good work in calling attention to the healthful benefits and tasty succulence of this fine product from the sea.

The PRESIDENT pi;o tempore. The concurrent resolution will be received and approp1iately referred; and, under the rule, the concurrent resolution will be printed in the RECORD.

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 65) was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, as follows:

S. CON. RES. 65 Resolved by the Senate (the House of

Representatives concurring), That the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating the · seven-day period beginning May 19, 1968, and ending May 25, 1968, as "National Halibut Week" and calling upon the people of the United States to observe such week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

TO PRINT ADDITIONAL COPIES OF HEARINGS OF SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey sub

mitted the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 66) ; which was ref erred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

S. CON. RES. 66 Resolved by the Senate (the House of

Representatives concurring), That there be printed for the use of the Senate Special Committee on Aging six thousand additio)'.l.al copies of its hearings of the Ninetieth Congress, entitled "Long-Range Program and Research Needs in Aging and Related Fields."

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT__;. AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT NO. 641

Mr. CLARK submitted amendments, intended · to be proposed by him, to the resolution (S. Res. 266) · to provide standards of conduct for Members of the Senate and officers and employees of the Senate, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

AMENDMENTS NOS. (i42 THROUGH 657

Mr. DIRKSEN submitted 16 amend- . ments, intended to be proposed by. ~him,

7224 · CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-· ,SENATE March 21, 1968 to Senate Resolution 266, supra, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

AMENDMENT NO. 658

Mr. JA VITS submitted an amendment, intended to be proposed by him, to Senate Resolution 266, supra, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON S. 3149 Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, I

wish to announce for the information of all interested persons and organimtions that, beginning April 24, 1968, the Subcommittee on Labor will hold public hearings on S. 3149, a bill to amend section 302 (c) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 to permit employer contributions for joint industry promotion of products in certain instances or a joint committee or a joint board empowered to interpret provisions of collective-bargaining agreements.

Anyone interested in testifying or submitting a statement on this bill should contact the subcommittee counsel, Mr. Robert Harris, at room 4230, New Senate Office Building.

VIETNAM: A CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, one of the outstanding clergymen in my State of Montana, the Reverend Don W. Hamilton, of Christ Methodist Church, Great Falls, Mont., preached a sermon on February 25, 1968, entitled "Vietnam: A Crisis of Conscience." It is a sermon which represents the thoughts of a very concerned Christian minister about the situation in Vietnam.

I ask unanimous consent that the sermon be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the sermon was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

VIETNAM: A CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE

(By Don W. Hamilton, Christ Methodist Church)

Scripture: Psalm 146 Luke 12: 54-56 "He also said to the multi

tudes, 'When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, "A shower is oonllng;" and so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, "There will be scorching heat;" and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of e·arth and sky; but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?'"

The Christian Gospel is relevant to all of life. There is no aspect of life to which the Gospel does not bring its word of grace and Of judgment. This ls true whether it is our individual lives we are talking about or our social lives. The last few weeks I have tried to share with you some of my concerns about two of the social issues of our day to which I believe the Gospel speaks: the race issue and the morality issue. And this morning I turn to another of the issues which has the attention of every one of us each day: the war in Vietnam. I speak on this issue with some fear and trembling, because I know that I am very fallible. I know that my knowledge is limited, but I must speak my conviction. I cannot help but

.preach this sermon! I hope that you will recognize that I am speaking for myself and not for anyone else, but I would welcome

your response, your questions, . your ideas whether your response is negative or positive to what I say.

I feel that I must speak on this issue because the Gospel is relevant to all of life, and so often in the church we take the stand that we mu~t not deal with anything that is controversial. We only make general statements without getting specific. I believe that this is danger.ous, for the church will lose its relevance unless we deal head on with the real issues of life--even when they are controversial-even when we may make mistakes in what we say and what we do.

The question of . Vietnam is so much a common part of our conversation now that it is difficult to put it into context of the world in which we live. But we remember that it is not something which has grown up overnight. Our involvement in Vietnam has been a growing fact ever since the end of World War II when we helped the French regain their colony in Inda-China. And we must remember that when the French became involved in the Inda-China War the United States paid 80 per cent" of the French military bill-about 2Y:z billion dollars-between 1950 and 1954. It may be ironic that President Roosevelt told his generals not to help the French retake this land. He said that the French had milked these people for over a century and that they deserved better than French colonial rule. But we became involved, and when the French left we gradually replaced them until now we have over a half million of our own men in Vietnam, and with our allied forces there are over a million fighting men on our side. We remember some of the reasons given for our being there, and I do not deny that our country has been sincere in what we have tried to do.

Two of the reasons we have been given for being there are: (1) We must stop the communist movement, and this is the place we must do it. This is the place where we draw the line. We must stop them because if we do not stop them here we will have to stop them some other place. (2) Secondly we give the reason that we want to show the communists that their so-called wars of liberation will not work. We have used a loosely defined commitment to South Vietnam as our motivation to get at these broader reasons. One of my deep concerns now as we stancJ. here in 1968 is that we have failed in both of these reasons for our involvement in Vietnam. We have not stopped communism at this point. We have not stopped it; we have not defeated communism, and there would be some justification for believing that.it is stronger than ever. And we have not proven that wars of liberation will not work. Even if we were to defeat the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese tomorrow, which is doubtful, they have made their point that wars of liberation cannot be stopped by the most powerful nation on earth. There is some evidence that we may have encouraged rather than discouraged future wars of liberation set off by the communists. I believe that both of these points are illustrated by the Pueblo incident in which North Korea stole our ship. The communists are not dead. They are not set back, and they still dare to lift their finger against the most powerful nation in history!

Yet we are there, even thou11:h some of our national leaders admit that we should never have taken on this war. Others suggest that if our government had known that we were going to fail in these ways we probably would not have been there with the kind of commitment we now have. But none the less we are there, I am concerned about what we will ever see out of this conflict, and I am certainly not the only one who has this concern. There are some who say that we should go in there with all of our force and prove once and for all what our power is, but the world knows what our power is. There is no

doubt about that. Even the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong know that we have nuclear weapons. We could well place a few of these and blow North Vietnam off the map, and if we wanted to be rid of the Viet Cong we could even blow South Vietnam off the map. We could thus wipe this area out of existence. We could then lift our flag and say to the world: "Look, we've won! We beat those dirty, violent, cruel c01nmunists !" However, our leadership, I hope, knows that this would not be a victory after all but would actually be a defeat. If we were to follow this course who could trust the United States? Who could deny that the United States is an imperialist nation? Who could deny that the United States is more destructive and cruel than even the communists? Who could afford our friendship and protection if were to destroy the future of North and South Vietnam?

On the other hand, some say that we should just pull out, but if we were to do that with all of the lives that have been lost it would seem to say to the world that it was all a mistake and that the lives were lost in vain. This seems to be too big a price to pay, so we stay on and gr~dually increase our forces hoping that the communists will run out of steam. Where will the future go? I am sure that we are all concerned with this question. Personally I believe that the United States has made a big mistake in Vietnam. I believe that we have made a mistake in trying to beat communism on this ground, and I believe that our refusal to admit our mistake leaves us in a very dangerous situation. To lose a half million American lives in Vietnam would not cleanse the death of a single one nor justify this war if, indeed, it is a mistake.

I am also concerned about the terrible cost of this war both in money and lives-a cost which has left us with no clear victory in our objectives at all. In order to suggest the cost of the war I have to use figures that have been released on the news. They may not be completely accurate, but I have to use the sources that are available. However, I am confident that the costs are at least as great as the sources report. We are now dropping more tons of bombs on North Vietnam than we did on Nazi Germany at the height of World War II. Figuring the cost of a bomb at a dollar a pound suggests that every B-52 bomber drops $60,000 worth of bombs with every load. Since 1961 the enemy dead in South Vietnam are estimated at 300,000, and there have been about 72,000 lives lost on the allied side--about 18,000 of them Americans. Week before last 500 Americans lost their lives. Since 1961 close to a half million Vietnamese have been killed. In a little more than two decades there have been about one and a half million Vietnamese who have lost their lives, and the end is not in sight. Who knows how many refugees there actually are in South Vietnam as a result of the war? Estimates run from about a million to almost three million. David Brinkley came out with the figure recently that every enemy soldier that we kill costs us about $500,000. I call that expensive killing, and even if Mr. Brinkley is off a hundred thousand dollars or so, it is still costly. Right? And it has been estimated that the United States has spent directly in Vietnam 65 billion dollars since 1954. Much more has been spent in indirect expenses resulting from the war. No one can deny that this has been a very costly war, and the figures that I have used to summarize this cost do not begin to show the agony, the suffering, and the pain which millions of people have experienced!

Considering this awesome cost of the war in lives and money-I mean all lives, not just our own-I am reminded that Karl Marx in Das KapitaZ makes a prediction. Now Marx was wrong in a lot of his predictions, but this one scares me. He says that when the revolution of communism gets going it will

March 21, 1968- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 7225 spark. brush_ fires all over the world and that the big, powerful capitalist nations wlll run here and there to put them out. He says that this wlll be good for the communist cause in the long run of history because the capitalist nation will spend its guts, its money, its young men's lives, many of its most trained and talented young men, its energy, and its commitment putting out the brush fires of the world. Some will say that Vietnam is more than a brush fire, but no one can deny that it ls only one small corner of the world; and no one can deny that we are expending a great amount of our national energies there. There are many other corners of the world where brush fires could spring up tqmorrow. I wonder if the Russians are not really somewhat pleased with our involvement in Vietnam, because one little speck of a nation in the throes of revolution and civil war is absorbing so much of the energy of the big, powerful, capitalist United States. Perhaps it would be well for us to read Karl Marx and other communist strategists, for they set forth the pattern that the communists of today are trying to follow. Our involvement in Vietnam seems to fit into the pattern which :the communists believe to be inevitable.

I am also concerned about what seems to be a hardening of the heart of the American people. This concerns me especially because I see it happening in _myself at times. As I watch on television the war unfolding before my very eyes, I am disturbed that sometimes I am not very shocked any more. I am afraid that our hearts are becoming hardened in this conflict to the point where we are in danger of iosing our sense of morality. I am encouraged that some voices are rising above the platitudes of Americanism, but these voices do not as yet seem to have the hearing of our country. One sign that our integrity and sense of morality are in danger is the fact that some of our more conservative newspapers with respect to the war are beginning to call this danger to our attention. Questioning and searching editorials about our war behavior are now. appearing in our Great Falls paper, and if our newspaper is not conservative it certainly has not gone out on a platform to criticize the war. Yet it printed this editorial which I want to read:

"If the Associated Press report of the wholesale destruction of a city qf 35,000 by our boys in Vietnam did not prick the conscience of America, then probably nothing short of nuclear warfare will.

"It was a fanatical military move, a:i American atrocity. It happened last week, when approximately 2,500 Viet Cong invaded Ben Tre. They worked fast, captured the radio station, and nearly had control of the city.

"Then the Allied top brass decided that something had to be done. So with 500-pound bombs, 105- and 155-mm. artillery, rockets, napalm, and antipersonnel bombs, American fighter-bombers devasted 85 per cent of Ben Tre and environs.

" 'We will never know for sure the number of civilians who died,' Lt. Col. James Dare said. 'Many families are burled permanently under the rubble.' Much of the city, especially the poor residential districts, was . leveled. The man who directed the aerial attack, Maj. Chester L. Brown, said, 'It is always a pity about the civllians. They don't know where to hide.'

"It sounds more like callous genocide than benevolent c'efense of a nation's people. America cannot justify Ben Tre's corpse, a rubble desert in a jungle. As James Reston of the New York Times said, 'The mind boggles at the paradox of tearing apart what we have undertaken to defend.'

"America is disgracing itself with the fruits of its apparent philosophy, 'better dead than red.'" (reprinted from the Great Falls Tribune)

This incident -is only one of hundreds which are beginning to come to light of United States terror tactics, yet will the American. people come to accept wholesale slaughter such as justified? It is my concern that because of the seeming stalemate of the conflict in Vietnam we may become desperate enough to justify this kind of atrocity committed by our people. In fact, as it comes to light, we may have already been justifying the kind of genocide that we fought World War II to prevent. I do not blame our American military men and boys who have been called into battle. I do not blame them as individuals. We are all to blame. We all help to support this war in some way, and it concerns me deeply that as a people we may be losing our soul in this conflict!

I have another concern, too, which is closely related to the Vietnam conflict. I am afraid that we as Americans could find ourselves slipping more and more toward a totalitarian state. One of the danger signals ls the fact that our involvement in Vietnam ls an administration decision, not an act of Congress. To be sure Congress has paid the bills, but Congress did not declare this war. The president and his advisers have committed more than a half million of our men in the fourth major war in this century. The administration has doggedly moved ahead, assuming an almost dictatorial force of power. Yes, Congress could have applied the brakes or at lea.st assumed its constitutional authority to decide when we wlll fight a war. But Congress has not done so, and it frightens me to see the administration with so much power.

Another danger signal, I believe, ls the increase of power by the military-industrial complex in our nation. Our defense spending has thrown our economy and our national energies off balance, and I am afraid that this could help lead us to totalitarian statehood. It is one thing for us to talk about democracy-government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Yet for all of our talk we are increasingly gearing our national life to the dictates of the mllitary and industrial alliance.

I have shared with you this morning some of my concerns about the war in Vietnam. Now I want to suggest that as Christians and as Americans we have great responsibilities. I know that as we consider a problem as vast as Vietnam-regardless of our views-we tend to feel helnless. However, we are without excuse. For -one thing it is our responsibility to become as informed as we possibly can about the war in Vietnam. We must do everything in our power to learn the facts and then to face them honestly in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot afford to sit back and relax in the face of this issue. And we must not allow ourselves to be comfortable with the killing and suffering in Vietnam. We must not allow ourselves to be at moral ease so that our hearts become hardened. We must become involved in the political life of our community and nation. We must make our feelings known in every way that we can. The American people can assert its authority if we will take up our role as individual citizens.

I believe that we can beat communism, but we cannot win by employing their method of terror and war. We must compete for the hearts and minds of humanity instead of destroying those whom we would save from communism. We must recognize that the challenge ls for the long haul which will take us into the next century. And we must be willing to give up some of our precious pride. We must find a way to get out of our impossible position in Vietnam and be willing to lose face if necessary. We must be willing to take risks, to take the first steps toward negotiation such as stopping the bombing. Finally we must refuse to put our real faith and trust in the weapons of destruction

wWch we possess t..nd put our trust in j.ustice, in .life, in the Prince of Peace. The challenge ls awesome, but it could well be in the challenge of life or death for our world. What will be your response?

POLICY TESTING

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial appearing in today's Balitmore Sun, entitled "Policy Testing," be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALMADGE in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.) Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to call

the attention of the Senate to the last several sentences, relative to Vietnam:

This is not a case of choosing between staying in or pulling out. It ls a case of looking at all aspects of a national dilemma while a rational, workable policy is being decided upon.

EXHIBIT 1

(From the Baltimore Sun, Ma11. 21, 1968) POLICY TESTING

The conduct of the war in Vietnam has been the country's major problem for a long time, and it now ls the major political issue. This is a wholesome development. The vigorous national debate which ls promised by the Kennedy and McCarthy candidacies among the Democrats and by the Nixon and Rockefeller contest among ·the Republicans should help to develop and clarify alternatives toward the Johnson Administration's actions so that the· nation can come to some decision on questions which confuse and trouble so many citizens.

This ls a test of the intelligence and judgment of the American people, rather than of their will. No one who has examined the record of the United States during the past half century, for example, can doubt the will of the people to face hard tasks and act with great endurance and skill under pressure. The performance of the young men wearing the American uniform in Vietnam is only the latest example of this.

But quite rightly the people demand a voice in the shaping of national policy. When they are convinced that our policy is right, they will support it, as they have demonstrated ma;iy times. The American people have grown more perceptive with each generation-better informed, more concerned, more discriminating in tb,eir political judgments. They know the ins and outs of the war in Vietnam more thoroughly than they have known such details of other wars.

The Johnson Administration's policy now is being tested in the harsh, revealing light of political debate. The debate is developing in large part because of the flaws in the Administration's policy which have been painfully revealed during the past several weeks, and because of the continuing national un.certainty and confusion over such points as our commitments under the Southeast Asia treaty, our support of an ineffective government in South Vietnam, our broad policy objectives throughout the world and our attitude toward a peace settlement in Vietnam short of a military victory. This is not a case of choosing between staying in or pulling out. It is a case of looking at all aspects of a national dilemma while a rational, workable policy is being decided upon.

THE SPACE PROGRAM AND AGRICULTURE

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, ~he Federal Bar Association and the National Contract Management Associa-

7226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 21, 1968

tion, in cooperation with the Fifth Space Congress of the Canaveral Council of Technical Societies, met in conference Thursday and Friday, March 13 and 14, at Cape Kennedy, Fla.

In attendance at this conference were many of our Nation's outstanding legal authorities in the field of space, together with outstanding physicists and scientists.

On Thursday, March 14, I had the privilege of addressing the luncheon gathering on the subject of "American Space Program Will Greatly Benefit Agriculture." There is no doubt that there is a great future in this field in the decades to come.

I ask unanimous consent that the address be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SPEECH BY SENATOR FRANK CARLSON TO THE

SPACE AGE LAW CONFERENCE, CAPE KENNEDY, MARCH 14, 1968 It is indeed a privilege and an honor to be

with you here today. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for making this visit to Cape Kennedy possible. I have been interested in our space program for a long time, but until now I have never had the privilege of visiting the Cape.

After following so many dramatic flights on television and in the press during the past few years, it is a most interesting experience to be able to come down and see where so much history is being made. I must say that the size and scope of the great facilities at Cape Kennedy-particularly the Vehicle Assembly Building and Complex 39-have made an impression I will carry with me for the rost of my life.

When I was talking recently · with my long-time friend, Jim Webb, about speaking to ·you here today, I must admit I was a bit puzzled about what I should talk about-especially to such a distinguished and learned audience such as this one. I simply cou:td not feature a Kansas wheat farmer telling space experts all about space.

Por example, the Space Treaty th~t was signed a few months ago is clearly an extremely important document. I am sure it will be the subject of a great many speeches-both here at this ' conference and possibly for a good many years to come. However, I will leave its discussion to the legal experts-except for reading you a short item that sheds some human light on the problem.

"A gruff, wrinkled Cheyenne Indian by the name of John Wooden Legs from Lame Deer, Montana, was attending a session of the National Advisory Committee on Rural Poverty to which he belongs. A witness urged the commission to press for less spending on space travel and more on curing rural poverty. Mr. Wooden Legs interrupted: 'If they find Indians on the moon, tell them not to make a treaty!'" he said.

Now I do want to say that I enjoy the opportunity to turn my -attention to outer space. As a matter of fact, I know the President also welcomed that opportunity during a recent speech. He told his aides confidently that as far as he knew, outer space was the one place where there wasn't anyone mad at him.

Since my native state of Kansas is proud to be the agricultural heart of the nation, a nd since I myself am a farmer and rancher, the subject of what the Space Age can do to help the farmer is naturally of great interest to me. There is an old saying, . "If you give a m an food you feed his ·hunger, but if you teach him how to grow food you solve the problem of famine". -

The continuing progress of our nation in trying to solve the age old problems of poverty, ignorance and disease simply cannot be achieved if we neglect the basic strength of our national economy-the advancing frontier of technology. The basic point to remember is not whether this nation can have its space program-meet the crisis in the cities and fight a controversial war in Vietnam-but rather how we can possibly solve these problems unless we push ahead into the frontiers of technology.

Just as the farmer in Kansas today has fully accepted the telephone-radio-television-automobile-airplane-sophisticated farm m achinery-the products of modern chemistry-all the miracles of modern science in agriculture-as part of his daily life, he will also come to find that space age techr:.ology will be an accepted and unquestioned part of his everyday concepts and uses.

To men in agriculture, the Earth Resources Observation Satellite program is a most exciting one. It will provide us with new ability to improve harvests-prevent crop diseases-attack air and water pollution-inventory our agricultural resources-and perhaps even control floods. Frankly, I think this program alone would justify all that the space effort is costing!

Let us briefly look at some of the more recent and exciting developments. The prospect of improving weather forecasting by satellite is most promising.

Those of us from the rural heartland of America are keenly aware of our natural resources and the riches this nation has in its farmlands-its forests-its minerals-and its rivers and streams. We appear concerned only about what we can see and measure and space seems to some of us rather remote.

However, a close look at space and the space satellite indicates that space holds much promise for those of us here on earth. It just may be that we will learn more about the earth on which we live by going into space than from being right here on terra firma.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a program-its Earth Resources Program-which stirs the imagination. It is too early to accurately access its worth, but if the practical application of weather and communication satellites-in the strikingly short period of ten years-can be used as an example, we may see a whole new concept of resource conservation, development, and use--and even discoveryunveiled in the years to come.

This program is designed with the idea that our space vehicles do not always need . to be looking outward at the moon and planets and stars. They have also given us a valuable new tool to learn more about our own planet.

In agriculture, for example,. we have an unprecedented opportunity to develop applications of new space technology. Techniques and procedures are already being developed to fly instruments-called remote sensorsin Satellites which will permit rapid assessment of our forest, our range land, and our cultivated areas. From such assessments we can better utilize and control our plant-our soil-and our water resources.

Remote sensors in the form of special infrared cameras can serve as an excellent tool in assessing crop damage that today is often one of our major agricultural problems.

Infrared photography, for example, can make clearly visible such things as the amount of salts occurring in soils where crop damage is being caused by excess salinity.

Similarly, by means of these and other types of remote sensors oy human operators in space, it is possible to measure the intensity of other kinds of light waves reflected from various surfaces. These special cameras can record them on film with great ·accuracy. In this way it is possible to determine the conditions of crops--detect dis-

eased trees in a forest--or even help predict when the spring run-off will take place from melting snow in a mountain region.

For geological purposes, space photography has many advantages such as the unique perspective it affords-the rapid coverage that is possible, and particularly, the new information that can be gained about remote or poorly mapped areas. A specific example that NASA scientists brought to my attention is a photograph taken during an early Gemini flight. It depicts an area of Northern Mexico taken from an altitude of about 110 miles, and it shows clearly a large volcanic field that even the latest geological maps of the area had indicated very poorly.

Infrared photography can even be used to detect forest fires, and to determine their size and the directions they are moving.

One series of pictures-a Fire Map of the Sun Dance Mountain-was made last fall during a forest fire in the Kamiksu National Forest in Idaho. The photography was done at night with an infrared scanner through very dense smoke, at an altitude of 12,000 feet. The fire spread over a six-mile front--was 24 miles long-and ·destroyed 57,000 acres of heavy timber. The photographs show clearly even the spot fires burning outside the main perimeter, and demonstrate extremely well the value of fire detection by this method.

Some very interesting photographs of earth have been taken by NASA's Applications Technology Satellites-popularly known as the ATS series. One interesting view, taken last November, clearly shows the effluent of the Amazon River into the Atlantic Ocean. From it the experts have been abie to tell many things, including the fact that there is a significant amount of valuable top soil and natural fertilizer being lost.

Another approach now under study involves the use of radar, which appears to be extremely promising for mapping and geologic exploration. For example, several geologic faults in Eureka County, Nevada, were identified for the first time by using this meth~ology. Faults, I might add, are frequently the locations of valuable mineral deposits.

These examplies are just a few of the potential economical beneficial applications which NASA's investigations indicate may best be done on a large-scale, large-area basis by _satellite. ·

This year the agency is continuing studies which were initiated several years ago to compare the costs of acquiring and using satellite data with those of ground-based systems.

The results obtained so far show that satellite systems would be superior and possibly cheaper than aircraft in acquiring much or the data now used. It is also clear that a vastly increased flow of accurate and timely information about our natural and cultural resources should be developed. As a consequence of rapidly rising population and greatly increased resource consumption, these data are needed to provide in the near future an improved basis for discovery-production-conservation-and distribution of our available resources.

Because of these unique advantages, the analysis and use of satellite acquired data is simplified. The large area viewed at one time, and the more ' nearly true perspective greatly reduce the number of separate images, and aid in fitting them together into an accurate photo-map. Earth features such as faults and drainage patterns can be accurately traced from one region to another.

Because of all these potential advantages, the Earth E.esources Survey Program is of great interest to many Government agencies best.des NASA. Sqme of these include the Departments of Agriculture--Interior-and Commerce-and also the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office.

During fiscal year 1968, NASA has trans-

. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE '· 7227

ferred funds to these agencies to continue research involving space-acquired data. Each of these agencies is now contributing the use of extensive research facilities and a significant number of their most highly qualified scientists are engaged in this program.

As this program moves nearer the operational phase, it is expected that these agencies will markedly increase their own direct funding support of investigations to define uses of space-acquired data relating to their specific missions.

I think this audience might be interested in knowing that a cooperative program on airborne sensing of Earth resources has been proposed between N~SA and the Mexican and Brazilian Governments to assist these countries in establishing their own Earth Resources Program.

From these few examples of benefits to Earth from space exploration, I think it is safe to predict that the potentials that lie ahead of us will far transcend our fondest expecta1;ions.

By marshalling our resources to explore the universe, we can also develop methods to solve our many social and economic problems.

We have seen enough to kn0w that the space program is one of the best bargains the American people have ever made. The returns from this investment in all walks of life far outweigh the costs. The questionit seems to me-does not involve space race publicity, or the perpetual priority problem of finances.

I think the significant thing is that America must accept a vast new challenge filf the future-to open the door to a better world through space age technology. This advance is not only important to our national security, it can also be the key to individual opportunity within our society and perhaps a significant factor in further- · ing the cause for peace.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I sug

gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask .

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, proba

bly few other areas of investment of energy and dollars yield as high a rate of return in economic and social benefits as do our programs of soil and water conservation. Moreover, today's investment generates benefits for many years into the future.

Beginning at the turn of the century, · and particularly since the 1930's, we have been developing an extensi·ve and effective complex of soil and water resources conservation and watershed development programs because we learned that the proper stewardship of our natural resources is fundamental to the maintenance of the basic strength and security and general well-being · of our · Nation. ·

As I have indicated, the characteristics of our com~ervation prpgrams l;l,re a high ratio of benefits to investment but this

favorable ratfo can be. maintained only if there is stability and continuity in our efforts. For · another equal important characteristic of · soil and water conservation work is ·that it cannot be turned off and on without crippiing effects.

Ideally, soil and water conservation should be progressive; each year's efforts should be greater than last so that each year's conservation accomplishments show a steady progress thus assuring maximum efficiency by building and mul-

. tiplying our past accomplishments. Recently, however, because of the enor

mous demands on our Federal budgets, we have not been able to maintain this year-to-year progress in the size of the Federal input. But it has been possible to hold the line. And I believe it is imperative that we continue to do so, and then renew the record of year-to-year progression as soon as it is financially possible to do so.

Therefore, I am convinced that the fiscal 1969 appropriations for soil and water conservation should be maintained at the 1967 level. I would, of course, prefer that there be an increase. However, this may not be possible, but I do believe that we can ill afford to again reduce the Federal contribution to our soil and water conservation efforts. ·

Now let me specifically direct my comments to some of the major programs as

. they are operating in Kansas. First, the administration's cutback in technical staff assistance funds during fiscal 1969 has caused considerable difficulty in the 105 soil conservation ·districts in Kansas. A recent evaluation of staffing needs shows that there is a shortage of 25 manyears to handle the current workload of the State.

Second, watershed development and flood prevention programs have been slowed down by the cutback in fiscal 1968 furids. As a result, it .has been necessary to set back about $2.5 millfon for construction that was otherwise scheduled this year. The proposed budget for fiscal 1969 would therefore be strained to accommodate the construction carried over for 1968, therefore retarding one of the finest watershed programs in the Nation. ·

Third, all of the 62 eligible counties in Kansas are now participating in the Great Plains conservation program. This is a program which has served to give new life and hope to the vast geographic region comprising western Kansas and major portions of nine other Western States. It is vital that the momentum of this valuable- program which is still in its beginning stages, be maintained.

Fourth, Kansas is one of the Nation's leaders in the effective use of the agriculture conservation program by which farmers participate · in the adoption of permanent, long lasting types of conservation measures for erosion control, water conservation and land use conversion. Significant progress has been made, ·but much remains to be done. And especially in view 'of the deteriorating economic position of the farmer it is impossible for him to assume a larger -portion of the burden at this · time. A cutback in this program would not only

slow down a valuable conservation effort, but would also serve to further weaken the already weakened farm economic position.

CIVIL DEFENSE-THE NATIONAL GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE POLICY STATEMENT Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, the dis

tinguished Governor of Indiana, Roger D. Branigin, recently provided me with the "National Governor's Conference Policy Statement on Civil Defense."

Essentially it calls upon the Federal Government for continuing support of the Federal-State partnership approach to the vital issue of civil defense. I endorse this approach and encourage my colleagues to carefully consider the recommendations of the Governor's Conference in this matter.

I ask unanimous consent that the policy statement be printed in the. RECORD.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE-CIVIL DE

FENSE POLICY STATEMENT

The States and their political subdivisions have accepted the joint partnership responsibility for civil defense as contained in .Section 2 of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended. Accomplishing the purpose of this Act requires stable and viable organization at local and State levels. With the training and financial assistance measures of the above Act, such organization has become increasingly effective and valuable to the defense effort of this nation. This increasing effectiveness has been repeatedly demonstrated during major State and local natural and man-made disasters. Countless lives have been saved. Property damage and personal suffering have been reduced in the face of the threat of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards and earthquakes by the use of the civil defense organizati·on and such systems as warning, communications, shelter and emergency information.

Further local and State civil defense organizational development is required and is urgent in view of world and domestic problems. The Governors are determined to support this.

The Federal Government should continue to support this partnership approach to civil defense:

1. By extending the expiration date of certain authorities of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended. This would be accomplished by HR 15004.

2. And by appropriating not less than that proposed by the President for civil defense in his FY 69 Budget.

FOX VALLEY CENTER UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the Valley Voice, the student newspaper of the Fox Valley Center, Menasha, 'University of Wisconsin, is providing a· most valuable service to the high school students of Wisconsin. The students of the Fox Valley Center have just published their first special high school ed,ition. The newspaper is designed to aid the ·graduating high school seniors. . . . .

Appearing in. this landm$.rk editioh,are articles about the advantages. of the Fox Valley Center, some helpful tips on how

7228 CONGRESSIONAL ~CORD - SENATE March 21, 1968

to succeed in college, the costs of education at the center, the opportunities for working part time while at school, and the availability of scholarships.

I was greatly impressed with the professionalism of this student newspaper and want to reiterate my praise of this publication.

One fine article entitled "Frosh Give Key to College Success," written by Kathi Gruentzel, indicates the journalistic talent uniformly displayed throughout the newspaper. The article frankly relates the attitudes and experiences of some of the freshman students at the Fox Valley Center. I am sure young students throughout the State of Wisconsin as well as the Nation can benefit from these remarks. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

FROSH GIVE KEY TO Col.LEGE SUCCESS

(By Ka~hi Gruentzel) Academic success in college depends mainly

upon adjustment to longer and deeper reading assignments, according to three FVC freshmen.

"I would advise high school students to learn to read quickly and comprehensively," said Marsha Brewer, who earned a 3.18 grade point average last semester.

While Marsha enjoys the reading and doesn't really find it difficult, she believes this is an area in which many new students have trouble. It is equally important to learn to write, Marsha said.

"Freshman English (a composition course) 1s difficult," she said. "Many exams require well-organized, concise answers," she said, "and there are always term papers."

Although reading and writing are required to some extent in high school, in college there are no "petty · assignments to be handed in each day," said Marsha. There is one complication, though, she believes.

Students are expected to do reading assignments on their own, and the only way to do this ls through self-discipline. Marsha said her own method of studying was to underline as she read, going back before exams to recall the important points.

Don Stadler, straight-"A" student during his first semester, agreed that college students must learn to budget their own time. On the other hand, he said, "without 'busy work' there is more time to spend on the important things."

Because the course material ls deeper, he said, "you can't let anything go." Don feels it ls a necessity to keep up and, if possible, to read ahead. "If you get too far ahead, though,". he said, "it gets confusing."

The most important thing, according to Don, is to develop one's powers of concentration. "In college it ls necessary to read longer with total concentration," he said.

Don uses a little trick in his studying. "I use index cards," he said. "While I read I write the important points on the cards in the form of questions on one side and answers on the other," said Don.

He said this method works best for science classes, in which there are many facts to be remembered.. "You can't use it for every class," he said, "there Just isn't that much time."

Don tries to use index cards for his most dlfficul t course each semester. He believes it cuts review time in half for exams.

Don said coming to the Center before going away to school ls helpful, ~ause the change ls not so radical. "This way a student adjusts to the academic load now, and is more ready to go a.way, where social adjustment is p.ecessary." ·

Marsha Brewer disagreed, saying there ls no -difference ·between -going away and coming to the Center. "I can't study at home," she said, "but my friends tell me they can't study in the dorms, either."

Renate Bruesewitz, a "B" student, a.greed with Don. She believes it is best to make the change gradually, getting acquainted with the college work load before attempting a radical change in environment.

The Center has a few other advantages, too. Renate believes. "When I came here, I learned to like all kinds of people," she said. "The atmosphere ts easier-going," she added, "and there is free association, among administration, faculty, and students."

In college, Renate feels, people learn to take the initiative instead of always waiting to be conversed with. This is especially true., she believes, in a. small school such as the Center.

"While the courses are harder than in high school, they are more interesting," Renate said. "And things don't get slow or boring, because a. course is over at the semester," she added.

College students learn to be more responsible for themselves, Renate believes. "There is no prodding," she said. The ma.in problem seemed to Renate, also, to be reading. To better remember what she reads, she underlines and writes notes in the margins.

The high school student, the three freshmen would agree, should develop reading and writing skills if he wishes to survive in the college world.

ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, March came in like a lion with a happy roar for a progressive west Texas community when the Castro County agricultural housing project at Dimmitt was dedicated on March 1.

This project demonstrates how local initiative, working in harmony with an imaginative F~deral program, can produce beneficial results for America.

Garden apartments to accommodate 192 families are included in the complex, largest of its type yet constructed. These fine new facilities supplant, in many cases, wholly inadequate, unsafe and unsanitary housing previously used by many agricultural workers and their families.

The dedication speaker was the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farmers Home Administration, Mr. Howard Bertsch, whose agency made the project possible by insuring a $570,-000 private loan and providing a grant of $387 ,000 to finance construction.

The Farmers Home Administration has deep concern for the housing problems of migrant workers, a subject in which I, too, have long had an interest. The USDA-FHA farm labor housing program has achieved a new milestone with construction of this major project in Dimmitt.

Mr. President, the Castro County agJ."icultural housing project will serve families who live in Dimmitt all year, as well as those who work in the area for shorter periods to perform specific agricultural tasks. It is, in short, a most necessary addition t.o the Texas landscape.

I commend the growers and businessmen of Castro County who joined together to work with FHA to make this project a reality. Administrator Bertsch, FHA State Direct.or L. J. Cappleman and

their associates also deserve praise for their efforts in providing this facility.

As Mr. Bertsch said at the dedication ceremony:

The rural problem is essentially one of wholesale depletion of our human resources on our farms and in our rural communities. This grim situation has resulted in an exodus of some 20 million people from rural America. ; . . The price we pay for distorted ruralurban imbalance is obviously far too high.

Mr. President, I concur fully in these views. We must pledge our support to programs such as that represented by the new housing complex in Dimmitt as part of our resolve to increase the viability and attractiveness of rural America.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD two news st.ories from the Castro County News describing this project in further detail. These two stories are from the March 7, 1968 issue and are entitled "Pioneer Project Will Be Dedicated Friday" and "Housing Project Termed 'Standard for New Era.'"

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the Dimmitt (Tex.) Castro County

News, Mar. 7, 1968] PIONEER PROJECT WILL BE DEDICATED FRIDAY

Friday will be "dedication day" for the new million-dollar pioneer housing complex for farm laborers here.

Top housing and labor officials from Washington, Austin and Temple will be here for the full day of activities.

The Castro County Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring the dedication day, with morning activities in the clubhouse of the new county recreation center and afternoon ceremonies and tours at the housing project.

First event of the day will be a press conference at 10:30 a.m. in the CCRC clubhouse. More than 50 radio and TV stations, networks, newspapers, farm publications and wire services have been invited to send representatives.

Also at 10:ao. Mrs. Allen Webb will give a coffee for visiting officials' wives at her home on the Clovis Highway.

A free public lunch will be served at 12 noon at the recreation center clubhouse.

Official dedication of the new project will be at 1:30 p.m.

Main speakers will be Howard Bertsch of Washington, D.C., administrator of the Farmers Home Administration. His agency played the major role in financing the huge housing project.

Also on the program will be Joe Manahan of Austin, chief of farm placement for the Texas Employment Commission.

Todd Potter of Washington, administrative assistant for the Department of Labor, is scheduled to speak also, but he has sent word that he may not be able to attend the dedication because of lllness in his family.

Allan Webb, president of the Castro County Agricultural Housing Association, Inc., will cut the ribbon at the gateway to the new complex.

Throughout the afternoon, public tours will be conducted through the project's facilities and apartments.

The F armers Home Administra tlon will have a large delegation here. From the FHA's state office in Temple will come L. J. Cappleman, state director; Louis Lee, chief of the housing loan section; Bill Lawson, chief of the community facilities loan section; Ermin Miller, chief of the real estate loan section; John Barnes, assistant state director; Arnold Paul, administrative assistant; and J. C. Hayes, assistant to the state director.

Also on hand will be Donald Jennings, county FHA supervisor who coordinated the huge project for the local association; Arch

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD'-- SENATE 7229 Fowler of Lubbock, district FHA supervisor; Tracy Murrell of Dallas, five state regional director of the Department of Labor; Bill McFarland of Dallas, assistant regional director of the -Department of Labor; and E. G. Travis of Amarillo, regional director of the Texas Employment Commission.

Honorees at Fr.iday morning's coffee in Mrs. Webb's home will be Mrs. Howard Bertsch of Washington, D.C., Mrs. Louis Lee of Temple, Mrs. Donald Jennings of Plainview, Mrs. T. G. Hall of the FHA office in Plainview, Miss Myra Hays of the Castro County FHA office, Mrs. William J. T. Robertson, wife of the project manager, and any other official's wife who accompanies her husband to the dedication.

Chairman of the CofC's dedication committee is Elvon DeVaney, manager of Western Vegetable Co. here.

The Pioneer project in East Dimmitt, first and largest of its type in the U.S. is expected to serve as a prototype for migrant workers' housing of the future. .

The 23-building complex will house 190 workers' families in two-bedroom apartments. It includes nine two-story apartment buildings for migrant laborers, 12 one-story quadruplexes for both migrant and permanent workers, a three-chair barber shop, a coin-operated laundry, a large equipped playground, outdoor benches and clothes lines, and paved and curbed streets and parking areas.

In the center of the complex is Manager William J. T. Robertson's separate quarters, the offices of the County Migrant Health Unit and the Texas Employment Commission substation, and a maintenance and storage building.

Constructed of concrete block and steel, the buildings are painted beige brown, with bright colored doors. Inside, the four-room apartments are painted in pastels and have built-in ranges.

Total project cost was $966,820, financed mainly with a $570,000 insured loan and a $387,380 grant from the Farmers Home Administration.

Providing the balance of funds was the Castro County Agricultural Housing Association Inc., a group of farmers and business men who spearheaded the project. The association will own the project when the $570,000 loan is paid off.

Officers and directors of the association are Allan Webb, president; Truman Touchstone, vice-president; Goldman Dyer, secretary-treasurer; and 0. T. "Slim" Vardell, William "Judge'' Baldridge, Jimmy Presley, Ray Pool, Rayphard Smithson and Edd McLeroy, directors. James Horton is the association's legal officer.

Built by H. A. Padgett Construction Co. of Lubbock, the complex required the largest concrete-block order in South Plains history. Construction time was 10 months.

The new project's first family moved into one of the quadruplexes Jan. 1, and 11 families-all permanent residents-live there at present.

The first migrant workers--onion settersare expected to move into the two-story apartment houses March 1. Association officers expect the complex to be fully occupied by July 15, when the vegetable harvest here reaches its peak.

[From the Dimmitt (Tex.) Castro County News, Mar. 7, 1968]

HOUSING PROJECT TERMED "STANDARD FOR

NEW ERA"

With an air of friendly informality and help from a host of federal officials, the Castro County Agricultural Housing Association dedicated its million dollar housing complex Friday.

The dedication-,,eonducted from the second~floor landing C?f a 12-apartment building, .with . a step ladder as a rostrum--climaxed five hours of activities that also in-

eluded · a press conference, ladies' ooffee, luncheon and tours.

"We will dedicate ourselves to the proper administration and management of this project so you can be proud of it not Just now, but 20 years . from now," said Allan Webb, president of ·the association.

Moments later, Webb cut a red nylon ribbon as a crowd of 200 or more watched, ·and as TV and newspaper cameras clicked and whirred.

The ribbon-cutting was only symbolic, for 11 families had already moved into the pioneer housing project and many others were preparing to.

Delivering the keynote speech was Howard Bertsch of Washington, D.C., administrator of the Farmers Home Administration. His agency played the major role in financing the project by insuring a $570,000 private loan and providing a $387,380 grant to clear the way for construction.

"The people of Dimmitt stand second to none in your capacity for f_orward-looking community action," Bertsch said. "These new homes we dedicate today will help to set a national standard for a new era in agricultural housing."

"Certainly, I know of no finer monument anywhere to community enterprise, than this magnificent development where we stand today," he said.

He said federal cooperation in the pioneer project here was an outgrowth of President Johnson's "rural outreach" program, in which all federal agencies are being urged to help give rural America an economic boost.

"One may well ask: Why this high administration priority for the rural outreach mission?" Bertsch said. "The answer is as simple as it is urgent: National circumstances and national self-interest demand it.

"The rural problem in the nation .. ·. is essentially one of wholesale depletion of our human resources on our farms and in our rural communities," he continued. "This grim situation resulted in an exodus of some 20 million people from rural America into our large metropolitan areas between the end of World War II and the 1960s.

"For the cities, the influx of disadvantaged rural people presented a magnitude of additional problems-more congestion more ghettos, a rising burden of welfare and unemployment, increased crime, and, too often, special holocausts such as we witnessed in the agonies of Watts, Newark and Detroit.

"The price we pay for distorted rural-urban imbalance is obviously far too high, even for a seemingly affluent nation like ours," he said.

"The alternative, of course, is a massive reinvestment in progress for rural America. . . . The farm labor housing program is an important element in the total effort to make rural America attractive to the maximum number of people~

"And so," he concluded, "we dedicate this project as a milestone on the road to a rural America rich in new opportunities for all its people, and with a high quality of living environment for everyone who wishes to live here."

Earlier, Joe Manahan of Austin, chief of farm placement for the · Texas Employment Commission, said the housing complex here will solve one of the area's biggest farm-labor problems.

"One of our main problems in West Texas has been to find adequate housing for farm workers," Manahan said. "This project will entice them here and make them more avail-able to you. .

"We see no reason why, in our vast state, we can't schedule our migrant workers for a full year of work," he continued. "Too many of them have been straying from our state, where better housing was available. So this is a -very important step in the right direction, and you're to be commended for it."

Master of ceremonies was Elvon Devaney. who was in charge of _the dedication, program.

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION ENDORSES U.S. COMPENDIUM Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the im

portant American Pharmaceutical Association, representtng the Nation's professional pharmaci.sts, has wholeheartedly endorsed the need for an o_fficial source of dmg information, a U.S. compendium of drugs. .

The necessity for an all-inclusive, unbiased bluebook of drugs, in one volume, available in each practicing physician's office, where he can look up the use of a drug, its restrictions, and its price was also noted in the President's health message to the Congress.

APA, in recommending passage of a measure to authorize this improvement in the health laws said that · its "9-point program" to get FDA, the pharmaceutical industry and the health profession to voluntarily establish a compendium has failed, and that legislation is now necessary.

The crying need for this source was established a long time ago during the hearings of the Monopoly Subcommittee investigating competitive problems in the drug industry.

As chairman of the committee, I have heard incredulously witness after witness testify that the doctor has to get his information from company detail men, medical journal advertisements which are paid for by drug companies, an industry catalog called the Physicians Desk Reference, word of mouth from specialists, and by a thorough time-consuming reading of the various medical journals.

It is astounding that a compendium has never been published.

On January 30, 1967, I introduced my first compendium bill. . After several months of drug hearings, I realized that the bill was inadequate, so I introduced S. 2944 on February 7, 1968. I believe it is a good bill and will accomplish the goals of the APA and the President.

I hope that the Labor Committee will soon report out the measure for favorable action by the Congress. The doctors can benefit, and the consumer will cer-tainly gain. ·

I ask unanimous consent that the news release by the APA endorsing the compendium be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the news release was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, ~s follows:

The American Pharmaceutical Association lauds President Johnson's concern for improving the health of .. American citizens -and endorses the five major _goals outlined in the President's Health Message, Executive Director William S . Apple stated today.

"During the First Session of the 90th Congress, there were those who criticized APhA's endorsement of Senator Russell B. Long's proposal (S. 2299) as being premature. We did not think then and do ·not think now that the Congress need · wait· any longer to take action on this im.portant matter," Dr. Apple said.

"It is well-known that APhA refused to sit on the sidelines while important drug is-

7230 CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD- SENATE March- ·21~ 1-968 sues were considered and debated. We intend to contin~e to support constructive efforts to provide realistic drug programs that serve the public interest and meet criteria acceptable to the practitioners of pharmacy. We offer -our services to the Congress and the Administration to assist in the development and consideration of solutions to problems :related to pharmaceutical services and health care programs. ·

"The pharmacists of this nation are in a unique position, because of the frequency of their contact with the public, to take a leading part in the educational effort that will be required to _achieve the goals," Dr. Apple said.

Since APhA launched its Health Education Center Service in 1964, following a study funded by the U.S. Public Health Service, pharmacists have become a focal point for the distribution of health information and accident prevention literature produced by the voluntary health agencies and government departments.

"When the package insert requirement was first initiated in 1960, APhA took the posi:t;ion that it was an inadequate substitute for a compendium of drug product information. APhA recommended a nine-point program involving the cooperative efforts of FDA, the pharmaceutical industry and the health professions. Since voluntary cooperative efforts to obtain the needed compendium have .failed, the President has suggested the only logical alternative."

In considering the President's comments on drug costs, Dr. Apple noted that for nearly two years the APhA has been working with Congressional committees, government agencies and others to establish appropriate provisions to ensure that Federally-sponsored and tax-supported drug programs provide quality drugs and pharmaceutical services in a fiscally responsible manner.

Commenting on the President's call for increased health manpower and · full utilization, Dr, Apple noted .that the profession of "pharmacy is reappraising its functional activities in the delivery of health care services to more effectively and efficiently utmze its manpower resources."

LOSS OF GOLD Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, as

of yesterday, March 20, the amount of gold held by the Treasury of the United States dropped below the $11 billion level, specifically to $10,484,000,000.

WHY NOT "FLY AMERICA"? Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I wish to

congratulate my distinguished colleague, Mr. SYMINGTON, for the very forceful statment which he made on February 14 urging Americans to fly on U.S.-flag carriers. The Senator has an uncanny ability to put his finger on the heart of a problem, a problem that the administration refuses to face up to.

Mr. President, why is the administration reluctant to urge our citizens to make use of our American carriers whenever it is possible for them to do so? It appears that the administration does not consider asking our citizens to abridge their freedom to travel an unpatriotic gesture, while at the same time they seem to feel it is unpatriotic to say "Fly America." Senator SYMINGTON also inserted into the RECORD two articles by Sylvia Porter which dealt "in a very perceptive way with the travel gap program. Mr. President, I wish to endorse the statement . of Sen~tor S~INGTON and

urge all of my colleagues to take the time to read the S-enato:.(s fi:µe .sta_tement . ..

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I invite

the attention of the Senate to the announcement yesterday that the noncommercial television network n,ext year will telecast a series of programs specifically designed to prepare preschool children--especially disadvantaged children-for their educational experiences to come.

This is indeed good news. I have long believed that the medium of television could be used to much greater advantage in helping to equalize the educational opportunities of our disadvantaged children. I feel this announcement should herald the beginning of a new era in communications. We all know that this country has the technical knowledge and knowhow to accomplish near miracles in the field of communications. Such projects as this give us hope that we are now beginning to concentrate on the problems of how to write and produce materials that will be effective in teaching as well as in entertaining .

It is also noteworthy, in my view, that this exciting new venture is the produ.ct of a partnership cooperation between the Government and the private sector. For many years I have taken the view that such partnership could be the best way to solve some of our most nettlesome national and international problems.

The new children's television series will cost about $8 million, to be shared by the Federal Office of Education, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Ford Foundation.

Mr. President, this is the kind of initiative that bodes well for the future of noncommercial broadcasting in this country, and I wish this new project and everyone connected with it, the greatest possible success. Will give it every assistance. I ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD Jack Gould's report from the New York Times of today:

·There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New York Times, Mar. 21, 1968)

EDUCATIONAL TV NETWORK To TEACH PRESCHOOL CHILD) (By Jack Gould)

Lively, imaginative television programing aimed at millions of preschool youngsters will be tested in an $8-million series scheduled to go on the air in the fall of 1!)69.

The heads of the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation a:q.d the United States Office of Education, ·at a meeting yesterday at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, announced plans to see whether a child's avid interest in TV can be excitingly channeled into preparation "for the educational journey so vital to their lives and -the well.:.being of the nation."

If a spot commercial can arouse interest · in an item of merchandise, the plan suggests, why can't a spot engender . inplrest in ·the letter "A," the numeral "1" or the scientific phenomenon of a snowball? .

One of the primary aims of the plan, the sponsors said, "is to stimulate the intellectual and cultural growth of young chil(!ren from disadvantaged backgrounds." The~

cited Federal statistics showing that an academic achievement gap between disadvantaged and middle-class children shows up very early in the school years.

A detailed outline of the venture, which is to be called the Children's Television Workshop, cited statistics that children under the age of 6 spend upwards of 54.1 hours a week in front of the television screen. The workshop hopes to capitalize on the medium's potential by teaching numbers, classic stories, the alphabet, language and the art of reasoning. ·

The sponsors, from the private and governmental sectors of the economy, noted that at least half the country's school districts did hot have kindergartens. • Alan Pifer, president of the Carnegie Cor

poration; McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation, and Harold Howe 2d, Commissioner of Education, said the program would involve over a year of research for a series of 26 hour-long programs. They will be shown on the network of National Educational Television which expects to have 170 non-commercial outlets by the time the pro.grams start. Selected commercial stations might also be invited to participate.

Mrs. Joan Ganz Cooney, television consultant to the Carnegie Corporation and a former producer, was named executive di,rector of the workshop, a post that automatically thrusts her. into the forefront_of women executives in broadcasting. ·

At the Waldorf meeting, the participants humorously acknowledged that the Children's Television Workshop could not ignore the appeal of commercial television but that by advanced production techniques they hoped to woo preschoolers from slick advertising-sponsored fare.

Mr. Pifer said his own 4-connoisseur of the cartoons on television. The head of the Carnegie Corporation conceded that he was addicted to televised football games and said that Mathew wanted to kri:ow why he could not similarly exercise his preference.

Mrs. Cooney, who has had extensive experience in commerical and noncommercial television, wryly quipped that she had received one criticism from some viewers. "They ask why do you think there are no children's show on the air," she said. "They're all for children."

Mr. Howe observed that the lure of commercial cartoons and Westerns was a. fact of commercial TV's life. But the hope of the Children's Television Workshop, he added, was to learn if provocative programing With educational values could help youngsters get a head start for the school work they would soon be expo~ed to. The parent's intangible reward, he said, would be the knowledge that hours now spent passively with TV could increase a child's readiness for learning.

HARVARD MAN APPOINTED

Dr·. Gerald s_ Less~r •. Bigelow Professor of Education and Development at · Harvard University, will be chairman of a 10-man advisory committee to see how the production skills of TV and preschool educational goals can be entertainingly and attractively fused,.

The commercial television networks had no immediate comment on the creation of th_e C.b.ildren's Tel.evis~on Workshop but all are officially on record t}:lat commercial and noncommercial TV can live side by side. In terms of ratings, educational TV always has been at a ·marked disadvantage to the commercial stations.

About 5 million children 4 years of age are candidates for preschooling, the sponsors of the plan said, and the . cost of educating them in conventional schools, exclusive of the cost of buildings, would ~ount to $2.75-bllllon.

The announcement stressed that while there -was a huge clas!>roonis shortage for these students there w.:as no shortage of . TV sets .. Tel~vision now reaches · over 90 per . ~ent

March 21, 1968 I ' CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-· SENATE I I 7231 of households with an annual income of less than $6,000.

OTHER U.S. AGENCIES

The anticipated budget of $8-m1llion to start the preschool plan, of which $6.26-million has been committed, would be roughly divided between the foundations and Federal agencies.

In addition to the Office of Education, the Office of Economic Development, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Endowment for the Humanities, all Federal agencies, would be involved in the plan.

Mrs. Cooney said that present plans called for the Children's Television Workshop to be offered nationally at 9 A.M., Monday through Friday. Each program might then be repeated at 5 P.M.

In a tentative outline of the content of the Workshop, these programing suggestions were offered:

Numbers and letters of the alphabet might be offered through animation built around catchy jingles that might become as popular as "Sugar Pops Are Tops!"

In the teaching of reading, central characters might be brought to life either by actors or through drawings. A host puppet could afford -a sense of direction and- invite reasoning by the child.

Games for children might be an instrument for identifying familiar objects and explaining how they are used and why. They could encourage a child to try his skill at guessing and stretching his imagination.

Old film might be used a new way. The action of a cartoon could be frozen and 'youngsters asked what they observe.

Projects that could be done in the home would be explored, such as creatfng collages from odds and ends. On a later program the child could compare his ingenuity with what was shown on the screen.

NOT HIGHLY REGARDED

Mrs. Cooney said that little, if any, of the TV programing so eagerly absorbed by youngsters was regarded by child specialists as an introduction to. the real world.

Her discreet reference focused attention on the running controversy over much of commercial programing, which often involves popular figures appealing to children to persuade their parents to buy a particular toy or other product.

Mrs. Cooney acknowledged that thus far noncommercial television did not seem too broadly accepted in disadvantaged areas. To this end, she said, a major promotional and organizational campaign would be mounted among parents, community centers and other local groups to call attention to the workshop.

The interest of Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation and the Office of Education · is known to stem from a conviction that pres.chooler& potentially represent one of television's great unexplored audiences and on a coast-to-coast sustained basis represents an area of unduplicated possibilities.

Serving with Dr. Lesser on the workshop's advisory committee Will be Dr. Leon Eisenberg, chief of psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital in Bost.on; Stephen O. Frankfurt, president of Young & Rubicam, adv~rtising agency, Mrs. Allonia Gadsden, director of the Emerson School, 12 East 96-Street, New York City, and Mrs. Dorothy Hollingsworth director of Head Start Child Development in the Seattle public schools.

Also, Dr. J. Mcvicker Hunt, director of the National Coordination Center for the National Laboratory on Early Childhood Education and professor of psychology. and education at the University of Illinois in Urbana; Francis Mechner, director of the Institute of Behavior Technology; Dr. Glen P. Nimnicht; prog:cam director of the Far. West Laboratory for Education Research and Development at Berkeley, Calif.; Dr. Keith Osborn, chairman

CXIV----456~Part 6

of community services at the Merrill Palmer Ins.titute . in netr.oft, _ancC MJi>w::ice Sendak, author ·and illustrator o! children's books. The Creative Television Workshop is expected to open an office in New York by April and ultimately have a staff of 35 to 40 people.

ADDRESS BY SENATOR TYDINGS Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, on

March 14 last, one of the rising young stars in the political firmament of this Nation, the junior Senator from Maryland, made an interesting and thoughtprovoking address which I am confident will be of interest to Members of the Senate; and I ask unanimous consent that this address be inserted at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: ADDRESS BY SENATOR JOSEPH D. TYDINGS AT

THE BOND CLUB OF BALTIMORE, MARCH 15, 1968 I am pleased to meet with you today

to give you a candid appraisal of our nation's economy-seen from the back row of the Senate Chamber. '

I want to make four points: 1. Our present economic and fiscal policy

is on a collision course with disaster. As the basis of world monetary policy, principal lubricant of world trade and our domestic economy-the dollar is rapidly deteriorating.

2. Our economic crisis is linked directly to our overseas military commitments, particularly to the war in Vietnam.

3. We are now clearly in a warfare state with over 79 percent of our budget going for war or war-related projects, while health, education, welfare, and the cost of general government of our people take up 12 percent of our budget.

4. The proposals offered by the Treasury in January to meet the President's goal of slashing $3 billion from the 1968 potential payments deficit are unrealistic, inadequate, and completely avoid the issue.

An internationally respected member of the financial community told me on Monday that, "The U.S. is handling its fiscal affairs like an underdeveloped nation before its first meeting with the International Monetary Fund."

But it doesn't require an expert to know that something is seriously wrong. In the past two weeks speculation and other gold purchases have drained over $2 million from our rapidly dwindling stocks. And most experts blame the crisis on us--on our economic condition.

Look at the facts: 1. Our balance of payments deficit in 1967

was $3.6 billion. Except for 1957, we have now had eighteen consecutive years of international payments deficit---and our average for the past 10 years is $27 blllion annually.

2. In December, our gold stock declined at a rate which-if continued-would exhaust our reserve within a year.

3. Since 1957, our gold reserves have fallen from $22.4 billion to less than $12 billion.

4. At the same time, total foreign holdings of dollars with a call against our gold have more than doubled-from $15 billion to $32 billion.

5. It appears that this year, we Will run an administrative budget deficit of over $18 billion. At the end of the current fiscal year we will have had a two-year deficit of $30.4 billion. The President's budget for Fiscal 1969 proposes mm tary expendi t~res greater than any nation has ever spent.

6. For the first time since .World War II inflation is .a real and present danger. Be- , tween 1961 and 1965, consumer prices rose an average of only 1.2 percent a year. But since

1965, they have been rising at a rate in excess of 3.6 percent a year.

Our binge of extravagance abroad 1s .catching up With us, gentlemen. We have been conducting our economic affairs since 1966 as if . the basic laws of economics contain special exemptions for the U.S. Well-they don't.

Twenty-five years after the end of World War II, a quarter of a million American troops are stationed in Europe. Fifteen years after the end of the Korean War, 50,000 of our troops are still in Korea.

More than 2 million military-connected ·Americans are stationed abroad. We have fully 132 major military bases outside our own country. This, gentlemen, is costing us.

Our military expenditures abroad-in Europe, Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia--make the largest contribution to the balance of payments deficit which is causing our crisis.

During the past six years, our overseas military establishment has created a net payments deficit of $14.3 billion. Were it not for offsetting military sales abroad, the deficit since 1961 would be $22 billion. During the same period, we have lost $5.8 billion in gold to cover our deficit.

In other words, our overseas military operations alone have accounted for our entire payments deficit and gold outflow-and, worse, have been 240 percent greater than the actual foreign redemption of dollars for gold. If every dollar we have actually lost because of military spending abroad were presented for redemption, we would lose 70 percent of our gold stock which remains.

These are the causes of our economic problems-not domestic expenditures. Contrary to common myth, we have not been extrava.gent With our own people here at home. We have been extravagent with our military abroad.

It may be comforting-and it is certainly easy to blame our economic troubles on hospitals, schools, and housing for our citizens. But the fa.ct ts--we are not a welfare state. We a.re a warfare state.

Of the $157 b1llion appropriated by Congress in 1967, 79 percent went for war and war-related items-and 10.7 percent for all items in the health, education, and welfare category.

Breakdown of last year's budget: Percent

Military -------- · ----------------- 56.3 Veterans (includes past wars)------ 4. 9 National debt---------------------- 10.8 Foreign relations (mainly foreign aid) 2. 7 Space race------------------------- 4.3 Agriculture and national resources_ ·5. 3 Commerce and transportation______ 2. 6 Housing and community develop-

ment --------------------------- 0.5 Health, education, and welfare ____ 10. 7 General government ________________ 1.9

Our mi11tary expenses since World War II are really beyond comprehension-nearly a trillion dollars. Since 1946, we have handed out to our so called "friends and treaty obligees" $38 billion in weapons, ammunition, and military equipment, which theyfrom time to time-have used on each other.

We have formally pledged ourselves to defend 42 countries; And we have spent and spent. In defense of one of t~ese countries to which we are pledged-Vietnam-we have now spent $52 billion. And if you take into account other costs-like veterans benefits for the next_ genera~ion- and ·interest on $30 billion in new national debt---the War has probably cost closer to $100 billion--so far.

This war-at its present level-and who knows how much it will cost if it's escalated further-this war 1s now costing tw!) and a half bllllon dollars a mon.th-$600 million a week--$85 million a ciay. -

And we can't get $250,000 this summer for "Operation_ Champ" in ~attimore.

We spend more QD. Vietnam in one year than the combined total of all Federal aid to education, all health programs, hospital

7232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORO ::._·SENATE . j "" ' ~ March 2l, 1968 construction, and medical research-all housing and a.id to cities-all aid to depressed areas-all foreign a.id, the Peace Corps, the· war on poverty-and practically the entire cost of our domestic government-Congress, the Federal courts, the Departments of Labor, Justice, Post Office, Interior, Commerce, Housing and Urban Renewal, and Health, Education and Welfare.

Measured against these facts , the emergency measures proposed by the Treasury are ineffective--at best. Removal of the gold cover is a stop-gap, which contributes nothing to correcting the problem-except a few more days before we must face reality. It merely throws open to foreign creditors what gold we have left.

The gold drain is directly and irrevocably tied to our balance of payments deficit-and this cannot be corrected by a tourist tax of dubious value or by restrictions on foreign investments-which, by the way, pay for themselves in two and a half years.

The only way to restore the integrity of the dollar, short of a major tax increase back to the 1964 levels, is to retrench government spending abroad. And the only way to do this is by bringing home large numbers of American troops now stationed abroad. Then and only then-when international confidence in our fiscal sanity is restored-will we have the flexibility to consider what should have been considered before--letting the private . gold price in London rise and fall with complete freedom and utilize S.D.R. or other international paper gold devices.

I believe that our course is clear. It is not to reduce spending. on our own people. (Last year we cut our domestic budget $5.9 billion. And Congress appropriated $1 billion less for domestic programs than in the preceding year.) The ri~hest nation in the world-a nation which-in the name of defense, containment, prestige, face--call it what you will-a nation which can spend $1,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in Vietnam--can-in the name of common decency and humanity-spend more than 12 % of its taxes on decent housing, jobs, and education for its own people.

The price we are paying for our military grandeur in Vietnam and elsewhere is not only beyond all reason. In the light of our economic position and our own needs, it is also completely beyond our ability to pay.

The supreme irony of Vietnam is that a war fought in the name of international order now threatens to destroy the economic order of the free world.

I .believe that we must find a middle way between a fortress America-isolated and alone--and a bankrupt America-acting as policemen for the world.

I, for one, know what course I shall follow. I shall vote at every opportunity to reduce our military commitments abroad.

I shall vote at every opportunity to deescalate and liquidate this War. And I shall vote against sending new troops to Vietnam.

I shall, at every opportunity, try to force the Administration to face this crisis, and "pay the fiddler today." We have "danced" too long, and the hour of reckoning is here.

In a democracy, each man must make his own choice. Thank you for permitting me ·to discuss my choice wt th you today.

SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT JOHNSON

Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the views of those loyal Democrats who have spoken out in recent days to support President Johnson. · I support the President's nomination and reelection; and I am certain that both of these happy events will come to pass. . . . .

I sincerely believe that Lyndon Johnson has provided effective leadership during one of the niost complex and difficult periods in American history.

It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the President ·often accused of being a "wheeler-dealer" and political pragmatist--is now under attack within his own party for his determination to follow policies he believes to be right.

Lyndon Johnson is a courageous President who believes--and rightly so, in my judgment--that America must stay the course in Vietnam until an honorable settlement can be achieved.

I have consistently supported this policy because I am convinced that history will kindly judge Presid,ent Jo.hnson's actions.

Here at home, the President's accomplishments place him among the strong Presidents of the century-among the likes of Wilson and Roosevelt, Trwnan, and Kennedy.

The American people know that President Johnson has provided more farreaching programs to improve health and education, alleviate poverty and urban blight, protect the consumer and provide security for the elderly, than any President in our history.

Under the President's leadership we have made genuine progress in creating a society of full opportunity for ali' and in protecting the fundamental rights of citizenship for every American.

These are giant accomplishments. And the American people will not reject the leader who created so much progress and so many accomplishments during the past 4 years.

And so, to use the President's own words, I say to my fellow Americans: "Let us continue." Let . us continue to build upon the kind of future Lyndon Johnson has charted-a future based on a just and ·hwnane society, so secure in its freedom ' that it is willing to help others def end theirs.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF., SUPPORTS FULL FUNDING OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,

Supervisor Ernest E. Debs, of Los Angeles County, Calif., has called for full support of S. 3106, my bill to fully fund the· $30 million authorization for bilingual education in fiscal 1969. The entire Los Angeles County, Calif., Board of Supervisors have unanimously supported this action.

To point out the fine support and concern for getting a sufficient amount of money to make this act a practical reality, I ask unanimous consent that the press release from Supervisor Debs office be .printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the press release was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DEBS ASKS INCREASED BILINGUAL EDUCATION

FUNDS .

Commenting that recent unrest at East Los Angeles schools emphasizes the n~ed for bilingual education, Supervisor Ernest E. Debs today called on the Federal Government to appropriate $30 _ million for bilingual educa-

tion rather than the $5 million requested by the administration.

"East Los Angeles i~ just one of many Spanish-speaking areas . throughout the natio~ :that can bimefit by the bilingual education project," Debs said.

Pointing out that the original bill, sponsored by Texas Senator Yarborough, called for an appropriation of $30 million, Debs declared: "The administration's proposal to reduce this funding to a mere $5 million will obviously reduce the effectiveness of this very vital program." ·

Debs obtained unanimous approval of .the Board of s ·upervisors in support of a new bill, S. 3106, sponsored by Senator Yarborough, calling for the full appropriation of $30 million to finance the bilingual education pro-

. gram during fiscal 1969.

WISCONSIN BUSINESSMAN MAKES IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPING W9RLD Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, Africa is a

high-risk investment area but the countries are gradually developing and Africa is emerging into world economics. Through its specific-risk and extended-

. risk insurance programs, the Agency for · International Development is trying to

encourage private investors to take a good look at Africa. ·

The hope is that American businessmen and industries will invest time, capital, and know-how in establishing industry projects in the developing nations so that the local citizens can become trained and eventually take over the operation of the industries. AID will help a U.S. company to find and evaluate projects.

An excellent example of a small U.S. company's contribution to the African development is Mendustrie, S.A., a Tunisian firm established by Marshall Erdman. Erdman is president of Marshall Erdman & Associates, a construction firm in Madison, Wis. Mendustrie is essentially an adaptation of the methods and ideas of the U.S. firm to the conditions in Tunisia.

Erdman visited Tunisia in 1963 to inspect a Peace Corps architectural project. He felt that a Tunisian market could be developed for standardized building components. In 1966, he organized Mendustrie with a $100,000 investment of his own funds and about $100,000 in Cooley funds borrowed from AID.

The present director of Mendustrie is one of the Peace Corps volunteers Erdman met during his first visit. Mendustrie has trained a work force of about 30 previously unskilled workers. Plans call for expansion within the next few years to employ as many as 150 people. They have published the first millwork catalog in Tunisia.

Mendustrie has been instrwnental in encouraging the acceptance of a standardized modular building system for basic structures in Tunisia. Erdman realizes that shelter is an essential need of Tunisia. At present, there is no building industry in the country. With the establishment of the Mendustrie plant, there will be provisions not only for supplying the essential housing product but also for training local citizens to operate the business. ·Erdman's id~,a is that given the pr_oper supervil?jon and ,guidance and adequate facilities, the Tunisians should

March 21·, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL- RECORD - SENATE 7233

become · proficient in this industry · and -develop it to contribute to improving the economy of the country.

After only 2 years of operation, the plant is at the point of becoming profitable. This is an example of an American citizen investing a large amount of his private funds in an attempt to help the developing nations. Erdman feels that American businessmen interested in aiding the new nations should forget about making a quick:, huge profit, but rather, give capital, management, and instruction so that the country will be able to develop itself.

What Erdman is doing in Tunisia is establishing a new frontier of business development. This example should encourage other businesses for investment in other areas. The rest of the world should take advantage of the money, knowledge and experience of American management. The developing nations should be able to benefit from interested American businesses and citizens like Marshall Erdman.

My hope is that this example of what our private citizens can do to improve the economy of the developing nations and the U.S. relations with them will spur other individuals and businesses to similar projects.

I ask unanimous consent to have two articles concerning Marshall Erdman's Mendustrie plant and the Vice President's visit to Tunisia-one from the Capital Times of February 3, 1968, and one from the February 19 issue of Business Abroad-printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows: [From the Madison (Wis.) Capital Times,

Feb. 3, 1968] WHAT CAN OUR KNOW-How Do FOR EMERGING

NATIONS? A Madison man's contribution to under

developed countries won plaudits from Vice President Hubert Humphrey during his recent trip to Africa.

Marshall Erdman, president of Marshall Erdman and Associates, was the one singled out !or Humphrey's praise.

Erdman joined the Humphrey party in Tunisia on the last stage of the vice president's tour of nine African states.

During a two day stay in Tunisia, Humphrey visited ruins of ancient Carthage, near · Tunis, capital of Tunisia, then jumped the centuries to visit the modern Erdman plant nearby.

This plant embodies Erdman's philosophy of how American private industry can play a major role in teaching emerging nations how to help themselves.

Erdman believes that American businessmen interested in aiding the new nations should forget about making a quick, huge profit.

Nor should the United States engage in massive, spectacular projects in those countries, he said. That kind of aid 'might provide a country like, Tunisia with needed housing but it would not teach the people new working skills nor anything about man-agement. _

And it is American know-how in management that is most needed in .the new countries, Erdman believes.

The practical application of that theory is Mendustrie, a Tunisian company set up in 1966 to produce standardized, prefabricated windows, doors and other bulldmg components.

Erdman first visited .Tunisia in 1963 as a consultant on Peace Corps architectural projects. In 1964 the Agency for International Development (AID), invited him to go to Tunisia with a group o! :tlve other businessmen to encourage private industry to set up various manufacturing plants.

The result was Mendustrie. Erdman ami Associates invested $100,000

and received an AID loan o! $105,500. About 15 per cent of the total capital came

from leading Tunisian architects and building contractors.

"Instead of putting up a new factory, we took over three barns on an abandoned !arm and remodeled them into a modern, well organized and efficient millwork plant," Erdman said. "That was the first lesson we taught--to make use of what already existed."

The next step was to train about 30 workers to mass-produce the standardized building components from local materials. · Those familiar with the work of Erdman and Associates in this country will recognize that Mendustrie is an adaptation of its methods to conditions in Tunisia.

Erdman said the greatest profit realized so far is the satisfaction of seeing his methods accepted by Tunisian architects and indus-trialists. ·

The greatest breakthrough came when Ali Mheni, the major industrialist in Tunisia, introduced Erdman techniques in his own plants ·and accompanied Humphrey on his Tunisian tour.

Erdman cited the operation of the Hilton Hotel in Tunis as another example of how American management know-how can contribute to the development of emerging :nations.

Tunisia is essentially a Socialist country, he points out. But while the Hilton is government-owned, its mant1,gement is in the hands of the American Hilton hotelS-il.nd is the only hotel in Tunis that shows a profit.

Gradually, as local people are trained in management at the Hilton, other hotels are drawing them off and assigning them to positions of responsib111ty.

This should be the clue for future United States aid to developing countries, Erdman feels.

"Nations like Tunisia are discovering that having the buildings and the machinery is not enough," he said. "They now realize that they also need the skill and management that the private sector of the economy can provide."

The stumbling block to accomplishing much in that direction, he said, is governmental red tape on the part of the United Sta.tes and the host country.

Erdman pointed out that in his own case, in spite of his official contacts with AID and the Peace Corps and with the government of Tunisia, it took two years to create Mendustrie.

Erdman said he knows personally at least 25 small and medium sized American industrialists who would welcome the opportunity to use their knowledge in aiding developing counkies.

But they cannot afford to spend the time needed to cut through official red tape.

Erdman said he tried to impress these facts on Humphrey on the return flight to the United St9.tes.

"I believe that if the United States government would investigate private businessmen interested in such ventures and would provide them the clearance that would help them cut through red tape, many would welcome the opportunity to do as we have done in Tunisia," he said.

Humphrey's tour of Tunisia did much good for this country, Erdman said. The Vice President not only was received enthusiastically by the people but greatly impressed government officials.

Erdman said that in talks to student groups, Humphrey explained the foreign

policy of the United States and in talks to others praised Tunisia as a "model of what an independent and progressive people can do in economics, social and polictlcal development."

The greatest measure of Humphrey's impact was his reception by President Habib Bourguiba, Erdman said.

"President Bourguiba is a very great man," Erdman said. "He is not easily influenced by visiting dignitaries but I am told that he responded to the Vice President as he has reacted to no other national leader.

"In international affairs, logic and reason are not enough to establish an understanding," Erdman said. "There also has to be an emotional bond between the leaders and Humphrey accomplished that in Tunisia."

I! these bonds result in relaxing o! governmental red tape, "properly-inspired" U.S. businessmen can be counted on to contribute their know-how to the developing nations involved, Erdman believes.

AFRICA: STILL A HIGH RISK INVESTMENT AREA, BUT EXPERTS SAY IT CAN REALLY BE WoRTH IT-U.S. INVESTMENT AIDE SEES CONTINENT READY FOK ECONOMIC "TAKE-OFF'' Operating in Africa still is a risky busi-

ness, but many U.S. firms-large and smallare beginning to find that the rewards ·are worth it.

An Agency !or International Development official who accompanied Vice President Hubert Humphrey on his swing around Africa last month !eels that the dark continent is nearing economic "take-off." R. Peter Straus, AID assistant administrator in charge of the Bureau of African Affairs. told Business Abroad economic growth curves point sharply up, political stability is "demonstrably greater," and many more U.S. firms are venturing into Africa than ever before.

"It's still an area o! high risk," said Straus, "but it's also an area of high potential return." The return, he added, is "more than commensurate with the risk."

A growing number o! U.S. firms, large and small, seem to agree. Recent ventures which have operated long enough to be classed as "successful" range from Kaiser-Reynolds Valeo aluminum smelter in Ghana and Procter & Gamble's 100%-owned detergent factory in Morocco to NIDOCO Ltd., a doughnut plant which has been operated in Lagos since 1961 by Anthony Marshall o! New York City.

Straus noted that the U.S. embassy list of representatives of American companies in Nairobi, Kenya, had grown in five years from "somethmg you could write on the back of a ms.tchbook" to a weighty document. The main reasons, he said, are: 1. British influence has declined since independence, .allowing American.firms to get a foothold; 2. Purchasing power has risen, with more and more people. coming into the money economy . . "In East Africa they not only want goods, they can pay for them--everything from automobiles to baby bottles."

One example of opportunities open to alert U.S. exporters is the story of a governmentfl.nanced irrigation scheme in northeast Kenya where demand for equipment outran supply. The project was to drill wells for nomadic tribes in the region, encouraging them to settle down in one spot. When the project got underway, however, shovels were the only equipment on hand. Although funds were available to purchase drilling rigs, time was lost because there were no rigs for sale.

Another is tbe story of .the Moroccan Government's use of television to demonstrate the advantages of fertilizer to farmer.s. When the program turned out to be successful, it not only boosted demand for fertilizer; it gave an unexpected boost to the market for television receivers.

Among the countries which show great promise, Straus named Ivory Coast, Tunisia,

7234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- SENA-TE · March 21, 1968 Ghana, Liberia, Zambia, and the Oongo (Kinshasa) , in addition to Kenya and Mo~co.

"But it's impossible to limit the list," he said. "There are · specific opporturuties all over. In Malawi, fox example, we flew over a huge pine forest the British planted before independence. The government owns it now. By 1970 it will start to yield, and the government wants private industry to come in so they can get out.

"In Ghana · the government is trying to unload some 50-odd state enterprises that were acquired in the Nkrumah da ys. They want private enterprise in as partners. A couple have sold, but none to U.S. companies."

The course does not always run smooth . . Abbott Laboratories gave up on a deal to run a pharmaceutical plant in cooperation With the Ghanaian Government last year (see box), and Straus admits that the investment climate is hard to project five years ahead. But he is convinced that it is getting better.

Through its specific-risk and extended-risk insurance programs, AID is trying to encourage private investors to take a good look at Africa. "Business undersells Africa as an investment site," said Straus. The extendedrisk program, in particular, has been well received. "In ·an a>rea of high risk and high return, it cuts the risk," he said.

AID will ·also help a U.S. company to find and evaluate projects. First, AID specialists Will advise on business opportunities and investment climate, making available to interested firms a whole catalogue of studies previously made by colonial powers an.ct by international organizations such as the UN and the World Bank. Second, AID will finance up to half of any pre-investment study made by a U.S. firm, if the study does not result in an investment. Third, AID Will help finance ongoing projects.

A good example of where the small U.S. company ca.n flt into AID's plans for African development is Mendustrie S.A., a Tunisian firm set up by Marshall Erdman, of Madison, Wis. Erdman felt that a Tunisian market could be developed for standardized building components. He organized Mendustrie in June, 1966, invested $100,000 of his own a.nd just over $100,000 in Cooley funds boITowed from AID, and hired a Peace Corps architect named Bruce Blossman to run the operation. Employing 30 workers, it operates in several barns which were converted into a millwork p\ant.

Erdman told BUSINESS ABROAD that he is now "beginning to break even," although immediate profits were never his goal. With Mendustrie, he aimed to accomplish three objectives: 1. to teach the Tunisians something new which had application there, in this case modular construction; 2. to train unskilled workers to fit into a modern factory; 3. to prove to the Tunisian Government that he could contribute something and be trusted.

"It cost us $100,000 to get going," he said. "Getting to know the place, traveling extensively, and cutting red tape. It's costly and it takes time. But now that we are known and have the government's confidence, we hope to be offered other opportunities, and on these it should be possible to save 70% of those initial costs.'·'

Erdman feels there are many opportunities in Africa now for "properly motivated people." The trouble is that "fast buck" operators have caused the governments to look suspiciously on foreign investors, and it . takes time to "prove your integrity."

In Tunisia, he said,. the right person could set . up a shoe factory and find a ready market, Many meqJum-sized companies in other industries ·could . apply known techniques and use machinery that is no longer competitive in. mor.e sophisticated markets. Early computers and machines to make

small mechanical tractors (now largely superseded by hydraulic) are -examples.

Erdman feels that there are many other American companies like his-small to middle-sized, closely-held- that could afford to take a long-range view of African investment opportunities. "For the right people, who are wiiling to make an investment and not just a quick killing, Africa offers an opportunity to expand the company and in time-two to three years- to start earning profits."

Straus concurs. "Business undersells Africa as an investment site largely through lack of knowledge," he said. "But go and look. If you know your trade, I'd be surprised if you did not come back with three ideas for good business ventures."

A Goon DEAL, IF You CAN STAND THE GAFF A vociferous, pro-Nkrumah minority group

has cost Ghana what would have been the best pharmaceutical production facility in West Africa. Nationalistic opposition to an agreement between Abbott Laboratories and the Ghana Government convinced the North Chicago firm to pull out of the deal.

Abbott had agreed to provide management and technical know-how and risk $600,000 in working capital to run the plant, which had been built and equipped by the French and Hungarian governments in 1966. It had never been put into operation for lack of qualified personnel and funds.

"The Ghanaians cut their own throats," said Gerald A. Sears, director of the Chicagobased Mid-America International Development Assn. (MIDA) "They allowed a rabblerousing political minority to whip up the country into a nationalistic frenzy. It was strictly a political maneuver by communists. Now, the Ghanaian newspapers, which were calling the agreement "outrageous and not in the national interest of Ghana,' are crying the blues that Abbott Labs is gone."

The Abbott-Ghana deal gave the government 55 % control of the venture, but the American company retained the right to maintain majority control of the board of directors and appoint the managing director and other top officials. The critics decried the American control rights plus the fact that the facility, built at a cost of $2.4-million, was recapitalized at $1-million.

MIDA, a partnership of three Chicagobased financial institutions, is teamed with the Agency for International Development (AID) to seek attractive investment opportunities for American firms in underdeveloped African nations. Sears, assistant vice president of Glore Forgan, Wm. R. Staats, Inc., believes other negotiations will pan out. He said some 20 to 30 negotiations were in the works now throughout Tunisia, Kenya, Uganda, Senegal, Tanzania, and the Ivory Coast.

Sears said that the board of directors of an Illinois barge firm and the Volta River Authority in Ghana will decide next month whether to okay an agreement for the U.S. firm to provide transportation for cattle, freight, a.nd people from the steaming hot inland areas to Accra and other coastal areas. Other African negotiations involve a furniture parts factory, construction of a railroad, an acid plant, and several pharmaceutical facilities .

POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, in the midst of the current drama being played on the national political scene, public attent\on increasingly is turned toward the antiquated and undemocratic electoral college systein. In . the heat of th~ presidential campaign, the inherent de~ fects in the present system are, once

again, likely to be discovered by a great many Americans. One does not have to be possessed with ·great foresight, Mr. President, to predict that they will not like what they find.

For some time the American Bar Association has viewed the dangerous electoral system of choosing the President and found it wanting. Long before thoughts had turned to the specifics of the 1968 Presidential election, the American Bar Association published a comprehensive study of the electoral college and issued a series of recommendations. The ABA concluded that the American people should be given the opportunity to vote directly-and equally-! or the President. In short, Mr. President, they endorsed direct election.

The March 8 edition of the New York Law Journal carried an article indicating that the ABA is now seeking the approval of both political parties for direct election. I commend the Bar Association's call for bipartisan support of this needed and long overdue reform of our presidential election process. The American people will be the beneficiaries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the New York Law Journal be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: VOTE METHOD: PARTIES ASKED TO BACK POP

ULAR VOTE PLAN IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS The Democratic and Republican parties

have been urged by the American ~ar Asso-ciation to include planks supporting direct election of the President and Vice-Pr~ident in their 1968 platforms.

In letters to Ray Bliss and John Bailey, Republican and J.?emocratic national chairmen, respectively, ABA President Earl F. Morris cited a Gallup poll indicating that 65 per cent of the nation's citizens favor a popular vote method for the two high~st 9ffices.

He reported that the poll showed that only 22 per cent favor the present Electoral College system and 13 per cent had no opinion.

Mr. Morris also noted that the ABA had taken stands in support of an amendment to the constitution to provide for direct nationw:ide, popular vote of the President and Vice-President.

The ABA's policy-making House of Delegates adopted the recommendations of an ABA bipartisan commission on Electoral College reform at its midyear meeting in Houston in 1966. The commission included representatives of the legal profession, labor, business, agriculture and state governors of both parties.

Mr. Morris asked the Republican and Democratic parties for an opportunity to have representativ~ of the ABA appear before their platform committees.

THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AR-RANGEMENT-''MARKETING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIF.s" Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, our agri

cultural exports are among the strongest contributors in our :fight to offset the continuing deficit in our balance of payments. They are of great importance to this Nation and to my State. ·

Now pending in the ]forejgIJ. ij,elations Committee is the Internatioµ.al Grains .Arrangement which. we will later be considering in accord with the treaty power

Marc;h 21, _1!)68 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 7235

of the Senate. The issues asso.ciated with this international agreement are well examined by Mr. William R. Pearce, vice president of Cargill, Inc., in his speech before the Farmers Grain De:::Jers Association of Illinois at Peoria on February 14, 1968.

I ask unanimous consent that l\4r. Pearce's speech, "Marketing in Foreign Countries," be printed in the RECORD so that my colleagues may have benefit of his clear analysis of the International Grains Arrangement.

There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows: MARKETING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

(By William R. Pearce, vice president, Cargill, Inc., before Farmers Grain Dealers Association of Illinois, Peoria, Ill., February 14, 1968) As nearly everyone knows, developed

countries and many -of the less developed countries of the free world recently concluded one of the most ambitious efforts in history to reduce trade barriers. In negotiations which spanned a period of four years, they agreed on broad tariff reductions covering a wide range of industrial and farm products.

The grains portion of the negotiations in the so-called Kennedy Round was conducted by the cereals group, comprising twelve principal grain exporters and importers. The result of their efforts-extended in subsequent negotiations under the auspices of the International Wheat Council and the United Nations· Conference on Trade and Development to 53 countries-is embodied in the so-called International Grains Arrangement.

The IGA, as it has come to be called, is made up of two separate parts, called conventions, one governing wheat trade and the other fbod aid.

The Wheat Trade Convention is similar in some respects (but very 'different in others) to the International Wheat Agre(lment which expired in July, 1966. The important differences are that under the IGA:

First-both minimum and maximum trading prices are increased about 21 cents a bushel.

Second-a schedule of prices is now established for 14 classes of wheat from 9 different country origins. Under IWA minimum and maximum prices were established only for a single class of Canadian wheat which was seldom traded. Decisions on price differentials on other kinds of wheat were left "to the exporting and importing country concerned."

Third-the basing point for price comparison is U.S. gulf ports rather than the Canadian lakehead.

The ~ood Aid Convention is entirely new. It obligates developed country members to contribute something less than 4¥:z million tons of wheat, or the cash equivalent, to less developed countries of their own choice each year during the 3-year term of the agreement.

The proposed agreement has met with a great deal of opposition here in the United States. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the United States Chamber of Commerce, principal grain trade organizations and others, all have expressed opposition. As a result, the Administration may have difficulty securing the two-thirds vote needed for Senate ratification.

No doubt many people wonder why all the excitement. In the past the International Wheat Agreement has been approved rather routinely. On the surface, IGA would seem an improvement. The prospect of somewhat higher prices must surely be welcome in this year of generally disappointing returns. Agreement by other developed countries to share some small part of the burden of world

food aid also seem& useful. Why, then, have groups which generally ignored !WA now interest themselves?

For several reasons. First, there i.s growing awareness of the

~rucial importance of export markets. The United States by far is the world's

largest farm product exporter, accounting for more than a fifth of the world's total commercial exports of temperate zone products. U.S. commercial farm products tripled since the mid-1930's.

Had we not experienced this growth, producers of grains and oilseeds would be confronted with serious price and adjustment problems. If we are going to avoid these problems in the future it seems clear that further expansion of foreign markets will be needed, simply because farmers in this country continue to increase their productivity faster than we are able to find markets.

Nowhere in the country is this more true than it is here in Illinois where soybean yields have risen nearly 20%, corn yields 25% and wheat yields 34%, all since 1960.

A second reason for new interest in the wheat agreement is growing evidence that other countries will not surrender foreign markets without a fight. Since World War II, grains and oilseed production abroad has been encouraged by price incentives, protected by quotas and duties and exported with the assistance of the trading monopolies and cash subsidies.

Still, our sales abroad have continued to grow-for several reasons:

First, we have enjoyed several important advantages-advantages in climate, soil, land tenure, technology and education-all of which have contributed to our competitiveness.

Second, markets abroad have grown more rapidly than competition. This has been especially true in western Europe and Japan, where general prosperity and rising personal

.income have strengthened demand for a better diet. This has contributed in large measure to expanding exports of U.S. wheat, feed grains and soybeans.

Finally, a very liberal food aid policy has provided a further export outlet in less developed countries.

Despite optimism born of very successful experience, there is reason for concern about the future. '

For one thing, we have been exporting our advantages--our technology in seeds and chemistry and even in land management systems. Other countries are applying them with increasing success on a rapidly expanding acreage base. As small, fragmented farms are grouped together in larger units and begin applying new technology in scale, the gap between growing demand and competitive supply wm close.

The concern is not · just with the traditional exporting countries-Canada, Australia, Argentina and France-although each of these has increased acreage and production in recent years. At recent price levels countries which have been marginal exporters and, in some cases, even significant importers have apparently found it profitable to expand grain and oilseed production for export.

Mexico may serve as an example. With technical assistance of public and private agencies from this country, Mexico has achieved an extraordinary breakthrough in grains production.

Mexican corn production more than doubled between 1940 and 1960, though acreage increased qnly about one fourth. In the same period wheat production nearly tripled. With both acreage and yields continuing to rise, Mexico now produces a reliable export surplus of both corn and. wheat.

The same trend is seen throughout the world. India and Pakistan are planting extensive acreage to dwarf wheat varieties developed in Mexico. With average weather,

Pakistan is expected to achieve self sufficiency this year.

Future export prospects are also clouded by increasingly sophisticated systems of protection. There is no better example than the Europe~n Economic Community, or Common Market'. Under -its new system, which first became fully effective last summer, farmers in the productive areas of France, Germany and the lowlands are guaranteed $2.89 a bushel and $2.30 a bushel respectively, for all the wheat and corn they can produce. These prices are protec-.,ed by variable import levies adjusted from day to day to provide an absolute· margin of preference qver lower priced imports from the U.S. The proceeds of these levies are being used to improve farming OP,erations and to subsidize the export of large Frerich wheat surpluses.

A somewhat similar system was adopted several years ago by the United Kingdom. As a result, increasing production by British farmers is reducing opportunities for the United States and other traditional suppliers to the United Kingdom.

These parallel developments-burgeoning production and increasing government incentives, protection and assistance to farmers throughout the world-pose a serious challenge to us. The United States sought to deal with this challenge in the Kennedy Round. As we shall see, the effort was not very successful.

In the first place, the goal we set for negotiators was not very ambitious. We did not ask that trade be liberalized in the ordinary sense, so that basic U.S. advantages could go to work to increase farm exports. Perhaps this is just as well because this was not in the cards. One of "the important reasons is that the United States itself maintains barriers to farm imports as offensive as any others. There is no assurance that our Congress would have been willing to reduce these on a reciprocal basis. In fact, during the Kennedy Round discussions, we actually added to this system by imposing limits on imports of beef.

In any event, the United States objectives in the Kennedy Round were much more modest .than true trade liberalization. Under the proposal we offered, others would have been permitted to maintain systems encouraging and protecting their own farmers. We sought only assurances that other exporting countries would cooperate with us in controlling over-production and that importing countries would continue to let exporting countries supply a part of their needs.

The United States did not achieve either of these goals. There was, of course, a great deal of resistance on the part of others. In the end, our negotiators simply were unwilling to put the whole Kennedy Round result on the line in support of demands in the grains negotiations. It is doubtful that even this would have produced meaningful concessions from others. More important, it might have jeopardized significant reductions in tariffs on industrial trade which should, to some extent at least, benefit U.S. farmers by increasing general prosperity and thus further stimulating demand for food throughout the world.

In view of the long odds against us, it is easy to understand why the United States failed to secure agreements which would have assured an expansion · of farm exports. It is not quite as easy to understand why, when it was obvious we could - not succeed, the United States did not simply abandon the effort. Why instead did it accept an agreement which most observers-including a good many in government--recognize as a step away from the goal of expanding trade.

Let's examine for a moment the case made for the International Grains Agreement.

First it is said that the Food Aid Convention assures, for the first -time, that other developed countries will assist the United States in meeting the needs of less developed

7236 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD --- SENATE March 21-, 1968

countries. This is true as far as it goes, but the importance of the achievement is dimmed somewhat by several considerations.

The direct benefits to less developed countries have generally been overstated. The actual commitment amounts tu no more than 4.2 million metric tons (the remaining 800 thousand tons are expected from countries which have not yet agreed to participate in the negotiations). No new contributions would be required either from the United States or Canada, which together account for more than 56 % of the actual commitment. In fact, an Administration spokesman suggested recently that new contributions from others may enable the United States actually to reduce its food aid. If so, the result could be no increase at all in the amount of food available to less developed countries.

In any event, the value of these new commitments to less developed countries is substantially offset by provisions of the Wheat Trade Convention which would increase the cost of wheat they must buy in commercial markets. This ls not inconsequential. India is expected to buy as much as 2 million metric tons of wheat in commercial markets this year.

Proponents of the International Grains Agreement have made more modest claims for the Wheat Trade Convention. It would, they say, provide additional price insurance for U.S. wheat producers. They note that the new minimum price for U.S. hard red winter wheat, ordinary protein, amounts to about 15 cents more at the farm gate than present price support levels. This aspect has appealed strongly to the two wheat producer organizations which have endorsed the grains arrangement.

There is, however, recent evidence that the grains arrangements, in itself, would not assure any price increase to domestic producers. Two weeks ago an Administration spokesman conceded that if domestic prices are below the new minimum when the agreement goes into effect, the Department would be forced to invoke an inverse subsidy, or export tax, to assure that no U.S. wheat enters the export market below the new minimum. According to a Journal of Commerce article the following diay, wheat prices declined in Chicago 1n p art as a result of this admission.

No doubt domestic prices could be increased to the level of the new minimum and above if the Administration is able to obtain authority to purchase extensive quantities of wheat for reserves. But domestic prices could be raised in this way without a commitment by the United States to observe a new, higher minimum in world trade. So it's hard to see how the claim can be made that the new arrangement offers domestic purchasers any direct price benefit.

Criticism of the proposed Wheat Trade Convention has centered on these aspects.

Most important, it fails to come to grips with the problems which challenge the United States in export markets.

It would not require the Common Market or the United Kingdom to alter in any way protectionist policies which threaten these important markets. This is underscored by the fact that the Common Market has increased the level of protection for feed grain producers 12 to 15 per cent since the grains negotiations.

If anything, higher minimum world wheat prices would tend to perpetuate the Common Market's protectionist system by reducing subsidies required to move French wheat surpluses into world markets. The cost of these subsidies ls the heaviest burden on the -Common Market's protectionist system. Presumably, this accounts for French support for higher world prices from the beginning.

A second criticism is that higher world prices would compound problems we are already experiencing. They would encourage new investment in wheat production abroad,

adding impetus to the trend I mentioned earlier. towards increased acreage and ·productivity throughout the world. The proPQ~eq. arrangement imposes no obligation on other exporting countries to cooperate in limiting the inevitable build-up of surplus production. As a res.ult, there is danger that the United States would be forced, once again, to assume the burden of surplus man_;' agenient, this time in a much more productive world. ·

A third criticism involves the new schedule of minimum prices:

For the first time price comparisons would be based on a United States, rather than a Canadian shipment port. As a result, the agreement would be more restrictive for the United States than for others whose minimum prices must be calculated by reference to changing shipping costs. The Canadians sought this change for fifteen years.

Fixed price differentials of the kind embodied in the proposed agreement have limited U.S. wheat exports in the past. Since price spreads required to assure competitiveness of varying classes and qualities of wheat vary with market conditions, the differentials written into the agreement are certain to be wrong more often than they are right. They could flt only one set of competitive conditions precisely. For all the rest they would tend to favor some classes or qualities at the expense of others.

The Department has argued that if the specified minimum prices do not permit us to compete, we would seek agreement on necessary adjustments, and failing in this, would simply ignore them. Critics of the arrangement have questioned both the likelihood of getting adjustments under the system provided and the notion that the UnJted States, if not satisfied, could simply ignore clear obligations under the agreement.

In any event, this discussion of what could or could not be done if others don't cooperate begs the really fundamental question . . . and that question asks whether it is wise to alter the purpose of the price range of the wheat agreement. Under earlier versions the price range was intended to stabilize prices around the equllibrium level (the theoretical price at which suppliers will produce only what the market requires). Under the proposed agreement, the purpose of the price range seems to be to increase prices and to maintain them well above equilibrium at all times. ·

The answer, it seems to me, is to be found in a paragr~ph in the President's economic report transmitted to the Congress earlier this month:

"Primary producers sometimes attempt through commodity agreements to raise prices above the long-term equilibrium level. They rarely succeed. Maintenance of a price above long-run cost requires restrictions on supply; the necessary export quotas are extremely hard to negotiate and to enforce."

I would agree and I would add th.at prospects for success must be small indeed where, as here, no supply restraints are even suggested.

I shall not attempt to predict the outcome of Senate consideration of the grains agreement. I would observe, however, that its decision to reject the arrangement would not end prospects for useful cooperation in the world wheat markets. We have operated since last July without an agreement. And despite the existence of the largest supplies of wheat in recent years, we have seen no drastic decline in world prices.

Whether or not the agreement ls ratified, the urgent need for trade liberalization remains. A committee, under the leadership of Eric Wyndham White, Secretary-General of GATT, already is studying steps which could be taken to improve prospects for more significant achievement in the next round of agricultural negotiations. I a:m convinced

that the success of this effort will impnrtantly influence the future growth ahd· prosperity both of our business- and those of our farmer-customers; It deserves the interest and support of us all.

SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS & NEWS OUTDOOR .COLUMN CALLS FOR PROTECTION OF ALLIGATORS Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,

the Sunday, March 3, 1968, San Antonio Express & News carried a thoughtful and· thought-provoking article about the disappearance of the alligator. Asking for himself the question, ''But why be concerned for this unlovable prehistoric monster?" the writer answers with a reasoning which reverberates in every serious mind, "Because they are a part of life."

The American alligator, a creature more than 100 million years of age, cannot and will not be replaced once he has disappeared. And, as his home swamplands diminish and the poaching for his hide, with the price for it, goes up, this is exactly the danger he faces. The American alligator is an endangered species, al9ng with many of America's most impressive animals.

Rapidly _vanishing altogether through lack of controls, the American alligator has inspired enough public concern to be presently under some limited legislative protection in every State in which it is found from North Carolina to Texas. In my home State · of Texas, such legislative protection, limited to only four counties, was not provided until last year. Now, due to the efforts of State Representative Otha Birkner who introduced the bill and directed its passage through the Texas Legislature, the alligator is legally protected in four Texas counties, Matagorda, Wharton. Brazoria, and Galveston Counties. Although the passage of this law is a small beginning, it nevertheless is a beginning.

However, these four counties are not the only counties in Texas where the alligator has the best chance of survival, if properly protected. The alligator is also found in the region of southeast Texas, known as the Big Thicket, a unique area of dense vegetation in the Texas gulf coastal plain that has until very recently remained an unspoiled refuge for scarce species of animals and plants. To conserve the natural beauty of this region of Texas and to give protection to the flora and fauna which inhabit it, I have introduced a bill (S. 4) to establish a Big Thicket National Park. Immediate enactment of this bill is required in order to halt the increasingly rapid destruction of this natural wonderland-an area already reduced to onetenth of its original size--and to insure a haven for wildlife like the alligator which are faced with extinction.

However, passage of a limited law and the creation of national parks, such as the one I have proposed for the Big Thicket, are not enough to save the alligator. As the San Antonio article reports, "Sophisticated modern-day poachers kill with airplanes, airboats, two-way radios, silent, battery-powered outboard motorboats, and high-intensity

March 21, '1968 CONGR~SSIQNAL RECORD-· SENATE 7237 lights to blind the animals while approaching for the kill." They then ship the hides rapidly out of the State. For such practices they may receive $150-$200 a night, because of demand by a pt!blic which has not until lately been enough concerned to i:;top buying illegally taken hides. Certainly a State law, such as the one enacted by Texas, whose protection provision reads:

A person who possesses, sells, buys, or attempts to sell or buy any alligator taken in violation of any proclamation, order, rule, or regulation issued by the Commission under this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction is punishable by a. fine of not less than $25 nor more than $200, • • •.

Would not offer much determent to a person who is offered the opportunity to make $150 to $200 a night for killing "an ugly reptile."

To prevent the total eradication of this irreplaceable, primitive American creature, I recently introduced in the Senate S. 2984. This bill would prohibit interstate traffic and importation of endangered species and their parts if illegally taken. If this bill is not passed in the very near future, our country will lose altogether the alligator which is its best known, and oldest, swamp animal. Other countries stand to lose such species as the leopard and rhesus monkey to our own American markets. We have the duty to act now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the excellent article, "Poachers Taking Protected 'Gators,' " from the Sunday, March 3, 1968, San Antonio Express & News, be printed in the RECORD. .


POACHERS TAKING PROTECTED GATORS The American alligator has been fighting

a battle for survival against the elements, other alligators and a parade of primeval creatures for more than 100 million years.

He has endured climatic changes, mountain formations and the inundations of ancient seas. Life has been tough, but he has made it from the age of reptiles into the 20th century.

Few species can boast such longevity. His enviable record of life and his gallant battle to survive have begun to wane, however, for his new and most formidable foe is man.

When white men settled in North America, alligators abounded in swamps, marshes, lakes, rivers and sloughs from North Carolina to the Everglades, from the Rio Grande Valley across the entire tier of Southern States.

Now they have been reduced to the point where gators are nonexistent over most of their historical range. The saurians exist in two major concentrations in the United States-Everglades National Park in Florida and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Georgia, both under federal protection.

The threat to the gator is two-pronged. His swampland home has been shrunk by spreading civilization, drainage and development. Coupled with this is the demand for products made from his hide. Together they constitute a near fatal development.

The beauty and high quality of alligator skins for shoes' and handbags was first recognized late in the 19th century. Ma.n's reckless campaign to supply the profitable "skin market" has had dire results, reminiscent of that campaign a century before when the "fur market" all but extirpated the beaver.

Without regulation or refuge protection, the gator population in Louisiana, for example, declined 90 per cent from the late 1940s to the late 1950s.

The hide of an average six-foot alligator will bring about $30 on the market. One man can earn easily from $150 to $200 for a night's work-if he can find a supply of gators. And therein lies the rub.

Many states have placed alligators under protective management because of their dwindling numbers. This action b:'as in many cases come about 10 years too late.

With closed seasons, the supply of skins became limited, and price increases followed. Because of attractive prices many hunters and buyers continue to operate, knowing they are violating the law and harming the resource.

With alligators scarce and prices soaring, poachers have turned to the few wildlife sanctuaries. They use sophisticated equipment such as airplanes, airboats, two-way radios, silent, battery-powered outboard motors and high-intensity lights to blind the animals while approaching for the kill.

Poachers killed over 1,000 gators in Everglades National Park last year, and contributed to a skin trade estimated at one million dollars a year in the Miami markets alone.

What is the future for the alligator? It was placed on the endangered species

list by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Alligators are protected in all of the Bureau's National Wildlife Refuges, and in National Parks.

Bills pending in Congress would make it a federal offense to transport alligators or their hides across state or national borders when taken in violation of state and federal laws.

States with breeding populations of alligators are now managing the species properly. Courts are raising fines and handing jail sentences to poachers.

Some state and federal agencies have started research programs to study alllgator habits and life requirements. With remaining wetlands under slow but steady reduction, such facts will be essential to intensive management and preservation of the gator.

But why be concerned for this unlovable prehistoric monster?

Because they are part of life. Alligators play a key role in the life of the swamp. Each adult maintains a hole, digging out the peat bog on the marshy "fioor"-and clearing a small pond on the surface.

THE PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION AND THE FUTURE

Mr. FONG. Mr. President, on March 9 I had the privilege of addressing a conference on Chinese culture sponsored by the Institute of Chinese Culture in New York City.

The institute was founded for the purpose of furthering cultural relations between the United States and the Republic of China and of promoting cultural and educational programs and activities among the American and Chinese peoples. A self-supporting organization, it has several hundred members consisting of Chinese and American scholars, and persons who are interested in China.

The 1-day conference on March 9 brought together scholars, community leaders, and others to discuss Chinese culture in the face of the "proletarian cultural revolution" on the China mainland.

My topic was "The Proletarian CUitural Revolution and the Future."

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of my address printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION AND

THE FUTURE (Address by Senator HmAM L. FoNG at a

Conference on Chinese Culture Sponsored by Institute of Chinese Culture, New York City, March 9, 1968) Acting President Cheng, Officers and Mem

bers of the Institute of Chinese Culture, Distinguished Guests, Friends:

It is a real pleasure for me to have this opportunity to exchange ideas with you, for ideas are like kisses, being a source of pleasure only when exchanged.

I congratulate you on the timeliness and relevance of your conference topic: "The Chinese Cultural :P.enaissance Movement versus 'The Proleta~;An Cultural Revolution.' "

It is a distina privilege for me to participate in a conference whose subject has such profound implications not only for Asia but for the entire world.

And it is indeed a high honor for me to join such distinguished scholars and such knowledgeable people in these discussions.

For my topic today, I have chosen "The Proletarian Cultural Revolution and The Future." It would be presumptuous on my part to claim special expertise on so complex a subject-particularly since accurate and comprehensive information about the Proletarian Cultural Revolution is so difficult to obtain.

But as I represent a mid-Pacific State, with economic, ethnic, and cultural ties to our neighbors in the Pacific and Asia, I have always taken a special interest in the Far East. As a matter of fact, my own State, Hawaii, played a small but significant role in the China trade as early as 1778. After the death of Captain Cook in Hawaii that year, his crew and subsequently many American skippers used Hawaii as a provisional port as they engaged in trade along the China coast-selling furs from the American Northwest and buying silks, teas, spices, furniture, and other Oriental goods for the U.S. market.

I know my special interest in the Far East is shared by all of you here today and by all Americans of Chinese ancestry. A great deal of credit for the friendly relations the U.S. has enjoyed with Free China for many years belongs to this segment of the American people, for they helped to build bridges of understanding between the two countries. In the critical years ahead, I am confident that Americans of Chinese ancestry and friends of China will continue efforts to foster understanding and good will.

From the first time an American merchant vessel made contact with the ancient "Middle Kingdom" in 1784, America has endeavored to establish with the people of China a peaceful and cooperative relationship based on an open door policy. During the Taiping Rebellion of 1851 to 1865, the United States adopted a policy of respect for China's administrative sovereignty and territorial integrity. These policies of open door and territorial integrity were formalized in 1900 by Secretary of State John Hays. They were reaffirmed by the Root-Takahira agreements of 1908, by Secretary of State Bryan in 1915, by the Nine-Power Pact of 1922, and in the Stimson-Hoover Doctrine of 1932.

Regrettably, there was a period of strain occasioned by the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882, 1884, 1888, 1892, and 1902, as Americans evidenced economic fears and distrust of a people with so different a cultural, religious, and historical background. Fortunately, in time our Nation matured, and more and more

. Americans realized such discrimina..tion was unwarranted. In this climate and in recognition of the World War II contributions of

7238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 21, 1968 our faithful a.Uy, the Republic of China, Congress in 1943 repealed the Chinese Exclusion Acts a.nd extended the right of na.turaliza.tion to "Chinese persons" and "persons of Chinese descent." In 1952, the McCarra.nWalter Act extended immigration quotas to a.11 countries of the Asia-Pacific Triangle, but the culmination was the historic Immigration Reform Act of 1965, an Act which I was privileged to help draft. By repealing the harshly discrimlnatory National Origins System, this landmark law finally eradicated all racial barriers to immigration.

Without a doubt, what contributed so significantly to the maturation of the American people was the superb behavior and fine attributes of the Chinese immigrants and their descendants in the United States. Many Americans observed first hand the outstanding virtues of the peace-loving, frugal, diligent, and law-abiding Chinese. From one generation to succeeding generations, by utilizing the ladder of education and hard work, the Chinese 1mmigrants and Americans of Chinese ancestry overcame the high obstacles of language, customs, and culture and won acceptance and esteem in the American community. They became extremely valuable assets, and today our 300,000 Americans of Chinese ancestry are a source of pride to our Nation.

Like an Americans, we Americans of Chinese ancestry, in Hawaii and on the U.S. Mainland, have foll-0wed with keen and agonizing interest the convulsions that have been shaking mainland China-an upheaval known as the Proletarian Cultural Revolution. We wonder what it all means.

It ls sa.ld no people ls fonder of reading the future from the past than the Chinese. So With my heritage, it ls natural for me to look at the immediate past before peering into the future of ma.inland China..

Domina.ting Red China. events in the past two yea.rs is the Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Set in motion by Mao himself, the Revolution appeared a.t times to get out of ha.nd a.nd threaten the instigator's own regime, as chase raged in cities and hamlets and turmoil convulsed the land.

tan Cultural Revolution. It was an internal movement directed against segments of the Chinese mainlanders. But the repercussions ~hoed around the world.

They ·had a tremendous impact upon Red China's international- relations and foreign policy, whi,ch I shall elaborate upon in a moment.

In the field of foreign policy, Red China under Mao has been characterized by three major elements.

One, Ma'o has pursued a policy of aggressive expansionism-a policy of trying to extend China's borders by armed attack on its ·neighbors. Examples of this policy are the invasion of Tibet in 1950 and its ultimate conquest; the attacks on India in 1962, and the armed incursions along its border with the Soviet Union in 1966 and 1967.

Two, Mao has pursued a policy of fomenting and supporting so-called "wars of liberation" by nationalists in other countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. In Asia, this policy aided guerrilla movements in South Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, a.nd Burma.

In Latin America, guerrlllas trained and armed with Red China's help plague Venezuela, Peru and possibly Bolivia. Mexico last summer accused Red China of sending in money to finance armed rebellion.

In Africa, Red China's mmtancy outraged many newly independent nations and resulted in the ouster of Red China's diplomats. Still Red China has supported, and in some cases continues to support, training and equipment of paramilitary forces in the Congo, Cameroon, Gabon, Portuguese Guinea, Angola, and Mozambique.

Three, Mao has pursued a policy of selfimposed isolation from the world community, which intensified under the Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

In many quarters of America., there ls a persistent belief that it is the United States which has isolated Red China and it is the United States which refuses to initiate steps to open channels of communications with Red China.

The record shows quite the contrary. Diplomatically, we have maintained con-Ma.o created a. new instrument of terror

and naked power, the Red Guards, to carry out his speclfl.c orders to purge China's millions of people of their bourgeois tendencies, particularly their desire for material reward.

Prlva.te homes were invaded and personal possessions destroyed by bands of roving Red Guard youths. Museums · were closed and exhibits and treasures representing early tradition removed from view. Reverence for China's 'rich, cultural heritage was discouraged and physical symbols destroyed or made inaccessible.

- tacts through our ambassadorial level meetings with Peking represen ta ti ves first in Geneva and then in Warsaw. We have had more than 130 such meetings. According to the State Department "we have had the longest and most direct dialog of any major Western nation with Communist China."

Schools and universities were closed for 18 months or more. Internal transport was paralyzed for several months as Chinese youths took over trains and busses for junkets far from home to exchange revolutionary experiences. . The very structure of government was

shaken as Communist Party officials formerly in favor found themselves suddenly out. Army leaders were not spared in the purge and local officials in provinces were ousted. Responsible officials were publicly humiliated.

Industrial production slumped as workers left their jobs to join the Revolution. Ships docking in China's ports were detained for weeks because they could not be unloaded. Foreign shipowners protesting to Red China authorities received in reply only long quotations from Mao's thoughts.

In time, the Revolution came perilously close to civil war before Mao called off the Red Guards and began to restore some semblance of order. Some ousted officials were reins,tated, and by the end of 1967 schools began to reopen: Industry and agriculture commenced the labor of repairing aerious dis- · locations. . ·

In brief, this is the profile of the Proletar-

· Apart from official contacts, the U.S. has tried to arrange informal contacts of nongovernmental individuals a.nd organizations.

Since 1958, the U.S. validated passports of more than 80 representatives of newspapers and other media for travel to mainland China. Only two have been admitted. . . . The State Department made efforts to arrange either a formal or informal exchange of newsmen, even indicating wlllingness unilaterally and without reciprocity to see Com,munist Chinese newsmen enter the United States. Two years ago, the State Department amended its travel regulations to permit doctors a.nd . scientists in the field of public health and medicine to travel to Communist China.

We are willing, but Red China is not. The State Department has encouraged or

ganizations to promote people-to-people exchaILges with mainland Chinese. The _State Department has encouraged the exchange o! publications between various universities and institutions in the United States and Peking.

We are willing, but Red China is not. As recently as January 17 this year, Presi

dent Johnson said in his State of the Union message, "The United States . . . remains willing to permit the travel of journalists to both of our countries; to undertake cultural .and educational exchanges;_ and to talk about the exchange of basic food crop materials."

We are willing, but Red ·china is not. ·

I myself have made persona.I efforts to see whether the Bamboo Curtain could be lifted. On July 20, 1965, I wrote to Chairman Mao Tse-Tung · asking that arrangements might be made for me to meet him in his country for the purpose of conveying personally the overwhelming sentiment of the American people for world peace.

In my letter, I stated that "Some time, some day, the channels of communication and understanding must begin to reopen."

On September 2, 1965, I again renewed my request.

To this day, there has been no acknowledgement--no response whatsoever.

So far, all the initiatives and all the overtures ha.ve been made by our Government and by our people. .

The United States cannot open channels of communication alone--any more tha.n we can negotiate a. settlement of the Vietnam war alone. Both sides must be willing.

But Red China persists in her policy of self-isolationism.

Even on the question of admission to the United Nations, Red China, by her own posture, makes her admission unacceptable to a. majority of members of the United Nations.

Peking continues to insist, as the price of her admission to the United Nations, on four demands enumerated by Foreign Minister Chen Yi. These are the expulsion of the Republic of China.from the United Nations, the complete reorganization of the United Nations, the withdrawal of the General Assembly resolution condemning Peking as an aggressor in the Korean conflict, and the branding of the United States as an aggressor in that conflict.

It is not the United Nations that seeks to impose conditions upon Red China's entry. But it is Red China that seeks to impose conditions on the U.N.-in effect, a nonmember trying to tell the members wha.t the rules of the game should be. Meantime, many other countries have been accepted under the United Nations• long-existing rules of the game.

By her intransigence, Red Chi~a. !las excluded herself from the United Nations. In fact, she lost support in 1967, when the vote was taken on this issue. The tally of 45 for, 58 against, represented 'one less vote "for" than in 1966 and one more vote "against" compared with 1966. She lost three votes on a key resolution 'declaring that any change in Chinese representation ls a.n "1.m.portant question" requiring a two-thirds majority.

Following the vote, Peking's People's Daily declared "Frankly speaking, the Chinese people are not a.t all interested in Joining the United Nations .... "

The vote against Peking was generally attributed to the continuing concern of U.N. members with the violent behavior and uns0ettled conditions on mainland China as well as annoyance at Chinese subversive activities in Africa and elsewhere.

The violent behavior and unsettled conditions, of course, refer to the Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which as I mentioned earlier, had repercussions far beyond mainland China. ·

Mao's campaign of excesses in the name of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution spilled out into many Asian cities: Rangoon, Katmandu, Ulan Bator, Phnom Penh, Djakarta, Hong Kong, Macao, Tokyo, Colombo, Kuala Lumpur, and Singapore.

Understandable efforts of governments in these cities to put down these Mao-inspired activities were usually followed by violence. Anti-Chinese riots broke out ·1n New Delhi, Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Djakarta, and Rangoon. Even farther away-in Moscow, East Africa, Paris, Genoa and London-Maoists created tensions or caused bloodshed.

Within Red China, the Proletarian cultural Revolution vented. its spleen upon foreigners as well as native Chinese. It is common knowiedge· that fofeign diplomats were ·phys-

March 21, 1968 · · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7239 lcally manhandled. and publicly humiliated-punched, kicked, covered with glue or spittle. In an outrageous episode, Indian diplomats were "tried" for espionage and Red Guards kicked and punched them as they were expelled from Red China. The British Mission in Peking was sacked and burned.

Foreign businessmen were harassed. Several foreign experts were confined to their hotel rooms. Many foreign journalists had their residence visas revoked aµd many were expelled. Today, there may be only a .handful of non-Communist newsmen in Red China.

One close observer described the consequences:

"For too many people in too many parts of the world, the face of Chinese Communism became a face distorted by fear and hate; a !ace which brooked no opposition, which spat at the ideals of peaceful coexistence and non-interference in others' internal affairs (which China had underwritten at Bandung); a face which gloried in the fear and mistrust it inspired in others ....

"It will be a long time before Peking can persuade those who have been appalled by such excesses that there is another more rational, more peaceful and more constructive face to Chinese Communism."

Such mistreatment of foreigners was an extreme expression of Red China's obsessive desire for self-isolationism.

These policies of aggressive expansionism, wa.rs of liberation, _sel!-lnflicted isolationism were not imposed by others on Red China.

The Maoists consciously and o! their own volition adopted these policies, which have served to alienate Reel China from the world community.

In 1967 alone, Red China quarreled with the Soviet Union, with Macao and Hong Kong, with Nepal and Mongolia, with Burma and Ceylon, with Indonesia and Japan, and with North Korea. Relations with Cambodia's Prince Sihanouk, so-called No. 1 friend, became strained.

Even among Communist nations, Peking counts only one steadfast friend: tiny Albania.

The loss of support in the United Nations serves to tell Peking many other nations do not like the violence generated by the Proletarian CUitural Revolution and they do not approve of the wars of liberation instigated by Red China.

Another piece of today's picture against which the future must be assessed is the struggle in Vietnam where the strategy of wars of liberation is on trial.

By starting brush fires of limited, local nature, the strategy was designed to avoid intervention by major nations. It was designed to pave the way !or Communist takeover of small nations. It has the advantage for the Communists of circumventing the nuclear capability already possessed by a nation such as the United States. Maoists relied on U.S. publicly stated policy against using our nuclear weapons except in retaliation for nuclear attack on America.

But the Communists, adhering to the war of liberation s.trategy, miscalculated in Vietnam where they thought Communist aggression could proceed unchecked.

So Vietnam represents a test that everyone--Communist or non-Communist--is watching closely to see whether the Communist strategy proves successful and will be pursued, or fails and w1ll be abandoned.

In looking to the future. I am confident that the Allled forces in South Vietnam will convince the enemy that it cannot succeed by armed aggression; that a negotiated settlement or standoff will eventuate; and that the shooting war wm stop and peace will be restored.

Also, !or the purpose of looking into the future, I am assuming that, with the acquisition of a nuclear weapon delivery capabillty, Reel China will realize, as other nuclear nations realize, that in nuclear holocaust no-

body wins. Thi:' just-announced agreement by the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union to help protect non-nuclear nations against atomic blackmail or attack is an additional new factor tha·t, hopefully, will cause Red China to realize nuclear aggression will not pay.

With the war of liberation strategy checkmated in Vietnam, Red China leaders will be forced to reassess this technique and to rethink their policies.

While being checkmated in Vietnam may not persuade them to abandon the war of liberation policy elsewhere, the cessation of war in South Vietnam will give that beleaguered land, as well as other Southeast Asia nations, the crucial opportunity and the critical time to build up the economic strength, to institute social reforms, to develop political stability, and to form regional cooperativ~ arrangements.

Even while the war proceeds, South Vietnam is establishing a democratic political structure and is attempting to work toward needed reforms.

Leaders o! nearly every non-Communist country in East Asia are alert to the dangers posed by Red China, support U.S. policy in Southeast Asia, are grateful for the U.S. shield, and are accelerating their progress toward strength and viability.

Widespread realism in the wake of the Red China Proletarian Cultural Revolution with the internal and external threats it posed, resulted in a drawing together of Southeast Asia nations for collective security. Regional cooperation began to take on real meaning and urgency. Five nationsMalaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand-founded the Association of Southeast Asia Nations. Japan initiated several moves aimed at uniting the region in some sort of !ree trade area.

Meanwhile, the Asian Development Bankto which the United States subscribes millions o! dollars-continued its efforts to promote essential economic development in Southeast Asia.

With peace established in Vietnam and threats to other Southeast Asia nations thereby diminished, a new era of progress

· and growth can be forecast. Asia can then begin to realize its potential

and millions of its people can emerge from the dark deprivation o! centuries into the light o! a new day.

Instead of consuming their human and material resources in war, men could engage in the peaceful pursuits o! agriculture, health, education, housing and industry, so critically needed in most o! Asia. O! course, for so long as a threat exists from Red China, they wm have to keep their defenses strong. With economic and political development, they will be better able to provide for their own security.

As Red China's neighbors grow and prosper, the disparity in Red China's growth and progress will become more and more acute. In Taiwan, we have already seen the tremendous advance in all spheres, and Taiwan is now a shining showcase of how far diligence, initiative, and freedom can carry a people. Where once Taiwan was heavily dependent on U.S. economic aid, today she is self-reliant.

The already sharp contrast offered by the .forward-looking, dynamic society of the Republic of China will become even more startling as mainland China, a closed repressive society suffering from its self-imposed. isolation, continues progressively to lag. Japan and South Korea, also once heavily dependent on the U.S. for a.id, will continue to offer sharp contrast with mainland China \n standard of living.

Even her Communist neighbor, the Soviet Union, which has already perceived the folly of total isolation, will emphasize the backwardness of Red China. With Red China's neighbors outdistancing her, Red China's leaders will be under increasing criticism and pressure !rom her own people for change.

As her near-complete isolation is prolonged, it is reasonable to envision Reel China -suffering !rom a stagnation in education, a stagnation of ideas, and of technical knowhow-from a kind of intellectual inbreeding.

It is also reasonable to envision Red China, isolated from much trade and commerce, which she needs, having difficulty even in performing the essential functions of government to see to it that her people have food, shelter, and clothing or-much less--to provide creature comforts and a better life for her citizens.

Today, Red China's population is estimated at possibly 750 to 850 million. By 1975, it is estimated her population could reach 900 million to 1 billlon.

An increase in population is bound to cause an increase in pressure on Red China's ability to provide the essentials for her people.

The more Red China's leaders fail in their economic and agricultural policies, the greater the pressure will be for change.

History under Mao's regime proves that such pressures do operate .for change. Mao was compelled by failure of the Great Leap Forward and the disasters flowing from the commune system to change.

Central controls were slackened. Simple incentives--such as the work points, private farm plots, some free markets-were allowed. Peasants quickly realized they could earn more from non-cereal foods and cash crops than from growing low-priced .rice for the State. They applied their greatest energy and most of their fertilizer to the more profitable crops and their incomes rose sharply, perhaps quadrupling in some areas early in this decade.

Assured of sufficient food for themselves and promised State aid in their old age, they proceeded to spend their extra money on bicycles and sewing machines, on radios and clothing.

And so we see the commune system flouted cherished tradition and the strong family ties of the Chinese people. Because it .flouted human nature itself-the commune system falled. Failure forced Mao to yield to the pressure of his people, and he made concessions to the demands of human nature.

Human nature then asserted itself. Given .incentives, the people produced. With their profits, they did what humans do the world over-they bought creature comforts.

It was this manifest desire for the good life that eventually alarmed Mao, and he instigated the Proletarian Cultural Revolution to pur,ge from the Chinese soul this basic and unquenchable human aspiration.

But human nature and the human spirit-nowhere more resilient than in the Chinese people--resisted and the Proletarian Cultural Revolution had to retrench.

Now today the struggle is between the Mao purists and the pragmatists.

The Mao purists believe that Communist man should be untainted by individualism and a desire for profit; he should be willing to work at his factory bench or grow cheap rice for the State for the sake of the State and its revolution.

The pragmatists believe it may take some time to change human nature, if indeed this can be done at all. Meanwhile, the pragmatists contend Red China's economic and political policies must face up to the fact that workers, peasants, and even members of the Chinese Communist Party .are basically impelled by the desire to advance themselves and their families.

No one can predict with certainty what the next change in Red China will be. Will Mao become more repressive, or will the pragmatists win out?

Eventually, I am convinced that Communist leaders on mainland China will have to !ace up to the irresistible pressures of human nature--just as the Soviet Union and other Communist count.des have had to bow to these pressur~.

7240 CONGRESSIONAL ~RECORD-·SENATE March 21, 1968 For so long as Red China chooses to isolate

herself, the pressures on Mao or whoever succeeds him, will come not alone from intellectual and technical stagnation; not alone from economic lag; not alone from the growing disparity between her and her neighbors; not alone from an increase in numbers of her people, but also from the irrepressible aspiration of men in every generation, in every :field of endeavor, to attain a better life for themselves and their children.

Eventually, Communist China will be compelled to admit this fundamental verity of human existence.

Eventually-Why not now! Eventually, Red China must cope with the

crushing weight of problems that will accompany her population explosion and create enormous demands on agriculture and industry. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China will have to widen ties of trade and commerce with other Nations to help avoid economic stagnation. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China will have to open contacts with other peoples and other cultures to prevent intellectual stagnation. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China must take steps to keep pace with the progress and advancement of the rest of the world, particularly her near-neighbors in Asia. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China must fulfill the aspirations of her people for social progress. for a better life, and for peace. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China must permit her people to regain their pride in their Chinese heritage as one of the oldest and richest cultures and allow them to seek their place in the sun. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China must take a constructive place in the family of nations. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China must recognize the self-defeatism of aggressive expansion, wars of liberation, and self-isolation. Why not riow!

Eventually, Red China must take ·a constructive place in the family of nations. Why not now!

Eventually, Red China must recognize the self-defeatism ·of aggressive expansion, wars of liberation, and self-isolation. Why not now!

As Red China moves in right directions, her people can look forward to a willingness a::id readiness to help on the part of peoples now alienated in other lands, including our own.

As Red China moves toward amity and concord with the rest of the world, her people will :find hands of friendship extended and America with her long history of friendship with tlie Chinese people would then be most happy to extend again her hand in friend-ship. ·

When mainland China takes these steps, she will set in motion a new kind of revolution-a revolution of peace, friendship. and cooperation-a revolution which the world community would welcome and support.

Let mainland China come forward in this spirit.

·Let her turn a new page in her history. Every Journey begins with a :first step for

ward. Eventually, why not now! How much better for a nation and its lead

ers to inscribe their record in the annals of human history as a people dedicated to the cause of peace, social advancement and the exaltation of the human spirit!

Thank you and Aloha.

"PROGRESS" MAY RUIN THE EARTH Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,

conservation has always been acknowledged· as something essential to the enjoyment of · life but not necessary to the actual preservation of · life. More and

more evidence continues to suggest that the latter may in fact be the case.

As the so-called ·progress of our civilization grows, we clear away the forests to build our cities; and iay concrete across the plains. The result can be an environmental imbalance in which oxygen around our cities is reduced and the remaining supply is polluted to dangerous levels. Yesterday morning's Washington Post reported in an article by Thomas O'Toole that unless we reverse this trend within the next few years, there may be irreparable damage.

We must continue fighting pollution and the wasting of our natural resources. But in addition, an investment now in understanding the conflict between man and the environmental systems that support life is needed to insure the continuation of life as we know it on this planet. I hope we are ready to make that investment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article under the title "Progress Ruins Earth, Panel Warns" be printed at this point in the RECORD.


"PROGRESS" RUINS EARTH, PANEL WARNS (By Thomas O'Toole)

Unless man fights and wins his "hidden" battle with nature, a House Science Subcommittee said yesterday, the earth will soon be damaged beyond repair.

The "hidden" battle, according to the Subcommittee, is the war we are now losing ~o pollution, the ghettos, the misuse of resources, th~ shortage of food and the wholesale uprooting of animals, plants and people in the name of progress.

The Subcommittee, headed by Rep. Emil1o Q. Daddario (D-Conn.). set no timetable for man's destruction of his planet, but warned that the rate at which he is poisoning and misusing his environment could mean that the destruction will become evident in 25 years.

The Subcommittee urged the Nation to make a $3 million to $5 million contribution this year to th~ International Biological Program, a cooperative effort by scientists from 50 nations to understand the environmental systems that support life on earth.

"It is not only a matter of learning for the sake of learning," the Subcommittee said. "It is a matter of survival."

The Subcommittee warned that the earth is about to be assaulted by countless hidden threats, from sonic booms to atomic power plant wastes, to an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Unless these threats are coped with, the Subcommittee said, their effects may "dwarf any military war yet fought on earth."

The Subcommittee estimated that the Nation must spend $50 million over the next :five years to begin understanding the scope of the conflict.

THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CIVIL DISORDERS Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I am

pleased to call the attention of Senators to the reaction· of two outstanding Americans to the recent report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders.

One is a letter to me from the distinguished Vice President of the United States, dated March 8, 1968. The other is a speeeh by the Secretary· of Labor, the Honorable Willard Wirtz, upon his ac-

ceptance of the Sidney Hillman Meritorious Award, March 13, 1968.

All of us-

The Vice President quite rightly states-now face the task of eradicating the injustices and inequalities you have documented so dramatically.

After using a quotation from that famous comic strip character, Pogo, to paraphrase the report-"We have met the enemy and he is us"-Secretary Wirtz properly sounds a note of hope when he 'states: "that's the one enemy we can beat."

Mr. President, I ask · unanimous consent that these two documents may be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letter and remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE VICE PRESIDENT, Washington, D .C., March 8, 1968.

Hon. FRED R. HARRIS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR FRED: The results of the Commission's Report have surely achieved the President's mandate that you ":find the truth and express it." Due to your diligence an_d energy, but especially due to your sensitivity in understanding America's racial crisis, we now possess a document of immense value and importance. History will, I believe, come to view this Report as the turning point in America's longstanding commitment to achieve a Just and open society for all her citizens.

All of us now face the task of eradicating the injustices and inequalities you have documented so· dramatically. The Commission's eloquence and honesty will be a crucial factor in the ultimate success of this effort.

Sincerely, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,

Ex:CERPTS FROM REMARKS OF SECRETARY OF LABOR WILLARD WIRTZ UPON HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE SIDNEY HILLMAN MERITORIOUS AWARD, PRESENTED BY THE SIDNEY HILLMAN FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 13, 1968 They are thankless· fates who conspire to

put a recipient of the Sidney Hillman award to the embarrassment of having' to play hooky, to accept it, from a still futile attempt to settle an eight-month-old labor dispute.

Were Sidney Hillman presiding here tonight, however, in person as he is in spirit, he would direct our attention to that ·other form of serious strain and controversy within the nation today which involves even more of what he considered essentially important in the achievement of human equity.

He would put to us the sobering, searing "basic conclusion" of· the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders:

"Our nation is moving today toward two societies, one black, one white-separate and unequal."

Hillman might digress a moment to recall the similar passage which wo.uld have been part of the dialogue in the Yeshiva at Kovno in 1901, among the young men who were imprisoned three years later as ... "revolutionaries" in Kovno's prison, and then in his uncle's home in Manchester where he w·ent in exile in 1906, still only a boy of nineteen. This was Disraeli's de.scription of mid-19th century England:

"Two nations-the rich and the poor-between whom ·there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as. ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings; as if they were dwellers on different planes; who are formed- by a aifferent breeding, are fed by a

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7241 different food, are ordered 'by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws."

Then Hillman would get directly down to business.

Is the Report of the Commisslon too strong? Does it go too far? His answer would be what he said at a meeting of the Amalgamated Executive Board on May 7, 1940:

"People love to not perceive danger. People love to believe that things are not bad because if things are really bad we have to do something about them."

There was reore at that same meeting that is relevant. Hillman was talking, the minutes indicate, about the great social gains that had been achieved by the forces of liberalism in America; and he said this:

"It will be a sorry day for labor and the nation if at this critical hour we permit division among the liberal groups whose unity made these gains possible. The reactionaries never divide. They always hang together. Tne great misfortune in the past has been that liberal groups could not remain united. It is our great obligation to keep progressives and liberals united or we are going to lose a great deal of what we have gained in the past few years."

It is already apparent in the reception the Civil Disorders Commission Report has received how important today, with respect to this gravest domestic concern, is this balance Hillman described-between the weak but united forces of reaction and the superior but divided forces of liberalism.

The "inactionaries"-to soften Hillman's phrase a little without really changing ithave immediately and unequivocally taken their position regarding the Report. They are against it-united against it. It not only indicts the status quo with unprecedented sharpness, but charges the offense primarily to the "pillars of society." And it demands action-massive action-now. So all the forces of inaction-or reaction-are united instantly and automatically against it-the forces of false pride and false economy, of bigotry, of ignorance, of egotism, of selfishness, of fear. They don't need a battle plan. All who say No, regardleses of their reasons are at once effective allies.

And the liberals? Why, we support the Report. "In general" that is. This is the rub. We

know the Report is essentially right-that any weaker report would have been wronga disservice-dangerous. But we have different qua.liflcations and reservations about itand, more significantly, different ideas about what to do to meet the problem itself. This makes sense--for the right answers are by no means clear. Yet this is also exactly what Sidney H1llman was talking about that day at the Ex6cutiveBoard.

I suggest, tonight, only one element in - what seeJll6 to -me the necessary affirmative

response to the Commission Report, but that element which will determine whether the forces of liberalism can be effectively mustered in its support.

It is in form' a report, with recommendations, to the President. It will be effective only as it is recognized as essentially a report to the American people.

So long as attention is centered, a.s it has been so far, only on its proposals for government action and programs, the Report will serve principally only as a sharper focus for controversy. The real question is what response it wm evoke from people as individ-uals. ·

Among the enemies of the Report will be those "liberals" who read it, nod their heads gravely, think how nice it ls to have pied guilty, to have sent up a mea culpa, and who then say in effect: "OK. It was our fault. We have apologized. Now let's shake hands and forget it."

Standing next to them will be those whose reaction is one of rejoicing that it has now

been clear. what the Government is to do, so the rest of us can stop worrying about it.

Thls Report will be effective only as· there ls recognition that behind all the analyses, programs and policies lies a much deeper question-what sort of society are we to be in America? Do we accept a sort of drift towards factual Apartheid? Do we see ourselves as racists? Do we believe value and opportunity ought to depend upon pigmentation? No government, no laws can answer these questions for us. They are our questions, asking for our answers.

In theory, of course, we know the answers we ought to give as Americans. We were the ilrst known community to derive its existence not from nation or geography or history but from a "proposition" that all men are created equal.

We are moreover a community deeply rooted in the religious tradition that equal metaphysical value belongs to all human souls, in which the neighbor is "another .self." If we aspire to greatness from heritage, we cannot be racists. It would be, to put it at the most worldly level, "un-American." .In the roots of the soul, it would deny the Kingdom of God.

But these aspirations become operating principles only in the decisions of citizens. It is not enough-although it ls a lot-to pass laws. For laws that are not deeply and creatively observed do no more than constrain the grosser breaches of the rules. They are valuable. They set limits. They prevent us from enduring the iron hopelessness of formal Apartheid. But we know from the laws about education that a real breakthrough to full racial equality lies beyond the reach of courts. We come back to citizens. What wm we do? What will you do?

The risk of hateful racism in this country goes far beyond the issues that law or legislation can reach. Of course we must have the jobs. Of course we must re-fashion our center cities and break the intolerable restrlctions on housing. But our "minorities" could still then have to move about in an unaccepting and wounding environment. There is demanded of the majority, who to an overwhelming extent command the riches, the opportunity and the power in their community, a more personal dedication to the achievement of civil rights. Without this, the statutes may be in the books, but they will not be in the cities.

The prerequisite to a deeper conversion to the cause of rac.1al equality is knowledge-not of statistics---the "facts that are often the enemies of truth"-but knowledge of living facts.

I plead that the Commission report be read-in schools, in ~alleges, in homes. There are so many false stereotypes growing upof lawless rioters, arsonists, do-nothing nogoods lounging about on welfare or producing inconceivable numbers of illegitimate children. Let us at least know the factsthe trap of the ghetto when jobs move out and workers cannot follow-a 30 percent unemployment rate-rat-ridden tenements. Most Americans have never set foot in a ghetto and have no conception of the chasm between the neat white-single-family houses-often built with a federal mortgage-and the barns in tbe center-cities-built in the 1860's and now housing their third or fourth in-migration of the unskilled and the poor. Then, knowing the facts, let us as individuals ask our conscience what we could have made of ourselves in such conditions and whether the worst nightmare we can think of is that a child of ours should have to suffer that fate. And if not our child, why any child? Are other children less innocent, less helpless, less deserving by some fatal congenital flaw of a share in America's abundance?

But knowledge, understanding, conviction-these are only: self-serving conceits until they are translated into action.

The race problem-the Negro problem-

and now, as identified in this report, the White problem--will be worked out only as the people who are the problem-which is all of us-participate in its solution.

Paying taxes to support the necessary programs is essential-but it isn't enough.

Voting for candidates who will in turn vote for the necessary programs is essential-but it isn't enough.

The most important immediate necessity in this area is the adoption by the House of Representatives of the Fair Housing provisions which the Senate has now approved. For a Nation to receive the Civil Disorders Commission's Report and then to reject this legislation would be unanswerable hypocrisy. If every person in this audience would commit himself tonight to do everything in his power to see to it that his Congressman voted right on this biU, then we would indeed have honored Sidney Hillman. But that wouldn't be enough.

This is a. problem of hun1an, indlvldual relations-not essentially a legal problem-not essentially an economlc problem-but a problem of individuals' -relationships with individuals. And its solution cannot be delegated to government or to policemen or to the law or to anyone else.

Any suggestion that it ls hard for the individual to know what to do, how to participate, is largely evasion.

There is the simple thing of common decency-just the shared greeting, the friendly word and smile, the thanks for help; the natural social encounter. If this small change of good will could pass more freely both ways what a difference it would make. But not nearly enough.

There is the chance today for any individual-black or white--who really wants to, to

. take an active, significant part in the private, voluntary efforts now under way in every community in the country to make this not two societies, but one.

I think, as just one illustrative instance, of the neighborhood and church groups who have undertaken voluntary desegregation of housing in their districts and then presided over it to prevent the klnd of panic selling, often encouraged by less scrupulous real estate dealers, which makes desegregation into "that period between the arrival of the first Negro home-owner and the departure of the last white." Balance is possible. Citizens have worked at and achieved it. Could not a voluntary citizen movement of this kind in every big city match the new housing laws not with 111 will, resentment and even worse race relations, but with a genuine achievement of acceptance and social solidarity2

In education, one of the most successful innovations of the Poverty Programs has been the effects that can be achieved from volunteer coaching: through Headstart, counselling for high school children, working among drop-outs to get them either back to school or on to junior college. For any citizen with some energy and some tea.Ching experience, here is a direct way of contributing to fewer barriers and more opportunities. Any break in the chain can set in motion a more general liberation. It sometimes takes surprisingly llttle to release the bright spark o! hope and curlosity in a young mind clobbered to passivity by the cumulative evils of the underprivileged.

Can we, over this . next critical decade, change not only legislatl-0n but citizens' reactions to legislation? Can we pass from a. formal rejection of apartheid to an active, dedicated rejection2 Can we make equality not a begrudged nuisance but an operating ideal?

No reports, no statutes, no laws can answer these questions any more than they can guarantee us our full flowering as a free society. They are limitatlons, guidelines, restraints to prevent the worst. The citizens themselves can achieve the best.

This is the challenge of the Commission's Report-to move In time beyond the formal


structures of a · free society to . one that is lived "in spirit and in truth."

I think the challenge_ is· clear, but I think it's going to take all the best tha:t's in us; for while it's true that law can eliminate the worst abuses, it's also true that citizens alone

· can accomplish the great results which we want to accomplish.

Picking up a little of what George Meany said, I'm getting awful tired of speeches and everything else discussing only the somber side of everything that's before us.

I don't think of that Report of the Civil Disorders Commission as an apocalyptic judgment upon the way we're going. Nor do I think that anybody really believes we are moving toward two societies. I think we all feel that it was a great thing we were warned of that danger and that the Commission's report would have been a disservice if it had been weaker. It would have done real injury. It would have been dangerous. It would have done harm. Yet the hardest thing for me to reconcile in my own mind is exactly what George Meany was saying: how in the world is it that we can get so troubled about so many things when, at the same time, we're making so much progress on so many different fronts?

I sometimes think that we're at the point we find ourselves in when, in a restaurant, somebody starts talking, then somebody starts talking a little louder, until, finally, the noise in the room, is accelerated to bedlam, just because somebody started talking a little bit louder. It seems to be a little that way today, as far as problems and troubles are concerned.

I believe the fairest judgment is that more progress has been made in the area that we're talking about in the last two years or the last five years than in the previous two centuries or the previous five centuries. I believe it's fair and legitimate to take counsel of our gains, as well as of our problems and all that lies behind us.

I know it's sometimes hard. Some of you may know I had an experience just this last week with a group of boys coming into my office, when I wasn't there, and taking over the office, because they wanted approval of a $750,000 project. I'm not over being mad about it yet, but I hope there's some way of resolving the situation equitably despite the youths' approach, which makes it infinitely more complicated to look at it in a d~cent fashion. I hope I'll get over that affront-partly to my pride, partly to my personal property, by a group of boys and girls whose human rights have been kicked around for quite a long time. I don't think it's easy.

Their inanners were . bad . at my office that we are bound to win. :r think Pogo had a smile day. Some were out of school. Their teachers on his face when he said that. I don't think were up on the Hill fl.ling their form of pro- .he said it in despair. I find in the Report of test. I was away from the office engaged in · the Civil Disorders Commission a presentatrying to mediate an eight-month copper tion of insurmountable opportunities which strike in which copper companies and copper we're going to have trouble taking advantage unions, entirely within the law, have pressed of, but an identification, too, of the fact that their respective positions. even at the price · whatever enemy there is is us and that's the of the country's going without domestic cop- one enemy we can beat. per for eight months. Thanks very much.

Now, these lines are a little fuzzy in my mind and they can't be very clear to those kids. And yet with all of the depth of feeling about their actions, I can say I'm glad that it's out in the open where we can deal with it, and that if those are the feelings and they've got to be stopped and there just can't be any compromise with it, I'm glad we've got it out where we can work on it and find out what the right answer is.

There must be both law and order and human equity, and we won't get one without the other. Anybody who attends to only one of the two isn't going to be very much help, and so I'm glad to see a problem of that kind come out where we can deal with it.

I don't feel in the least bit depressed about any of the problems, individually or even totally, that we face. I can't think of any other time in history that I'd rather be alive. I can't believe that there has ever been before · a larger opportunity to leave the world a little better than it was when we came into it. In my view, we can't say that nothing is being gained. It seems to me that more is being gained than ever before.- I'll close with the words of . that native American philosopher, Pogo-the creation of Walt Kelly-who comes closer to putting his finger-or paw-on these points than anybody else I can think of. As "Pogo" said not too long ago, our problem is that we face "insurmountable opportunity." Well, you know, it's about right.

For the first time the human competence includes the capacity to perfect the _ideal of life. Part of our trouble now is that suddenly, because we realize there is so much more that we could do, we stop measuring our gains by past achievements and, instead, measure them by what we realize is our capacity. We're faced, just exactly as "Pogo" said, with a problem of "insurmountable opportunity" and we're having the doggondest time facing up to it.

On another day-and I hate to rely so much on a single source-"Pogo''. suggested in a paraphrase of a very old phrase, and one which seems to sum up the whole: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Well, that means, among other things, that

USE OF FARM OPERATION LOSSES BY NON-BONA-FIDE FARMERS Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, on No

vember 1, I introduced S. 2613, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit persons who are not bona fide farmers from using losses incurred in their farming operations as an offset to income from other sources.

Included in my introductory remarks were statistics taken from an Internal Revenue Service study for 1965 entitled "Statistics of Individual Income Tax Returns." Since that time, I have had a great many inquiries asking where that study could be found. The study to which I referred lists taxable returns for individuals engaged in farming in 1965.

I now find that I was overly charitable in my analysis of just what those returns reflected. For example, at the time I introduced the bill, I stated that of the individuals with income between $100,000 and $500,000, 61 percent reported net farming losses. I now find upon reexamination that the correct figure for 1965 is actually 73 percent. It is not until we drop to the $50,000 to $100,000 income group that the percentage of the individuals reporting losses drops to 60 _percent.

So now, not only because of the questions that have come in about this study but also in the bes·t interests of higher ma thematics, I ask unanimous consent that the table upon which I based my figures when introducing this bill on November 1 be printed in the RECORD in its entirety.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

. .. TABLE 4.-ALL RETURNS-SOURCES OF INCOME AND LOSS, EXEMPTIONS, TAXABLE INCOME, AND TAX ITEMS, BY ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME CLASSES

{Statistics of Income, 1965, Individual lnc_ome Tax Returns U.S. Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, p. 12, publication No. 79 (6~7)1

Salaries and wages Business or profession Farm (gross)

Adjusted Net profit Net loss .Net profit Net loss Adjusted gross Number of Number of gross income income classes· returns exemptions (thousand Number of Amount Number of Amount Number Amount Number of Amount Number of Amount

dollars) returns (thousand returns (thousand of (thousand returns (thousand returns (thousand dollars) dollars) returns dollars) dollars) dollars)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

Grand total_ ______________ 67,596,300 190, 741, 28r 2 429, 201, 239 59, 706, 226 347, 150, 062 4,887,150 26, 314, 996 897, 981 1, 726, 653 1, 999, 465 5,217,505 1, 035, 303 1, 852, 596 Taxable returns, totaL ___ 53, 700, 794 153, 203, 616 409, 336, 7~5 49, 308, 141 332, 927, 416 3, 871,669 24, 482, 465 596, 976 739, 971 1, 151, 882 3, 951, 260 661, 860 1,001, 106

Under $1,000 _____________ . 552, 583 552, 583 520, 544 512, 592 472,648 12, 889 9, 572 (*) (*) 6, 546 4,338 (*) (*) $1,000 under $2,000 _____ __ 4,487, 369 4, 877, 238 6,637, 705 4, 130, 815 5, 960, 127 118, 813 147, 727 11, 892 12, 195 65, 519 69, 113 16, 603 13, 739 $2,000 under $3,000 _______ 4, 325, 234 6, 506, 297 10, 866, 163 3, 871, 142 9, 434, 164 209, 391 382, 764 23, 471 20, 837 107, 019 168, 442 35, 891 32, 770 $3,000 under $4,000 _______ 5, 047, 285 10; 170, 911 17, 695, 255 4, 556, 758 15, 410, 579 300, 561 707, 001 42, 372 42, 724 139, 737 259, 685 64, 020 63, 354 $4,000 under $5,000 _______ 5, 201, 239 12, 984, 896 23, 430, 970 4,747,018 20, 610, 432 334, 501 965, 559 55, 459 54, 888 140, 030 314, 961 80, 522 92, 672 $5,000 under $6,000a ______ 5, 201, 624 14, 811, 560 28, 601, 687 4, 801, 164 25, 449, 077 375, 101 1, 227, 073 60, 617 55, 618 132, 512 345, 937 83, 450 84, 166 $6,000 under $7,000 ________ 5, 378, 580 17, 466, 412 34, 931, 252 5, 055, 125 .31, 815, 695 . · 356, 881. 1, 250, 246 64, 653 49, 032 114, 602 334, 594 80, 887 85, 396 $7,000 under $8,000 __ ~~--- 4, 928, 047 17, 261, 172 36, 883; 159 4, 671, 762 33, 719, 335 322, 458 1, 198, 227 59, 035 48, 489 96, 434 293, 086 68, 302 64, 550 $8,000 under $9,000 _______ 4, 125, 098 14, 994, 493 35, 007, 018 3, 919, 020 32, 092, 356 284, 378 1, 159, 491 49,626 41, 284 72, 525 267, 080 47, 547 50, 125 $9,000 under $10,000 ______ 3, 377,613 12, 545, 338 32, 017, 000 3, 215, 174 29, 256, 746 233, 467 1, 029, 333 36, 078 31, 702 57, 875 242, 904 39, 555 50, 706 $10,QOO u11de.r $15,000 _____ 7, 6.95, 823 28, 269, 086 91, 549, 811 7, 185, 209 80, 641, 698 661, 410 4; 236, 158 98; 306 110, 764 132, 109 724, 204 79, 564 123, 177 $15,000 under $20,000 _____ 1, 756, 955 6, 501 , 091 29, 849, 330 1, 502, 907 22, 443, 762 261, 501 2, 776, 944 28, 641 49, 724 42, 160 347, 490 23, 843 60, 292 $20,000 under $50,000 _____ 1, 389, 340 5,363,660 39, 523, 750 989, 034 19, 691, 556 348, 940 7, 058, 365 29,667 95, 459 38, 752 471, 138 30, 380 133, 187 $50,000 under $100,000 ____ 188, 276 733, 143 12, 399, 732 121, 189 4, 297, 264 44, 655 1, 887, 926 6, 081 · 48, 044 4, 974 82, 700 7,424 76, 852 ·$100,000.under $50063°0" __ 43, 713 158, 693 7, 115, 200 27, 959 1, 537, 978 6, 544 415, 220 2,m 55, 838 1, 040 23, 464 2,m 54, 872 $500 ooo unMr $1,0 ,ooo __ 1,m 4, 930 937, 561 863 59, 915 124 11, 326 8,247 32 518 6,625 $1,00~.~90 or !'111re_.---.· -- 2, 113 1, 370, 618 41F 34, 084 55 19, 5~3 92 13, 701 16 1,606 · 103 • 7,630

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7243

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN LATIN .AMERICA

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senate to ·an article which appeared in the February 4 issue of the New York Times regarding the outstanding record of Deltec in developing capital markets in Latin America. Deltec is a product of the vision of Clarence Dauphinot, Jr., a former citizen of New York, who 21 years ago dedicated himself to the strengthening of private enterprise in Latin America. He said:

Economic progress through free enterprise requires widespread opportunities to acquire ownership interest in productive facilities. Capitalism, in order to survive in Latin America, must create as many capital-ists as possible. ·

The distribution of corporate ownership among executives, workers and savers-in medium, and even small amounts-is a most effective way to accomplish this.

I have particular interest in this matter because of my role in the development of the Adela Investing Co . ..--one of the great world success stories in bringing private enterprise opportunity to Latin Americans from the leading financial and business interests of Western Europe, Canada, the United States, and Japan.

Deltec started in 1946 on a financial shoestring and, according to the New York Times story, this year it expects to become a $200 million operation. Its shareholders include major banks and financial houses from all over the world. It is dedicated to the proposition that unless there is a mechanism for the slowly emerging middle class in Latin ·America to invest its savings in Latin America, balanced, inflation-free economic growth will be slow to come. Deltec's experience and success in broadening capital markets by organizing mutual funds, financing corporate expansion, expanding insurance operations in Latin America has led to a request to Deltec from the Inter-American Development Bank for major studies of the capital markets of Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and Venezuela. These have been completed last year.

I believe that the private sector has major responsibilities in Latin America to demonstrate the viability of private enterprise to assist in raising the standard of living and in improving the social condition of the people of Latin America. The work of such organizations as Deltec-and of the ADELA Investment Co., which I helped to initiate-is enormously important to free institu..: tions and a just social order which private enterprise can help to succeed in Latin America.

As foreign aid comes under increasing ·attack the burden of exPorting capital and know-how will fall increasingly on private enterprise. Deltec has shown by its record today that it is more than willing to share this responsibility.

I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article on Deltec, published on February 4, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be prtnted in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the New York (N.Y.) Times, Feb. 4, 1968)

DELTEC SHOESTRING LACES CONTINENTS

(By H. Erich Heinemann) Two years ago, at the East Hill Club in

Nassau, which was once Lord Beaverbrook's winter home, an extraordinary multinational meeting was convened.

It was the annual meeting of Deltec Panamerica, S.A., a little-known, but highly influential conglomerate of companies that specialize in financing private enterprise in La tin America.

Incorporated in Panama, based in the Bahamas and active not only in North and South America but in Europe as well, Deltec is a living monument to the vision of its founder and chief executive, Clarence Dauphinot Jr.

Mr. Dauphinot started the company in Brazil in 1946 on a financial shoestring; this year, it is shooting for a volume of business in excess of $200-million.

From a small group of friends who tramped dusty provincial capitals in Brazil selling bottle openers, frying pans, glassware and shovels in order to get started, Deltec has grown in size and prestige to the stage where its stockholders include major banks and financial houses from all over the world.

NAME WAS ACCIDENTAL

The very name Deltec, in fact, was accidental in its origin. A Brazilian lawyer was left to his own devices to pick a name for the proposed new company . . The lawyer had been dealing with Clarence Dauphinot, and two friends, Earl Elrick, and Angus C. Littlejohn, whom he considered to be "tecnicos," or technicians.

It was a simple thing, then, to fuse the first letters of the three last names, and tack "tee" on to the end.

But clearly times have changed for Deltec. Indeed, the guest list for last month's

meeting at the East Hill Club reads like a Who's Who of international finance, liberally sprinkled with high-ranking diplomats, former La tin American finance ministers, and one United States Senator, Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island.

One of the largest groups at East Hill, in fact, was composed of officials of major American banks· that are pros pee ti ve shareholders of Deltec-including among others, the First National Bank of Chicago, the Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit, the Philadelphia National Bank and the State Street Bank and Trust in Boston.

NEW CAPITAL RAISED

Deltec is in process of raising some $10-million in new capital, and in effect there is a waiting list of banks wanting to purchase shares once some technical, legal problems involving Deltec's New York subsidiary, Frederic H. Hatch, Inc., are resolved.

The guiding principle behind Mr. Dauphinot's drive to build Deltec has been a belief that without the mechanism of a smoothly functioning capital market, the economies of Latin America will never be able to truly prosper.

In other words, unless there is a mechanism for the slowly emerging middle class in Latin America to invest fts savings in Latin America, then balanced, inflation-free economic growth will be slow to come.

Last year, on commission from the InterAmerican Development Bank, Deltec completed major studies of the capital markets in Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela, aimed at suggesting legal and regulatory changes "which will encourage the spontaneous and internal formation of capital."

But while the general principle is simple to state, its implementation has been a slow and tortuous process that has led Deltec into many diverse fields.

In some countries, Brazil and Venezuela, as an example, its subsidiaries or affiliates are members of local stock exchanges. Deltec is active in most Latin American.countries as an

investment banker, finding capital for corporate expansion .

In Brazil, Deltec has organized a mutual fund (similar venture in Puerto _Rico has been unsuccessful and the fund there is currently up for sale).

In partnership with Johnson & Higgins, which is one of the world's largest insurance agencies, Del tee has insurance brokerage operations in several South American countries.

Then, too, Deltec is a long-term investor in Latin America for its own account. It controls flour mills in Brazil, a land development company in Sao Paulo, sugar plantations in Argentina, a fish meal company in Peru, and it is building an office tower in Caracas. ·

Tb.e irony of all these operations--which for the most part are conducted in local currencies-is they just about break even for Del tee. .

Frequently, there are substantial local profits, but more often than not before these profits can be converted into hard currency they are wiped out by inflation and devaluation.

The bulk of Deltec's revenue producing business-from the point of view of the parent company in Nassau-is conducted in dollars, and most of this in short-term commercial paper.

For example, Deltec buys notes from Industrias Kaiser Argentina, the big Argentine auto producer that is now owned by Renault, and then resells them at a markup to other lenders-mostly in Europe these days, since American lenders are blocked by the Administration's balance of payments program from expanding their foreign lending.·

The appeal to the investor is the high yield (the rates can run 10 per cent or more) on paper with very little risk, since the borrowers (which have to be large and stable· companies) have to assume all the risk that: say, the Argentine peso might be devalued.

Lately, according to Mr. Dauphinot, lenders have begun asking for hard currency .notes in currencies other than the American dollar-for example, in the French and Swiss francs, and the German mark.

In addition, Deltec, which is very enthusiastic about economic progress in Mexico, has begun to offer notes of Mexican companies denominated in Mexican pesos. "The

. peso is as strong as the dollar," Mr. Dauphinot told his stockholders.

Then, too, Deltec is exploiting its contacts with institutional investors in Europe by

·taking an active role in the distribution of Eurobond issues-dollar denominated issues that are sold outside the United· States.

According to Julio E. Nunez, the Cubanborn, Harvard-educated lawyer who runs Deltec in Europe, last year the company sold about $60-million of hard currency paper generated by its own organization, up 87 per cent from 1966, and participated in selling 81 Eurobond issues.

EUROPE IS NEW GOAL

Mr. Nunez told the East Hill meeting that Deltec is m~king "a concentrated and organized effort" to penetrate the European market for Latin American hard currency obligations, principally through "systematic visiting" of financial institutions on· the Continent.

In the United States, Frederic H. Hatch, an old-line over-the-counter securities house that was once controlled by Mr. Dauphinot's father, does a general stock and bond business, and handles placement of Deltec's hard currency paper from Latin America in this country.

Because of the American law that requires complete separation of commercial banking and investment banking, Hatch will probably have to cut back some of its activities in the securities markets if banks such as the First National of Chicago and the Manufacturers National of Detroit are to join the Deltec "family" as shareholders.

7244 CONGRESSIONAL RECQ~D-_SENATE March 21, 1968 But Mr. Dauphinot does not consider that

this wm · present any insuperable operating problems. In fact, when the change in Hatch's operations become effective, its name will probably be changed to Deltec New York, in order to more closely identify its operations with those of the rest of the group.

STRONG ASSOCIATES The great strength of Deltec in Latin

America, from the viewpoint of bankers who participate in the group, is two-fold: the fact that it is on · the spot with skilled professionals in all the leading countries and secondly, the quality of the local partners with whom Deltec has associated itself.

This web of personal and financial interconnections on Deltec's board, of course, spreads far beyond Latin America. Gustave Levy, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, partner in Goldman, Sachs & Co., and an old friend of Mr. Dauphinot, holds about 130,000 Deltec shares, and is on the board.

Salim L. Lewis of Bear, Stearns & Co., has a similar position, and, according to close friends, has made something of a hobby of Deltec. Other key American financial figures on the Deltec board are Milton Steinbach, partner of Wertheim & Co., and A. Oakley Brooks, partner of Wood, Struthers & Winthrop.

All of these firms are important members o! the New York Stock Exchange.

POLITICS AND BUSINESS In Europe, Deltec has major banks from

several countries among its shareholders, including the Deutsche Bank and the Commerzban;k-Germany's first and third largest bank&--and the Bank of London and South America, the Compagnie Financiere de Suez, Credit Suisse, which is one of the major Swiss banks, and many others.

Mr. Dauphinot's job, in effect, is to keep one jump ahead of the rolling political and economic crises that seem to be endemic to Latin America, increasing its commitment where the climate is favorable and cutting back where it is not.

For example, the political stab11ity that has developed in both Brazil and Argentina, following m11itary take-overs in those countries has led Deltec to increase greatly its commitments there. On the other hand, the leftward drift in Chilean politics has caused Mr. Dauphinot to all but suspend operations there.

There is a great deal of logic to the way that Deltec is organized today. The base in Nassau-which provides a complete tax shelter for income that is earned there-is essential for a multinational company such as Deltec, which is originating paper on one continent and selling it in another.

A DIFFERENT STORY But Deltec's growth was anything but neat

and orderly. During World War II, Mr. Dauphinot had

been trading foreign bonds at the investment banking house of Kidder, Peabody & Co., and had made three trips to Latin America in connection with this business.

He wa.s greatly impressed, particularly by Brazil and Argentina, and after the war ended he convinced Albert H. Gordon, Kidder Peabody's managing partner and today its chairman, and the late Edwin S. Webster, Kidder's money partner, that an investment there would be worthwhile.

The two men backed him personally, and Kidder, Peabody guaranteed him a salary for a year while things were starting up. The initial plan was that Mr. Dauphinot would go to Brazil for just six months, set things up, and then leave Mr. Elrick and Mr. Littlejohn to run the operation.

A LONG WAIT Things did not work out quite the way

they were plann,ed though. It took two-anda-half years to get the necessary license to

operate in Brazil, there was a disagreement that led Mr. Elrick and Mr. Littlejohn to depart (the latter subsequently returned and· today runs the Hatch operation in New York), and just to pay current bills Mr. Dauphinot had to sell fryiµg pans .and Old' Crow whisky. . .

But Deltec finally got off the gro~nd by selling a ~tock issue for the Brazilian Light and Traction Company, and Mr. Dauphinot ended up living in Brazil until the ea:rly 1960's, when he was, for practical purposes, forced to move to Nassau because of his in-

. tense opposition to Joa:o Goulart, the leftwing former President of Brazil.

GENERAL WESTMORELAND'S "ALICE IN WONDERLAND" VIETNAM REPORT ON 19·67 RESULTS AND 1968 PREDICTIONS Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, the

New York Times this morning carries a story by able correspondent Neil Sheehan headed "Westmoreland Predicted Big 1968 Gains in Vietnam."

The story concerns a classified report submitted to Washington by General Westmoreland .at the end ·of 1967 in which he painted a rosy picture of successes in Vietnam in 1967 and an even rosier picture of even greater gains for U.S. efforts in that beleaguered country in 1968. '

Despite the · fact that thousands of Vietnamese hostile to the South Vietnamese Government were able to penetrate freely into the major cities of South Vietnam with arms and ammunition to launch the so-called Tet offensive without either United States or South Vietnamese officials being aware of such actions, General Westmoreland claimed in his secret report that in 1967 the U.S. forces had been able "to detect impending major offensives and to mount spoiling attacks."

As Mr. Sheehan stated in his article, the Tet offensive "has since been attributed by one senior administrative official to 'a massive failure of intelligence.'"

It is obvious that if this hush-hush report had not been proven utterly false by events in South Vietnam since January 30, 1968, it would have been released in February with great fanfare and would have taken its place with the host of earlier, rosy, but unrealistic reports released by high U.S. officials over th,e years since the United States entered upon its ill-fated military misadventures in Vietnam.

Obviously this 1967 Westmoreland report has been classified not for security reasons but rather to keep from the American people the gross failure of U.S. intelligence gathering force in Vietnam. It is, of course, possible that the report has been classified to prevent the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese from learning how poor is U.S. intelligence of their abilities and intentions.

I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks the article by Mr. Sheehan entitled "Westmoreland Predicted Big 1968 Gains in Vietnam" from the New York Times of March 21, 1968.


[From the New York Times, Mar. 21, 1968] WESTMORELAND PREDICTED BIG 1968 GAINS

IN VIETNAM (By Neil ·Sheehan)

WASHINGTON, March 20.---=-In a year-end report submitted 29 days before the Communist offensive against South Vietnam's cities and · major towns, ffen. William C. Westmoreland predicted that th~ allied war gains of last year would be · increased manyfold in 1968. .

The American military commander in South Vietnam sent his report to Washington on Jan. 1. Excerpts from the classified document have been obtained by The·· New York Times. · .: · · ,.

They ' make clear that. not only was the offensive unexpected but that ·also United States military planning did not envision the possibility of a setback on the· scale of that inflicted by the enemy attacks at Tet, the Lunar New Year holiday.

CONFIDENCE WAS VOICED "Through careful exploitation of the ene

my's vulnerabilities and application of our superior firepower and mobility," General Westmoreland said, "we should expect our gains of 1967 to be increased manyfold in 1968."

He asserted that "the enemy did not win a major battle in Vietnam in 1967," and that the United States forces there had been able "to detect impending major offensives and to mount spoiling attacks."

The surprise the Communists achieved in the coordinated assaults on the population centers on Jan. 30, however, has since been attributed by one senior Administration official to "a massive failure of intelligence."

·Iri outlining his objectives in South Vietnam for 1968, General Westmoreland gave what amounted to a definition of Administration goals. ·

His first objective, he said, was to "search out and destroy Communist forces and infrastructure in South Vietnam by offensive military operations." ·

His · second objective, he said, was to "extend the secure areas of South Vietnam by coordinated civil-military operations and assist the GVN (Government of South Vietnam) in building an independent, viable non-Communist society."

"It is intended to keep the enemy in South Vietnam constan·tly on the move and deny him the opportunity to refit, resupply, rest or retrain in-country," he explained.

The general predicted that casualties in the Vietcong and the main North Vietnamese units, the "destruction and neutralization" of enemy bases in South Vietnam and the continuous air and naval bombardment of enemy headquarters directing combat operations "should force him to place greater reliance on sanctuaries in Cambodia, Laos and the northern DMZ," the demilitarized zone at the border between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

This prediction apparently reflected the belief expressed by General Westmoreland during his visit to the United States in November that allied military pressure was forcing the enemy away from the population centers and denying the enemy the ability to mount major attacks from bases within South Vietnam.

The enemy, he asserted, was becoming increasingly confined to staging "frontier battles" from bases across the borders of Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam.

CONCLUSION IS REVERSED American intelligence specialists have

since concluded, however, that the assaults on the cities and towns were mounted from bases within South Vietnam. Preparations for the offensive involved massing as many as 60,000 troops and stocking hundreds of tons of munitions.

General Westmoreland also said that as a result of allied military action and the paci-

M'arch !Jt ," 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE 7245 :flcation effort, the destruction of the political and administrative structure of the Vietcong guerrillas in South Vietnam "is expected to gain considerable headway during the next six months."

"Impact on the enemy should be increased casualties, desertions, sickness and lowered morale," he said. "His in-country recruiting potential will be reduced by acceleration of our military offensive and pacification efforts. Prisoners of war and ralliers should increase."

Rallier is another term for Vietcong or North Vietnamese defector.

General Westmoreland and senior Administration officials said last fall that Vietcong recruiting in South Vietnam had declined from an average of 7,000 men a month in 1966 to about 3,500 men a month in 1967.

Intelligence analysts have now tentatively concluded, however, that Vietcong recruiting began to rise substantially in the latter half of 1967 back toward the former level.

They cite as one indication of this the marked decline in defectors during the last six months of last year.

Although 18,076 surrendered to the allies in the first half of the year, the number dropped to 9,102 in the second half, With a low of 904 in December.

The number of defectors has continued low, about 1,000 a month in January and February.

Intelligence analysts also believe that the enemy has already replaced most of his losses during the Tet, or Lunar New Year, offensive with recruits from rural areas seized from the Saigon Government.

General Westmoreland had stated in his year-end report, however, that military planning for 1968 was based on an expected increase in defectors from . 27, 1 78 for last year to a total of 60,000 for the current year.

He predicted that the allies would only have to deal with about 340,000 new refugees from combat areas during the year.

The Tet offensive has made about 350,000 Vietnamese civilians homeless. Presumably, there were about 800,000 refugees living in temporary camps or without such minimum shelter at the end of 1967.

The offensive has also profoundly disrupted the pacification effort, on which General Westmoreland placed such emphasis in his report.

General Earle G. Wheeler, Chai;rman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is reported to have told President Johnson at the end of February after a trip to South Vietnam that the pacification effort had been so severely damaged he could not state when it could be resumed.

MERCHANT MARINE POLICY Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, on Janu

ary 10 of this year, Mr. Edwin M. Hood, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, addressed the Propeller Club of New Orleans concerning the great need for an improved merchant marine policy in this country. I would like to commend this speech to my colleagues, for it very ably points out the critical situation in which we find ourselves and recommends new policies for the future. I would hope that everyone would take the time to read it. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the full text of Mr. Hood's speech be entered at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SPEECH BY EDWIN M. Hoon, PRESIDENT, SHIP

BUILDERS COUNCIL OF AMERICA, BEFORE THE PROPELLER CLUB OF NEW ORLEANS, NEW ORLEANS, LA., JANUARY 10, 1008 It has now been more than one and one

half years since I last spoke before The Pro-

peller Club of the Port of New Orleans, and in the normal course of things, one would expect that the general maritime situation, as affecting the world's greatest nation, would have improved. Nevertheless, as I re-read the other day the comments I made here .on May 21, 1966, I was struck by the fact that the same statistics and the same statements could be repeated today with p~rhaps only minor qualifications-they are now only a little more dismaying-a little more shocking-and have suffered more pulverization.

Two years ago, the American merchant marine was carrying the abysmally low volume of about 9 percent of an · U.S. imports and exports. Today, the comparable figure has dropped to about 7 percent, and the policy-makers say "so what."

Two years ago, there were glowing predictions that air transport would supplant ocean transport in moving men and material to combat zones. As a former Air Force officer, I recognize and appreciate the value of both air power and sea power to national security. But, it is important to emphasize, that since 1966, the exigencies of our national commitments in Southeast Asia have compelled the movement of 98 percent of all cargoes and approximately 65 percent of all personnel by sea. There have accordingly been no acimi&sions of faulty planning on the part of the policy makers, and there have been no programs to assure that an adequate sea lift capability will always be available to meet future emergencies.

More than 70 percent of the s:qips in the American merchant marine are 20 years of age and older. Hundreds of merchant vessels built in World War II ride at anchor in mothball status. The continuing worth of these reserve fleets in terms of today's varying and often sophisticated military commitments has become an issue of controversy with overwhelming expert opinion on the side of their being "worthless rustbuckets." Some 300 ships in these fleets, most of which were restored to active duty for the Vietnam conflict at great expense, represent a costly, second-rate sea lift capability. The 1,100 more uneconomic, inefficient and obsolete vessels which comprise the balance of the maritime defense reserve fleet are destined for the scrap pile. Yet, the policy makers still expound that these unreliable reserve ships constitute the backbone' of our nation's shipping capability. We do not have to hurry with the construction of new ships, they say. As a consequence, at the uppermost levels of our Government, there is no sense of urgency about replacing overage and inadequate merchant &hips.

Let me make clear, however, that an entirely different attitude prevails on Capitol Hill. In the United States Senate and the House of Representatives as well, there is deep concern about the present unsatisfactory condition of the U.S. shipping fleet and a.bout its ability to meet national requirements. To illustrate the need for enlightened-perhaps even selfish-national policies on matters related to the seas, one has only to realize that our country is for all practical purposes an island surrounded by water. Few islands are self-sufficient and ours is not alone. We must import a good many items just to survive. Our industrial complex and our military might require a total of 77 strategic materials--only 11 can be found within our borders. The remaining 66 must be obtained from foreign lands, and the only way they can be brought here in bulk is by ship. They will not be brought here by wishful thinking when ships are not available to us.

In addition to commercial exports which mark us as the leading trading ·nation of the world and the logistics of supplying our troops in way off places like Southeast Asia, the importation of these 66 strategic materials are the arteries of survival for our way of life and western civilization. The impor-

tation should be under our absolute control at all times.

Yet, more than 96 percent of the total volumes of these materials COines into this country aboard foreign flag vessels. Less than 4 percent is under our control. Equally alarming are the evidences that foreign flag shipping carries more than 93 percent of all of our trade and commerce, with U.S. flag shipping carrying less than 7 percent.

The reliability of foreign flag shipping in a. potentially explosive international situation is marginal at best. For proof, we need only consult the history books. Moreover De Gaulle's unpredictable politics today defy , rational explanation from our point of view, and it would be foolhardy for us to predicate any national policy on the wishful thinking that French shipping or any other country's shipping for that matter would always be at our service.

A similar point could be made with respect to shipyards. I have no intention of repeating the phenomenal shipbuilding accomplishments of our yards during World War II. But, I will say that there was never any suggestion that the ships we so desperately need should be built in the shipyards of other nations. First of all, our naval and military commitments--our national objec}ives-dicta.ted that we should perform this task ourselves. And, secondly, when the chips were down, foreign yards could not do the job. They were preoccupied with their own national objectives and their own problems, and, in fa.ct, we subsequently had to build many ships for them.

All of these conditions and premises have not changed since I was privileged to address your Maritime Day banquet in 1966. It has been the Congress, not the Executive Agencies, which has, in the meantime, been endeavoring to crystallize a realistic program for revitalizing the America~ merchant marine. In early November, legislation was introduced in both the House and the Senate calling for the construction of 35-40 merchant ships annually in u.s. · shipyards for .a 5-year period plus certain measures to expand shipping operations under the American flag. Judging from Congressional sentiments of the past year, this legislation should be approved during the first half of 1968, but its effectiveness will be severely limited if the Administration does not support its passage.

There would seem to be plausible grounds for Administration support. Less than 10 days ago, on New Year's Day, President Johnson announced new, tougher, and more rigid rules to control the ·outflow of dollars. Among other things, a moratorium on new direct investments in most European countries, curbs on overseas lending, restriction of foreign travel by American citizens, and reductions of government spending abroad were declared. These actions are intended to decrease the U.S. deficit in the balance of international payments by some $3 billion within the next year or so.

Little noted in any discussion of this problem is the very real fact that American-flag shipping earns a net of approximately $1 billion annually while carrying about 8 percent of U.S. trade and commerce. If this latter figure were to be raised to the point that 50 percent of our foreign trade were moved in American bottoms, the improvement in the balance of payments would be tremendous.

Some people, with more than casual knowledge of shipping and international trade, are convinced that if this goal were achieved, no other action would be necessary in eliminating the present unfavorable balance of payments. Yet, I do not recall that shipping was mentioned, even peripherally, by the President as an area in which the new rules would be applied with force. Such an omission in the formulation of policy would be indicative of the low priority which has been assigned to shipping matters in recent years in the national scheme of things.

7246 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE March 21, 1968-

As Senator Warren G. Magnuson of the State of Washington, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, said only la.st week: "while not all within or without government have always viewed the importance of utilizing American flag transportation facilities with the same degree of conviction that I hold on this mat-_ ter, I believe that the present circumstances clarify the appropriateness of such a policy."

By present circumstances, Senator Magnuson was speaking of the U.S. deficit in the balance of international paymentsa deficit which has been with us since 1966 and many years previously. Perhaps one of the greatest anomalies-the most unusual oddity-of that time span has been the persistent attempts of some Administration officials to convince the American public and the Congress that merchant ships for the American merchant marine should be bunt in the shipyards of other countries-in sizable numbers.

The Honorable John T. Connor, during his tenure as Secretary of Commerce, warned of the adverse effect of such action on the balance of payments, but while he, and many others, were endeavoring to correct this serious imbalance on a voluntary basis, a handful of his contemporaries in the Executive Agencies-some of whom were his subordinates in the same Department---were advoca,ting a "build abroad" philosophy which would obviously aggravate the problem he was trying to solve. Now, the Administration has had to resort to a mandatory solution, but, most prophetically, the Congress, last year, expressed its overwhelming opposition to the foreign construction of ships whose operations a.re to be subsidized by the public treasury, and this issue now appears to be quiescent.

To this extent, the situation today as compared with May 1966, reflects a quality of improvement. Nonetheless, there has been no improvement in the level of merchant ship construction coming under the auspices of the Federal Government, and at this moment, there are no positive signs I could cite to indicate that a "change of heart" has taken place among the policy makers insofar as the merchant marine is concerned.

There are still those few in high government posts who downgrade the aggressive, steadily expanding, build-up of Russian strength on the oceans, while our country's maritime resources have been steadily diminishing. This bureaucratic mechanism has for years assiduously promoted the potentially volatile idea that the United States-and the free world-have nothing to fear from the Russians on the high seas. This kind of thinking has influenced the shaping of U.S. maritime policy to the point that our country could hardly qualify as a third rate, let alone a second class, maritime power.

While the Russians have been putting together a merchant marine which already exceeds the American shipping fleet in numbers of vessels and within a relatively short time will surpass us in tonnage, it seems that the architects of U.S. maritime policy have been oblivious to all that has been taking place.

From a feeble and unassuming beginning in 1945, the Soviet Union has ascended to a position of awesome and threatening strength on the oceans in 1968. But, we are told-fear not---there is no cause for concern! It is hard to decide whether or not this is wishful thinking or a convenient excuse or expedient cover for the failure of the United States to react effectively. In any event, the Russian Minister of the Merchant Fleet has said: "Already today it (Soviet Merchant Marine) stands on a par with the fleets of traditional sea countries in all its indexes, and in the near future it will have no equal competitors."

Russia emerged from World War II with a nondescript fleet of only 432 merchant vessels totaling less than 2 million tons. It wasn't until 1958-10 years ago--that the

Soviet.s embarked on an ambitious fleet expansion program. By the end of 1965, her tonnage had reached nearly 10 million tons. Her current five-year plan (1966-70) is programmed to attain a fleet totaling 15 million tons by the end of 1970.

There seems to be little question of this goal being met, since in May of last year, Russia had 526 merchant vessels totaling 4.3 mi111on tons under construction or on order. As a point of reference, on the same date, only 45 merchant ships totaling 600,000 tons were under construction or on order for the U. S. merchant fleet. As of November 30, 1967 nearly 25 percent of all ships on order or under construction throughout the world were for the Soviet Union. Whereas Russia has taken delivery of more than 100 ships per year for the past several years, deliveries of U.S. flag merchant ships have averaged only 15 ships per year.

The Russians remember all too well that which we are often quick to forget---the importance of control of the oceans to survival. With a superiority of merchant ships capable of selective strangulation of essential trade routes, the Soviets could slowly suffocate the sinews of commerce and bring the en tire world to its knees.

The Congress and the American people are concerned by these alarming comparisons. But, as suggested a moment ago, the policy makers in the Executive Agencies, seem not to comprehend the full significance of these facts.

The sorry state of our merchant marine did not occur overnight. For nearly a decade, high naval officials and industry and labor leaders have called for corrective programs. But the magnitude of Federal support and the level of activity by U.S. shipping has been inadequate. There have been no comprehensive actions to bring about a rational progression of improvement. Now, there is serious national concern about the adequacy of the American merchant marine to meet future emergency requirement.s-in the years 1970, 1971 and beyond. Our shipping resources continue to decline sharply as those of the Russians continue to increase significantly.

The Soviets are assuring the adequacy of their future needs by a resolute policy, precise forward planning, and meticulous actions. By 1970, the Soviet merchant marine, as the Maritime Administration conceded in a recent publication, will carry "a substantially higher share of Soviet foreign trade than the present 50 percent." In striking contr.ast, the same Department of the Federal Government is unconcerned by the knowledge, supported by its own statistics, that the U.S. merchant marine carries about 7 percent of our own trade and commerce. If existing trends are not soon reversed, it is doubtful that our fleet will carry 5 percent by 1970.

No other figures more dramatically demonstrate the contrasting priorities which the United States and the Soviet Union have assigned to shipping affairs. No other figures could more dramatically demonstrate the need for policies and actions to correct without further delay the existing serious deficiencies in our merchant marine.

Unless necessary and appropriate decisions are made in 1968-this year-the United States will surrender the trade routes of the world in a manner in which it is determined not to do in outer space. It is my belief that the Congress, in keeping with the traditional system of "checks and balances" in our democracy-or in our republican form of government whichever you prefer-will ensure that the necessary policies and actions are established and implemented.

President Johnson has said with regard to the balance of payments problem: "We cannot tolerate a deficit that could endanger the strength of the entire Free World economy." Similarly, we should no longer tolerate a deficit in maritime strength which could endanger the national security of the United

States and the collective security of the entire Free world.

THE PEACE CORPS Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, several

weeks ago I reported to the Senate on my visits with Peace Corps volunteers in Peru, Brazil, and Chile. The Peace Corps, I said, has provided "a place for the energy and talent of many of our dedicated young people. It has given many inhabitants of far-off lands a new look at the face of America. Efforts of the volunteers, of course, are but first steps, taken alongside peoples of the community in which they work. More than anything else, the volunteers give to the people with whom they work a hope and a vision for their own nation."

However, an article published in the February 26, 1968, issue of the Nation, entitled "The Peace Corps: A Dream Betrayed," disagrees with my view. The author of that article, Prof. Gerald D. Berreman, has constructed a polemical fantasy on the foundation of inaccuracies and half-truths buttressed by a collection of scattered reported incidents and opinions that are so arranged as to make the events and the utterances appear as recent offspring of Vietnam. Both the logic and the supporting facts are so incorrect that they require a response.

Clearly, the pro:i:essor's main concern· is U.S. policy toward Vietnam, and he would use the Peace Corps as the vehicle of his attack on this policy. To accomplish this he apparently has utilized ahandful of newspaper clippings and negative quotations from members of the Peace Corps. Given the open nature of the Peace Corps, such a collection is not difficult to come by; indeed, the agency itself has publicly presented a number of the opinions cited by Professor Berreman.

In the Peace Corps, as elsewhere, the dissidents, the disgruntled and the dropouts are sometimes quite vocal. Yet of the more than 30,000 volunteers who have gone overseas since 1961, 94 percent have expressed satisfaction with their service and would do it over again. It would seem that the professor may have stacked his evidence on the basis of scattered remarks by a few unhappy persons.

Professor Berreman attacks the Peace Corps as a willing agent of a militaristic foreign policy, or, alternatively, a plot by the administration to divert attention from its Vietnam policy.

Can an organization engage in the pursuit of peace, through service to the people of underdeveloped nations, when that organization is part of a government engaged in an overseas war? The answer to this depends in part on the extent, if any, to which the Peace Corps is an integral part of America's diplomatic and military policies.

Obviously, the foreign policy of the United States has many strands. It presently includes :fighting in Vietnam, maintaining troops in Europe, and strengthening a nuclear deterrent, while, at the same time, we aid underdeveloped countries, sponsor cultural exchanges even with our potential adversaries, and work for measures of arms control or disarmament. ·

March ' 21,- 1968 co:~tGRESSIONAL ·REtoiin - -SENATE 7247 The strand ·of foreign . policy which is

the Peace_ Corps should . never be entangled with the other strands. R_ecognizing this objective, neither Congress nor the administration has required the Peace Corps to structure its programs in terms of ·• winning the war against communism" or any goals other than humanitarian ones. The Peace Corps has served wherever there is a need, and in response to a request from the host country, regardless of the official U.S. attitude toward the host country government.

Each American diplomatic post was informed several years ago by the Secretary of State that:

The purpose of the Peace Corps, as defined by Congress, is to promote world peace and friendship by helping host countries in meeting their needs for trained manpower and by promoting a better understanding of the American people on the part. of the peoples served and better understanding of other peoples on the part of the American people.

President Kennedy and President Johnson have both determined that the twin goals of service _and mutual understanding can best be served if the Peace Corps is strictly nonpolitical.

A number of rules have been drawn to assure that the Peace Corps will be nonpolitical. The most important was expressed by Secretary Rusk in the same message that I have just quoted:

Neither the Pf'ace Corps Volunteers nor Peace Corps staff members are to be associated in any way with any United States or foreign intelligence activities or with any other United States Government activities designed to obtain information about or to influence the actions of the host countries.

Thus, no matter how helpful a Peace Corps volunteer could be to U.S. Embassy officials overseas, he is not to be used to furnish inf ormat:on about the host country. Even after Peace Corps service, neither a volunteer nor a Peace Corps staff member are ever permitted to work for an intelligence agency in the country where he served.

Moreover, in order to give the lie to those who claim that the Peace Corps is an agent of the U.S. intelligence, the' Peace Corps will not accept fn its service either a volunteer or a staff member who has ever served with an intelligence agency.

While Department of State and u.s: Information Agency officials are dutybound to explain and justify U.S. foreign policies, the Peace Corps staff member maintains, officially, a neutral attitude on all aspects of U.S. foreign policy except those which pertain to the Peace Corps directly. The Peace Corps volunteer is not to be an "ambassador" for the United Stetes in the sense that he is: under an obligation to support U.S. foreign policies ; he carries no official passport and enjoys no special diplomatic privileges. He is free to express his political beliefs on U.S. domestic issues, whatever those beliefs may be, as long as the expression does not offend his hosts or engage the volunteer in host country politics.

There has· been some misunderstand-, ing regarding the freedom of Pea.ceCorps volunteers to express their opinions, particularly on Vietnam. Professor

CXIV--457-Part 6

Berreman states that a volunteer in Chile was fired by the Peace Corps for his political beliefs, · but that statement is wrong. I have checked th.at report and discovered that the Peace Corps told the volunteer; Bruce Murray, that he was perfectly free to express his opinions on American policy in conversations with friends in Chile, but he was asked not to use Chilean newspapers as a rostrum for his views. Chile did not invite the Peace Corps so that its volunteers could use Chilean news media for expression of their political views, regardless of what those views might be. It did not matter whether the volunteer was in favor of the U.S. policy in Vietnam or against it, the Peace Corps disagreed with his opinion that he should be free to write whatever he wished in Chilean newspapers. To do so, Peace Corps Director Jack Vaughn, said, would endanger the nonpolitical role of the Peace Corps. I might add that I discovered no timidity on the part of volunteers I encountered in South America to forcefully present their own views against certain of our Nation's foreign policies, including Vietnam.

Volunteers have been writing their opinions to newspapers in the United States about American foreign policies. Not long ago, one Peace Corps volunteer wrote directly to the United Nations asking that the former inhabitants of Bikini Island be returned to their homes. If he had been a Government official, his letter certainly would have had to be cleared and approved by a chain of offices, a position paper written, and a statement prepared for a United Nations speech. As it was, this young man wrote as an American citizen-no more, and no less.

The main reason, perhaps, why the Peace Corps has been able to separate itself from the other parts of American foreign policy is that its volunteers become, in effect, representatives of the government of the country where they serve. The volunteer works as part of a host country program, not an American program, and in most cases reports to host country supervisors. He works for people who are struggling to raise crops in a desolate soil, or he works to educate the young student, or t.o teach a family something of elementary health care. These are people who often hardly comprehend the- existence of the United States, much less concern themselves with the rights and wrongs of American foreign policies. The volunteer speaks their language, abides by their customs, and is goverened by the host country laws.

Professor Berreman believes that the Peace Corps will never have the confi- · dence of the host countries unless it becomes an international undertaking.

It will not be trusted-

He writes-or effective so long as it is an agency of single national government, least of all a major power.

But there just is not a speck of evidence for this opinion. The Peace Corps is trusted, and it is effective, and the de- . mand for volunteers remains steady. What is the point of talking of "internationalism" when the nations can hardly agree on a budget for the United Na-

tions itself, much-less-provide support for. thousands of volunteers? There is, moreover, no guarantee tliat·ari. interriati-onal .. ized Peace Corps. would be "nonpolitical." It is possible that a United Nations Peace Corps would carry with it the po· litical antagonisms of its participants to the underdeveloped countries.

Professor Berreman's bias shows through when he claims "disenchantment" with the Peace Corps both at home and abroad because of the administration's Vietnam policy. At home, he is wrong when he states that Peace Corps volunteer applications have dropped precipitously. In fact, I am informed, the number of· applications received from college seniors in February of this year was 77 percent higher than the February total for 1967.

The professor is also wrong when he says that the Peace Corps' acceptance by countries around the world is related to their opinion about the U.S. position in Vietnam. It is true that the Peace Corps has been asked to leave several countries, but none of these t~rminations has had any connection with Vietnam policy. Last year, for example, the Peace Corps was asked to leave Mauritania because that nation, as a firm supporter of Egypt in the Arab-Israel war, brought an end to all U.S. programs there. In December. Gabon requested the Peace Corps to leave because, it said, budget deficiencies prevented a contribution from Gabon to the program. No doubt there were other factors, such as a change in the govern., ment of Gabon and a concern with increasing American rather than French influence, but Vietnam was not an issue. During the past 2 years, when the U.S~ involvement in Vietnam has accelerated, the Peace Corps has been invited to 14 new countries, bringing the total now to 57, and it has been asked t.o leave three countries. Two, Mauritania and Gabon, have been mentioned. The third was Guinea. A man who was directly involved in that withdrawal was Henry Norman, who was Peace Corps country director in that African nation. Mr. Norman is now a consultant and legal counsel for the United Automobile Workers-social, technical, and educational programs. He, too, has challenged the assertions made by Professor Berreman, in the form of a. letter which appeared in the March 18 issue o! the Nation. As the final evidence of. inaccurate reporting on the part of the professor, I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the RECORD.

The war in Vietnam has divided our people. My own opposition to our present policies there is well known. But let us all hope that the Peace Corps will not become a casualty of that war, either through our own Government's · actions or as a result of unfounded attacks on the Corps by critics of the war.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

FEBRUARY 26, 1938. EDITOR, THE NATrON MAGAZINE,

Nati.ons Associates, Inc. New York, N.Y.

DEAR Sm: Professor Gerald D. Berreman's article, "The Peace Corps: A Dream Betrayed,'' (February 26, 1968) is a shotgun attack on the Peace Corps in which the author

7248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 21, 1968 seeks to weave the pellets . together into .a polemic on the Vietnam War. It wo-µld take an article of equal length to answ~r all the false inferences, misstatements of fact, and opinions stated as facts. However, I would like to call attention to one item about which I do have intimate knowledge, i.e., the expulsions of the Peace Corps from various countries.

I was the first and only Peace Corps Director ever to serve in Guinea, one of the countries listed by the professor. Our expulsion had nothing whatever to do with the Vietnam War. President Sekou Toure himself explained it as a gesture protesting the alleged American involvement in the arrest of the Guinean Foreign Minister off a Pan American airplane in Accra, Ghana. The Peace Corps Volunteers were honored throughout the country and a ceremony was held at the airport upon our departure. My family and I were invited to return to Guinea as personal guests of the president last May Day and I was introduced at the stadium from the Sa.Ille platform where, six months before, the announcement of our expulsion was made. Both in Guinea and in the United States, important officials of the Guinean Government expressed regret to me about our leaving and suggested the desirability of our eventual return. At no time, either during the crisis that resulted in our departure or since, has the war in Vietnam ever been mentioned in any way as having influenced the decision of the Government of Guinea.

The other expulsions were also the result of antagonisms that were local in nature. In Cyprus, it was the Turkey problem; in Mauritania it was the Middle East War; in Pakistan it was our relationship with India; and in Gabon it was the strings from Paris manipulated by a leader to rid Africa of any American presence.

There is little question that making the Peace Corps the scapegoat for host country disagreements with foreign policy actions directly affecting such countries creates acute problems tor the future of the Peace Corps. However, these problems did not begin with the war, nor will they end with it. They will continue regardless of the events in Asia and regardless of who the Peace Corps Direct.or may be.

I think Professor Berreman does a disservice to the cause of peace when he seeks to make the Peace Corps a casualty of the war in Vietnam. In the dark and gloomy world in which we live, the Peace Corps Volunteer has chosen to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness. During the course of his service, that candle will inevitably :flicker violently and, in some cases, go out. If they were all to go out, we would have to concede that there really is no alternative to war.

Sincerely yours, HENRY R. NORMAN,

Chevy Chase, Md.

THE LITTLE BREWERY ON THE IDLL

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, Wisconsin is very fortunate in being the home of great beer and the very fine Pabst Brewing Co., a corporation well known throughout the country for its fine Blue Ribbon beer.

Another successful year-1967_:.was marked with these major attainments:

First. Pabst sales exceeded the $300 million mark for the first time in company history. Sales of $320,456,078 increased $38,440,439-13.6 percent over the $282,015,639 total of 1966.

Second. Beer shipments increased 1,076,500 barrels to 10,123,500 barrels. In addition to the achievement of its 10-million-barrel year, the million-barrel gain

represents the largest increase in the history of the company.

Third. Operating income was $35,076,-491 as compared to $29,893,696 in 1966.

Fourth. Net income for the year amounted to $18,210,660, $3.82 per share, as compared to $15,305,209, $3.22 per share in 1966. The increase in net income for the year was $2,905,451-19 percent.

Fifth. On January 23, : 968, the board of directors declared a cash dividend of 25 percent per share payable on February 27, 1968, to stockholders of record at the close of business on February 9, 1968. Four quarterly cash dividends of 25 cents per share were paid to stockholders in 1967.

Special recognition must be given to Mr. James C. Windham, Pabst's president and the other officers of the company for their achievements.

While the quality of Pabst products is well . known, what may be of interest to all Americans is the :facility that Pabst maintains in Milwaukee, Wis. It is beautifully described in the 1967 annual report. Although the pictures cannot be adequately reproduced herein, I ask unanimous consent to insert the following descriptive account of the facilities which are open to the public the year round. ·

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

A visit to the "little brewery on the hill" shrts near the ociginal bTewery site, a location dating back to 1844, four years before Wisconsin achieved statehood.

As the visitor moves through the many departments of the brewery, he cannot help but be startled by the sharp contrast between the old world facades and the ultramodern interiors.

The huge Gothic buildings house gigantic malting kilns, powerful new generators, gleaming copper kettles, vas·t p.etworks of

.storage and aging facdlities and the most modern of packaging equipment.

The visit culminates in the Sternewirt or hospitable Blue Ribbon Hall. Here in old world surroundings one can Sa.Illple the wonderful brews of the Pabs,t Brewing Company and leisurely explore the famous Pabst Courtyard that typifies the elegant old world beer garden.

As PabSlt brands have increased in popularity, more and more visitors from every state in the Union and from the farthest corners of the world comes to tour the "first Ott: the great Milwaukee breweries."

SENATE NEEDS TO RATIFY HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS TO LOGICALLY AFFffiM CONSTITUTION Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the

rights of nian have always been the concern of the United States.

Because of this, I view with serious concern the Senate's inability to date to fulfill our constitutional responsibility in ratifying the Human Rights Conventions on Forced Labor Freedom of Association, Genocide, and the Political Rights of Women.

Our country has long been a source of inspiration to other people seeking the basic freedoms which we take for grant.;. ed. The Declaration of Independence was put together not just for the people of this Nation but for all people everywhere.

It was President Lincoln, who after

· studying the Deolaration, · said· that it. offered liberty "not alone to the people of this country but the hope for all the world for all future time."

President Lincoln, I am positive, did not mean for his message to be twisted into the idea that our country would cause other nations to bend to its will. Indeed not.

We certainly should be faithful to these great traditions of our heritage, especially in our foreign policy. It is my view that our following these traditions and espousing the ideals of liberty and equality on the international level, it is not an insubstantial factor in the overall affairs of our world.

Senate ratification of the human rights conventions would be a positive step toward affirming our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Our position is under close scrutiny by friend and foe with respect to the genuineness of our commitments and our adherence to them on matters involving human rights.

Therefore, Mr. President, I urge the Senate to delay no further and ratify the Human Rights Conventions on Forced Labor, Freedom of Association, Genocide, and the Political Rights of Women.

THE THREATENED DISRUPTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres

ident, the Washington Post today commented quite pointedly and quite sensibly on comedian Dick Gregory's plans to disrupt the 1968 Democratic nominating convention in Chicago this summer.

Such disruptions of the democratic process as Gregory plans cannot be tolerated.

The Post is .entirely right in stating that Gregory-

Is undertaking precisely the kind of disruption that cannot be justified or condoned as a piece of civil disobedience or orderly demonstration. It is an operation aimed at disruption and focused on no tangible goal to which any government could respondeven if it wished to do so.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial entitled "Gregory's Threat" be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

GREGORY'S THREAT

The threat of Dick Gregory to put so many demonstrators on the streets of Chicago before the Democratic Convention that the Army will have to be called in probably is not an empty one. It may be within his capabilities.

He is undertaking precisely the kind of disruption that cannot be justified or condoned as a piece of civil disobedience or orderly demonstration. It is an operation aimed at disruption and focused on no tangible goal to which any government could respondeven if it wished to do so.

What he is projecting is an interference with the rights of other citizens and an obstruction of a part of the Government apparatus of this country. If he cannot be persuaded to desist, his interference will have to be met by force, however reluctantly it may be employed.

And this will be regrettable for this talented man has made and can make in the future a contribution toward the reduction of racial discrimination. He has an audience,

CONGRESSIONAt "RECORD:....:... SENATE Negro and -white: . 'that . will listen to any· orderly and legitimate appeal he might make for .social 1ust1ce. But he cannot. expect eL.ther the foreign or domestic policies o! the coun- · try to be turned over- to. a Chicago meb bent upon the intimidation and disruption of a national party convention ..

CONCLUSION OF MORNING . BUSINESS

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is , there further morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is conclud,ed.

. . tiNANJMOUS.:CONSEN'l' .&GUEMENT-

Mr. MANSFIELD. _Mr. President, will the Senator' yield ·without losing his . right to the floor f . . . .

Mr. CASE. I yield. Mr: MANSFIELD.- Mr .. President, after

consulting with various interested Senators who are available, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of an hour and a half on the pending- am~ndment, the time _to be divided equally between the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. CASE] and the Senator from Mississippi . [Mr. STENNIS].

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not ob-

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ject, l wish to confl,rm that if there should be marked general interest on

Mr. MANS:FIELD. Mr. President, I ask the part of Senators in the discussion of unanimous consent that the unfinished this matter the leadership would un- . business be laid before the Senate. doubtedly .be . agreeable to permitting

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without such an extension to be agreed upon as objection, the Chair lays Qefore the Sen- may seem to be_indicated. ate the unfinished business, which the Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; of course. clerk will state. The . PRESIOING OFFICER. Without

The BILL CLERK. Calendar No. 996, -objection, it is so_ ordered. Senate Resolution 266, a resolution to How much time .. does the Senator provide standards of conduct for· Mem- from New Jersey yield to himself? bers or' the Sena;te and officers and em- Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield 10 ployees of the Senate. minutes to myself.

The Senate resumed the consideration Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will of the resolution. the Senator yield _again without losing ORDER OF BUSINESS-AMENDMENT NO. 632 TEM- hiS right to the flOOr2

PORARIL Y LAID AsmE . . . Mr. CASE. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask . Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I sug

unanimous consent 'that the pending gest the .absence of a quorum, without amendment (No. 632) offered by the the time being allocated to either side. Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] be The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without laid aside· temporarily; and on that basis; objection, it is, so ordered. The clerk will that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. call the roll. · CASE] be· authorized to offer · an· amend- The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. ment. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the unanimous consent that the order for Senator yield? the quorum call be rescinded. . .

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, would the Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserv- Senator permit the call to continue for. .

ing the right to object, and I shall not · a minute more? object, I am authorized to speak for the- Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CuRTISJ. withdraw my request. I have checked with him and it is agree- The bill clerk resumed the call of the able· to him to displace his pending roll. amendment. · · Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without unanimous consent that the order for objection, the unanimous:..consent re- the quorum call be rescinded. quest is agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. . Without

The Senator from New Jersey is recog- objection, it is so ordered. nized. The Senator from New Jersey [Mr.

AMENDMENT No: 622 CASE] is now recognized, having yielded Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I call up my himself· lo minutes. ·

amendment No. 622 and ask that it be Mr. CASE. Mr. President, if Senators stated. will turn to page 4 of the committee

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution .. I can explain the purport of amendment will be stated. my amendment very quickly. Line 15,

The legislative clerk proceeded to read subsection 2 · thereof, provides for ways the amendment. in which contributions may be used by a

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unani- Senator. There are two, and only two. mous consent that further reading of the First, to influence his nomination for amendment be dispensed with. · election, or his election; and, second, to

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without· defray the reasonable expenses, incurred objection, it is so ordered, and, without or contemplated, of his office. objection, the amendment will be printed The effect of my amendment ·would

face-a very difficult problem-:......:a. problem arising out of- the greatly increased dema,nds on -every senatorial efflce in the : past decade: · · · '

. .As: the r committee -:report· points out, these demands take mai:iy . forms= - far ·. heavier mafl, a sharp increase . in in- . quiries from constituents concerning- personal problems involving the Federal Government, more requests for personal appearances by Senators, not only in person but via radio, television, and other media, to · enable their constituents to know how they propose to deal · with a wide variety of problems.

These are all · legitimate demands. Every Senator wants to respond to them. And he should.

The committee recognizes the 'legitimacy of these demands, but in proposing a solution it passes over the public policy questions that its solution, in my mind, inevitably raises. My difference with the committee recommendations goes solely to the question of whether the enlargement of the traditional responsibilities . of a Senator t.o the public should be supported by public funds or by private subsidy.

For many years Federal statute-18 U.S.C. 209-has ma.de it unlawful for a, public official in the executive branch to be compensated by private 'sources for the performance of his public duties. I suggest, that if . the responsibilities ef · membership in the Senate have grown too great. to be discharged by-the various · allowances permitted each Senator, then tl;ie forthright answer to the problem is to reexamine the allowances. · ·

The resolution before us acknowledges · the increase in responsibility but, apparently because of the difficulty of defining the line between the obligations of public office and the personal political obligations or personal political objectives of a Senator, it avoids a direct approach in favor of fuzzing further a line that is already hard to delineate . .

We had occasion some months ago to struggle with the problem of where the legitimate demands of office stop and · wher:e . those of personal or political aggrandizement begin. It was a painful and prolonged deliberation. Should we now adopt a rule which can only give rise, in my judgment, to even more painful and more difficult problems?

The committee report recognizes implicit1y the uncertainties involved, for at one point it states:

Although making a distinction between political campaign contributions and contributions to office expenses, for- purposes of drafttng a rule and presenting this report, the committee agrees that a strong argument . can be advanced that supplementary office expenses may be political expenses. While not completely accepting the argument~ the committee believes th~t it is an additional reason why supplementary office fundi-ng should be permitted and subject to the same surveillance as political campaign in the RECORD. be to strike from tlie committee reso-

The amendment, ordered to be printed lution, the second authorization, the · contributions.

in the RECORD, is as follows: words, "defray the reasonable expenses, Beginning with 11:tie 15, page 4, strike out incurred ·9r co_nt_emplated: of his office";

all to and including line 21,_ pa_ge 4, an_d 1~~ and leave in the authorization of the sert in lieu thereof tlie following: resolution . only the words "expenses in

"2. The Senator may use the contribution connection with influencing nomination only to influence his nomination for election, _.i. or his election, and sliall not µs_e, directly qr _ for election, or elec11ion · to office." indirectly, any part of any contribution tor Mr. President, in making its recom-any other purpose·... . mendations~ the seiect committee had to

With all respect to the committee, this seems to me almost a perfect non sequitur. If there is indeed a strong case for considering the supplementary expenses to be political expenses, then surely we should not give them a color of official approval. ·

Far from helping to separate "political


obligations" from the discharge of public duties, the committee recommendations not only provide no guide but open the door wider to political pressures.

The Senate should not give an affirmative stamp of approval to practices that raise such serious questions of public policy.

Should a Senate employee receive part of his compensation for performance of ~s Senate duties from private sources? As I have already indicated, we do not tolerate this in the executive branch. And, do not the same considerations apply in the legislative branch?

All of us know that anything a Senator or his staff does may have an effect on his chances for reelection. Does this justify abandoning the effort to draw the line between personal political obligations and senatorial obligations by permitting a merger in the name of undefined "reasonable expenses of office"?

Rather than setting guidelines, it seems to me that the committee recommendation in this area would make them practically impossible. And I suggest, too, that adoption of its recommendation would make realistic consideration of the very immediate and concrete burdens of office or the personal financing of a Senator less likely than ever.

It has been said that without private subsidy of public functions, soon only the very wealthy will be able to sit in the Senate. On the contrary, I suggest that official sanction of private subsidies is

. even more likely to bring about that day. For, to the extent that use of private funds makes a realistic survey of allowances unnecessary, Members will be increasingly forced to rely on their own

private means or those of others whose interest may not be entirely altruistic.

Before we embark on such a course, it would be far better to ask the Committee on Rules and Ad.ministration to survey the needs of senatorial offices and recommend whatever changes in allowances, in the allocation formulas, in the nature and am01.mt of services provided each Member may be needed to assure that the poorest as well as the wealthiest Member in the Senate is equally wellequipped to discharge his responsibilities as a Senator. ·

Mr. President, I should like at this point, if I may, to insert in the RECORD a. table illustrating the present discrepancy in allowances now provided under our various rules and regulations affecting Members and their office expenses.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield at this time for me to make a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. CASE . . Indeed, i yield, without losing my right to the flor.r.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Mississippi believes these are very important · matters. There has already been an agreement that there would be a rollcall vote on this amendment within the next hour and a half; and I observe that the Senator has present to hear him only three or four Senators. I am compelled, with his consent, to ask permission to suggest the absence of a quorum as the first step to see if we cannot get better attendance to hear the Senator, and to hear me later, or any other Senator who may want to speak, without the time taken for the quorum call to be charged to either side.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I shall be

glad to consent, without the time being charged to either side.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I make that request.


Does the Senator wish to put the table in the RECORD at this time?

Mr. CASE. I shall be glad to withhold it until after the quorum call.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unani

mous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


The 10 minutes that the Senator from New Jersey allotted himself have expired. How much time does he desire to yield himself?

Mr. CASE. May I have another 5 minutes?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 5 minutes.

The Senator from New Jersey. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, at this point,

I ask unanimous consent that there be inserted in the RECORD a table which has been prepared showing clerk hire expenditures by Members of the Senate for the period July 1, 1964, to June 30, 1965, ranked by expenditures per person, and showing the per capita expense per year . "Per capita" means the members of his constituency.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

CLERK HIRE EXPENDITURES- U.S. SENATORS, RANKED BY EXP EN DITURES PER PERSON, JULY 1, 1964, THROUGH JUNE 30, 1965

[Per capita expense per year]

State Senator Party

Alaska _____ _______ Gruening ......... Democratic __ __ _ Do ____________ Bartlett _____ .......... do ________ _

Wyoming ___ _______ McGee. _ .............. do ........ . Do ___________ _ Simpson .......... Republican ____ _

Nevada ______ _____ Cannon ___ _______ Democratic .... _ Vermont.. .. _______ Prouty .... .. .. ... Republican ____ _ Nevada ______ _____ Bible ____ ________ Democratic .... . Vermont.. .... .... . Aiken ............ Republican .... . Hawaii. _ .......... Fong ...... .: ........... do ........ .

Do .... ........ Inouye .. ......... Democratic .. .. . New Hampshire .... Cotton __ __ _______ Republican ____ _ Montana ____ ______ Metcalf.. .. _______ Democratic ____ _ Delaware .. _ ....... Williams . ...... _ .. Republican .. .. . New Hampshire .... Mcintyre ........ . Democratic .... . North Dakota __ ____ Young ............ Republican __ _ __ South Dakota ___ ___ Mundt. ............... do ....... .. Montana __ ________ Mansfield ____ ____ Democratic ____ _ South Dakota ______ McGovern ............. do ________ _ Idaho . .. . ......... Jordan ........ ___ Republican. __ .. Delaware .. ... .... . Boggs ____________ _____ do ........ . Rhode island ....... Pell. ............. Democratic .... _ Idaho ............. Church ................ do ........ . North Dakota ______ Burdick _______________ do ....... .. Maine . ..... .. _____ Muskie .......... ___ ... do .. __ .... . Utah ..... ______ .. _ Bennett .. ___ ..... Republican_ .. ..

Do ...... ...... Moss ............. Democratic .... . Rhode Island ...... Pastore _______________ do _________ . New Mexico .... .. . Anderson .............. do ________ _ Nebraska .......... Curtis.. .......... Republican ____ _ Maine ...... . ...... Smith ................. do ..... --- -Arizona ........... Hayden ........... Democratic .. .. _ West Virginia ....... Randolph .............. do .. -------Oregon .. __ ........ Morse ................. do ...... __ _ West Virginia __ __ __ Byrd .................. do ________ _ Nebraska ......... . Hruska ...... ..... Republican .... . Colorado • • _-- - ---- Dominick ........ ____ .. do. ____ .. _.

Do ............ Allott .• ___ ............ do. ___ .... . Arkansas .......... Fulbright. ........ Democratic .... . Mississippi. • . _ .. __ Stennis ................ do ..... _ .. . Arkansas . _________ McClellan ____ ....... ,.do ..... ___ • Oregon ... ____ ..... Neuberger ............. do ....... _. Kansas ............ Carlson .......... Republican .... . Mississippi ........ Eastland .... ~----. Republican .... . Oklahoma ......... Monroney • • ___________ do ........ . Kansas .. : ......... Pearson ....... --~ Republican _ .. .. South Carolina _____ Thurmond ____________ _ do ........ .

Expenditures Population Per

$142, 629. 82 134, 502. 14 133, 155. 67 107, 744. 76 125, 792. 88 124, 340. 20 106, 458. 83 85, 403. 18

141, 943. 90 139, 523. 66 129, 936. 74 139, 672. 62 97, 152. 84

129, 118. 74 123, 353. 08 134, 148. 78 130, 569. 09 130, 679. 85 115, 471. 01 79, 932. 99

144, 769. 34 110, 008. 40 92, 446. 34

142, 089. 77 135, 192. 71 131, 928. 58 117, 070. 27 122, 875. 26 129, 737. 37

81 , 074. 34 129, 206. 60 140, 502. 00 142, 954. 72 132, 158. 02 107, 204. 86 133, 185. 96 133, 148. 43 117, 270. 46 138, 436. 03 115, 448. 42 109, 185. 61 128, 462. 05 130, 502. 87 136, 865. 02 121, 983. 26 137, 154. 74

250, 000 250, 000 343, 000 343, 000 408, 000 409, 000

:~· ~~~ 101: 000 701, 000 654, 000 705, 000 491 , 000 654, 900 645, 000 715, 000 705, 000 715, 900 692, 000 491, 000 914, 000 692, 000 645, 000 989, 000 992, 900 992, 900 914, 000

1, 008, 000 1, 480, 000

989, 000 1, 581, 000 1, 797, 000 1, 871, 000 1, 797, 000 1, 480, 000 1, 966, 000 1, 966, 000 1, 933, 000 2, 314, 000 1, 933, 000 1, 871, 000 2, 225, 000 2, 314, 000 2, 465, 000 2, 225, 000 2, 555, 000

capita

$0. 5705 • 5380 • 3911 • 3141 • 3083 . 3040 • 2609 . 2088 .2020 . 1990 .1987 .1981 . 1979 .1974 .1912 .1876 .1852.. .1828 .1669 • 1628 .1584 .1575 .1542 .1437 .1363 , 1330 .1280 .1219 . 0877 . 0820 . 0817 , 0782 • 0764 . 0735 . 0724 . 0677 . 0677 . 0607 • 0598 , 0597 • 0584 • 0577 . 0564 • 0555 , 0548 • 0537

State Senator Party

Connecticut.. ...... Dodd ___ _________ Democratic ____ _ Do ........... - Ribicoff ____ ......... .. do .. -------

Washington ....... : Jackson ............... do .. . _ .... . Iowa .............. Miller. ___________ Republican __ __ _ Maryland .......... Brewster. ________ Democratic __ __ _ Kentucky __________ Cooper. __ __ ______ Republican ____ _ Wash ington ........ Magnuson ........ Democratic __ __ _ Kentucky .......... Morton .. _________ Republican ___ __ Minnesota ......... McCarthy . ........ Democratic ... .. Alabama .......... Sparkman ________ .... do ....... .. Wisconsin __ _______ Nelson ............... do ....... .. Louisiana .......... Long ................. do ........ .

~iJr:nu:~--·::: : ::::: ~~~L==·======== ::J~========= Missouri.. ......... Symington ............ do ....... .. Iowa .............. Hickenlooper. ..... Republican ____ _ Indiana ........... Hartke ........... Democratic ____ _ Wisconsin _________ Proxmire . ............ do ........ . Alabama __________ Hill. ................. do ........ .

¥;~~~!se·e========= ~~~;~~I==== ======= ==J~========= Louisiana .......... Ellender. ......... .... do ........ -Massachusetts ..... Kennedy ......... .. .. do ........ -North Carolina ___ .. Ervin.- -- -------- .... do ....... .. Massachusetts _____ Saltonstall.. ...... Republican .... _ Georgia ___ _______ _ Talmadge ________ Democratic .... . Florida ............ Smathers .......... . ... do ........ . North Carolina ..... Jordan .... . ........... do ........ -Florida .. . ......... Holland _____________ _ .do ........ .

New 6~~~=~======== ~~~1!~~-5_·:=== =====· Re1Judb~ica'n:: === Virginia ........... Robertson ........ Democratic ____ _

Do . • --------- Byrd _________________ . do ______ __ _

Michbg;_~=== = == ==== ~~~ama.ra·.===== === == = J~======== =

~ri~~k ==== ======= i~~~i~~~!~== = = ==== === J~== == ===== Pennsylvania •• __ .. Clark . . ... _____ .. _ .. _ . do ..... ___ _

Texa~~--===== = ===== f~~~r~~~== ==== == =- ~~~~db~~~a-"-=== == Illinois ............ Dirksen .. ............. do ........ . Ohio .............. Young ........... Democratic ____ _ New York _________ Javits ............ Republican ___ __ Ohio .............. Lausche .......... Democratic .... . California __ __ _____ Kuchel. ......... _ Republican .. . ..

Expenditures Population Per

$139, 076. 52 134, 708. 40 144, 183. 13 124, 706. 80 152, 683. 17 136, 318. 55 }26, 533. 81 133, 397. 71 145, 648. 68 139, 141. 17 160, 449. 75 132, 172. 64 159, 977. 69 168, 275. 20 152, 188. 38 91, 610. 92

156, 756. 65 131, 784. 90 109, 422. 30 136, 188. 11 118, 915. 73 107, 827. 27 164, 366. 44 120, 696. 15 152, 203. 13 116, 779. 70 152, 188. 38 123, 248. 53 144, 183. 13 156, 699. 57 152, 804. 41 99, 229. 75 98, 915. 40

166, 304. 75 152, 029. 50 190, 855. 27 191, 150. 53 204, 261. 18 199, 125. 39 170, 897. 07 158, 890. 26 145, 463. 31 230, 908. 48 123, 181. 13 213, 349. 62

2, 766, 000 2, 766, 000 2, 984, 000 2, 756, 000 3, 432, 000 3, 159, 000 2, 984, 000 3, 159, 000 3, 521 , 000 3, 407, 000 4, 107, 000 3, 468, 000 4, 409, 000 4, 825, 000 4, 409, 000 2, 756, 000 4, 825, 000 4, 107, 000 3, 407, 000 4, 294, 000 3, 798, 000 3, 468, 000 5, 338, 000 4, 852, 000 5, 338, 000 4, 294, 000 5, 705, 000 4, 852, 000 5, 705, 000 6, 682, 000 6, 682, 000 4, 378, 000 4, 378, 000 8, 098, 000 8, 089, 000

10, 397, 000 10, 489, 000 11 , 459, 000 11, 459, 000 10, 397, 000 10, 489, 000 10, 100, 000 17, 915, 000 10, 100.000 18, 084, 000

capita

$0. 0503 , 0487 • 0486 . 0452 . 0445 . 0432 • 0424 . 0422 .0414 .0408 . 0391 . 0381 . 0363 . 0349 . 0345 . 0332 , 0325 , 0321 . 0321 . 0317 . 0313 • 0311 . 0308 . 0290 . 0285 . 0272 . 0267 ,0254 . 0253 . 0235 . 0229 . 0227 . 0226 . 0205 . 0188 . 0184 . 0182 . 0178 . 01 74 . 0164 . 0151 . 0144 . 0129 . 0122 . 0118

March 21; 1968 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD - SENATE 7251 Mr. ·cASE. Mr. President, this table

shows an enormous discrepancy. I hope that Senators will read it; I am sure each will read it with interest insofar as the figures for his own office are concerned. Just by way of illustration, the Senator who received the largest amount per capita is the Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING], who received 57 cents per capita. The Senator who received the least is our brother from California [Mr. KUCHEL], who received 0.0118 cents per capita; This discrepancy is just one of many things that need to be looked at, and one of many things, I am afraid, the scrutiny of which would be interfered with and delayed by the passage of the resolution, even with the very best of intentions.

I certainly have, and I am sure every Senator has, nothing but the highest regard for the attention, application, and devotion to duty of the members of the committee, and for their purpose in making the suggestions they have; but I do think the resolution is unwise.

Before we embark upon a course of giving official approval, for example, to an office fund, as the committee resolution in effect would do, I believe it would be far better to have the committee survey the needs of senatorial offices and recommend whatever changes--in allowances, in the allocation formulas, in the nature and amount of services provided each Senator-it deems necessary to assure that the poorest as well as the wealthiest Member of the Senate is equally well equipped to discharge his responsibilities as a Senator. - Then, . there is another aspect of this

recommendation which seems to me to go in the wrong direction. Just as every Senator, whatever his personal means--or, I might add, whatever his ability to attract contributions from wealthy people-should have adequate facilities to carry out his official duties and serve his constituents, so every constituent should feel equally free to ask the help of a Senator-whether or not he has contributed to the cost of office operations. Even granting the benevolent intent and public-spiritedness of most potential underwriters of "reasonable offic& expenses," it is not good for the public at large to imagine the existence of a privileged group with special entree to their Senator.

The committee report provides in section 2 (a) of rule XLII for contributions to be used for the nomination and election of Senators. Wisely and rightly, it

· would require full and accurate reporting of such contributions. Defining activities that are primarily directed toward nomination or eleC!tion is difficult enough, But providing still another category of political expenditures for which private contributions may be used, the line between political and senatorial becomes all but· indiscernible.

Let us not · issue a general license for the collection of funds which can be utilized for purposes which, if official in nature, should be financed by public funds or if for personal political advantage, should be financed by campaign contributions or appropriate party organizatioris. Let us not set foot in the quagmire that · section 2 (b) would represent

before giving further thought to a more direct approach to the very. real problem that it is designed to solve.

I agree with the committee's desire that all contributions and expenditures we have been talking about should be fully disclosed. ·But to accomplish this it is not necessary to give specific Senate approval to practices which are or may be contrary to sound public policy.

Mr. President, unless a Senator wishes to question me, I reserve the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I direct the attention of Senators to the following portion of the pending resolution; and I ask those Senators who are present to please turn to page 4, and direct their attention to that part beginning on line 18 of page 4.

Mr. President, the effect of the Case amendment would be to strike out of the resolution lines 18 and 19 on page 4. It is not necessarily worded that way, but the amendment, just to read it, does not carry the full meaning, The amendment the Senator offers would leave in this part of the resolution on contributions, the first part, and strike out the second part. In substance, he would strike out that part that authorizes the use of money received from private sources for expenses of operating a Senator's office.

This is the position of the committee with reference to this problem-and it is a real problem.

The background of the facts is that the expenses incurred in the operation of a Senator's office, and the matter of being a Senator and carrying out the many semiofficial functions involved, runs into sizable sums of money that are not covered in the official allowance. That is ·a simple fact affecting all Senators, but it greatly varies, and applies particularly in the case of the more populous States, where the allowances provided are most insufficient.

I remember, Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, the State of New York was · represented in part by a very fine gentleman who has since passed away, the late Senator Lehman. In order to be able properly to represent that great State, with its volume of business, he paid out something like $50,000 a year from his personal funds to help run the official part of his office. He was a very wealthy man, or at least had extensive holdings. He was able to do it, and did it gladly. But, particularly back in those days, when I would think about that, I would feel strongly that it was not right, and could hardly be considered fair.

· Dropping down to another category, it is a fact of our lives that there are many demands of various kinds, particularly for travel, and most especially for travel to a Senator's· home State, in the course of a year-and this is for official and semiofficial functions--the expenses of which often run into thousands of dollars. Yet we ha-ve not seen fit, to allow reimbursement for those trips beyond a maximum of six trips a year.

As I say, there ~re m~ny other expenses. A very honorable Member of this

body has proposed this year to provide, I believe, a minimum of $50,000. As I

· understand, it was carefully worked out and budgeted. I mention this because I am sure there was no wrongdoing involved; in fact, I know there was nothing of the sort connected with it at all. But that plan was not carried out.

I personally think-and I call this to the attention of the Committee on Rules and Administration, with great def erence to them-that there ought to be a careful resurvey made of the actual needs and expenses of operating a Senator's office; and, where larger sums are found to be needed, that they be allowed, voted on, and granted by the Senate.

I think times have changed so much that they ought to have a reevaluation of the items that can be considered as official expenses. We should try to have the law provide that allowances would be made for items such as telephone calls. Senators have to pay considerable sums of money for telephone calls that are made on official business. We frequently have to pay a considerable sum of money for excess telegram charges.

We do not now have a completely realistic plan along that line. I think it would be really unreasonable and wrong to cut a Senator off and prohibit him from using funds that come into his hands in

· good faith to be spent in connection with his office.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I will yield in a minute. I am not saying this in criticism of anyone. However, until those things are better arranged, we thought, because of the variation from State to State in the manner in which it is handled, that there should be some regulation and that is what we propose. ·

The Case amendment strikes out all reference to dealing with that problem, and it would be, in effect, a prohibition.



Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield :first to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I know that in my own case some years ago-in a year, incidentally, when the Collector of Internal Revenue drew my name as one of the congressional guinea pigs to be checked on for income tax purposes--! had deductions that exceeded my salary as a Senator. Much of the deductions was for expenses incurred in reporting to the people back home on what I was doing in regard to their interests. A lot of it had to do with transportation on airplanes over and above the amount that is ordinarily authorized.

A great deal of it had to do with the buying of paper and other supplies with which to perform my necessary duties, but to a greater extent than provided for. It had to do with entertaining constituents and things of that kind.

I was fortunate in my case that I was able to pay for this out of my own income, because I had other income than the Senate salary I was receiving. However, assuming that a Senator does not

7252 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 21, 1968

have outside income and wants to do more to serve his constituents and wants to do things for which there is no allowance, or wants to do mQre things than there is an allowance provided for, he should certainly be permitted to do so. Certainly there is no allowance for entertaining constituents or buying a meal for a graduating · class visiting the Capitol or something of that sort. If a Senator wants to do something like that and does not have the money with which to do it, if it is known where the funds come from and there is not any objection, can the Senator from Mississippi see any reason why there should be an objection?

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator has correctly stated the matter. I pointed out in my opening statement that if the money were given and received in good faith for semipublic purposes, a Senator should be allowed to accept it.

Under the rule proposed by the committee, the Senator would have to account for it and spend it for only the

· purposes spelled out in the resolution, and then publicly account for how he spent it. In other words, there would 'be an accounting of public funds insofar as an accounting' is concerned.

I hope that the day will come, if we succeed in getting this rule started, when we can make these evaluations. It is a very difficult matter, and perhaps this section would be removed from the Senate rules. Briefly, that is the whole case.

Let me emphasize that there would be variations from place to place. I do not

. have that particular problem. The amounts that I have paid have been relatively small amounts for excess postage, telegrams, and various other items.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. STENNIS. The amounts involved were such that I could take care of them and did.

I know that a terrible hardship is worked on some Senators with relation to traveling home and paying for excessive long distance telephone calls.

This situation is going on. This money . is being used this way, and the com

mittee wanted to regulate it and let the expenditure of this money be reported.


Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding to me. I have a few remarks to make on.the pending resolution.

I would refer to the pending amendment as a rich man's amendment, because if a Senator is wealtty enoughand from an article I saw a few days ago, I guess that some of the Senators are, because approximately 20 Senato.rs were speculated on as being millionaires--so that he can spend his own money to do these things, there would be no accounting or responsibility on his part.

If a Senator does not happen to be a · millionaire, as is .true in my case and in

the case of many other Senators, then income tax. he has to show you his certainly he should be allowed under business expenses, .his business deducproper supervision, as the committee has tions, including what he spent as a suggested, to use funds for other. than Member of the Senate. You have to influencing his nomination for election. disclose it. But the fact is that the

Mr. President, I happen to come fro:tn committee language would keep it secret. the Far West, and _every time I make Senator CASE and I wish to make it a trip out there, it costs m_e quite a bit public. I agree with the Senator from of money. Nevada that we should make it public.

As the Senator from Mississippi well Mr. STENNIS. I beg the Senator's par-knows, we receive reimbursement for six don. The committee resolution does not trips to our home State and back, based keep it secret. It requires public dison the actual amount of the ticket, noth- closure of all expenses of the type about ing else. No other expenses are covered. which we are talking.

I myself average at least 12 to _15 trips Mr. CLARK. I beg the Senator's par-a year to my State. And the airplane fares don. I believe we are at cross-purposes. with respect to those particular trips I was referring to the secrecy which usually cost me something in the neigh- exists in the committee amendment with borhood of $5,000 to $7 ,000 more trans- respect to the income tax return, where portation cost in a year than I receive the deduction resulting from a Senator reimbursement for from the Senate. taking many trips home, which he could

The pending amendment would pro- not charge against the Senate itself, is hibit anyone from offering to pick up the in order. The committee amendment cost of a ticket when I am not running would make a Senator disclose to the for election so that I can speak to· home committee and to the Comptroller Gengroups there or visit with them and eral exactly what the Senator from discuss legislation in which they are in- Nevada said he thought should be disterested. closed, and I agree with him. I believe it

Is it not a fact that this., in effect, is should be completely disclosed and not a rich man's amendment? held secret.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I had al- . Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the ready given an illustration about a fel- Senator yield? low Senator who formerly served in this Mr. STENNIS. I yield. great body. He was a very fine man. I Mr. CANNON. I wish to make this knew that he spent from $50,000 to point. This amendment, if adopted, $70,000 a year from his own pocket to would prohibit the use of funds for that help run his office. He was able to do it, purpose. It does not merely say udisfortunately. However, I did not think close." It prohibits it. that this should be necessary. I refer to . In effect, it is a rich man's amendSenator Lehman. ment, as I said earlier. It would prohibit

If a Senator is able to do this and wants a man from using any funds that he to do it, that would be all right. However, received for office expense or for transour proposal would cover the case of a portation to and from his home State. man that is not financially able to do it. Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, if the Mr. President, I explained, when I pending amendment, this rich man's commenced my remarks, that the way amendment, were to be agreed to, would the amendment had to be drawn by the it then be no more than fair to require Senator from New Jersey, it does really that every Senator disclose all of the carry the whole import of it; but tJ:ie amounts he spends out of his own funds effect of it would be to outlaw, so to in travel to and from his State or for of- speak, the special funds about which I

· flee expense or clerical hire or what have have spoken. The committee proposes you? that it be a reasonable amount, and it

This, of course, is not required under has to be accounted for and published law, and I submit that if this rich man's and reported. Why? Because the funds amendment were to pass, we would be are semipublic. They are used to carry duty bound to make that kind of a pro- on the functions of that office. I am not vision for disclosure so that if the people confining it now to clerk hire, but it apwant to know what is being expended, plies to matters that relate to it and are they would know in the case of a man who necessary. is wealthy enough to pay for such costs Furthermore, we expressly say that out of his own pocket, how much money these funds cannot be used for any other is being spent for the purposes desig- purpose, unless the Senator should, in nated. effect, put them into his campaign funds,

Mr; CLARK. Mr. President, will the and that is obvious campaign funds, and Senator yield? that would be the accounting point.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I think Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has stated the will the Senator yield? point very well. I agree wholly with him. Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator Mr. LONG of Louisiana. It seems to me from Pennsylvania if the Senator from that the whole business of whether there Nevada has finished. is any impropriety or not in a person re-

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask the ceiving a private contribution to do someSenator whether it is not true, under rule thing other than that for which the GovXLIV which.has to do with financial ac- ernment pays him has to do with the counting and disclosure, that when a intent of the donor. If I may, I should Senator has to file a copy of his income like to give a personal illustration-. tax, he has to reveal on that return the When I began my service in the Senate, identical info:rmation to-which the Sen- my uncle, who at that time was Governor ator from Nevada just referred? · of Louisiana-and who had-been one of

In other words, when~ you · take his - my -principal supporters and contribu-

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 7253

tors-came to my office and saw a little Robotype I had purchased. I was using it to get out mail.

He said, "That's a wonderful invention. You ought to write everybody you can write. You'.re only up here on a 2-year interim term. How much would it cost to buy two more of these?" ·

I said, "I think it would cost about $5,000."

He said, "Get them. I'll pay for them." That happened to be my uncle, who

was interested in me personally. He had been desirous of seeing me succeed in politics as far back as I can recall. That was something he wanted to do for his nephew.

Suppose it was my mother, or the Senator who preceded me in the Senate, or a very close personal friend, or someone who wanted to hold the seat until I was old enough to campaign for it. Why

. could not a person such as that make a contribution completely in good faith, because he wanted a man to be a better public servant? If so, and that is reported, what on earth would be wrong with it?

On the other hand, in a case where someone might be a lobbyist for a particular company, who might be seeking some special advantage, the way the committee has it, that would be reported. Everyone would be able to look at it, to judge whether or not they thought any improper matters were involved in a contribution.

Does it not boil down to the intent of the donor, and would that not be clearly obvious by identifying who the donor was? . ·

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. Mr. President, how much time have

I used? 1

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has used 20 minutes and 45 seconds.

Mr. STENNIS. I yield the floor for the time being.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

I believe there is very little difference among all of us with respect to our understanding of the problem with which we are dealing.

The Senator from Nevada has pointed out the expense entailed in perfectly proper travel in connection with the performance of his official duties, and that present senatorial allowances · are not adequate to cover this, and I agree.

We disagree on this point: The wisdom of providing what even the Senator from Mississippi suggests is a kind of stopgap, until serious consideration is given by the Senate to a permanent solution of the problem.

I believe this is the chief vice~! use the word "vice" not in the sense of any bad will or anything of that sort--of this amendment.


Mr. CASE. I yield myself 1 additional minute.

This is a difficult problem. The Senate gets around to dealing with

problems such as this only under the spur of unusual circumstances and events, and such have occurred, and it was good and fine that the Committee

on Standards and· Conduct reported a recommendation. I applaud their efforts to deal with the matter, but I do not applaud the putting of this matter into such a condition that-I predict that it will be years until we adopt such a resolution-unless public outrage brings it about sooner-before we get at a real solution. That is why I hope this amendment will be adopted.

I understand that the Senator from Kentucky desires to make a brief observation, and then I should like to yield to the cosponsor of the amendment, the Senator from Pennsylvania.

How much time does the Senator from Kentucky desire?

Mr. COOPER. I should like 3 minutes. Mr: CASE. I' yield 3 minutes to the

Senator from 'Kentucky. Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the fact

. that the committee, of which I am a member, took note of this subject and made recommendations to the Senate indicates the belief of the committee that the practice is questionable. The committee dealt with it by requiring publication rather than immediately prohibiting the practice.

As one member of the committee, I know that we stand in a rather difficult position. We do not wish to appear to be monitoring the conduct of individual Senators. Nor are we condemnatory of practices in the sense of saying that they represent wrongdoing. But we were directed by the Senate not only to consider the problems of Members of the Senate as individuals but also as they affect the public interest and public regard of the Senate as an institution of our Government which must -rest in -public confidence.

I believe that the proper way to deal with this matter is for the Senate to deal with it by providing sufficient funds for office help, for .postage, for trips, and for telephone calls that are required and necessary for his Senate business.

If such funds are not required for actual office expenses and necessary for one's actual duties as a Senator, they can only be described as campaign expenditures. In essence, I believe that is what they are. They are campaign expenditures and should be reported as such. I doubt that we could even find a cutoff point for office - expenditures which would be swtisfactory to everyone, because · some Members of the Senate campaign at times for the presidential nomination, and, of course, they ·require funds larger than those Senators who are not so campaigning. Such funds cannot be characterized as expenses necessary for senatorial duties. · We must consider the · public view

point · concerning funds ·· from private sources for office expenses. If contributions were made for these expenses by certain interests, business interests or labor interests, or otherwise, the public could believe, whether or not it was true, that Members might be influenced by those contributions.


Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. CASE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I stated in my supplemental views that I believed the proper way to handle the matter was through the Senate providing necessary funds for actual office expenses. Therefore, I must adhere to the argument made by the Senator from New Jersey, and I shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, reserving the balance of that minute, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I am happy to be a cosponsor with the Senator from ·New Jersey on the pending amendment, and I rise to support it .

The Senator from New Jersey has stated the case for the amendment so clearly that it needs little amplification. The whole question involved here is whether the Senate, and, through it, the taxpayers, are to give adequate allowances for the expenses of running a Senate office, or whether lobbyists and friends of individual Senators should be permitted to contribute to . a fund-I cio not call it a slush fund, but others might-which would enable the Senator to finance the expenses of his office over and above the amount allowed him.

I am a member of the Committee on Rules and Administration and so are the Senators from Kentucky, Nevada, and Rhode Island. The Senator from

.Rhode Island has · just come . into the Chamber.

Mr. President; I thoroughly agree with the Senator from Mississippi that the Committee on Rules and Administration should hav~ inoved long ago to increase the allowances to which Senators are entitled.

All we need now is one more member of the Committee on Rules and Administration to make five, and the distinguished chairman is sitting out in the cloak room. Maybe if he would join us then we would get these allowances to where they should be, but because we have not been able to move the Committee on Rules and Administration off the dime, and we have not been; does not mean that we should let any lobbyist who wants, contribute to the fund of any Senator, and hold . him enthralled, to pay the expenses of his office. -.

In the years I have been in the Senate _our expenses have increased very much, ap~ so have our allowances. I agree with the Senator from Nevada that he should have 16 free trips to Nevada· each year rather than six. ·

The truth is that some Senators from some States do not need the money and they will not vote the money for those of us who do.

The way to get at the problem is not the road which Nixon took in 1952 by having a private fund arranged for him to take care of his office expenses, and I think he regretted it; nor the way Senator PERCY did earlier this year, .and I think he regretted it. When he did change his mind, I think he made a wise


and courageous decision, because when In our report, we found in all problems Mr. GRIFFIN. Before the Senator o.fthe matter received publicfty, he thought arising in connection with ethics and f ered his amendment striking out the it over and thought- he was wrong and conduct by Senators, the matter goes language, the resolution contained cerpaid back all of the money. back to money, political considerations, tain ·procedures and ways to handle the

The answer is not to permit this in- and political campaigning. · raising and accounting of funds through-herently corrupting method of financing The Senator from Pennsylvania men- out a period of service. But ·when the expenses of a. Senator's office, but rather tioned the junior Senator from Illinois. Senator strikes out that language, then to put some heat on the Committee on I happen to know something about the my point becomes very critical, and I Rules and Administration. I will stay in circumstances of that particular inci· think the Senate should know what he the kitchen; I can take the heat. Let us dent which created a great deal of atd intends. get the allowances up to an adequate tention. It was a case of the greatest Mr. CASE. What I mean, and what I amount instead of turning the matter good faith. It was a case which mani- understand the committee to mean, when over to those whose motives might be fested one man's attempt to do the very it put this language in, and I stand to be suspect. best job he could. In that light, extra corrected as to their intentions, is that

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield office expenses and extra office help, all it would apply at all times. It would 5 minutes to the Senator from Kansas of which were coming out of his own apply during the time a man is a Member [Mr. PEARSON]. pocket, were sought to be augmented. of the Senate or a Senator. A man can

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The That action was terminated in the best be running for election the next day after Senator from Kansas is recognized. traditions of the Senate. I know the he was elected.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President; I am Senator from Pennsylvania meant to Mr. GRIFFIN. Whether or not he has pleased that this amendment has been cast no reflections on that particular announced? offered, and at the same time I hope it case, but I wanted to make some record Mr. CASE. Whether or not he has anwill be rejected. The reason why I say because of what has been said here to- nounced. Therefore, it would be my view that is that this problem, like so many day. that this applies continuously. thorns we run into, was a particularly Mr. CLARK. I wish to make clear that Mr. PEARSON. If the Senator from difficult one. I have no criticism of Senator PERCY. I New Jersey will yield, the Senator is

We sought, in all the shadowy areas of think he did a fine job. correct. There is an annual reporting. It dealing with ethics and the like, to keep Mr. PEARSON. I did not misunder- is consistent, perhaps, with the ruling of from pulling ourselves back whenever the stand the Senator. the Bureau of Internal Revenue which occasion would permit us to do so, be- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time declares that the day after U.S. Senators cause realities and personalities are really of the Senator has expired. are elected, they are deemed to be candiwhat this business is all about. Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I ask dates for reelection 6 years hence; so

There is involved the serious problem unanimous consent that I may be recog- that funds which may be left over from of what somebody has called inadequate nized for 2 additional minutes. a campaign may be used. That is how allowances for a Senator. The pro·blem · The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without · the ruling came up. Funds left over from goes beyond that for there is actually in- objection, it is so ordered. a campaign, and so forth, should they volved an imbalance. Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I did be used, as they are used in the opera-

Everyone here knows that there are talk to the Senator to some extent about tions of his office and, incidentally.., excertain allowances for every office which this matter. I thought I might make a penses which pertain to a campaign, are are not utilized, while others are so very full record of that case. not deemed to be income. low that Senators, where they have the I thank the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. GRIFFIN. My question does not means to do so, are supplementing their Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator go to the matter of income. I should like allowances from their own funds, and for his remarks. to get back to the intent which the they are doing it other than as indicalted The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who amendment of the Senator from New by the provision that is in the code. yields time? · Jersey carries. There will still be provi-

The problem actually involved, to be Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the sions, of course, in the resolution, which specific, and the precise issue, could really Senator yield me 5 minutes? provides that funds may be raised and determine the twilight area between what Mr. STENNIS. I yield 5 minutes to - then may be used to influence his nomi-is legitimate, and complete and full exer- the Senator from Michigan. nation for election, or his election. else of senatorial office and that which The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- The point I am trying to get at is this: pertains to campaigning. ator from Michigan is recognized for 5 Say that, during the first 2 or 3 years of

I do not think it would come as a shock minutes. a Senator's 6-year term, funds are raised to anybody who might read this RECORD Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, r take as the result of a fundraising event and to realize that in perhaps the last 2 years this time for the purpose of directing they are used in part for printing and of a senatorial term, the office activity is some questions to the chief sponsor of sending out copies of one of his speeches accelerated a great deal. The newsletters the amendment, the distinguished Sen- to his constituents and the reprint states, go out monthly rather than two or three ator from New Jersey, in order that the "Not printed at Government expense." times a year. The allowances, all of them Senate might better understand its Now, he may be sending out the mailing down the line, . pertain to the campaign. effect. to influence his nomination for election,

We sought to deal with the situation as The Senator's amendment would strike or election. it is. I suppose we could have been mute out the language on page 4, lines 18 and Is the Senator by his proposed amendon this question, and I suppose we could 19. If adopted, the amendment would ment intending to prohibit that or not? have forgotten the issue and passed it still permit funds to be raised on behalf Mr. CASE. If the Senator wishes any over. We would have Senators using cam- of a Senator which would then be avail- more time, I shall be happy to yield him paign funds that would come back to able only for use to ''influence his nomi- time because I think this is a useful deoffice allowances and that would have nation for election, or his election." velopment of what we are ;rying to do. covered it. I think thait is what will hap- During which periods of time would To answer the Senator's question, in the pen if this amendment prevails. that be the case? Is it the intention of first place, I should like to have the

However, I say again, I am glad we the Senator from New Jersey, as a co- matter left without being affected by brought out the matter and presented it sponsor of the amendment, that a Sen- this resolution because I think it would to the Senate. By virtue of this amend- ator could spend funds to influence his be better to leave it in that fashion; but ment, the m.aitter can be decided by the nomination, or election, only after he since the resolution was prepared and Senate. announces his candidacy? Is that what presented in the form of express pennis-

We will make · a greater disclosure and the Senator has in mind? sion to accept certain contributions in I know that the Senator from New Jersey Mr. CASE. The Senator should really certain circumstances, and then an exand the Senator from Pennsylvania are inquire more particularly of the members press limitation on the way in which vitally interested. We are going to make of the committee because the frame- I assume all contributions might be adequate disclo.sure as ·to where the work within which my amendment had spent, not those just referred to here. money comes from and what it is used to be cast was prepared by them. But my I had to strike out this thing entirely. for. own view-- .. · I think the result of doing that is as

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7255 .. suggested, although perhaps not in the specific terms as implied in what the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] said, that this limits the use of contributions a person may receive either through proper fundraising events, or from individuals or organizations, and limits it to expenditures influencing his nomination for election, or election. I think that is true. The filing of that must be on a yearly basis, let me add.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Any time during the 6-year term; is that correct?

Mr. CASE. Any time at all. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time

of the Senator from Michigan has expired.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Would the Senator from New Jersey yield additional time?

Mr. CASE. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 3 additional minutes. .

Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I take it, then, the answer to my question is that. if the Senator's amendment is adopte,1., fundraising events can still be conducted and money can be raised; and even though a Senator is not an announced candidate, he will be able to spend such funds for certain purposes if those purposes are to influence his nomination for election, or election, as long as he accounts for the funds under the resolution, and that this meets with the approval of the Senator from New Jersey. For example, travel by a Senator to his State for political purposes could be paid for out of such funds.

Turning to another but related point, the assumption has been made here in the argument, made by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] and by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK]°, that if the office expense allowance of Senators were increased, all of these things would be taken care of. I should like to challenge that.

Mr. COOPER. Will the Senator from Michigan yield at that point?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me finish my thought first, and then I shall be glad to yield.

I do not think for one moment that the Senate would ever adopt a resolution, or that our constituents would approve of, increasing the office expense allowances of a. Senator to include, for· example, payment for political telegrams that he sends out to Lincoln Day dinners all over a State every year-not just the year in which he is running for election, but every year. I do not believe that office allowances should be raised to cover expenses of traveling to the State for political trips. I would not ask that my office expense allowance should inciude such items.

Mr. CASE. Indeed, I agree. The money for those campaign expenditures should be raised, frankly, recognizing that that is what they are. As the Internal Revenue people do not permit their deduction as expenses of an office, I would not permit them to be sanctioned for that purpose. The more I consider this, the clearer it seems to me that there should be two

kinds of expenses-political, and the ~ctual expenses to run an office, not this inbetween thing for public relations, which is perfectly proper. nothing wrong about it, but it should not be handled except as campaign expenditures. The money for it could be raised for that one purpose, recognizing that it will be received and expended for that purpose.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am glad to yield now to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. · Mr. COOPER. I asked the Senator to yield, inasmuch as he referred to a statement I had made. The Senator is incorrect in the assumption he made about my statement.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I apologize if I misstated the Senator's position.

Mr. COOPER. Senator STENNIS, as manager of the resolution, is more authoritative in interpretation than I. But I do know what this rule provides~ It permits a Senator to receive funds from political fundraising events, and also gifts from individuals, and to apply such funds to campaign expenditures. If the Senator from Michigan or any other Senator accepts such funds and applies them to any purpose which he believes is · proper use for campaign expenditures; he can do so.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Michigan has expired.

Mr. CASE. I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator from Kentucky.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 1 additional minute.

Mr. COOPER. He can do so, provided he reports it annually, covering the previous year.

The second area is one to which the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey is addressed, and that is the receipt of contributions for the expenses of running an office. It has nothing to do, theoretically at least, with campaign funds. Under the resolution, the Senator could also receive gifts and contributions for the reasonable expenses of his office, provided he reports them every year. The Senator from New Jersey is making the point that such expenses should be provided by the Senate.

This is the position that I support. It ·has nothing at all to do with campaign funds.

Mr. GRIFFIN. This is very helpful in clarifying the scope of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2 minutes yielded to the Senator have expired.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Kansas 5 minutes.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. BROOKE].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, as I understand from what the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has said, the money that has been raised for campaign purposes can only be expended for campaign purposes: The question I would like to ask is: Is the hiring of additional personnel in a Senator's office or · the

sending out of more letters than the Senator would normally send considered to be campaign expenditures, properly chargeable against campaign funds raised?

Mr. PEARSON. Is the Senator asking the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. BROOKE. Yes. Mr. PEARSON. I want to answer di

rectly, but I hope I have an answer which will pertain really to the question raised by the Senator from Michigan. When this particular part of the provision of the code is stricken out, the question naturally arises, if one can raise money only for expenditure purposes and the other is stricken out, then he cannot use it for office expenses. What I intended to say when I made the statement was that this will merely be labeled "campaign" now and that is what will be the result. I think the distinction is still there as written in the code, and gives greater clarity a~d greater disclosure action as to where the money came from and what ·it is used for. and then it will be either office expenses or campaign expenses, or a combination of the two, which I really defy anyone to divide.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired:

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Sena tor yield?

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. PEARSON. I have some time left. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Massachusetts.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BROOKE. Under the Case amendment, is a Senator prohibited from using money raised for campaign purposes for office expenditures?

Mr. PEARSON. I think not. He would thereafter call them and name them and identify them as "campaign."

Mr. BROOKE. Rather than office expenses?

Mr. PEARSON. Yes. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield for an observation? Mr. PEARSON. I yield. Mr. CLARK. I would say the Case

Clark amendment-and I say that because· I like to have·my name connected with it-does this: Under the campaign contribution provision, a Senator is necessarily enthralled to some extent by ' the people who contr\bute to his campaign. The Senator has seen it. I have seen it. The Senator knows that we resist that thralldom. We say we stand on our own feet and that nobody is telling us what to do. But, almost subconsciously, we find we give a break-and it is only human-to a. fellow who has made a contribution of $1,000 1 $2,000, or $3,000 to his campaign. It is only human. That happens only once every 6 years. This would happen every day of every month of every year one is in the Senate.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that point, I established that would not be the case.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 2 minutes.

·Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I yie~d

7256 . CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD - SENATE March 21, 1968

1 minute to the.Senator from Massachu-setts. .

Mr. BROOKE. As I understand it, under the interrogation and response of the Senator from Michigan, the day after a Senator is elected to office he can begin to raise campaign funds for the next campaign because he is considered a candidate for reelection.

Mr.PEARSON. Yes. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I do not

care to quarrel with my friend from New Jersey, but if I may refer to the Senator from Pennsylvania, it would never occur to me when I was elected in 1962 to start raising money for my election in 1968. As a matter of fact, I did not get my first dime until 1967, and I thought I was running fairly early. I do not know what other Senators would do, but I would say that a Senator does not start raising money for his reelection until the year before the campaign.

Mr. BROOKE. The question is not what a particular Senator does, but what does the law permit? That is the important question.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I have . 1 minute left.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time the Senator from New Jersey has?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has · 16 minutes.

Mr. CASE. I think the Senator from Kansas has 1 minute left.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PEARSON. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. PELL. My question is very simple. Is it correct that, if a man wishes to have a dinner run to raise money for his office expenses under the committee's amendment, he can presently do that?

Mr. PEARSON. I am sorry. I did not hear the question.

Mr. PELL. If a Senator wants to raise money for office expenses and for travel, he may presently do that under the committee amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield me 1 minute?

Mr. CASE. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. PELL. Under the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, if it is adopted, can a Senator have a fund'raising dinner run and can he use the money, which has nothing to do with his election, to help run his office?

Mr. CASE. The Senator has answered the question in the way he has stated it. A Senator could only raise money and spend money for campaign expenses. If the Senator wanted to regard that as campaign expenses, I think he could, because I think, in fact, it is, but that would be up to the Senator.

·The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator has expired.

·Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I am glad to yield.


Mr. CASE. I yield 1 minute to myself. Mr. President, some people think otherwise, but this amendment or the com-

mittee. resolution, as I understand the Senator from Mississippi, is to be regarded as only an interim measure. Ours is not meant to be more than that. Ours is intended, as a matter of fact, to keep the spurs on the Senate, and particularly the Rules Committee, so they will deal adequately with this problem and prevent the Senate from accepting something which is not wise public policy and which will delay meeting the problem.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CASE. I yield. Mr. CLARK. I will say to the Senator

from Rhode Island that, as a member of the Rules Committee, if the committee amendent were adopted, I would hazard a strong guess that we will never see another allowance adopted by the Rules Committee as long as the Senator from Rhode Island and I are on it.

Mr. PELL. I pledge my support now to increase the office expense allowance so that Senators will not have to put in money themselves to defray the costs of running their office.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The additional time yielded has expired. Who yields time?

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I am not sure if any Senator wants time. I reserve the remainder of my time for the moment.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have only a few minutes left, and I think the measure should be summed up.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Mississippi yield time?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I want to address a question to the Senator. I would like to get an understanding of this proposal. Am I correct in my assumption that, if the resolution were adopted as presented and without the Case amendment, the Senate would then be giving official approval to the establishment of funds such as several Senators in the past have established, and giving official approval to organizations or individuals contributing to a fund which in tum could be used by the Senator for travel or for office expenses?

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct, under the strict regulations provided here, funds cannot be used for any other purpose except as set forth in this resolution; and also, such funds have to be publicly accounted for. That is, they have to be accounted for and published, under the last article or rule in the com-mittee resolution. .

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. But it would officially permit tl).e establishment of such a fund?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes. That is permitted now, without any regulations at all.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. It has not been permitted now, though, by a vote of the Senate.

Mr. STENNIS. No; not by a vote of the Senate, that is true. But it has not been prohibited.

Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STENNIS. The only control over it has been when there were abuses or

.. · excesses; or where-the use of funds went _

beyond what was considered reasonable, and reasonably connected with a Senators' office.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Sena tor yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BROOKE. In the committee resolution-not the amendment, but the resolution-is there any limitation at all on the amount of money that can be raised for office expenditures? · Mr. STENNIS. Yes, in this way: The language is "to defray the reasonable expenses of his office."

I think in interpreting the word "reasonable" we would have to consider the facts of the Senator's case, and how far his State was from Washington, D.C.

Ten percent of what a Senator is ordinarily allowed for the running of his office would certainly be deemed to be a: reasonable amount; and for a Senator who lived as far away as California, extra travel expense or other circumstances would add to that percentage.

Mr. BROOKE. Under the committee resolution, could a Senator, say, double the number of personnel that he generally employs with his regular senatorial expense allotment?

Mr. STENNIS. If there were a reasonable justification for it, yes, it would be permitted. But this is not a blanket, unlimited, sky-is-the-limit proposition at all. It would be considered within the reasonable facts of the case.

Mr. BROOKE. 'Who would determine the reasonableness of it?

Mr. STENNIS. That is a very good question, indeed. We considered putting an absolute ceiling on this matter, and that would have made it more definite.

But in considering · a. matter of this kind, if there is any question a.bout it, I would judge that the Sena.tor .would consult with, say, this ethics committee, for some kind of consideration.

What we are suggesting here now is certainly within the rules of reason; and any amount up to 10 percent would certainly be allowable.

Mr. BROOKE. Suppose a Senator was a candidate for President and he wanted to double the number of personnel on his staff to handle the increased duties of his candidacy?

Mr. STENNIS. Well, that is not connected with his office, as the Senator from Mississippi sees it. We are talking about the office of a Senator, not the office of a candidate for President.

Mr. BROOKE. The committee is talking only about the office of a Senator, but it is not putting any real limitation on the number of people he can hire in his office?

Mr. STENNIS. None. Mr. BROOKE. Nor the amount of

money he can spend for office expenditures, under ~his rule?

Mr. STENNIS. No. There is no absolute limitation on it, in dollars and cents.

Mr. BROOKE. I thank the Senator. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator

from Pennsylvania. Mr. CLARK. I wonder whether the

March 21, --196ff CONGRESSIONAL-RECORD-~ 'SENATE' 7257 Senator ean tell -me· where he got the :figure of 10 percent. 1 see nothing in the report of the committee or in the resolution about it. I am not criticizing either the Senator or the committee·; · I · simply wonder whether the Senator is trying to make legislative history. ·

Mr. STENNIS~ I am not particularly trying to do that. The committee has discussed this matter and agreed that 10 percent would certainly be, in all circumstances, allowable, and in some instances could be exceeded.

Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will yield further, I would suggest, if we are go.; ing ·to stick to the phrase "reasonable," that the phrase ought to be modified to "reasonable under all circumstances." Ten percent might be en·ough for the Senator from Mississippi, but not for me. . ·

Mr. STENNIS. That is correct. Mr. CLARK. Otherwise, I think what

we would end up with is the sort of thing that has made the antitrust · 1aws so ridiculous.

Mr. CASE: Or compound the inequities in the present arrangement.

Mr. CLARK. I agree. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how

much time do I have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen.;

ator from Mississippi has 2 minutes· remaining. The Senator from New Jersey has 13 minutes. · · · -·

Mr. CASE; -Mr. President, would the Senator from Mississippi like some time to sum up?

Mr. STENNIS. I would like to sum up, but it will take longer than 2 minutes.

Mr. President. may I state that the Senator from New Jersey and I had an understanding that if time was crowded at the last minute, we would join in a request for additional time.

Mr. CASE. I am happy to join now in such request.

Mr. STENNIS. In keeping with that understanding, I ask unanimous consent that there be an allowance of 5 additional minutes to each side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Mississippi? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask Senators who are present to turn to page 4 of the resolution and read lines 18 and 19. The words of those lines are the words proposed to be stricken out, now, by the pending amendment. .

The next lines limit the use of all this money to the items stated above in the resolution, and states that the money cannot be used . for any other purpose; so that leaves only lines 16 and 17.

If I may have the attention of Senators who have been asking questions, including the Senator from Michigan, I am reading now from line 16 on page 4 of the committee resolution. If this case amendment should be agreed to, the limitation would be "influence his nomination for election, or his election." In the committee resolution we were not limiting the matter to an actual campaign.

After a campaign starts-and that ls a matte:r determined by the State lawsthe actual- campaign expenses qome under the . Corrupt Practices Act for the

particular. . State, and of the - Federal Government so far a..;.. applicable.

We were refertifig here to- the use of testimonial airi.ner . funds ot the · gifts of an organization or an individual that: miglit be used f 6F this semipublic purpose in connection with a Senator's official work, looking to his future renomination or reelection. It is left to him to decide which year that activity begirts. One might call it a precampaign campaign.

If a Senator is not officially in a campaign, the Corrupt Practices Act does not apply. But the measure of the office expense-and the expenses are real; this has been discussed several times-varies greatly from State to State. Such office funds are considered semipublic or semi:. official and would have to be accounted for publicly in the report that each Senator would have to make and publish periodically.

Under present law, there is no limitation, prohibition, regulation, or anything else, except in the extreme case-and I deliberately use the word ,.-extreme"where the line of reason was transgressed and funds were used beyond any reasonable interpretation of what could .. be called office matters or matters connected with being a public official. So we have tried to impose some regulation, control, and publicity upon a practice that is now going on-at least until there has been a more realistic examination and adjudication by the Committee on Rules and Administration or by Congress, and a change in the law, to recognize that the costs of a major part of the. items for which a Senator has to spend money and allowances has increased.

To illustrate, the demands made upon a Senator nowadays to go home to make speeches are increasing. Likewise, the demands upon him to go home on official matters concerning plants and programs in his State are increasing all the time. The round-trip plane fare to California is well over $300 plus 5 percent tax. One western Senator told me that in a year which was not an election year he had to go home 26 times in the 12 months. His is a large State. It is unthinkable that he should be prohibited, even under regulation and with publication of all items, from having some reasonable help in defraying those expenses. That is what this proposal is for, and that is all it is for. Until Congress makes further and adequate provision for such demands, it is really unfair not to permit such expenses if they are regulated, controlled, and a published accounting of such expenses is made.


Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, my time is short. I suggest that he get the time from the other side. ·

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania. · _

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator :from#Pennsylvania is recognized fo~ 1 minute.

Mr. CI,MK. Mr. President, I suggest, with all due deference to my friend, the Senator from Mississippi, that nobody is prohibiting . anybody from doing any-

thing- under- the · pending · amendment· except accepting money from lobbyists:· kind frierfcfs; arid people who would like to influence the . Senator- by paying the exp·ense's · af his office, · expense-s which · should be prbvided for.him by the Senate · itself under the .recommendation of the Committe·e oii Rules and Administration

I think that what we are doing i~ robbing Peter to pay Paul when we say that because we cannot get the · Committee on Rules and Administration to do its duty, we will let every lobbyist iii town contribute to the expenses o'f the-Sen·ate. ·

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, witliout being critical, we waited in vain for" that thing to be accomplished.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, my time is rather short.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts such time as he may require.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I think that we are all in sympathy with the very difficult job which the committee has had in attempting to draft legislation of this kind. However, it seems to me that the key thing we must be concerned with is that money contributed for a specific purpose must be used for the purpose for which it is contributed.

If money is contributed for campaign purposes, that money obviously should not be used to pay legitimate office expenditures of a U.S. Senator, or for any' matters other than campaign. matters. And, by the same token, if he receives an allotment from the Senate for office expenditures, that money cannot be used for campaign purposes.

Under the law, as has been explained today, a U.S. Senator becomes a candidate for reelection immediately after he is elected. Thus he can solicit and receive campafgn contributions which he can use, in the words of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, for pre-campaign expenditures. ·

As I understand the problem to which the Case-Clark amendment addresses itself, it is that we cannot raise funds specifically for the use of office expenditures. I think that is a proper amendment, because if it does no more than that, it merely provides that we cannot go to the public and ask the public to contribute money with which to pay office expenditures. I think it is right to prohibit such a practice. Office expenditures are properly chargeable to the U.S. Government and not to the public.

A Senator can raise campaign contributions under the existing law, and can put people in his office working for campaign purposes. He can do that properly, and that is not affected by the CaseClark amendment.

I now ask the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Pennsylvania whether this is a true statement of what the pending amendment would do, and also a true statement of what it would not do?

Mr. CASE. I think in substance that the Senator from Massachusetts is correct.


Mr. CLARK. The answer is "Yes." The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have one

question to ask of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the Senator from Rhode Island.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized far 2 minutes.

Mr. PELL. In connection with contributions on page 4 of the pending resolution, there is a paragraph presently reading:

3. All gifts in the aggregate amount or value of $50 or more received by a Senator from any single source during a year, except a gift from his spouse, child, or parent, andi except a contribution under sections 1 and 2, shall be reported under rule XLIV.

If the amendment is agreed to, would it still not be possible for an organization or a group of persons to make a gift, which is the same as a contribution for purposes of reporting, and then the Senator involved could make up his mind once he had the money as to what he would do with it-whether he would roof his house or use the money to pay off his office expenses?

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, it seems to me ,that I really ought to ask the committee members to share the responsibility for any answer I give, because it is really the comm~ttee that drafted this measure. I am merely taking out a little piece of it.

Mr. STENNIS. On the time of the Senator.

Mr. CASE. We can get more time for any proper questions, of course, and I will be happy to cooperate to that end.

It seems to me that to say that gifts other than those contemplated by the first two sections of this proposed rule would be completely free gifts. Whether they were legal or not depends on the law outside of what the committee is doing or would do here.

We are not making them legal or illegal. We are just not dealing with them, except for the requirement that they be reported in the limited way provided for by the rule. Is that a correct statement?


Mr. CASE. I yield. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I think we

are really in accord. What the Senator from Rhode Island is driving at is whether if a Senator receives a gift, under paragraph 3 he can use it to run his office. I do not think that he can do so.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, this is not the matter at all that I am dealing with in my amendment. Really, it depends upo)J. the sponsor's intention, and it is their responsibility to define their intention in this regard.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would appreciate an answer, because my view and vote will depend upon the interpretation of that provision.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, on his own time, will the Senator repeat the question?

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I asked the

Senator from New Jersey whether under paragraph 3 of rule XLII on page 4 of the resolution, even if the pending amendment is agreed to, would it not be perfectly feasible for a union, an individual, or a corporation to make a contribution or the gift of a sum of money to a Senator who could then decide whether he wanted to use it to run his office, to roof his house, or to buy his wife a coat.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I think that legally under paragraph 3 the gifts that we are talking about have to be reported if they are in the aggregate amount or value of $50 or more. They are a}Jsolute gifts and would become the property of the Senator involved, and he could put them in his campaign fund, give them away, or do anything he wants to do with them.

That is a specific category. That is purely a nonpersonal, nonpublic gift.

Mr. PELL. Then there would be no purpose in the amendment of the Senators from New Jersey and Pennsylvania, because the way anybody could get around it would be to have some gifts given him under paragraph 3 rather than by means of a testimonial dinner as indicated in the earlier paragraph.

Mr. STENNIS. It would certainly be possible. The language under contributions is very carefully drawn. We knew exactly what we were doing.

The whole thing is to keep in mind that there must be an accounting and a public disclosure, and that will speak for itself as to what purpose the money went for. It will be up to the individual Senator to spend it for whatever purpose it was paid to him for. And that is the answer, I respectfully submit.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield me 1 minute?

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I would be happy to. I would like everybody to get into this act. It is a question of understanding and intention.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be necessary for this discussion.

The intention of the committee was substantially as the Senator from Mississippi has explained it-that is, if something became your property, you could deal with it the way you dealt with your property.

Mr. STENNIS. The gift only. Mr. CASE. Yes. But the distinction be

tween a gift under part 3, which is all gifts except those covered under 1 and 2, is not entirely clear to me yet.

Mr. STENNIS. All the money under sections 1 and 2 is trust money given to a Senator for an express purpose. It is up to him to use it under the conditions of the donor, and he has to report it, and he cannot spend it except for those two reasons.

Mr. CLARK. I say categorically to the Senator from Rhode Island that, as a matter of law, if the Case-Clark amendment is adopted and it is no lqnger permitted to raise funds to use for your office expenses, you could not get around that prohibition, particularly in the light of this legislative history, by. taking a gift and then using it for clerk hire. I believe that would be an obvious fraud.

Mr. PELL. That runs counter to the in-

terpretation of the chairman of the committee. I believe that before we vote on the amendment, we should understand it.

Mr. CLARK. If it does, I regret it. It is clear under the committee amendment, as presently drawn, that a Senator could raise all the money he wished from his lobbyist friends and use it to run his office. I do not believe that one can do indirectly under clause 3 what he cannot do directly under clause 2.

Mr. PELL. If one receives a · free gift, can he not do with it what he wishes?

Mr. STENNIS. The answer is "Yes." Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield me 30 seconds? Mr. STENNIS. I yield 1 minute to the

Senator from Kansas. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ate will be in order. Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I am

concerned that the RECORD will indicate that if we merely raise the allowances for Senators 1or the operation of their offices, we itill solve this problem. We will not. Thete are expenses that pertain to a Senator's functions and activities as a U.S. Senator, in relation to his State and otherwise, which should not be charged to the U.S. Government or to the taxpayer.

If this is taken out-if this amendment is adopted-the result will be that those who are able to and have the means to do it will pay for it out of their own pocket. Those who do not have the means will go without, until the campaign period, when money comes in under those auspices that are used for the office of a Senator.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may discuss with the Senator from Mississippi whether he desires more time, and that the time for the discussion not be charged to either side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MONDALE in the chair). Is there, objection?

Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator feels that he must have more time--

Mr. CASE. No. I have sufficient time. I wish to know whether the Senator from Mississippi desires time.

Mr. STENNIS. No. I believe we should vote.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes, and then I expect to yield back the remainder of my time.

The last statement or contributionthe last of many valuable contributions made by the Senator from Ka:n,sashelps to focus this issue. The issue really is, should there be expenses, which are neither expenses related to public--

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, may we have order? We cannot hear the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

The Senate will be in order. Mr. CASE. Should there be gray area

expenses recognized in the operation of a Senator's entire activity? I suggest that this is a very important public policy decision. And I suggest that there should not be.

I suggest that we should either frankly recognize that certain activities are in the nature of public relations promotion for a Senator, which have a direct bear-

March 21, 19-08 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7259 ing upon his desire to hold his office, or that they should be frankly recognized and accepted as public expenditures and paid for, in proper amounts, by the Government of the United States. I believe it is most undesirable to have this gray area in between.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CASE. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I have not been in the

Chamber during much of this debate. I returned today.

One problem concerns me with respect to the Senator's amendment.

I believe we should increase the expense allowance of Senators to defray the cost of their offices, and they should be publicly accountable.

I do not believe the people want us to use our own money to perform official Senate duties. Many of us do. This is not involved in this particular point, but elsewhere, and I am perfectly willing to raise it at this time to hear the Senator's comment.

I give lectures at various universities and elsewhere, for which I receive an honorarium. I plow them back into my desk, to pay the costs of my office. That is the only way I can pay for them. I do not happen to be a wealthy man.


Mr. CASE. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

Mr. MORSE. That is the only way I can pay the official Senate costs of my office which are not covered by the budget. The Senator and I know how the budget is arranged. It is based on the population of a Senator's State. The cost of my office has nothing to do with the population of my State. The longer one is a Senator, the less that becomes true.

What is sought to be done about that in this resolution? I am in favor of public disclosure of all income of Senators, and I have been since 1946, when I introduced my first bill calling for it.

What is sought to be done in this resolution, if anything, that would make it possible for Senators not to use their own money to pay the extra cost of the office? If one is rich, he pays it out of his pocket, and nobody knows what he is paying into his office. But if you deliver a lecture and take a fee for it, you make a public disclosure of it, and I am in favor of that.

However, we have this problem: Let us assume someone says-and I would not accept it--"We are going to make a contribution to you for the cost of your office." I believe that should be publicly disclosed, also.

Is that what the Senator says he wishes to provide, that that information be disclosed? · Mr. CASE. No. The Senator from New Jersey believes it is bad public policy to put the Senate's official stamp of approval upon the so-called office funds. Not that there is anything bad in the mind of anyone who has used them, not that we do not recognize the problem.

My position is that we should ·either have office expenses paid for by adequate public allowances or those public relations expenses relating really to the reelection of the Senator, which should be

paid for as campaign expenses. There should not be this gray area in between.

I also believe that by the adoption of the resolution proposed by the committee, without the present pending amendment, we are in danger of delaying indefinitely action by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate to provide adequate allowances for the proper expenses of our office.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CASE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized for one-half minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the VISIT TO THE SENATE BY MEMBERS

Senator yield for a question? OF THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT Mr. CASE. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, we The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time have in the Chamber a number of our

of the Senator has expired. distinguished colleagues from the Cana-Mr. CASE. Mr. President, how much dian House of Commons and the Cana-

time do I have remaining? dian Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I hope that when the voting is com-

ator has 3 minutes remaining. pleted as many Senators as possible will Mr. CASE. I yield 1 minute. remain in the Chamber so that we may Mr. GRIFFIN. Speaking of gray areas, · have an opportunity to have these col

·I should like to pose this situation. Sup- leagues of ours from north of the border pose the Senator from New Jersey de- introduced by the distinguished ranking livered a very important speech and it minority member of the Senate, to be appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; followed by a short recess in order for and suppose further that he desired to us to greet them. send copies of it to his constituents, and he had it reprinted for that purpose.

Let us suppose that the cost of obtaining enough reprints to make a wide distribution might be as much as $1,000. Should this be done at public expense or not?

Mr. CASE. My own feeling is that this question cannot be answered in the abstract.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The argument is made that the Senate should increase the allowance for office expenses. How much would the Senator allow to print and send out speeches?

Mr. CASE. This matter should be gone into in great detail on the basis of individual budgets proposed by Members of the Senate to the Committee on Rules and Administration, and these matters should be dealt with very carefully. There are cases where the Senator's speech might very well be properly sent out.


Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. CASE. There are cases where it might not.

I once had a colleague in the House of Representatives who would send out a so-called questionnaire that read like this: "Question No. 1: Do you approve of your Congressman continuing to vote against communism? Question No. 2: Do you approve of your Congressman continuing to support economy in public matters?"

I regard this as a blatant campaign document and an abuse of the Treasury of the United ·States and the position of the Member of Congress who did it.

However, there could be serious speeches on national topics which could be distributed at public expense.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Does the Senator suggest that a committee should make that decision?· ·

Mr. CASE. Yes. The Select Committee on Standards and Conduct could do it.

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT The Senate resumed the consideration

of the resolution (S. Res. 266) to provide standards of conduct for Members of the Senate and officers and employees of the Senate.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. McINTYRE], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LoNG], and the Senator from Oldahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] ate absent on official business.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL], would vote "nay."

I further state that, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH] would vote ''yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER] is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. If present and voting, the:: Senator from Maryland would vote "yea," and the Senator from Florida would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Okla-


homa [Mr. MONRONEY] i3 paired with the Senator from Utah lMr. Moss]. If present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma would vote "nay," and the Senator :::rom Utah would. vote "yea.''

On this vote, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] is paired with the Senator from North Carolina [.Mr. ERVIN]. If present and voting, the; Senator from Rhode Island would vote "yea," and the Senator .from North Carolina would vote "nay."

Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], the Senators from California [Mr. KUCHEL and Mr. MURPHY], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY] are n-Jcessarily absent.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON] is detained on business.

If present and voting the Senator from C~lifornia [Mr. MURPHY], would vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL] is paired with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY]. Tf present and voting, the Senator from California would vote "yea," and the Senator from Illinois would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 41, nays 40, as follows:

Aiken Bartlett Bayh Bible Boggs Brooke Byrd, Va. Byrd, W. Va. Case Clark Cooper Dodd Fulbright Gore

Allott Anderson Baker Bennett Burdick Cannon Carlson Cotton Curtis Dirksen Dominick Eastland Ellender Fannin

[No. 69 Leg.) YEAS-41

Gruening Harris Hartke Hollings Jackson Javits Jordan, Idaho Magnuson Mansfield McGee McGovern Mondale Morse Mundt

NAYS-40

Muskie Nelson Prouty Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Smith Spong Symington Tydings Williams, N .J. Williams, Del. Young, Ohio

Fong Montoya Gr1ffln Pearson Hansen Pell Hart Scott Hayden Smathers Hickenlooper Sparkman Hill Stennis Hruska Talmadge Jordan, )l.C. Thurmond Kennedy, Mass. Tower Long, La. Yarborough McClellan Young, N. Dak. Metcalf Miller

NOT VOTING-19 Brewster Kuchel Moss

Murphy Pastore Percy Russell

Church Lausche Ervin Long, Mo. Hatfield McCarthy Holland Mcintyre Inouye Monroney Kennedy, N.Y. Morton

So Mr. CASE'S amendment (No. 622) was agreed to.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was adopted be reconsidered.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

VISIT TO THE SENATE BY CANADIAN MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT Mr. AIKEN. Mr1 President, today the

· Senate is signally favored with a visit from our neighbors to the north-the

best neighbors any country could possibly have.

Certainly our long record of an unfortified frontier, our cooperation with Canada in rendering assistance to less fortunate peoples, and the freedom with with we travel each other's country, should be an example in democracy which all nations could well observe and emulate.

While I am not going to call upon each one of them to make a speech to the U.S. Senate, I am going to read the names of our distinguished guests from the Canadian Parliament so that they will appear in our CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

Before escorting them into the Chamber, I assured them that they would be able to see at least three or four Senators. I am very proud to say that they have seen 81 out of 100, whieh is something of a record and most appropriate to tie in with their visit.

Here are the names of our visitors from the Canadian Senate:

Hon. Alan A. Macnaughton, P.C., cochairman.

Hon. Donald Cameron, Independent Liberal, Alberta.

Hon. L. P. Gelina, Liberal, Quebec. Hon. D. A. Lang, Liberal, Ontario. Hon. H. A. Willis, Progressive Conserv-

ative, Ontario. Hon. M. Grattan O'Leary, Progressive

Conservative, Ontario. Here are the names of our Canadian

visitors from the House of Commons: Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, cochairman,

Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr. James Byrne, Liberal, British Co-

lumbia. Mr. Ovide Laflamme, Liberal, Quebec. Mr. A. J.P. Cameron, Liberal, Ontario. Mr. Herb Gray, Liberal, Ontario. Mr. G. Roy McWilliam, Liberal, New

Brunswick. Mr. H. A. Olson, Liberal, Alberta. Mr. Gaston Clermont, Liberal, Quebec. Mr. J. R. Comtois, Liberal, Quebec. Hon. Alvin Hamilton, P.C., Progres-

sive Conservative, Saskatchewan. Hon. Marcel Lamber, P.C., Progres

sive Conservative, Alberta~ Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, Progressive Con

servative, Ontario. Mr . . Robert Coates, Progressive Con

servative, Nova Scotia. Mr. Heath Macquarrie, Progressive

Conservative, Prince Edward Island. Mr. Heward Grafftey, Progressive Con

servative, Quebec. Mr. Roger Regimbal, Progressive Con-

servative, Quebec. · Mr. Andrew Brewin, New Democrat,

Ontario. · · Mr. David Lewis, New Democrat, On

tario. · Mr. c. A. Gauthier, Ralllement des

Creditistes, Quebec. Mr. Howard Johnston, Social Credit,

British Columbia. Senators will note that I have read

the names of several Canadian political parties. They have more than we do. They also have more candidates for Prime Minister of Canada.than we have for President of the United States. I believe they have 14 candidates for Prime Minister, and we have four or five candidates for President. So they are ahead of us there.

,Mr. President, we are very proud to have our Canadian friends visit us here today. They are attending the 11th meeting of the Canada-United -States Interparliamentary Group. We are discussing problems which, in most cases, turn out to be of mutual concern. Our visitors will be in Washington today and tomorrow, and I hope that every Senator will have the opportunity to meet them.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. AIKEN. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished minority leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], and myself, I wish to say, on behalf of the Senate, that we join in the welcome which the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont has just extended to our Canadian colleagues of the House of Commons and the Senate. It is good to have such neighbors among us. We learn more from them, I am sure, than they learn from us. We always find their advice and counsel is valuable. We know we can expect that in a hard and fast manner and on a bedrock basis. We feel we are the recipients of a basically sound and enduring friendship.

RECESS

So, Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from Vermont, the distinguished minority leader, myself, and all the Senate, and as a mark of respect and affection on the part of our colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 5 minutes for the purpose of having Members of the Senate greet our Canadian colleagues. [Applause, Senators rising.]


Thereupon, at (2 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess.

At 2 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m., the Senate reassembled, wlien called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. MONDALE in the chair).

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT The Senate resumed the consideration


Mr. SCOT!'. Mr. President, I commend the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct for advancing proposed standards of senatorial conduct in its excellent resolution and report. These proposals are in the finest tradition of the Senate. The committee, in my judgment, has ably succeeded in drawing a difflcUlt line between the need to open to public scrutiny the activities of a Senator as a public servant, while at the same time respecting those remaining rights of privacy assured to all persons.

Some have said that these proposals go too far and others have said they do not go far enough. I cannot accept either view. The committee has presented us with a well-argued and a well-documented report. I strongly endorse this effort and I shall support the proposed legislation.

Public disclosure of funds that come to us because we serve in the U.S. Senate

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7261 is altogether proper. We are obligated by our oath of office to conduct ourselves in ways that justify the respect and trust of the people who elected us to serve them. Standards of conduct which incorporate public disclosure of relevant financial interests help further that aim.

This legislation stems from the investigation by the Senate Rules Committee into the financial dealings of Bobby Baker, former secretary to the majority. As a member of that committee during the Baker investigation, I voiced my unequivocal support for the enactment by this body of a meaningful and equitable code of ethics.

Then, in May 1966, I submitted to the Senate leadership a memorandum recommending a procedure to govern disclosure of financial interests. When the select committee was established, I forwarded those proposals also to that group. They are, in many respects, similar to the proposals now before the Senate. The Baker investigation offered cogent reasons for adoption of a strong ethical code. The committee has provided us with one.

In my proposals to the leadership and to the select committee, I suggested that a Senator and his wife disclose their assets and liabilities. Such disclosure, if required by a code applicable to all Senators, can properly be viewed as the price a man should be willing to pay for having sought and attained high public office. It could be an added safeguard of ethical conduct. I supported such an amendment, which was narrowly defeated.

At the same time, I think it is 'vital that Senators not be forced to violate professional confidences. Such prof essional confidences, not inconsistent . with a Senator's duties, require a special trust-whether ·they be those of a Senator acting in a Pl,lrely private capacity or whether they are those of a citizen who holds no public office. A lawyer's relationship with his client, a doctor's treatment of a patient, have long been, now are, and should continue to remain legally protected relationships. The committee has wisely recognized the need to distinguish between what should be made public and what should be held in confidence unless and until allegations of wrongdoing warrant Senate inquiry.

While the committee's approach has insured the right of privacy to Senators as citizens, it has also insured that the public trust is protected. The material that a Senator would submit to the Comptroller · General under the . select committee's proposals is indeed comprehensive. It includes such personal financial details as his income tax return, legal fees in excess of $1,000, and the source and value of all gifts. At the same time, the manner of the filing protects Senators against political opponents who might seize upon an item out of context to create, for political purposes, a temporary sensational interest not, perhaps, warranted by the facts. Be it noted that a Senator's opponent if he were not a Member of the Senate, would not have to make such a filing of his own financial affairs.

This is a commonsense approach to the problem. It is the one that has been adopted for Federal employees gener-

ally to avoid, in the executive branch of Government, conflicts of interest and financial misconduct. The procedure adopted for Federal employees does not provide for the public to see confidential financial reports. The same guideline should logically be followed for legislators and legislative employees.

Mr. President, the committee has done its work well. It has found an approach to the vexing problem of formulating a viable code of ethical standards that is sound and that is fair. It has managed to uphold the necessary safeguards of privacy in those limited areas of legitimate privacy. · It has my full support.

Mr. CANNON obtained the floor. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield? Mr. CANNON. I yield to the majority

leader. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] be laid aside temporarily, so that the Senate may consider the amendment to be offered by the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON].


AMENDMENT NO. 630

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 630.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Nevada will be stated.

The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment (No. 630) is as follows:

On page 4, line 3, after the word "Senator," and on page 5, line 17, after the word "Senator," and on page 7, line 23, after the word "Senator," insert the following: "or person who has declared or otherwise . made known his intention to seek nomination or election, or who has filed papers or petitions for nomination or election, or on whose behalf a declaration or nominating paper or petition has been made or filed, or who has otherwise, directly or indirectly, manifested his intention to seek nomination or election, pursuant to State law, to the office of United States Senator."

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the distinguished majority leader, without losing my right to the floor.


UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 1 hour on the pending amendment, to be equally divided bet.ween the author of the amendment [Mr. CANNON] and the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi [~r. ST~NNISJ.

The PRESIDING 0FFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request? Without objection, the agreement is entered.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. How

much time does the Senator yield himself?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

For the benefit of Senators who are present in the Chamber, I want to say that I do not intend to use all of the time that has been allowed under the unanimous-consent agreement.

This amendment is a very simple one. It is intended to perfect Senate Resolution 266 in its application to those persons who would be affected by proposed new Senate ·rules XLII, XLIII, and XLIV in the pending resolution.

It is my position that candidates for nomination or election should be required to comply with the provisions of these rules even as present incumbents of the Senate are required to comply.

Each adversary in a senatorial election campaign should have available information concerning the business and financial interests of all his opponents.

To deny to an incumbent the right to know as much data about his opponent as is required by Senate Resolution 266 from the incumbent would be obviously unfair and discriminatory.

This language simply makes that change, and no other. It makes the resolution apply to a person who is a candidate for the office of Senator. It defines a candidate as a person who has declared or otherwise made known his intention to seek nomination or election, or who has filed papers or petitions for nomination or election, or on whose behalf a declaration or nomjnating paper or petition has been made or filed, or who has otherwise, directly or indirectly, manifested his intention to seek nomination or election, pursuant to State law. to the office of U.S. Senator.

The other day during the debate the question was raised as to whether or not the Senate had the authority to do such a thing as this, because a man who is not an incumbent is not a Senator, and we are modifying Senate rules.

Mr. President, I wish to lay that ghost to rest once and for all. The Senate has already decided that particular point, as has also the Supreme Court. In the case of Wilson against Vare, of Pennsylvania, which was a contest of the right to be seated in the Senate, the constitutional questions involved in the case included the extent to which "the Senate may exercise its judicial power to judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its "Members," and whether such jurisdiction could be extended to include a "Member" elect who was not yet seated, under the Senate's authoriiy under article I, section 5, of the Constitution.

In that case, the Senate made its decision very clear; and during .the time that case was being considered, I might add, the Supreme Court came out with its decision in the Cunningham case.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we make a new start here? I do not make the point that the Senator is out of order; I am just saying we cannot pear what is going on, we cannot hear the speaker, we cannot concentrate, he does

7262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE M~rch 21, ·· 1968

not have a .chance to .make himself understood, and I want to hear him myself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Se:p.;;1,tor from .Mississippi is correct. The Sen-ate will be in order. .

Mr. CANNON. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, in the Cunningham case, in which, as I say, the Supreme Court came out with its decision at the time the Senate was considering the case of Wilson against Vare, the Supreme Court said:

. When a Senator-elect presents himself to the Senate with a certificate of election claiming the right of membership, the jurisdiction of the Senate to determine the claimant's right is invoked and the Senate's power to adjudicate such right immediately attaches by virtue of § 5 of article I o! the Constitution, and whether the credentials should be accepted and the oath administered, pending this adjudication, is a matter within the discretion of the Senate. It was further held that the refusal of the Senate to seat a claimant pending investigation does not deprive the State of its "equal suffrage in the Senate" within the meaning of article V of the Constitution.

The cases are legion on that particular point, Mr. President. Section 5 of article I of the Constitution reads as follows:

Each house shall be ~he judge of the elec:tions, returns and qualifications of its own members-

. I shall not read the remainder of the section.

The point has also been raised that here we have guidelines that an incumbent may not know about. Senators would know, because it would be a rule of the Senate. · I submit, Mr. President, that if a man intends to file for the office of U.S. Senator, he will try to check to find out what the guidelines are; otherwise he would not be concerned with making such a filing.

The Senate has also decided on that point. I am sorry that the distinguished Senator from Maryland is not present. The case of Butler against Tydings, cited in "Senate Election, Expulsion, and Censure Cases," compiled as Senate Document No. 71 by the 87th Congress, which covers Senate election, expulsion, and censure cases from 1789 up to 1960, is clear authority for the fact that it is not even necessary to set up any specific standards as guide posts for a person who is seeking the office of U.S. Senator; and the Senate itself may determine whether or not the conduct which has been engaged in is or is not proper conduct.

I am going beyond that, Mr. President, and I am outlining here guidelines so that there could be no question about a man who is -going to be an incumbent, as to the things he must comply with; ,and I submit that, in all fairness, this s.mendment should be agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair asks the Senator from Nevada if he intended to have his amendments considered en bloc.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 630 be considered en bloc. It is simply to insert ·the proper language at the appropriate places in the resolution.

There is no other .change proposed, other than as I have explained here.

Mr. MUNDT. Do I understand the Senator, however, is still adhering to the purpose of the language in his amendment 630, rather than any other amendments?

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is correct. I am referring only to amendment No. 630. .



Mr. CANNON. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, the Senator is aware, is he not, that up to this point, the ethics of the Senate have been more or less the unwritten rule, which of course still will remain in effect, the rule generally accepted among people as to what would be right and what would be wrong? Perhaps the Senator was not here at the time, but did the Senator know of the fact that when Senator John Marshall Butler came here, there was some argument about certain things that were said in the campaign, and the propriety of certain charges made against former Senator Tydings in the Butler campaign? If I recall correctly, the Senator was required to take his oath without prejudice, on the basis that if the Senate after investigation wanted to challenge his seat, they had that right.

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is correct. Quite coincidentally, I noticed the distinguished former. Senator McFarland in the Chamber a few moments ago; and he was very much involved in that matter. As a matter of fact, Senator McFarland was the Senator who made the unanimous-consent request, which was as follows:

Mr. McFARLAND. ·Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the oath required by the Constitution and prescribed by law is administered to Mr. John Marshall Butler as a .Senator from the State of Maryland for the term beginning .January 3, 1951, _such action shall be deemed to be wit~out preju .. dice either to him or to the constitutional right or power of the Senate to take any action it may subsequently deem proper, pending the outcome of the investigation now being made by tbe Committee on Rules and Administration through a subcommittee into the 1950 election in said State.

In that case, the Senate, after investi-gation, decided: · ·

No ~pecifl.c standards of improper campaign conduct[s] or acts have been set up as guideposts. Only the provisions of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act exist and these deal principally with the financia1 phase of campaigning.

This argument was raised against my amendment the other day.

Since no standards exist, it would be grossly unfair now to formulate those standards "after the fact" for retroactive application and unseat Senator Butler on the basis of those "after the fact" formulated standards.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. ·

Mr. CANNON. I yield myself 2· additional minutes.

Then the committee went on to say

that it is not necessary to set up specific standards; the Senate can judge on the ordinary standards of conduct. There are also a number of cases that speak directly to that point. - Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield me 5 minutes, so that I may respond to the statement of the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I am happy t:> yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I state again, as I did the other day when we discussed this matter, that I am in complete sympathy with what the Senator is trying to do. I am very much concerned that his amendment is not capable of execution and enforcement.

Much of this is repetitious. I ask the Senator to repeat that part of his presentation wherein it is argued that a rule of the Senate may be applied and enforced against a person who is not ·a Member of the U.S. Senate, but is merely a candidate for the office. · Mr. CANNON. The case of Wilson against Vare, which I cited earlier, went to the proposition that the Senate has the authority to judge a Member-elect.

Mr. PEARSON. As to his qualificat ions?

Mr. CANNON. Under article I, section 5 of the Constitution, giving the Senate that authority.

That ·does n-ot limit it. It judges on whether he has the right to be sealted. and this is the thing that was considered in the Butler against Tydings case, because it was not a question of whether he met the constitutional requirements. The constitutional requirements are easy to meet. · Mr: PEARSON. The Senator is corre<:t. · Mr~ CANNON. It goes beyond that point. It" says, "Did he exceed what is normally considered the proper bounds?" In one of these cases, it went to the use of improper language. ·

Mr. PEARSON. Was it measured against whether there was an existing statute at that time? . · Mr. CANNON. There was none at that time, nor is there one at this time.

Mr. PEARSON. What was the conduct involved?

Mr. CANNON. The conduct involved was def amatory language. It is a kind of a long case. I could read it if the Senator feels it would be helpful.

Mr. PEARSON. No. Mr. CANNON. In the Wilson against

Vare case, there were a number of allegations charged against the right of the Senator-elect to be seated.

Then, at the end it is stated: The following obs-a:-vations may be drawn

from this case: 1. A Senator-elect, challenged as he wo.s

about to take the oath, stood aside upon the suggestion of the Vice .President.

2. This is an instance wherein the Senate declined to permit the oath to be administered to a Senator-elect pending the exa.tnination . of his qualifica.tions.

This do,es not have to do with the basic constitutional qualifications.

Mr. PEARSON. Nor does it have to do with the constitutional requirements.

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is correct. I continue to read from the case:

March 21,· 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7263 3. The right of a Senator-eleot to take the

oath having been denied pending an- investigation, the Senate by resolution conferred. on him the privilege of appearing on the floor in his own behalf.

4. The consideration of an elootion case ls a matter of the highest privilege.

5. This ls another instance wherein the Senate condemned the excessive use of money in a primary election.

Even though there was no .statutory prohibition, the Senate condemned the use of excessive money in a primary election campaign. At that time there was an existing decision of the Supreme Court that said that the Corrupt Pract!ces Act could not be imposed _as a requirement with respect to primary elections from the Federal level.

There has since been a change in that respect, however. I think that those are the only points that need to be stated here. However, there are, as I say, many cases that stand for the basic propo.si-tion. · -

Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. STENNIS. Mr. Pr.esident, I yield

myself for 5 minutes. . · The PRESIDING O.FFICER. The Sen

ator from Mississippi is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, this is not by way of complaint at all, but this is a very .serious amendment that we are considering.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ate Chamber will be in order. ·

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, J: am referring now not to the noise, but to the empty chairs in the Senate Chamber. I do not know how to get over the meaning of these matters to the Senators who will cast their votes if I am forced to talk largely to empty chairs. However~ I do want the RECORD to show that these matters are highly important. They are matters that have been passed o:n mi:nutely by only six Senators.

I do not see how anyone can intelligently pass on these matters merely by walking in after the rollcall has already started and then making a guess as- to whether to vote yes or no.

I am not complaining about anything, but I do not see how that can be done ·unless there is some prima facie consideration and study given to what the committee has done about this measure.

The Senator from Nevada is a fine lawYer. I am privileged to serve on a committee with him. I know that he is sincere in all things, including this matter. He really thinks he has a valid case and that his suggestions should be attached to the pending resolution.

I very respectfully say to him that he has brought up an important matter, a matter of merit that is entitled to the utmost study and analysis and consideration by a committee that is versed in that part of the law and has studied the problem and taken testimony on it. However, with all deference to the Senator, his proposed amendments have no proper place in the pending resolution.

Mr. President, may we have order?° The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ate Chamber will be 1n order. . . Mr. STENNIS. The amendments of

CXIV--458-Part 6

the Senator from Nevada have no place in the pending r.esolution·. - - -

It' is-true that the Constitutfon provides exactly what the Senator says that it provldes, and that that applies to a very broad field. However, so far as it giving the power to legislate here in the Senate alone about what the ·preelection campaign qualifi-cations will be for someone who wants to run for an office is concerned, it just does not have the proper application.

I think there is no doubt about it. If anyone wants to contest it at law, he can get a declaratory judgment declaring this matter to be invalid and make the Senate look a little foolish for adopting such amendm'ents. ·

Mr. President, I wish the Chair would arrange to get some order over there from our friends who are not Members of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.

There will be order in the Chamber. The attaches are advised that they must remain silent or leave immediately. The people in the galleries, guests of the Senate, are invited to refrain from any noise.

The Senator from Mississippi may proceed.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. The rule we are acting under gets all of its authority from the resolution that created the committee. And the provision we are operating under states:

Such additional rules and regulations as the Select Committee shall determine to be necessary or desirable to insure proper standards of conduct by Members of the Senate-

That means, of course, the rules that govern the operation of the Senate, the Members of the Senate, and the officers and employees of the Senate.

I continue to read: in the performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities.

That refers to their duties and respon·sibilities as Senators, of course. There is no scintilla of authority established here ·concerning anyone who is not a Senator or anyone whose conduct has riever been brought into question .or into review, or is even subject to the rules of the Senate.

We are reaching out here into a field that we are not authorized to enter.

The Senate should not consider a matter of this kind, which is in effect legislating outside of the rules of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. . Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. S'I'ENNIS. Mr. President, if we were to embark on a course such as that 'suggested, we would be going into fields that can be effected only by the passage of a law by both-Houses of Congress that is thereafter signed by the President of the United States.

So, laudable as it may be in content and in spite of the good -faith that the author of 'the proposed amendments may have, and as astute as he may be in con-

necting the ·matter t-o the legal platform that he is attempting ·to launch into anoth~r field, I think the · Senate ought to protect itself and the sanctity of its rules and respect its field of operations and not go into other· fields. I believe that we are compelled to reject the pending amendments to the pending resolution.

Mr. President, this is not meant to be personal. The Senator from Nevada exemplifies the soul, the body, and the heart of the Committee on Rules and Administration-as a member of which he performs outstanding service-which is vested with the direct responsibility in this field, under the operation of law. To attempt now to attacn this amendment to a rule of the Senate would make the Senate look rather ridiculous, and it would be going far afield.

I do .not believe the matter could be e~f orced. If we really wish to get at this matter-and I should like to see some:. thing cover it-the only way to do so is to enact a public law .in connection with the Corrupt Practices Act.

These are rules for the Senate, pertaining to the manner in which Senators conduct themselves· as they pass on legislation and as they regulate and control themselves. The reports that Senators would be required to make concern their conduct as Senators. We absoiutely can.not touch, topside -0r bottom, through a resolution such as this, -the rights and privileges of someone who is just a private citizen. It requires a law of the land to touch him. He is not a member of this body. We have no control over him. We have no right, alone, to pass. a law that affects him. The House of Representatives must concur. The President of the United States must concur or let it pass over his veto.

This is a question of stopping and looking before we leap. I emphasize that I do not question the sincerity of the Senator~ I believe there is merit in trying to get at this problem where it exists-but not on the floor of the Senate, by the simple rules adopted here, by a simple majority vote.

Mr. President, the proposed resolution will not even go to conference. If it is adopted by a one-vote margin of those who would be bound by it, it becomes the law. But ~t cannot be extended; and it would be a distortion of our system of legislation to try to extend it to someone .else. ·

I believe that Senators, before they vote, should get a true look at this matter and analyze what is being done. I have no doubt that then they will reject the amendment.

I hope a resolution is adopted which will have meaning and which will have the respect of the people of this Nation and wm · cover the subject matter as properly as can be done, without attempting to make it a cure-all.

I am very much concerned about our attaching this poultice which has no merit so far as legal standing is concerned. . I yield back the remainder of the 5 minutes.

The PRE.SIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?



Mr. President, it has been called to my attention that there is a misprint in the amendment, on line 9. The word "attention" should be "int.ention." It is a typographical error, and I ask unanimous consent that the word "attention" be corrected to read "intention."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the amendment is so modified.


The Senator has made a very good argument for the reasons why the committee does not wish · to make any changes in the resolution it has pro.,. posed. But I simply point out to the Senate that the resolution already has been changed.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. CANNON. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is badly

mistaken about that. The committee has examined several amendments and has told the .authors that we appreciat~ the substance and would want them as the sponsors.

Mr. CANNON. I was simply pointing out that the resolution already has been changed. The Senate adopted the rich man's amendment a few moments ago. So it is not a question of changes h.aving been made or not going to be made.

In the Wilson against Vare case-there can be no question about it; it is a reported case; it is a Senate document---:it is made clear that the Senate h.as the authority, under article I, section 5, of the Constitution, to determine the qualifications of a Member-elect to be seated in this body. The Senate has refused to seat Senators-elect who attempted to be seated in this body.

A Mr. Frank Smith-if I recall the reference correctly-,attempted to be seated, and the question was raised that he had spent too much money in the primary campaign. There was no law on the books, no Corrupt Practices Act prescribing the amount of money he could spend, and the Senate took the pasition that the man had spent .an undue amount of money and refused to seat him.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, with the Senator yield?

Mr. CANNON. I yield. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Will the Sena

tor give me some idea as to what rule or particular application of a rule is being proposed that the Senator believes should be applicable to a person, not presently a Member, who is seeking a seat in the House or in the Senate? ·

Mr. CANNON. The resolution proposed by the distinguished committee simply · provides that a Senator shall be required to do these things, and they propose adding three additional rules. These are new rules. They are not old rules; they are not presently in existence.

My amendment simply proposes to add that a man who is a candidate for the Senate must be bound by that rule.

As I have said, the Wilson against Vare case makes it clear that the Senate has the authority to judge the right of its Members or prospective Members to be

seated: The courts are unanimous in that opinion. They say that they will not interfere. They say it is solely within the jurisdiction of the Senate. There are many reported cases on that subject.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Does the Senator want the man to file a statement of his assets or to file his income tax return?

Mr. CANNON. Exactly the same requirements with which the Senator must comply under the proposed resolutionin other words, a disclosure of certain financial interests. He must make certain filings. He must file his income tax return with the Comptroller General so that it will be available for use if the committee decides to use it, if a contest is brought up and .they decide to check and to find out whether the man is entitled to be seated. It would impose on the candidate no requirements that would not be imposed on a Senator under the proposed resolution if the Senator is running for reelection.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The thought that occurs to me is that in the event that the Senate at some time in the future should vote for the public disclosure proposal, this should definitely be required of the opponent as well as the Senator; because if it is a matter of public interest to know everything a person owns and every item of income he has had for the last year or the last 10 years, it would seem to me that the public is equally entitled to know the same about his opponent.

Mr. CANNON. There is no question about t):lat.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CANNON. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. Under the provisions of

the committee resolution the income tax return would not be required until May 15, 1969. So this could not affect the forthcoming election. What could be filed? His honoraria? He would have to disclose that information.

Mr. CANNON. He could file exactly the same thing that a Senator would be required to file-no more, no less. And it does not matter. If it did not apply in this election, it would not apply to a Senator in this election either. The application would be uniform.

There is no intent or attempt to make an application one iota different from that which would apply to any Senator under the provisions of the proposed resolution that has been reported by the committee. ·

Mr. President, I submit that in all fairness this amendment should be adopted. The amendment would not require any.:. thing unfair of anybody.

I supported the amendment brought out by the committee and I say that it should be made applicable to people who are candidates for the office of Senator as much as it is to men who are in that office.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will tpe Sena tor yield? ·

Mr. STENNIS. I yield whatever time the Senator wishes. . Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will .the Senator yield to me for 5 minutes?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I wish to say to the Senator that the committee went into this matter. I do not think that we ever at any time looked for a restriction or requirement on the part of a Senator that we did not also look at the equity involved in having his potential opponent subject to the same rules.

I wish to cite page 14 of the committee report to indicate that this is precisely what was going through the minds of the committee members in reaching the conclusion at which the committee arrived. A part of the paragraph on page 14 reads:

That the rule applies only to Senators may cause concern that a candidate for Senator, who is not a Senator, will enjoy an advantage over his opponeIJ.t who is campaigning for reelection. The committee is sympathetic with this concern but can respond only that a candidate for Senator, who is not a Senator, could not be subjected to a rule of the Senate. The remedy, of course, is a public law, and the committee refers approvingly to S. 1880.

Mr. President, that is the statute which the distinguished Senator from Nevada managed on the floor of the Senate. I believe the vote was 84 to 0.

Mr. CANNON. Eighty-seven to nothing.

Mr. PEARSON. The House Ethics Committee, in its numerous recommendations, did recommend that there be substantial modifications to the Corrupt Practices Act. I believe they will consider the same issue in a ·day or two.

The proposed remedy that we can do something does not make it right that we do it. I do not contest the authority of the Senate. There will be no judicial review of what the Senate may do in an election con test.

·. I would hope that the Senator, who· is an expert in this field, would agree on that basls.

Mr. CANNON. I could not disagree more on that particular basis because the committee made a false assumption. I cited the case. There are other cases.

The committee said: The committee is sympathetic with this

concern but can respond only that a candidate for Senator who is not a Senator, could not be subjected to a rule of the Senate.

That is not the law and I have cited the case that said it is not.

The case provided that the Senate is the ~ole judge of thts man who comes in, as to whether or not he is to be seated . .

I submit that the statement is not correct as a matter of law, as the Senate has determined on previous occasions. ·

I thank the Senator for supparting me in connection with s. 1880, which was passed by a vooo of 87 to 0, and which is still languishing in the other body. That proposal would get at this particular matter. I was very much interested in that legislation and I am still interested in it.

I am saying that the Senate has authority to do this if it wants to . . That cannot be disputed in accordance with the laws on the books, the cases, .and the precedents in the Senate.

The question here is, Does the Senate

March ~1, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7265 want to .do it? Does the Senate want to treat differently a ' man who wants to be a Senator, and 'beat a Senator out bf his seat, than it treats a Senator? That is the ·problem.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?


Mr. PEARSON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I hop~ this amendment is rejected. I do not question the good intentions of the distinguished Senator from Nevada, but I do not think that this proposal can be dealt with under the Senate rules.

It is true that the Senate is the judge of its own Members and that all candidates must comply with the Corrupt Practices Act. We have amended that act in the Senate heretofore, and the measure is now pending in the House.

However, I question whether we can impose a rule of the Senate such as this, upon a candidate who is not a Member of the Senate. Suppose the candidate is defeated and refuses to comply. There is nothing we could do. The pending resolution deals with the conduct of Members of the Senate, and we shall not cloud the issue with extraneous matters.

Mr. President, I hope the amendment is defeated. I join the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Mississippi in urging that the Senate reject· this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who yields time?

Mr. PEARSON·. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 1 minute to me?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I concede to the Senator from Nevada that I looked at some of bis authorities. They relate to the point but there will not be found anywhere an instance where there was a candidate being responsible under a Senate rule when he was not a Member of this body.

I congratulate the Senator for his research and for the force of his argument. However, simply that you have the power to do it is not to concede that that is the way the Senate should proceed with tliis question today.

I thank the Senator. Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yield

1 minute to myself in order to answer the Senator on that point.

It is not required that there be a rule to respond to the case of Frank Smith of Illinois. There was no rule. He submitted that he should be seated. The Senate said, "You spent too much money in your primary campaign." The Senate refused to seat him. There was no rule under the Corrupt Practices Act related to it.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada may have answered a questi.on that I propounded during the very few minutes I was distracted from his presentation. However, since·· the amendment could not be effective until

beyond the forthcoming elections, why does the Senator not undertake the passage of a law in the regular way and make it a part o~ the Corrupt Practices Act?

Mr. CANNON. I did undertake that course some time ago and the bill is now languishing in the other body. It has not seen the light of day yet and I am not sure it will. This proposal relates to Senators and it applies to people in this body; it would not apply to the other body. I did try that route and I did not get anywhere. I tried it several times before in years past and I met the same result.

Mr. STENNIS. As I understand the answer of the Senator, just because the bill was passed by the Senate and has failed to pass in the House is not a sign that we can run off and look the other way without letting the House or the President pass on the matter.

The Senator did not cite a single case that begins to show that the Senate in enacting its rules has the authority to pass what, in effect, would be a law, and wrap it around the neck of whoever might run against a Senator for office.

Mr. President, it is unthinkable that under our system today we could, in effect, acting alone, pac., a law that would apply all over the country with respect tu anyone who might aspire to the Senate. Surely we can pass on anyone, once a person is · elected.

As a young boy I remember the Smith case. I remember the holding here. The only charge was that he had spent too much money in his campaign. It was big money then. The amount involved was $458,000. Today more than that is spent in running for a statewide race or even in a congressional district, over and over again. It demonstrates how relative things are. It is about as pertinent as it is to pass a rule o! the Senate that would apply on the outside.


Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President,

the point that troubles me is not so much what the · committee recommended as amendments to the so-called code of ethics which ·may very well become a part of that code in the f:•ture. For example, there was one proposal that failed by only four votes, which I voted against, because I did not think it should be in here.

It has been said, "Make a public disclosure of every item of property owned and every item of income." If that were to become a part of the code it seems to me that the opponent, as a matter of ethics, should do the same thing. Of course, that provision ls not here, but looking to the day when that type of provision might be part of the Senate rules, it seems to me that should be available in connection with both cases.

Now if a man wants to run for the Senate, I personally do not see that he is at all prejudiced if he were asked to sign a confidential statement which could not prejudice him in any way with the Ethics Committee to which an incumbent Senator has already submitted such statement.

Mr. STENNIS. I agree with the Sen-

ator to the extent that it would be a valid requirement, and I think I would vote for it. But the Constitution of the United States declares that .all legislativ_e powers of the Government rest in the ·congress. The Congress-not the Senate or the House--but in both. That goes to the constitutional processes of the United States.

What is proposed as an amendment would not be passing on rules here for our conduct and operation as Senators. We would be reaching out to get the fellow who may run against us and say to him, "We have no authority to pass a law to affect you, but we will bring you in and put you under our rules even before you are ever elected."

We cannot do that. We do not have the authority to do that, except through legislation.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The fact is that we do, and have presumed to pass upon men who apply to be accepted as a Member. We did that with John Butler. I was not enthusiastic about it. I would not have voted to deny that man his seat based on what I knew about the circumstances. But we did vote to say, "All right, this man will take his seat, subject to challenge, because there is some question about the manner in which he was elected." That did not have anything to do with any law. It had to do with the fact that charges and allegations were made during the campaign which were considered to be questionable.

Mr. STENNIS. Once a man is elected and presents himself here, we can turn him down for any reason that we see fit. In that case, we are passing on a Senator elected, and we have jurisdiction, but if we try to tie up a private citizen, whoever he may be, and impose these · rules upon him, we have no right to do so. We cannot reach that far through this method. It has great popular appeal. There seems to be a sense of justice about it, but I do not think there is any doubt that it would make the Senate look a little silly to have this thing challenged and kicked out". The only reason we could give for doing it would be, "Well, we have to live by the rules, so we want everyone else to live by them, too." That is not enough.

Mr. President, for the time being, I yield back the remainder of the time I have allotted myself-but not all the time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. We will go slow, let me say to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, under the circum

stances, even though I regret very much that there is slight attendance in the Chamber at this moment to listen to this important matter, and I have no way to get Senators in here, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has now been yielded back.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment as modified, of the Senator from Nevada. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-

7266 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE March 21, 1'968

nounce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], tlle Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAuscHE], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. McINTYRE], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG] are absent on official business.

On this vote, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND]. If present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina .would vote "yea" and the Senator from Florida would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] is paired with the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL]. If present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island would vote "yea" and the Senator from Georgia would vote "nay."

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss] and the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH] would each vote "yea."

Mr. DIRKSEN. I announced that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], the Senators from California [Mr. KUCHEL and Mr. MURPHY] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. [MORTON] is detained on official business.

If present and voting, the Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY] would vote "nay."

On this vote, the Senator from California [Mr. KucHEL] is paired with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY]. If present and voting, the Senator from California would vote "yea" and the Senator from Illinois would vote "nay."


Allott Anderson Bayh Bible Brewster Burdick Byrd, W. Va. Cannon Case Clark Dodd Dominick Fannin Gruening Hartke

Aiken Baker Bartlett Bennett Boggs Brooke Byrd, Va. Carlson Cooper Cotton Curtis Dirksen Eastland

[No. 70 Leg.]

YEAS-45

Hill Morse Hollings Mundt Hruska Nelson Jackson Pell Javits Proxmire Jordan, N.C. Randolph Kennedy, Mass. Sparkman Long, La. Spong Magnuson Symington McClellan Talmadge McGee Tydings McGovern Williams, N.J. Miller Yarborough Mondale Young, N. Dak. Montoya Young, Ohio

NAYS-37

Ellender Fong Fulbright Gore Griffin Hansen Harris Hart Hayden Hickenlooper Jordan, Idaho Mansfield Metcalf

Monroney Muskie Pearson Prouty Ribicoff Scott Smith Stennis Thurmond Tower Williams, Del.

NOT VOTING-18 Church Kuchel Moss Ervin Lausche Murphy Hatfield Long, Mo. Pastore Holland McCarthy Percy Inouye Mcintyre Russell Kennedy, N.Y. Morton Smathers

So Mr. CANNON'S amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I move to lay that motion on the table.


AMENDMENT NO. 638

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 638, and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] proposes an amendment, identified as No. 638, as follows:

On page 5, line 13, insert the following sentence immediately after the period: "This prohibition does not apply to any assistant to a Senator who has been designated by that Senator to perform any of the functions described in the first sentence of this pp,ragraph if such designation has been made in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Senate."

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I decided to offer this amendment when we were having a discussion the other day about the right to have people have information. The statement was made that if a staff member was handling a Senator's contributions, he could be taken off ·the payroll forthwith.

That shocked me a little bit. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON] was also somewhat surprised, I believe.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we have Senators asked to remain quiet?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will remain quiet. Attaches will remain quiet. Persons in the galleries are advised that they are here as guests of the Senate. The Senate will be in order.

The Senator from New Mexico may proceed.

Mr. ANDERSON. As I have stated, it was suggested that a man could be summarily taken off the payroll. I am not worried about that from the standpoint of my situation. My administrative assistant has been on the payroll 2:C years, and has considerable seniority. But to provide that such employees be taken off the payroll completely during the campaign, I think, would be a very bad move. We have asked several Senators and staff members for their judgment, and they concur in the belief that it would be very unwise. If a man is deserving, he should remain on the payroll.

In many cases, no one is better qualified, as has been suggested, to know, under the rules and regulations, whether offers of assistance are valid and bona fide, and should be accepted.

For example, during one of my election campaigns, one day, I was told by a member of my staff that a man wanted to give me $5,000.

I said:

Who in the world could that be? I don't know who he would be.

It turned out to be Billie Sol Estes. Of course, I did not know him, and

that was the end of it. I did not accept the contribution he offered.

Our administrative assistants know who these people are, whether they are lobbyists or not, and whether one could accept their gifts appropriately or not. I think there should be one person in a Senator's office at all times who can be entrusted with that responsibility.

I do not wish to argue the point. I simply believe that such an administrative assistant should be permitted to remain on the payroll. It is purely a question of somebody in the office knowing the correct thing to do. I am sure that Senators who have administrative assistants would wish to protect them; and they can protect them in this way. If the interests of the administrative assistants are not protected, and they should be even temporarily removed from the Senate payroll, several things expire, including their life insurance benefits, and their health benefits.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, has there been an agreement as to time on this amendment?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no time agreement.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I think this is a matter of interest to every Senator, and involves a far-reaching question. I certainly would like to have the attention of all Senators who are present. I believe it is a matter about which every Senator ought to be fully informed.

There is another amendment on the same subject matter, offered by the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr . . MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may clarify that?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. I have had numerous dis

cussions with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and members of his staff. We both seek to do the same thing. I think his language does it more clearly and neatly than mine; so I shall not off er my amendment in the event his is agreed to.

Mr. ANDERSON. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. STENNIS. That was the information I wanted to elicit.

The Senator from Maine has also mentioned this subject matter. I am not suggesting that we can accept this amendment, but let us find out where we are and see just what is involved. Is the Senator from Maine familiar with the amendment?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I am; and may I say to the Senator from Mississippi that I have discussed this problem with the distinguished Senator from California [Mr. MURPHY], who is interested in the problem as chairman of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, as I am interested in it in my capacity as chairman on our side. Senator ANDERSON has been interested in the problem, and Senator MUNDT.

On the staff level, I think all four of us have reached agreement that the Anderson amendment is a reasonable

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7267 approach to the problem, and we would like to discuss the issue around that amendment.

Mr. STENNIS. I think that is a contribution to the debate, and I thank the Senator from Maine.

Also, Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS] has an amendment on this subject matter. He is detained from the Chamber at the moment, but I have here a memorandum from the Senator from Nebraska, saying that he would not insist on offering his amendment, because its subject matter is covered by others dealing with the same problem.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. My junior colleague

[Mr. MONTOYA] is now present in the Chamber. I am sure that any person in our State could ask us, if there were any questions at all as to the propriety of any person in our State donating money. Senator MONTOYA or I would know, since ours is a relatively small State; but I do not agree in principle with a person who has been an employee of the Senate for, say, 20 years, facing the prospect of suddenly being cut off.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes, Mr. President, I know this is a far-reaching amendment, and its adoption would be a major exception to the recommendations of the committee on a major point.

I propose now to state the background of that part of our resolution that touches upon this subject, and state the reasons why it was written as it was, and what we had in mind.

I do not like to call names, but this rule XLIII, beginning at the top of page 5, was prompted in the beginning by, and the subject matter of it goes back to, the Baker case, which has been before this body a long time, as Senators know.

We started off, as I say, with the idea of limiting political fund activity by officers and employees of the Senate. Of course, the gentleman I have named, as all of us recall, was an officer of the Senate. This rule would take all officers of the Senate out of the area of political activity so far as money was concerned. In that sense it is a money amendment. It deals with their activities in connection with the matter, and the prohibition is strong. The manner in which it is written covers the field fully so far as campaign expenses are concerned.

As used here, campaign means campaign for reelection and the question of when it starts varies with the State law primarily for nominations, and that varies from a few weeks to 2 or 3 months. However, the State law is what controls.

In some places whenever a person announces, his campaign is supposed to start in that State legally and it is subject to that State's Corrupt Practices Act.

All we can do is call it a campaign, and the State law will settle it, and the Federal law will help to settle it, although it applies only under general elections. That prohibition is absolute.

I come now into another category. I hav~ seen members of the staff and of Senate committees out campaigning and

soliciting funds many times. And all of us Senate t.o have albsolute control of that have. . situation.

We therefore put an absolute prohibi- · ·1 am not saying that someone other tion on that, and the amendment offered than the candidate could not do a better by the distinguished Senator from New job in the State or that the candidate Mexico does not touch those first two could do a better job than the adminisparts. trative assistant. Perhaps the candidate

In an effort during the campaign to would not do quite as good a job, the way take the money raising away from the I see it. Senate committees and from the feder- As a Member of the Senate, it is my ally paid employees of the Senate and judgment thaJt it would be a mighty good from the Senate, we decided to let the move for a Senator who is a candidate ban apply t.o all members of Senators' to let that duty and responsibility :fall staffs for that limited period only. We upon other than his staff members and did not require anything about anybody let someone else take care of campaign going off the payroll. That suggestion funds and not use people paid for by the came from someone else. We did not ·Federal Government for such purposes. touch that. I may be limited in my ideas abowt

We said that if an employee is paid those things, but that is the way I see it. by the Federal Government during the And I think the other members of the course of this campaign, he will not be committee have seen it that way. permitted to solicit, receive, be the cus- I know that in some cases perhaps an todian of, or distribute any funds in con- administrative assistant will do a better nection with the campaign for the nomi- job because of his familiarity with the nation or the election. So, that reached situation. He knows the people and the into the point of loosening it up enough situation very well. There is nothing to make someone eligible to receive those wrong with his doing that as far as he funds for transmittal only. And that is 'or the Senator is concerned. However, why we put this little exception in here. the administrative assistant is a Federal

This prohibition does not apply to an employee and is acting in that capacity assistant to a Senator if the assistant while he is on the Federal payroll. We with the approval of the Senator receives believe that it is better to get such duties the funds solely to transmit them either away from these people in such circumto the candidate or to the treasurer of a stances. political committee. In other words, he I have been told that there are some can pass them on t.o the Senator or di- -hardship cases. I am not suggesting that ·rectly to the political committee, and anyone take the floor at this time. I know when it goes to the political committee, that among others the Senator from it is under the Corrupt Practices Act. Maine and the Senator from South That is protected by law there. Of course, Dakota have talked to me. I think this we were not suggesting any skulduggery is a matter that we should discuss. This on the part of. anyone, but our purpose is not a football game or a skirmish or a after weighing all of this was to prohibit case of someone trying to make a score. it at those levels for campaign purposes We need counsel on this matter from only. everybody at this point, and I will listen

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will with interest to the debate. the Senator yield? It seems to me, if I may say so to the

Mr. STENNIS. I yield. distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, the that if this provision is to be the law, it

Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] ought to be limited to every employee, just left the Chamber. I think he must and not just staff members. It should have at least 35 or 40 members on his include everybody. staff. The law provides what he shall do. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I think The Senator from New York probably the Anderson amendment should be has somebody on his staff to check care- agreed to. If we read carefully the lanfully on these matters so that he knows guage of the bill, this is what it says: what is to be done. The administrative No officer or employee whose salary is paid assistant generally knows. by the senate may receive, ...

I am merely trying to say that in my own campaign I would like to have my That is where the first comma comes administrative assistant see that we are in. complying with the law. We have had If no officer or employee whose salary various suggestions about this. is paid by the Senate may receive funds,

I can recall when the able Senator what do I do about the office in Chicago? from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN], the able I have a staff there, and I have an office Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF], in Centralia, Ill., downstate. and I and one or two others went down If a person comes into the office and to talk about the case that occurred in says, "I want to contribute a $10 bill t.o the Senate about 5 years ago involving a your boss' campaign," what do we do? Senate employee. . He is not my assistant. He is a clerk. He

I said that we had better punish him has the status of ,a clerk under legislative severely because he was doing wrong. I appropriations. However, he cannot rethink that we should watch who the peo- ceive it because there is only a single exple are who are collecting funds and this ception here. That provides: is the way to do it. This prohibition does not apply to an as-

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. We sistant to a Senator if the assistant, with realize that this is a severe rule that has the express approval of the Senator, receives drastic application for the time being the funds solely to transmit them ... and that it applies during the campaign. He is not my assistant. But what would However, thaJt is the only way for the I think if a person· o'f good will comes in

7268 CONGRESSIONAL:- RECORD - - SENA1'E Mar-ch -21; 1968

and lays $10 or $20 on the desk and he says, "This- is for · your boss,- and here's my pame. and address. imd you can re-port it"Z -, . .

But under the conµnitte~ res_olution. he cannot do _it. Now look _at the fix you are in . .

It_ goes further and says he cannot solicit. None of them can. Well, a friend goes along the street. and runs into one of my clerks. He says, "How's the boss getting along?''

"He>s doing pretty well." "Does hi need any money for his cam:

paign ?" "Have you ever s~n the time when

there's a substitute. fqr money in _a PQli-tical campaign?" _

'"Well, I gather from that that rpaybe he could use a little. So here's a hundred forhfm. 11 • · •

Well. it may not be a solicitation, but it would make an awfully fine point if he were hauled before a judge. So he cannot do it:

He cannot be the custodian of any funds. How long do you have to have them in your hand to make you a custodian? overnight? Well, people will come in and leave a little money for my campaign. I do not want to take it home, and I do not want it on my person; and if it is a cheek, I do not want to endorsEnt.

- And I leave it with my force. They have been with me almost from the day I started in the House of Representatives-a third of a century ago-and they are as honest as gold. I will put this much of my arm or more in the fire for any one of them any time.

But a little contribution comes in over Thursday night, and we are going to take a recess until Monday morning. Well, is he or she a custodian of those funds? Certainly is. And, of course, that makes this a legal violation.

And they cannot distribute any of the funds. I do not quarrel too much with the distnoution, because they never do, anyway, unless I order them to.

It says ''any funds." One dollar. Any funds. Cannot receive, cannot solicit, cannot be a custodian. They will be immobilized out there in that big city on the lake. I have to depend on them. They are my eyes and ears. In a State with nearly 11 million people, what do you do?

What do you do in Washington, and in any other office you have to maintain, particularly when you have a large staff? And you have to have a large staff to look after that many people.

So all these things cannot be done. You have your hands tied. I do not know what kind of instructions I would give them.

This prohibition does not apply to an assistant to a Senator if the assistant, with the express approval of the Senator, receives the funds solely to transmit. Three people out there in that office, and the man who runs the office is out. He may be gone for a couple of days. Who knows? Somebody comes in and gives to one of the young ladies a campaign contribution. He does not like to be tjding up that elevl;l,tor to the 17th floor of a new building in the Chicago Loop when he has an envelope in his

pocke.t. with a check and -his name and he wants to lay it down.

-"This is for the .Sena.tor."- . . Shall I. t..eil her, "You can't take it,."

_and tell her to tell him .to come_ back? What · kind of business is it? The real

problem here is whether or not you hire people whom you can trust in the first instance. And if you cannot trust them, you ought to get rid of them. That is the easy answer to that sort of thing. And so here only one man could be designated. If that amendment had not been offered by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I would have offered it, because I have it here in the pile. As a matter of practical weakness, we saw this.

Now, it is said, of course, that they receive their pay out of Federal funds. Sure, they do. And so do all the people on the executive payroll. Do you think they are quite so reticent about it when it crunes to working for their party? Certainly not. And while these people are on the payroll, they are my people, and r like to have them help me. But do I say, "Now, look, all go home, like good boys and girls, until the campaign is over, win, lose, or draw"? Do I say, "The rules now say, according to the Senate, that for practical purposes I cannot be helped"'?

If you are going to do this, then why not go a step further and not let a single campaign letter go out of your office? And r do not mean on campaign stationery, anyway. People write you and say, "Just heard you are going to be a candidate for reelection."

When you answer them, you are answering in a political vein. And if you say one kind word about yourself or happen to insert a little dodger from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that makes you look as if you are worthy of the gift of the bust of Socrates, which I got the other night downtown, why, that is campaigning, and that puts a political stamp on it. And there your hands are tied. Are we coming to that? It would be an amazing business.

No, I think the American people appreciate that in this political spectrum there has to be a little flexibility, and there can be, without corrupting the American system.

It is a question of keeping fraud out of it, and good people will not be tainted by fraud, and that is where it starts. But do not handcuff a man who has served honorably and wants to present himself again to the electorate for their franchise, if they are willing. Do not tie his hands and prevent him from having the benefit and the use of the people who know him best, who have lived with him and have seen him in his hours of agony and triumph, and his hours of weakness and glory, and his hours when he showed feet of clay and showed a temper. They know him, and they know what makes him tick. And if they do not know, nobody knows.

For- m~. whatever I ];lave done or said is an open book to my staff. I have perfect and implicit confidence in them. But this resolution would tie my hands, and, it would tie the hands 'of others. ·

So the Anderson amendment should be adopted, even though these people are paid out of publi~ funds, because

those funds were made . possible b.y -0ur own vote. .when we · voted legislative appropriations. And if we did not want to do it, that· is when we should . have started, not now.

Mr. BENNETT . . Mr. President (Mr. BYRD of Virginia in the chair), as a member of the committee, I recognize the difficulty of handling -this problem, but I wonder if Senator ANDERSON really means to do what his amendment proposesr

May I read it? This prohibition does not apply to any-

I underline "any"-assistant to a Senator who has been designated by that Senator to perform any of the functions described in the first sentence of this paragraph if such designation has been made in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Senate.

As a Senator, I have 12 or 13 persons on my staff. As I read the language, I can designate any of them, which means all of them. I can send the name of every member of my staff to the Secretary of the Senate, and then any one of them can perform any function with respect to fundraising. So the· Senator from New Mexico might just as well have proposed to strike _rule XLIII, because the language of his amendment opens the door so completely that apy attempt to restrict or control the fundraising_ ae' tivities of members of a Senator's staff would l;>e eliminated.

Now I had better back up, because the amendment of the Senator- from New Mexico does not lift the prohibition on employees-of the Senate or employees of Senate committees. So what I have said is not completely accurate; but it is accurate, I think, with respect to the mem:.. bers of a Senator's staff. I think I could qualify a stenographer on my staff as "any assistant," because the word "assistant'' is not capitalized; . it does not refer specifically to a particular person.

The effect of the amendment, if it were adopted, would be to say that there is no limitation on the use by a Senator of any member of his staff for any facet of fundraising.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ·

Mr. BENNET!'. I am glad to yield. Mr. MUSKIE. I think I can speak for

all Senators who participated in drafting the amendment. The Senator from Utah has properly, I think, interpreted its legal effect, but the intent is to impose responsibility upon individual Senators to exercise restraint. There was some discussion about setting a limit of numbers, 'but such a limit would vary, obviously, as between a State like mine and a State like New York or Illinois or California.

It was our judgment that Senators are fully capable of exercising restraint and being responsible, and if they tend to be less restrained than we think they should be, the fact that they must designate the staff people and file their names with the Secretary of the Senate is going to inhibit any Senator from filing a list of his entire staff which is open to the press and the public view.

I think there wili' be _the pressures of

I ;

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7269 pubUc disclosure, which is the· principal use by the committee in respect to the Senator's personal :finances. Perhaps the public disclosure would operate in an inhibiting way with respect to this problem as with respect to the Senator's personal :finances. That is the theory behind the amendment.

I have no objection to the validity of this argument being debated, but it is not the intent of those who framed the amendment to open the door to unlimited registration of staff people to this purpose.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend until we have order in the galleries.

The Senate will be in order. Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator agree

that he used the word in the legal sense; and that this is possible under the amendment? It might not be good public relations, but it is possible.

Mr. MUSKIE. I agree, but I wanted the Senator to understand our· theory. The Senator explained the inhibiting principle with respect to disclosure of personal :finances; we think the same principle can be applied in this manner.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me so that I may address a question to the Senator from Maine?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. When this instrument,

which it is proposed would be filed with the Secretary of the Senate, is :filed, is it going to be kept on file there for some great time, and is it going to be publicly disclosed? What would the Senator have in mind?

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I think it should be publicly disclosed and available to public view at any time and at the request of anybody.

Mr. STENNIS. To close this question out, it could well provide that it would be a public record.

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Mr. STENNIS. Would the Senator

am.end his amendment to that effect? It is a matter that might need clarification.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me. Mr. BENNETT. I have made my point.

In light of the Bobby Baker situation the committee has been struggling with this problem of how to put some restriction on the :financial activity of employees of the Senrute, the committees, and the staffs. Now we have an amendment which would wipe away all restrictions legally upon any employee or a Senator's staff simply by taking the list down to the Secretary of the Senate.

If this is what the Senate wishes to do, that is fine; but there would be removed any opportunity on the part of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct to make any criticism of any activity by any employee of a Senator because this proposal would give him a right to provide a blanket authorization . to every member of his staff.

Mr. DffiKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNET!'. I yield. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, actually

there is no such safeguard in existence today as far as filing with the Secretary of the Senate a list of who is authorized to solicit and receive and be custodian. There is no such provision today, and if

a person. in my employ went around to · Filed with the Secretary . of the Senate solicit, the person he sglicits could call and made available for public inspection. up the Secretary of the Senate and say, Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in re"Is he authorized to do so?" There is no sponse to the question of the distinsuch safeguard at all today. That is the guished Senator from Mississippi, the reason for requiring it to be filed with staff member is working on language to the Secretary of the Senate. . accomplish what the Senator suggested.

Mr. President, I make the additional I think all Senators who are interested point that I cannot imagine any Member in the amendment would be agreeable of this body who would be so careless as to its adoption when completed. to willy-nilly designate everybody under Mr. MUNDT. I do not think we should the sun to be the custodian and solicitor leave dangling whether we have cenof campaign funds. After all, it is fraught sorship in the office of the Secretary of with importance. There is an element of the Senate. If we do, perhaps we should surety involved. I think the Senator from amend the rules of the Senate. I have New York made that point the other day assumed such reports were not alone for and he probably will make it again to- his personal inspection. Certainly if that morrow before we finish. is so, we can correct it.

Therefore, in this relationship, you Now, Mr. President, to go to the have a responsibility for it. I cannot utterly unrealistic argument of my imagine anyone who would forsake that friend from Utah. responsibility and handle it carelessly by When he says that a Senator under appointing everybody on his staff. the Anderson amendment can :file a list

All I have in mind, and I think all · that the Senator from New Mexico has of all his staff members wtth the Secre~

tary of the Senate and make them all in mind, would be people high up in the individual treasurers of his campaign office echelon in a Senator's employ con- activities, he underestimates a little bit veniently located so that they ~an serve the intelligence of the voters of the him. That would not mean anybody and everybody because if it did 1 would have country. I know that he underestimates to be designating a lot of people 1 would the intelligence of the voters of South not think of designating. Dakota. And I believe he does also of

Mr. BENNETT. I have made my point. Utah. This being a public document, I I think the amendment is very care- cannot conceive of any Senator, of anr lessly drawn. The matter started out yes- party, in any election going before the terday, I understand, trying to lift it so people and saying, "The following 17 that the Senator could designate an ad- people from my office are available to ministrative assistant. Now we have solicit funds and receive campaign funds reached the point where he could des- and make disbursements." It is ~ one ignate anybody. thing if we have to nursemaid ourselves,

I yield the floor. · but let us not insult the intelligence of Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I rise to the voters. So, I do not think it is at all

propound a parliamentary inquiry. realistic to assume that this particular The PRESIDING OFFICER. The feature is going to result in the whole-

Senator will state it. sale use of senatorial assistants as fund Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, a;re all in- raisers or campaign fiscal officers. We

struments :filed in writing with the Secre- have never had it up to the present time. tary of the Senate available for public I have never had more than a single inspection or does the Secretary of the member of my staff involved in the Senate have the right to decide which handling of campaign funds even withinstruments will be revealed to the pub- out a law. I recognize that I come from lie and which instruments will be con- a small State. I do not think they need cealed from the public? very many however in large States like

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Illinois, New York, or California. This Chair wishes to advise the Senator that shows however we should try to write that is not a proper parliamentary in- laws' for all our needs, not just for the quiry. The Chair does not make that in- small States. One staff member has been terpretation. enough for me; it might well require

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, it always more in larger States. has been my assumption that the Secre- Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the tary of the Senate did not wear two hats, Senator from South Dakota yield? one being the censor of Senate docu- Mr. MUNDT. I yield. ments. I had no doubt in my mind that Mr. STENNIS. Regarding the subject if you :filed an instrument in writing with matter of the Senator's point, our best the Secretary of the Senate it was avail- information is that the amendment able to all Senat.ors and to the public. would authorize about 1,700 additional

However, if there is doubt and if we people, making that many staff members cannot get a ruling by the Chair-and I eligible. am sure that everybody interested in this Mr. MUNDT. That means there would amendment has that in mind-let us put have to be 100 "simpletons" serving in in the language: the Senate, which we do not have.

And file with the Secretary of the Senate, Mr. STENNIS. I make that as a fairly who shall not continue the infamous prac- accurate estimate of the number of tice of censoring documents and keeping people. them from the public- Mr. MUNDT. And I make my own

If that is what he has been doing. I fairly accurate characterization of the do not say he has. In fact, I am confident kind of Senator who would be stupid he has not. Or perhaps we should put in enough t.o put that many people on his more pleasant and parliamentary Ian- payroll as :financial secretaries. guage. Therefore I suggest we change Mr. ANDERSON. If we had 1,700 peo-the amendment so as to provide: ple qualified, we could take the entire

7270 CONGRESSIONA1 ·RECORD-SENA TE March 21; -1968

list of employees in. the Senate, and if anyone wants to amend the rules so that they would be available to collect funds, I believe that would be impossible. We tried to cut it down to one person. The suggestion has been made that we should not tell people how it should go in large States like New York, Illinois, and California, who have different problems than I do in my State of New Mexico, and probably in the State of South Dakota. One person can do what he wants to. But when there are two or three in an office, and hundreds of volunteers, it. is hard to make them responsible for the accounts. The Senator should be responsible for the accounts.

Mr. MUNDT. I cannot believe that we would be interested in putting on that number of people. Going to the philosophy of the thing, I look with favor on much of what the committee has done. ~ think they have been a bit unrealistic on some points, as I said yesterday, and will say so again, when they bring in the . Cannon amendment~ that suggests that we pass a law on what the proper ethics should be for a public official and make it. applicable a:ll over town, all over the country to all Federal personnel at the decision or policymaking level That, would make sense~ That would be comprehensive. That would be an effective remedy. It would have the teeth of a. crocodile because it would be Federal Ia.w instead of the pious expressions of a resolution. . I am disturbed when my friends on the committee making such unrealistic. arguments that if we do pass the amendm~nt, they will have 1,700, that the Finance Committee chairmen and some Senators wm put on their list of campaign associates simply because it is legal to do so. It is legal now. I would like to have any Senator name a single. office in the Senate which has its whole staff out working on the solicitation of campaign funds. It is perfectly iegal to do so now-but happily Senators are not devoid of all aspects of good judgment.

Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will ~Id at that point, I _was trying to give him information as to the number that would be eligible. There are approximately 1,700 staff members on Senators" staffs--· ··Mr.MUNDT. I am not disputing the number.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from New Mexico is concerned about that figure. That is excluding the members of subcommittees and committees. I raise that point, that it seems to me it is not necessary to get involved with that many people, fine as they may be.

Mr. MUNDT. I want to get now to the basic philosophy of this legislation because I am afraid the committee is getting itself into the position of having some pride of authorship in having· written the final word on the subject, which I think is wrong fol" any committee to do on any subject befor~ the Senate.

I applaud the Senator from Mississippi~s saying, "let us discuss the question; we do not know what the problems are in all the offices,. · so let us work together."

The Bobby Baker thing keeps cropping up. That is the i:eason everyone fav-

oring this particular-rule gives for writing it. Unfortunately, the Bobby Baker thing could have occurred if this rule had been written into the Iaw, because Bobby Baker's great derelictions were not, so far as I have been -able· to discover, that he was soliciting campaign funds for the election of his boss, his employer, or his employers-I am not mentioning any names, or anyone for whom he workedbut, as I said, his crime was that Bobby Baker was around collecting money for himself. He accumulated that $2 million fortune for himself. This proposed rule would not have stopped him with or without the Anderson amendment.

There is not a single word, or a paragraph, that would stop him from doing what he did.

As I said yesterday, we must not give this country a faise sense of security, telling the people we are doing something when we are not, as we do when we indicate that we are correcting the problems of' the Federal Government and public ethics by passing a resolution dealing with Senators only. As long as this legislation stays on realistic grounds, dealing with problems of self-discipline among ourselves, I can support it. I hope to support this legislation on its final passage. But Senators should carefully read that paragraph-I should like to be advised, and have the country advised, too, as to where there is anything in lines 4 to 13-that is the whole paragraph-that would have stopped Bobby Baker from building the Carousel, accumulating his real estate property, or making the $2 million.

Still that is the problem. If this is a bill to stop new Bobby Bakers from cropping up. the committee missed its target. It labored and worked on that tough assignment and, instead of bringing forth a mountain, brought forth a mouse.

It does not deal with the Baker offenses in any way in the paragraph before us. Maybe we cannot deal with it. I think we should try our best to do so. But it is not fair to say that we are correcting the problem of Bobby Baker by insisting that Senators serve as their own fiscal officers in a campaign. I think there is something pretty bad about compelling that, because we could develop a low-grade public morality if we compel every one of US' to accept money, write a receipt for the money, then write letters of appreciation for the money, and then write letters soliciting the· money, involving 'US deeply in fiscal affairs.

I did that in my first three campaigns. I was not sophisticated enough to know that one is supposed to have a finance committee, that other people would solicit his funds and contribute to a campaign. I financed the first two myself, along with a few of my real close and intimate friends. I lost the :first one and won the second~ When I ·got down to Washington, I said to myself, "This is going to be a good assignrnent. ''But I was surprised when I talked to the Internal Revenue Service man and · told him I did not have much of an income tax to pay because of. the costs involved in getting elected t.o Washington. .

He said, "I am sorry, _Congressman"! was there m t~e Hous~"you cannot

deduct the expenses of a campaign from your income tax."

I said, "You can't?" Was I surprised. "No," he said, "it cannot be done." So I went to talk to some old friends

and those who had been staying down here year after year, campaign after campaign, spending all this money and getting elected every time. They told me, '~No, we cannot make deductions from our income tax for campaign costs." Then they added, "But your finance committee takes care of those expenses."

I learned from that experience and began to set up, as all of us have to do, campaign chairmen and committees to raise funds. That did not work very well all the time because some of them would spend that money · in ways which I thought were utterly unwise and sometimes counterproductive.

One of · my early campaign committees-dear friends of mine-started to put a full-page ad in the paper saying that. my opponent was a. Communist. Well, he was not a Communist. :r never believed that he was. a Communist and I never said that he was a Communist. But, there they were, ready with an advertisement. sponsored by Committee for the Reelection of KARL MUNDT- or something like that, and with available funds for the advertisement raised by the finance committee. , I thought it. would be better if we would exercise a little better control of the funds that were spent. 1 learned a little more. I began to pick out a member of my staff and said. · "You will be the chairman of my :finance committee.'" He would make the report~ If solicitations were necessary, he would make them. We found it worked well. On a. few occasions, he said, 0 :KARL, we have a fellow who wants to give a couple of hundred dollars. I don't know him very well. He is not from our State. What do you think about it?"' I said,. "I believe that la the fellow who is: trying to have a. private bill passed for somebody. I am not sure. Let us see if it is: the same one.'"

If it was, we did not take the money. We do not want to be obligated in. any way. If I had someone outside my office as chairman of my campaign fund committee, he would not know. We would have some fellow coming around saying, "Look. I supported you. Now I want this help :for that support."

The cleanest money a candidate gets is when one opens up an envelope, 8ind this is very rare, containing $100 to $500 in currency and nothing else. Nobody can put an anonymous finger on me or you for an anonymous contribution. We can say, "What money are-you talking about? I did not get it. Perhaps it went astray in the mails."

A Senator can do a lot about controlling expenditures and contributions by making sure he is not getting receipts from the wrong sources, if he has a responsible member of his staff on that campaign fund committee or working with those who raise the. money on his campaign. Unless he has such a responsible associate or assumes the task himself,. he can virtually lose all control of the financial ~pects of his campaign.

/

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE '· 7271 I am not a lawYer, so I may not know

what one could do about a · situation where somebody sets himself up as chairman of a campaign committee who is not a representative of the Senator. He sets himself up for business. He may do something improper. Perhaps he accepts money from a corporation because he· is not familiar with the law, and about which you can do nothing unless it comes to your attention. Down here our staff people know the law and it would not happen.

Based on my experience, if one cannot select somebody from his office-in my case, I ·designate Bob Mccaughey, my administrative assistant, who handles the money . and-writes the checks and ·

- pays-the bills-then the Senator would have to run his own financial campaign, accept the money himself, and arrange the iinances, because he does not want somebody else ·putting an ad in the paper calling someone names. I want it known that the official campaign committee is headed by a person who has .some respansibiHty. I want it publicized and recognized as having his identity 1lled with the -Secretary of the Senate for l)ubllc inspection.

So I thirik, really thinking only in terms of our interest in clean politics and good ethics, the Anderson amendment is a much tighter regulation than the language :unrealistically contrived by the committee, and which I am happy to see the committee members themselves are not defending with vezy much vigor or enthusiasm. I think it is far better not to bring any more outsiders into a campaign than necessary, and to keep whatever .rules and regulations we write in su~h a framework that they will apply to people serving in the Senate who have a responsibiHty, whose names are known, who are covered .by our regulations. and who have the probity we expect from responsible l)Ublic servants.

I think the Ander.,SOn amendment is an improveme.n.t in the Senate resolution, and I shall support it.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr_ Piesident, I offer the following language as an amendment. consistent with the suggestion of the Senator, from Mississippi and the Senator from South Dakota. At the end of the Anderson amendment, I propose to add the following language:

The Secretary of the senate shall make the designation available ;for public inspection.

Mr. MUNDT. That is .all right with me. It makes clear our desires.

·The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize again the reasons which led the committee to recommend this rule. We do not say that the solicitation or the custody or the distribution of campaign funds is per se a wrong; that in any case or in every case it is corrupt or wrongful; but we had to draw on the experience the Senate has had in this field.

· Reference has been made to the Baker ease. It is a fact, of course, that Mr. Baker; according to t-estimony received by the Rules Committee. solicited, had custody of, and distributed campaign funds. Also, it was charged by some members of the Committee on Rules an.d Administration that he favored certain candidates in his distribution of funds.

I do not like to call attention to Members of the Senate, but in the matter concerning our colleague Senator DODD, there was evidence that some of his employees-and I do not say that he directed them to do so-had as one of their duties the collection of campaign funds.

As I have said, we do not imply that it would be corrupt for a Member to use an assistant to collect funds. But our resolution and report establishes money as a chief element of possible wrongdoing. The proposed rule seeks to a void situations of temptation or undue pressure upon an employee. We do not impugn the character of employees; they are just as good as any of us; but, because they are under the direction .of the Senate, they could be under pressure greater than would be directed to one of us. We tbought that to remove this element of possible corruption or evasion of the Corrupt Practices Act would be helpful to employees, to the Senate, to the Members, and enhance the trust in which we believe the Senate is held.

Employees, after all, are not only employees of the Senate. They are paid as we are by the taxpayers. It can be asked if it is proper for an employee who is paid by the taxpayers to be · employed as a campaign collector-perhaps in a campaign against other taxpayers.

The resolution in its very nature imposes restrictions upon existing pract1ces of the Senate. But the Senate gave us this job, and we thought that we had, at

The PRESIDING OFFJ:CER. Does the the least, to make a new start, and to Senator from.Maine offer that as a modi- correct som& practices. .fication ·of the Anderson amendment? We had to think not only of the Senate

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I off·er it as a itself but of the trust in which it is held modification. by the people.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the If the institutions of government are Senator from New Mexico offer that as not trusted, even though there may be no

actual basis that they should not be a modification? trusted so far as fact is concerned-but if

Mr. ANDERSON. I do offer it as a the appearance leads the people to doubt modification. and :mistrust the Senate, then the great .

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, may the element of confidence goes. It -was for language be read? these reasons that we agreed to offer this

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk rule, in the belief that it would not seri-will re.ad the modification. ously .affect a Member of the Senate and

The legislative clerk read as fo1lows: the actual transaction of his duties as a The Secretary of the senate shall make Senator, rather than as a campaigner,

, -the . designation available for public .and that it would strengthen public trust inspection. . in this institution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is o agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, on the floor of the Senate, the day before yesterday, I had a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct [Mr. STENNIS], and it w.as on the point under discussion. I would have been happier if the amendment had been drawn a little differently, but I did not have the opportunity to confer with those who were drawing it.

I think the amendment opens the door too wide. I think that the privilege of using one's staff should be restricted to a certain number. In most cases, I cannot picture any Senator wanting to use more than two or three members of his staff.

Mr. MU.SKIE. I thought the Senator might be interested in knowing that an amendment will be offered, which seems to have the support of those -who were responsible fur the original amendment, which will limit this exception to assistants of Senators who are compensated at a rate in excess of $10;000 a year. That would, I think, drastically reduce the number of potential designations.

In my case, I do not think I have more than three who would qualify under that limitation. Other Senators, of course, who have different salary scales, might find they had a larger number. But I think that that -kind of limitation would then bring it down to the range of problems represented by Senators .from small States and la,rge States, because the numbers we have been talking about are perhaps one in the case of a small State to as many as three or four in a State like New York.

I thought the Senator would like to know that such "'Rn amendment will be offered.

Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator for the information, and I think it will improve the resolution.

Despite the hard work and the good work that has been done by this .committee, it seems to me that I never have seen a whole body of representatives of the people so frightened to death by the occurrence of one isolated case. I have been hearing about the Bobby Baker case for the last 3 days. It is my understanding that action has been taken in that case, and that probably justice will be done. But this idea of 100 tJ.s. Senators hiding in the bushes and taking to oover, disrupting themselves and each other, because of some one instance when an official of the Senate allegedly did not live up to his obligations and indulged in practices not to be approved, s3ems rather pitiful.

A Senator's staff, so to speak, is his own immediate family. I think in most cases-I know_ in my case--that one's administrative assistant, the head of his staff, Js bound to be someone whom he has known, tried, and trusted for many years.

I cannot conceive of adopting a code of tj;hics that would restrict a Senator from using his most trusted and most closely associated assistant in his campaign in any way he chooses.

Senators' staffs are not subject to the


Hatch Act. The laws that we have enacted accept them, becaus·e everyone knows and recognizes that you cannot separate the official and the political duties of your staff. You cannot separate them on any day that you serve in the Senate. Someone writes you a letter and asks for an Agriculture Yearbook; and then, perhaps because he wants to be sure he gets the book, says, "You are a good Senator, and I want you to know I will be for you when you run again."

You dictate a letter to a member of your staff and say, "Under separate cover I am happy to send you a copy of the Agriculture Yearbook, and I am very grateful for your confidence and consideration, and to know that you are going to support me in the next campaign."

That letter is official, and that letter is political, and there is not an hour or a day that passes that a Senator does not have to use his staff for political purposes to one degree or another. That is why they were specifically exempted from the Hatch Act.

In my own case, I would not dare to authorize three or four members of my staff to deal with the finances of my campaign; but my administrative assistant knows, in my own State, who my friends are and whom I had better keep away from. He knows the ones it would not be wise or safe to accept contributions from.

In other words, to be unable to use such an aide, not only to receive but to solicit, is simply cutting off the right arm of a Senator. This never was even

· contemplated, when we passed the legislation on the subject, that such action should be taken.

Furthermore, if the laws of other States are like the laws of mine, a Senator is legally responsible when he accounts for every cent that is contributed to him and spent in his behalf, whether it was with or without his knowledge. No Senator who lives in a State with that kind of a statute will have any idea of putting the responsibility into the hands of any subordinate or member of his staff who has not been with him long years, and is not completely competent and trustworthy to receive or distribute money, because the Senator himself will be responsible before the law.

I think that this is a highly essential amendment. I think the resolution should be limited, and I am reassured to learn from the Senator from Maine that it will be limited. But I cannot believe-at least it is hard for me to believe-that we are so frightened because of the publicity attached to one case, and that we are so distrustful of the confidence that our own people have in us, we are going to tie our own hands, so that every time we open the door and walk into our offices, we will have to stop and think what is safe to say to one of our assistants, or what errand it is safe to commission a particular assistant to perform.

When you are in your State campaigning-and every Senator knows what that means-you are on the road day and night, traveling and speaking, and you have to have confidence in your close associates. You have to have somebody to watch the store.

Unless this exemption is made and completely made, we are needlessly and foolishly and ridiculously defeating our own just rights. And anyone who knows the workings of the Senate and of the political arena would laugh at us for doing it.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, the argument of the Senator from New Hampshire is not without merit. However, the committee and I know what the realities and practicalities are. The committee wanted to take fund raising and campaign contributions out of Senate offices. And we did it in this manner.

I do not think, -Nith all due deference to the Senator, that a group of 100 men is terribly frightened over one case. I think that every Member of the Senate is terribly concerned over what the country thinks of the U.S. Senate over one · case.

Whatever may be the merits or the logic of the pending amendment, or whatever the unsophisticated character of the people may be, i do not think that I would go to Topeka, Wichita, Olathe, or Garden City and go to the people walking down a street and s,ay: "Is it all right for JIM PEARSON to have a member of his Senate staff go out and solicit contributions for campaign use?" In a politically unsophisticated way the great majority of the people would tell me, "No.''

We .are talking about what the people think and about the restoration and the maintenance of confidence of the American people in the Senate as an institution of government.

One other point, and there is some precedent, although I cannot cite the statute. I believe there is on the books today a requirement prohibiting the solicitation and rcQeiving of campaign funds in Federal offices, in the Capitol.

It is very well to say that the staff is your business family, and I concur. They are the closest people to a Senator. They are in our offices and in our homes, too. Our offices are our business homes.

I think what we are doing here is an encumbrance, to be sure, on the easy and proper way to do many of the things we do in our political life. However, I think this is a very important part of this code of ethics. I think it ought to be maintained, and I am hopeful that the amendment will be supported by many Senators in whom I have such great confidence as U.S. Senators and gentlemen and as great Americans.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PEARSON. I yield. Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, was the

Senator present the day before yesterday when I had a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi?

Mr. PEARSON. I do not recall. I think I have been on the floor most of the time during the course of this debate.

Mr. COTTON. I will simply say in that connection that I expressed the hope that members of a Senator's staff should be excepted, at least a limited number of them. I also expressed the hope that the amendment would only apply to activities within the home State.

Mr. PEARSON. I recall that.

Mr. COTTON. I made that very specific. I thought that was important.

The public that worries the distinguished Senator from Kansas would be quite reassured, I think, if they knew that the Senator could not send any paid member of his staff around Washington or somewhere else to approach lobbyists and pick up money, but that the Senator was free to use that staff member in his home State. There certainly can be nothing wrong about fund solicitation under those circumstances, where it is done under the eyes of a Senator's own people who can see precisely what is going on.

Mr. PEARSON. Does the amendment now provide that it · shall apply only within the home State?

Mr. COTTON. No, and I regret that it does not.

Let me add that the State of Kansas, I am sure, is a much richer State than is the State of New Hampshire, and perhaps the Senator from Kansas would be interested only in large contributions.

My finance committee is headed by a banker. If anyone thinks that banker is going to trouble himself with running around and bothering with $5, $10, and $15 contributions, I point out that he is very unlikely to do that. The Senator knows who has to pick them up. And these contributions are important because the people want to give them and because after they have given them they have an investment in the campaign.

The person who does that is not the chairman of the Finance Committee, who is a lawYer or a banker-or someone who is not familiar with or accustomed to that sort of thing. So, we use a staff member at times.

I am thoroughly aware of the Federal law that says that one cannot receive contributions in a Federal office building. And I try to observe it. However, there comes a time when one cannot run around himself and do this and someone who has carried out their responsibility of heading up a finance committee and securing large contributions through solicitation cannot do it. _

However, someone has to do it, and the one who does is bound to be someone close to the Senator and on his staff. That is just as sure as night follows day.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. COTTON. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank

the Senator for yielding. I heard the ·senator refer to me, and I think I caught the substance of what he had to say concerning the use of a staff member in his home State. That was what the Senator emphasized.

Some Senators emphasize and feel the need to do this in their home States. Others want this matter released so that staff members can take part in this activity in Washington, and particularly with reference to the political committee on campaigns for the reelection of Members of the Senate.

I can see where that is a problem for the man that is up for reelection .this year and is already engaged in a primary campaign perhaps, or is engaged in a full campaign if there is no primary, since this is March 21.

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7273 It occurs to me that for this year there

are some Senators that might have a hardship because of the r.elative lateness of the hour. - -·

I think that a Senator would be wise to cut this activity loose from his office and disassociate fund money for -campaigns completely from his office here, and aH other such activities. I think that is the wisest thing to do. However, if there is any undue hardship being worked on any Senator who is up for reelection this year, perhaps the whole matter could be adjusted by letting the effective date of this matter be after the campaign. And that word campaign would not come into being until another year, another campaign.

I am not speaking for anyone but mY.self. It does seem to me that changing the effective date would meet entirely any real hardship that might be imposed. And I agree that it is probable that the administrative assistant or someone on the desk could do as good or a better job, in some cases. However~ we are talking about a policy of cutting loose from the old custom that has worked well in .many cases, .and I would say in most cases.

But times have changed, and the atmosphere is different, and we were strongly of the opinion that the time had oome to cut loose from it. I wonder 1f the Senator would change bis mind if we changed the date.

Mr. COTTON. It would not change_my mind. The Senator Irom New Hamp..sllire is not concerned about this .because he is a candidate for re-election, and I wish to make that very clear.

Mr. STENNIS. I was not suggesting that.

Mr. COTI'ON. It is .just as ·unjust, 1n my opinion, and just as unrealistic, for the _man who is . running '2 years from now or 4 years from now. If it is right, if it ls wise, 1f it 1s just, it should apply to everyone and should apply this minute. If it is not, it should not be post.POned to become a burden on .someone else.

It is an utter impossibility for a Senator not to get his .staff mixed up in a political campaign-an utter impossibil·tty. I have -seen times 1n the past when my .State committee, the Republican State Committee in my StateJ was not being as alert and as operative as many candidates thought it should. I have even .seen times in the past when a .candidate for Governor or for 'Senator or for the House of Representatives had to work independently because he felt the committee was not taking proper car.e of him. "He had to rely on his own organization.

On the other hand, let me suggest to the Senator what happened tome. and I cannot believe it is unique. My State committee arranges a fund.raising dinner for the State committee, not for any candidate. They contact a member of my staff., who takes care of my work in New Hampshire, and as~ him to work on it, ask him to help telephone people, help organize it. If he says "No," what happens? Immediately, word goes out: "COTTON is just running for himself. He won't help th_e party. He won't help the other can~idates on the ticket. He is just inter..ested in his 3wn campaign." lf you fix it so that members of your staffs; who

happen to be in the State, in your office, when Congress is out of session, -cannot help your State committee--Republican or Democrat-in its - activities, you are going to embarrass many Senators.

It is not · going to embarrass me,' because our fundraising dinner in New Hampshire is over. But it may embarrass someone 2 or 4 or 6 years from now.

I say that any attempt to go beyond the spirit of the Hatch Act and tie up your staff with respect to political activities will be attempting romething that is utterly impossible to achieve.


Mr . ANDERSON. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 20 minutes on the amendment, the time to be equally divided between the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, and that 2 minutes of that time be allotted to the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT] by somebody.

Mr. ANDERSON. I have a modification of my amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. It is at the desk. The .PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc

GOVERN in the chair). Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request?

Mr. ANDERSON. What is the unanimous-consent request?

·Mr. MANSFIELD. Ten minutes to each side; and in the total of 2-0 minutes, 2 minutes must be allotted to the distinguished Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is .so ordered.

Mr. -ANDERSON . .I -should like the clerk to read the modification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read the modification, as follows:

On page 1, line 5, after the word .. paragraph" insert the .following: "and who is compensated at a rate .in excess of $10,000 J>er year''.

Mr. ANDERSON. I modify my amendment to that effect.

The PRESIDlNG OFFICER. The amendment will be modified as requested by the Senator from ·New Mexico.

Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, wm

the Senator yield one-half minute to me?


Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the majority leader. . Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest to the attaches on both si:des of the aisle that they notify Senators immediately that there will be a vote not later than 5: 25 ~a .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? ·

Mr. STENNIS. ~-yleld to the distingulshecf Senator from Colorado.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr.: President, I paT·tieularly ·desire ttie attention of the Senator from New Hampshire, who,.has'been interested in this .matter. · -

I am persuaded by the Senator from Kansas, my next door neighbor, because I believe the_ feeling of mY people would, -on the whole, be the same as the feeling of his people. .

I have never used my administrative assistant to solicit funds. The moneys that have been received for my campaigns have been from friends, and outside of my office, but they do have to talk with my office and find out who my friends are and who might be expected to contribute.

The aspect of the matter that concerns me and persuades me that some modifl~ cation might be "in order_:_! am not sure that I am in favor of the language as it now reads-is this: Suppose, in conducting my particular situation as I do-much as the Senator from Kansas doesa man comes to me and says, "Gordon, I'm as unhappy as the dickens with the way they're running the farm program in this · country. Come September, you come to me, and I'll give you enough money to run an ad in every country newspaper in this State."

That is not an unusual offer. I believe it is something that has happened to almost every Senator.

I get out l6 or 18 hours a day· and try to secure votes. I say to my administrative assistant, "Did John Smith ever say anything about that? Did he ever come through with the money?'

He says, "No.· I haven't heard from him yet."

I say, "Call him.,, If my administrative assistant calls, he

is then in violati-On of this provision, even though in my office my administrative assistant has never been responsible for raising funds in any respect.

My concern about ,this paragraph is that, inadvertently, without any intehticm of making tne administrative assistant the man to raise funds or the -chairman of our finance committee, or a.nythfng else, we may find tnat from time to time we will inadvertently get the people in our office in a bind, and they will be charged with solicitation of funds. This is what concerns me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time 1 ·

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall be brief. This amendment w-0uld apply .only to staff members · of Senators. It would not disturb the other points I made earlier.

This is the committee's position: We believe that a basic principle is involved. This goes to the root of inueh of our trouble in connection with the matter of money. It is a problem for everyone. But the problem has· been found at the level of the Seriate staff, at the level of the committee ..staff', and it is surprising how many go out and how long they go with reference to funds. Considering the ex:.. -cess of it-not blaming any individual and not blaming a Senator-and at all those levels, we wanted to dissociate for the campaign period the raising of these funds by the staff members.

I believe we would find with respect to people back in our States who could do an acceptable job-particularly wpen friends · were told ·the Senate has now

-cllanged. the rule--that we would ·be forced to come to them with more de-


pendence than ever that they take care of this money.

We know this is a matter in which Senators are capable of making judgment and we are willing to submit the case entirely within the limits and principles I have made.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate is the product, first of all, of four Senators who were concerned about this problem prior to the debate today. Those four Senators are the Senator from California [Mr.

. MURPHY], in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and I, as chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

I wish to make clear that this amendment would liberalize the committee resolution in these respects. It would permit Senators to designate assistants who earn more than $10,000 a year for the purpose of performing the functions which would otherwise be prohibited by the committee resolution. The control upon the use of this privilege is, first of all, the limitation as to salary; but, second, the requirement that the Senator must designate such assistant, place his designation on file with the Secretary of the Senate, and that designation shall be open to public inspection.

The committee has recognized the principle of disclosure as an inhibiting and restraining force in its resolution in connection with the disclosure of Senators' finances. Therefore, the principle of disclosure is accepted and well recognized as a restraining force.

Interested Senators have incorporated that principle in the Anderson amendment. I think it is realistic. The question was raised as to why there was no limitation on the number of assistants to be designated. We toyed with this matter and found that the problem differs in different States. One assistant might suffice in a small State, as the Senator from South Dakqta indicated, whereas in a larger State such as California, two or three assistants might be necessary. The flexibility which the $10,000 limitation on salary provides was written into the resolution this afternoon.

I should say one thing about a point raised by the distinguished Senator from Kansas, and that is on the question of solicitation outside a Senator's own State. This is a problem that falls right into the lap of the campaign committee. It is our function as representatives of our respective parties in the Senate to assist incumbent Senators in their campaigns for reelection. This function involves fundraising, principally through the medium of fundraising dinners.

It is through these campaign fundraising dinners that we have to work with Sena tors, and we cannot expect to work with them personally because they are not always available personally on any basis that would make the operation viable. Therefore, the situation on our

side is, and I believe it is also on the other side, that we look to the members of the Senator's staff to organize these affairs.

Is not the organization of a dinner a part of a solicitation function? None of these assistants go out directly to sell tickets, but they participate in the organization that raises the money.

I think that there is cast a shadow of prohibition by the committee resolution on the capacity of a Senator's staff assistants to help us in our campaign com-_mittee functions.

I think we must be concerned with that problem and we were in framing the amendment in its present form .

I wish to make one further statement to emphasize what has been said so well by the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from New Hampshire, and the Senator from South Dakota. I think we should realize it is impossible to separate the chief assistants of a Senator from his political functions. When I go back to my State with my administrative assistant, without desiring to, he is approached by people who are interested in the political functions of my office. It may be fundraising, it may be contributions, or it may be any one of the multiple variation of activities in which a Senator is involved. Are we going to make politics, as such, that noble profession of a democracy, unethical? Are we going to so create doubt as to the legitimacy of a Senator's political functions as to disgrace our profession?

A Senator is a political animal. He has to get elected and he has to get the support of his constituents. This involves fundraising . . Are we, by our action this afternoon, suggesting something is improper about a Senator raising campaign funds for his reelection?

If it is improper for the Senator's chief assistants, then it must be improper for the Senator himself.

I think this is the inevitable interpretation of the committee resolution on that point.

Mr. DffiKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield. Mr. DffiKSEN. Mr. President, it is

quite common after a Governor has served a term or two that he likes the job. What happens? All persons who were not inhibited by the State civil service laws can be pressed into service to solicit, receive, make contributions, and start something in the form of a noble army charging up on white horses in his behalf.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think enough has been said on this subject.


Mr. MUSKIE. I yield. Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President,

if the committee amendment remains in the bill as it was proposed it would bring about an impossible situation in connection with an administrative assistant p33ing a bill. For instance, some television stations will not accept a .broadcast unle~s sopiebodY is there to lay cash on the barrelhead before the program goes on the air. As the Senator

knows, some of us have found ourselves short on money· from time to time, so at the last minute someone has to go and solicit the money, find someone to pay for the program, and many times we cannot get the money there before the program goes on.

I think there is nothing improper about an assistant helping in a situation such as that.

SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote! Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield to me for one-half minute?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. I am about to pro

pound a unanimous-consent request. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Montana is recognized. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUE.ST

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the vote on the pending amendment, there be a time limita--

. tion of 1 hour on each amendment, and 4 hours on the resolution, the time to be equally divided between the manager of the resolution, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], and the minority leader, or whomever he may designate.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. YARBOROUGH. The unanimous

consent request would not bar new amendments being offered?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No. Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, in con-

. nection with · my amendment No. 616, I would be willing to agree to a time limitation of 20 minutes, with 10 minutes to a side.'

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I forgot to mention, if this request is agreed to, the time of 4 hours is to be equally divided between the opponents and proponents of the resolution.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senat·or yield?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserv

ing the right to object, and I do not know that I shall object, the Senator from Nevada and I have been conferring about an amendment. I think we can readily dispose of that amendment this afternoon by a voice vote.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I understand that matter will be brought up next.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct.

The Senator from Colorado and members of the committee conferred. We want him to present his amendment, give the substance and we will join him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?

Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I shall not object-I only want to say that I have an amendment which will not take 1 hour, I hope. I would also hope that the committee would accept it. It deals with the question of the Chaplain.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I hope so, too. It is a good amendment. One hour does not mean that we have to use all of the hour.

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7275 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the request of the Senator from Montana?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is one amendment as to which the committee does not know whether it will be brought up or not. Until ,ve know about that amendment, and know something about the attendance of Senators tomorrow, we cannot agree to any time limitation.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. I thought this had been cleared with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I discussed it with him. I offered it in good :'.:aith. I am, indeed, sorry. I withdraw my request.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if I may say one further word, arid I expressly mentioned this point to the distinguished Senator from Montana, we must know something about what the attendance will be tomorrow before we can agree on any particular amendment. We are ready to agree on all the rest, but we cannot agree until we know something about the attendance for tomorrow.

Mr. ANDERSON. May I urge upon the Senator from Mississippi that we agree to vote on these things and limit the time, except for the amendment he is talking· about.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 638) of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON].

On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MORTON. On this vote I have a live pair with the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. If he were presenrt, he would vote "nay." If I were permitted to vote, I would vote "yea." I withhold my vote.

The rollcall was concluded. Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an

nounce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator from New York [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAuscHE], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. McINTYRE], the Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator from Rhode lsland [Mr. PASTORE], and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELLJ, are necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. INOUYE], and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. LONG], are absent on official business.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], the Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], and the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], would each vote "yea."

On this vote, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] is paired with the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL].

If present and voting, the Senator from Rhode Island would vote "yea'~ and

the Senator from Georgia would vote "nay."

Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the Senator'from Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], the Senators from California [Mr. KUCHEL and Mr. MURPHY], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY] are necessarily absent.

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN] is detained on official business.

If present and voting, the Senators from California [Mr. KUCHEL and Mr. MURPHY] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. PERCY] would each vote "yea."


[No. 71 Leg.] YEAS-43

Gruening Mondale Hart Montoya Hartke Morse Hickenlooper Mundt Hruska Muskie Jackson Pell Javits Scott Jordan, N.C. Smathers Kennedy, Mass. Talmadge Long, La. Tower

Allott Anderson Bartlett Bayh Bible Brewster Cannon Carlson Cotton Dirksen Dodd Dominick Fannin Fong Fulbright

Magnuson Williams, N.J. McClellan Yarborough McGee Young, Ohio McGovern Miller

NAYS-37 Aiken Gore Baker Hansen Bennett Harris Boggs Hayden Brooke Hill Burdick Holl1ngs Byrd, Va. Jordan, Idaho Byrd, W. Va. Mansfield Case Monroney Clark' Nelson Cooper Pearson Curtis Prouty Eastland Proxmire

Randolph Ribicoff Smith Sparkman Spong Stennis Symington Thurmond Tydings Williams, Del. Young, N. Oak.

PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-!

AS

Morton, for.

Church Ellender Ervin Griffin Hatfield Holland Inouye

NOT VOTING-19 Kennedy, N.Y. Kuchel · Lausche Long,Mo. McCarthy Mcintyre Metcalf

Moss Murphy Pastore Percy Russell

So Mr. ANDERSON'S modified amendment (No. 638) was agreed to.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.


AMENDMENT NO. 616

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 616, and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Nevada will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment.


The amendment (No. 616) is as follows:

on page 9, after line 4, insert the following new section:

"SEC. 3. It is the sense of the Senate that appropriate action be taken with respect to the requirements imposed by this resolution upon Members and officers and employees of the Senate for the purpose of imposing uniform requirements upon all Members and officers and employees of the House of Representatives, all officers and employees of the executive branch of the Government, including members of the Armed Forces, and all officers and employees of the judicial branch of the Government." .


. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation on the amendment of not to exceed 20 minutes, the time to be equally divided between the author of the amendment, the distinguished Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], · and the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS].

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request? Without objection, the agreement is entered.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield me 1 or 2 more minutes, a short time ago, prior to the vote, I made a statement that, as a result of a meeting which I had, I had understood the situation in a certain manner. I find, in checking back in my own mind, and in discussing the situation with the other three Members at that conference, that I was mistaken; that what I said was not correct; and I hope that, if anybody felt that his veracity was being impugned, he would accept this as an apology.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me, I gladly say that the Senator does not have to apologize; he merely states the fact. He is correct. His word is never questioned by me; however, I thank him for making that statement.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and I state to Senators present that I do not intend to take longer than that on my opening statement explaining this amendment. Then I should like to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, and it is my hope that the committee will eventually accept the amendment.

I am introducing this amendment to Senate Resolution 266 for the express purpose of establishing uniformity in place of the complete disorganization and vagueness presently existing in the important area of standards and conduct in the U.S. Government.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, may we have order? There is no order in the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point is well taken. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. CANNON. Executive Order No. 11222 of 1965 sets forth a code of ethics for executive branch employees. But the order is drafted for the purpose of prohibiting certain activities rather than requiring the disclosure of business and :financial interests and activities.

Departments and agencies of the Gov-

7276 CONGRESSIONAi: 'RECORD-· . SENATE March 21, : 1968

emment have varying rules and regulations pertaining to the officers and em-ployees of those··omces. . '

The House· of Represeritatfves now has pending a code .·or ethics which di:tl'ers from the Executive Code and from the provisions of Senate Resolution 266..

The U.S. Government consists simply of three coequal branches-executive, legislative, and judicial. All officers and employees of the Government, whether elected, or appointed, or .however employed, serve the same .Government.

There is no valid reason to distinguish among them except by salary or. rank perhaps in establishing a uniform code bearing upon the standards and conduct of all such officers and employees.

'No one class-officers ·and ·employees of the Senat.e, for example-should be required to disclose. certain assets and liabilities, business and :financial int.erests and activities, and copies of income tax returns unless all Government personnel should be compelled to do the same:

Such one-sided disclosure would demean the Senate and serve, in fact, to reduce its stature in the government structure. . .

Fairness in the application of a code of ethics should · be of primary concern and uniformity in the application of such a c_ode is basic to the quality of fairness.

Mr. President, in 1965, I introduced Senate Resolution 123, to require disclosure by all Members and officers and employees of the Senate earrung $10,000 or more _per annum. That disclosure covered all business and financial connections, interests and activities of such Members, officers, and employees of the Senate, and required reports to be filed with the Comptroller General. . The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr . . CANNON. I yield myself 2 ·additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. CANNON. Later I offered a proposal requiring the filing of reports of business and flr:iancial activities by officers and employes of all branches, departments, and agencies of the Government for the sake of· uniformity and clarity,

I have continually supported measures designed to safeguard · against unethical or improper activity by anyone in the Government.

I am stating these facts and furnishing background information in support of my position that one uniform code of ethics should apply to all Government personnel instead of a haphazard variety of codes for each branch, department> and agency.

Mr. President, my amendment simply says, as an added section to the resolution, that it is the sense · of the Senate that appropriate action should be taken, in line with the requirements imposed by this resolution upon ·Members, officers, and employees of the Senate, to impose like uniform requirements upon all Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives, all officers and employees of the executive branch of the Government, including members of the Armed Forces, and all officers and em-

ployees . of 'the judicial 'branch of . the Government. · Mr. President, that"is ·the amendment:

No more and no less. It will not have the effect of law, if we pass it, but simply expresses the sense of this body that if w-e are imposing certairi :requirements and restrictions upon our own Members and otir own employees, we feel that legislative action should be taken to impose similar restrictions upon the House of Representatives and the other coequal branches of the Federal Government.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. CANNON. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. STENNIS. I say to my fellow Senators that I believe this is an important matter.

As I understand it, the Senator from Nevada recognizes that the amendment he now proposes does not have any operative effect on the rules of the Senate.

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is absolutely correct. I wish it might have operative effect; but we are acting on a simple Senate resolution. _

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. CANNON. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

There is no· way we in this body could act, according to the Parliamentarian. with an operative effect by this type of amendment; therefore, I have simply added it as a separate section to express this as the sense of the Senate.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator recognizes, then, that the Senate. on a resolution of this kind, does not have jurisdiction of this subject matter?

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is correct. Mr. STENNIS. But he proposes it for

whatever persu·asiv.e effect it might have upon the Senate, on the House, and on the people, and to dramatize the need for consideration of this matter in a proper way?

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is absolutely correct. I believe it should be called to the attention of the public in general that such an application should be uniform in nature, and I hope that we will eventually adopt legislative action to that effect.

I recognize that we cannot do it on this simple resolution, but I hope that the committee will support my position, and let the Senate say that we think that such a provision should apply equally to all of the coequal branches of the Government, and hot single out one for favored or unfavored treatment over the other.

Mr. STENNIS. If the Senate adopts. this sense-of-the-Senate statement, it would not constitute any commitment by any individual Senator to any particular bill or provision thereof?

Mr. CANNON. The Senator is correct. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I think,

in view of this presentation and its purposes, and in view of the relevancy of the subject matter, that it is a matter that could well be an addendum to the pending resolution, · even though it is not a rule of the Senate and · wm not be effective as such.

In that spirit; the committee recommends that the amend.merit be agreed to.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time. ·

The PRESIDING OFF'ICER. Doe's the Sena tor from Mississippi yield back his time'? · ·

Mr. STENNIS. I .yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada.

.The amendment was agr.eed to. AMENDMENT NO. 621

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 621.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. -

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator from Colorado [Mr.· ALLOTT] proposes an ~mendment, as follows:

On page 7, line 16', insert the following after the period: "Immediately after such recorded vote has been taken, the individual concerned, and in the case of an officer or employee, his supervisor as defined in rule XLI, shall be informed of the vote to examine and audit, and shall be advised of the nature and scope of such examination."

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr: President, I ask unanimous consent that there· be a time limitation of 10 minutes on the pending amendment, the time to be equally · divided between the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] and the Senator from . Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT]. .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? . The C4!:!lir.· J:iears" none, and it is so ordered. ·

Who yields time? Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I yield

myself such time as I Il,lay use. Mr. STENNIS. Just a moment, if I may

have the attention of the Senator from Colorado. · -

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time not to be taken out of the allotment to either side.

Mr. STENNIS. No, Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado is ready to pro-ceed. ·

Mr. MANSFIELD. I beg the Senator's pardon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his observation?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I withhold it. Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I shall

have to withdraw my amendment tem-porarily. · ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Color~do is withdrawn.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. ·

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


AMENDMENT NO. 618

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 618 and ask that it be stated.

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7277 The PRESIDING OFFICER.· The

amendment will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read, as

follows: On page 7, line 22, after the period insert

the following: "Any paper which has been filed with the Comptroller General for longer than seven years, in accordance with the provisions of this section, shall be returned to the individual concerned or his legal representative. In the event of the death or termination of service of a Member of the Senate, an officer or employee, such papers shall be returned unopened to such individual, or to the surviving spouse or legal representative of such individual within one year of such death or termination of service.".

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. ALLOTT. Am I correct in understanding that there is no time limitation on the pending amendment as of this time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senat.or is correct.


Mr. ALLOT!'. Mr. President, I am willing to agree to the same time limitation that we had on the other amendment and ask unanimous consent that this be done.

The PRESIDING OFFCER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, the pending amendment goes to and is added t.o paragraph 2 on page 7 of the resolution. The resolution did not provide for the return or disposition of papers tha.t were filed with the Comptroller General.

My amendment would do two things. First, after the papers had been in the hands of the Comptroller General for 7 years, as provided in paragraph 2, they would be returned to the individual concerned, or his legal representative or, in the event of the death or termination of service of a Member of the Senate or an officer or employee, they would be returned unopened to such individual or to the spouse or t.o the legal representatives after a period of 1 year.

It simply wraps up an element that had not been of concern previously. This was called to my attention when the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] and I found one day that the Federal Trade Commission had 37 men at the Internal Revenue Service looking at everybody's income tax return.

I think this is security that we should have. I understand that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi is agreeable to accepting the amendment.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, it is certainly the purpose of the committee t.o put every reasonable safeguard around the handling of the papers that are filed and their examination.

The Senator has made a wonderful suggestion that they should be subject to being reclaimed after the lapse of time either by the individual Senator or other affected person or, in the case of a personal representative, the estate could make the same claim.

The amendment carries out a fine purpose, and we are happy to agree with the Senator from Colorado and hope the amendment is agreed to.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on agreeing . to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.

The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT NO. 632

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 632, and ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived, and that the amendment be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendment ordered to be printed in the RECORD is as follows:

Beginning with the word "All" in line 9, page 7, strike out all to and including the period in line 16, page 7, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Except as otherwise provided by this section, all papers filed under section 1 of this rule shall be kept by the Comptroller General for not less than seven years, and while so kept shall remain sealed. Upon receipt of a resolution of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, adopted by a recorded majority vote of the full committee, requesting the transmission to the · committee of any of the reports filed by any individual under ~ction 1 of this rule, the Comptroller General shall transmit to the committee the envelopes containing such reports. When any sealed envelope containing any such report is received by the committee, such envelope may be opened and the contents thereof may be examined only by members of the committee in executive session. If, upon such examination, the comniittee· determines that further action by the committee is warranted and is within the jurisdiction of the committee, it may make the contents of any such envelope available for an:y use by any member of the committee, or any member of the staff of the committee, which is required. for the discharge o; his official duties."

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I have only a very few remarks. A time limitation is agreeable to me.


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I make the same unanimous consent request, that there be a time limitation of 10 minutes on the amendment, the time to be equally divided as in the previous case.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, if Senators will turn to page 7 of the resolution, lines 9 to 16, the amendment deals with that sentence. As the resolution is drawn, the property statement and income tax return can be delivered to persons authorized by the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct.

The change I propose in my amendment would be that the sealed envelope could not be delivered to staff members of the committee, but would have to be delivered to the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct itself.

The language I propose to insert in lieu of that first sentence reads:

Except as otherwise provided by this section, all papers filed under section 1 of this rule . shall be kept by the Comptroller General for not less than seven years, and while so kept shall remain sealed. Upon receipt of a resolution of the Select Committee on Standards and Oonduct, adopted by · a recorded majority vote of the full committee, requesting the transmission to the committee of any of the reports filed by any individual. under section 1 of this rule, the Comptroller General shall transmit to the committee the envelopes containing such reports. When any sealed envelope containing any such report is received by the committee, such envelope may be opened and the contents thereof may be examined only by members of the committee in executive session. If, upon such examination, the committee determines that further action by the committee is warranted and is within the jurisdiction of the committee, it may make the contents of any such envelope available for any use by any member of the committee, or any member of the staff of the committee, which is required for the discharge of his official duties. ·

Mr. President, in other words the confidential report can be delivered and the seal broken only by the committee itself in executive session. The understanding is that the committee can adopt any procedures it wishes.

The purpose of my amendment is to change the language concerning the delivery of these confidential sealed reports so that they could not be delivered to a person representing the committee, anyone on the staff level, but must be delivered to the committee after they have had a vote and must be opened in executive sesssion.

I do not intend my amendment to interfere with any procedure that the committee would chose to follow in any particular case. The point is that only the committee can receive this confidential information and only the committee can open the envelope.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senaitor yield?

Mr. CURTIS. I yield. Mr. STENNIS. The committee believes

that the Senat.or's proposal, as reflected in his amendment, is a fine safeguard, with the exception of one word. The proposal is in keeping with what the committee -had in mind all the time. I refer to the general thought of the committee on that subject. I believe it nails down the matter and provides better protection for any person involved.

There is one word, that before any further action could be taken, if the Senator could agree-

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I wish to modify my amendment. On page 2, line 7, strike out the word "action" and insert the word "consideration."

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator. Mr. CURTIS. I believe that is an im

provement. This still accomplishes the objective I have sought. I have taken the position all the way through that these reports should be confidential.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TYDINGS in the chair) . The time of the Sena.tor has expired.

Mr. STENNIS. I yield 5 minutes. Mr. President, the committee believes

7278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE March 21, 1968

that is an improvement and would be glad 1io accept the amendment~

I yield back the remainder of the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska.

The aniendmelllt was agreed to. Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, I call up

my amendment and ask that it be read. The legislative clerk read the amend- ·

ment, as follows: On page 3, line 7, after the comma and

before the word "and" inse!"t "the Chaplain,".

Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, section (d), page 3, lists officers of the Senate except the Chaplain. That there may be full coverage of the employees and officers of the Senate, I have offered this amendment: ·

On page 3, line 7, after the comma and before the word "and" insert "the Chaplain,".

I ask that the committee accept the amendment.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the committee has considered the amendment offered by the Senat.or from Maine and believes it is applicable and completes the picture. The committee is of the opinion that the amendment should be accepted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing 1io the amendment of the Senator from Maine.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I be

lieve that is all we have now in which the committee can concur.

Mr. ALLOT!'. I have an amendment, Mr. President, but I understand that the chairman of the committee would like to discuss it further with me before it is offered.

Mr. STENNIS. Perhaps we can take up that amendment in the morning, Mr. President. I believe it would be better if we discussed it a little more. ·

Mr. :::M:ILLER. Mr. President, I have an amendment, but it might take a little while for discussion. I would not want a time limitation.

Mr. MANSFIELD. How much ·time does the Senator desire? We are trying to meet the needs of Senators insofar as we can. It has been a pretty long week. I would like to see some consideration giv.en to our colleagues, and that we face up to the end of this matter in some way.

Would the Senator be willing to agree to a reasonable length of time?

Mr. MILLER. My problem is that I am thinking of our colleagues, many of whom have left the floor, and I would guess that some have left for the day.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Very few have left. They were told that there would very likely be more votes tonight. Quite a few Senators have canceled their commitments for tomorrow in order to remain here, because there will be votes tomor-ro~ .

Mr. MILLER. I wish 1io be helpful. I hesitate to put in a quorum call to try · to get more Senators to the Chamber.

Mr. MANSFIELD. They are available,_ if the Senator wishes to do so.

AMENDMENT NO. 617

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 617.

Mr. MANSFIELD. What about time.? time limitation of 4 hours on the bill, the Mr. MILLER. Let us see how we time to be equally divided between the

progress. distinguished Senator from Mississippi The PRESIDING OFFICER. The [Mr. STENNIS]' the manager of the bill, .

amendment will be. stated. and the minority leader, the distin-The legislative clerk read the amend- : guished Senator from Illinois [Mr.

ment, as follows: DIRKSEN], or whomever they may s. REs. 266 designate.

on page 6, insert the following at the · Mr. MILLER. May I ask a question end of line 3 : "a copy of the Federal income please? tax return (and amendments thereto) and Is it the purpose behind this unanisupporting documents made for the pre- mous-consent request that the Senate ceding year in compliance with the provi- will come to a final vote on the pending sions of the Internal Revenue Code by each matter tomorrow? trust or other :fiduciary relation in which he, Mr. MANSFIELD. We hope so, because, or he and his spouse, or their children held a. cumulative interest of 25 percent or more, a·s the Senator knows, we are facing a and by each corporation of which he, or he deadline with the extension of the excise and his spouse, or their children held, for tax bill; and if something is not done Federal income tax purposes, a cumulative by the end of the coming week, perhaps majority stock interest; and a copy of the some difficulties will be created. Federal partnership return (and amendments Furthermore, I believe some very im-thereto) and supporting documents made by ts bi t• f each partnership fr.om which any income (or portant amendmen or com na ions o loss) was required to be reported on .the re- amendments, will be offered to that bill. turns of truces which he, or he and his spouse · Mr. MILLEn. My only thought is that jointly, made for the preceding year in com- · if we have several pending amendments, , pljance with the income tax provisions of the With an hour on some of them and 4 Int~rnal Revenue Code;". hours on the bill, if we are going t.o try

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. - The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll. . Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I · ask

unnaimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without .· objection, it is so ordered.


Mr. MILLER. I yield.

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 11 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr-. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Wit~out objection, it is so or~ered.

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT . The Senate resumed the consideration


Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, what is the pending business at this time? ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on agreeing to amendment No. 617, offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLERJ.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, because the hour is getting a little late. this will be the pending question at the conclusion of the morning business tomorrow.


On behalf of all concerned, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time. limitation of 1 hour on each amendment hereafter 1io be considered, the time to be equally divided between the manager of the bill and the Senator who offers the amendment; and tha.t there be a ·

to wind this matter up, we may find ourselves in session very late tomorrow, and possibly run into Saturday. . Mr. MANSFIELD. I do not believe

so-at least, I would hope not. What the distinguished manager of the bill, the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, and the leadership had -in mind was to have this time :flexible, so that no Senator would feel he was being shtit out.

Mr. MILLER. For my part, 1 am not going to object. I believe I can dispose of my amendment in less. than an hour. The Senator is being quite generous so far as I am concerned. I cannot speak for the other amendments.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I would · rather be that generous and be a little more than fair than be accused of trying to hamstring some Senator. I am quite certain that other Senators will use less than the allotted time.

Mr. STENNIS. Apparently, matters will move rather rapidly tomorrow. But · we do not know what amendments may be brought in. We believe that 4 hours on the resolution is fair-not with the· idea of using all that time, except largely to supplement other amendments · that might be involved.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator ls always eager to- look after the welfare of· his colleagues who may be interested in this debate; and because this fs so per-· sonal and so close to home, it is better that we lean over a little backward, rather than try to restrict it too much. - The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the unanimous-consent agreement? Without objection, it is so ordered. ·

The unanimous-consent agreement, subsequently reduced to writing, is as follows: -


Ordered, That, effective on Friday, Mar. 22, 1968, at the conclusion of routine morning business; during the further consideration of the resolution (8. Res. 266) to provide standards of cdnduct. for Members or the Senate a,nd officers and employees of the Senate, debate on any amendment, motion, or appeal,

. except a motion to lay on the table, shall be

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 7279 limited to 1 hour, to be- equally divided and controlled by the mover of any such amendment or motion and the ·manager of the resolutron: Provided, That in' the event the ma.nager· is- in favor o:t any such amendment or motion, the time in opposition thereto shall be controlled by the minority leader or some Sena.tor designated by him.

Ordered further, That on the question of the final passage of the said bill, debate shall be limited to 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled, respectively, by the majority and minority leaders: Provided, That the said_ leaders, or either of them, may, from the time under their control on the passage of the said bill, allot additional time to an.y Senator during the consideration of any amendment, motion, or appeal.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there will be no further debate on the resolution tonight. The Miller amendment will be the pending business at the conclusion of the morning hour tomorrow, and with that we will start operating under the time limitation.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, is it the

intention of the Senator that any time required for quorum calis not come out of the time on any amendment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Of course.

OIL IMPORT PROGRAM Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the

deeper I delve into the whole area of import quotas for our oil and petrochemical industries and the regulations· required to implement them, the more I am convinced the present system is a house of cards just waiting to be brought down by the breath of scandal. Other alternatives must be found.

The present system of mandatory quotas on oil imports imposed as a temporary measure in 1959 by President. Eisenhower to stem the influx of cheap foreign oil in the name of national security threatens to injure important segments of our domestic economy and to worsen our balance-of-payments problem. And, what is worse, far from accomplishing its stated objective of protecting our national defense posture, the program may instead be hurting it.

· The decision to impose "temporary quotas" in 1959 was based, essentially, on the fear that a great influx of cheap imported crude oil would so depress domestic petroleum prices that oil companies would not be able to afford to explore for new sources of oil. Company profits, so the argument ran, would have been inadequate, despite the depletion allowance, to permit firms to plow dollars back into the risky job of exploring for new reserves. Without such exploration, the argument continued, we could not develop the domestic oil reserves · that are essential to our national security when a deterioration in the world sltua-· tion denies us access to foreign crude oil. · · · · · -

Of course, the American consumer is forced to pay for _ this- policy decision: Readily available foreign crude imports, which ate $1.25- a barr.eI cheaper than domestic' crude, would drive: down. the price :..we· pay_· for _gasoline and heating oil, to mention just two oil products, and,

CXIV--459-Part 6

thus, would directly benefit each and every one of us. Fortune magazine estimated the program· costs. the American consumer about $3.5 billion a year. In other words, the quota barrier, by keeping prices high, pays the oil companies out of our collective pocketbooks."

However, it is not my intention today, Mr. President, to criticize the concept that lies behind the oil import program, much as I disagree with the concept. Rather I want to take a hard look at the program itself as it is presently administered. I believe that a dispassionate examination of the facts will show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the present system of complex, unmanageable regulations must be changed.

To begin to understand this system we must first realize that crude oil has two principle uses in this country. It is used to produce such energy products as gasoline, heating oil, and jet fuei. It can also be used to produce petrochemicals such as plastics, solvents, and emulsifiers.

Since the very beginning of the "temporary" import quota program, oil imports have been determined on the basis of oil production in the United States. Finally, last year, the Oil Import Administration, which administers the oil impart program, came to realize that this approach created substantial competitive problems in the petrochemical industry. Some producers of petrochemicals also refine crude oil. Consequently, in the past, they have qualified for an import quota. However, until 1966, many of the smaller petrochemical competitors were unable to get oil import quotas because, although these competitors used refined products to produce petrochemicals, they did not have their own refining capacity and thus did not qualify for an import quota. Obviously, with imported crude costing $1.25 less a barrel than domestic crude, those large, integrated petrochemical companies which were able to obtain import tickets because of refinery capacity had a great competitive advantage over smaller petrochemical producers who were shut out of this program. Even with the changes there are. still disparities between the treatment of petrochemical producers who refine crude. oil and those who do not.

The trouble with the oil import pro-. gram is that it is, first, governed by an unbelievably complex and confusing mass of loophole-ridden and inequitable regulations; and, second, administered by an understaffed agency, the OIA, which has only three professional staff men to control a program which last year was worth more than $485 million to the oil and petrochemical industries. . To top it off, the Department of the Interior last Thursday-March 14-proposed new oil import regulations to correct, among other things, the kind o:fl abuse involving Indiana Standard that I uncovered. But the new rules would create more inequities than they would: eliminate.

For example, the new regulations permit the oil industry to continue getting a. ''double dip" while denying the same a.dvantage to the petrochemical industry. ~ a "dotible dip" the same unit of output is counted twice--although at two

different stages of production-in as.signing a . producer an import quota. This gives large integrated companies an additional competitive advantage over smaller rivals. I do not know whether to blame this disgraceful situation on special-interest lobbying or on the failure of an understaffed agency to understand the ramifications of the regulations it drafted and proposed.

One intent of the oil import quota program is to aid smaller companies. But the regulations--both new and old-designed to implement that aim are inconsistent. A sliding scale of allocations cliff erentiates between large and small oil refiners to accomplish that aim. But the scale is not extended to petrochemical producers.

And, further, even in cases where the scale is applied its complexity is so great that inequities are inevitable. The results are illustrated by Tenneco, a Houston refiner, which together with its subsidiary Petro-Tex gets- about 1,000 barrels a day more of imported oil than it would if the OIA treated it as the combination it is, as the regulations require, rather than as two separate companies. Or, to put it in more concrete form, because each barrel of imported oil is worth about $1.25 to the holder of the import ticket, the separate companies get about $1,250 a day more in imports than they would, if they were combined.

Another regulation which operates to.· frustrate the intent of the program concerns the choice of a base for computing a company's quota. A company can claim as its base for quota assignment either its present production or what it has historically imported. But not both.

Large companies such as Getty Oil and Sinclair Oil, however, through separate subsidiaries have attempted to claim a combination of both bases to get a much higher allocation than they would otherwise get. OIA blew the· whistle on Getty but nothing- has .been done yet about Sinclair. Getty which owned both Tidewater and Skelly used to claim a historical allocation for Tidewater and an input allocation for Skelly. After Getty was caught the oil import quota for both companies declined from 20,968 barrels a day in 1967 to 13,140 barrels a day in 1968. Sinclair Oil likewise has a · historical quota, but SinclairKoppers in which Sinclair is a 50 percent partner receives a separate quota based on its inputs. Since Sinclair cannot claim both a historical and an input allocation, Sinclair-Koppers should not be allowed an input allocation. SinclairKoppers received an allocation of 714 barrels a day which is worth about· $1,000 a day .

But, in any case, it seems impossible to justify allocating import quotas on a historical basis almost 1 O years after the imposition of this: "temporary" quota program.

At the moment, I am also investigating the figures certified by the oil and petrochemical companies upon which their 1967 and 1968 import quotas were based. I have reason to believe that many companies certified certain products as qualifying inputs-the standard on which the allocation of imports is


based-which were allowed by the Oil Import Administration in 1967 but which were disallowed by the OIA in 1968 because they were finally able to examine these reports. In the one example that has surfaced already, the Oil Imports Appeals Board stated in an opinion of December 29, 1967 that--

It appears that Firestone and Goodyear may have received some import privileges to which they were not entitled through inadvertence.

After further investigation, I found that whether Firestone did or did not falsely certify certain inputs as qualifying for an allocation depends upon the rather obtuse decision of whether "extender oil" used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber undergoes a chemical reaction. It is a sad situation when even Ph. D's in chemistry cannot agree whether a product fits the regulations or not. Although I must admit, I am not surprised. After poring over the regulations I came to the conclusion one would have to be both a Ph.D. in chemistry and a Philadelphia lawyer to begin to comprehend them.

As you can see the regulations of the oil and petrochemical import program by their very complexity are leaving loopholes and inequities which should be eliminated. Indeed, one may question whether the entire import program is justified in terms of national defense. The announced purpose of the program was to enable our domestic producers to keep a reserve which could be used in ca'Se of national emergency. Today the wells in Oklahoma are producing at capacity and, I would be willing to venture, the remaining wells throughout the United States are producing at their maximum economic capacity. This program, a writer in Fortune magazine estimated several years ago, costs the American consumers about $3.5 billion a year. If the national defense justification is gone, what remains? Protecting the consumer?

In fact, the program may actually be injuring our national defense. Between 1959, when the import program began, and 1965, consumption of four major petroleum products in District I-the east coast-increased by nearly 277 ,000,-000 barrels per year.

The increase was 53 percent of the total increase in petroleum consumption in the United States. Yet, during the same period, operating refining capacity in the east coast region actually declined by 34 million barrels per year. Under a free market economy, and especially in a market-oriented growth industry, it would be incredible for this magnitude of increase in demand to be accompanied by an actual loss of production.

Obviously, what is happening is that refiners from more distant districts are displacing eastern refineries in eastern markets. For example, although the increase in consumption in the southwest oil producing area was only 6 percent of the total U.S. increase, the area has gained 65 percent of the new operating refinery capacity installed in the United States since the import system went into effect. Let us realize that just two hydro-

gen bomb&,-one at Baton Rouge and one at Houston-would destroy well over 50 percent of this Nation's refinery capacity. Can anyone imagine what that means to our Nation?

The domestic economy is also being injured by this import program. Our petrochemical producers must complete domestically and in the world market against the very modern and raipdly growing foreign petrochemic~l producers who have recently arisen. The foreign petrochemical producers have an advantage over our domestic pertrochemical producers because they have unlimited access to cheap foreign feedstock. If our domestic petrochemical companies have to build abroad to compete in the third world market, our domestic economy will be injured not only by the loss of jobs but also by the export of vast quantities of capital needed to construct these plants and by the loss of valuable exports the plants would furnish.

In 1967 alone, the domestic petrochemical industry imported $400,000,00-0 worth of products but exported about $1.5 billion or, in other words, helped our balance of payments by $1.1 billion. In addition, the loss of these plants would hurt our defense needs because many of the products the plants produce are required to supply our boys in uniform with the necessary equipment to defend our country. If these products were shut off in time of war, we might be faced with a disaster.

If the oil import program is not soon put right, our domestic ·petrochemical producers may be forced to build abroad to gain access to cheap foreign oil in order to compete in the world market.

Our economy would thus be injured not only by the loss of jobs but also by the export of capital to construct foreign plants. The loss of petrochemical plants would be a serious blow to our national defense posture as well.

Foreign trade zones appear to be a partial answer. They would permit free access to foreign oil and head off the threatened migration of petrochemical plants. They would encourage dispersal of refineries throughout the country. And they would achieve the goal of the present import control program without its complex regulations and distortion of purposes.

I have already written to Secretary of Commerce Smith, asking him to investigate the possibility of utilizing foreign trade zones as a means of encouraging domestic refiners and petrochemical producers to construct new refineries and petrochemical plants in the United States.

By allowing the petrochemical producers and the oil refiners access to cheap foreign oil, these companies could compete with foreign competitors with the same access. But, the great benefit to our Nation is that the plants would be located in the United States and, in line with the President's restrictions on the export of capital, would help our domestic economy, our balance of payments, and our national defense posture. For example, the average petrochemical plant costs about $150,000,000, employs

about 3,000 men for 3 years in its construction, and provides about 2,500 new jobs directly and at least an equal number of support jobs. That is 5,000 jobs on a permanent basis.

The impact on the domestic economy might be even greater than a mere statement of the :figures indicates, because the plants would be constructed to produce low pollution products and, if they were located in depressed areas, just one plant might bring prosperity to a whole area. Finally, because foreign trade zones would make it economic to scatter these new facilities throughout the United States, we would no longer be as vulnerable to enemy attack as we are now.

Nor would we have the great problems of control which now face the OIA in administering the present import quotas. The controls would not be placed on goods entering the foreign trade zones or on goods being processed in these zones, but on finished goods leaving the zone for the rest of the United States.

It is much easier to control the final finished product than it is to control the material as it goes through the various stages of production. Thus, without the complexity of our present regulations, we could achieve the same goal our present regulations are supposedly aimed at.

Let me give one example of how the program might work in operation. Suppose a foreign trade zone were placed in a depressed area and a refinery and satellite petrochemical plants were constructed in it. The refinery could be geared to produce about 50 percent of its output as low sulfur residual oil.

This would have two particularly significant benefits: low sulfur fuel oil is needed to keep our air pollution under control and, since almost all the residual fuel oil we now use is imported, this would be a source which could help power our utilities and fuel our industries should imports of residual fuel be cut off by war or other disaster. The remainder of the refinery's production would be split equally between petrochemical feedstock and jet fuel. The feedstock could be used to produce high value petrochemical products much of which could then be exported to help our balance of payments. Finally, the jet fuel could be used at airports to fuel international flights.

I intend to support the President's request for an increased appropriation for the Oil Import Administration so that they can llire the needed experts to maintain a minimal control over the program they are supposed to be administering. We might, however, give some consideration to moving the entire office to the Department of Commerce or to the General Services Administration. It might alleviate some of the pressure on the office from the various pressure groups which have the most to gain from the program.

Whatever we do, Mr. President, we must do soon. We must look beyond narrow parochial interest to the needs of our Nation.

I understand that the Department of the Interior, after being informed of my intent to make this speech-and I sent

March 21, 1968 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~ HOUSE: 7281 them a copy more than 24 hours agoannounced last night that they are actively considering several alternatives to the present oil import program. I am delighted that my efforts have jogged the Department of the Interior into rethinking the whole oil import program. Such rethinking was long overdue. I shall, however, continue to maintain close per-

sonal surveillance over future developments.

M.r. President,._ I yield the floor.

ADJOURNMENT UNTll., TOMORROW AT llA.M~

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, if there be no further business to

come before the senate.- I move, in accordance with the order previously en

. tered, that the Senate stand in adjournment until 11 a.m. tomorrow.

The motion was agreed to; and <at 6 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned until tomorrow. Friday, March 22. 1968, at 11 a.m.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Thursday, March 21, 1968 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Edward G. Latch,

D.D., offered the following prayer: He giveth power to the faint,· and to

them that have no might He increaseth strength.-Isaiah 40: 29.

Eternal God, our Father, in whose presence our restless spirits are stilled and our hungry hearts find the food that nourishes and quickens our understanding, increase our faith and stimulate our high resolves to walk in the way of Thy commandments, to abide in Thy love, and to serve our country with all our might.

Grant unto us an inner greatness of spirit that we may meet the challenge of this day unashamed and unafraid. Though the earth be moved, the waters roar, and the mountains shake may we find our refuge and our strength in Thee.

In the name of Him who was forever faithful to Thee we pray. Amen.

THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of

yesterday was read and approved.

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

Arrington, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate agrees to the amendments of the House to a joint resolution of the Senate of the following title:

S.J. Res. 72. Joint resolution to provide for the designation of the second week of Ma.y of ea.ch year. as "National School S&fety Patrol Week."

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 House to the- bill <S. 454) entitled "An act for the relief of Richard K. Jones.''

The message also announced that the Vice President, pursuant to Public Law 86-420, appointed Mr. JORDAN of Idaho to atte::id the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Conference to be held in Honolulu, Hawaii, on April 11 to 17, 1968, in lieu of Mr. BAKER, excused.

The message also announced that the Vice President, pursuant to Public Law 80-843, appointed Mr. YARBOROUGH and Mr. JAVITS to attend the 52d session of the International Labor Conference to be held at Geneva, Switzerland, on Jl,\ne 5 to 28, 1968.

for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

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

There was no objection. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, I was

appailed to read in the press that Arab terrorists in Israel have oombed a school bus and killed innocent and defenseless Israel children. These terrorists, lacking the decencies characteristic even of those who make war, have been operating from the territory of Jordan. Their actions are cowardly and morally reprehensible. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the Jordanian Government with arms as well as with our diplomatic approval. I urge the President to prot?st vigorously the Jordanian Government's offering of a haven to these guerrillas and withhold further the administration's ill-advised arms shipments until Jordan ends its irresponsible conduct and begins to contribute to peace and stability in the Middle East.

HON. WAYNE L. HAYS ANNOUNCES AS CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani

mous 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 Ohio?

There was no objection. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, while my an

nouncement yesterday got a pretty good· play outside Washington, the Washington Post, I noticed, was so full of Senator KENNEDY that it did not have- room to carry my announcement this morning, although it was carried everywhere else in the country.

I made it clear I am running in harmony with the President-that is the favored way to run around here-and I am with him all the way unless he should withdraw. The message got through. I might say I already have more delegates on this contingency than Senator McCARTHY and Senator KENNEDY put together are likely to get at any time.

The State chairman of one of the border States called and said, "I want you to know if you run, I am with you all the way. Anyone but BOBBY.'' I said, "That is not a very :flattering reason to be fo:r me, but I will acc~pt it anyhow.''

PRESIDENT JOHNSON: HAND OF GREATNESS AT THE HELM PRESIDENT SHOULD · PROTEST TER

RORISTS OPERATING FROM TERRITORY OF JORDAN Mr. PICKLE. _Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to address the House Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask for 1 minute ancftorevise and extend my

unanimous consent to address the House remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is the-re objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection., Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, I support

for our next President the man who has so ably borne the burdens. of our highest office for 4 years-Lyndon Ba.ines Johnson. For 30 years I have worked with the President on many projects, and I have never been prouder of his service, his accomplishments as President, and the courage and leadership he is giving to America and the free world than I am today.

Lyndon Johnson assumed the Presidency when America was torn by grief, anger, and rancor. In a time of desperation for our Republic he bound up our wounds and showed the world that theshot of a madman could not extinguish our democracy.

Since that November day 4 years ago, President Johnson has wrestled with t!:le enormously complex and wide-ranging problems confronting America. He has never shirked his duty, he has never avoided a difficult decision, and he has never lost sight of his dream for America's future.

In this troubled decade- Lyndon Johnson needs our understanding-not our criticism.

He needs our support-not our antagonism.

United together. Lyndon Johnson will lead this Nation in renewing the face of our cities and countryside, rekindling the faith of our people, and bringing a just peace to the world.

Americans must be satisfied with no less than the hand of greatness at its helm-with no other President than Lyndon Baines Johnson, at whose side will be Mrs. Johnson, one of the great ladies of the world.

FISHING RIGHTS AND FOREIGN AID

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. 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. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Speaker, yes

terday a U.S. tuna vessel, the Paramount, was illegally seized 46 miles off the Ecuadorian coast by a warship of that unfriendly Latin American nation.

Ironically, a onetime U.S. minesweeper was used by Ecuador to make the seizure. It was, in fact, the second such act of piracy within 16 days by this particular · ship.

SENATE-Thursday, March 21, 1968° - US Government ...

Documents